If I was told a tidbit of medical advice came from Dr. Dean Edell I'd have weighted that higher than if I'd been told it came from Dr. Laura. This would be based on having heard each of them dispense advice in the past.
Now if they asked people who had never used a search engine and they rated them based on the name, then I'd call it "branding". But if the people polled had past experience with one or more of the search engines, that direct experience is liable to have a much greater influence than name recognition only.
Isn't there a difference between branding and reputation?
It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The cell carriers have been squeezing the phone manufacturers for years, discounting the hardware to get customers locked in for 1-2 years. This has had the effect of people thinking of phones as "free" or "cheap"
Last phone I got was through Amazon. Why? Because it was almost $100 less than the same phone right from the carrier with the same plan. After rebates it cost me negative money ( not counting service ). How does Amazon do this? They get a cut for each customer they get to sign up or extend service. So the carriers are making the hardware look cheap and slipping money to the retailer.
This is part of the reason people said Apple was nuts to make a cell phone, the manufacturers have been getting squeezed for years. Apple instead said no, no discounts and they want the kickback for new contracts. The carriers have been making tons of money in the long run and Apple wants a piece of the action.
In reality, they don't need a partner. Europe has even more MVNOs than the U.S. They could buy minutes in bulk and sell the phones themselves. They may not want to, but they could.
A partner also isn't necessary for visual voicemail. All of these phones have internet access. I already use a 3rd party for my cell phone voicemail since it provides more features ( YouMail.com ) I have the option to get an SMS when I have voicemail that tells me who the message was from, and have it delivered via email as well as the indicator on my phone. It would not be hard for Apple to do the voicemail part themselves, independent of the carrier.
So the whole article is BS. By choosing GSM Apple has a phone than can be used in more countries than any other, and enabled with a new carrier just by slipping in a new SIM. By going with GSM they're out of the Broadcom/Qualcomm fight as well.
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States...
emphasis added
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that we have to articles posted by anonymous readers linking to "famous author" M*Farland, but it struck me as odd. Especially since he commented on the USB story. Could there little astroturfing going on?
It's not like we haven't seen that before ( Roland P* )
Yes, this is the case, and it's an important inequity. But it would not be a "unilateral" release of information by the doctor if it was initiated by the patient.
A patient can give a doctor permission to release their medical information. In some cases public disclosure and discussion should be considered a release. Just saying "I have cancer" would not be enough, but there there should be a point where the situation is no longer considered private due to the patient's own disclosure.
The part I've wanted to see discussed are the doctors rights to publicly rebut a site that complains about them. Under strict medical privacy laws it's not like a doctor could ( or should ) reveal medical details or photos in a public forum. So if a patient complains and sets up a web site, does that absolve the doctor in question from any requirements for maintaing confidentiality? When I heard about this and other similar sites, that was one of my first questions. If not, from a public opinion point of view they're screwed.
I firmly believe that a patient should have the right to critisize their doctor, but I also believe the doctors should have the ablitly to defend themselves. I'd have liked to have seen part of a ruling that said they were no longer required to keep confidentiality for that particular patient.
If the doctor is not in a position to put up a web site, with pictures and inimate details of a patient who's gone public, then that person should be refrained from going public. Since that's pretty hard to enforce retroactively the only recourse seems to view the patient's public proclamations as relinquishing all privacy rights with respect to the doctor or hospital involved.
Headlines are different for a newspaper where you're trying to draw attention to a story when someone's already on the page. The reader is already looking there, you need to catch their attention to a portion of the page, you're not attracting them to a paper on a rack. For readers who are searching for a specific story, clear and concise is the way to be found.
There's still room for "style" in headlines. If it's your paper ( webpage) someone's looking at, use catchy titles to draw the eye. On pages that are specific to a story, stick with the clear and concise. By that time you've got their attention and it's the time to start giving the information they are looking for.
Search engines are going to deep link to the story's page anyway, so there's no need to resort to funny at that point.
If a large enough group falls for the misinformation, and the instructor is actually paying attention, the result might be to effect the grade curve enough to boost your accurate report.
Bluetooth must be a recent edition since this page http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2986976174.html says that Bluetooth and WiFi will be included in a follow up model.
