General Saunders: That sounds like the kind of password an idiot would put on his encrypted diplomatic cables file Julian Scroob: Somebody change the password on my file!
Someone expects the government to diagnose and correctly prescribe treatment for AGW? Where have these people been the last 40 years? Unless you're a basement dweller who has cut off all communication with the outside world, you have to know that "unintended consequences" is the touchstone of modern government action of any kind. We're talking about the same group of brilliant idiots who can't agree on which direction the sun rises and who believe that the solution to the debt crisis is more spending. Hello McFly!
It practically writes itself as a disaster movie script: In a world where the greenhouse gas problem has become too bad to ignore...
It would be interesting to know if they could so easily skew the results of a legitimate search, but nonsense searches aren't going to have much of any data to go on.
If you'd read the original article, this is exactly what twigged Google to the fact that this was happening. Google didn't just suddenly decide "Hey, lets see what Bing is doing" at random--they noticed that Bing was using Google's results for a misspelled search term, that showed the same top result as Google's but without displaying the corrected spelling. This lead Google engineers to wonder how Bing got that result and thus to set up their experiment.
The skewing of results is minor (click-stream info from Google searches is only one of Bing's inputs and apparently not heavily weighted) which is why the Google engineers used nonsense terms--it was easiest to see the results where few or no results were returned.
And you (like others in this thread) seem to be implying that it doesn't matter what data Microsoft got, but it does. If Bing were collecting click-stream data to track what Websites I visited and clicked around on and then used that to tweak their results, that would be one thing. In fact, I wish result rankings could give weight to "back button" clicks to move results down from the top--if I go to somedomain.com from a search and immediately go back to the search results, you can guess that somedomain.com shouldn't be a top result for that search term.
In any event, no matter how much you want to defend Microsoft in this case, tracking Google search results via click-stream data is, for all practical purposes, using Google search results to tweak Bing. It's not illegal, but I'd agree that it comes across as a bit dodgy.
(For the record, I don't particularly like Google Search or Bing, or Google Inc, or Microsoft)
You're splitting hairs. The click-stream information is Google search results. Pretending that because _users_ submitted this information to Microsoft it somehow isn't Bing using Google search results to tweak its rankings is silly.
That said, this isn't as straightforward an issue as either Microsoft or Google wants the public to believe. On the one hand, MS is collecting information on results returned by Google and using them to tweak Bing. On the other hand, it's not collecting this information without consent. On the gripping hand, the consent is buried in vague language in a click-through screen.
This definitely isn't illegal. And since the Google results information is clearly only one of the signals that Bing is using, I'm not even I'd argue it's "cheating"--but it isn't the sort of thing that's likely to win Microsoft any friends, especially as they're refusing to own up to what they're really doing (though that is likely in part because it's hard to explain to a non-technical audience)
Your answer (legislate) to the problem (accessibility) is amusingly contrary to your anecdote. No one forced the "nice" store to comply with some arcane requirement (which would undoubtedly require a huge bureaucracy to administer and hundreds of lawyers to sue non-compliant businesses), but they did what they thought was best.
If "the blind" are really such a wealthy group of consumers, why is it necessary for government to intrude on their behalf? Surely it's reasonable that businesses who think the benefit worth the cost should address their needs while others who do not, can go without their business. At this rate, the government will soon be telling retail web sites what order their navigation links must be in to "level the playing field"
This is what gets me about the current atmosphere in this country: why does everything always seem come down to "this is what I want, and I want the government to make things that way"? I guess when your position is illogical and you can't make any headway in the marketplace of ideas, that's the only recourse?
I'm afraid that the contradiction between your stated position and your sig just made my head esplode.
If these companies stop manufacturing the kits, it doesn't mean that they're the evil suxors, it means that they don't think that they can do the testing and make a profit. The first rule of understanding capitalism is: Don't ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by economic motives.
The issue with advertising (as I see it) is that there are actually a lot of small advertisers who are willing to pay for ad space, but only if it's relevant. For instance, I see ads for a local shop--that provides services as opposed to retail--in one app on my phone. You can bet that that shop owner would be unwilling to pay for ads that were going to be distributed nationally, because 99% of the people who see that ad aren't going to live close enough to use the service.
For someone like a car company, or an on-line retailer, or national fast food chain, location might not matter. Anyone anywhere might buy a Ford, shop at Amazon, or eat at McDonalds. But those big companies aren't going to be interested in advertising in a fart app that's been downloaded 300 times.
