The most popular search is indeed "google". By a lot
Cite?
I found an article from July 2012 that said the top three search terms were "google", "goggle", and "googlle", but Bing's more recent press releases seem all to have just listed top queries by category (e.g. top queries for athletes, etc.), without providing any information about overall top search queries.
Google is hell-bent on making a magic textbox that "does everything" but that forces people to use additional keywords like "near" or "loc", which basically transforms the "single textbox" in a poorly implemented command-line. This is bad UX, plain and simple.
You're arguing that the command line is a bad UI? On slashdot? Well, I suppose you did say it's a "poorly implemented" command line, though not what's poor about it. I have my complaints about what Google has been doing to the search engine over the last few years, but they're about removing command line-ish features, not adding them.
I will grant that the bing "search within" box is a little friendlier than "site:slashdot.org". I prefer the latter because it's quicker, and because it fits the normal workflow better. How often do you think "I want to search for X and I saw a post about X on slashdot, so I'll search for slashdot?". I tend to think "I want to search for X". Then after getting search results which aren't getting me what I want I think "I think I saw that on slashdot", so I append "site:slashdot.org" to my query. It's much more natural. Or, for those who aren't savvy enough to use the "site:" argument, they can actually just append "slashdot" to their query and Google will generally figure it out and give them what they want.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, though not on search.)
The headline is not news. Everyone knows that the islands are all eroding away, except where new material is being added through volcanic action. But the story is about the ancient volcano that predated the volcano that we knew built the island. That's news, just poorly presented, in slashdot editorial tradition.
Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.
I use dual monitors, but rotate one of them to portrait orientation. Portrait is perfect for a web browser, since web pages are typically much longer than they are wide.
I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.
I do this, too, on my landscape-oriented monitor. I can tile three editor windows and a shell on it. Since my documentation, e-mail, etc., all tends to be web-based, that stuff is on the portrait monitor and my "work" on the landscape-oriented monitor. It's very productive.
With an ultra-wide monitor like this one, I could add another couple of columns. I'd like that.
Snowden and everybody but wikileaks saw fit to redact this for security reasons. This news isn't SNOWDEN betraying jack shit.
Well, Snowden betrayed it to Wikileaks.
On balance, I think the benefit of Snowden's actions far outweigh any damage done. Given that it likely wasn't practical for him to vet all the information, and that there was an overwhelming need to disclose the NSA's betrayal of its own people, I think he did the right thing and still consider him a hero. Nevertheless, I do agree that some of the NSA's foreign activities are legitimate and didn't need to be disclosed.
I thought the NSA were only supposed to operate locally
Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not, but I'll answer it. The NSA is specifically barred from domestic spying. They and the CIA are supposed to be focused on foreign intelligence. The agency that would operate locally is the FBI.
Also, let's see how it deals with a bi-directional bike lane where one of the lanes is against traffic. These exist in Montreal, as well as other places I'm sure. Instead of putting 1 bike lane on each side, they put them both on one side of the street. When turning across the bike lane, you have to watch out for cyclists coming from both directions.
Why in the world would you think that's a problem for a vehicle with LIDAR continuously scanning in all directions? Unlike a human who has to remember to look both directions, an automated car will always be looking in all directions.
Also, let's test in snow. I'm tired of these things that only work in sunny California. It's bad enough that cell phones don't work with gloves on. I would hate it if my car failed to operate when there was a little bit of snow falling.
Even if the computer couldn't handle driving in snow your car wouldn't "fail to operate", it would just fail to drive itself. You'd have to operate it, as you do now. One common concern about this situation is that your driving skills would atrophy and then be called upon in the worst conditions, but it's possible that you would be better at handling slick conditions if you didn't train yourself to assume the higher friction coefficients of clean, dry pavement.
Actually, though, I don't see why a self-driving car would have a lot of trouble with snow and ice. It would have to be programmed for it, but the car is likely better able than you to determine how much traction it has.
as long as 'business gets any damned thing they want', you mean.
Business is on both sides of this issue. Much of the tech industry is fighting for patent reform. And notice that universities are fighting against it. The issue isn't as cut and dried as you paint it.