As of December, it seems the BT status was unknown http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/2006 -December/000929.html
The biggest missing bit according to the linked spec page is bluetooth. Wi-Fi would be nice for surfing at higher speed, but no bluetooth is hard to understand. This makes syncing more difficult, no wireless headsets.
In theory someone might be able to cobble up something to the USB ( if it supports host or on-the-go ), but that would be pretty clunky. A tiny micro-sd adapter maybe?
It's hard to imagine the hardware being built with 640x480 screen, GPS and no bluetooth.
It's such a shame there are so many idiots and that a good percentage of them work in the media. Google doesn't have a fleet of satellites buzzing overhead watching our every move. They buy existing satellite and aerial imagery from commercial sources. These sources are US and non-US based. Google made deals on bulk purchases of the *existing* data and make it cheaper, but they didn't create it.
Also, the same clueless people assume this is all satellite imagery. The "good stuff" is actually lower level aerial photos shot from airplanes. Yep, someone flew right over the tops of those places and were paid to do so. So, like most of the other "secrets" Google is blamed for revealing these pictures were already out there and available.
Hmm, I wonder if anyone in charge of security for those bases ever looked on Google Earth to see just what was visible? If investigators found printouts that showed vulnerable locations then those same vulnerabilities would have been visible to the security people. By seeing what was freely available to the outside world they could have taken precautions to reduce the risk.
Unless the attacks came just hours after new imagery was posted on Google Earth, then the security people screwed up royally.
There's a big difference between every opposing viewpoint and *no* opposing viewpoint.
I'll agree that the guy who spearheaded the campaign was a nutjob, but nothing in the article backed up the showing of the DVD as a tool for discussion. Hopefully that's what it was.
Exactly. Use the DVD as a teaching tool. Teach the kids to look at it critically, find fault ( if they can ) and draw conclusions. Experiment, research the facts.
Spoonfeeding them the answer and expecting them to swallow it without thinking isn't teaching, it's brainwashing. Even if you're brainwashing with correct information, it's still brainwashing.
A resonable science class wouldn't just tell students that oxygen is necessary for a candle to burn, but would allow the students to experiment to "prove" it to themselves, to observe the conditions that drove someone else to that conclusion years ago.
If you teach that a DVD is 100% correct, and one single fact turns out to be incorrect, does it invalidate the whole DVD? No, but coming to that conclusion requires critical thinking, and critical thinking needs to be taught.
It's not unreasonable that some would argue with single viewpoints being presented to schoolchildren. When the US President gives the State of the Union speech there is always a "contrasting" speech given by which ever major politcal party the President doesn't belong to. Actually most of the public speeches elict a response from "the other side". For split Supreme Court decisions there will be a majority and a minority opinion. For close votes the minority opinion is usually given close scrutiny. It's a given that the US goverment will speak from two different viewpoints. "Opposing Opinion" is not something new around here.
Are the teachers who are using "An Inconvenient Truth" as part of the curriculum allowing for any debate? Are they presenting any opposing points, even as part of a discussion as to why these other points might not have merit? Or, are they popping in a DVD and letting the word "Truth" in the title say it all?
The scariest line in the article was the one from the producer of the DVD "There is no opposing view to science". This implies that "science" is static, we'll never learn more and if we do learn more it will never conflict with what we know now. What a moron.
Only an idiot would declare the DVD all wrong. But only an idiot would swallow it all just because it was labled "science".
The only people who have "reported" that are smoking crack. That would mean the same financially as "get a $20 a month plan and we'll give you a free iPhone".
The price talked about is the subsidized price. The requirement to is to sign up for a 24 month service agreement to get the subsidized price.
I've seen the bumperstickers saying "The Worst Day Fishing is Better than the Best Day Working". That kind of sums it up. Even if it's the best place in the world to work, if you don't have to work and can be doing something else, there's a lot of fun things out there.
There are lots of people out there who "love their jobs", but in reality it's only relative. They love their jobs, when compared to other jobs. If you don't have to work, there are lots of other things to do out there.
I didn't see anywhere that the donors were forbidden to retrieve their donations, or the account holder unable to refund all donations. If either of these were possible, then all the effort spent in complaining could be replaced with retracting the money and sending to a new account ( paypal or otherwise ).
