We do not have a pre-university education system. We have instead a 12-year long babysitting system were people can go through and learn nothing.
This is inflamatory and false. The US has not one, but 50+ pre-university education systems. Some of these education systems work very well. A quick search on the internet shows that there are several resources on the Internet that compare the quality of schools across the United States.
The idea that everybody is an appropriate candidate for a university degree is also a problem. For many people, focused vocational education is a more efficient method of preparing for productive work.
Well, it's either well-thought-out satire, or... (shudder)... not.
Since it does a pretty thorough job of touching on all the so-called "conservative" talking points, complete with contradictory positions (hard to accomplish without a clear head and an eye on the news), I'm thinking there are no meds involved.
Agreed. This would save a fortune for the government, as well as all the vendors (and banks) who accept (and therefore have to spend time sorting) coins.
Interesting point. I've been on the publishing and browsing sides of this.
As someone developing technical information, it's extremely valuable to know the information Google Analytics provides. It helps tell content creators how useful their content is to the intended audience, whether to invest in translation (and to which languages), and whether it's worth developing more information on a given subject.
As a browser, I generally don't allow Google Analytics and other tracking mechanisms in NoScript, because of general paranoia about being tracked.
For now, I have developed a two-browser web-use approach: I use Google Chrome (or Chromium, depending) for everything I do as a signed-in Google user. For general web-browsing, I use Firefox with NoScript.
I'm somewhat conflicted about the fact that I'm hypocritical in my desire for Google Analytics data while I refuse to provide that useful data to web sites.
Perhaps what I really should do it have a third browser (or configuration), so I have one where I'm promiscuous within Gmail, Google+, and Calendar, a second where I allow traffic analytics when I'm browsing work-related information, and a third, paranoid config for... um... recreational browsing.
One might suggest it's the people who wouldn't pay for Whitney Houston's music until after she died who were doing something "in bad taste". So much for supporting artists while they're sitll alive.
Is there any evidence that climate change is not happening as described scientists working for politically varied governments around the world?
Doesn't it seem that active climate-change denial and science opposition is a US-based phenomenon, being used for political and financial gain? Is this the "invisible hand" at work?
I guess a lot of people will mention examples of stuff that works well (like inFamous, in my opinion). But that's because it's a game with ability to make decisions that affect how the game world responds to you. And it's gameplay-driven, rather than cutscene-driven.
But the games with stories driven by cutscenes to create narrative are generally boring. Some of these are like an animated movie with some gameplay elements thrown in to drag out the story.
And for the record: Unlike the classic Monster cable products, Beats by Dre products are actually better quality than the cheapest generic competing product you can find.
The good news is that this problem only seems to affect "pop" music (including popular genres such as Rock, Hip-Hop, Countrry, and Western). Jazz and orchestral seem to be uninvolved.
The bad news is that there is a lot of great new "pop" music, and many of the records have terrible sound quality because of what you describe well as the loudnesswar.
Example: One of the last big label pop albums I bought (a country record) had a beautiful "hit song" on it that was ruined because the "loudness adjustment" caused loud crackling distortion on the recording.
Seriously, though, the interesting question is: If you are going to be evaluated on your job performance, would you prefer it to be done in part using an automated system as described in the patent, or completely by a manager who may have no effective way of understanding your programming work?
As a previous responder indicated, Google didn't violate their contracts with businesses. The implication that they are violating their business agreements is unfounded.
Mmmm.... I missed how having the consistent privacy policy was evil. Disappointing? Maybe. Frustrating? Possibly. But doing the web equivalent of standing in front of you with a megaphone telling you it's important that you know about and understand the unification of their privacy policy is "evil"?
Actually, I think Google is only removing content from their site. If I understand correctly, they're not affecting anyone's search results in this case.
The answer SHOULD be you can trust YOUR lawyer. This is a big problem when your lawyer represents your legal opponent, which is a straightforward conflict of interest. When your law firm represents your legal opponent (as in this case) this is a still a conflict of interest.
Generally, lawyers/firms know better than to allow this sort of problem to arise, because it can result in loss of clients/revenue (among other things).
I never used Lycos, but as I understand it Alta Vista introduced automatic web spidering (which is how they beat the original version of Yahoo).
Saying "Alta Vista sucked" because it wasn't better than something that didn't exist yet is a throughly warped historical perspective.
No, I say Altavista sucked because I used it a lot, and it frequently didn't return relevant, useful results. Lycos also sucked for the same reason. Yahoo was actually better than the others, in a way: They categorized a lot of significant Internet sites, so you could find stuff by navigating their links even though their search wasn't very good. Google was the first search engine that didn't suck (that is, it returned relevant search results almost always in the first page). These days, Yahoo and Bing also don't suck.
No, you have content on your site that's relevant to searchers. If you don't have content, people won't go to your site.
