I hope these fail, because this only makes the art of "fun exercise" less social.
Nonsense. This is a great step forward. There's plenty of people who like to exercise socially, and need that. There probably a much larger number who are overweight and embarrassed to do so. This starts them on the path to fitness, where they then may have the confidence to try social exercise.
Plus, while most games cater for the teenage male market successfully, the Wii started including a much larger audience of new gamers. This is a logical next step. There are many of us out there who would like to be gamers, but really don't want to shoot things, nor play driving games. Historically we have been excluded from most games (or have not been marketed to, if other games exist that we might find interesting). This kind of game is interesting. We need more lateral thought in gaming to include a much larger number of people.
This article is the 4th in 5 days that has been posted purely as viral marketing for twitter. The jerks that own that site must be running out of cash (hopefully). Editors, please STOP the twitter slashvertisments.
Even if it's the case that 20% of their time can be spent on side projects, that's still not really a mirror of the 2 guys in their garage model.
Obviously those 2 guys can spend 100% of their work time on their idea (as well as much of their free time most likely). They should obviously do documentation and will wear a lot of hats, but they don't report to anyone and don't spend half their week in meetings, reports or preparing powerpoint presentations probably. I assume Google, like all corporations, requires some sort of reporting. So that 20% is in reality 15% on developing, and 5% (at least) on reports, BRD's, evaluations, project documentation etc. Plus, they will be getting lots of distractions from the job they do the other 80% of the time.
Secondly, if the 20% of their time model worked, why is their search engine so gamed? And why has there been no significant progress in search? They even have developers (I assume) working 100% of their time on search. The results speak for themselves, and HR promises almost never do.
Competition is the only answer. They need it, they are distracted from their core search business into apps, and whatever the "cloud" is. They don't have any burning need to improve since they are making lots of money from search, as there is no serious competition. Much, like Yahoo did before them. While Google has made much more of an effort to include user experience than Yahoo ever did, it still falls short of many user's expectations. Today's Yahoo could still be tomorrow's Google. For Google, Yahoo should stand as a warning from history.
I don't know if it's sad. Yahoo is a dead company. Its death is entirely of its own making -- corporate greed over user experience. For me their death is well deserved, can't happen fast enough, and I will revel in schadenfreude.
That said. Your point is valid. There is nothing like enough competition in search. I find that search has never really met my expectations, and that it is doing so less and less. There has to be new ideas and new players in this market. Google is the only show in town, and Google is well and truly gamed.
However, innovation in search is not going to come from Google, Yahoo or Microsoft. Corporations are far too bureaucratic, conservative, and slow to develop new ideas. If you work in a corporation it can take you months to get approval to even start work on a new idea. No, It is going to come in the same way it happened for Google. Two guys working in their garage, with a damn good idea. These guys can pick it up and run with it, much faster than any corporation ever could.
The sad thing is that with the current credit clusterfuck there may not be funding for innovators. This is good for Google, but it's really bad for everyone else. Google seriously needs competition, it would even be good for them too, they are getting stale and a shaking up would do them a lot of good. There's been no significant innovation in search for 10 years. This is bad for everyone.
I don't think this be a flop at all. Yes, the primary market isn't necessarily the youth market. But then... they already have that market.
As a 40+ year old who remembers seeing the Beatles perform on the roof of Abbey Road on TV this does interest me. I am not of the video game generation. No game has interested me at all until the Wii came out -- it was the first game unit that actually looked fun to me. I don't want to shoot things, role play or play driving games -- games consoles had no appeal for me whatsoever until the Wii. The youth market, and especially the youth market for teenage males with far too much aggression to resolve, is WELL catered for. This appeals to a different market and is inclusive. It's about time that game makers realized there's millions of potential customers they've been missing, because they don't understand ANYTHING but male teenage violence.
Yes, but Google seems to get everything right when it comes to online technology,
Yes, that is true. But, there's just one thing though that isn't mentioned enough, namely that they created a new paradigm in search 10 years ago. The 10 years ago part is the thing. There's not only been no improvement, they've effectively eradicated all competition, and their search is now fairly well gamed by most any and all black hats.
Thus, the net result is that, overall, the user experience for search is now worse than it was 10 years ago. Google has become rich and rested on its laurels. Is this evil? Not per se. Is it good? Not at all. Google needs competition. It seriously needs competition.
This is the 3rd piece of viral marketing from the Twitter jerks in as many days.
