Yes... but the point of the post above is that, once the phone is out of warranty, will people be confident to install updates? Right now, all Windows Phone 7 phones are in warranty, by definition. What about in a year's time when that's not the case?
If your friend is a "tech geek in every way" then I'm sure she could get a book and learn about linux. "C drive" is no more indicative of the primary disk that "/dev/sda" - surely "A drive" should be the first disk? It's simply familiarity with a particular set of jargon. Like back in the day, I was constantly being told by friends 'Nokia phones are more intuitive', when they actually meant 'Nokia phones are more familiar'. Plenty of Unixisms make a lot more sense than their Windows equivalents, it just takes a little investment of time to understand the basics.
As a starting point, suggest to your friend that she types "/dev/sda" into Google, see what the first entry is, she might find it enlightening.
Yeah, by the end I was really confused: should I fork over money for 3D modelling software, an iPhone unlock, or a special set of DVDs that will turn me into an awesome guitarist in just over three weeks? Whichever way, I'm pretty sure that there's an awesome bargain here that I don't want to miss out on.
You seem to be confused. Apple aren't trying to put a "30% tax" on video embedded in web pages, they just don't support the (buggy/unreliable/battery draining/whatever excuse) Flash plugin on the iPad. You're free to watch videos using any other container, just not wrapped in an outdated proprietary plugin that was originally designed for putting vector graphics on web pages.
What about this converter for GBP 46.95?. It probably won't do clever downscaling, but to be honest you'd be better off setting your laptop to a lower resolution (at least for the external monitor port) and doing the downconversion in software than through an external box. It claims to support up to 1080i HDMI, but my experience is that these cheap converters work better if your output is already at the correct number of lines for composite output.
I'm talking from ignorance, but surely most of those martial arts presume that you're not trapped in a 4'x6' metal box with your attacker, with multiple fixed items (e.g. seats) making it very difficult to move very much in any direction. I'm pretty sure that someone with a large body mass advantage would win against an unarmed and surprised opponent every time.
Surely that sort of thing has been done in UNIX using.rc files and other . configuration files in the user's home directory since the mid-70s, or does KDE ignore those?
No, overpriced means that it's overpriced for the specifications it has. You wouldn't call a Blu-Ray player overpriced because someone bought one and only wanted to play CDs, and found out that later that they could have bought a £20 CD or DVD player instead of a £100 Blu-Ray player. Overpriced implies that, for the specifications (including build quality and eye candy) offered, the manufacturer is ramping up the price over and above the components + design + profits. Usually, if that is the case, sooner or later another manufacturer will bring something equivalent to market that meets the same specs, and the price will come down. Right now, for the specs you get, the iPad is at a reasonable price point.
Goodness, why is it anytime anyone says there's no significantly cheaper competition for the iPad, someone comes in and says you can get a 7" ARM pad for £100. Those £100 pads suck, and they're not remotely in the ballpark of the iPad. Yes, you're right, for use cases where the iPad isn't suitable, then something that's more suitable is more suitable. If you wanted a laptop, you'd be stupid to buy an iPad. For someone who wants what the iPad does, at the screen size and speed that it does it, there is nothing else on the market that's significantly cheaper. There are alternative, all of which have their pros and cons, but they are all about the same price.
It's one thing for people to choose not to have vaccines, that is a right and it would be an assault on their person to force it upon them. It's another thing entirely for groups with an agenda to promote misinformation and falsified, unethically conducted research in order to try to influence people into refusing vaccines. The lives of the children that die from diseases that can be prevented by vaccination should be on their consciences.
Wakefield was not "pursued to extremes". He did research on children without ethical approval in the UK, which is an offence that leads to losing your medical license, and possibly criminal action too. He published research in a field for which he was not qualified, with falsified results. He was also running a company selling single vaccines (his research 'proved' problems for the combined vaccine) and was on the payroll of anti-vaccine lawyers whilst claiming to carry out independent research.
They're not taking the search data and slapping it into their search results, as you say. In normal usage, the clickstream data would be one of a 100 or so factors that influence search results. It's only in the highly contrived example of the "Bing Sting" that Bing appears to be copying the data verbatim, precisely because that's what Google have manipulated the algorithm into doing. It's a bit like me asking you to whistle a tune, but only giving you five notes in a certain order, and when you whistle them in 4:4 timing with quarter notes (as most people instinctively would) claiming that you stole my copyright tune.
In no normal circumstances would Bing copy Google outright, the only reason Google were able to exploit the Bing algorithm in this way is because they noticed that mis-spelling of search terms lead to those terms popping up in Bing, i.e. totally unique searches game the Bing algorithm in such a way that it appears that they are lifting the terms straight from Google, when in reality the Google searches that users do would only slightly bias the Bing results.
I'm pretty sure I could 'prove' that Google will 'steal' search terms from me. If I set up three web pages, two with unique URLs and gibberish content, and a third with sensible content plus two links to the gibberish pages with unique text in the html anchor, then get my sensible page into the Google search results, eventually Google would 'copy' my links verbatim into their database. That's how search engines work.