The article has a post by someone who mentions haveing a charity account problem with Paypal in the past where they told PayPal to refund everyone's money. If that's possible then the money could be pulled out of the account by the donors and re-sent in less time than the current 3 month delay . Because they're pissed the authors make a stink about the 180 freeze, but since it looks like it based on the October creation date of the account April is only 90 days away.
Actually the range for the Volt is 600 miles, not 40 due to the generator. The build cost for that is more reasonable than 5x the batteries, and allows for longer trips. It looks like a smart idea. The electric portion of the car can be generic, while the generator could be gas, diesel, biodiesel, hydrogen or fuel cell. I doubt GM's plan is to sell the car for $100K
Going longer on batteries is nice, but not everyone would agree that going a big further per charge is worth it if it reduces the ability for actual long distance driving. Some people have resorted to pulling trailers with generators for "pure" electric cars for long trips, so this is a much tidier solution. A car only useful for short trips would work for some people, but one that can directly replace an existing car where you don't have to worry about where the next charging location is will have much greater appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
If I was told a tidbit of medical advice came from Dr. Dean Edell I'd have weighted that higher than if I'd been told it came from Dr. Laura. This would be based on having heard each of them dispense advice in the past.
Now if they asked people who had never used a search engine and they rated them based on the name, then I'd call it "branding". But if the people polled had past experience with one or more of the search engines, that direct experience is liable to have a much greater influence than name recognition only.
Isn't there a difference between branding and reputation?
It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The cell carriers have been squeezing the phone manufacturers for years, discounting the hardware to get customers locked in for 1-2 years. This has had the effect of people thinking of phones as "free" or "cheap"
Last phone I got was through Amazon. Why? Because it was almost $100 less than the same phone right from the carrier with the same plan. After rebates it cost me negative money ( not counting service ). How does Amazon do this? They get a cut for each customer they get to sign up or extend service. So the carriers are making the hardware look cheap and slipping money to the retailer.
This is part of the reason people said Apple was nuts to make a cell phone, the manufacturers have been getting squeezed for years. Apple instead said no, no discounts and they want the kickback for new contracts. The carriers have been making tons of money in the long run and Apple wants a piece of the action.
In reality, they don't need a partner. Europe has even more MVNOs than the U.S. They could buy minutes in bulk and sell the phones themselves. They may not want to, but they could.
A partner also isn't necessary for visual voicemail. All of these phones have internet access. I already use a 3rd party for my cell phone voicemail since it provides more features ( YouMail.com ) I have the option to get an SMS when I have voicemail that tells me who the message was from, and have it delivered via email as well as the indicator on my phone. It would not be hard for Apple to do the voicemail part themselves, independent of the carrier.
So the whole article is BS. By choosing GSM Apple has a phone than can be used in more countries than any other, and enabled with a new carrier just by slipping in a new SIM. By going with GSM they're out of the Broadcom/Qualcomm fight as well.
This seems to confuse the car makers with the oil companies. Got to keep those conspiracy theorys straight.
Actually, you have a year from the time you publish or offer for sale a product that includes the invention.
t s/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documen
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States...
emphasis added
The first chapter in "Omnivore's Dillema" is pretty much all about corn.
http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=5
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that we have to articles posted by anonymous readers linking to "famous author" M*Farland, but it struck me as odd. Especially since he commented on the USB story. Could there little astroturfing going on?
It's not like we haven't seen that before ( Roland P* )
Yes, this is the case, and it's an important inequity. But it would not be a "unilateral" release of information by the doctor if it was initiated by the patient.
A patient can give a doctor permission to release their medical information. In some cases public disclosure and discussion should be considered a release. Just saying "I have cancer" would not be enough, but there there should be a point where the situation is no longer considered private due to the patient's own disclosure.
The part I've wanted to see discussed are the doctors rights to publicly rebut a site that complains about them. Under strict medical privacy laws it's not like a doctor could ( or should ) reveal medical details or photos in a public forum. So if a patient complains and sets up a web site, does that absolve the doctor in question from any requirements for maintaing confidentiality? When I heard about this and other similar sites, that was one of my first questions. If not, from a public opinion point of view they're screwed.
