The main reason I would want an iPhone is to eliminate the need to carry around my phone and my iPod. Since I have just over 25GB of music on it at the moment, it looks like I'll have to wait a little longer. I'm not sure why they came out with a 32GB iPod touch and not a 32GB iPhone, but it's pretty disappointing to me.
I stand corrected. I had spoken with Ask.com representatives, but obviously they were just trying to generate some additional revenue and I failed to do any additional research (doh!). Here's the scoop and some analysis.
I have it on pretty good authority that Ask.com will likely not renew their contract with Google for serving paid ads. Ask has been developing their own platform and is working pretty heavily to recruit advertisers to it. You can see it here.
This isn't just useful for one person but has very broad implications. The goal of Google is to provide the most relevant data to the most people. If they had access to all sorts of data about you (such as income, marital status, gender, age group, etc. etc.) they could potentially determine the kind of results certain segments of the population are looking for. They could apply that data across the board and achieve fantastically relevant data for all sorts of people.
While this sounds great for search results, it's terrifying in regards to privacy. Does any company have the right to that kind of data? Does any person? Most of us would say no. So for the time being, it comes down to you individually tailoring your own algorithm and building off of Google's base work. Which I guess, is pretty good.
Even worse, Yahoo accepts paid submission into their organic results. Google's policy is try to find what's relevant for the end-user. Yahoo!'s policy is allow people with money to buy relevance.
Well that's what scares me. If a bunch of morons can game the system for a few days with horrible meta info, what could some serious SEO-ers do? What have they already done? Can I really trust most of Google's results?
I tend to browse Google results with McAfee SiteAdvisor installed as a plugin. I don't particularly like McAfee, but I do like being able to see reputations of sites before I click on them. Of course, if McAfee hasn't tested the site yet, I accept the risk.
I'm probably too late on this discussion, but I thought something needed to be said. I work in online marketing (no, that doesn't mean I am a spammer) and I think this speaks volumes about what Google is hard-pressed to admit. The system can still be gamed. And it seems to me that no matter what Google does to improve their algorithm, the system will still be vulnerable to gaming.
In part, I think this has to do with the oddness that is their ranking strategy. They want to find the most relevant sites for any given query. So they study online behavior and adjust their algorithm to reflect that behavior. At the same time, they publish "guidelines" on how webmasters should design their sites and link out/in. It seems like they're trying to influence how websites behave online and then say that they're picking up on the organic trends. But in the end, they generate the trends. And then they tell everyone how to do it. Because of this, the system will always be vulnerable.
Huh? I'm still trying to figure out how Comcast was blatant and deceptive.
Wait, wait, I got it. They are so dumb, they failed at being deceptive and ended up being blatant! What kind of a world do we live in when a multi-million dollar evil corporation can't even be counted on to lie properly?!?
I lived in Malaysia and can verify this. The Christians (or Buddhists or Hindus or whatever) who are there (primarily comprised of Chinese and Indians) are not legally allowed to "convert" any Malay. If a Malay does convert, he or she is generally ostracized and sent to a "reeducation camp" where I heard stories of mild to severe forms of torture employed to convince a convert to recant. The last part I only heard second-hand, but the locals seemed to believe it pretty strongly.
I am an internet marketer. That's my job. I primarily work with Google Adwords, but I also work with things like banner ads and the like. I do not create annoying flash ads (for the record).
That said... I use Firefox and AdBlock Plus. I block ads most of the time, but not all the time. For instance, if I'm on a highly targeted niche forum site, I won't disable the ads simply because (if they're smart) the publisher shows non-obtrusive ads that are for products I may be interested in. And that's also the kind of advertising I prefer to use for my clients. Non-obtrusive on sites that are relevant. It shouldn't be up to the publisher to force ads down people's throats, IMO.
I'm glad to see that we can discuss this with a certain measure of civility while we (obviously) vehemently disagree. I am open to change my mind. However, and this is what will really send red flags off to many I think, I do not base my perception of reality only on scientific evidence. As you pointed out, gravity which was so sacred and trusted by scientists was turned on its head. If that's the case... isn't it even remotely possible that one day the theory of evolution as we understand it now could be?
