What is your basis for this? I've used AT&T with an iPhone for 4 years, and I travel constantly. In Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo New York, Indianapolis, New York City, upstate New York, Houston, Atlanta, the Smoky Mountains, Charleston South Carolina, Mexico City, San Francisco, San Jose CA, the middle of the mountains of Northern California, Reno Nevada, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and while driving in between, I've NEVER had a problem with coverage. Except at home, where I have radio interference from a nearby AM radio station.
I constantly use data tethering and I'm on the phone at the same time. Only in the remotest regions of the country do I lose Edge, and even when AT&T has no tower, I can roam to one of the numerous regional GSM providers to make and receive phone calls.
Did you not already have sufficient reason to avoid Verizon? They're so-called 3G network is unable to handle voice and data simultaneously. They lock down all of their phones and install their own operating system. You can't use their phones on any other network in the US or internationally unless you bought a "world" version, and their service costs more than even AT&T.
Republicans dislike the idea of the FEDERAL government doing anything outside those specifically outlined in the US Constitution. The state and local governments are not part of that. It's not all government.
Seriously, your reply is not an answer. It shows the level of your intelligence that rather than respond to my questions or comments, you tell me to argue with someone else. There will always be someone who has a differing opinion, I have no shortage of such. I posted discuss the subject, not to role-play with you using popular opinion-holders. Do you have any knowledge of your own?
I'll response seriously with the hope that you're actually intelligent and looking for facts.
Please go to North Korea, Somalia and other so called "third world countries" where there is no government and the people are ruled by clans.
North Korea is an example of extreme control by government, where everything is owned and controlled by the government. Somalia had a communist government before it collapsed, and its economy has been steadily improving ever since.
The argument in this thread is not about a government that can "hire police and firefighters, build schools and hospitals." The US Federal government has no involvement in these, except in cases where it's overstepped its Constitutional mandate. These functions are provided by State and local (county, city, township) governments.
The government bailed all banks out, bailed GM out, and you argue that we should have less taxes and the government should spend less?
A perfect example of how the US Federal government is creating a hostile business environment. In a free economy, the banks and businesses that made poor business decisions would be taken apart and their assets sold, enabling their assets to be used by others. By bailing out these organizations, the government has created an environment where poor business decisions will result in no bad consequences to the person making the decision. Taking this to the extreme, shareholders can now demand that these banks make the same decisions so that they will again get a cash infusion from the government.
If they hadn't "bailed them out,", those individuals would have been out of work, and would have to explain themselves when they applied for new jobs. As it is, they still have their jobs.
You know how to go out of the current recession and get the economy back on track? Increase taxes for cooperation and the top income individuals and increase government spending. Increase the control of Wall Street and the banking sector. Increase the deficit. After you got out of the current recession then you can decrease government spending again because now the "market" can provide services again.
But besides transistors, communications satellites, Unix, C, digital networking, solar cells, fire extinguishers, lasers, and cellphones, what's Bell Labs ever done for us?
These have been around for decades, and are still around and well-funded. Since they were created, the problems they address have only gotten worse--not suddenly, because of cuts, but gradually. It is obvious that "assisting" poor people by paying for their survival is not a workable long-term solution, regardless of how good it makes you feel.
...the real opposition to welfare is actually a matter of only slightly veiled racism on the part of conservative Republicans
Apply Occam's razor. Is it really more likely that those who want to reduce welfare programs are racist? Or that they want to slow the deluge of wasteful government spending?
Perhaps I'll quote some past US Presidents:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." (apparently Gerald Ford)
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." (definitely Thomas Jefferson)
Are these racist statements?
Does the proverb, “Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime.” somehow no longer apply?
They didn't know why the user visited the link after that search. The user might have clicked something unrelated to the search, including an advertisement. The fact that they know the user did it is not the same as knowing WHY the user did it.
I agree that these results were already in their database. However, they were not associated with the search terms at all.
By your description, Bing would have a list of every single word in their index, with a table that correlates every single URL to these words. No. There is a not a degree of correlation of every combination, there are those that have a degree of correlation, and the rest are not in any way related.
When Bing they saw a user click a link on Google that Bing hadn't previously associated with the search keyword, they added an association of the search keyword to the link URL. That association didn't previously exist. So because Google decided that the URL was relevant to the keyword, Bing added that association without knowing why. Bing's algorithm (rightly) had no reason to associate them, they simply appropriated the association from Google, through a middleman.
