When Google isn't making money by brining more people to ads, they're making money by increasing the value to advertisers of the people they do bring to ads.
This platform will allow Google to directly collect data about where you live, travel, work, eat, and shop.
It will allow Google to sell time and location sensitive ads, e.g. it will allow Google to sell ads for the deli on 34th street when you're within a quarter mile of 34th street.
And if Google decides to do it, it won't be an option. When Google advertises, they advertise in a way that is unobtrusive to most consumers. Advertising is a value add. If you buy a Google phone, you're buying the Google philosophy, and the data indicates that most consumers have no problem with it.
This Christmas season I thank God we have brave representatives like Anna Eshoo willing speak truth to power on the pressing issues of our time.
After recently championing regulation of light-bulb-screwing-in, environmental-windshield-tinting, and now this, I feel that through the courageous efforts of our government, the dream of Dr. King is finally being realized. This is the change we were waiting for, my friends. This is change we can believe in.
If the federal government can regulate that television commercials not be slightly louder than adjoining programming, then what can't the federal government regulate?
The type of lightbulbs we can use?
Oh, wait, we've already crossed that bridge. Alright guys, I give up, you win. Tell me when the new Right to Exist tax is coming due (mandatory health insurance coverage), and I'll send that check right over to you. Will you be sending someone by to pickup my first born while you're at it?
Don't give me hyperbole about our culture being locked away. Don't give me bullshit about how many Linux ISOs you download over bittorrent.
What's being locked away isn't our culture. What's being locked away is a bought and sold-out culture that we deluded ourselves into believing was our own. Rather than create culture, we, like our parents before us, feed like pigs at the trough on the culture sold to us by corporate conglomerates, willfully, knowingly, and happily, with shit-eating grins.
We have, and always have had, the power to define culture ourselves, and to keep that culture free, but we haven't, because most of us are sellouts, and most of us don't have the will to pass up the slop in the trough.
I dare you to stop the hypocritical bullshit. I dare you to define your own culture: http://creativecommons.org/
It isn't the risking of money that is a vice. It is the combination of risking money in vain, and the desire to make money detached from labor and productive output, that make gambling a vice. Gambling is the intersection of avarice and sloth, similar to politics.
While there are many vices associated with the stock market, and certainly day trading and futures trading are or or border on being vices, the straightforward purchasing of stock in a company is not. Purchasing stock in a company is an investment in a legitimate venture that the investor believes will contribute to the productive output of society, in exchange for a share in the profits, either increase in value of stock or in dividends.
However, I think it's hypocritical and ineffective for the government to regulate internet gambling.
I've always loved the absurdity of these phrases. Apple disclaims all implied warranties including the implied warranties that their products are what they claim to be and are suitable for the purpose they are advertised for.
In other words, as far as Apple is concerned, if you open your new Macbook Pro box and find a boat anchor instead of a laptop, tough luck.
Many species of ants have elaborate social structures. Ants communicate with one another through touching, chirping, hearing, feeling, and chemical perception. Some species of ants live solely by enslaving other ant species to do their food gathering for them. Ants farm lesser species such as aphids for their excretions.
Don't feel too bad.They'd enslave us and use us for our excretions too if they could. If ants weren't so tiny, we would be at war with them, and they'd be pretty badass foes.
Re:I heard one of the ants in the experiment speak
on
Ants That Can Count
·
· Score: 1
"Help! Help! My leg length has been modified!" she said.
How many steps before register overflow?
on
Ants That Can Count
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I can think of a number of follow-on experiments to tell us more about this mechanic.
First I think you'd want to establish more conclusively that it is counting or memory of steps or actions, and not something in the environment: - Replace the sand behind them on their path and see whether they can still get back. - Put them on a treadmill to get to their location and back so that their aren't actually moving relative to the earth and see whether they still get back. - Once this get to the food, rotate the artificial section of ground it is on 180 degrees and see whether they still get back. - Change the wind direction in an artificial environment and see whether they can still get back. - Reverse the location of the primary light source in an artificial environment and see whether they can still get back.
Then explore the limits of the counting or action memory mechanism: - Keep extending the number of steps to get to food until they can't remember how many steps to get back. - Keep extending the number of steps in a path with a turn in it, on each side of the turn, and compare to the path with no turn.
