As ars said, "Combining two companies that are losing market share doesn't guarantee that the trend will be reversed." Yahoo needs a better game plan, and a way to generate money from their portal. That they can do all on their own.
That's one of the reason why Google has been so successful. Instead of saying "Let's make an mp3 player now that the market is owned by our competitor" or some such, they asked themselves the logical progression of their current service. They made life easier, better, and more convenient for their users. They slowly expanded while never stepping, but always pushing, out of their comfort zone.
Ambiguous graph aside, alexa still ranks yahoo.com number one. Over the past three months, yahoo beats google by 0.5% of the internet population. Digging through the info pages on both, Yahoo has twice the page views for each individual user. Putting together equivalent users with twice the page views is probably why Yahoo is ranked number 1 and Google number 2 over the past three months (1 and 4 for a week and 42 and 53 for yesterday). As far as my math goes, it seems that an ad on Yahoo would get seen on average twice more than one on Google.
Can't argue with stocks, but Yahoo's never been good with making money - Google and Microsoft are. Yahoo is good because it's got controlling stakes in instant messaging and an enormous amount of people backing them and their community. If you can get any sort of money earner on those pages, that finance page won't count for shit.
(I'd also like to point out you had to link to yahoo for that page)
Yahoo is ANYTHING but sinking. Yahoo.com is still the number one most visited site on the web (check alexa). Now, Google happens to be number two, followed by youtube. Who in their right mind wouldn't want the top three websites? I'D shell out $45B if I had it.
Not that it would happen, but imagine if Google acquired Yahoo. They'd have vast resources of hardware and user accounts at their dispense - two things that Google especially wouldn't mind having. A merger between Yahoo and Google groups? News? Oh, and did I mention they're the number one site on the web?!
A more likely option, avoiding the anti-trust nonsense, would be Google purchasing some stock in Yahoo, or the two coming to some sort of mutual agreement such that Yahoo can consolidate and focus funds and Google gets some new toy.
By no means is it a dumb idea for either of them. The only person who loses is Microsoft, and I think everyone can agree that's an acceptable loss.
That's actually one of my favorite quotes. It really annoys me when people get all aflutter when something like this happens. I LOVE zoos, but I'll be the first to admit it's not a natural environment for the largest cats out there. They've evolved for one purpose and that is to be efficient meat-eating machines. If a dog attacks people, then you may want to deal with it - it is constantly around others and has been bred to be docile. If a tiger gets out and causes some harm, there's no fault to the tiger! It's a surprise they don't kill more people! And, as someone once said, what greater incentive to not mess around with a caged animal do you need? There's already a tiger in there.
They want the data center because $600 million talks pretty loudly no matter what country you're in, especiallyif you're a developing nation. Google made a mistake with China, and they've all but acknowledged it; they won't soon do the same thing. It's also pretty fucking naïve to say "All of Asia wants to control and censor the information available."
A trial is under way in Alzheimer's sufferers in the hope that a 'pacemaker' could be developed for the brain to improve memory loss. (emphasis mine)
Poor wording, I suppose, but it sounds like they're trying to reduce memory retention. At any rate, this is a really cool prospect, and I'd love to see it pan out, but it's not directed at all. The guy had a memory from 30 years ago shoot up, but it's not like he chose that one specifically. His memory improved over the next few days, but I'd personally be surprised if the six in tests had too much more than "I remember things better now thanks to th- OH MY GOD I FAILED FIFTH GRADE MATH!"
But how else would you use a tool besides "as extensions of the body?" Isn't that the whole point of those sort of tools?
The study sounds really cool, but to be perfectly honest, I don't find it at all riveting. We developed a highly dextrous hand and fingers, complete with opposable thumbs, and so we use them. It wasn't an instant process, though. Our basic hand got every so slightly more flexible, and with this came a new ability to perform slightly more complex mechanisms. This allowed our hand and fingers to get even more flexible and so on and so forth. That is was a gradual process lends itself to the thought that these things developed together - our coordination is not because of our hands and our hands are not because of our coordination. The brain would be remiss in not sensing that we had a new extension when holding pliers since the pliers are "attached" to our hand in a similar way that walls are attached to the ground. That would be akin to not being aware of our own bodies, and since we're quite capable of not bumping into door ways and can recognize a mirror when we see one, we seem to be doing just fine.
Shouldn't it be the 200% error? The number they gave was 300% of the new one, but they were wrong by 200% in the same way that 110 is 110% of 100 but only 10% wrong.
I can't compare to aerospace, but I can say that the current project of all NEO greater than 1km is nowhere near acceptable. I commend the NASA members who have said we need to catalog 90% of all objects greater than 140m in the next 30 years, but it doesn't go far enough. The Siberian explosion was from one less than half the diameter of that, with the one in the Mediterranean being only about 10m across (according to wiki). We've gotten lucky with both of those but those were our two strikes. NASA and associated groups have smart people (yourself?) who are more than capable of petitioning even harder a group of people who know nothing. Sadly, congress types aren't going to teach themselves, so it's time for the education aspect of space funding to be put to use because let's be honest - what it would cost to fund this thing over a faster timeline is a drop in the bucket to the amount of money Washington is throwing around.