Oh, so the Bing results aren't based on Google's returned results, but they're based on Google's returned results that were clicked? A distinction without a difference. It still uses Google's results. And the fact that the Google engineer was involved in the sting operation is irrelevent; Google proved that Bing is doing this for all searches that are captured using the Toolbar.
"Based on prior tech" or "improved upon" are not the same as "knock-off that is provided free in order to put the original creator of the product out of business." Microsoft has very few, if any, products that were improvements on the competition. In the cases where the competition was put out of business (e.g. Netscape) the Microsoft product did not innovate or even improve once the competition was eliminated. Google and Apple improved greatly upon previous products.
Apple may have put others out of business, but they did it with a better product, certainly not a cheaper one. Google may have put others out of business, but they did it with a better product, not an inferior knock-off that was pushed on customers that didn't know better. Both have to earn their customers with each product.
While Google search results look like links directly to their targets (because they are, right up until they are clicked), Google uses javascript to dynamically rewrite the link target to google URL which includes the target page URL and search terms, which is how Google tracks the click throughs (this Google page then redirects to the real target with a 302 response.)
Interesting theory, but demonstrably untrue. Install Live HTTP Headers and do a Google search, then click a result. There's no such redirect.
They track clicks of search results using Javascript, using the mousedown event on each search result link. There doesn't seem to be a server-side call, so they're probably setting a cookie with the click information and then reading the cookie later, when you return to Google.
They didn't "raise the relevance" of the links in question, they added the links to Bing for those terms. Not only did they prove that Bing is copying search results from Google through the Toolbar users, they proved that Bing is easy to game using click fraud.
Are you stupid? Or being intentionally obtuse? The Google employee became part of the group of Bing Toolbar users in order to show that Bing was copying search results from the clickstream data. The fact that the search results are fake is essential in proving that fact. The only people who are being deceitful are those stating that Bing is not copying results from Google. They're copying search results from everyone including Google, and Google proved it.
Amazing how many ACs are pro-Microsoft shills today. Bing DID copy the search result. In the article, they describe how they injected fake keyword search results into Bing by placing them in Google and then clicking the results of a Google search. Bing didn't change the rank of search results based on the click tracking, it ADDED THE SEARCH RESULTS to Bing.
The day google folds, Bing instantly becomes a worse product than it was the day before.
Holy shit, I shouldn't have had to scroll down so far to find a comment of this nature. Right-the-fuck-spot-on. What I'm thinking after reading the article, finally stated. Everyone else is making stupid car analogies, or discussing whether Bing is doing something "illegal."
What they're doing is, at best, unethical. If it had its intended effect, which is to make Bing attractive enough to users that Google loses popularity and no longer has the resources to keep its search engine top-notch, WE suffer. All of us. Microsoft's actions in this case are immoral and unethical. Like any of us are surprised.
it is not storing your search as such, but ranking certain pages higher based on your search term
They parsed the Google URL and used the search terms to rank the links that were clicked on the search results page. The search results that were clicked on the Google search results page were not previously in Bing at all for the corresponding keywords. They absolutely stored the search "as such." Did you seriously RTFA and then post this?
I never did like Bush much, but I can't believe you're still repeating these pieces of bullshit.
Clinton lied while under oath. It was not adultery that was the issue, it was having a sexual encounter with an intern, a subordinate of his. In business, this would usually result in termination of employment. And it wasn't that he lied to "the country," he lied to the United States Senate. While he wasn't convicted of perjury, it's widely agreed that the conviction vote was partisan, with all but 5 of his own party voting against conviction.
Bush relayed and acted on intelligence. Intelligence that Congress also examined. They voted based on the intelligence that they had access to (which is ALL of it), not based solely on Bush's word. If members of Congress chose to ignore intelligence to the contrary, that doesn't make Bush a liar.
I just tested to be sure, but as long as the account is set to "Include when automatically checking for new messages" and you haven't unsubscribed the folder, it will get new messages without you clicking on the folder.
When you click the folder, it still runs an update to make sure it's not out-of-date. Also, you can set it to keep copies of all messages and attachments (the default), or just messages, or just read messages, or not to store locally at all.
Slashdot Mirror
True, except that cats are carnivores, which makes them more likely to have certain parasites. I will stick to herbivores. Delicious herbivores.
