It's not autonomous driving, it doesn't navigate, it's glorified lane assist with the ability to maintain speed with the flow of traffic and a bit of accident avoidance logic mixed in. Far from autonomous.
If it's "Far from autonomous", they shouldn't be calling it autopilot.
Twitter's blocking policies are not under Trump's control; they were put in place at the behest of Special Snowflakes who don't want anyone they disagree with in their safe spaces. They don't just want to not hear the Bad People; they want the Bad People silenced entirely, so NO one can hear them.
If you want to support free speech, support speech that you hate.
Stop calling it wireless charging. there are wires. It's plugless charging.
If this becomes popular, you'll start seeing restaraunt tables having "plugless" charging. Everyone keeps their phone on the table anyway (an annoying habit, but now the status quo), so making them charge will be nice.
When you block someone on twitter, does it prevent others from seeing you or just the blocker? If it's the latter, I agree, but I thought it was the former.
Google should have hired Apple's chief marketing or design officer, not any chief [technical role] officer. Apple products aren't wildly bought because of superior performance, but because of amazing branding and design. In many respects, Android is more capable than Apple. Another wasted effort by Google.
Does not matter. You do not have a First Amendment right to post on government forums, nor do you have a First Amendment right to receive public pronouncements from the government.
This is not a government forum. This is a private forum that the government is censoring.
The right to petition still exists. You don't get to determine the mechanism.
To point out the absurdity, try to hold a protest rally inside the White House at 0400.
I realize this may require some thinking. I'll wait.
This is true, there are "time, place, and manner" limitations on speech that have been allowed. However, they are usually about things like requiring speakers at rallies to be limited to a certain noise level, or limit the hours in which people can rally, all to lower the burden that the speech has on others. This does not appear to be the case with limiting responses to Trump's tweets.
You get your salary at the END of the month, not the beginning. So why should the likes of WSJ get paid BEFORE they've proven their worth?
Build up the reputation for being worth paying for FIRST, and THEN you can try making us pay for it, because by then we've information to decide if it's worth the asking price. "Trust us, it'll be great, amazing" is not worth a penny.
I'd like it to be a choice when running a search. When I'm looking for generic info, I'd like to be able to filter out paywalled info. For more esoteric stuff or scientific articles I might want to include paid sources, and have them ranked equal amongst free sources, based on relevance only.
Sure. Having a choice would be nice. But for "generic" info, you have wikipedia. For everything else, you either have to pay, or visit a site that's trying to sell you something else.
I'd love it if I could not only filter out paywall sites, but all sites which only exist to try to sell me shit.
For all the wonderful business models that have developed with the internet, there are only two that have stuck: sites that get you to pay for their shit or sites that sell you other shit. If Google filtered those out, the internet would be very small.
News in it's current state is not getting my money. There's very few that aren't just all click bait and stories about celebrities...
I share your frustration, but it's this exact attitude that is causing the media to behave this way. If we all put our money where our mouth is and paid for reputable sources and not just clicked on whatever google sends us, we would all be better off.
Google wants to index the world's information? Fine. Deciding its own policies on information retrieval and what business model it wants to promote? No bueno.
This goes to the heart of the purpose of a search engine. Should it solely return "free" results? What if those results are biased because they are ad-supported? Should they return only independent premium results? What if there is no independent source or the cost of the premium source is so high they are effectively inaccessible to the searcher?
There are a lot of difficult and interesting questions here, but no easy answers.
So WSJ wants what is essentially free advertising for its articles. If it's so important, WSJ should pay Google with Ad Sense like every other company.
Is Google's job to return the most relevant results, the most relevant free results, or the most relevant results weighted by their cost for access?
The simple truth is that there a million sources for news.
There actually aren't. The vast majority of news is generated from a handful of organizations with real humans on the ground doing the work. The other "sources" of news read and summarize those original articles, often with a much lower quality level. If you believe that by searching the internet for news you're getting a "million" different opinions and analyses, you're just wrong.
the majority of people searching get no value from paywalled content. It's less relevant in the real sense that it's irrelevant to the majority of users....
I think this depends on the person, the search, and the cost for accessing the media. A better search engine would know how likely you are to pay for premium content and would suggest it to you. It would also be able to push you towards premium content if it was really worth it. A search engine that gives everyone free but crappy results is not necessarily the best.
Relevance is measured in eyeballs, not subscribers. Back in the days when I was riding the train into the city, you could tell the serious people from the unserious ones by what paper they were reading. With online, it's word of mouth, not the paper you see people with.
It's a long term death sentence to put up a paywall.
This was the prevailing wisdom for much of the internet's rise, but I'm not sure it's as true anymore. Despite an avalanche of media outlets, there are not too many media generators (e.g., companies that gather news, that develop original programming, etc.). The rise of Netflix and its ilk is a testament to this. I'm not going to make a prediction on the future of media, but placing bets on free content solely funded by advertising is by no means a sure bet.