It has everything to do with Obama. Obama is the captain of the ship and is responsible for all actions of the executive taken under his direction or with this implicit or explicit consent, as here.
As to plain view, plain view is an invention of the courts. The original intent of the 4th amendment is to prevent the government from doing exactly what they've done here: going in with a warrant to search papers for evidence about specific individuals and events, then rifling through or seizing other papers not covered by the warrant. This is the so-called plain view exception, and it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
If this stands, and I believe it should in order to rectify the prior, unconstitutional plain view invention, then the executive has two options. Option A: ignore the court's guidance and continue to have their tainted evidence thrown out again and again. Option B: follow the court's guidance and continue within the confines of the law.
How can you in your right mind, in the year 2009, suggest that eating food that has not been rendered safe by cooking, smoking, curing, drying, pickling, or ANY of the food preparation and presevation processes that humans have relied upon for at least tens of thousands of years, is a good idea?
Have you heard of the recent work in this field by Louis Pasteur? I guess it's still controversial in some quarters.
What do you mean, "the self-cannabilising overlap"?
Android is a production product that must be stable, reliable, and operate within the constraints of consumer mobile devices today.
Chrome OS is an R&D platform for emerging markets and technologies.
You don't couple your production product with your R&D platform for a market that does not yet exist, unless you want both of them to fail.
The good news for Google is that by talking so publicly about their R&D products, and giving you the opportunity to comment on them, for every one comment like the above trying to second-guess Google, there are a thousand people who are excited and continue to be amazed at what the combination of Google and mobile device technology are making possible, and will make possible in 2-5 years.
Android is a production product that must meet the needs of consumer devices today. Android's success as a production product today depends on its level of refinement and ability to function reliably on technology that exists today. Chrome OS's success as an R&D platform today depends on it retaining the flexibility to make rapid, sweeping changes as an experimental testbed.
Google doesn't presume to know what the smart phone and mobile internet device markets will look like in 5 years time, other than that Google technology will be a big part of it. That's more than many other companies can say.
Those criticizing Google should recognize that were Chrome OS an R&D product at any other company, we might hear about it through a few trade shows and blogs, but that would be it, and no sane commentator would be suggesting it be put into production or merged with a production platform.
See the above, minus the photographs and with fewer surviving records and other bits of evidence. Again, no supernatural claims exist with regard to the existence and historical record of Julius Caesar and I can tell you exactly what it would take to convince me that he was not actually the emperor of Rome.
We have very old documents attesting to Julius Caesar being the emperor of Rome. We have very old documents attesting to Jesus Christ being crucified, rising from the dead, and ascending into the heavens.
Many claims about the general age, geographic origin, and material composition of the documents and artifacts attesting to Julius Caesar are falsifiable. Many claims about the general age, geographic origin, and material composition of the documents and artifacts attesting to Jesus Christ are falsifiable. Such claims are scientific.
However, the claim that Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome is not therefore scientific. You can make many claims relating to attestations to Julius Caesar being the emperor of Rome, many of which are both falsifiable and scientific, but you could not deduce from the sum of those claims that Julius Caesar was the emperor of Rome.
Yet you, despite being able to tell me why the claim that Julius Caesar was the emperor of Rome, is scientific, profess belief in this claim. You are welcome to believe whatever you like for whatever reasons you like, but it seems rather hypocritical of you to hold others to a standard you both can not explain and do not hold to yourself.
I could see getting plenty of value out of one of these without a wireless net connection.
My GPS is several years old and loads road maps for all of North America and more points of interest than I can ever be interested in, with a sync from my home computer.
Give it the ability to put the projections privately in a pair of glasses, but still interact with them with hand motions where you see private projections in your glasses, and this is the kind of tech that will change the world.
Being wired isn't a problem anymore. We have wired people walking around everywhere today. It's common to see people walking around with ipod headphone wires running to a device in a pocket.
Wearing a few colored rings on your fingers wouldn't be a big deal either. Right now they're clips but I'm sure the software could be calibrated to work with rings for many of the applications shown.
The hardware exists today. The hard part would be mapping between the projection and your hand gestures without having to have the camera in your glasses as well. Calibrating it would probably be too inflexible, but just having your fingers show up as cursors on the projection in your glasses seems reasonable.