If your noble stance hides the fact that you attach yourself to the fiber like a tick to suck value by monitoring my use of the service and selling that information to the highest bidder, then we have a problem.
FYI, Google doesn't sell personal data. Google uses personal data to decide what ads users might be interested in. Google makes those decisions, does not allow advertisers to make them, and doesn't even give advertisers terribly much control over who to target. Advertisers are fine with that since Google is much better at ad targeting than advertisers.
I don't believe Google collects any additional information from Fiber users; as an ISP, Google is just an ISP. But even if they did, they don't sell it.
Er, I should have mentioned: I'm a Google employee, but I speak only for myself, not Google. I don't work on or know much of anything about Fiber or ads, if I did I wouldn't have posted.
If your noble stance hides the fact that you attach yourself to the fiber like a tick to suck value by monitoring my use of the service and selling that information to the highest bidder, then we have a problem.
FYI, Google doesn't sell personal data. Google uses personal data to decide what ads users might be interested in. Google makes those decisions, does not allow advertisers to make them, and doesn't even give advertisers terribly much control over who to target. Advertisers are fine with that since Google is much better at ad targeting than advertisers.
I don't believe Google collects any additional information from Fiber users; as an ISP, Google is just an ISP. But even if they did, they don't sell it.
So given 2 otherwise equal people if one is very poor and the other wealthy they would have an equal education?
Of course not.
Culture may have an influence but the more dominant factor does seem to be SES.
I think the dominance is reversed, at least in K-12 education. At the university level money becomes much more important, obviously. I can't be troubled to look it up now, but there have been some slashdot articles about studies showing the strong link between K-12 educational success and culture.
This doesn't seem like something Google would do. I'm also curious about this supposed new Google subscription streaming music service. Why would Google launch a new service to compete with their existing Google Music All Access service?
This article doesn't make sense to me. I'm skeptical.
Who says private schools want or need to be exclusive? Some do, but certainly not all.
Private schools are the very definition of "exclusive". If you are unwilling to pay their fees (however high or low they are, for whatever reason), then you are excluded.
Well, certainly, though that interpretation of the phrase undermines the original point the AC above was trying to make. The claim was that private schools won't accept difficult kids, the reply was that to be exclusive you must exclude, and the basis for the exclusion being discussed clearly was not money. Other than the financial issue (which, as you note, needn't be a terribly high bar), there's no valid basis to claim that all private schools are exclusive.
a place isn't exclusive if it doesn't start excluding people.
Who says private schools want or need to be exclusive? Some do, but certainly not all. The one my son went to for a few years wasn't. And it was excellent.
You can't pretend that a lack of money doesn't cripple your chances of receiving a quality education.
Nonsense. If that were true, the low-income Asian immigrants would do poorly in school. In fact, they do better than rich white kids. Culture is the dominant factor... how much kids' families value education dictates how much effort kids put into school, and it's effort that matters more than anything.
I think the two stories are consistent, including the timelines... except that Levison's version in the Guardian omitted the June 28 warrant and his nearly three week failure to comply.
No license or insurance is required to own a car, only to drive it on public roads. The analogy with guns is the permission to carry a gun in public, which in most states does require training and a background check.
I'll agree that most gun owners support banning possession by people who've demonstrated a tendency for violently abusing the right.
As for "mainstream gun legislation" support, that depends on what it is. Most of the so-called "common sense gun laws" proposed lately do not enjoy much support from mainstream gun owners.
Meh. Look at the actual revenue of the NRA. The gun manufacturers contribute very close to 0% of it. Nearly all of it comes from individual members. Why would you think they'd focus mostly on representing their tiny minority contributions over their vast majority contributions?
Slashdot Mirror
The most popular search is indeed "google". By a lot
Cite?
I found an article from July 2012 that said the top three search terms were "google", "goggle", and "googlle", but Bing's more recent press releases seem all to have just listed top queries by category (e.g. top queries for athletes, etc.), without providing any information about overall top search queries.