Lemme guess, they solved all the hard parts and now all they have to do is commercialize it? Gonna do the typical 3 to 5 year prediction? Not holding my breath.
Witnesses are not called in to court to be viewed, they are called in to be cross-examined.
Witnesses are absolutely called into court so they can be viewed. They don't have to be cross-examined in court. Cross-examination can be done privately with a court reporter, just like it is done with discovery depositions. In fact, certain courts follow this procedure.
As someone with no hotel brand allegiance, I'd rather earn my points through hotels.com than a single chain. This allows me to get the best location at an amenity tier that fits my trip. Sometimes I want cheap and sometimes I will pamper myself.
Totally agree. I've received a number of free nights from hotels.com, it's better than most hotel's loyalty programs.
I stick with IHG and the loyalty program there. It more than pays off for me...
I would bet that you are in the minority. The vast majority of people don't travel regularly for business, they have their 1-3 trips a year and stay wherever is cheapest/nicest. I travel regularly for work (~1/month) but pay for travel out of pocket, so I'm always looking for a deal. I don't bother with the loyalty programs.
I can't imagine caring enough about someone's credibility one way or the other for it to be worthwhile. Do you have an example of when this judgement was needed?
Credibility is everything. And body language and delivery conveys credibility.
Example? Just about every stirring speech.
- It's one thing to read "I have a dream speech". It's another to listen to it, and it's yet another to watch it.
- Obama's careful and thoughtful delivery of his policy, conveys that he understands it.
- Trump's emotional delivery conveys that he understands the "common man".
- It's why people are called into court to testify, rather than relying on a written statement.
I'll add that these visual cues can be deceiving, and often, people overly depend on them and come to a poor result. That said, they aren't worthless.
Listen up children and I'll tell you the solution. The solution is to not run your critical infrastructure on converged IP based networks.
The problem is that almost everything today is "critical infrastructure". It's one thing to build a separate network for dams and nuclear power plants if you deem those as critical infrastructure. It's another if you deem our entire telecommunications system as critical infrastructure. Moving that to IP based systems is pretty unavoidable today.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not autonomous driving, it doesn't navigate, it's glorified lane assist with the ability to maintain speed with the flow of traffic and a bit of accident avoidance logic mixed in. Far from autonomous.
If it's "Far from autonomous", they shouldn't be calling it autopilot.
Twitter's blocking policies are not under Trump's control; they were put in place at the behest of Special Snowflakes who don't want anyone they disagree with in their safe spaces. They don't just want to not hear the Bad People; they want the Bad People silenced entirely, so NO one can hear them.
If you want to support free speech, support speech that you hate.
Stop calling it wireless charging. there are wires. It's plugless charging.
If this becomes popular, you'll start seeing restaraunt tables having "plugless" charging. Everyone keeps their phone on the table anyway (an annoying habit, but now the status quo), so making them charge will be nice.
When you block someone on twitter, does it prevent others from seeing you or just the blocker? If it's the latter, I agree, but I thought it was the former.
Google should have hired Apple's chief marketing or design officer, not any chief [technical role] officer. Apple products aren't wildly bought because of superior performance, but because of amazing branding and design. In many respects, Android is more capable than Apple. Another wasted effort by Google.
Does not matter. You do not have a First Amendment right to post on government forums, nor do you have a First Amendment right to receive public pronouncements from the government.
This is not a government forum. This is a private forum that the government is censoring.
The right to petition still exists. You don't get to determine the mechanism.
To point out the absurdity, try to hold a protest rally inside the White House at 0400.
I realize this may require some thinking. I'll wait.
This is true, there are "time, place, and manner" limitations on speech that have been allowed. However, they are usually about things like requiring speakers at rallies to be limited to a certain noise level, or limit the hours in which people can rally, all to lower the burden that the speech has on others. This does not appear to be the case with limiting responses to Trump's tweets.
You get your salary at the END of the month, not the beginning. So why should the likes of WSJ get paid BEFORE they've proven their worth?
Build up the reputation for being worth paying for FIRST, and THEN you can try making us pay for it, because by then we've information to decide if it's worth the asking price. "Trust us, it'll be great, amazing" is not worth a penny.
They have free trials, dont they?
I'd like it to be a choice when running a search. When I'm looking for generic info, I'd like to be able to filter out paywalled info. For more esoteric stuff or scientific articles I might want to include paid sources, and have them ranked equal amongst free sources, based on relevance only.
Sure. Having a choice would be nice. But for "generic" info, you have wikipedia. For everything else, you either have to pay, or visit a site that's trying to sell you something else.
I'd love it if I could not only filter out paywall sites, but all sites which only exist to try to sell me shit.
For all the wonderful business models that have developed with the internet, there are only two that have stuck: sites that get you to pay for their shit or sites that sell you other shit. If Google filtered those out, the internet would be very small.