Twitter jerks, we all know you are desperate. But understand this: your train has sailed. We know you are desperate to be bought out by some large company like Myspace was. It is NOT going to happen for you. The credit crunch makes that certain. Plus your crappy site never stays up more than 24 hours in a row. It's time to give up. Or at least SHUT UP, and stop spamming this site with marketing crap disguised as articles.
I think you did waste your mod points with this reply. And I'm not sure why you were modded up either, your post is really quite wrong.
Several versions of OSX have been faster than their predecessors. There is absolutely no reason why an new OS should be slower than a previous one -- other than pandering to a misguided marketing dept. For the corporate user there is a significant cost in both hardware and productivity by having a slower OS. It is completely reasonable to assume that a new OS should be faster and more efficient than its predecessor. People have become used to Windows being increasingly heavier and slower, however there is absolutely no need for this to be the case. There is no reason whatsoever to accept this paradigm.
Those Kazaa folks cheerfully installed adware and spyware on users computers for personal profit. It's worth remembering this when they say anything. They are greedy, selfish, mindless jerks, and most certainly can never be trusted whatsoever.
Well... this is the first time I'd be willing to go along with the Security Theater.
I'm sure this is just yet another cheap viral marketing scam by Twitter. Get restricted = seem cool, fashionable and necessary. I don't approve of calling everything (or indeed, pretty much anything) a terrorist threat, but in this case if the net result is no more Twitter... then Military, please go right ahead.
I'm sure Twitter could actually be useful if it wasn't run and marketed by a total bunch of jerks, desperately trying to get rich off a quick buyout.
It was only considered through political pressure from the UK, Spain, Poland, and US governments as a "reward" for Turkey's assistance in the Iraq War. Most other EU countries resisted Turkey's inclusion based on its appalling human rights record, and you know... geography...
It's pretty much impossible to produce music without a beat (rhythm). Even Cage's 4 minutes and 33 seconds probably has a beat most of the time. Without beat it would also be monotone. Every time you introduce a new tone there's a beat. That beat maybe far apart from another, and it may be irregular, but it's there. It doesn't need drums and a 4/4 progression to have a beat.
You know, they actually did a study. There is a *far* lower error rate on wikipedia than, say, the encyclopedia brittanica. Odd, yes, but true.
Truthy, not true. Odd no, manipulated yes. As pointed out above, two random anonymous guys from Wikipedia disproved the research. If you trust that, you are the wikipedia target market.
P.S. I have some amazing Nevada seafront property for sale at a bargain price, interested?
However, a pair of endevouring Wikipedians dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's.
The bold's mine, the spelling's the OP's. Right, because a couple of random anonymous guys with a vested interest in inflating their own egos doing statistical research (which can easily be manipulated by anyone with high school statistics knowledge) bent over backwards to make sure they got an answer they liked. Yep, clap clap clap, that's objective and trustworthy. Sure...
This world really could do without wikipedia admins, they are the main reason the site is unreliable. They are so pompous, self-important and vain that they will do anything not to be proven wrong, even if it means adjusting the truth.
The SOS people have verified the accuracy of the information versus a standard and it seems that this is being targeted towards schools is need.
Yes, but who are SOS? They are a charity and an NGO. While I'm not accusing them of anything, generally speaking, charities and NGOs raise funds by pushing an agenda. Fear and/or guilt = cash. They are, generally speaking, not objective sources, and as such should not be trusted. If they verified the information, why are they not then publishing those sources with it? They've done all the work.
Sorry, but this does not seem to be all it appears to be.
If search was more effective then you'd find pages with the actual truth ranked as highly as the Wikipedia ones. As long as Google is the only show in town, and Google's page rankings for wikipedia remain inappropriately skewed in its favor, it's going to be harder to find the actual truth.
If search worked properly there would never even be any room for wikipedia to even exist. You could easily find accurate, informed articles on most subjects easier, and contrast and compare them more easily too.
While wikipedia is the enemy of truth, the failure of search is the true cause of the war.
I think that is more than appropriate here. What Wikipedia does is create "consensus truth", where things are true if there is a consensus that they are.
Occasionally that may be true. However, pressure groups, cabals and wikipedia admins enforce their version of truth without consensus. Until all admins and cabals are removed from the site it can never be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a moon, so obviously... WHALES!!!
Everybody sing: "we're whalers on the moon..."