I suspect that this, along with the thorny issue of using now-capped bandwidth to serve ads, is going to put ad-supported apps out of business.
The natural consequence of smaller government is less government coercion of private behavior.
Right now all we have are two wings of the fascists--the "liberals" who want the State to tell people how to live: recycle or be fined, eat what we say or pay higher taxes, don't commit the "hate crime" of creating a "hostile environment" (essentially the criminalization of thought); and the "conservatives" who want the State to tell people how to live: don't view pornography, wear a flag pin, don't view Web sites about "terrorist" topics (essentially the criminalization of thought).
I wish that there were more liberals (in the classic sense) who could see their common ground with Libertarians. I think it could be a powerful counter-force to the Tea Party movement, which I thought might actually be a force for good until it was high jacked by the "conservative" wing of the two-sided coin that's our current party system.
People procrastinate (both individually and in groups) because in a lot of cases, waiting to decide is the rational thing to do. Making a snap decision can be helpful in some cases (and thus the fight/flight reaction) but a lot of times it's better to collect more information before deciding what to do. You see smoke over the next hill--run away willy-nilly and chance running into the fire's path, or wait to determine wind direction and if you're actually in danger?
Unfortunately, your average inhabitant of congress doesn't have enough brain power to decipher the words "unintended consequences" (too many syllables, I guess) let alone understand the concept.
But hey, since they've already solved all of the country's big problems, it's definitely time to move on to micromanaging web development. After all, they've been so successful with most of their technology laws and what could possibly go wrong?
Since the reactor isn't online yet, I'd say now was the ideal time. Or do you think it's better to wait and bomb/sabotage Bushehr once it's up and running?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is. That and mud. They go together like... like... neuropsychological research and mud :-)
So was the title writer sitting on the left or right side of the magnet generating the test field?
General Saunders: That sounds like the kind of password an idiot would put on his encrypted diplomatic cables file
Julian Scroob: Somebody change the password on my file!
Exactly.
Someone expects the government to diagnose and correctly prescribe treatment for AGW? Where have these people been the last 40 years? Unless you're a basement dweller who has cut off all communication with the outside world, you have to know that "unintended consequences" is the touchstone of modern government action of any kind. We're talking about the same group of brilliant idiots who can't agree on which direction the sun rises and who believe that the solution to the debt crisis is more spending. Hello McFly!
It practically writes itself as a disaster movie script: In a world where the greenhouse gas problem has become too bad to ignore...
I think that step 4 is a given.
There is no spoon.
It would be interesting to know if they could so easily skew the results of a legitimate search, but nonsense searches aren't going to have much of any data to go on.
If you'd read the original article, this is exactly what twigged Google to the fact that this was happening. Google didn't just suddenly decide "Hey, lets see what Bing is doing" at random--they noticed that Bing was using Google's results for a misspelled search term, that showed the same top result as Google's but without displaying the corrected spelling. This lead Google engineers to wonder how Bing got that result and thus to set up their experiment.
The skewing of results is minor (click-stream info from Google searches is only one of Bing's inputs and apparently not heavily weighted) which is why the Google engineers used nonsense terms--it was easiest to see the results where few or no results were returned.
And you (like others in this thread) seem to be implying that it doesn't matter what data Microsoft got, but it does. If Bing were collecting click-stream data to track what Websites I visited and clicked around on and then used that to tweak their results, that would be one thing. In fact, I wish result rankings could give weight to "back button" clicks to move results down from the top--if I go to somedomain.com from a search and immediately go back to the search results, you can guess that somedomain.com shouldn't be a top result for that search term.
In any event, no matter how much you want to defend Microsoft in this case, tracking Google search results via click-stream data is, for all practical purposes, using Google search results to tweak Bing. It's not illegal, but I'd agree that it comes across as a bit dodgy.
(For the record, I don't particularly like Google Search or Bing, or Google Inc, or Microsoft)
You're splitting hairs. The click-stream information is Google search results. Pretending that because _users_ submitted this information to Microsoft it somehow isn't Bing using Google search results to tweak its rankings is silly.
That said, this isn't as straightforward an issue as either Microsoft or Google wants the public to believe. On the one hand, MS is collecting information on results returned by Google and using them to tweak Bing. On the other hand, it's not collecting this information without consent. On the gripping hand, the consent is buried in vague language in a click-through screen.