I understand why Bioware cut ties with WotC. They didn't feel they were given the flexibility to develop the game they wanted under the D&D license.
However, the Realms setting that I loved was what kept me coming back to their prior games. Don't get me wrong. This isn't a bad game. It's as good a game as Morrowind or Oblivion.
But it will never be a special game. It will never be more than a good game. Maybe in another 10 years if Bioware sticks with this setting and develops additional content around, it could be, but that seems unlikely.
I refuse to play 4th ed. due to the forced miniatures requirement, but at least that could have been hidden by a CRPG.
Jobs are only one type of opportunity. Governments may create job opportunities for your interest groups and causes, but only by taking away opportunities from those who earned and created them in the first place.
The government can not give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else.
This power might not have backed up his statement, but he certainly isn't a troll.
Beyond providing for the equal protection of law, government does create opportunity, government only reallocates opportunity.
The progressive belief that certain individuals, causes, and interests are entitled to the opportunities others have created, is not a fundamentally altruistic belief, it is a fundamentally selfish belief.
I care about my life expectancy. Does that sound selfish? It shouldn't. It should sound familiar. Every poor, unemployed, and bleeding heart individual clamoring for this has exactly the same objective. The difference is that I work my ass off to beat the averages, and I intend to reap the rewards of my hard work in better than average outcomes. My position is no more selfish than theirs. The difference is that they stand to gain at my loss, and I will not accept this outcome.
If this bill becomes law, within 10 years, a majority of posters on this forum will have reduced access to care and lower relative quality of care, while paying higher taxes to support it. The least well off may be slightly better off, but you will pay the price for it, not only in taxes, but also in your own health.
This bill will substantially increase the demand on our health care providers. At the same time this bill restricts the ability of health care providers to fund increases in capacity, and does nothing of substance to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, or productivity of health care providers.
The only way to increase quality of and access to care, while reducing costs, is to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of health care providers. This means public investment in science and technology, coupled with reduction in regulations on new medical treatments and devices.
The previous version required that interoperability standards be owned by non-profit committees. Having worked with a number of such organizations I can tell you that as a customer, being locked into a committee-owned standard is as great an obstacle to innovation and efficiency as is a closed de facto standard, especially when the government is involved.
It will continue to be far better for the customer over time when the customer can pick and choose which standards and vendors they will use. This allows customers to choose the balance they want to strike between compatibility and richness of functionality.
I do agree that a reasonable criteria for use by government agencies is that a standard specification be free and unencumbered, but no thank you to design by committee.
Thinking about what has changed in the intervening 60 years, I don't think a contemporary author can claim to pen an extension that is serious and respectful of the original work.
20 years ago it wouldn't have surprised me to see anthropomorphic, autonomous robots as an everyday part of life in 20 years. Asimov saw them on the horizon 60 years ago.
But 20 years later, despite all our advances in technology, I don't even see this on the horizon, much less in another 20 years.
I think in our optimism we overlooked two important realities: 1) Human life is cheap, economically and ethically. 2) The full range of human psychology and intelligence is not beneficial to the performance of most human labor.
I don't think Apple would be having as much success as they have been if the Mac in their Mac vs PC adds represented the smug condescension toward the average consumer of mac users like you.
Plenty of people are blaming your friend for everything from expecting to be able to upgrade a component of his $2500 computer, to expecting to be able to play games on a mac. The problem isn't your friend. The problem is Apple.
If those expectations are the customer's fault, then Apple isn't going to get very far with average computer buyers. The first time someone buys an Apple and finds out a year later that it's specialized hardware is obsolete and can't be upgraded, will be the last time that someone buys an Apple.
I had a similar experience. I purchased a first gen mac pro as a development platform that I hoped to be able to use to play games on. Within a year the graphics card was obsolete, but I had to wait another year and a half before Apple released a consumer upgrade path for my graphics card. It's reasonable to expect that when you pay $3500 for a computer that you'll be able to upgrade a $200 component, and if this was a PC I would have had more options than I'd have known what to do with.
But OS X is far better than the alternatives, and PC gaming wasn't that big a deal to me, so I'm still a mac user.
