Right, I should have noted the search result, including the side bar ads that show up. When Google talks about "user experience" as a justification for the move, they seem to mean putting up "relevant" ads, but the relevancy is determined by auctioning.
...They make serving their customers their business, the crazy loons.
And yet keywords are auctioned off to the highest bidders, which goes againt delivering the most relevant search result. Add that Google is an effective monopoly - i.e., wields predominant market power.
I wonder who gets sued for this. Obviously Google's Crawler was at fault...
This sorta insanity brings us toothpicks with legal disclaimers.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
*By definition* the doomsayers are always wrong. If they had ever been correct in the past, we wouldn't be here to talk about it now.
That's nonsense. Having been consistently wrong in the past does not "define" being wrong in the future.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
My only question is, when the smoke clears and we're all fine, will the doomsayers ever learn for the next time? Probably not. I'm sure next time they'll say
"this time, its different, the world is really going to end this time".
As they should. If they are right once in gazillion tries, it's still worth hearing them out.
Yeah, but that is the techie paranoia...
The whole signing shit is a troll for the privacy church...
Nice try. The problem with Techies is that they don't get the larger picture...
Then why have signing in the first place? Blaming the customers and this bogeyman "Techie" after your shit blows up is a pathetic PR move.
I thought down-stream hackability is the point of GPL. Whether a particular downstream modification is net plus or net minus, depends on the particulars, and Debian pays for its judgment. Also, if the Debian people "don't have a real idea about" a particular package, perhaps it should not even be included in the distribution.
Is deposition under oath? Once they do testify under oath, if not done already, how likely is Michigan AG to prosecute them? Is Michigan AG inclined to go after them or does s/he need some "push"?
The disappointing thing is that your science teacher was spreading doubt on the subject when the answers were out there to be found. When a vast number of scientists say it's true, "I don't think it's right" is not a valid answer unless you've got a PhD. He may not have been spreading religion, but he was spreading doubt about a well-founded science, as if the scientists themselves were ignorant of it. They are not, and it's extremely bad form to imply that they are.
This sorta low ball fallacy gets some religious people to accuse science people of the same priesthood mentality. Would that teacher's argument have been any more or less creditable if he had a PhD? Like only Vatican Cardinals and above can discuss Roman Catholicism?
Anywho, one of the questions was something like "Suppose a scientist creates life from scratch in a test tube. Is that evidence of abiogenesis, or creationism?" One answer, that most scientifically minded people choose, is that the scientist isn't doing anything that couldn't have happened in nature without the scientist, so therefore it's evidence of abiogenesis. Other people, those more creation minded, say that an intelligent being, in this case a scientist, created life from raw materials, so therefore, its evidence that life is created by intelligence.
It's another one of those misguided dichotomies with muddled assumptions, I think. Humans, including scientists, are a part of the nature. We and components of our body follow the same physics that all other things in nature do. "Intelligence" is fuzzy-wuzzy notion. "Creationism" can't even be interpreted sensibly into the domain of science, nevermind contradicting any hypothesis like abiogenesis. They dwell in parallel universes and can't interact, nevermind contradict each other.
I agree that we should look into why prions fold wrong, but I'm sure the folks are doing that (aren't you?!). But "environmental factor", is that what life is? What does it mean specifically?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, I should have noted the search result, including the side bar ads that show up. When Google talks about "user experience" as a justification for the move, they seem to mean putting up "relevant" ads, but the relevancy is determined by auctioning.
Btw, who did you mean by "customer"?
And yet keywords are auctioned off to the highest bidders, which goes againt delivering the most relevant search result. Add that Google is an effective monopoly - i.e., wields predominant market power.
Oooooh, I see. Was it a good joke?
So... physicists are to sysadmins what sysadmins are to "normal" people. Some like that?
And the other dude responds:
"Oh well, shit happens, eh?!"
A Moron!!
Sorry, at my age, I shouldn't be so flamey. Samz, my man, stay off science stuff. I understand you're into literary stuff? Do that.
Big Bang is only a theory. Only McCain knows how the shit went down.
Dude, go get a dictionary. Or get into politics or marketing - yours seems to be the mainstream practice there.
This sorta insanity brings us toothpicks with legal disclaimers.
That's nonsense. Having been consistently wrong in the past does not "define" being wrong in the future.
As they should. If they are right once in gazillion tries, it's still worth hearing them out.
Then why have signing in the first place? Blaming the customers and this bogeyman "Techie" after your shit blows up is a pathetic PR move.
I thought down-stream hackability is the point of GPL. Whether a particular downstream modification is net plus or net minus, depends on the particulars, and Debian pays for its judgment. Also, if the Debian people "don't have a real idea about" a particular package, perhaps it should not even be included in the distribution.
Risk of bad PR blowing up and getting their asses fired, what else? Stop being a pest. ;-)
Is deposition under oath? Once they do testify under oath, if not done already, how likely is Michigan AG to prosecute them? Is Michigan AG inclined to go after them or does s/he need some "push"?
This sorta low ball fallacy gets some religious people to accuse science people of the same priesthood mentality. Would that teacher's argument have been any more or less creditable if he had a PhD? Like only Vatican Cardinals and above can discuss Roman Catholicism?
It's another one of those misguided dichotomies with muddled assumptions, I think. Humans, including scientists, are a part of the nature. We and components of our body follow the same physics that all other things in nature do. "Intelligence" is fuzzy-wuzzy notion. "Creationism" can't even be interpreted sensibly into the domain of science, nevermind contradicting any hypothesis like abiogenesis. They dwell in parallel universes and can't interact, nevermind contradict each other.
Hehehe, those terrorists had it coming. Good one, Allah!
Probably an email-using old Korean.
That's cuz our times are valuable, unlike yours, you third-world poor trash!!! Go recycle copper and stuff.
IANAL!!!
Brought to you by the department of redundancy department. Why do you hate my karma?
Keeps away hostile aliens, too. Well, ones with taste anyways.
I agree that we should look into why prions fold wrong, but I'm sure the folks are doing that (aren't you?!). But "environmental factor", is that what life is? What does it mean specifically?
So... (soil?) copper deficiency is somehow the same as effect of nuke testing and they are all "environmental poisoning".
Do stop. This is why some relious people are accusing the science of same bullshit.