This article was on here a couple of days ago. DUPE!
Nonsense. This is a great step forward. There's plenty of people who like to exercise socially, and need that. There probably a much larger number who are overweight and embarrassed to do so. This starts them on the path to fitness, where they then may have the confidence to try social exercise.
Plus, while most games cater for the teenage male market successfully, the Wii started including a much larger audience of new gamers. This is a logical next step. There are many of us out there who would like to be gamers, but really don't want to shoot things, nor play driving games. Historically we have been excluded from most games (or have not been marketed to, if other games exist that we might find interesting). This kind of game is interesting. We need more lateral thought in gaming to include a much larger number of people.
TRON comes one step closer to reality...
This article is the 4th in 5 days that has been posted purely as viral marketing for twitter. The jerks that own that site must be running out of cash (hopefully). Editors, please STOP the twitter slashvertisments.
Even if it's the case that 20% of their time can be spent on side projects, that's still not really a mirror of the 2 guys in their garage model.
Obviously those 2 guys can spend 100% of their work time on their idea (as well as much of their free time most likely). They should obviously do documentation and will wear a lot of hats, but they don't report to anyone and don't spend half their week in meetings, reports or preparing powerpoint presentations probably. I assume Google, like all corporations, requires some sort of reporting. So that 20% is in reality 15% on developing, and 5% (at least) on reports, BRD's, evaluations, project documentation etc. Plus, they will be getting lots of distractions from the job they do the other 80% of the time.
Secondly, if the 20% of their time model worked, why is their search engine so gamed? And why has there been no significant progress in search? They even have developers (I assume) working 100% of their time on search. The results speak for themselves, and HR promises almost never do.
Competition is the only answer. They need it, they are distracted from their core search business into apps, and whatever the "cloud" is. They don't have any burning need to improve since they are making lots of money from search, as there is no serious competition. Much, like Yahoo did before them. While Google has made much more of an effort to include user experience than Yahoo ever did, it still falls short of many user's expectations. Today's Yahoo could still be tomorrow's Google. For Google, Yahoo should stand as a warning from history.
And this article seems also to be viral marketing. "YES!!! You too can afford an iPhone!!!"
I don't know if it's sad. Yahoo is a dead company. Its death is entirely of its own making -- corporate greed over user experience. For me their death is well deserved, can't happen fast enough, and I will revel in schadenfreude.
That said. Your point is valid. There is nothing like enough competition in search. I find that search has never really met my expectations, and that it is doing so less and less. There has to be new ideas and new players in this market. Google is the only show in town, and Google is well and truly gamed.
However, innovation in search is not going to come from Google, Yahoo or Microsoft. Corporations are far too bureaucratic, conservative, and slow to develop new ideas. If you work in a corporation it can take you months to get approval to even start work on a new idea. No, It is going to come in the same way it happened for Google. Two guys working in their garage, with a damn good idea. These guys can pick it up and run with it, much faster than any corporation ever could.
The sad thing is that with the current credit clusterfuck there may not be funding for innovators. This is good for Google, but it's really bad for everyone else. Google seriously needs competition, it would even be good for them too, they are getting stale and a shaking up would do them a lot of good. There's been no significant innovation in search for 10 years. This is bad for everyone.
Well... once. Fox Network effectively elected him the first time, despite probably losing the actual vote. However, your point is still very valid.
I don't think this be a flop at all. Yes, the primary market isn't necessarily the youth market. But then... they already have that market.
As a 40+ year old who remembers seeing the Beatles perform on the roof of Abbey Road on TV this does interest me. I am not of the video game generation. No game has interested me at all until the Wii came out -- it was the first game unit that actually looked fun to me. I don't want to shoot things, role play or play driving games -- games consoles had no appeal for me whatsoever until the Wii. The youth market, and especially the youth market for teenage males with far too much aggression to resolve, is WELL catered for. This appeals to a different market and is inclusive. It's about time that game makers realized there's millions of potential customers they've been missing, because they don't understand ANYTHING but male teenage violence.
Yes, that is true. But, there's just one thing though that isn't mentioned enough, namely that they created a new paradigm in search 10 years ago. The 10 years ago part is the thing. There's not only been no improvement, they've effectively eradicated all competition, and their search is now fairly well gamed by most any and all black hats.