Google is hell-bent on making a magic textbox that "does everything" but that forces people to use additional keywords like "near" or "loc", which basically transforms the "single textbox" in a poorly implemented command-line. This is bad UX, plain and simple.
You're arguing that the command line is a bad UI? On slashdot? Well, I suppose you did say it's a "poorly implemented" command line, though not what's poor about it. I have my complaints about what Google has been doing to the search engine over the last few years, but they're about removing command line-ish features, not adding them.
I will grant that the bing "search within" box is a little friendlier than "site:slashdot.org". I prefer the latter because it's quicker, and because it fits the normal workflow better. How often do you think "I want to search for X and I saw a post about X on slashdot, so I'll search for slashdot?". I tend to think "I want to search for X". Then after getting search results which aren't getting me what I want I think "I think I saw that on slashdot", so I append "site:slashdot.org" to my query. It's much more natural. Or, for those who aren't savvy enough to use the "site:" argument, they can actually just append "slashdot" to their query and Google will generally figure it out and give them what they want.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, though not on search.)
The headline is not news. Everyone knows that the islands are all eroding away, except where new material is being added through volcanic action. But the story is about the ancient volcano that predated the volcano that we knew built the island. That's news, just poorly presented, in slashdot editorial tradition.
You need to read the last sentence of the GP.
Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.
I use dual monitors, but rotate one of them to portrait orientation. Portrait is perfect for a web browser, since web pages are typically much longer than they are wide.
I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.
I do this, too, on my landscape-oriented monitor. I can tile three editor windows and a shell on it. Since my documentation, e-mail, etc., all tends to be web-based, that stuff is on the portrait monitor and my "work" on the landscape-oriented monitor. It's very productive.
With an ultra-wide monitor like this one, I could add another couple of columns. I'd like that.
Snowden and everybody but wikileaks saw fit to redact this for security reasons. This news isn't SNOWDEN betraying jack shit.
Well, Snowden betrayed it to Wikileaks.
On balance, I think the benefit of Snowden's actions far outweigh any damage done. Given that it likely wasn't practical for him to vet all the information, and that there was an overwhelming need to disclose the NSA's betrayal of its own people, I think he did the right thing and still consider him a hero. Nevertheless, I do agree that some of the NSA's foreign activities are legitimate and didn't need to be disclosed.
I thought the NSA were only supposed to operate locally
Not sure if this is tongue in cheek or not, but I'll answer it. The NSA is specifically barred from domestic spying. They and the CIA are supposed to be focused on foreign intelligence. The agency that would operate locally is the FBI.
Also, let's see how it deals with a bi-directional bike lane where one of the lanes is against traffic. These exist in Montreal, as well as other places I'm sure. Instead of putting 1 bike lane on each side, they put them both on one side of the street. When turning across the bike lane, you have to watch out for cyclists coming from both directions.
Why in the world would you think that's a problem for a vehicle with LIDAR continuously scanning in all directions? Unlike a human who has to remember to look both directions, an automated car will always be looking in all directions.
Also, let's test in snow. I'm tired of these things that only work in sunny California. It's bad enough that cell phones don't work with gloves on. I would hate it if my car failed to operate when there was a little bit of snow falling.
Even if the computer couldn't handle driving in snow your car wouldn't "fail to operate", it would just fail to drive itself. You'd have to operate it, as you do now. One common concern about this situation is that your driving skills would atrophy and then be called upon in the worst conditions, but it's possible that you would be better at handling slick conditions if you didn't train yourself to assume the higher friction coefficients of clean, dry pavement.
Actually, though, I don't see why a self-driving car would have a lot of trouble with snow and ice. It would have to be programmed for it, but the car is likely better able than you to determine how much traction it has.
as long as 'business gets any damned thing they want', you mean.
Business is on both sides of this issue. Much of the tech industry is fighting for patent reform. And notice that universities are fighting against it. The issue isn't as cut and dried as you paint it.
It isn't as if the lobbyists were holding a gun to their head and forcing them to take the contributions.
And it isn't even as if there weren't other lobbyists pushing for the reform.