I believe the issue is that that has (according to some) not been working - remember when Metallica was starving? If it was opt-in, nobody would admit and pay. Now it just encourages people to gain access to more music, if only to earn their cash back. It's like welfare - you're paying to help someone else!
To quote I, Robot: "Robots building robots? Now that's just stupid."
A lot of the stuff in a lot of the novels and movies show cases where robots run wild. Robots with extreme intelligence running rampant because, despite having amazingly advanced "brains," someone somewhere mixed up a bit of code. Uncanny Valley is really at play; you won't see robots that can truly think and feel for themselves and pass as organic because we already have humans for that. Robots in war will probably be much more like the droid army in Star Wars - expendable cheap chassis with guns that have a cursory knowledge of rank and tactics.
a country with a robot army can use them against their own citizens with no chance of mass mutiny. You don't know the American Army! Our boys are so well trained they wouldn't think twice before firing upon the innocent masses. Hell, they wouldn't think once!
I don't really get what you're asking - we can determine about how many there should be. And apparently about half of those we are aware of. In another example, it would be naïve to assume we know about all the stars in the universe. We know what we can see, and can figure out how many there should be.
The problem is that when you say something is 540,000km away, the huge general population tunes out. That's an ASTRONOMICAL number by most considerations, so nobody gives two shits. Except, as it turns out, we're dealing with astronomy, so astronomical numbers are the norm. The fact that nobody is really considering funding a worldwide effort to try and map all the objects that could potentially cause a major threat is disturbing. Hillary voted for $1 Million for a Woodstock museum - doesn't it make more sense to fund a huge, cheap project that could potentially help save the entire Earth from annihilation than a museum about a rockin' sex-fest? The latter doesn't really seem up most of congress' alley, but yet they vote that way.
NASA needs to spearhead projects that are useful, in collaboration with the rest of the space-viewing world. The fact that there isn't a loud voice shouting about this concept to the pols is embarrassing.
Slashdot Mirror
As ars said, "Combining two companies that are losing market share doesn't guarantee that the trend will be reversed." Yahoo needs a better game plan, and a way to generate money from their portal. That they can do all on their own.
That's one of the reason why Google has been so successful. Instead of saying "Let's make an mp3 player now that the market is owned by our competitor" or some such, they asked themselves the logical progression of their current service. They made life easier, better, and more convenient for their users. They slowly expanded while never stepping, but always pushing, out of their comfort zone.
Ambiguous graph aside, alexa still ranks yahoo.com number one. Over the past three months, yahoo beats google by 0.5% of the internet population. Digging through the info pages on both, Yahoo has twice the page views for each individual user. Putting together equivalent users with twice the page views is probably why Yahoo is ranked number 1 and Google number 2 over the past three months (1 and 4 for a week and 42 and 53 for yesterday). As far as my math goes, it seems that an ad on Yahoo would get seen on average twice more than one on Google.
Can't argue with stocks, but Yahoo's never been good with making money - Google and Microsoft are. Yahoo is good because it's got controlling stakes in instant messaging and an enormous amount of people backing them and their community. If you can get any sort of money earner on those pages, that finance page won't count for shit.
(I'd also like to point out you had to link to yahoo for that page)
He heard it before we did.
Yahoo is ANYTHING but sinking. Yahoo.com is still the number one most visited site on the web (check alexa). Now, Google happens to be number two, followed by youtube. Who in their right mind wouldn't want the top three websites? I'D shell out $45B if I had it.
Not that it would happen, but imagine if Google acquired Yahoo. They'd have vast resources of hardware and user accounts at their dispense - two things that Google especially wouldn't mind having. A merger between Yahoo and Google groups? News? Oh, and did I mention they're the number one site on the web?!
A more likely option, avoiding the anti-trust nonsense, would be Google purchasing some stock in Yahoo, or the two coming to some sort of mutual agreement such that Yahoo can consolidate and focus funds and Google gets some new toy.
By no means is it a dumb idea for either of them. The only person who loses is Microsoft, and I think everyone can agree that's an acceptable loss.
Oh god... Taco, What have you done?!
This is why we can't have nice things. It's because of things like this that people hate taxes and don't give two shits about NASA these days.
That's actually one of my favorite quotes. It really annoys me when people get all aflutter when something like this happens. I LOVE zoos, but I'll be the first to admit it's not a natural environment for the largest cats out there. They've evolved for one purpose and that is to be efficient meat-eating machines. If a dog attacks people, then you may want to deal with it - it is constantly around others and has been bred to be docile. If a tiger gets out and causes some harm, there's no fault to the tiger! It's a surprise they don't kill more people! And, as someone once said, what greater incentive to not mess around with a caged animal do you need? There's already a tiger in there.
