The NY Times uses a system (unique, I belive) designed to match appropraite ad content to any story. The system is called "N.Y.T.E.S.," (according to a buddy who does IT there) Basically, each ad has positive keywords, and negative keywords attached to it. Each story has keywords attached as well. The system selects randomly from ads which have a high corelation between their positive keywords, and no negative keyword matches. This makes it so an ad for Delta, for example, would appear next to a travela rticle but not if the artle were about plane crashes. Publishers are givin 20 free negative keywords, and then they pay for each positive keyword - fractions of a penny per impression etc
...by creating and pooling water reserves further from the equator than they naturally would lie. The effect is miniscle, but it is there...
Re:A time of leaps and bounds
on
Secret Empire
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Again just to follow up - from the son of a U2 pilot...
The U2 did indeed fly very slow, but the incredible thing about it was that the range between its stall speed (when it was going too slow to fly, and would tumble out of the sky) and the speed at which its wings would be ripped off was about 10mph. So the pilots would have to keep the aircraft in that very narrow range for up to ten hours during their flights, all the while doing scientific and espionage photography and data gathering
> One day you will pay one company $39.95 for flat-rate long distance.... >Whenever, wherever.
Uh, I already pay $29.99 for flat rate long distance on my cell phone. Sure, I have a limited number of minutes. If it is really flat rate, don't those of us who use a normal amount of minutes just end up paying for people who use a lot? And doesn't it remove any incentive to control or limit usuge?
Quite simply, this is a terrible idea - the idea of forcing everyone to buy something just because some people 'steal' it is crazy. The economic inefficiency of forced consumption is rediculous - all this will due is make internet use more expensive, and those users who have no interest in digital music will have to sholder the burdon for the rest of us. Moreover, this program will dramaticalyl reduce the incentive for artists to produce quality records - if they get paid either way...
Beer has HUGE amounts of cals. Ever wonder why Girls put on so much weight when they go to college? All you can eat meals are one thing, but BEER is the real cause!
"I'm very lazy. As part of that continuing effort, I've come up with a guide for installing a soda fountain in the house. I've detailed how to get the equipment, hoses, and supplies, as well as how to install and calibrate the system. Now you won't ever need to move for lack of liquid refreshment! My next project: Food Replicator."
Wow! You're right! That 'continuing effort to be lazy" sure does take a lot of work!!!
As others have noted, including the poster, she got the math wrong; recall, however, that in England 1x10^10 is a trillion, and a billion is what we call a trilion (i.e., the two are flippled). However, looking at her Bio, there is no reference to any education or time spent in the UK, so we have to chalk this up to sloppy copy editing
It's not so; I might point out that Google achieved its success not because it was a default search page ANYWHERE; it achieved its success because of the quality of its product. Indeed, the success of Google speaks to the fact that the 'bundling advantage' that MS has isn't enough to control the search engine market - if it were, they would already (control it, that is.) They obviously recognize this, and while I'm sure they would love to be able to do what you suggest (use monopoly position to bring the field down and then control it) they know that it isn't the case, that feature based innovation is key.
Good for us. I don't think MS will suceed, but if they do, we'll have an even better search engine. If they don't, well, then they might well spur futher improvements at Google. Really, the money MS spends on this project is money spend for our benefit
You guys are way too cynical! This isn't about American corporations exploiting war for market-share - this congressional action just demonstrates how deeply American companies and their Congressional Representatives care about the Iraqi people, partially their cell-phone reception.
If you could accuse them of anything, it would be caring *too much*, too deeply, being too committed to making sure very Iraqi can get downloadable ring-tones and caller-ID. We should be proud of these corporate leaders, these *American* leaders, for caring on our behalf!
Christ, I should write this stuff for a living. Or I could just cut to the chase and start stealing cars
It seems strange on the surface for them to admit that their product is 'unfixable,' but really, doesn't it make sense as an upgrade-inducer? Granted that in a more competitive market people would be put off by this, but some people don't regard the other choices with which we are so familiar as acceptable options, leaving them sending their checks to Redmond no matter.
Then again, people still buy new models of cars which have had huge saftey problems in the past, even though other choices are availble; perhaps the real phenomenon is that marketing is sometimes more powerful than good judgement.
All or most of the asian kids around you are smart and dedicated? Wow! But do you think that that is a representative sample of Asians, or some Asians who are particularly smart and dedicated happen to have left their country to study abroad? Groups self select; you don't seem like a very bright person, but at the highest levels everyone is smart. The reason the smartest people around you are Asians is because American's who are smarter than you have had more opportunity to go elsewhere.
If you look at world-wide test scores, you'll see that America ranks well down the list; why? Because America educates (and therefore tests) a much larger range of the bell curve than many other countries do. For this reason, our 'average' score is indeed lower, but if you did total score divided by the entire (not just test taking) population, you would see different results.
First, I'm sure a lot of people are going to suggest that you forgo the interenet altogether. There is something to be said for this; it sounds like you trip is, at least in part, designed to be an adventure, and being 'offline' might enhance it.
