I addressed it squarely. Advertisers don't get information from Google, but don't complain (much) because Google is so effective at targeting.
Yawn. http://adage.com/article/digital/amazon-apple-catch-a-break-madison-ave/291724/ "Apple might come out ahead of its competitors on data, if it would share. "It's one of the best in terms of data quality and accuracy but I think Google is a little more open," said Dan Grigorovici, co-founder of mobile-ad firm AdMobius, "
I repeat: Apple has better data, and Google shares more of it.
People who want a better phone and aren't marketing for Apple.
Only on Slashdot they can turn the fact that the Iphone 6 bumped the iPhone 5s from spot one to spot two, while still beating the now spot 3 by being only a little less than twice as fast into a slam on the performance.
Oh, and one thing the surprised-by-the-result article doesn't understand is that they completely ignored that Apple's goal was to increase performance durably and not just for the first few minutes of demand, followed by a large drop afterwards.
They are paying with their personal data, which Google hoards and then sells to third parties.
Google doesn't sell or otherwise share data with third parties. Google uses it to decide who to show third-party ads to.
Let's put it this way: advertisers have complained that Apple doesn't share enough private data with them. They never had the same complaints about Google.
Advertisers absolutely have complained that Google doesn't provide them with information about users.
Sure - they just keep it a secret. I certainly can't find anything at Google - unlike the stories about Apple.
I hear Bing is doing quite well, getting hundreds of millions of searches every day for "google" by people who don't know how to change their home page. Apparently they also get a lot for "google.com" from people who don't know what an address bar is.
Gee, I heard the same thing happens at Google itself. So what's your point, that people who want to use Google aren't the brightest bunch?
They are paying with their personal data, which Google hoards and then sells to third parties.
Google doesn't sell or otherwise share data with third parties. Google uses it to decide who to show third-party ads to.
Let's put it this way: advertisers have complained that Apple doesn't share enough private data with them. They never had the same complaints about Google.
The people who ask you for help have a real problem - they actually believe you aren't full of shit. Not a single thing you claim is even remotely true.
The existence of an outlier in noisy data is NOT THE SAME THING as ending a trend. The trendline for the last 15 years is flat. http://cosmoscon.com/2013/03/1... gives some pictures so I don't have to.
By the last 15 years you mean "The 15 years from 1998 till (January) 2013". That is actually missing the last 1.5 years. Not to mention that it starts in the cherry picker's most favorite year. That sure was a good year for cherries.
Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants
Interesting. That means that as human emissions have increased, so have the CO2 sinks....so back when we were emitting 2x, the environment magically knew to absorb 1x, and now that we're emitting 20x, it absorbs 10x.
Here's the question - if the CO2 capacity of our sinks is upwards of 10x today, why did it only absorb 1x when we emitted less?
Here's a hint: "Historically" means "not anymore".
Their iPhone is stolen from Sony's blue-prints, for example.
I saw this a while back and the similarity is certainly striking. It raises the question as to why Sony hasn't seen the same success as Apple, if the iPhone is a mere copy of Sony's design.
Maybe because that's a fairytale made up by Samsung and constantly repeated by people who either get paid by Samsung or are simply too dumb to think for themselves.
There is no such thing as a "convicted monopolist", convictions only happen in criminal courts.
And as including the web browser in the OS formed the very basis of the anti-trust action, my point stands - some people would prefer that Windows would come unable to handle the web out of the box, so why should photos be more important?
And again people ignore the history behind this.
the Department of Justice opened its own investigation on August 21 of that year, resulting in a settlement on July 15, 1994 in which Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows but remained free to integrate additional features into the operating system. In the years that followed, Microsoft insisted that Internet Explorer (which, in addition to OEM versions of Windows 95, appeared in the Plus! Pack sold separately[2][3]) was not a product but a feature which it was allowed to add to Windows, although the DOJ did not agree with this definition.
The people preferred them not to bundle because they agreed not to bundle.
Not a problem if Japan can just its own waste. If it works, everybody else will want one of these reactors too. What the US or Russia tthinkf pf this will be of no consequence.
Most transuranic nuclear waste comes from making plutonium weapons - which Japan doesn't do AFAAK. Nor do all but a handful of states - if that many. The rest comes from the ca. 1% of spent nuclear fuel from NPPs that is transuranic - and that is almost completely Plutonium and will be taken out of that sliver anyway if reprocessed.