So, let me get this straight, if I tell another company about my favourite stories on Slashdot, I should have to have Slashdot's permission for that? Because that seems to me to be the logical extension of your idea. I could understand that, if Bing were selectively noting users' interaction with Google, but my understanding is that the Bing toolbar is generating a 'clickstream' of everything a user does. Creepy - yes, and I woudn't opt-in, unfair or copying as such - not really.
The blog post you link to states exactly what I'm trying to say. Just below your quote "We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop." it states "we do look at anonymous click stream data as one of more than a thousand inputs into our ranking algorithm.". Google's experiment was designed (I don't think nefariously) as a very unusual fringe case, that made the Bing algorithm appear to copy the Google results verbatim. Bear in mind, the initial thing that alerted Google to this was certain bizarre mis-spellings of unusual search terms that produced a small number of results. In the usual scheme of things, a click generated by the user in response to a Google search results would influence the Bing results along with millions of other clicks generated by the user in other ways.
Imagine a TV company wanted to improve their scheduling. So they ask cable TV customers to opt-in with a special cable box that records the program that they watch at each time of day. The TV company then aggregates this information and uses it to plan their next season of shows. They also publish a website showing the most popular shows, sorted by time of day, for each zip code. Legitimate research, right? Imagine then, that a rival company takes one of the specialist boxes, limits it to only viewing their cable channel, and gets ten of their engineers to watch TV for 8 hours a day. A few weeks later, they log on and see that for their zip code, the research website shows exactly their program schedule, and go to the press with proof that their rival is copying their schedules.
A couple of years ago, I was asked by a market research company to wear a device for a few weeks that had GSM and GPS, so that they could see what journeys I take in the car and on foot. I also used my in-car Satnav when taking journeys, to get me to the right place. Does that mean that the market research company was deliberately taking the Satnav results and incorporating them into their own?
A couple of years ago, I was asked by a market research company to wear a device for a few weeks that had GSM and GPS, so that they could see what journeys I take in the car and on foot. I also used my in-car Satnav when taking journeys, to get me to the right place. Does that mean that the market research company were copying from my Satnav company's data and claiming the results as their own?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... but the point of the post above is that, once the phone is out of warranty, will people be confident to install updates? Right now, all Windows Phone 7 phones are in warranty, by definition. What about in a year's time when that's not the case?
If your friend is a "tech geek in every way" then I'm sure she could get a book and learn about linux. "C drive" is no more indicative of the primary disk that "/dev/sda" - surely "A drive" should be the first disk? It's simply familiarity with a particular set of jargon. Like back in the day, I was constantly being told by friends 'Nokia phones are more intuitive', when they actually meant 'Nokia phones are more familiar'. Plenty of Unixisms make a lot more sense than their Windows equivalents, it just takes a little investment of time to understand the basics.
As a starting point, suggest to your friend that she types "/dev/sda" into Google, see what the first entry is, she might find it enlightening.
It's a case of "don't you think she [it] looks tired?".
Yeah, by the end I was really confused: should I fork over money for 3D modelling software, an iPhone unlock, or a special set of DVDs that will turn me into an awesome guitarist in just over three weeks? Whichever way, I'm pretty sure that there's an awesome bargain here that I don't want to miss out on.
You seem to be confused. Apple aren't trying to put a "30% tax" on video embedded in web pages, they just don't support the (buggy/unreliable/battery draining/whatever excuse) Flash plugin on the iPad. You're free to watch videos using any other container, just not wrapped in an outdated proprietary plugin that was originally designed for putting vector graphics on web pages.
Sorry, is there a device/computer specifically designed not to run Flash?!
What about this converter for GBP 46.95?. It probably won't do clever downscaling, but to be honest you'd be better off setting your laptop to a lower resolution (at least for the external monitor port) and doing the downconversion in software than through an external box. It claims to support up to 1080i HDMI, but my experience is that these cheap converters work better if your output is already at the correct number of lines for composite output.
We have, er known unknowns, and, er, unknown knowns, and er, sacrifice something, er, so yeah.
I think it's more complicated than that. You'd definitely need at least a tachyon burst.
I'm talking from ignorance, but surely most of those martial arts presume that you're not trapped in a 4'x6' metal box with your attacker, with multiple fixed items (e.g. seats) making it very difficult to move very much in any direction. I'm pretty sure that someone with a large body mass advantage would win against an unarmed and surprised opponent every time.
You know you don't have to go to the hospital to work on your computer, right? It's fine to do it at home.
Surely that sort of thing has been done in UNIX using .rc files and other . configuration files in the user's home directory since the mid-70s, or does KDE ignore those?
That looks (sounds) awesome, I wish I could hear in stereo :(. Amazing concept, though.
Apple TV was never a DVR system. It's a video rental system for iTunes and a media extender for iPad/iPhone and iTunes on OSX.
TCP/IP over carrier pigeon, using hand-crafted packets assembled to the correct protocol for popularity-contest to understand. Obviously.
Why on earth do you want a Mac version? That's like putting a Skoda steering wheel in your BMW.