That said, if you do decide to go online, for blogging or e-mail, pick up a prepaid phone card, enter the 800#, your pin, and a juno access number into the PPP settings, and then every phone jack you see on your way will be a 'net access point. Wireless is fun, but if you just need to transmit text, the phone connection is easiest, redily availible, and certinly powerfull enough.
True, but both are, after all, major systems in the air transportation process. A failure in either one has the potential to be catestrophic; if the ATC system screws up, planes could collide, and if security screws up, a dangerous passenger could be let through. The difficulty is in the political nature of the second system; there is no one who disagrees that planes should be kept apart, and no one disagrees that terrorists should be kept off airplanes (well, except the terrorists - they might disagree with both assertions, but that's another matter).
Anyway, the worst hassles of a functioning ATC system are long delays, holding patterns, etc, while the security system has much more troubling implications - which are obvious to anyone. So I guess, in a way, it's better that the ATC system failed, and no one got hurt, than a security failure...
>Even if they were, any information garnered in this way would immediately be thrown out of court in most countries (including the US) as inadmissible, because the source would be deemed an illegal search if the proper warrants hadn't been obtained.
BZZZ! Sorry, you're totally wrong. But thanks for playing "I'm a constitutional lawyer!"
The 'search' was consenual, so no warrant was needed. If they went onto YOUR computer, and took the data w/o a warrant, then it'd be inadmissable. But in this case, the data was on eBay's computer, and they were hapyp to part with it.
I was about to post the same thing as you - and you're right. But look at it a little differently: obviously, there is going to be one search engine out ahead, and we'll use it. In a way, I do hope that Google is that one, not because I care about them, but because a lot of their policies are very good, with regards to privacy, advertising, etc. Of course, perhaps you could consider those part of the decision regarding which search engine is out front. So let me phrase it this way: I hope that Google, or an equally 'fair' search engine has the best search technology.
Slashdot Mirror
The NY Times uses a system (unique, I belive) designed to match appropraite ad content to any story. The system is called "N.Y.T.E.S.," (according to a buddy who does IT there) Basically, each ad has positive keywords, and negative keywords attached to it. Each story has keywords attached as well. The system selects randomly from ads which have a high corelation between their positive keywords, and no negative keyword matches. This makes it so an ad for Delta, for example, would appear next to a travela rticle but not if the artle were about plane crashes. Publishers are givin 20 free negative keywords, and then they pay for each positive keyword - fractions of a penny per impression etc
Anyway, I still prefer google's ads.
...by creating and pooling water reserves further from the equator than they naturally would lie. The effect is miniscle, but it is there...
Again just to follow up - from the son of a U2 pilot...
The U2 did indeed fly very slow, but the incredible thing about it was that the range between its stall speed (when it was going too slow to fly, and would tumble out of the sky) and the speed at which its wings would be ripped off was about 10mph. So the pilots would have to keep the aircraft in that very narrow range for up to ten hours during their flights, all the while doing scientific and espionage photography and data gathering
> One day you will pay one company $39.95 for flat-rate long distance .... >Whenever, wherever.
Uh, I already pay $29.99 for flat rate long distance on my cell phone. Sure, I have a limited number of minutes.
If it is really flat rate, don't those of us who use a normal amount of minutes just end up paying for people who use a lot? And doesn't it remove any incentive to control or limit usuge?
Wow. Methinks CmdrTaco is just trolling /.
Must be a slow day in Ann Arbor
A Universal Remote (Radio Shack, $13) for almost $200... but it runs LINUX!
Quite simply, this is a terrible idea - the idea of forcing everyone to buy something just because some people 'steal' it is crazy. The economic inefficiency of forced consumption is rediculous - all this will due is make internet use more expensive, and those users who have no interest in digital music will have to sholder the burdon for the rest of us. Moreover, this program will dramaticalyl reduce the incentive for artists to produce quality records - if they get paid either way...
I havn't seen an important one mentioned:
STOP DRINKING BEER!
Beer has HUGE amounts of cals. Ever wonder why Girls put on so much weight when they go to college? All you can eat meals are one thing, but BEER is the real cause!
Sorry, Buddy, but this a perfectly justified use of private data- you parenst should know anyway.
And if you really think it's that insecure - prove it
The first person to make a joke about, err, 'human produced' gas clouds should receive a lifetime ban from Slashdot. After me, that is...
"I'm very lazy. As part of that continuing effort, I've come up with a guide for installing a soda fountain in the house. I've detailed how to get the equipment, hoses, and supplies, as well as how to install and calibrate the system. Now you won't ever need to move for lack of liquid refreshment! My next project: Food Replicator."
Wow! You're right! That 'continuing effort to be lazy" sure does take a lot of work!!!
As others have noted, including the poster, she got the math wrong; recall, however, that in England 1x10^10 is a trillion, and a billion is what we call a trilion (i.e., the two are flippled). However, looking at her Bio, there is no reference to any education or time spent in the UK, so we have to chalk this up to sloppy copy editing
"HELLO? NO, I'M IN AN ART GALLERY. No, IT'S ALL RUBISH. OK, CHOW!"