I firmly believe that a patient should have the right to critisize their doctor, but I also believe the doctors should have the ablitly to defend themselves. I'd have liked to have seen part of a ruling that said they were no longer required to keep confidentiality for that particular patient.
If the doctor is not in a position to put up a web site, with pictures and inimate details of a patient who's gone public, then that person should be refrained from going public. Since that's pretty hard to enforce retroactively the only recourse seems to view the patient's public proclamations as relinquishing all privacy rights with respect to the doctor or hospital involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_Nix_Hick_Pix
Headlines are different for a newspaper where you're trying to draw attention to a story when someone's already on the page. The reader is already looking there, you need to catch their attention to a portion of the page, you're not attracting them to a paper on a rack. For readers who are searching for a specific story, clear and concise is the way to be found.
There's still room for "style" in headlines. If it's your paper ( webpage) someone's looking at, use catchy titles to draw the eye. On pages that are specific to a story, stick with the clear and concise. By that time you've got their attention and it's the time to start giving the information they are looking for.
Search engines are going to deep link to the story's page anyway, so there's no need to resort to funny at that point.
If a large enough group falls for the misinformation, and the instructor is actually paying attention, the result might be to effect the grade curve enough to boost your accurate report.
That's close to what OpenDNS does. If the name does not resolve, it will give a best guess and show you an advertising page. They will also redirect you around known phishing sites.
http://www.opendns.com/what/smarter.php
http://www.opendns.com/what/safer.php
No difference in typosquatting results, but instead of getting a "not found" error you'll get an ad page if it's a typo they can't resolve.
Hmm... the specs here: http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html list the following, stopping short of the Bluetooth line
l says that Bluetooth and WiFi will be included in a follow up model.
6 -December/000929.html
Hardware
Bluetooth must be a recent edition since this page http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2986976174.htm
As of December, it seems the BT status was unknown http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/200
I'll be crossing my fingers
The biggest missing bit according to the linked spec page is bluetooth. Wi-Fi would be nice for surfing at higher speed, but no bluetooth is hard to understand. This makes syncing more difficult, no wireless headsets.
In theory someone might be able to cobble up something to the USB ( if it supports host or on-the-go ), but that would be pretty clunky. A tiny micro-sd adapter maybe?
It's hard to imagine the hardware being built with 640x480 screen, GPS and no bluetooth.
"Before Google got on board? So the importance is the "giving it away" part? That looks like a deliberately deceptive post.
s trynews92401.html
Keyhole, the company Google bought, had their EarthViewer 3D application as far back as 2001. That app eventually became Google Earth.
http://www.eomonline.com/Common/industrynews/indu
Unless your only point was that NASA made it free first, but this discussion so far hasn't been about the cost of imagery, but the availability.
It's such a shame there are so many idiots and that a good percentage of them work in the media. Google doesn't have a fleet of satellites buzzing overhead watching our every move. They buy existing satellite and aerial imagery from commercial sources. These sources are US and non-US based. Google made deals on bulk purchases of the *existing* data and make it cheaper, but they didn't create it.
Also, the same clueless people assume this is all satellite imagery. The "good stuff" is actually lower level aerial photos shot from airplanes. Yep, someone flew right over the tops of those places and were paid to do so.
So, like most of the other "secrets" Google is blamed for revealing these pictures were already out there and available.
Hmm, I wonder if anyone in charge of security for those bases ever looked on Google Earth to see just what was visible? If investigators found printouts that showed vulnerable locations then those same vulnerabilities would have been visible to the security people. By seeing what was freely available to the outside world they could have taken precautions to reduce the risk.
Unless the attacks came just hours after new imagery was posted on Google Earth, then the security people screwed up royally.
There's a big difference between every opposing viewpoint and *no* opposing viewpoint.
I'll agree that the guy who spearheaded the campaign was a nutjob, but nothing in the article backed up the showing of the DVD as a tool for discussion. Hopefully that's what it was.
Exactly. Use the DVD as a teaching tool. Teach the kids to look at it critically, find fault ( if they can ) and draw conclusions. Experiment, research the facts.
