Umm? I'll give you the point about bird-eye view. What you don't mention though is that this is still VERY sparse. I tried a few areas in the Bay Area, and no Bird's eye view was available. As for info about businesses and places, Google beats the crap out of Bing - to the point I have to actually do more specific searches in Google, because it tends to show everything. Search for Food or movie theaters - Bing shows about 10 hits for each on a 6 mile scale in my area, while Google shows about 30 for theaters and about 100 for Food.
Not to mention that I find street view far more useful than what the bird's eye view looked like in the preview. Street view is a god send for navigating to a new destination in a dense, urban environment. Bird's eye view is nice to look at.... but doesn't help me navigate.
If Bing would actually be more useful, I'd be all over it. But right now, it just isn't.
Just for fun, I tried Honda Civic as a search. Actually, Bing sucks. Where the results differ, Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields, or an ungodly list of used car sites. The one bonus item: it actually has sites that show the manuals for various Honda/Acura cars. Here's the deal though: if I type in "Honda Civic", I want information about the car, not about a manual for it, and I don't want to buy one. Especially not a used one. Google on the other hand presents me with sites that have information about the car - edmunds review, price comparisons, guide sites, etc. Stuff that will help me know more about the car.
If I want specific topics, I'll search for them, thank you very much.
I found similar issues with the maps site: directions are easier to manipulate in Google, and Google lets me search by public transit, or by walking. One good feature in Bing: get directions based on traffic. Google does something similar with "avoid highways", but it's not the same thing.
You are right, Google hasn't evolved much in its core business of search - but that's good, because there isn't much that can happen, until the semantic web (ha!) comes along. Bing tries to pretend it can do semantics, but it really can't. It's just faking it fairly badly. Oh, and final gripe: the stuff it does to wikipedia pages is nasty, and on its own a reason to avoid it like a plague. Yes, I don't have to use the readability feature, but I can't turn off the side bar where that option sits. If I go to a site, I either run my own scripts, or I want to see the page as the site creators intended. Not what MS thinks would be a good version.
In tl;dr format: Google gets out of my way. Bing is and stays in my face. Google wins.
Who do you think Tynt is paying? Yup, the content providers. They either pay you, or they pay the content providers. If they pay you, they aren't paying the content providers.... who won't be able to provide the same content.
One particularly unhelpful wrinkle of the U.S. version of capitalism + culture has been investors' singular motivation to hit it big and rake in the bucks and a general social unwillingness (management, the population, investors, regulators) to believe there is any social good in any business that does not generate massive returns and growth on a quarter after quarter basis.
This really hits the nail on the head. I visited my sister in Germany recently. She lives in an apartment that is owned by a guy who runs a custom boot shop. Complete with wooden boots for fitting, etc. So far, not that interesting. Until you realize that that shop has been a family business for over 400 years. It has been in existence longer than the entire US. It still is a single shop. And probably will be until someone decides not to do it anymore. Compare that with the US, where a decision would have been made to franchise the business, get investors on board, and then sell it for a couple of millions before it gets run into the ground by people with unrealistic quarterly expectations.
There's something to be said to be happy with 0% growth.
Heh, I posted this before I read the actual article, and before I took a look at the rest of the WND site. I guess I should stop believing that front page stories on slashdot won't take their main arguments from a crackpot site.
Let me rephrase: if Sunstein would propose something like the summary suggests, he should be crucified and run out of office. His actual paper, however, is merely something I disagree with: that hardcore conspiracy theorists can be reasoned with. I don't think we have the resources to engage in every online forum where someone says something crazy. I believe a far better approach is to identify rumors and conspiracies, and use an existing official vehicle to debunk them.
Now, part of the new job of that official vehicle could be to more actively participate in social media - but that's a far cry from the discussed idea to actually go to online forums and take these people head-on. Cultivate ties and make sure your voice heard - but don't try to chase down every nutcase on the web.
Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility?
Where are those people now?
Uh.... right here? Or are you trying to say that if one person on slashdot says something, every person on slashdot must say the same thing as well? Cuz I can't help you with that.
It was a dumb thing then, it's a dumb thing now, and I hope Sunstein gets crucified for even suggesting that. This is the kind of crap that I'm willing to hold against Obama come election day. His only chance then would be to run against Palin.
