and when Windows has gotten it wrong by so much that the progress bar is 5 times the width of my monitor, what then? There might as well not be a progress bar if it is possible you won't see the end and it has been stated many times that going backwards is an even less desirable option. Perhaps (as most applications already do this) displaying a progress bar as progress of actions AND a timer to expected completion is ideal as it informs the user of both the action completion state and the time frame associated with the remaining actions. Of course the same question could be asked 'Why is it so hard to make an accurate timer?'.
I think you are confusing time measurement with progress measurement. The progress is still 25% complete whether it will take 5 minutes or 5 days to complete the other 75%. For example: when sending an e-mail, there are approx 4 steps. Write content, attach files, address e-mail recipient and send. While these steps will taking varying amounts of time (0 being a possible amount of time) for every e-mail, they still constitute 25% of your 'progress' in sending said e-mail.
This was mentioned at the alpha launch(es), I guess it was an oversight on 'real' launch day. Being able to write 1 app that with little to no code change runs on a BB tablet or phone will be huge for bringing the BB app store back into the light. Not to mention to android OS support making porting a piece of cake.
The camera on a smartphone has evolved to having near quality of a professional camera. That said it is NOT a professional camera. When I take a picture with my phone I want it to capture the moment decently and for the size of a dime they go far beyond what anyone realistically needs. If I wanted amazing quality photos I would use a camera with proper optical zoom, etc. Basing a smart phone on 1 feature of which should not be primary is hardly advisable. That would be like not buying the perfect car because the horn sound isn't a perfect pitch. Sure you use it and some days more than others, but it is not core functionality and should be weighted as such.
Repeating the same thing in different terms does not amount to a meaningful opinion. Generally a reason or fact follows such statements as a sign of supporting evidence.
There's no denying RIM's made some mistakes and targeted the wrong audience with there recent devices, but from everything I've seen the BB10 is a real turnaround to what they do right and what people want. Business oriented, with speed and just a touch of flashiness to go with it. If people can get it out of their head that RIM is dead (which they're not: no debt and rising stock prices, over hiring resulting in mass layoffs, etc., but that's a discussion for another time) they might just find the new BB10 isn't half bad.
The first model of the BB10 labelled 'N' is a full touch. Expect the model 'L' which will run OS 10 to resemble something closer to a BB Bold with your ever desired physical keys.
There are technicalities on both sides, but the idea of using proxies does imply a certain amount of expected of privacy (similar to using a vpn) which can be enough in some countries to have these lawsuits dropped or thrown out.
The idea that something so complex could be automatic in a bird's perception based on visible traits is very interesting, but what intrigues me more is the possible correlation this could have to other species including humans. Immune malfunction, more specifically auto-immune disorders can be some of the hardest to diagnose (some can't actually be confirmed, only determined that you don't have anything else) and they have all sort of symptoms that resemble colds, allergies and other more easily diagnosed issues/illnesses. The idea that something visible could be measured and possibly have more meaning than all the x-rays and bodily fluid tests we have to date would prove an amazing breakthrough for health care. Of course that is a big IF that there is something in humans corresponds.
Despite the appearance of the fulfilment rate going down, if you do the math, since requests are up 70%, Google is still supplying a little over 20% more private data than they were in 2009. It would be nice to have the exact numbers or percentages of partial vs. full requests AND how much information is requested on average. These statistics really do not shed much light on anything. For example: A full request compliance could be as innocent as your GMail account name. A partial request compliance could be as much as everything they've excluding your credit card numbers. (which still wouldn't leave you feeling very safe, despite being a 'partial compliance')
Are people that dense that they create their own opinions on headlines without doing any research or even reading the article these days? Censoring graphic content, both visual and textual makes perfect sense, we have no need to desensitise ourselves any more than we already do, society expects Google to be the pinnacle of internet information. You can't have an expectation like that and then handcuff them by allowing them to only autofill/display results for the touchy feely nice things in the world. It's not realistic, that's not how humans behave (in addition, there's a lot of people searching terms and creating pages to purposely defame) and there would be very little of our recorded history that falls into that category. Knowing our past triumphs and mistakes is the way forward. Go out and make a new name for yourself, don't blame Google for finding your dirty little secret.
Historical by definition is "concerning history; belonging to the past, not the present." which would make anything that happened yesterday (or even an hour ago for that matter) historical. Obviously the longer the range, the more useful/applicable this information becomes, but even this initial availability will be able to teach many people new things. To put a finer point on it, many things have happened more recently than 1938 that are considered to be 'historical'. For example: World War II, Sputnik Satellite launched, etc.
The implications this could have for history records and documenting future changing is amazing. The idea of making this information public domain and easily accessible could drive both knowledge of the country and maybe broaden the understanding of time's effect on landscape, etc. with a huge visual impact.
