What in the article leads you to believe that the profit motive is involved?
As I read the article, it seems apparent that Google wants to add another factor in its methodology to further diminish corporate influence, not inflate it.
I guess you won't find any critical thinking here...
Interesting thing to say in a complaint about people not agreeing with you. That thread is a stupid semantic argument about whether we are technically engaged in a "war." Such an argument self-selects participants who wish to engage in something so useless; not likely to draw "critical thinkers," nor would I imagine that the instigator qualifies as such, either...
The TV ratings systems that I know of require a lot of demographic information about the people doing the ratings.
That's for advertising purposes. The ranking of websites won't need anything other than raw numbers, and sampling would actually be likely to have more accuracy than a full count, since it would tend to filter out the folks who hammer their votes in.
People who control multiple IP's generally have a very specific range. It would be trivial to group results by IP families. Another technique to diminish corporate manipulation might be to use a representative sampling, rather than a full count of all votes. Since Google stated that this would be only a supplement to their current ranking methods, sampling vote results should work just fine and prevent corporate manipulation. Don't expect Google to say exactly how they are going to prevent this sort of thing, as keeping their exact methods a secret is one of the best ways to prevent manipulation.
How does crapping up the search engine results produce profits? It doesn't, and the article pretty clearly indicates that Google is implementing this to abate the effects of corporate cheaters. Particularly note that Google is looking at this as a supplement to their established methods, not as a replacement.
There are plenty of ways to prevent corporate concerns crapping up the voting results, as I pointed out previously.
Barely used original AB ROLLER and instructional videotape for $40 or best offer. Call (please don't e-mail; I don't check it frequently) Jon Katz, (202)...
The article clearly states that Google will use the results to supplement, not replace, current methods. So, if someone wishes to manipulate the results, they will have to combine several forms of cheating to succeed.
The article also states that methods will be used to prevent this sort of abuse, though Google doesn't say (for obvious reasons -- why do spammers work for them?) what they are.
But there are obvious ways to defeat abuse. One way is to do IP matching, and cull results originating from a single domain. Another would to use only a random representative sampling of votes, rather than every vote, in counting results. Another is simple human oversite (or good AI), looking for unusual ranking changes.
Google's been great so far in avoiding the crapfloods. I doubt if they'd cut their own throats. The fact that they are testing this technology rather than just rolling it out is a good sign. When's the last time you heard of a search engine testing before implementation?
Barely-relevant anecdote:
The year that Excite debuted, I found my own credit card number, expiration date and phone number in their database. By pattern matching I found the same for a couple of dozen other people who had all patronized the same online bookstore (idiots momentarily had their customer database on the webserving machine, excite's spider found it).
It took about a week to find someone at Visa who knew what the Internet was (a security VP). He informed me that Excite had been designed with no means to edit the database. I found that hard to believe -- still do -- but my personal info remained findable for several weeks thereafter.
Let's not start an argument about what in The Tick could possibly cause harm to your kids. (Bitch? Really? Bitch?) Instead, I'll just ask why you demand that the show be "family-friendly" by your definition.
Just because you are teaching your kids to fear the bosom doesn't mean the rest of us have to have Miss Liberty's cleavage covered up.
Not any more than I could do a superhero comic called "Woman Wonder" or "Wondrous Woman," use a red-white-blue theme, and expect no lawyers at my door.
Note: the article is written from an interesting point of view -- it's aimed at the people who want to collect the additional per-IP charges
Before I read, I figured, yes, there's reasonable ways that they could phrase this to indicate their real-world need to create new services, and provide additional revenues. They could even make a case for improved security, as few of their customers know how to secure their own networks.
Instead, it's phrased in the all-too-familiar language of corporate greed, "our customer's are robbing us! How do we stop it and make the money that they are bleeding us for?!?!!"
A slight difference of spin could help them deploy this, and could even make CAT work to the benefit of consumers. But with people like this leading the groupthink, I despair.
The point is not to charge you for IP's because of a scarcity of IP's. The point is to charge you for each access point, and IP's are just a convenient means of counting them.
While he does say programming for the PS2 required more work, other things he said indicated that he would have welcomed a more powerful system. For instance:
KOJIMA: We finished Metal Gear 1 at the end of '98, then started right away on MGS 2. But we didn't have the hardware. PlayStation 2 wasn't out yet, we didn't know what it would be able to do. We guessed, and started work on MGS 2 anyway. We thought we'd be able to have twenty thousand enemy soldiers in MGS 2!