What is your basis for this? I've used AT&T with an iPhone for 4 years, and I travel constantly. In Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo New York, Indianapolis, New York City, upstate New York, Houston, Atlanta, the Smoky Mountains, Charleston South Carolina, Mexico City, San Francisco, San Jose CA, the middle of the mountains of Northern California, Reno Nevada, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and while driving in between, I've NEVER had a problem with coverage. Except at home, where I have radio interference from a nearby AM radio station.
I constantly use data tethering and I'm on the phone at the same time. Only in the remotest regions of the country do I lose Edge, and even when AT&T has no tower, I can roam to one of the numerous regional GSM providers to make and receive phone calls.
You are doing that on their LTE network, which they are calling their 4G network. They have it in few markets, and few devices support it.
Again, their so-called 3G network is unable to handle voice and data simultaneously. LTE is actually a 3G network, despite Verizon's marketing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_term_evolution
Did you not already have sufficient reason to avoid Verizon? They're so-called 3G network is unable to handle voice and data simultaneously. They lock down all of their phones and install their own operating system. You can't use their phones on any other network in the US or internationally unless you bought a "world" version, and their service costs more than even AT&T.
Then I can sit here and feel both smug and superior to you.
capitalize |kaptlz|
verb
1 [ intrans. ] ( capitalize on) take the chance to gain advantage from
Has nothing to do with capitalism.
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPad
iPad 2
iPod touch
iPod touch 2nd gen
iPod touch 3rd gen
iPod touch 4th gen
And the WiFi is complemented by Verizon service with one hundred megabytes per second per month?
The 3G-only version is cheaper than the version that also supports WiFi?
What's a Cr-48?
"Jamming it down"?
Improvements in Flash? Seriously?
Republicans dislike the idea of the FEDERAL government doing anything outside those specifically outlined in the US Constitution. The state and local governments are not part of that. It's not all government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
I will send your Robert Pollin to argue with Gary Becker, James M. Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward C. Prescott, and Vernon L. Smith all at once.
Seriously, your reply is not an answer. It shows the level of your intelligence that rather than respond to my questions or comments, you tell me to argue with someone else. There will always be someone who has a differing opinion, I have no shortage of such. I posted discuss the subject, not to role-play with you using popular opinion-holders. Do you have any knowledge of your own?
I'll response seriously with the hope that you're actually intelligent and looking for facts.
North Korea is an example of extreme control by government, where everything is owned and controlled by the government. Somalia had a communist government before it collapsed, and its economy has been steadily improving ever since.
The argument in this thread is not about a government that can "hire police and firefighters, build schools and hospitals." The US Federal government has no involvement in these, except in cases where it's overstepped its Constitutional mandate. These functions are provided by State and local (county, city, township) governments.
A perfect example of how the US Federal government is creating a hostile business environment. In a free economy, the banks and businesses that made poor business decisions would be taken apart and their assets sold, enabling their assets to be used by others. By bailing out these organizations, the government has created an environment where poor business decisions will result in no bad consequences to the person making the decision. Taking this to the extreme, shareholders can now demand that these banks make the same decisions so that they will again get a cash infusion from the government.
If they hadn't "bailed them out,", those individuals would have been out of work, and would have to explain themselves when they applied for new jobs. As it is, they still have their jobs.
Can you give an example where this worked?
But besides transistors, communications satellites, Unix, C, digital networking, solar cells, fire extinguishers, lasers, and cellphones, what's Bell Labs ever done for us?
Citation please.
The US has all of these, and more.
While these are not "universal", they cover everyone who supposedly can't afford private health insurance.
These have been around for decades, and are still around and well-funded. Since they were created, the problems they address have only gotten worse--not suddenly, because of cuts, but gradually. It is obvious that "assisting" poor people by paying for their survival is not a workable long-term solution, regardless of how good it makes you feel.
Apply Occam's razor. Is it really more likely that those who want to reduce welfare programs are racist? Or that they want to slow the deluge of wasteful government spending?
Perhaps I'll quote some past US Presidents:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." (apparently Gerald Ford)
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." (definitely Thomas Jefferson)
Are these racist statements?
Does the proverb, “Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime.” somehow no longer apply?
They didn't know why the user visited the link after that search. The user might have clicked something unrelated to the search, including an advertisement. The fact that they know the user did it is not the same as knowing WHY the user did it.