No, overpriced means that it's overpriced for the specifications it has. You wouldn't call a Blu-Ray player overpriced because someone bought one and only wanted to play CDs, and found out that later that they could have bought a £20 CD or DVD player instead of a £100 Blu-Ray player. Overpriced implies that, for the specifications (including build quality and eye candy) offered, the manufacturer is ramping up the price over and above the components + design + profits. Usually, if that is the case, sooner or later another manufacturer will bring something equivalent to market that meets the same specs, and the price will come down. Right now, for the specs you get, the iPad is at a reasonable price point.
...of equivalent featureset... ...of equivalent featureset... ...of equivalent featureset...
Goodness, why is it anytime anyone says there's no significantly cheaper competition for the iPad, someone comes in and says you can get a 7" ARM pad for £100. Those £100 pads suck, and they're not remotely in the ballpark of the iPad. Yes, you're right, for use cases where the iPad isn't suitable, then something that's more suitable is more suitable. If you wanted a laptop, you'd be stupid to buy an iPad. For someone who wants what the iPad does, at the screen size and speed that it does it, there is nothing else on the market that's significantly cheaper. There are alternative, all of which have their pros and cons, but they are all about the same price.
It's one thing for people to choose not to have vaccines, that is a right and it would be an assault on their person to force it upon them. It's another thing entirely for groups with an agenda to promote misinformation and falsified, unethically conducted research in order to try to influence people into refusing vaccines. The lives of the children that die from diseases that can be prevented by vaccination should be on their consciences.
Wakefield was not "pursued to extremes". He did research on children without ethical approval in the UK, which is an offence that leads to losing your medical license, and possibly criminal action too. He published research in a field for which he was not qualified, with falsified results. He was also running a company selling single vaccines (his research 'proved' problems for the combined vaccine) and was on the payroll of anti-vaccine lawyers whilst claiming to carry out independent research.
They're not taking the search data and slapping it into their search results, as you say. In normal usage, the clickstream data would be one of a 100 or so factors that influence search results. It's only in the highly contrived example of the "Bing Sting" that Bing appears to be copying the data verbatim, precisely because that's what Google have manipulated the algorithm into doing. It's a bit like me asking you to whistle a tune, but only giving you five notes in a certain order, and when you whistle them in 4:4 timing with quarter notes (as most people instinctively would) claiming that you stole my copyright tune.
In no normal circumstances would Bing copy Google outright, the only reason Google were able to exploit the Bing algorithm in this way is because they noticed that mis-spelling of search terms lead to those terms popping up in Bing, i.e. totally unique searches game the Bing algorithm in such a way that it appears that they are lifting the terms straight from Google, when in reality the Google searches that users do would only slightly bias the Bing results.
I'm pretty sure I could 'prove' that Google will 'steal' search terms from me. If I set up three web pages, two with unique URLs and gibberish content, and a third with sensible content plus two links to the gibberish pages with unique text in the html anchor, then get my sensible page into the Google search results, eventually Google would 'copy' my links verbatim into their database. That's how search engines work.
So, let me get this straight, if I tell another company about my favourite stories on Slashdot, I should have to have Slashdot's permission for that? Because that seems to me to be the logical extension of your idea. I could understand that, if Bing were selectively noting users' interaction with Google, but my understanding is that the Bing toolbar is generating a 'clickstream' of everything a user does. Creepy - yes, and I woudn't opt-in, unfair or copying as such - not really.
The blog post you link to states exactly what I'm trying to say. Just below your quote "We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop." it states "we do look at anonymous click stream data as one of more than a thousand inputs into our ranking algorithm.". Google's experiment was designed (I don't think nefariously) as a very unusual fringe case, that made the Bing algorithm appear to copy the Google results verbatim. Bear in mind, the initial thing that alerted Google to this was certain bizarre mis-spellings of unusual search terms that produced a small number of results. In the usual scheme of things, a click generated by the user in response to a Google search results would influence the Bing results along with millions of other clicks generated by the user in other ways.
Imagine a TV company wanted to improve their scheduling. So they ask cable TV customers to opt-in with a special cable box that records the program that they watch at each time of day. The TV company then aggregates this information and uses it to plan their next season of shows. They also publish a website showing the most popular shows, sorted by time of day, for each zip code. Legitimate research, right? Imagine then, that a rival company takes one of the specialist boxes, limits it to only viewing their cable channel, and gets ten of their engineers to watch TV for 8 hours a day. A few weeks later, they log on and see that for their zip code, the research website shows exactly their program schedule, and go to the press with proof that their rival is copying their schedules.
A couple of years ago, I was asked by a market research company to wear a device for a few weeks that had GSM and GPS, so that they could see what journeys I take in the car and on foot. I also used my in-car Satnav when taking journeys, to get me to the right place. Does that mean that the market research company was deliberately taking the Satnav results and incorporating them into their own?
A couple of years ago, I was asked by a market research company to wear a device for a few weeks that had GSM and GPS, so that they could see what journeys I take in the car and on foot. I also used my in-car Satnav when taking journeys, to get me to the right place. Does that mean that the market research company were copying from my Satnav company's data and claiming the results as their own?