You also get fanboys posting 10/10 reviews of movies whose scores they just want to pump up, and anti-fanboys that post 1/10 scores just to spite the fanboys.
IMDb has a proprietary way to average the scores to ignore these outliers and favor more experienced reviewers. Google has none of these things, but it might eventually add a more intelligent algorithm.
Bizarrely, there isn't even a "beta" tag on this new feature! Now we can criticize all we want.
Google already offers product reviews through Froogle BETA. Just search for any old MP3 player and you can find reviews of both the products listed and the companies that sell them.
This information is collected and presented by Google, setting them up as a potential competitor to sites like Epinions.
True. The only possible downside is that whatsmyip.com doesn't tell me what my IP address is -- and neither do any of the sponsored links on that page!
The people who run whatsmyip.com are simply geniuses. Get users to flail around by clicking all the slickly-packaged ads in search of one bit of information. At ten cents per click (which is being hugely generous) they could make a buck or more off of an average visitor.
Re:Skimping on accessories
on
Apple Updates iPod
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Except the iPod hasn't used a Firewire-to-Firewire cable since the second generation. Since the 3G iPod, they have used a Firewire-to-Dock-connector cable. I don't expect most users who don't already own an iPod to have one just lying around in a drawer.
It does represent a $20 discount to someone who's upgrading their iPod, though.
The iPod stores MP3, AAC, and (in the case of the iPod photo) JPEG files. How much file compression could you reasonably expect when every single file is already compressed?
The only thing they could do to inflate their storage claims is double the number of songs like the Windows Media players do, assuming that users rip their songs at 64 kbit instead of 128.
A Firewire cable is $20 at Apple's store (or less on eBay) and an AC adapter is $30. With these two accessories added back to the price of a 4 GB iPod mini, the iPod mini costs exactly the same as it did before.
The lack of an AC charger is really lame on Apple's part. It assumes that you have a laptop to bring with you everywhere you go. I thought the point of a portable music player was to bring your music with you wherever you went so you wouldn't need a laptop!
I'm sure it'll be as popular as a filter that blocks out advertising, which would render Google financially insolvent if everyone in the world were to install it.
I grew up on Long Island, home of 1-800-FLOWERS (now 1-800-FLOWERS.com) (really), and I saw articles about the company getting pissed off at competitors who did things like this. Some competitors bought 1-800-FL0WERS (with a zero) and 1-800-FLOWER5 (with a 5).
Ever wonder why 1-800-MATTRESS ends every commercial with people spelling their name melodically? It's because they don't own 1-800-MATRESS -- or at least they didn't years ago.
I'm talking about businesses here. I work with people on a daily basis who consider Microsoft Excel's password function to be an effective way to secure data. (Some newer versions of Excel can actually encrypt the workbook, but then the automated tools we use can't open the file.)
I think RAR makes a fine compresion tool, but business users aren't known for evaluating a tool based solely on its merits.
I haven't seen a (legitimate American) business that uses RAR files for any reason. Any company that prohibits users from installing extra software would thus prohibit their users from installing a RAR decompressor. It would also be very easy to delete all incoming RAR files or reject the message with something like "Please send a ZIP file" instead.
Until people start sending ZIP files (which are rejected after being virus-scanned) this is largely a non-threat.
I know how caches work. I also know that Google's cache never expires unless you specifically opt out of it.
If someone downloads my work to read it, that's fine. What Google has done goes far beyond that. They have downloaded copies of millions of pages solely so that they can retransmit them without the author's permission. Offering a way to opt out is not requesting permission. You wouldn't like it very much if I sent you junk e-mail and called you on the phone* until you opted out.
* The Do Not Call list is a way to opt out, albeit an extraordinarily popular way.
See, then you go and claim that all "real news" sources are horrible.
Here's an exercise. This is a Fox News story. Please find the bias in the news content. According to you, all our "real news" sources are "badly defective" and incapable of reporting anything properly. Please point out and correct the errors in this Fox News report, paying particular note to the pro-corporate and anti-liberal bias they are purported to project.
Jon Stewart is a role model to political wonks all over the internet: if you disagree with someone, walk up to them and call them names. Then walk away feeling very smug.
Did you see his John Kerry interview? He was practically in love with Kerry and his bold plan of "not being George W. Bush."
The Daily Show claims to have extended an invitation to George W. Bush. I can't imagine that Bush would have received the same treatment, though Bill O'Reilly got a grudging round of applause when he appeared on the Daily Show to eat some crow about his "stoned slackers" remark.