If your noble stance hides the fact that you attach yourself to the fiber like a tick to suck value by monitoring my use of the service and selling that information to the highest bidder, then we have a problem.
FYI, Google doesn't sell personal data. Google uses personal data to decide what ads users might be interested in. Google makes those decisions, does not allow advertisers to make them, and doesn't even give advertisers terribly much control over who to target. Advertisers are fine with that since Google is much better at ad targeting than advertisers.
I don't believe Google collects any additional information from Fiber users; as an ISP, Google is just an ISP. But even if they did, they don't sell it.
Er, I should have mentioned: I'm a Google employee, but I speak only for myself, not Google. I don't work on or know much of anything about Fiber or ads, if I did I wouldn't have posted.
If your noble stance hides the fact that you attach yourself to the fiber like a tick to suck value by monitoring my use of the service and selling that information to the highest bidder, then we have a problem.
FYI, Google doesn't sell personal data. Google uses personal data to decide what ads users might be interested in. Google makes those decisions, does not allow advertisers to make them, and doesn't even give advertisers terribly much control over who to target. Advertisers are fine with that since Google is much better at ad targeting than advertisers.
I don't believe Google collects any additional information from Fiber users; as an ISP, Google is just an ISP. But even if they did, they don't sell it.
So given 2 otherwise equal people if one is very poor and the other wealthy they would have an equal education?
Of course not.
Culture may have an influence but the more dominant factor does seem to be SES.
I think the dominance is reversed, at least in K-12 education. At the university level money becomes much more important, obviously. I can't be troubled to look it up now, but there have been some slashdot articles about studies showing the strong link between K-12 educational success and culture.
This doesn't seem like something Google would do. I'm also curious about this supposed new Google subscription streaming music service. Why would Google launch a new service to compete with their existing Google Music All Access service?
This article doesn't make sense to me. I'm skeptical.
lock users into their platform by not allowing downloads of videos
Why would you need to download the video you uploaded? Or are you upset because you can't download other peoples' videos?
Private schools are the very definition of "exclusive". If you are unwilling to pay their fees (however high or low they are, for whatever reason), then you are excluded.
Well, certainly, though that interpretation of the phrase undermines the original point the AC above was trying to make. The claim was that private schools won't accept difficult kids, the reply was that to be exclusive you must exclude, and the basis for the exclusion being discussed clearly was not money. Other than the financial issue (which, as you note, needn't be a terribly high bar), there's no valid basis to claim that all private schools are exclusive.
A valid point, although it is worth noting that some immigrant cultures do better than others. Culture does matter.
a place isn't exclusive if it doesn't start excluding people.
Who says private schools want or need to be exclusive? Some do, but certainly not all. The one my son went to for a few years wasn't. And it was excellent.
You can't pretend that a lack of money doesn't cripple your chances of receiving a quality education.
Nonsense. If that were true, the low-income Asian immigrants would do poorly in school. In fact, they do better than rich white kids. Culture is the dominant factor... how much kids' families value education dictates how much effort kids put into school, and it's effort that matters more than anything.
I think there is a difference between "refuses to comply" and "fails to comply" but the articles don't do a good job of explaining which.
True, although I don't think a judge would see a difference.
I think the two stories are consistent, including the timelines... except that Levison's version in the Guardian omitted the June 28 warrant and his nearly three week failure to comply.
No license or insurance is required to own a car, only to drive it on public roads. The analogy with guns is the permission to carry a gun in public, which in most states does require training and a background check.
I'll agree that most gun owners support banning possession by people who've demonstrated a tendency for violently abusing the right.
As for "mainstream gun legislation" support, that depends on what it is. Most of the so-called "common sense gun laws" proposed lately do not enjoy much support from mainstream gun owners.
Meh. Look at the actual revenue of the NRA. The gun manufacturers contribute very close to 0% of it. Nearly all of it comes from individual members. Why would you think they'd focus mostly on representing their tiny minority contributions over their vast majority contributions?
Well, you were and are wrong. You can now revise your opinion and move from being wrong to being right (on this topic).
You're welcome :-)