Slashdot Mirror
When Google isn't making money by brining more people to ads, they're making money by increasing the value to advertisers of the people they do bring to ads.
This platform will allow Google to directly collect data about where you live, travel, work, eat, and shop.
It will allow Google to sell time and location sensitive ads, e.g. it will allow Google to sell ads for the deli on 34th street when you're within a quarter mile of 34th street.
And if Google decides to do it, it won't be an option. When Google advertises, they advertise in a way that is unobtrusive to most consumers. Advertising is a value add. If you buy a Google phone, you're buying the Google philosophy, and the data indicates that most consumers have no problem with it.
This Christmas season I thank God we have brave representatives like Anna Eshoo willing speak truth to power on the pressing issues of our time.
After recently championing regulation of light-bulb-screwing-in, environmental-windshield-tinting, and now this, I feel that through the courageous efforts of our government, the dream of Dr. King is finally being realized. This is the change we were waiting for, my friends. This is change we can believe in.
If the federal government can regulate that television commercials not be slightly louder than adjoining programming, then what can't the federal government regulate?
The type of lightbulbs we can use?
Oh, wait, we've already crossed that bridge. Alright guys, I give up, you win. Tell me when the new Right to Exist tax is coming due (mandatory health insurance coverage), and I'll send that check right over to you. Will you be sending someone by to pickup my first born while you're at it?
If only we seize it.
Don't give me hyperbole about our culture being locked away. Don't give me bullshit about how many Linux ISOs you download over bittorrent.
What's being locked away isn't our culture. What's being locked away is a bought and sold-out culture that we deluded ourselves into believing was our own. Rather than create culture, we, like our parents before us, feed like pigs at the trough on the culture sold to us by corporate conglomerates, willfully, knowingly, and happily, with shit-eating grins.
We have, and always have had, the power to define culture ourselves, and to keep that culture free, but we haven't, because most of us are sellouts, and most of us don't have the will to pass up the slop in the trough.
I dare you to stop the hypocritical bullshit. I dare you to define your own culture:
http://creativecommons.org/
It isn't the risking of money that is a vice. It is the combination of risking money in vain, and the desire to make money detached from labor and productive output, that make gambling a vice. Gambling is the intersection of avarice and sloth, similar to politics.
While there are many vices associated with the stock market, and certainly day trading and futures trading are or or border on being vices, the straightforward purchasing of stock in a company is not. Purchasing stock in a company is an investment in a legitimate venture that the investor believes will contribute to the productive output of society, in exchange for a share in the profits, either increase in value of stock or in dividends.
However, I think it's hypocritical and ineffective for the government to regulate internet gambling.
I've always loved the absurdity of these phrases. Apple disclaims all implied warranties including the implied warranties that their products are what they claim to be and are suitable for the purpose they are advertised for.
In other words, as far as Apple is concerned, if you open your new Macbook Pro box and find a boat anchor instead of a laptop, tough luck.
Many species of ants have elaborate social structures. Ants communicate with one another through touching, chirping, hearing, feeling, and chemical perception. Some species of ants live solely by enslaving other ant species to do their food gathering for them. Ants farm lesser species such as aphids for their excretions.
Don't feel too bad.They'd enslave us and use us for our excretions too if they could. If ants weren't so tiny, we would be at war with them, and they'd be pretty badass foes.
"Help! Help! My leg length has been modified!" she said.
I can think of a number of follow-on experiments to tell us more about this mechanic.
First I think you'd want to establish more conclusively that it is counting or memory of steps or actions, and not something in the environment:
- Replace the sand behind them on their path and see whether they can still get back.
- Put them on a treadmill to get to their location and back so that their aren't actually moving relative to the earth and see whether they still get back.
- Once this get to the food, rotate the artificial section of ground it is on 180 degrees and see whether they still get back.
- Change the wind direction in an artificial environment and see whether they can still get back.
- Reverse the location of the primary light source in an artificial environment and see whether they can still get back.
Then explore the limits of the counting or action memory mechanism:
- Keep extending the number of steps to get to food until they can't remember how many steps to get back.
- Keep extending the number of steps in a path with a turn in it, on each side of the turn, and compare to the path with no turn.
It has everything to do with Obama. Obama is the captain of the ship and is responsible for all actions of the executive taken under his direction or with this implicit or explicit consent, as here.