This is without a doubt the coolest "End of Times" theory I've read in a long time.
They censored search pages.
JFGI
They want the data center because $600 million talks pretty loudly no matter what country you're in, especiallyif you're a developing nation. Google made a mistake with China, and they've all but acknowledged it; they won't soon do the same thing. It's also pretty fucking naïve to say "All of Asia wants to control and censor the information available."
Poor wording, I suppose, but it sounds like they're trying to reduce memory retention. At any rate, this is a really cool prospect, and I'd love to see it pan out, but it's not directed at all. The guy had a memory from 30 years ago shoot up, but it's not like he chose that one specifically. His memory improved over the next few days, but I'd personally be surprised if the six in tests had too much more than "I remember things better now thanks to th- OH MY GOD I FAILED FIFTH GRADE MATH!"
Good.
(all other posts after this are either wrong or repeating)
But how else would you use a tool besides "as extensions of the body?" Isn't that the whole point of those sort of tools?
The study sounds really cool, but to be perfectly honest, I don't find it at all riveting. We developed a highly dextrous hand and fingers, complete with opposable thumbs, and so we use them. It wasn't an instant process, though. Our basic hand got every so slightly more flexible, and with this came a new ability to perform slightly more complex mechanisms. This allowed our hand and fingers to get even more flexible and so on and so forth. That is was a gradual process lends itself to the thought that these things developed together - our coordination is not because of our hands and our hands are not because of our coordination. The brain would be remiss in not sensing that we had a new extension when holding pliers since the pliers are "attached" to our hand in a similar way that walls are attached to the ground. That would be akin to not being aware of our own bodies, and since we're quite capable of not bumping into door ways and can recognize a mirror when we see one, we seem to be doing just fine.
Shouldn't it be the 200% error? The number they gave was 300% of the new one, but they were wrong by 200% in the same way that 110 is 110% of 100 but only 10% wrong.
If you put the odds of it missing at around 75%, then Russian Roulette looks pretty attractive with an 83% survival chance.
I can't compare to aerospace, but I can say that the current project of all NEO greater than 1km is nowhere near acceptable. I commend the NASA members who have said we need to catalog 90% of all objects greater than 140m in the next 30 years, but it doesn't go far enough. The Siberian explosion was from one less than half the diameter of that, with the one in the Mediterranean being only about 10m across (according to wiki). We've gotten lucky with both of those but those were our two strikes. NASA and associated groups have smart people (yourself?) who are more than capable of petitioning even harder a group of people who know nothing. Sadly, congress types aren't going to teach themselves, so it's time for the education aspect of space funding to be put to use because let's be honest - what it would cost to fund this thing over a faster timeline is a drop in the bucket to the amount of money Washington is throwing around.
I believe the issue is that that has (according to some) not been working - remember when Metallica was starving? If it was opt-in, nobody would admit and pay. Now it just encourages people to gain access to more music, if only to earn their cash back. It's like welfare - you're paying to help someone else!
High Speed Connection + p2p program = lots of references
Hell, you need a reference? I've got a few gigs of references here for ya...
Damn - I was hoping for someone to upload a picture of a pair of breasts to see how well it worked.
To quote I, Robot: "Robots building robots? Now that's just stupid."
A lot of the stuff in a lot of the novels and movies show cases where robots run wild. Robots with extreme intelligence running rampant because, despite having amazingly advanced "brains," someone somewhere mixed up a bit of code. Uncanny Valley is really at play; you won't see robots that can truly think and feel for themselves and pass as organic because we already have humans for that. Robots in war will probably be much more like the droid army in Star Wars - expendable cheap chassis with guns that have a cursory knowledge of rank and tactics.
Because we don't know about half of them.
I don't really get what you're asking - we can determine about how many there should be. And apparently about half of those we are aware of. In another example, it would be naïve to assume we know about all the stars in the universe. We know what we can see, and can figure out how many there should be.
Currently we know about half of them.
The problem is that when you say something is 540,000km away, the huge general population tunes out. That's an ASTRONOMICAL number by most considerations, so nobody gives two shits. Except, as it turns out, we're dealing with astronomy, so astronomical numbers are the norm. The fact that nobody is really considering funding a worldwide effort to try and map all the objects that could potentially cause a major threat is disturbing. Hillary voted for $1 Million for a Woodstock museum - doesn't it make more sense to fund a huge, cheap project that could potentially help save the entire Earth from annihilation than a museum about a rockin' sex-fest? The latter doesn't really seem up most of congress' alley, but yet they vote that way.
NASA needs to spearhead projects that are useful, in collaboration with the rest of the space-viewing world. The fact that there isn't a loud voice shouting about this concept to the pols is embarrassing.