FEED: How many do you have now?
KOJIMA: About fifteen or sixteen (laughs). Well, with MGS 1, we only had four! The number of polygons that you need to make a character have increased. That's why the characters look so lifelike. So fifteen or sixteen enemy soldiers is quite a lot. If we were using the number of polygons that it took to make a character with PlayStation 1, we would probably have between fifty and a hundred enemy soldiers. But their appearance wouldn't be improved over before.
Are you saying 20,000 enemies wouldn't make a more interesting game? It wouldn't increase programming effort by much, as each soldier would share the animations and AI.
This is not informative. It's the same rumored info spat up at each site, spiced by such gems of misinformation as:
i heard GF3 will run Doom 3 at 30fps. Radeon 8500 will run at 40fps, and GF4 will run at 50fps. i saw that on some message board talking about doom 3 and video cards.
As if benchmarks for an unfinished game on an unfinished chip are even guessable at this point. feh!
Sure, but if that's your approach to preventing virii, how do I know I can trust you to not pass on a virus?
If you don't trust him, follow the rules he just provided -- don't connect to his webserver, don't open email from him.
Connecting on the Internet means data at risk, just like crossing the street means a certain amount of risk. Anything I can't afford to lose is stored remotely. I would rather deal with the consequences of a virus than rely on or promote programs that include government-requested "backdoors."
I was wondering why both the Audiotron and the Rio receivers were so large, when nothing that they do requires much hardware.
It looks like you do have the superior product (no wma support? That's a good thing!), though it would be nice if you could provide spdif (Audiotron does, the Rio doesn't). Best of luck, you will need it!
No, not a joke. A later Philips Design press release indicates there was a public demo:
Philips Design's visionary projects on show at the Künstlerhaus in Vienna from July 11 to September 9
July 12th 2001 -- Following the success of the public presentation of Smart Connections (Milan, Magna Pars, April 4-6), the Kunstlerhaus in Vienna has decided to include some of the Philips Design visionary concepts in its prestigious exhibition 'Global Tools', which opened its doors on July 11.
NEBULA: consisting of a ceiling projector linked via the Internet to a database of content, Nebula is an interactive projection system, designed to enrich the personal experiences around the ritual of going to bed, sleeping and waking up. It aims at creating an atmosphere that encourages and enhances rest, reflection, conversation, intimacy, imagination and play. The user can select the content (images and sounds) to be projected on to the ceiling by placing a pebble in the bed side pocket. The way the projected images change depends on the random movements that the people in the bed will make. A pebble 'clouds' will allow relaxation, a pebble 'games' will allow the users to play a game (accessible only by two people together) by using the duvet as a joystick. The system is also connected to an alarm clock, which projects two dots onto opposite sides of the ceiling. During the night, the distance between the dots diminishes, making it possible to gauge
the remaining sleeping time from the distance left between the two. When the dots collide, sound and images are combined to create the waking experience. Users can also create a note or a sketch on a piece of paper and place it underneath the alarm clock. When it goes off, a snapshot of the note is projected.
It is a testament to their ingenuity that they are able to make such huge profits by developing a successful formula to minimize losses on crappy bands (the 95%) and maximize profits on good bands (the 5%). How many speculators in other industries (such as real estate) can you name who are able to achieve such a high return on such risky investments?
That's because few businesses are as skilled at off-loading risk. Contractually, record companies place much of the financial risk on the (so-called) "crappy" (read non-commmercial) bands. The label tells their bands when to tour, when to do a video, which records to issue as singles, how to promote -- yet the expenses for all these activities create debt from the individual band to the label.
Slashdot Mirror
What in the article leads you to believe that the profit motive is involved?
As I read the article, it seems apparent that Google wants to add another factor in its methodology to further diminish corporate influence, not inflate it.
I guess you won't find any critical thinking here...
Interesting thing to say in a complaint about people not agreeing with you. That thread is a stupid semantic argument about whether we are technically engaged in a "war." Such an argument self-selects participants who wish to engage in something so useless; not likely to draw "critical thinkers," nor would I imagine that the instigator qualifies as such, either...
