But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York. The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent. NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.
Ad-words has everything to do with data retention. There is probably a limit past which more data will just give them too much of a needle in a haystack to sort through (I'd peg it at about 2 years.) However, if you think knowing search history doesn't help them improve results, you're not understanding what Google does properly.
It's not just a question of targeting. A straightforward example (though it only needs continuity over a half hour or so) is following you as you refine your search. If Google sees a lot of people searching for: haiti haiti earthquake haiti earthquake relief haiti relief organizations
Or some permutation thereof, if they see that everyone's starting at haiti and ending up at relief organizations, they might want to show some of those results when you just search for Haiti. Obviously this is a simplistic example, but you can see how in broader circumstances it's going to seriously improve search quality.
Now as far as ad-words specifically, it's very useful to know what sorts of ads people are clicking on. You don't need to know demographics so much. For a given blog X, if you can see that there's a cluster of people interested in A, B, and C, and another cluster interested in C, D, E, and F, this allows you to refine your advertisements down to just C, since everyone who reads blog X is interested in C. Without continuity, there's no way to know that focusing on C would return much more clicks than just trying anything A-F.
And there are dozens of other ways to use the data, most of which actually are good from an end-user standpoint: better search results, more interesting ads.
You're a free-rider. The rest of us who let Google track us enable Google to better understand what people search for, for example recognizing as you narrow your search, that the last thing you settled on was what motivated the first set of keywords.
Of course, this only requires IP tracking. If you use Tor to get at Google, you're just paranoid.
It's also an important part of their algorithms. You need some back data to help in analysis of the present. I think that 6 months puts the balance a little too much on the privacy side of the fence, ignoring the usability gains from more long-term storage.
Well, he's ostensibly talking about "IT as a business," but really what he's saying is that you need sustainable IT infrastructure, and you can't let departments dictate day-to-day operations. Common sense, but I think there are some higher ups I work for who need to read this article. And we too ditched IT as a business (before my time, in fact.) Still relevant regardless.
Where exactly does Inkscape's revenue come from? Because that's my favorite vector graphics tool right there. What about WinSCP? Apache? OpenSSH?
Great applications, no clear revenue stream (Well, I guess Apache and OpenSSH have a revenue stream. Sort of. But it's just end users' free time / job time going towards making their jobs easier.
And Google will happily continue to pay Firefox to include Google in its search box. Their revenue is quite safe. Google isn't interested in locking you into Chrome, because monocultures yield public, messy security breaches like the most recent one.
Eh? Anyone 20-25 had Netscape navigator in their middle school computer lab, and consequently remembers when IE was crap, and the transition where IE became king of the hill on up to the present.
I switched to Firefox... 2004 maybe? I don't know. Even then I think Firefox had more mindshare than Opera. It's not mindless fanboyism.
Also the force of gravity used to be much less extreme, even at close distances, so our asteroid field is actually much more sparse, otherwise it would quickly coalesce into a planet.
But even at Google they apparently have some stuff that requires them to disable it. You can bet a lot of the shops that can't ditch IE will have to disable DEP for backwards compatibility with the crappy apps that are the only reason they don't switch to something better anyway.
Re:Maybe he'll make Chrome OS useful!
on
ChromeOS Zero Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You remove the artificial limitations that Google has introduced, and you just have Linux. The point is just to have a thin web client, with no excessive overhead. It's something I've often pined for when waiting for a full-fledged Mac or Windows Desktop to log me in in an Internet lab. I anticipate that Chrome devices will be instant-on, and completely blow any sort of standard "unlimited" desktop out of the water for browsing purposes.
The odds of a trained professional accidentally discharging a weapon are plainly less than the odds of a single student bringing a weapon to school in a school of 1400 students.
Especially in many regions of the United States, for example mine.
Sounds like the kid was showing it off at lunch and the vice principal freaked.
Reminds me of one time in high school when we were given an assignment by our English teacher. I don't entirely remember the specifics, but we were supposed to take pictures of stuff and make a slideshow that somehow related to the book we were reading.
So we go over to the theatre department and grab a wooden rifle prop (as in, something made out of a black broomstick with a wooden handle) and end up in an area with half the windows in the school facing us. So the school security guard comes and tells us he could have justified shooting us, and tells us to get back inside.
No, I'm saying that the kind of scaremongering put forth was the only thing sufficient to make people take common-sense actions like washing their hands regularly.
If they had said "this flu strain will definitely kill people, and it has a 5% chance of getting out of control and causing many deaths" no one would have modified their behavior at all. But if you say it like that, everyone just shrugs and ignores you.
And further, yes there was herd immunity that prevented a devastating outbreak of H1N1. There's no need for data: the spread of H1N1 was considerably slowed by the precautions taken. Every person you prevent from getting the disease is at least two people beyond that person who that person would have infected. And the worry isn't that they would have been infected with the relatively benign virus we saw. The worry is that since people have relatively little immunity to it, it would spread to more people. It's lethality in its present form is irrelevant. When it spreads, it has the possibility of becoming much worse. By slowing its spread, you reduce the chance of an extremely lethal strain emerging.
Slashdot Mirror
I do tend to prefer Thunderbird, but Yahoo, unlike Gmail, doesn't offer IMAP, so Yahoo is basically useless to me.
Zimbra on the other hand is roughly on par with Yahoo.
But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York. The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent. NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.
My head nearly exploded after reading this comment. Yahoo Mail is trash. I would rather be using the original AOL mail client.
Gmail is the best application I have used.
Ad-words has everything to do with data retention. There is probably a limit past which more data will just give them too much of a needle in a haystack to sort through (I'd peg it at about 2 years.) However, if you think knowing search history doesn't help them improve results, you're not understanding what Google does properly.