Actually no, the "content" on your site doesn't much matter, what matters is whether you can include some key terms that don't exist on all the already higher ranked pages. If you do succeed in jumping on something fast, you have to climb PageRank mountain faster than the "journalists" at the various already-higher-ranked sites can spew "content" vaguely related to what you've been contenting about.
I'm glad to hear that the marketroids have all moved on to "social media", and that wikipedia is now safe.
If you don't have content on your site, nobody will care, whether that "content" is code, text, or pictures. Some text is necessary to explain what the non-text stuff is.
The point of my social media comment is that if a social media "someone" (e.g. Linus Torvalds, Neal Patrick Harris, etc.) thinks that your stuff is cool, you'll get visibility.
Ultimately, if nobody cares about what's on your site, it doesn't matter how high your search rank is. If you have something interesting, people will get interested. But "gaming" wikipedia may not be the most effective way of getting the attention you want.
The scientific method is a simple, well-tested, approach to empirical study of a subject. The scientific method is as complete as it needs to be. However, if the method is not applied rigorously, the results will not be reliable.
"Truth" is not part of the scientific method, and has a very ambiguous meaning. Furthermore, capitalizing the letter T in truth suggests interest in something other than science.
True enough. There were "Internet search" sites, but they all totally sucked.
Well no, actually they didn't. You needed to know what you were doing, and have some skill at refining searches and so on, but altavista was a pretty fucking amazing innovation.
Altavista may have been better than what came before it (was it really better than Lycos, other than indexing more pages?), but compared to Google, it really did suck. The amount of time it took to craft a search that found what I wanted on Altavista was ridiculous compared to finding the same information with Google. Altavista provided Bablefish - that was the piece that made them relevant to me after the appearance of Google.
Since we're on the subject of innovation, how exactly does a new site get established in a post-google world where no one will see you down there on page 17 of the search results?
(Answer: you game wikipedia with self-promotional edits, so that there's lots of buzz about you in the top ranked link on google... )
No, you have content on your site that's relevant to searchers. If you don't have content, people won't go to your site. Also, instead of gaming Wikipedia, you learn about this new-fangled "social media" thing, and start a community around your product/subject of interest on Facebook, Google+, etc. If you have something that interests people, social media can attract lots of attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I asked 10 mechanics, and I got 14 different answers.
Probably because two were from Harvard.
We do not have a pre-university education system. We have instead a 12-year long babysitting system were people can go through and learn nothing.
This is inflamatory and false. The US has not one, but 50+ pre-university education systems. Some of these education systems work very well. A quick search on the internet shows that there are several resources on the Internet that compare the quality of schools across the United States.
The idea that everybody is an appropriate candidate for a university degree is also a problem. For many people, focused vocational education is a more efficient method of preparing for productive work.
If you actually go to the article (I know, I know,) you can see that he IS complaining about Adobe as well as others who are guilty of this.
Well, it's either well-thought-out satire, or... (shudder) ... not.
Since it does a pretty thorough job of touching on all the so-called "conservative" talking points, complete with contradictory positions (hard to accomplish without a clear head and an eye on the news), I'm thinking there are no meds involved.
Agreed. This would save a fortune for the government, as well as all the vendors (and banks) who accept (and therefore have to spend time sorting) coins.
I'm on board; let's make it happen. :-)
Interesting point. I've been on the publishing and browsing sides of this.
As someone developing technical information, it's extremely valuable to know the information Google Analytics provides. It helps tell content creators how useful their content is to the intended audience, whether to invest in translation (and to which languages), and whether it's worth developing more information on a given subject.
As a browser, I generally don't allow Google Analytics and other tracking mechanisms in NoScript, because of general paranoia about being tracked.
For now, I have developed a two-browser web-use approach: I use Google Chrome (or Chromium, depending) for everything I do as a signed-in Google user. For general web-browsing, I use Firefox with NoScript.
I'm somewhat conflicted about the fact that I'm hypocritical in my desire for Google Analytics data while I refuse to provide that useful data to web sites.
Perhaps what I really should do it have a third browser (or configuration), so I have one where I'm promiscuous within Gmail, Google+, and Calendar, a second where I allow traffic analytics when I'm browsing work-related information, and a third, paranoid config for... um... recreational browsing.
One might suggest it's the people who wouldn't pay for Whitney Houston's music until after she died who were doing something "in bad taste". So much for supporting artists while they're sitll alive.
No! Then Ayn Rand's philosophy would lose relevance in the demographic of it's staunchest supporters!
Is there any evidence that climate change is not happening as described scientists working for politically varied governments around the world?
Doesn't it seem that active climate-change denial and science opposition is a US-based phenomenon, being used for political and financial gain? Is this the "invisible hand" at work?
Power corrupts people. Desire for power corrupts people's language.
No kidding... I used to use a hammer to write letters, too. Then I learned how to use the nailgun. Bam!
I guess a lot of people will mention examples of stuff that works well (like inFamous, in my opinion). But that's because it's a game with ability to make decisions that affect how the game world responds to you. And it's gameplay-driven, rather than cutscene-driven.