Whether you believe all aspects of evolution or that it applies to humans aside, the concept of moving through stages as an entire species is well documented as fact. Convergence and divergence of different types of birds around the world should be plenty to validate that the theory is probably a good one. Basically the country has decided their narrow minded view is the right one and the entire population is too stupid to arrive at a sane conclusion of their own.
Learn HTML. Zero setup, zero installs (on any current OS) and less than 10 basic lines accomplishes the "beginners would be able to fire it up instantly, and would be able to get useful things done right away" aspect. Then move on to JavaScript which supports functions, objects and all sort of more intricate programming concepts and again requiring zero setup.
At least after learning these 2, you should have an idea whether you like programming or not and want to try something more involved. On a side note, it's never taken me more than an hour to setup a language targeted development environment (aside from a new web server install), how much more simple is this supposed to be?
If it were possible to make software by answering a bunch of simple questions, writing out basic fundamentals and having the development environment fill in the gaps, most of us would be out of a job. ( Honestly I don't see how this is better than visual programming. ) But since mind reading software doesn't exist just yet, we will be safe for a while longer.
Wanting to simplify the install of IDE/languages is desirable, but if you can't spend the time to understand how to install the software how are you/ever/ hoping to use it effectively?
While basic understanding and comprehension can be quite varied, our knowledge which determines our intelligence is based entirely on learning 'things'. The average person who thinks they "forget everything" about an introductory class is kidding themselves. I only took an introduction to Chemistry and I couldn't tell you off the top of my head half of the conversions I learned, but that doesn't make the information any less available. I remember information about relating different types of matter, universal constants in reactions. Definitions of basic words like exothermic, endothermic, etc. and most importantly I learned. Sure the material may not have been my particular forte, but making yourself work at something shows what you can accomplish and allows you to think differently whether you realise it or not. If more Language (by this I mean native language spoken) classes were enforced as well perhaps we wouldn't live in such an illiterate, made-up acronym world.
It's hard to say what 'popularity' really means. Not everyone with Internet access falls within the/normal/ range. Bots and search flooding also need to be taken into consideration. If someone knew the exact weighting Google used they could create fake posts/websites in prime locations in order to change what appears to be a common search term. I would hope that News articles and other (some-what credible) sources are weighted higher, but I do not have any evidence to support that. The exact wording plays a part as well. Your country of origin, if you are logged into your account, previous searches and information available on your habits will also play a role in what suggestions are made, because I see completely different results for "Is it wrong".
Somewhat true, Google has bowed to lawsuits and pressure in the past on their search suggestions, but they only list 4 options, which are supposed to be the most highly requested/available (both historical and taking current trends into consideration). In an attempt to make searching more 'convenient'. In another week or so due to the ads I would expect those sorts of terms to break the top 4.
Google suggest is an interpretive algorithm using common searches, and mass information to 'guess' what you or many other people might be wanting to search for. If the information is out there or people commonly search a topic it SHOULD appear as a possible option. The words probably should be censored for the vast audience possible, but it's the source information that is at fault, not Google for collecting it.
If you want something to complain about you'll find it. Maybe it's not the left-handed thing getting in the way, but rather your assumption that the world is out to get you for it. Buttons are generally on both sides of devices or centred which makes them equally easy or difficult for left/right handed people. As for marker smudges, you can't blame technology for that one, that's the fault of writing in a left-to-right language. Top to bottom and right to left languages would not cause any issue for lefties.
Moving mobile and desktop devices closer together is a wonderful plan, but the mobiles should be coming towards larger computers, not the other way around. Microsoft can keep Windows 8.
A photo or description would help in knowledge recall, this is a known fact. Saying that it "skews" the answers is impossible to say without knowing what the correct outcome was. If 'true' is the correct response, then having an external information source to help with determining your answer would indeed increase the number of people who get it correct (assuming they had the knowledge in the first place). Furthermore, if a photo of the person in question doesn't "provide any information about the topic at hand", what the heck does? A question about someone and a photo of them seem pretty related to me. *That aside, the general public doesn't usually have pictures of people after they're dead, so this is a terrible example to begin with.
Firstly, it's probably true, but it is not supported by the article in the least.
Only being able to verify 20% of the clicks does not mean that the other 80% were bots. A lack of information does not support an implication of fraud.
Using Javascript as a basis of for fraudulent clicks has been displayed here many times over not be enough. In fact, where is this determination of Javascript enabled being done? If it was done on their website (not their Facebook site) I would have had Javascript enabled on Facebook, but once visiting the site for the first time (as if by magic - or an installed extension facsimile) Javascript would have been disabled, throwing that statistic out the window.
The focus should have been on the ad revenue demands and related blackmail-like actions of Facebook until more facts on fraud could be found.