Thus, the net result is that, overall, the user experience for search is now worse than it was 10 years ago. Google has become rich and rested on its laurels. Is this evil? Not per se. Is it good? Not at all. Google needs competition. It seriously needs competition.
This is the 3rd piece of viral marketing from the Twitter jerks in as many days.
Twitter jerks, we all know you are desperate. But understand this: your train has sailed. We know you are desperate to be bought out by some large company like Myspace was. It is NOT going to happen for you. The credit crunch makes that certain. Plus your crappy site never stays up more than 24 hours in a row. It's time to give up. Or at least SHUT UP, and stop spamming this site with marketing crap disguised as articles.
I think you did waste your mod points with this reply. And I'm not sure why you were modded up either, your post is really quite wrong.
Several versions of OSX have been faster than their predecessors. There is absolutely no reason why an new OS should be slower than a previous one -- other than pandering to a misguided marketing dept. For the corporate user there is a significant cost in both hardware and productivity by having a slower OS. It is completely reasonable to assume that a new OS should be faster and more efficient than its predecessor. People have become used to Windows being increasingly heavier and slower, however there is absolutely no need for this to be the case. There is no reason whatsoever to accept this paradigm.
Those Kazaa folks cheerfully installed adware and spyware on users computers for personal profit. It's worth remembering this when they say anything. They are greedy, selfish, mindless jerks, and most certainly can never be trusted whatsoever.
So... you want intelligent people to move to Australia?
This, being the same Australia that's introducing filtering and censorship to its entire Internet?
Yeah, good luck with that... Oh, and enjoy your forthcoming Dark Age.
Well... this is the first time I'd be willing to go along with the Security Theater.
I'm sure this is just yet another cheap viral marketing scam by Twitter. Get restricted = seem cool, fashionable and necessary. I don't approve of calling everything (or indeed, pretty much anything) a terrorist threat, but in this case if the net result is no more Twitter... then Military, please go right ahead.
I'm sure Twitter could actually be useful if it wasn't run and marketed by a total bunch of jerks, desperately trying to get rich off a quick buyout.
It was only considered through political pressure from the UK, Spain, Poland, and US governments as a "reward" for Turkey's assistance in the Iraq War. Most other EU countries resisted Turkey's inclusion based on its appalling human rights record, and you know... geography...
... in India, they still have banks!!! They're RICH!!!
so many words, so little substance = cloudware.
It's pretty much impossible to produce music without a beat (rhythm). Even Cage's 4 minutes and 33 seconds probably has a beat most of the time. Without beat it would also be monotone. Every time you introduce a new tone there's a beat. That beat maybe far apart from another, and it may be irregular, but it's there. It doesn't need drums and a 4/4 progression to have a beat.
Truthy, not true. Odd no, manipulated yes. As pointed out above, two random anonymous guys from Wikipedia disproved the research. If you trust that, you are the wikipedia target market.
P.S. I have some amazing Nevada seafront property for sale at a bargain price, interested?
The bold's mine, the spelling's the OP's. Right, because a couple of random anonymous guys with a vested interest in inflating their own egos doing statistical research (which can easily be manipulated by anyone with high school statistics knowledge) bent over backwards to make sure they got an answer they liked. Yep, clap clap clap, that's objective and trustworthy. Sure...
This world really could do without wikipedia admins, they are the main reason the site is unreliable. They are so pompous, self-important and vain that they will do anything not to be proven wrong, even if it means adjusting the truth.
Yes, but who are SOS? They are a charity and an NGO. While I'm not accusing them of anything, generally speaking, charities and NGOs raise funds by pushing an agenda. Fear and/or guilt = cash. They are, generally speaking, not objective sources, and as such should not be trusted. If they verified the information, why are they not then publishing those sources with it? They've done all the work.
Sorry, but this does not seem to be all it appears to be.
No. What we need is search that actually works.
If search was more effective then you'd find pages with the actual truth ranked as highly as the Wikipedia ones. As long as Google is the only show in town, and Google's page rankings for wikipedia remain inappropriately skewed in its favor, it's going to be harder to find the actual truth.
If search worked properly there would never even be any room for wikipedia to even exist. You could easily find accurate, informed articles on most subjects easier, and contrast and compare them more easily too.
While wikipedia is the enemy of truth, the failure of search is the true cause of the war.
Occasionally that may be true. However, pressure groups, cabals and wikipedia admins enforce their version of truth without consensus. Until all admins and cabals are removed from the site it can never be trusted.