Just because somebody read another "second guy" post before this doesn't mean that it actually came first. Looking at the time stamps, GP was posted as the start of a thread at:23, while the earliest other "second guy" post (which was modded up) was a reply in the first post thread made at:26, three minutes later.
I'm not sure if the GP was kidding or not, but this has really happened before. A guy named Rob tried it, got the credit card, and wrote about the experiment on his website.
True, but for all of your projects together there are three ads. One for Firefox, one for Firebug, and one for Firefox for Dummies.
As for the actual article, in general I don't see something wrong with Google adding a tip at the top. For example, the "Tip: Looking for pictures? Try Google Images" is helpful for internet users who don't know that clicking images on the main page will return pages with pictures on them taken from the web. Although that is obvious to anybody here, people who are just starting to use the internet will likely find that helpful in the beginning.
What I disagree with is the fact that the tip is included or not based upon a simple string. If you search for some random text, a tip will still come up even though the search is completely meaningless. It also appears even if the search is clearly for a competitor.
In my opinion, the tips would be perfectly fine, even good, if they came up only when they are relevant to the search. But, as it stands now, what they are doing is very minor. Not really evil but lazy and sloppy.
Though, as the saying goes, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
And we've seen no proof that Google refuses to put others first.
There is proof, though, that other ads can come before Google's own. For example, if you search for video, the ad for AOL video is above the ad for Google video.
Whoa.
As I was writing this, I searched for video again, and the ads changed. Now Google is the only one with a top bar, while AOL has the top spot at the side.
You don't need to be especially good at mental math, but it is helpful to be able to do some simple calculations without technological help. You can't use your phone if it dies, is stolen, or you leave it at home. Even if you have it with you, it is faster to do simple problems in your head with even basic mental math ability then it is with your cell phone, where you'd need to take it out, turn it on, navigate to the calculator, type the problem, and get the answer. For example it can take less than 2 seconds to figure out that.5 * 15 = 7.5 with mental math, but trying to use a phone would take several times longer. There are some people though, who couldn't even get the answer to that without having a calculator do it for them.
It is generally considered to be bad because it wastes time. The 'correct' way is to click in the address box, type in the URL and go. There method involves first going to Google (How do they get to Google? Is it bookmarked? Do they put its URL in the address bar?), typing the URL, clicking search, then clicking on the link to the URL. A number of unneeded steps and page loads that could be eliminated simply by using a different box.
I just tried that with Firefox 1.5. Beef took me to http://www.beef.org/, while marmalade took me to the wikipedia page on marmalade. Both pages were the I'm feeling lucky result for Google.
When i started forwarding to gmail, I average a spam folder of 4000 (it deletes spam after 30 days).
In the past two months, its gone from between 5000 and 6000 to over 15,000.
That is because gmail doesn't delete old spam anymore. I'm not sure if it is because the deletion function broke, if the old spam is being used to help train filters (i.e. spam that the user had to mark), or something else. If you go to the spam filter and look at the oldest messages, they should be from around October 23 at 7:00 AM (GMT).
Nobody bids specifically for the highest place. Ad positions change as the frequency they are clicked changed. Right now, the one you listed as not first is at the top. A different search has their ad in third place. In a few hours, the ads will have likely shifted again.
Yes, there is. Assuming the dropdown list is set to HTML Formatted when you post, you need to type to get a blank line. Alternatively, you can set it to "Plain Old Text".
It seems that in searching "The Who", only that exact phrase is returned, but when searching the who, both words are searched, i.e. "the" appears as if it is being searched like a normal word here. If you try searching for the best, "the" is counted when used as part of the phrase "the best", but appears not to be counted when it appears by itself. The Google algorithm is apparently a lot more complicated than the usual explanations are.
Somebody who wrote a large number of VBA macros for themself would. If they have gotten used to using those macros, they might not switch to OOo if it doesn't support them, as this would mean they would need to write all of their code again.
Like open source programs, BIOS costs almost nothing to distribute after its initial creation. Physical circuitry has a noticeable per unit cost, making it hard to support under a free market. However, if someone could find a way to create a free chip foundry, and enough people chose to volunteer so that it could work, then sure, they should go ahead and do so.