The TV ratings systems that I know of require a lot of demographic information about the people doing the ratings.
That's for advertising purposes. The ranking of websites won't need anything other than raw numbers, and sampling would actually be likely to have more accuracy than a full count, since it would tend to filter out the folks who hammer their votes in.
People who control multiple IP's generally have a very specific range. It would be trivial to group results by IP families. Another technique to diminish corporate manipulation might be to use a representative sampling, rather than a full count of all votes. Since Google stated that this would be only a supplement to their current ranking methods, sampling vote results should work just fine and prevent corporate manipulation. Don't expect Google to say exactly how they are going to prevent this sort of thing, as keeping their exact methods a secret is one of the best ways to prevent manipulation.
How does crapping up the search engine results produce profits? It doesn't, and the article pretty clearly indicates that Google is implementing this to abate the effects of corporate cheaters. Particularly note that Google is looking at this as a supplement to their established methods, not as a replacement.
There are plenty of ways to prevent corporate concerns crapping up the voting results, as I pointed out previously.
I don't agree, but Teoma is good.
From the second-ranked result:
Barely used original AB ROLLER and instructional videotape for $40 or best offer. Call (please don't e-mail; I don't check it frequently) Jon Katz, (202)...
Damn, Google really pinpoints the goods!
I would have spent my last mod point on modding you up, if only you weren't an AC!
Probably the best thing would be to change your
The article clearly states that Google will use the results to supplement, not replace, current methods. So, if someone wishes to manipulate the results, they will have to combine several forms of cheating to succeed.
The article also states that methods will be used to prevent this sort of abuse, though Google doesn't say (for obvious reasons -- why do spammers work for them?) what they are.
But there are obvious ways to defeat abuse. One way is to do IP matching, and cull results originating from a single domain. Another would to use only a random representative sampling of votes, rather than every vote, in counting results. Another is simple human oversite (or good AI), looking for unusual ranking changes.
Google's been great so far in avoiding the crapfloods. I doubt if they'd cut their own throats. The fact that they are testing this technology rather than just rolling it out is a good sign. When's the last time you heard of a search engine testing before implementation?
Barely-relevant anecdote:
The year that Excite debuted, I found my own credit card number, expiration date and phone number in their database. By pattern matching I found the same for a couple of dozen other people who had all patronized the same online bookstore (idiots momentarily had their customer database on the webserving machine, excite's spider found it).
It took about a week to find someone at Visa who knew what the Internet was (a security VP). He informed me that Excite had been designed with no means to edit the database. I found that hard to believe -- still do -- but my personal info remained findable for several weeks thereafter.
Let's not start an argument about what in The Tick could possibly cause harm to your kids. (Bitch? Really? Bitch?) Instead, I'll just ask why you demand that the show be "family-friendly" by your definition.
Just because you are teaching your kids to fear the bosom doesn't mean the rest of us have to have Miss Liberty's cleavage covered up.
Not any more than I could do a superhero comic called "Woman Wonder" or "Wondrous Woman," use a red-white-blue theme, and expect no lawyers at my door.
Note: the article is written from an interesting point of view -- it's aimed at the people who want to collect the additional per-IP charges
Before I read, I figured, yes, there's reasonable ways that they could phrase this to indicate their real-world need to create new services, and provide additional revenues. They could even make a case for improved security, as few of their customers know how to secure their own networks.
Instead, it's phrased in the all-too-familiar language of corporate greed, "our customer's are robbing us! How do we stop it and make the money that they are bleeding us for?!?!!"
A slight difference of spin could help them deploy this, and could even make CAT work to the benefit of consumers. But with people like this leading the groupthink, I despair.
The point is not to charge you for IP's because of a scarcity of IP's. The point is to charge you for each access point, and IP's are just a convenient means of counting them.
While he does say programming for the PS2 required more work, other things he said indicated that he would have welcomed a more powerful system. For instance:
KOJIMA: We finished Metal Gear 1 at the end of '98, then started right away on MGS 2. But we didn't have the hardware. PlayStation 2 wasn't out yet, we didn't know what it would be able to do. We guessed, and started work on MGS 2 anyway. We thought we'd be able to have twenty thousand enemy soldiers in MGS 2!
FEED: How many do you have now?