I like your chess analogy. One of the old-school grandmasters (sadly, I don't remember who) specialized in forcing his opponents into situations they were unfamiliar with. Guy likes a wide-open, combinatorial attack game? Bog him down in a defensive match. Guy likes to hunker down behind his pawns? Open up the game, force him to calculate.
His moves were sometimes questionable and sub-optimal, but forced the opponent into even more significant mistakes. Diplomacy is indeed like that.... it doesn't matter what is optimal, but what your opponent thinks is optimal.
I don't think that that pdf qualifies as education. Number 1, no math. Whatsoever. Which makes it hard to explain how the magnetic coupling between the transmitter and receiver stays above noise for a distance of 30 miles. The numbers that do get mentioned are mere statements, including such gems as "The scalar wave according to that goes with (7/4.7=) 1.5 times the speed of light!" He arrives at that by confusing frequency and wave propagation.
That paper is pure and utter crap - on par with the Timecube. Tesla might have been right, but that paper isn't the reason why.
Spot-on. I don't have the link ready, but Microsoft had an exclusive deal with Netflix for an embedded player. Something like one year or so. Of course, a disk isn't embedded, and therefore, not subject to exclusivity agreement.
What I'm wondering is the take-up and pay-out numbers. Is it really that much of a pain in the ass - and therefore take-up hurdle - that it significantly impacts utilization? Or did Microsoft just completely overpay for a very limited exclusivity, that really isn't?
Yes, clearly, you have no idea what I'm talking about. You can talk about bullshit cultural violations until you're blue in the face, it's still not going to have any traction whatsoever. The question is - how do you deal with it? That's the hard question. You hint at it when you say that rights will be overturned, slowly and with great difficulty - but even that doesn't come close to expressing how hard the process is, or even what it entails... a change in culture.
You're committing a basic sin in intercultural communication: assuming that your culture, with your precepts, is universal, and should be accepted by everyone just because. You might as well talk at a deaf-mute person.
You're missing a key concept: the idea that the group, and, more importantly, the nation, is more important than the individual. Remember the story of the guy who fell/jumped into a Panda bear enclosure in China, and got mauled as a result? In the US, the guy would be suing the zoo. In China, the guy apologized for having disturbed the bear, and said that it was an honor to have been mauled by a national icon.
Crazy, right? No. That's par for the course in China.
I do strongly believe that the reason the West kicked China's butt at the turn of the last century was because we had the Enlightenment period, and its huge growth spurts, behind us. However, that has no bearing on whether human rights declared in the human rights charter are fundamental or not. After all, even in the US, people are quite happy to suspend human rights if someone is suspected of being a terrorist.
Tell me the Western company that is making money in China itself.
GM, through Buick. Buick is so profitable in China that it is the sole reason that it wasn't part of the brands that got the axe at GM. It is possible to sell to the Chinese market. You're just not going to do it by being a cheap commodity.
Lastly, I don't expect China to become a democracy in my lifetime, if ever. It just doesn't have the history or culture for it.
Yes. In hindsight, this is all very clear. However, there is a benefit to giving the benefit of the doubt early on: you are positively certain that you did what could be done, and the only option left is stop negotiating amicably. Google now can point to past behavior and say: You're not holding up your end of the bargain. We did. Until we see some change from you, we will ignore your requests. This is a fairly significant position change in negotiations, as you're basically saying that the other party lost all its soft leverage.
There is a similar argument being made in regards to Chamberlain: if he wouldn't have gone the appeasement route first, would the US have actually gotten involved in the War? If it wasn't so blatantly obvious to even the most peaceful of doves that there was no negotiating with Hitler, would the US have been as dedicated to crushing Hitler? Remember that there were plenty of people in the US advocating an isolationist position with regards to Europe, right up until '41.
Failed negotiations are still valuable, because they demonstrate the failure of negotiations.
maybe there just isn't any money to be made there without problems that threaten Google's reputation that it cashes in with elsewhere.
Good question. I doubt that the cost in loss of goodwill exceeds potential revenue in China. Which in turn means that there might be something else at play. Does Google want to play hardball with China? Is it concerned that the external costs of doing business in China (exposed servers, lots of red tape, etc) outweighs the revenue it gets from being available in China?