This definitely isn't illegal. And since the Google results information is clearly only one of the signals that Bing is using, I'm not even I'd argue it's "cheating"--but it isn't the sort of thing that's likely to win Microsoft any friends, especially as they're refusing to own up to what they're really doing (though that is likely in part because it's hard to explain to a non-technical audience)
That's no helium atom...
But 2.5 billion megatons of TNT gives a new meaning to "mutually assured destruction" doesn't it?
Well, it's a /. "editor" so I'm guessing B) "some dude wearing nothing but underwear and a threadbare tinfoil hat?" (shudders at the mental image)
Your answer (legislate) to the problem (accessibility) is amusingly contrary to your anecdote. No one forced the "nice" store to comply with some arcane requirement (which would undoubtedly require a huge bureaucracy to administer and hundreds of lawyers to sue non-compliant businesses), but they did what they thought was best.
If "the blind" are really such a wealthy group of consumers, why is it necessary for government to intrude on their behalf? Surely it's reasonable that businesses who think the benefit worth the cost should address their needs while others who do not, can go without their business. At this rate, the government will soon be telling retail web sites what order their navigation links must be in to "level the playing field"
This is what gets me about the current atmosphere in this country: why does everything always seem come down to "this is what I want, and I want the government to make things that way"? I guess when your position is illogical and you can't make any headway in the marketplace of ideas, that's the only recourse?
You think that's hard, you should try switching to Dvorak!
... dunno what else it reacts with offhand though.
Well, that's what your science kit is for :-)
Hello Joshua--I suppose you're posting this via abacus?
I'm afraid that the contradiction between your stated position and your sig just made my head esplode.
If these companies stop manufacturing the kits, it doesn't mean that they're the evil suxors, it means that they don't think that they can do the testing and make a profit. The first rule of understanding capitalism is: Don't ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by economic motives.
Don't try to understand the editors. That is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there are no editors.
I have a sneaking suspicion of collusion between wireless carriers and phone providers, that goes something like:
1. Have developers offer "free" ad-supported apps which helps sell phone
2. Cap bandwidth by which ads are served
3.????
4. Profit !
The issue with advertising (as I see it) is that there are actually a lot of small advertisers who are willing to pay for ad space, but only if it's relevant. For instance, I see ads for a local shop--that provides services as opposed to retail--in one app on my phone. You can bet that that shop owner would be unwilling to pay for ads that were going to be distributed nationally, because 99% of the people who see that ad aren't going to live close enough to use the service.
For someone like a car company, or an on-line retailer, or national fast food chain, location might not matter. Anyone anywhere might buy a Ford, shop at Amazon, or eat at McDonalds. But those big companies aren't going to be interested in advertising in a fart app that's been downloaded 300 times.
I suspect that this, along with the thorny issue of using now-capped bandwidth to serve ads, is going to put ad-supported apps out of business.
The natural consequence of smaller government is less government coercion of private behavior.
Right now all we have are two wings of the fascists--the "liberals" who want the State to tell people how to live: recycle or be fined, eat what we say or pay higher taxes, don't commit the "hate crime" of creating a "hostile environment" (essentially the criminalization of thought); and the "conservatives" who want the State to tell people how to live: don't view pornography, wear a flag pin, don't view Web sites about "terrorist" topics (essentially the criminalization of thought).
I wish that there were more liberals (in the classic sense) who could see their common ground with Libertarians. I think it could be a powerful counter-force to the Tea Party movement, which I thought might actually be a force for good until it was high jacked by the "conservative" wing of the two-sided coin that's our current party system.
People procrastinate (both individually and in groups) because in a lot of cases, waiting to decide is the rational thing to do. Making a snap decision can be helpful in some cases (and thus the fight/flight reaction) but a lot of times it's better to collect more information before deciding what to do. You see smoke over the next hill--run away willy-nilly and chance running into the fire's path, or wait to determine wind direction and if you're actually in danger?
You could pretty much completely wipe out Israel with a single nuke, providing it was big enough. Seriously--it's about the size of New Jersey.
And as far as I can tell, expecting rational behavior from the mullahs is... irrational.
Yes.
Unfortunately, your average inhabitant of congress doesn't have enough brain power to decipher the words "unintended consequences" (too many syllables, I guess) let alone understand the concept.
But hey, since they've already solved all of the country's big problems, it's definitely time to move on to micromanaging web development. After all, they've been so successful with most of their technology laws and what could possibly go wrong?
Since the reactor isn't online yet, I'd say now was the ideal time. Or do you think it's better to wait and bomb/sabotage Bushehr once it's up and running?