But the games with stories driven by cutscenes to create narrative are generally boring. Some of these are like an animated movie with some gameplay elements thrown in to drag out the story.
And for the record: Unlike the classic Monster cable products, Beats by Dre products are actually better quality than the cheapest generic competing product you can find.
Great. Now I feel dirty.
The good news is that this problem only seems to affect "pop" music (including popular genres such as Rock, Hip-Hop, Countrry, and Western). Jazz and orchestral seem to be uninvolved.
The bad news is that there is a lot of great new "pop" music, and many of the records have terrible sound quality because of what you describe well as the loudnesswar.
Example: One of the last big label pop albums I bought (a country record) had a beautiful "hit song" on it that was ruined because the "loudness adjustment" caused loud crackling distortion on the recording.
It's an edible product that appears to be terribly overpriced.
Hey, you with the facts and reasons, stop it!
Seriously, though, the interesting question is: If you are going to be evaluated on your job performance, would you prefer it to be done in part using an automated system as described in the patent, or completely by a manager who may have no effective way of understanding your programming work?
As a previous responder indicated, Google didn't violate their contracts with businesses. The implication that they are violating their business agreements is unfounded.
Mmmm.... I missed how having the consistent privacy policy was evil. Disappointing? Maybe. Frustrating? Possibly. But doing the web equivalent of standing in front of you with a megaphone telling you it's important that you know about and understand the unification of their privacy policy is "evil"?
This parent AC post is a verbatim copy of an AC post from yesterday.
Is this the work of an unimaginative troll, or of a paid advocate?
Should we dare hope?
No. But vote. And it would be a good idea to plan ahead for what to do after something similar gets passed.
Actually, I think Google is only removing content from their site. If I understand correctly, they're not affecting anyone's search results in this case.
The answer SHOULD be you can trust YOUR lawyer. This is a big problem when your lawyer represents your legal opponent, which is a straightforward conflict of interest. When your law firm represents your legal opponent (as in this case) this is a still a conflict of interest.
Generally, lawyers/firms know better than to allow this sort of problem to arise, because it can result in loss of clients/revenue (among other things).
I never used Lycos, but as I understand it Alta Vista introduced automatic web spidering (which is how they beat the original version of Yahoo).
Saying "Alta Vista sucked" because it wasn't better than something that didn't exist yet is a throughly warped historical perspective.
No, I say Altavista sucked because I used it a lot, and it frequently didn't return relevant, useful results. Lycos also sucked for the same reason. Yahoo was actually better than the others, in a way: They categorized a lot of significant Internet sites, so you could find stuff by navigating their links even though their search wasn't very good.
Google was the first search engine that didn't suck (that is, it returned relevant search results almost always in the first page). These days, Yahoo and Bing also don't suck.
Actually no, the "content" on your site doesn't much matter, what matters is whether you can include some key terms that don't exist on all the already higher ranked pages. If you do succeed in jumping on something fast, you have to climb PageRank mountain faster than the "journalists" at the various already-higher-ranked sites can spew "content" vaguely related to what you've been contenting about.
I'm glad to hear that the marketroids have all moved on to "social media", and that wikipedia is now safe.
If you don't have content on your site, nobody will care, whether that "content" is code, text, or pictures. Some text is necessary to explain what the non-text stuff is.
The point of my social media comment is that if a social media "someone" (e.g. Linus Torvalds, Neal Patrick Harris, etc.) thinks that your stuff is cool, you'll get visibility.
Ultimately, if nobody cares about what's on your site, it doesn't matter how high your search rank is. If you have something interesting, people will get interested. But "gaming" wikipedia may not be the most effective way of getting the attention you want.
The scientific method is a simple, well-tested, approach to empirical study of a subject. The scientific method is as complete as it needs to be. However, if the method is not applied rigorously, the results will not be reliable.
"Truth" is not part of the scientific method, and has a very ambiguous meaning. Furthermore, capitalizing the letter T in truth suggests interest in something other than science.
Well no, actually they didn't. You needed to know what you were doing, and have some skill at refining searches and so on, but altavista was a pretty fucking amazing innovation.
Altavista may have been better than what came before it (was it really better than Lycos, other than indexing more pages?), but compared to Google, it really did suck. The amount of time it took to craft a search that found what I wanted on Altavista was ridiculous compared to finding the same information with Google. Altavista provided Bablefish - that was the piece that made them relevant to me after the appearance of Google.
Since we're on the subject of innovation, how exactly does a new site get established in a post-google world where no one will see you down there on page 17 of the search results?
(Answer: you game wikipedia with self-promotional edits, so that there's lots of buzz about you in the top ranked link on google... )
No, you have content on your site that's relevant to searchers. If you don't have content, people won't go to your site. Also, instead of gaming Wikipedia, you learn about this new-fangled "social media" thing, and start a community around your product/subject of interest on Facebook, Google+, etc. If you have something that interests people, social media can attract lots of attention.