Then again, I saw Al Gore's and George W. Bush's appearances on Letterman in 2000. Gore got along very well with Letterman, having been on the show before in his capacity as vice president. Bush appeared via satellite, cracked some awful surgery-related jokes (Letterman had underwent bypass surgery) and got loudly booed.
No, thanks. The Daily Show is fake news, much like the blogs you cite: it's satire with talking heads occasionally brought in to bring the place legitimacy.
You, and Jon on Crossfire, never explained why Jon lobs softball questions at folks like John Kerry and Michael Moore while firing off ad hominem attacks on Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
But I really love how Jon deflects any criticism of his show by saying "hey, we're on Comedy Central -- we're all idiots here!" Kind of reminds me about how some bloggers want to be treated like journalists, but they're not journalists because all journalists are biased and evil.
It's only fitting that the cited article is from Gawker Media, a site/network that treats every facet of news like celebrity gossip. If you've never read one of their sites, imagine what Slashdot would be like if every story were written by a spoiled, ill-informed, over-opinionated techie masquerading as a journalist with good grammar and spelling.
What if I want Google to index my site (so that users can find my content) but not cache my site?
By putting something on the web, I do not grant a license for people to copy it at will. The web is not like Usenet: it is not designed for everyone to mirror everyone else's content. The definition of Fair Use in most countries (including the U.S.) doesn't extend to a complete copy of an original work. Google News, even in its advertising-less form, was the subject of lawsuits filed in Germany and Hong Kong.
Google has "meta tags to opt out, made only for their service." So does Microsoft. It doesn't make one more devious than the other. As many people read Google's EULA as read Microsoft's.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't. It just sucks in that typical "We don't want to pay for content, so we'll aggregate what others have collected" Google way.
Like Google News, there are no ads and there likely never will be. People don't like to have others profit off their content.
I can build a Doom console using off-the-shelf parts.
You will need:
(1) Game Boy Advance ($70 for the regular kind, $80 for the SP)
(1) Copy of Doom ($30)
And once you're done, you still have some $400 that you can spend on a photo-centric handheld!
I don't see a beta tag on this feature. Could it mean that Google actually has the courage to release something?
You also get fanboys posting 10/10 reviews of movies whose scores they just want to pump up, and anti-fanboys that post 1/10 scores just to spite the fanboys.
IMDb has a proprietary way to average the scores to ignore these outliers and favor more experienced reviewers. Google has none of these things, but it might eventually add a more intelligent algorithm.
Bizarrely, there isn't even a "beta" tag on this new feature! Now we can criticize all we want.
Google already offers product reviews through Froogle BETA. Just search for any old MP3 player and you can find reviews of both the products listed and the companies that sell them.
This information is collected and presented by Google, setting them up as a potential competitor to sites like Epinions.
I'm glad my ideas intrigued you. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
You forgot the Game Boy Color, which had a color screen and came out several years before the Advance did.
True. The only possible downside is that whatsmyip.com doesn't tell me what my IP address is -- and neither do any of the sponsored links on that page!
The people who run whatsmyip.com are simply geniuses. Get users to flail around by clicking all the slickly-packaged ads in search of one bit of information. At ten cents per click (which is being hugely generous) they could make a buck or more off of an average visitor.
Except the iPod hasn't used a Firewire-to-Firewire cable since the second generation. Since the 3G iPod, they have used a Firewire-to-Dock-connector cable. I don't expect most users who don't already own an iPod to have one just lying around in a drawer.
It does represent a $20 discount to someone who's upgrading their iPod, though.
The iPod stores MP3, AAC, and (in the case of the iPod photo) JPEG files. How much file compression could you reasonably expect when every single file is already compressed?
The only thing they could do to inflate their storage claims is double the number of songs like the Windows Media players do, assuming that users rip their songs at 64 kbit instead of 128.
A Firewire cable is $20 at Apple's store (or less on eBay) and an AC adapter is $30. With these two accessories added back to the price of a 4 GB iPod mini, the iPod mini costs exactly the same as it did before.
The lack of an AC charger is really lame on Apple's part. It assumes that you have a laptop to bring with you everywhere you go. I thought the point of a portable music player was to bring your music with you wherever you went so you wouldn't need a laptop!