It's not just a question of targeting. A straightforward example (though it only needs continuity over a half hour or so) is following you as you refine your search. If Google sees a lot of people searching for:
haiti
haiti earthquake
haiti earthquake relief
haiti relief organizations
Or some permutation thereof, if they see that everyone's starting at haiti and ending up at relief organizations, they might want to show some of those results when you just search for Haiti. Obviously this is a simplistic example, but you can see how in broader circumstances it's going to seriously improve search quality.
Now as far as ad-words specifically, it's very useful to know what sorts of ads people are clicking on. You don't need to know demographics so much. For a given blog X, if you can see that there's a cluster of people interested in A, B, and C, and another cluster interested in C, D, E, and F, this allows you to refine your advertisements down to just C, since everyone who reads blog X is interested in C. Without continuity, there's no way to know that focusing on C would return much more clicks than just trying anything A-F.
And there are dozens of other ways to use the data, most of which actually are good from an end-user standpoint: better search results, more interesting ads.
Wow, that's the first time I've seen that used where ???? has about eighty possible inputs, all of which make sense.
You're a free-rider. The rest of us who let Google track us enable Google to better understand what people search for, for example recognizing as you narrow your search, that the last thing you settled on was what motivated the first set of keywords.
Of course, this only requires IP tracking. If you use Tor to get at Google, you're just paranoid.
It's also an important part of their algorithms. You need some back data to help in analysis of the present. I think that 6 months puts the balance a little too much on the privacy side of the fence, ignoring the usability gains from more long-term storage.
Well, he's ostensibly talking about "IT as a business," but really what he's saying is that you need sustainable IT infrastructure, and you can't let departments dictate day-to-day operations. Common sense, but I think there are some higher ups I work for who need to read this article. And we too ditched IT as a business (before my time, in fact.) Still relevant regardless.
Not to mention the whole chance of crashing, if I follow your analogy correctly.
Where exactly does Inkscape's revenue come from? Because that's my favorite vector graphics tool right there. What about WinSCP? Apache? OpenSSH?
Great applications, no clear revenue stream (Well, I guess Apache and OpenSSH have a revenue stream. Sort of. But it's just end users' free time / job time going towards making their jobs easier.
And Google will happily continue to pay Firefox to include Google in its search box. Their revenue is quite safe. Google isn't interested in locking you into Chrome, because monocultures yield public, messy security breaches like the most recent one.
Eh? Anyone 20-25 had Netscape navigator in their middle school computer lab, and consequently remembers when IE was crap, and the transition where IE became king of the hill on up to the present.
I switched to Firefox... 2004 maybe? I don't know. Even then I think Firefox had more mindshare than Opera. It's not mindless fanboyism.
Also the force of gravity used to be much less extreme, even at close distances, so our asteroid field is actually much more sparse, otherwise it would quickly coalesce into a planet.
When "business" means manufacturing phones as cheaply as possible, it's an excellent environment.
But even at Google they apparently have some stuff that requires them to disable it. You can bet a lot of the shops that can't ditch IE will have to disable DEP for backwards compatibility with the crappy apps that are the only reason they don't switch to something better anyway.
You remove the artificial limitations that Google has introduced, and you just have Linux. The point is just to have a thin web client, with no excessive overhead. It's something I've often pined for when waiting for a full-fledged Mac or Windows Desktop to log me in in an Internet lab. I anticipate that Chrome devices will be instant-on, and completely blow any sort of standard "unlimited" desktop out of the water for browsing purposes.
Yeah, a company whose entire business is predicated on cool can't partner with uncool. Uncool is contagious. Cool isn't.
My high school usually had at least one cop assigned. Can't remember if he was the one that came down on us.
The odds of a trained professional accidentally discharging a weapon are plainly less than the odds of a single student bringing a weapon to school in a school of 1400 students.
Especially in many regions of the United States, for example mine.
A computer would also violate the second.
The distinction isn't really relevant, as we've seen when even Google's law enforcement backdoor is the weakest link in their security system.
s/teachers/administrators/
Sounds like the kid was showing it off at lunch and the vice principal freaked.
Reminds me of one time in high school when we were given an assignment by our English teacher. I don't entirely remember the specifics, but we were supposed to take pictures of stuff and make a slideshow that somehow related to the book we were reading.
So we go over to the theatre department and grab a wooden rifle prop (as in, something made out of a black broomstick with a wooden handle) and end up in an area with half the windows in the school facing us. So the school security guard comes and tells us he could have justified shooting us, and tells us to get back inside.
This could have happened to any browser. The Chinese searched high and low for a vulnerability, they would have found it regardless.
Of course, the fact that it was present across all versions of IE suggest some fundamental architecture flaws that Microsoft has yet to correct.
No, I'm saying that the kind of scaremongering put forth was the only thing sufficient to make people take common-sense actions like washing their hands regularly.
If they had said "this flu strain will definitely kill people, and it has a 5% chance of getting out of control and causing many deaths" no one would have modified their behavior at all. But if you say it like that, everyone just shrugs and ignores you.
And further, yes there was herd immunity that prevented a devastating outbreak of H1N1. There's no need for data: the spread of H1N1 was considerably slowed by the precautions taken. Every person you prevent from getting the disease is at least two people beyond that person who that person would have infected. And the worry isn't that they would have been infected with the relatively benign virus we saw. The worry is that since people have relatively little immunity to it, it would spread to more people. It's lethality in its present form is irrelevant. When it spreads, it has the possibility of becoming much worse. By slowing its spread, you reduce the chance of an extremely lethal strain emerging.
Clearly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file#Location_and_content
You will need an elevated text editor, obviously.