As to plain view, plain view is an invention of the courts. The original intent of the 4th amendment is to prevent the government from doing exactly what they've done here: going in with a warrant to search papers for evidence about specific individuals and events, then rifling through or seizing other papers not covered by the warrant. This is the so-called plain view exception, and it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
If this stands, and I believe it should in order to rectify the prior, unconstitutional plain view invention, then the executive has two options. Option A: ignore the court's guidance and continue to have their tainted evidence thrown out again and again. Option B: follow the court's guidance and continue within the confines of the law.
How can you in your right mind, in the year 2009, suggest that eating food that has not been rendered safe by cooking, smoking, curing, drying, pickling, or ANY of the food preparation and presevation processes that humans have relied upon for at least tens of thousands of years, is a good idea?
Have you heard of the recent work in this field by Louis Pasteur? I guess it's still controversial in some quarters.
...you deserve it.
Cook, cure, smoke, or dry.
Welcome to 1000 years ago. At least. Seriously.
I don't know what else to say.
What do you mean, "the self-cannabilising overlap"?
Android is a production product that must be stable, reliable, and operate within the constraints of consumer mobile devices today.
Chrome OS is an R&D platform for emerging markets and technologies.
You don't couple your production product with your R&D platform for a market that does not yet exist, unless you want both of them to fail.
The good news for Google is that by talking so publicly about their R&D products, and giving you the opportunity to comment on them, for every one comment like the above trying to second-guess Google, there are a thousand people who are excited and continue to be amazed at what the combination of Google and mobile device technology are making possible, and will make possible in 2-5 years.
Android is a production product that must meet the needs of consumer devices today. Android's success as a production product today depends on its level of refinement and ability to function reliably on technology that exists today. Chrome OS's success as an R&D platform today depends on it retaining the flexibility to make rapid, sweeping changes as an experimental testbed.
Google doesn't presume to know what the smart phone and mobile internet device markets will look like in 5 years time, other than that Google technology will be a big part of it. That's more than many other companies can say.
Those criticizing Google should recognize that were Chrome OS an R&D product at any other company, we might hear about it through a few trade shows and blogs, but that would be it, and no sane commentator would be suggesting it be put into production or merged with a production platform.
See the above, minus the photographs and with fewer surviving records and other bits of evidence. Again, no supernatural claims exist with regard to the existence and historical record of Julius Caesar and I can tell you exactly what it would take to convince me that he was not actually the emperor of Rome.
We have very old documents attesting to Julius Caesar being the emperor of Rome. We have very old documents attesting to Jesus Christ being crucified, rising from the dead, and ascending into the heavens.
Many claims about the general age, geographic origin, and material composition of the documents and artifacts attesting to Julius Caesar are falsifiable. Many claims about the general age, geographic origin, and material composition of the documents and artifacts attesting to Jesus Christ are falsifiable. Such claims are scientific.
However, the claim that Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome is not therefore scientific. You can make many claims relating to attestations to Julius Caesar being the emperor of Rome, many of which are both falsifiable and scientific, but you could not deduce from the sum of those claims that Julius Caesar was the emperor of Rome.
Yet you, despite being able to tell me why the claim that Julius Caesar was the emperor of Rome, is scientific, profess belief in this claim. You are welcome to believe whatever you like for whatever reasons you like, but it seems rather hypocritical of you to hold others to a standard you both can not explain and do not hold to yourself.
I could see getting plenty of value out of one of these without a wireless net connection.
My GPS is several years old and loads road maps for all of North America and more points of interest than I can ever be interested in, with a sync from my home computer.
Give it the ability to put the projections privately in a pair of glasses, but still interact with them with hand motions where you see private projections in your glasses, and this is the kind of tech that will change the world.
Being wired isn't a problem anymore. We have wired people walking around everywhere today. It's common to see people walking around with ipod headphone wires running to a device in a pocket.
Wearing a few colored rings on your fingers wouldn't be a big deal either. Right now they're clips but I'm sure the software could be calibrated to work with rings for many of the applications shown.
The hardware exists today. The hard part would be mapping between the projection and your hand gestures without having to have the camera in your glasses as well. Calibrating it would probably be too inflexible, but just having your fingers show up as cursors on the projection in your glasses seems reasonable.