Also I'm sure that idiot Merkel decided to close all their nuclear power stations because she thought they'd get nice cheap gas from russia. Hmm, wonder how thats working out for her now...
At the peak, German nuclear generation was 133 TWh in 2011. Since then, German renewables generation has grown from 47 TWh/year to 178 TWh/year, Germany can now meet demand without any nuclear and without additional gas imports.
I'm sorry the facts broke your narrative.
Why do I get this funny feeling that the "178 TWh/year" figure is from the rated capacity factors and not the actual production?
Why do I get the funny feeling you believe nuclear power runs at (or anywhere near) 100% of rated capacity?
Whether they get a "good deal" on the military equipment isn't the point. Does any of that unneeded equipment cost more than a camera? Then get the camera instead.
Problem is, you can't "fight terrorism" with cameras. So the police in Hickstown, Wisconsin will still get all the military equipment they need to protect their town against IS insurgents trying to install their Caliphate there, even if they don't buy cameras. The DHS will make sure America is protected and ignore any law trying to keep them from giving money to that cause.
You said that we can't predict volcanos and quakes. That isn't entirely correct. Mt. St. Helens was predicted, and they cleared the mountain of most people.
So? They couldn't predict how much CO2 and other climate relevant material the eruption would emit 1 hour before it happened, let alone years in advance. So how would that prediction help in any way?
Slashdot Mirror
Or any other phone made of metal?
I addressed it squarely. Advertisers don't get information from Google, but don't complain (much) because Google is so effective at targeting.
Yawn. http://adage.com/article/digital/amazon-apple-catch-a-break-madison-ave/291724/ "Apple might come out ahead of its competitors on data, if it would share. "It's one of the best in terms of data quality and accuracy but I think Google is a little more open," said Dan Grigorovici, co-founder of mobile-ad firm AdMobius, "
I repeat: Apple has better data, and Google shares more of it.
You haven't even come close to addressing my point.
Oh, look, another dude who thinks can twist my words. The world is overflowing with your likes.
And I thought Android winning? Yeah, the world is full of people who are not as dumb as you are. Deal with it.
Who cares about performance anymore.
People who want a better phone and aren't marketing for Apple.
Only on Slashdot they can turn the fact that the Iphone 6 bumped the iPhone 5s from spot one to spot two, while still beating the now spot 3 by being only a little less than twice as fast into a slam on the performance.
Oh, and one thing the surprised-by-the-result article doesn't understand is that they completely ignored that Apple's goal was to increase performance durably and not just for the first few minutes of demand, followed by a large drop afterwards.
They are paying with their personal data, which Google hoards and then sells to third parties.
Google doesn't sell or otherwise share data with third parties. Google uses it to decide who to show third-party ads to.
Let's put it this way: advertisers have complained that Apple doesn't share enough private data with them. They never had the same complaints about Google.
Advertisers absolutely have complained that Google doesn't provide them with information about users.
Sure - they just keep it a secret. I certainly can't find anything at Google - unlike the stories about Apple.
Except if you look at the data, it absorbed about half of human CO2 emissions *throughout* history, including recent history:
/quote> And again "recent history".
Yeah, but that, apparently, is not because everyone wants it, it's because people can't afford iPhones. That's what Apple fans say, anyway.
So people like you say Android is cheap trash.
You do realize hat ozone depletion and global warming have literally NOTHING to do with each other right?
One is a build up of CFCs due to things like aerosols. The other is build up of CO2 due to things like burning coal.
I hope you're just trolling...
Actually, CFCs are also highly potent greenhouse gases.
I hear Bing is doing quite well, getting hundreds of millions of searches every day for "google" by people who don't know how to change their home page. Apparently they also get a lot for "google.com" from people who don't know what an address bar is.
Gee, I heard the same thing happens at Google itself. So what's your point, that people who want to use Google aren't the brightest bunch?
They are paying with their personal data, which Google hoards and then sells to third parties.
Google doesn't sell or otherwise share data with third parties. Google uses it to decide who to show third-party ads to.
Let's put it this way: advertisers have complained that Apple doesn't share enough private data with them. They never had the same complaints about Google.
Riiiight those camping out all night make real money lol Ok you got me I believe what you say anonymous rich guy.