Slashdot Mirror
and when Windows has gotten it wrong by so much that the progress bar is 5 times the width of my monitor, what then? There might as well not be a progress bar if it is possible you won't see the end and it has been stated many times that going backwards is an even less desirable option. Perhaps (as most applications already do this) displaying a progress bar as progress of actions AND a timer to expected completion is ideal as it informs the user of both the action completion state and the time frame associated with the remaining actions. Of course the same question could be asked 'Why is it so hard to make an accurate timer?'.
I think you are confusing time measurement with progress measurement. The progress is still 25% complete whether it will take 5 minutes or 5 days to complete the other 75%. For example: when sending an e-mail, there are approx 4 steps. Write content, attach files, address e-mail recipient and send. While these steps will taking varying amounts of time (0 being a possible amount of time) for every e-mail, they still constitute 25% of your 'progress' in sending said e-mail.
This was mentioned at the alpha launch(es), I guess it was an oversight on 'real' launch day. Being able to write 1 app that with little to no code change runs on a BB tablet or phone will be huge for bringing the BB app store back into the light. Not to mention to android OS support making porting a piece of cake.
The camera on a smartphone has evolved to having near quality of a professional camera. That said it is NOT a professional camera. When I take a picture with my phone I want it to capture the moment decently and for the size of a dime they go far beyond what anyone realistically needs. If I wanted amazing quality photos I would use a camera with proper optical zoom, etc. Basing a smart phone on 1 feature of which should not be primary is hardly advisable. That would be like not buying the perfect car because the horn sound isn't a perfect pitch. Sure you use it and some days more than others, but it is not core functionality and should be weighted as such.
Woops, typing to quickly. Thanks for the correction.
Repeating the same thing in different terms does not amount to a meaningful opinion. Generally a reason or fact follows such statements as a sign of supporting evidence.
There's no denying RIM's made some mistakes and targeted the wrong audience with there recent devices, but from everything I've seen the BB10 is a real turnaround to what they do right and what people want. Business oriented, with speed and just a touch of flashiness to go with it. If people can get it out of their head that RIM is dead (which they're not: no debt and rising stock prices, over hiring resulting in mass layoffs, etc., but that's a discussion for another time) they might just find the new BB10 isn't half bad.
The first model of the BB10 labelled 'N' is a full touch. Expect the model 'L' which will run OS 10 to resemble something closer to a BB Bold with your ever desired physical keys.
There are technicalities on both sides, but the idea of using proxies does imply a certain amount of expected of privacy (similar to using a vpn) which can be enough in some countries to have these lawsuits dropped or thrown out.
The idea that something so complex could be automatic in a bird's perception based on visible traits is very interesting, but what intrigues me more is the possible correlation this could have to other species including humans. Immune malfunction, more specifically auto-immune disorders can be some of the hardest to diagnose (some can't actually be confirmed, only determined that you don't have anything else) and they have all sort of symptoms that resemble colds, allergies and other more easily diagnosed issues/illnesses. The idea that something visible could be measured and possibly have more meaning than all the x-rays and bodily fluid tests we have to date would prove an amazing breakthrough for health care. Of course that is a big IF that there is something in humans corresponds.
Despite the appearance of the fulfilment rate going down, if you do the math, since requests are up 70%, Google is still supplying a little over 20% more private data than they were in 2009. It would be nice to have the exact numbers or percentages of partial vs. full requests AND how much information is requested on average. These statistics really do not shed much light on anything. For example: A full request compliance could be as innocent as your GMail account name. A partial request compliance could be as much as everything they've excluding your credit card numbers. (which still wouldn't leave you feeling very safe, despite being a 'partial compliance')
Are people that dense that they create their own opinions on headlines without doing any research or even reading the article these days? Censoring graphic content, both visual and textual makes perfect sense, we have no need to desensitise ourselves any more than we already do, society expects Google to be the pinnacle of internet information. You can't have an expectation like that and then handcuff them by allowing them to only autofill/display results for the touchy feely nice things in the world. It's not realistic, that's not how humans behave (in addition, there's a lot of people searching terms and creating pages to purposely defame) and there would be very little of our recorded history that falls into that category. Knowing our past triumphs and mistakes is the way forward. Go out and make a new name for yourself, don't blame Google for finding your dirty little secret.
Historical by definition is "concerning history; belonging to the past, not the present." which would make anything that happened yesterday (or even an hour ago for that matter) historical. Obviously the longer the range, the more useful/applicable this information becomes, but even this initial availability will be able to teach many people new things. To put a finer point on it, many things have happened more recently than 1938 that are considered to be 'historical'. For example: World War II, Sputnik Satellite launched, etc.
The implications this could have for history records and documenting future changing is amazing. The idea of making this information public domain and easily accessible could drive both knowledge of the country and maybe broaden the understanding of time's effect on landscape, etc. with a huge visual impact.