Spoonfeeding them the answer and expecting them to swallow it without thinking isn't teaching, it's brainwashing. Even if you're brainwashing with correct information, it's still brainwashing.
A resonable science class wouldn't just tell students that oxygen is necessary for a candle to burn, but would allow the students to experiment to "prove" it to themselves, to observe the conditions that drove someone else to that conclusion years ago.
If you teach that a DVD is 100% correct, and one single fact turns out to be incorrect, does it invalidate the whole DVD? No, but coming to that conclusion requires critical thinking, and critical thinking needs to be taught.
It's not unreasonable that some would argue with single viewpoints being presented to schoolchildren.
When the US President gives the State of the Union speech there is always a "contrasting" speech given by which ever major politcal party the President doesn't belong to. Actually most of the public speeches elict a response from "the other side". For split Supreme Court decisions there will be a majority and a minority opinion. For close votes the minority opinion is usually given close scrutiny. It's a given that the US goverment will speak from two different viewpoints. "Opposing Opinion" is not something new around here.
Are the teachers who are using "An Inconvenient Truth" as part of the curriculum allowing for any debate? Are they presenting any opposing points, even as part of a discussion as to why these other points might not have merit? Or, are they popping in a DVD and letting the word "Truth" in the title say it all?
The scariest line in the article was the one from the producer of the DVD "There is no opposing view to science". This implies that "science" is static, we'll never learn more and if we do learn more it will never conflict with what we know now. What a moron.
Only an idiot would declare the DVD all wrong. But only an idiot would swallow it all just because it was labled "science".
The only people who have "reported" that are smoking crack. That would mean the same financially as "get a $20 a month plan and we'll give you a free iPhone".
The price talked about is the subsidized price.
The requirement to is to sign up for a 24 month service agreement to get the subsidized price.
I've seen the bumperstickers saying "The Worst Day Fishing is Better than the Best Day Working". That kind of sums it up. Even if it's the best place in the world to work, if you don't have to work and can be doing something else, there's a lot of fun things out there.
There are lots of people out there who "love their jobs", but in reality it's only relative. They love their jobs, when compared to other jobs. If you don't have to work, there are lots of other things to do out there.
This page where the fund is mentioned: http://www.deadspin.com/sports/adam-knox-fund/intr oducing-the-adam-knox-fund-205453.php is six months from the April date.
The freeze then creates a 90 day delay from now, but 180 sounds more dramatic.
I didn't see anywhere that the donors were forbidden to retrieve their donations, or the account holder unable to refund all donations. If either of these were possible, then all the effort spent in complaining could be replaced with retracting the money and sending to a new account ( paypal or otherwise ).
The article has a post by someone who mentions haveing a charity account problem with Paypal in the past where they told PayPal to refund everyone's money. If that's possible then the money could be pulled out of the account by the donors and re-sent in less time than the current 3 month delay . Because they're pissed the authors make a stink about the 180 freeze, but since it looks like it based on the October creation date of the account April is only 90 days away.
Actually the range for the Volt is 600 miles, not 40 due to the generator. The build cost for that is more reasonable than 5x the batteries, and allows for longer trips. It looks like a smart idea. The electric portion of the car can be generic, while the generator could be gas, diesel, biodiesel, hydrogen or fuel cell. I doubt GM's plan is to sell the car for $100K
Going longer on batteries is nice, but not everyone would agree that going a big further per charge is worth it if it reduces the ability for actual long distance driving. Some people have resorted to pulling trailers with generators for "pure" electric cars for long trips, so this is a much tidier solution. A car only useful for short trips would work for some people, but one that can directly replace an existing car where you don't have to worry about where the next charging location is will have much greater appeal.
It's not ads, but I've always been impressed by what you get if you search Google and and are offered maps as options.
Search Google for "map san francisco" at almost the top of the page you'll see links for :
Map of San Francisco, CA
Google Maps - Yahoo! Maps - MapQuest
You could argue about them being first, but they give you links to two other popular mapping sites right up top.
Do the same search on Yahoo! Lower than the Yahoo map you'll find a link to MapQuest, but nowhere on the page is Google.
So is that Google advertising Yahoo for free?
That's the precedent I first thought of when I read their post.