I understand why Bioware cut ties with WotC. They didn't feel they were given the flexibility to develop the game they wanted under the D&D license.
However, the Realms setting that I loved was what kept me coming back to their prior games. Don't get me wrong. This isn't a bad game. It's as good a game as Morrowind or Oblivion.
But it will never be a special game. It will never be more than a good game. Maybe in another 10 years if Bioware sticks with this setting and develops additional content around, it could be, but that seems unlikely.
I refuse to play 4th ed. due to the forced miniatures requirement, but at least that could have been hidden by a CRPG.
Jobs are only one type of opportunity. Governments may create job opportunities for your interest groups and causes, but only by taking away opportunities from those who earned and created them in the first place.
The government can not give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else.
This power might not have backed up his statement, but he certainly isn't a troll.
Beyond providing for the equal protection of law, government does create opportunity, government only reallocates opportunity.
The progressive belief that certain individuals, causes, and interests are entitled to the opportunities others have created, is not a fundamentally altruistic belief, it is a fundamentally selfish belief.
I care about my life expectancy. Does that sound selfish? It shouldn't. It should sound familiar. Every poor, unemployed, and bleeding heart individual clamoring for this has exactly the same objective. The difference is that I work my ass off to beat the averages, and I intend to reap the rewards of my hard work in better than average outcomes. My position is no more selfish than theirs. The difference is that they stand to gain at my loss, and I will not accept this outcome.
If this bill becomes law, within 10 years, a majority of posters on this forum will have reduced access to care and lower relative quality of care, while paying higher taxes to support it. The least well off may be slightly better off, but you will pay the price for it, not only in taxes, but also in your own health.
This bill will substantially increase the demand on our health care providers. At the same time this bill restricts the ability of health care providers to fund increases in capacity, and does nothing of substance to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, or productivity of health care providers.
The only way to increase quality of and access to care, while reducing costs, is to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of health care providers. This means public investment in science and technology, coupled with reduction in regulations on new medical treatments and devices.
The previous version required that interoperability standards be owned by non-profit committees. Having worked with a number of such organizations I can tell you that as a customer, being locked into a committee-owned standard is as great an obstacle to innovation and efficiency as is a closed de facto standard, especially when the government is involved.
It will continue to be far better for the customer over time when the customer can pick and choose which standards and vendors they will use. This allows customers to choose the balance they want to strike between compatibility and richness of functionality.
I do agree that a reasonable criteria for use by government agencies is that a standard specification be free and unencumbered, but no thank you to design by committee.
Thinking about what has changed in the intervening 60 years, I don't think a contemporary author can claim to pen an extension that is serious and respectful of the original work.
20 years ago it wouldn't have surprised me to see anthropomorphic, autonomous robots as an everyday part of life in 20 years. Asimov saw them on the horizon 60 years ago.
But 20 years later, despite all our advances in technology, I don't even see this on the horizon, much less in another 20 years.
I think in our optimism we overlooked two important realities:
1) Human life is cheap, economically and ethically.
2) The full range of human psychology and intelligence is not beneficial to the performance of most human labor.
Great. Blame the consumer. That's the ticket.
I don't think Apple would be having as much success as they have been if the Mac in their Mac vs PC adds represented the smug condescension toward the average consumer of mac users like you.
Fair warning to anyone considering switching.
Plenty of people are blaming your friend for everything from expecting to be able to upgrade a component of his $2500 computer, to expecting to be able to play games on a mac. The problem isn't your friend. The problem is Apple.
If those expectations are the customer's fault, then Apple isn't going to get very far with average computer buyers. The first time someone buys an Apple and finds out a year later that it's specialized hardware is obsolete and can't be upgraded, will be the last time that someone buys an Apple.
I had a similar experience. I purchased a first gen mac pro as a development platform that I hoped to be able to use to play games on. Within a year the graphics card was obsolete, but I had to wait another year and a half before Apple released a consumer upgrade path for my graphics card. It's reasonable to expect that when you pay $3500 for a computer that you'll be able to upgrade a $200 component, and if this was a PC I would have had more options than I'd have known what to do with.
But OS X is far better than the alternatives, and PC gaming wasn't that big a deal to me, so I'm still a mac user.