I agree that these results were already in their database. However, they were not associated with the search terms at all.
By your description, Bing would have a list of every single word in their index, with a table that correlates every single URL to these words. No. There is a not a degree of correlation of every combination, there are those that have a degree of correlation, and the rest are not in any way related.
When Bing they saw a user click a link on Google that Bing hadn't previously associated with the search keyword, they added an association of the search keyword to the link URL. That association didn't previously exist. So because Google decided that the URL was relevant to the keyword, Bing added that association without knowing why. Bing's algorithm (rightly) had no reason to associate them, they simply appropriated the association from Google, through a middleman.
Oh, so the Bing results aren't based on Google's returned results, but they're based on Google's returned results that were clicked? A distinction without a difference. It still uses Google's results. And the fact that the Google engineer was involved in the sting operation is irrelevent; Google proved that Bing is doing this for all searches that are captured using the Toolbar.
"Based on prior tech" or "improved upon" are not the same as "knock-off that is provided free in order to put the original creator of the product out of business." Microsoft has very few, if any, products that were improvements on the competition. In the cases where the competition was put out of business (e.g. Netscape) the Microsoft product did not innovate or even improve once the competition was eliminated. Google and Apple improved greatly upon previous products.
Apple may have put others out of business, but they did it with a better product, certainly not a cheaper one. Google may have put others out of business, but they did it with a better product, not an inferior knock-off that was pushed on customers that didn't know better. Both have to earn their customers with each product.
Interesting theory, but demonstrably untrue. Install Live HTTP Headers and do a Google search, then click a result. There's no such redirect.
They track clicks of search results using Javascript, using the mousedown event on each search result link. There doesn't seem to be a server-side call, so they're probably setting a cookie with the click information and then reading the cookie later, when you return to Google.
They didn't "raise the relevance" of the links in question, they added the links to Bing for those terms. Not only did they prove that Bing is copying search results from Google through the Toolbar users, they proved that Bing is easy to game using click fraud.
Are you stupid? Or being intentionally obtuse? The Google employee became part of the group of Bing Toolbar users in order to show that Bing was copying search results from the clickstream data. The fact that the search results are fake is essential in proving that fact. The only people who are being deceitful are those stating that Bing is not copying results from Google. They're copying search results from everyone including Google, and Google proved it.
Amazing how many ACs are pro-Microsoft shills today. Bing DID copy the search result. In the article, they describe how they injected fake keyword search results into Bing by placing them in Google and then clicking the results of a Google search. Bing didn't change the rank of search results based on the click tracking, it ADDED THE SEARCH RESULTS to Bing.
Holy shit, I shouldn't have had to scroll down so far to find a comment of this nature. Right-the-fuck-spot-on. What I'm thinking after reading the article, finally stated. Everyone else is making stupid car analogies, or discussing whether Bing is doing something "illegal."
What they're doing is, at best, unethical. If it had its intended effect, which is to make Bing attractive enough to users that Google loses popularity and no longer has the resources to keep its search engine top-notch, WE suffer. All of us. Microsoft's actions in this case are immoral and unethical. Like any of us are surprised.
They parsed the Google URL and used the search terms to rank the links that were clicked on the search results page. The search results that were clicked on the Google search results page were not previously in Bing at all for the corresponding keywords. They absolutely stored the search "as such." Did you seriously RTFA and then post this?
I never did like Bush much, but I can't believe you're still repeating these pieces of bullshit.
Clinton lied while under oath. It was not adultery that was the issue, it was having a sexual encounter with an intern, a subordinate of his. In business, this would usually result in termination of employment. And it wasn't that he lied to "the country," he lied to the United States Senate. While he wasn't convicted of perjury, it's widely agreed that the conviction vote was partisan, with all but 5 of his own party voting against conviction.
Bush relayed and acted on intelligence. Intelligence that Congress also examined. They voted based on the intelligence that they had access to (which is ALL of it), not based solely on Bush's word. If members of Congress chose to ignore intelligence to the contrary, that doesn't make Bush a liar.
Trying to make me less smug?!
I just tested to be sure, but as long as the account is set to "Include when automatically checking for new messages" and you haven't unsubscribed the folder, it will get new messages without you clicking on the folder.
When you click the folder, it still runs an update to make sure it's not out-of-date. Also, you can set it to keep copies of all messages and attachments (the default), or just messages, or just read messages, or not to store locally at all.