(lower caps to pass the filter - muster)
It's not so; I might point out that Google achieved its success not because it was a default search page ANYWHERE; it achieved its success because of the quality of its product. Indeed, the success of Google speaks to the fact that the 'bundling advantage' that MS has isn't enough to control the search engine market - if it were, they would already (control it, that is.) They obviously recognize this, and while I'm sure they would love to be able to do what you suggest (use monopoly position to bring the field down and then control it) they know that it isn't the case, that feature based innovation is key.
Good for us. I don't think MS will suceed, but if they do, we'll have an even better search engine. If they don't, well, then they might well spur futher improvements at Google. Really, the money MS spends on this project is money spend for our benefit
You guys are way too cynical! This isn't about American corporations exploiting war for market-share - this congressional action just demonstrates how deeply American companies and their Congressional Representatives care about the Iraqi people, partially their cell-phone reception.
If you could accuse them of anything, it would be caring *too much*, too deeply, being too committed to making sure very Iraqi can get downloadable ring-tones and caller-ID. We should be proud of these corporate leaders, these *American* leaders, for caring on our behalf!
Christ, I should write this stuff for a living. Or I could just cut to the chase and start stealing cars
It seems strange on the surface for them to admit that their product is 'unfixable,' but really, doesn't it make sense as an upgrade-inducer? Granted that in a more competitive market people would be put off by this, but some people don't regard the other choices with which we are so familiar as acceptable options, leaving them sending their checks to Redmond no matter.
Then again, people still buy new models of cars which have had huge saftey problems in the past, even though other choices are availble; perhaps the real phenomenon is that marketing is sometimes more powerful than good judgement.
Bullshit.
All or most of the asian kids around you are smart and dedicated? Wow! But do you think that that is a representative sample of Asians, or some Asians who are particularly smart and dedicated happen to have left their country to study abroad? Groups self select; you don't seem like a very bright person, but at the highest levels everyone is smart. The reason the smartest people around you are Asians is because American's who are smarter than you have had more opportunity to go elsewhere.
If you look at world-wide test scores, you'll see that America ranks well down the list; why? Because America educates (and therefore tests) a much larger range of the bell curve than many other countries do. For this reason, our 'average' score is indeed lower, but if you did total score divided by the entire (not just test taking) population, you would see different results.
Here's my suggestions:
everyone who receives their $12 check DONATE IT to the EFF right away - what a great gesture, and what a great fundraising opportunity.
... is : NetAccountability - Because Lots of Little Brothers are Beter than Big Brother
First, I'm sure a lot of people are going to suggest that you forgo the interenet altogether. There is something to be said for this; it sounds like you trip is, at least in part, designed to be an adventure, and being 'offline' might enhance it.
That said, if you do decide to go online, for blogging or e-mail, pick up a prepaid phone card, enter the 800#, your pin, and a juno access number into the PPP settings, and then every phone jack you see on your way will be a 'net access point. Wireless is fun, but if you just need to transmit text, the phone connection is easiest, redily availible, and certinly powerfull enough.
PS - it sounds like a lot of fun. Enjoy yourself.
True, but both are, after all, major systems in the air transportation process. A failure in either one has the potential to be catestrophic; if the ATC system screws up, planes could collide, and if security screws up, a dangerous passenger could be let through. The difficulty is in the political nature of the second system; there is no one who disagrees that planes should be kept apart, and no one disagrees that terrorists should be kept off airplanes (well, except the terrorists - they might disagree with both assertions, but that's another matter).
...
Anyway, the worst hassles of a functioning ATC system are long delays, holding patterns, etc, while the security system has much more troubling implications - which are obvious to anyone. So I guess, in a way, it's better that the ATC system failed, and no one got hurt, than a security failure
...Well, that's it for Rhode Island Kiss Forum - now time for Battale Star Galaxtaica forum... WELCOME TO BATTLE STAR GALAXTICA FORUM
>Even if they were, any information garnered in this way would immediately be thrown out of court in most countries (including the US) as inadmissible, because the source would be deemed an illegal search if the proper warrants hadn't been obtained.
BZZZ! Sorry, you're totally wrong. But thanks for playing "I'm a constitutional lawyer!"
The 'search' was consenual, so no warrant was needed. If they went onto YOUR computer, and took the data w/o a warrant, then it'd be inadmissable. But in this case, the data was on eBay's computer, and they were hapyp to part with it.
Who cares?
I was about to post the same thing as you - and you're right. But look at it a little differently: obviously, there is going to be one search engine out ahead, and we'll use it. In a way, I do hope that Google is that one, not because I care about them, but because a lot of their policies are very good, with regards to privacy, advertising, etc. Of course, perhaps you could consider those part of the decision regarding which search engine is out front. So let me phrase it this way: I hope that Google, or an equally 'fair' search engine has the best search technology.