Either which way, I'm going to follow this. I doubt that much will change - but the various exchanges and discussions that come up around this should make for a good read.
Then install an FTP server on your home connection and share away. You can even get a second connection so that you still have usable internet.
Sharing your own content is trivial and can be free (for small values of $cost). Sharing your content with the world in a useful way will be very expensive.
You're comparing a professional rider riding on a closed course with paramedics available in under 5 minutes to an amateur riding on crowded streets with motorists who sometimes outright hate cyclists.
I personally know one guy who is alive because of his bike helmet. And know of another who didn't die (but needs plenty of reconstructive surgery) after being clipped by a car. So the bike helmet is like a seat belt. You might not need your entire life, but there are plenty of people out there who are saved by them. Don't extrapolate to others from your personal experience.
Prices are down. If you'd be doing any shopping of your own for basic goods, you'd have noticed that. Bread, orange juice, milk, fruits, vegetables, all are down from their insane highs of 2 years ago.
Yes, because Greenpeace is going to sniff your IP, cross check your user name, bribe your ISP to find where you live, then drive to your home and shoot you. All because you called them eco-terrorists.
This seems to be based on atomic iron in some form of nanoscale dust. As a result, its application seems to be much wider than just absorbing hydrocarbons. As an example, there are a few papers that studied the decomposition of atrazine in the presence of nanoZVI. Apparently,it's pretty successful.
Google is your friend. Apparently, this all centers around the use of zero-valent iron (which seems to merely be atomic iron without any binding).More info here: http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/542-f-08-009.pdf Warning: PDF. Apparently, this is a hot topic, and Osorb isn't the only material out there using nanoZVI for cleaning purposes.
And now, for the car analogy: "I believe that that gizmo allows you to go from San Francisco to LA, but you'll never get from San Francisco to New York.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah - that's quite possible. I've noticed that Google is hit and miss outside the US.
Umm? I'll give you the point about bird-eye view. What you don't mention though is that this is still VERY sparse. I tried a few areas in the Bay Area, and no Bird's eye view was available. As for info about businesses and places, Google beats the crap out of Bing - to the point I have to actually do more specific searches in Google, because it tends to show everything. Search for Food or movie theaters - Bing shows about 10 hits for each on a 6 mile scale in my area, while Google shows about 30 for theaters and about 100 for Food.
Not to mention that I find street view far more useful than what the bird's eye view looked like in the preview. Street view is a god send for navigating to a new destination in a dense, urban environment. Bird's eye view is nice to look at.... but doesn't help me navigate.
If Bing would actually be more useful, I'd be all over it. But right now, it just isn't.
Just for fun, I tried Honda Civic as a search. Actually, Bing sucks. Where the results differ, Bing has either a comparison between Civic and Integra windshields, or an ungodly list of used car sites. The one bonus item: it actually has sites that show the manuals for various Honda/Acura cars. Here's the deal though: if I type in "Honda Civic", I want information about the car, not about a manual for it, and I don't want to buy one. Especially not a used one. Google on the other hand presents me with sites that have information about the car - edmunds review, price comparisons, guide sites, etc. Stuff that will help me know more about the car.
If I want specific topics, I'll search for them, thank you very much.
I found similar issues with the maps site: directions are easier to manipulate in Google, and Google lets me search by public transit, or by walking. One good feature in Bing: get directions based on traffic. Google does something similar with "avoid highways", but it's not the same thing.
You are right, Google hasn't evolved much in its core business of search - but that's good, because there isn't much that can happen, until the semantic web (ha!) comes along. Bing tries to pretend it can do semantics, but it really can't. It's just faking it fairly badly. Oh, and final gripe: the stuff it does to wikipedia pages is nasty, and on its own a reason to avoid it like a plague. Yes, I don't have to use the readability feature, but I can't turn off the side bar where that option sits. If I go to a site, I either run my own scripts, or I want to see the page as the site creators intended. Not what MS thinks would be a good version.
In tl;dr format: Google gets out of my way. Bing is and stays in my face. Google wins.
Who do you think Tynt is paying? Yup, the content providers. They either pay you, or they pay the content providers. If they pay you, they aren't paying the content providers.... who won't be able to provide the same content.