I really don't understand the point of an open source BIOS.
I like linux because (in theory) I can look at the source code and see whats
running and modify it and hence modify my enviroment. Why would I care about the
BIOS? For all intents and purpose it just the first stage bootstrap system for
the hardware. As long as it does this quickly and simply who cares who or how
its written? Ok , if ever BIOSes had some sort of DRM style restrictions installed
them yes , maybe it'll have a use. But right now? I don't think so.
I really don't understand the point of an open source software. I like Windows because
(in theory) I can just click a few buttons and hence modify my enviroment. Why
would I care about the software source? For all intents and purpose it just the
backend stuff for the computer. As long as it works quickly and simply who cares
who or how its written? Ok , if ever software had some sort crippling of DRM style restrictions
installed them yes , maybe it'll have a use. But right now? I don't think so.
Basically, it might not be interesting or helpful to you, but it is to some people. As few computer users know much about how their software works, the few software engineers know much about how their hardware works.
A SSN wouldn't be needed for that. Just assign both of them a different student ID number when they applied/were accepted. Everything outside of financial aid should use that number instead.
And all this without a single check for medical insurance or endless
calls to your HMO to get the treatemnt approved.
Well I would certainly hope that the doctors wouldn't try and get paperwork from you as you're dying. In an emergency, they make sure you live first, then do the paperwork when you are stabilized.
This was explained in the second link. Basically, they examine students' test results two years in a row. If scores for a class soared one year, then went down (relative to the average) the next, it is likely that the teacher cheated. Also, there tend to be patterns to cheating by teachers, such as correcting a group of questions in a row for the class. If both of these occur, then it is very likely that cheating occurred, and evidence for that group is looked at closely.
This is just a rough explanation. Read the article for more.
Not quite. Many embedded devices still use Windows. It generally isn't possible to know what operating system a device is running on, unless you specifically take the time to research it, or you happen to see it crash.
Unless I'm missing a significant data storage project (which I may be), once the article is changed, the only remaining copy of it is in human memory and some cache files.
Not just project, but projects. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia from reading and editing it. For example, nostalgia.wikipedia.org, a copy of (almost) all of Wikipedia as it was at the end of 2001. Wikipedia also has a page about downloading its database dumps. At Meta is a list of the current database dump of every Wikimedia Foundation project (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, etc...) in every language available. Each current page links to the archive made before it. Anybody who wants a copy of any database dump can download one for their own use. This is how mirrors are supposed to get pages for their use, and how offline reports are created (to aid people working "behind-the-scenes"). Older databases aren't much use, though, because each newer database dump has just about everything from the older databases stored in its page history section.
If you just want to look at an individual page, you can do that without downloading anything. Simply click the history button at the top of most pages. It has a record of every change to the page, except for the rarely deleted ones which were removed by an administrator or higher up, and need their help to get.
if you KNEW that you are likely to be the prime suspect, why on earth would you purchase such a book?
You would purchase such a book so you would have some idea as to what the police were likely to do, and to prepare yourself for a possible investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because somebody read another "second guy" post before this doesn't mean that it actually came first. Looking at the time stamps, GP was posted as the start of a thread at :23, while the earliest other "second guy" post (which was modded up) was a reply in the first post thread made at :26, three minutes later.
I'm not sure if the GP was kidding or not, but this has really happened before. A guy named Rob tried it, got the credit card, and wrote about the experiment on his website.
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/defa ult.aspx
An easy find with Google.
As for the actual article, in general I don't see something wrong with Google adding a tip at the top. For example, the "Tip: Looking for pictures? Try Google Images" is helpful for internet users who don't know that clicking images on the main page will return pages with pictures on them taken from the web. Although that is obvious to anybody here, people who are just starting to use the internet will likely find that helpful in the beginning.