News in it's current state is not getting my money. There's very few that aren't just all click bait and stories about celebrities ...
I share your frustration, but it's this exact attitude that is causing the media to behave this way. If we all put our money where our mouth is and paid for reputable sources and not just clicked on whatever google sends us, we would all be better off.
Google wants to index the world's information? Fine. Deciding its own policies on information retrieval and what business model it wants to promote? No bueno.
This goes to the heart of the purpose of a search engine. Should it solely return "free" results? What if those results are biased because they are ad-supported? Should they return only independent premium results? What if there is no independent source or the cost of the premium source is so high they are effectively inaccessible to the searcher?
There are a lot of difficult and interesting questions here, but no easy answers.
Dude nobody in finance reads the WSJ. Everyone follows Bloomberg.
WSJ may be slower than Bloomberg, but they are more influential. Everyone may read Bloomberg, but when WSJ says something, they turn their head.
So WSJ wants what is essentially free advertising for its articles. If it's so important, WSJ should pay Google with Ad Sense like every other company.
Is Google's job to return the most relevant results, the most relevant free results, or the most relevant results weighted by their cost for access?
The simple truth is that there a million sources for news.
There actually aren't. The vast majority of news is generated from a handful of organizations with real humans on the ground doing the work. The other "sources" of news read and summarize those original articles, often with a much lower quality level. If you believe that by searching the internet for news you're getting a "million" different opinions and analyses, you're just wrong.
the majority of people searching get no value from paywalled content. It's less relevant in the real sense that it's irrelevant to the majority of users....
I think this depends on the person, the search, and the cost for accessing the media. A better search engine would know how likely you are to pay for premium content and would suggest it to you. It would also be able to push you towards premium content if it was really worth it. A search engine that gives everyone free but crappy results is not necessarily the best.
Relevance is measured in eyeballs, not subscribers. Back in the days when I was riding the train into the city, you could tell the serious people from the unserious ones by what paper they were reading. With online, it's word of mouth, not the paper you see people with.
It's a long term death sentence to put up a paywall.
This was the prevailing wisdom for much of the internet's rise, but I'm not sure it's as true anymore. Despite an avalanche of media outlets, there are not too many media generators (e.g., companies that gather news, that develop original programming, etc.). The rise of Netflix and its ilk is a testament to this. I'm not going to make a prediction on the future of media, but placing bets on free content solely funded by advertising is by no means a sure bet.
They want Google to treat their articles equally in search rankings, despite being behind a paywall. Essentially :Free Advertising disguised as news.
What is a search engine's purpose? To find you relevant information? Or to find you less relevant free information?
Lemme guess, they solved all the hard parts and now all they have to do is commercialize it? Gonna do the typical 3 to 5 year prediction? Not holding my breath.
This isn't a study, it's a WAG (Wild A$$ guess).
If self-driving cars advanced as quickly as predictions about self-driving cars, we would have them by now.
Witnesses are not called in to court to be viewed, they are called in to be cross-examined.
Witnesses are absolutely called into court so they can be viewed. They don't have to be cross-examined in court. Cross-examination can be done privately with a court reporter, just like it is done with discovery depositions. In fact, certain courts follow this procedure.
As someone with no hotel brand allegiance, I'd rather earn my points through hotels.com than a single chain. This allows me to get the best location at an amenity tier that fits my trip. Sometimes I want cheap and sometimes I will pamper myself.
Totally agree. I've received a number of free nights from hotels.com, it's better than most hotel's loyalty programs.
I stick with IHG and the loyalty program there. It more than pays off for me...
I would bet that you are in the minority. The vast majority of people don't travel regularly for business, they have their 1-3 trips a year and stay wherever is cheapest/nicest. I travel regularly for work (~1/month) but pay for travel out of pocket, so I'm always looking for a deal. I don't bother with the loyalty programs.
I can't imagine caring enough about someone's credibility one way or the other for it to be worthwhile. Do you have an example of when this judgement was needed?
Credibility is everything. And body language and delivery conveys credibility.
Example? Just about every stirring speech.
- It's one thing to read "I have a dream speech". It's another to listen to it, and it's yet another to watch it.
- Obama's careful and thoughtful delivery of his policy, conveys that he understands it.
- Trump's emotional delivery conveys that he understands the "common man".
- It's why people are called into court to testify, rather than relying on a written statement.
I'll add that these visual cues can be deceiving, and often, people overly depend on them and come to a poor result. That said, they aren't worthless.
Listen up children and I'll tell you the solution. The solution is to not run your critical infrastructure on converged IP based networks.
The problem is that almost everything today is "critical infrastructure". It's one thing to build a separate network for dams and nuclear power plants if you deem those as critical infrastructure. It's another if you deem our entire telecommunications system as critical infrastructure. Moving that to IP based systems is pretty unavoidable today.