... a loose buddy list! That's probably one of the features google IM will have! To tell the truth I'm already getting tired of the tense contact list I have now.
The funny thing is that your page and the two of mine say exactly the same thing. By "You're wrong" I originally meant that this post was incorrect in what he said about the endoscope. Endoscope is the general term, not the one referring specifically to the stomach. A colonoscope IS an endoscope. Get it? If not, I don't know what else I can say to you.
No, it's not "wiki and dictionary.com vs a medical optics company", since they all say the same thing. Do you people know how to read? Endoscope is a generic name which includes colonoscopes and many other instruments.
And if you're going to supposedly correct someone who's correcting someone, be EXTRA SURE of what you say. Did you actually read the page you point at? It says exactly what I said - there are several types of endoscopes, one of which is the colonoscope.
By the way, I didn't just post a link to a wiki, I posted another one too, as you may or may not have noticed.
Those estimates are pretty irrelevant for this discussion, I think. When there are many results, those estimates aren't supposed to be accurate at all, that's why the study focused on queries with very few results.
But yes, those numbers you show are quite strange.
Consider this: I have downloaded patches for more security flaws in Firefox than for IE in recent weeks.
You say that as if you wanted to imply that Firefox has more security holes, but that's not a certain conclusion! Couldn't it be the case that Firefox just gets more attention from its developers?
Slashdot Mirror
Lol :) I didn't even knew what randy means. Thanks for the new word :)
Read this fine article. It has six sections, I enjoyed it a lot. Well written, unbiased, and to the point.
... a loose buddy list! That's probably one of the features google IM will have! To tell the truth I'm already getting tired of the tense contact list I have now.
jk, jk...
The funny thing is that your page and the two of mine say exactly the same thing. By "You're wrong" I originally meant that this post was incorrect in what he said about the endoscope. Endoscope is the general term, not the one referring specifically to the stomach. A colonoscope IS an endoscope. Get it? If not, I don't know what else I can say to you.
No, it's not "wiki and dictionary.com vs a medical optics company", since they all say the same thing. Do you people know how to read? Endoscope is a generic name which includes colonoscopes and many other instruments.
Furthermore, each book that he sells wastes some oil, which makes his prophecies self-fulfilling :)
I don't see what you mean. From your post one would conclude that "talk" would indeed be an upcoming service by google.
And if you're going to supposedly correct someone who's correcting someone, be EXTRA SURE of what you say. Did you actually read the page you point at? It says exactly what I said - there are several types of endoscopes, one of which is the colonoscope.
By the way, I didn't just post a link to a wiki, I posted another one too, as you may or may not have noticed.
See subject...
Why don't you try it with a bad password?
It's working perfectly here.
When and where did they say that?
Sorry, but I think you're wrong.
... unless you don't know what an endoscope is.
Those estimates are pretty irrelevant for this discussion, I think. When there are many results, those estimates aren't supposed to be accurate at all, that's why the study focused on queries with very few results.
But yes, those numbers you show are quite strange.
Have you read the study?
Consider this: I have downloaded patches for more security flaws in Firefox than for IE in recent weeks.
You say that as if you wanted to imply that Firefox has more security holes, but that's not a certain conclusion! Couldn't it be the case that Firefox just gets more attention from its developers?
Signed,
Captain Obvious
They don't. And they don't need too.
Wow, someone else who knows necrophagist at slashdot!
No: The "solution to everything".
Last I checked information on their last attack (2^69) was still pretty thin
Check again.
... that Nanotubes are to materials as XML is to software?
Yeah, but how many of the lines just say "this line left intetionally blank"?
I guess they react like me (or at least they should) - that's a problem of the players, not of the people who make the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_c ausation_(logical_fallacy)
I think you mean the opposite.