KOJIMA: About fifteen or sixteen (laughs). Well, with MGS 1, we only had four! The number of polygons that you need to make a character have increased. That's why the characters look so lifelike. So fifteen or sixteen enemy soldiers is quite a lot. If we were using the number of polygons that it took to make a character with PlayStation 1, we would probably have between fifty and a hundred enemy soldiers. But their appearance wouldn't be improved over before.
Are you saying 20,000 enemies wouldn't make a more interesting game? It wouldn't increase programming effort by much, as each soldier would share the animations and AI.
Seeing that you've never scored over a 2 on any post
What the fuh are you talking about? Here's SubtleNuance with a 5. Not that he needs credentials to make a simple observation.
And criticizing the CIA is only "Unamerican" among you and your fascist friends.
This is not informative. It's the same rumored info spat up at each site, spiced by such gems of misinformation as:
i heard GF3 will run Doom 3 at 30fps. Radeon 8500 will run at 40fps, and GF4 will run at 50fps. i saw that on some message board talking about doom 3 and video cards.
As if benchmarks for an unfinished game on an unfinished chip are even guessable at this point. feh!
ATI has been "at the top" for some time now, in terms of sales. Neither NVIDIA nor 3DFX had the OEM market in their grip as ATI has.
It's only recently that NVIDIA started making inroads with the OEM's, causing ATI to lose their complacency.
ATI's technological backwardness would have remained if NVIDIA hadn't started to swing OEMs into their camp.
Sure, but if that's your approach to preventing virii, how do I know I can trust you to not pass on a virus?
If you don't trust him, follow the rules he just provided -- don't connect to his webserver, don't open email from him.
Connecting on the Internet means data at risk, just like crossing the street means a certain amount of risk. Anything I can't afford to lose is stored remotely. I would rather deal with the consequences of a virus than rely on or promote programs that include government-requested "backdoors."
you can turn off the TV/Radio, or close your eyes, or look at something else. Imagine NEVER being able to get away from this stuff - mentally, I mean
Just press the tip of your nose. That's the "mute" button.
I was wondering why both the Audiotron and the Rio receivers were so large, when nothing that they do requires much hardware.
It looks like you do have the superior product (no wma support? That's a good thing!), though it would be nice if you could provide spdif (Audiotron does, the Rio doesn't). Best of luck, you will need it!
It's a research project. Never intended to come out. That is not the same as "vaporware," which requires a real product announcement.
The idea is, if the research project is even a partial success, its best ideas are then incorporated into real-world projects.
This is /. -- not "Consumer Reports."
Sorry, forgot the link.
No, not a joke. A later Philips Design press release indicates there was a public demo:
Philips Design's visionary projects on show at the Künstlerhaus in Vienna from July 11 to September 9
July 12th 2001 -- Following the success of the public presentation of Smart Connections (Milan, Magna Pars, April 4-6), the Kunstlerhaus in Vienna has decided to include some of the Philips Design visionary concepts in its prestigious exhibition 'Global Tools', which opened its doors on July 11.
NEBULA: consisting of a ceiling projector linked via the Internet to a database of content, Nebula is an interactive projection system, designed to enrich the personal experiences around the ritual of going to bed, sleeping and waking up. It aims at creating an atmosphere that encourages and enhances rest, reflection, conversation, intimacy, imagination and play. The user can select the content (images and sounds) to be projected on to the ceiling by placing a pebble in the bed side pocket. The way the projected images change depends on the random movements that the people in the bed will make. A pebble 'clouds' will allow relaxation, a pebble 'games' will allow the users to play a game (accessible only by two people together) by using the duvet as a joystick. The system is also connected to an alarm clock, which projects two dots onto opposite sides of the ceiling. During the night, the distance between the dots diminishes, making it possible to gauge the remaining sleeping time from the distance left between the two. When the dots collide, sound and images are combined to create the waking experience. Users can also create a note or a sketch on a piece of paper and place it underneath the alarm clock. When it goes off, a snapshot of the note is projected.
That's because few businesses are as skilled at off-loading risk. Contractually, record companies place much of the financial risk on the (so-called) "crappy" (read non-commmercial) bands. The label tells their bands when to tour, when to do a video, which records to issue as singles, how to promote -- yet the expenses for all these activities create debt from the individual band to the label.