I'm sure it'll be as popular as a filter that blocks out advertising, which would render Google financially insolvent if everyone in the world were to install it.
I grew up on Long Island, home of 1-800-FLOWERS (now 1-800-FLOWERS.com) (really), and I saw articles about the company getting pissed off at competitors who did things like this. Some competitors bought 1-800-FL0WERS (with a zero) and 1-800-FLOWER5 (with a 5).
Ever wonder why 1-800-MATTRESS ends every commercial with people spelling their name melodically? It's because they don't own 1-800-MATRESS -- or at least they didn't years ago.
Clearly someone must click on text ads, or Overture and Google wouldn't have an advertising-centered business model to uphold.
I usually click on five or six of them just to find out what I have won as a special prize as the 865,239nd visitor to that web site!
I'm talking about businesses here. I work with people on a daily basis who consider Microsoft Excel's password function to be an effective way to secure data. (Some newer versions of Excel can actually encrypt the workbook, but then the automated tools we use can't open the file.)
I think RAR makes a fine compresion tool, but business users aren't known for evaluating a tool based solely on its merits.
I haven't seen a (legitimate American) business that uses RAR files for any reason. Any company that prohibits users from installing extra software would thus prohibit their users from installing a RAR decompressor. It would also be very easy to delete all incoming RAR files or reject the message with something like "Please send a ZIP file" instead.
Until people start sending ZIP files (which are rejected after being virus-scanned) this is largely a non-threat.
I know how caches work. I also know that Google's cache never expires unless you specifically opt out of it.
If someone downloads my work to read it, that's fine. What Google has done goes far beyond that. They have downloaded copies of millions of pages solely so that they can retransmit them without the author's permission. Offering a way to opt out is not requesting permission. You wouldn't like it very much if I sent you junk e-mail and called you on the phone* until you opted out.
* The Do Not Call list is a way to opt out, albeit an extraordinarily popular way.
Yes, I'm new here. I registered my account five years ago and I've been sitting on it ever since.
See, then you go and claim that all "real news" sources are horrible.
Here's an exercise. This is a Fox News story. Please find the bias in the news content. According to you, all our "real news" sources are "badly defective" and incapable of reporting anything properly. Please point out and correct the errors in this Fox News report, paying particular note to the pro-corporate and anti-liberal bias they are purported to project.
Jon Stewart is a role model to political wonks all over the internet: if you disagree with someone, walk up to them and call them names. Then walk away feeling very smug.
Did you see his John Kerry interview? He was practically in love with Kerry and his bold plan of "not being George W. Bush."
The Daily Show claims to have extended an invitation to George W. Bush. I can't imagine that Bush would have received the same treatment, though Bill O'Reilly got a grudging round of applause when he appeared on the Daily Show to eat some crow about his "stoned slackers" remark.
Then again, I saw Al Gore's and George W. Bush's appearances on Letterman in 2000. Gore got along very well with Letterman, having been on the show before in his capacity as vice president. Bush appeared via satellite, cracked some awful surgery-related jokes (Letterman had underwent bypass surgery) and got loudly booed.
No, thanks. The Daily Show is fake news, much like the blogs you cite: it's satire with talking heads occasionally brought in to bring the place legitimacy.
You, and Jon on Crossfire, never explained why Jon lobs softball questions at folks like John Kerry and Michael Moore while firing off ad hominem attacks on Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
But I really love how Jon deflects any criticism of his show by saying "hey, we're on Comedy Central -- we're all idiots here!" Kind of reminds me about how some bloggers want to be treated like journalists, but they're not journalists because all journalists are biased and evil.
It's only fitting that the cited article is from Gawker Media, a site/network that treats every facet of news like celebrity gossip. If you've never read one of their sites, imagine what Slashdot would be like if every story were written by a spoiled, ill-informed, over-opinionated techie masquerading as a journalist with good grammar and spelling.
Dude, I'm not reading all that.
What if I want Google to index my site (so that users can find my content) but not cache my site?
By putting something on the web, I do not grant a license for people to copy it at will. The web is not like Usenet: it is not designed for everyone to mirror everyone else's content. The definition of Fair Use in most countries (including the U.S.) doesn't extend to a complete copy of an original work. Google News, even in its advertising-less form, was the subject of lawsuits filed in Germany and Hong Kong.
Google has "meta tags to opt out, made only for their service." So does Microsoft. It doesn't make one more devious than the other. As many people read Google's EULA as read Microsoft's.