Comprende?
One particularly unhelpful wrinkle of the U.S. version of capitalism + culture has been investors' singular motivation to hit it big and rake in the bucks and a general social unwillingness (management, the population, investors, regulators) to believe there is any social good in any business that does not generate massive returns and growth on a quarter after quarter basis.
This really hits the nail on the head. I visited my sister in Germany recently. She lives in an apartment that is owned by a guy who runs a custom boot shop. Complete with wooden boots for fitting, etc. So far, not that interesting. Until you realize that that shop has been a family business for over 400 years. It has been in existence longer than the entire US. It still is a single shop. And probably will be until someone decides not to do it anymore. Compare that with the US, where a decision would have been made to franchise the business, get investors on board, and then sell it for a couple of millions before it gets run into the ground by people with unrealistic quarterly expectations.
There's something to be said to be happy with 0% growth.
Heh. Troll rating, nice. Now if I could just figure out why.... outside of me calling WND a crackpot site.
Heh, I posted this before I read the actual article, and before I took a look at the rest of the WND site. I guess I should stop believing that front page stories on slashdot won't take their main arguments from a crackpot site.
Let me rephrase: if Sunstein would propose something like the summary suggests, he should be crucified and run out of office. His actual paper, however, is merely something I disagree with: that hardcore conspiracy theorists can be reasoned with. I don't think we have the resources to engage in every online forum where someone says something crazy. I believe a far better approach is to identify rumors and conspiracies, and use an existing official vehicle to debunk them.
Now, part of the new job of that official vehicle could be to more actively participate in social media - but that's a far cry from the discussed idea to actually go to online forums and take these people head-on. Cultivate ties and make sure your voice heard - but don't try to chase down every nutcase on the web.
Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility?
Where are those people now?
Uh.... right here? Or are you trying to say that if one person on slashdot says something, every person on slashdot must say the same thing as well? Cuz I can't help you with that.
It was a dumb thing then, it's a dumb thing now, and I hope Sunstein gets crucified for even suggesting that. This is the kind of crap that I'm willing to hold against Obama come election day. His only chance then would be to run against Palin.
You make money off monitoring my browsing habits, maybe I ought to get a cut.
The cut that you get is the free access to information that cost money to gather, format and distribute.
I like your chess analogy. One of the old-school grandmasters (sadly, I don't remember who) specialized in forcing his opponents into situations they were unfamiliar with. Guy likes a wide-open, combinatorial attack game? Bog him down in a defensive match. Guy likes to hunker down behind his pawns? Open up the game, force him to calculate.
His moves were sometimes questionable and sub-optimal, but forced the opponent into even more significant mistakes. Diplomacy is indeed like that.... it doesn't matter what is optimal, but what your opponent thinks is optimal.
I don't think that that pdf qualifies as education. Number 1, no math. Whatsoever. Which makes it hard to explain how the magnetic coupling between the transmitter and receiver stays above noise for a distance of 30 miles. The numbers that do get mentioned are mere statements, including such gems as "The scalar wave according to that goes with (7/4.7=) 1.5 times the speed of light!" He arrives at that by confusing frequency and wave propagation.
That paper is pure and utter crap - on par with the Timecube. Tesla might have been right, but that paper isn't the reason why.
Spot-on. I don't have the link ready, but Microsoft had an exclusive deal with Netflix for an embedded player. Something like one year or so. Of course, a disk isn't embedded, and therefore, not subject to exclusivity agreement.
What I'm wondering is the take-up and pay-out numbers. Is it really that much of a pain in the ass - and therefore take-up hurdle - that it significantly impacts utilization? Or did Microsoft just completely overpay for a very limited exclusivity, that really isn't?
Yes, clearly, you have no idea what I'm talking about. You can talk about bullshit cultural violations until you're blue in the face, it's still not going to have any traction whatsoever. The question is - how do you deal with it? That's the hard question. You hint at it when you say that rights will be overturned, slowly and with great difficulty - but even that doesn't come close to expressing how hard the process is, or even what it entails... a change in culture.
You're committing a basic sin in intercultural communication: assuming that your culture, with your precepts, is universal, and should be accepted by everyone just because. You might as well talk at a deaf-mute person.
