This. I never got to see a launch in person, but I have always felt awe every single time I watched one of the Shuttles launch. I hope that the US will continue to explore space, and continue to put people up there under their own program.
I think it is objectiveness. It is easier to read, if not "more correct". The more computer power the advertisers and magazine editors have, the more they can "do" with their adverts and articles. But just because they can do more, doesn't mean it is better.
Another example is roleplaying books. White Wolf has some fantastic (and not so fantastic) artwork in their books, but sometimes their layout burns the eyes with harsh contrast between images and text, or not enough contrast so that it all seems to blend together.
If I am sending an email or a typewritten letter, I always hit spacebar twice after a period. In SMS and Twitter, I only hit it once due to the character limitations per message.
Not every building is a tower of glass and steel. You have coordinates, which are slightly off, and Google Maps. Look for the large, flat building nearby, north-eastish.
Thought it was just some furniture or something being moved around upstairs, the usual joke being, "Oh, they've started up the bowling alley again.". However, after it went on longer than 5 seconds and bits starting falling off the ceiling, I started thinking earthquake, and the whole office got the heck out.
Ottawa gets minor earthquakes a few times a year, but this was the first one we've actually FELT in a long time.
It works pretty nicely as a platform for play-by-post roleplaying games. It can act as the forum, the wiki, the live chat, and has gadgets for mapping, dice rolling and character sheets.
I just wish that they'd either separate the numbers out per site, and report on that, or say that the numbers represent searches from all of MS's properties (or Google's or Yahoo's, etc).
And it would be more relevant to compare each search engine/site to each other, rather than tally their total searches. If Google were to grow 5% this month in total number of searches, it would be much larger than if Bing were to grow 50%. That's how big Google is.
However, if Bing were to capture 50% of the entire search market, THAT would be big news.
That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites. This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft's search boxes: Bing, Live, microsoft.com, etc etc.
You'll see that they list Microsofts search sites as "MSN/Windows Live/Bing Search", which is a bit more explanatory I would say.
And if you check Hitwise, where they list searches BY domain name, www.bing.com LOST 4%. (http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/)
Yes, it is Wired's content, but there are rules for fair use.
Some folks just use the highlighting part of copy to read.
Some folks copy and paste links to email themselves so they can find it later. Likewise some folks copy and paste articles, in part or in whole, to themselves to read later.
People do get annoyed when websites do things without saying such things are being done. Wired has every right to defend its content, however, it should do so in an open manner.
I'm not sure if it's possible for the two sides to have a logical, non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation.
When the hack became public and "climate-gate" was unfolding, people were asking on RealClimate.org (one of the sites involved somehow with climategate) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum. In the first 250 comments or so, no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not. People just wanted to know what the heck the numbers meant and what the various acronyms were.
Yet those folks were called deniers. That we didn't "get" it, and never would. These comments weren't from site admins or the scientists involved however.
With the predictable responses from the other side.
Maybe the scientists and researchers on both sides can have a reasoned debate, but for John Q. Public, I guess we've been fed so much "doom-and-gloom" or "it's-all-nonsense" that the yelling and finger-pointing are in full tilt before the cooler heads have even opened their mouths.
Of course the claim of randomness is likely bogus. But if you had an axe to grind, or felt that this information was important, wouldn't you cherry pick the good stuff?
It's said that the hacker had access to 13 YEARS of emails and information. How many peoples' eyes are going to glaze over trying to find what the hacker wanted them to see?
Though, after a bit of a delay, it would be better to release the rest of it. Let folks find new tidbits of information, and perhaps figure out what sort of context these emails were written in.
Not really. No one is looking at the other folks on the search list, like eBay (-1%), craigslist (-5%), Facebook (-14%) and others. They're only interested in reporting on the big three, and are willing to misconstrue the stats to boot.
Bing doesn't have a 10% share of total searches, according to the scores. The total search % for all Microsoft sites is 9.9% however, which includes Bing and other search options from all the MS sites. Just as the total search % for Google includes all Google sites, not just the main Google Search engine.
If you look at the expanded search stats below the first blurb on ComScore's press release, and do the very simple math, Bing has 5.6% of total search. Just as the main Google search engine does not have 65.4% of total searches, but 44.4%.
I do wish folks would read and do the math before claiming Bing or Google has such and such a percentage.
There are more than fifty jurisdictions now that have similar bans in place.
Frankly, if whatever it is you're doing while driving makes it so you don't notice the cop until they're pulling you over, you deserve the damn ticket.
It appears that disabling this sneaky MS addon also prevents Google Wave from loading. It was working fine until the warning popped up, and of course I trusted Firefox. Now I can only get the outlines of the waves, but no text or other content.
Slashdot Mirror
Traditionally? You mean, way back in old school game developing? It's not like things change right? They just stay the same forever...
This. I never got to see a launch in person, but I have always felt awe every single time I watched one of the Shuttles launch. I hope that the US will continue to explore space, and continue to put people up there under their own program.
You are tracked by your bank and CC company every time you use your card anyways.
Being spammed by advertising, that's a more legitimate concern in my eyes.