Whether you believe all aspects of evolution or that it applies to humans aside, the concept of moving through stages as an entire species is well documented as fact. Convergence and divergence of different types of birds around the world should be plenty to validate that the theory is probably a good one. Basically the country has decided their narrow minded view is the right one and the entire population is too stupid to arrive at a sane conclusion of their own.
Learn HTML. Zero setup, zero installs (on any current OS) and less than 10 basic lines accomplishes the "beginners would be able to fire it up instantly, and would be able to get useful things done right away" aspect. Then move on to JavaScript which supports functions, objects and all sort of more intricate programming concepts and again requiring zero setup. At least after learning these 2, you should have an idea whether you like programming or not and want to try something more involved. On a side note, it's never taken me more than an hour to setup a language targeted development environment (aside from a new web server install), how much more simple is this supposed to be? If it were possible to make software by answering a bunch of simple questions, writing out basic fundamentals and having the development environment fill in the gaps, most of us would be out of a job. ( Honestly I don't see how this is better than visual programming. ) But since mind reading software doesn't exist just yet, we will be safe for a while longer. Wanting to simplify the install of IDE/languages is desirable, but if you can't spend the time to understand how to install the software how are you /ever/ hoping to use it effectively?
While basic understanding and comprehension can be quite varied, our knowledge which determines our intelligence is based entirely on learning 'things'. The average person who thinks they "forget everything" about an introductory class is kidding themselves. I only took an introduction to Chemistry and I couldn't tell you off the top of my head half of the conversions I learned, but that doesn't make the information any less available. I remember information about relating different types of matter, universal constants in reactions. Definitions of basic words like exothermic, endothermic, etc. and most importantly I learned. Sure the material may not have been my particular forte, but making yourself work at something shows what you can accomplish and allows you to think differently whether you realise it or not. If more Language (by this I mean native language spoken) classes were enforced as well perhaps we wouldn't live in such an illiterate, made-up acronym world.
It's hard to say what 'popularity' really means. Not everyone with Internet access falls within the /normal/ range. Bots and search flooding also need to be taken into consideration. If someone knew the exact weighting Google used they could create fake posts/websites in prime locations in order to change what appears to be a common search term. I would hope that News articles and other (some-what credible) sources are weighted higher, but I do not have any evidence to support that. The exact wording plays a part as well. Your country of origin, if you are logged into your account, previous searches and information available on your habits will also play a role in what suggestions are made, because I see completely different results for "Is it wrong".
Somewhat true, Google has bowed to lawsuits and pressure in the past on their search suggestions, but they only list 4 options, which are supposed to be the most highly requested/available (both historical and taking current trends into consideration). In an attempt to make searching more 'convenient'. In another week or so due to the ads I would expect those sorts of terms to break the top 4.
Google suggest is an interpretive algorithm using common searches, and mass information to 'guess' what you or many other people might be wanting to search for. If the information is out there or people commonly search a topic it SHOULD appear as a possible option. The words probably should be censored for the vast audience possible, but it's the source information that is at fault, not Google for collecting it.
If you want something to complain about you'll find it. Maybe it's not the left-handed thing getting in the way, but rather your assumption that the world is out to get you for it. Buttons are generally on both sides of devices or centred which makes them equally easy or difficult for left/right handed people. As for marker smudges, you can't blame technology for that one, that's the fault of writing in a left-to-right language. Top to bottom and right to left languages would not cause any issue for lefties.
Moving mobile and desktop devices closer together is a wonderful plan, but the mobiles should be coming towards larger computers, not the other way around. Microsoft can keep Windows 8.
A photo or description would help in knowledge recall, this is a known fact. Saying that it "skews" the answers is impossible to say without knowing what the correct outcome was. If 'true' is the correct response, then having an external information source to help with determining your answer would indeed increase the number of people who get it correct (assuming they had the knowledge in the first place). Furthermore, if a photo of the person in question doesn't "provide any information about the topic at hand", what the heck does? A question about someone and a photo of them seem pretty related to me. *That aside, the general public doesn't usually have pictures of people after they're dead, so this is a terrible example to begin with.
Firstly, it's probably true, but it is not supported by the article in the least. Only being able to verify 20% of the clicks does not mean that the other 80% were bots. A lack of information does not support an implication of fraud. Using Javascript as a basis of for fraudulent clicks has been displayed here many times over not be enough. In fact, where is this determination of Javascript enabled being done? If it was done on their website (not their Facebook site) I would have had Javascript enabled on Facebook, but once visiting the site for the first time (as if by magic - or an installed extension facsimile) Javascript would have been disabled, throwing that statistic out the window. The focus should have been on the ad revenue demands and related blackmail-like actions of Facebook until more facts on fraud could be found.