What I disagree with is the fact that the tip is included or not based upon a simple string. If you search for some random text, a tip will still come up even though the search is completely meaningless. It also appears even if the search is clearly for a competitor. In my opinion, the tips would be perfectly fine, even good, if they came up only when they are relevant to the search. But, as it stands now, what they are doing is very minor. Not really evil but lazy and sloppy.
Though, as the saying goes, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Whoa.
As I was writing this, I searched for video again, and the ads changed. Now Google is the only one with a top bar, while AOL has the top spot at the side.
Here you go.
You don't need to be especially good at mental math, but it is helpful to be able to do some simple calculations without technological help. You can't use your phone if it dies, is stolen, or you leave it at home. Even if you have it with you, it is faster to do simple problems in your head with even basic mental math ability then it is with your cell phone, where you'd need to take it out, turn it on, navigate to the calculator, type the problem, and get the answer. For example it can take less than 2 seconds to figure out that .5 * 15 = 7.5 with mental math, but trying to use a phone would take several times longer. There are some people though, who couldn't even get the answer to that without having a calculator do it for them.
It is generally considered to be bad because it wastes time. The 'correct' way is to click in the address box, type in the URL and go. There method involves first going to Google (How do they get to Google? Is it bookmarked? Do they put its URL in the address bar?), typing the URL, clicking search, then clicking on the link to the URL. A number of unneeded steps and page loads that could be eliminated simply by using a different box.
I just tried that with Firefox 1.5. Beef took me to http://www.beef.org/, while marmalade took me to the wikipedia page on marmalade. Both pages were the I'm feeling lucky result for Google.
Nobody bids specifically for the highest place. Ad positions change as the frequency they are clicked changed. Right now, the one you listed as not first is at the top. A different search has their ad in third place. In a few hours, the ads will have likely shifted again.
Yes, there is. Assuming the dropdown list is set to HTML Formatted when you post, you need to type
to get a blank line. Alternatively, you can set it to "Plain Old Text".
It seems that in searching "The Who", only that exact phrase is returned, but when searching the who, both words are searched, i.e. "the" appears as if it is being searched like a normal word here. If you try searching for the best, "the" is counted when used as part of the phrase "the best", but appears not to be counted when it appears by itself. The Google algorithm is apparently a lot more complicated than the usual explanations are.
Somebody who wrote a large number of VBA macros for themself would. If they have gotten used to using those macros, they might not switch to OOo if it doesn't support them, as this would mean they would need to write all of their code again.
Like open source programs, BIOS costs almost nothing to distribute after its initial creation. Physical circuitry has a noticeable per unit cost, making it hard to support under a free market. However, if someone could find a way to create a free chip foundry, and enough people chose to volunteer so that it could work, then sure, they should go ahead and do so.
I really don't understand the point of an open source software. I like Windows because (in theory) I can just click a few buttons and hence modify my enviroment. Why would I care about the software source? For all intents and purpose it just the backend stuff for the computer. As long as it works quickly and simply who cares who or how its written? Ok , if ever software had some sort crippling of DRM style restrictions installed them yes , maybe it'll have a use. But right now? I don't think so.
Basically, it might not be interesting or helpful to you, but it is to some people. As few computer users know much about how their software works, the few software engineers know much about how their hardware works.
A SSN wouldn't be needed for that. Just assign both of them a different student ID number when they applied/were accepted. Everything outside of financial aid should use that number instead.
This was explained in the second link. Basically, they examine students' test results two years in a row. If scores for a class soared one year, then went down (relative to the average) the next, it is likely that the teacher cheated. Also, there tend to be patterns to cheating by teachers, such as correcting a group of questions in a row for the class. If both of these occur, then it is very likely that cheating occurred, and evidence for that group is looked at closely.
This is just a rough explanation. Read the article for more.
Not quite. Many embedded devices still use Windows. It generally isn't possible to know what operating system a device is running on, unless you specifically take the time to research it, or you happen to see it crash.
If you just want to look at an individual page, you can do that without downloading anything. Simply click the history button at the top of most pages. It has a record of every change to the page, except for the rarely deleted ones which were removed by an administrator or higher up, and need their help to get.
The Wikimedia Foundation has already started working on textbooks and clases with http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/.