I think it is objectiveness. It is easier to read, if not "more correct". The more computer power the advertisers and magazine editors have, the more they can "do" with their adverts and articles. But just because they can do more, doesn't mean it is better.
Another example is roleplaying books. White Wolf has some fantastic (and not so fantastic) artwork in their books, but sometimes their layout burns the eyes with harsh contrast between images and text, or not enough contrast so that it all seems to blend together.
If I am sending an email or a typewritten letter, I always hit spacebar twice after a period. In SMS and Twitter, I only hit it once due to the character limitations per message.
Not every building is a tower of glass and steel. You have coordinates, which are slightly off, and Google Maps. Look for the large, flat building nearby, north-eastish.
Thought it was just some furniture or something being moved around upstairs, the usual joke being, "Oh, they've started up the bowling alley again.". However, after it went on longer than 5 seconds and bits starting falling off the ceiling, I started thinking earthquake, and the whole office got the heck out.
Ottawa gets minor earthquakes a few times a year, but this was the first one we've actually FELT in a long time.
It works pretty nicely as a platform for play-by-post roleplaying games. It can act as the forum, the wiki, the live chat, and has gadgets for mapping, dice rolling and character sheets.
Haha, think Wave will get Slashdotted?
Probably the fastest a Google product has ever gotten out of beta. :)
It's definitely worth a look though!
Hehe, I will say that in the last image of the email exchange, Steve Jobs really zinged Tate.
I just wish that they'd either separate the numbers out per site, and report on that, or say that the numbers represent searches from all of MS's properties (or Google's or Yahoo's, etc).
And it would be more relevant to compare each search engine/site to each other, rather than tally their total searches. If Google were to grow 5% this month in total number of searches, it would be much larger than if Bing were to grow 50%. That's how big Google is.
However, if Bing were to capture 50% of the entire search market, THAT would be big news.
That total you see in the image in the article is for Microsoft Sites. This number includes searches from ALL of Microsoft's search boxes: Bing, Live, microsoft.com, etc etc.
If you look at the Nielsen report here: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/nielsen-reports-december-u-s-search-rankings/
You'll see that they list Microsofts search sites as "MSN/Windows Live/Bing Search", which is a bit more explanatory I would say.
And if you check Hitwise, where they list searches BY domain name, www.bing.com LOST 4%. (http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press-releases/search-enginedec2009/)
Yes, it is Wired's content, but there are rules for fair use.
Some folks just use the highlighting part of copy to read.
Some folks copy and paste links to email themselves so they can find it later. Likewise some folks copy and paste articles, in part or in whole, to themselves to read later.
People do get annoyed when websites do things without saying such things are being done. Wired has every right to defend its content, however, it should do so in an open manner.
Not sure how the parent of this is a troll either. Are people who are moderating even reading what they're rating?
How the hell is the parent of this a troll?
I'm not sure if it's possible for the two sides to have a logical, non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation.
When the hack became public and "climate-gate" was unfolding, people were asking on RealClimate.org (one of the sites involved somehow with climategate) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum. In the first 250 comments or so, no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not. People just wanted to know what the heck the numbers meant and what the various acronyms were.
Yet those folks were called deniers. That we didn't "get" it, and never would. These comments weren't from site admins or the scientists involved however.
With the predictable responses from the other side.
Maybe the scientists and researchers on both sides can have a reasoned debate, but for John Q. Public, I guess we've been fed so much "doom-and-gloom" or "it's-all-nonsense" that the yelling and finger-pointing are in full tilt before the cooler heads have even opened their mouths.
Of course the claim of randomness is likely bogus. But if you had an axe to grind, or felt that this information was important, wouldn't you cherry pick the good stuff?
It's said that the hacker had access to 13 YEARS of emails and information. How many peoples' eyes are going to glaze over trying to find what the hacker wanted them to see?
Though, after a bit of a delay, it would be better to release the rest of it. Let folks find new tidbits of information, and perhaps figure out what sort of context these emails were written in.
Pics or it didn't happen.
The 10% number is all of MS sites combined. Not just Bing. So, quite likely, it includes embedded things in apps and Windows Live.
Not really. No one is looking at the other folks on the search list, like eBay (-1%), craigslist (-5%), Facebook (-14%) and others. They're only interested in reporting on the big three, and are willing to misconstrue the stats to boot.
Bing doesn't have a 10% share of total searches, according to the scores. The total search % for all Microsoft sites is 9.9% however, which includes Bing and other search options from all the MS sites. Just as the total search % for Google includes all Google sites, not just the main Google Search engine.
If you look at the expanded search stats below the first blurb on ComScore's press release, and do the very simple math, Bing has 5.6% of total search. Just as the main Google search engine does not have 65.4% of total searches, but 44.4%.
I do wish folks would read and do the math before claiming Bing or Google has such and such a percentage.
Bing != All MS search queries
There are more than fifty jurisdictions now that have similar bans in place. Frankly, if whatever it is you're doing while driving makes it so you don't notice the cop until they're pulling you over, you deserve the damn ticket.
It appears that disabling this sneaky MS addon also prevents Google Wave from loading. It was working fine until the warning popped up, and of course I trusted Firefox. Now I can only get the outlines of the waves, but no text or other content.
:P
Now using Google Chrome...
WIPO