The only people camping outside are people who want to promote their apps to the reporters interviewing the people who camp outside.
The people who ask you for help have a real problem - they actually believe you aren't full of shit. Not a single thing you claim is even remotely true.
http://dontholditwrong.tumblr....
"People" also want shitty SOAPs, crappy entertainment and retarded music. Your point being?
That Android is market leader.
The existence of an outlier in noisy data is NOT THE SAME THING as ending a trend. The trendline for the last 15 years is flat. http://cosmoscon.com/2013/03/1... gives some pictures so I don't have to.
By the last 15 years you mean "The 15 years from 1998 till (January) 2013". That is actually missing the last 1.5 years. Not to mention that it starts in the cherry picker's most favorite year. That sure was a good year for cherries.
Interesting. That means that as human emissions have increased, so have the CO2 sinks....so back when we were emitting 2x, the environment magically knew to absorb 1x, and now that we're emitting 20x, it absorbs 10x.
Here's the question - if the CO2 capacity of our sinks is upwards of 10x today, why did it only absorb 1x when we emitted less?
Here's a hint: "Historically" means "not anymore".
Their iPhone is stolen from Sony's blue-prints, for example.
I saw this a while back and the similarity is certainly striking. It raises the question as to why Sony hasn't seen the same success as Apple, if the iPhone is a mere copy of Sony's design.
Maybe because that's a fairytale made up by Samsung and constantly repeated by people who either get paid by Samsung or are simply too dumb to think for themselves.
There is no such thing as a "convicted monopolist", convictions only happen in criminal courts.
And as including the web browser in the OS formed the very basis of the anti-trust action, my point stands - some people would prefer that Windows would come unable to handle the web out of the box, so why should photos be more important?
And again people ignore the history behind this.
the Department of Justice opened its own investigation on August 21 of that year, resulting in a settlement on July 15, 1994 in which Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows but remained free to integrate additional features into the operating system. In the years that followed, Microsoft insisted that Internet Explorer (which, in addition to OEM versions of Windows 95, appeared in the Plus! Pack sold separately[2][3]) was not a product but a feature which it was allowed to add to Windows, although the DOJ did not agree with this definition.
The people preferred them not to bundle because they agreed not to bundle.
Not a problem if Japan can just its own waste. If it works, everybody else will want one of these reactors too. What the US or Russia tthinkf pf this will be of no consequence.
Most transuranic nuclear waste comes from making plutonium weapons - which Japan doesn't do AFAAK. Nor do all but a handful of states - if that many. The rest comes from the ca. 1% of spent nuclear fuel from NPPs that is transuranic - and that is almost completely Plutonium and will be taken out of that sliver anyway if reprocessed.
Also I'm sure that idiot Merkel decided to close all their nuclear power stations because she thought they'd get nice cheap gas from russia. Hmm, wonder how thats working out for her now...
At the peak, German nuclear generation was 133 TWh in 2011. Since then, German renewables generation has grown from 47 TWh/year to 178 TWh/year, Germany can now meet demand without any nuclear and without additional gas imports.
I'm sorry the facts broke your narrative.
Why do I get this funny feeling that the "178 TWh/year" figure is from the rated capacity factors and not the actual production?
Why do I get the funny feeling you believe nuclear power runs at (or anywhere near) 100% of rated capacity?
Even one alpha particle in your body can cause cancer.
That's kinda like advocating playing the lottery with millions of tickets because even a single ticket could win millions.
FTFY
Whether they get a "good deal" on the military equipment isn't the point. Does any of that unneeded equipment cost more than a camera? Then get the camera instead.
Problem is, you can't "fight terrorism" with cameras. So the police in Hickstown, Wisconsin will still get all the military equipment they need to protect their town against IS insurgents trying to install their Caliphate there, even if they don't buy cameras. The DHS will make sure America is protected and ignore any law trying to keep them from giving money to that cause.
Yeah, because ice sheets haven't receded 2000 miles over the last 10,000 years. Most of which occurred before industrialization.
Most of it occurred before earliest civilization for that matter. With not much happening in between. Until industrialization.
You said that we can't predict volcanos and quakes. That isn't entirely correct. Mt. St. Helens was predicted, and they cleared the mountain of most people.
So? They couldn't predict how much CO2 and other climate relevant material the eruption would emit 1 hour before it happened, let alone years in advance. So how would that prediction help in any way?