You're missing a key concept: the idea that the group, and, more importantly, the nation, is more important than the individual. Remember the story of the guy who fell/jumped into a Panda bear enclosure in China, and got mauled as a result? In the US, the guy would be suing the zoo. In China, the guy apologized for having disturbed the bear, and said that it was an honor to have been mauled by a national icon.
Crazy, right? No. That's par for the course in China.
I do strongly believe that the reason the West kicked China's butt at the turn of the last century was because we had the Enlightenment period, and its huge growth spurts, behind us. However, that has no bearing on whether human rights declared in the human rights charter are fundamental or not. After all, even in the US, people are quite happy to suspend human rights if someone is suspected of being a terrorist.
Tell me the Western company that is making money in China itself.
GM, through Buick. Buick is so profitable in China that it is the sole reason that it wasn't part of the brands that got the axe at GM. It is possible to sell to the Chinese market. You're just not going to do it by being a cheap commodity.
Lastly, I don't expect China to become a democracy in my lifetime, if ever. It just doesn't have the history or culture for it.
Yes. In hindsight, this is all very clear. However, there is a benefit to giving the benefit of the doubt early on: you are positively certain that you did what could be done, and the only option left is stop negotiating amicably. Google now can point to past behavior and say: You're not holding up your end of the bargain. We did. Until we see some change from you, we will ignore your requests. This is a fairly significant position change in negotiations, as you're basically saying that the other party lost all its soft leverage.
There is a similar argument being made in regards to Chamberlain: if he wouldn't have gone the appeasement route first, would the US have actually gotten involved in the War? If it wasn't so blatantly obvious to even the most peaceful of doves that there was no negotiating with Hitler, would the US have been as dedicated to crushing Hitler? Remember that there were plenty of people in the US advocating an isolationist position with regards to Europe, right up until '41.
Failed negotiations are still valuable, because they demonstrate the failure of negotiations.
maybe there just isn't any money to be made there without problems that threaten Google's reputation that it cashes in with elsewhere.
Good question. I doubt that the cost in loss of goodwill exceeds potential revenue in China. Which in turn means that there might be something else at play. Does Google want to play hardball with China? Is it concerned that the external costs of doing business in China (exposed servers, lots of red tape, etc) outweighs the revenue it gets from being available in China?
Either which way, I'm going to follow this. I doubt that much will change - but the various exchanges and discussions that come up around this should make for a good read.
Then install an FTP server on your home connection and share away. You can even get a second connection so that you still have usable internet.
Sharing your own content is trivial and can be free (for small values of $cost). Sharing your content with the world in a useful way will be very expensive.
You're comparing a professional rider riding on a closed course with paramedics available in under 5 minutes to an amateur riding on crowded streets with motorists who sometimes outright hate cyclists.
I personally know one guy who is alive because of his bike helmet. And know of another who didn't die (but needs plenty of reconstructive surgery) after being clipped by a car. So the bike helmet is like a seat belt. You might not need your entire life, but there are plenty of people out there who are saved by them. Don't extrapolate to others from your personal experience.
There are antelopes in the US? The things you learn on slashdot....
Prices are down. If you'd be doing any shopping of your own for basic goods, you'd have noticed that. Bread, orange juice, milk, fruits, vegetables, all are down from their insane highs of 2 years ago.
Yes, because Greenpeace is going to sniff your IP, cross check your user name, bribe your ISP to find where you live, then drive to your home and shoot you. All because you called them eco-terrorists.
Sometimes, you ARE just paranoid.
This seems to be based on atomic iron in some form of nanoscale dust. As a result, its application seems to be much wider than just absorbing hydrocarbons. As an example, there are a few papers that studied the decomposition of atrazine in the presence of nanoZVI. Apparently,it's pretty successful.
Google is your friend. Apparently, this all centers around the use of zero-valent iron (which seems to merely be atomic iron without any binding).More info here: http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/542-f-08-009.pdf Warning: PDF. Apparently, this is a hot topic, and Osorb isn't the only material out there using nanoZVI for cleaning purposes.
Interesting stuff. Hadn't heard of it before.
And now, for the car analogy: "I believe that that gizmo allows you to go from San Francisco to LA, but you'll never get from San Francisco to New York.