I'm not saying that science can't be trusted. What I am saying is that it can't be fully trusted because the entities who are discovering scientific facts are humans, who are themselves prone to mistakes. This is why, while I am open to change my mind, I will not let science be the only source for defining what my origin and purpose is.
I'm blown away by the unassailable logic in your comment. I realize now that I have been wrong all along and am both stupid and ignorant. I will quit my career in marketing and apply at the first coal mine I can find. Preferably in Kansas. But I wouldn't know if they have any, since I'm both stupid and ignorant. Thanks for shining the light on the shamefulness of my stupidity.
Do I even need to put the/sarcasm or was that pretty obvious enough?
Yes it does. He might be a biologist by profession but when arguing about Intelligent Design he is doing Theology or at best Philosophy and as such do not speak as a biologist, but as a (hobby) philosopher or theologist. Remember biology is a natural science, biological research must be scientific, and ID is by nature no longer scientific.
No, it doesn't. What I'm saying is that what a person believes philosophically/theologically, it doesn't affect whether or not they are (in reality, fact, truth, whatever) a "real" biologist. When he/she is arguing for ID, sure, you can say he/she is not acting as a biologist. Fine. But that still doesn't mean that he/she isn't one.
Yes, it kind of does. Evolution ascribes the source for changes in species over time to a natural process, the hallmark of science. Intelligent Design ascribes it to a Master Planner, the hallmark of religion. The two are directly at odds with each other.
There are sources and there are sources. Primary sources, secondary sources. A source can itself have a source. So a natural process can still have another source and doesn't necessarily preclude design.
That's not just a philosophical difference. There are more practical ramifications. The evolutionist will go about studying how the laws of nature operate to try to have better insight into the process. Thanks to evolutionists, we've made tremendous strides in fields such as genetics, pathology, and many others.
Many useful innovations and inventions have been the result of evil ideologies and philosophies. Just because something produces something good doesn't mean it is, in and of itself, good.
The reactions of Intelligent Design vary wildly.
The same can be said of proponents of atheists. That doesn't necessarily mean anything.
One more thing. When you're studying science, you must be willing to let go of your preconceptions and keep an open mind about results that you didn't expect, results that counter what everyone thought they knew for a long time.
Great, we agree on something. That still doesn't prove that a real biologist can't believe in Intelligent Design.
And for the record, Christians are after the Truth as well, and we're glad you capitalized it.:)
All that and you still didn't get the point. Whether or not a person believes in Intelligent Design doesn't affect whether he/she is a real biologist or not. You can argue that in that specific issue they are not being particularly scientific, but not that they aren't real biologists at all.
And closer to this subject, this same press will give as much time to people who promote Biblical Creationism and "Intelligent Design" as they will to real biologists who are doing science.
If you disagree with "Intelligent Design," that's fine. But can you refrain from making side jabs at those who study it by saying that "real biologists" don't believe it? One of the biggest misnomers is that intelligent design even precludes evolution... it doesn't. It simply ascribes a source. You can bash whatever line of it you want, but please don't make blanket assumptions and emotive appeals.
I can't wait to get modded into oblivion on this one.
The best part you say? So, and I'm not going to exaggerate here, you like to:
Go to place P and kill N number of mobs until you get M number of drops D?
Take item I and take it to the place P.
Actually... yes, I do. Like I said, it might make me boring, but I really do like that stuff. And it's not the actual grinding just for grinding but the overall sense that I'm progressing -- increasing in skill, both in the game abilities and my ability to use those abilities (like my ability to use the word ability over and over and over).
And yeah, that would suit my definition of end-game, I suppose.
I've thought about this type of argument a lot when trying to justify to myself (and my wife) if I should keep playing. The way I see it at the moment goes something like this:
I like the gameplay. Maybe that means I'm a boring person, but it's fun to grind a little to get a reward. And I can spend $15 every month and $40 once a year to play one game that I'm invested in and kind of good at or I can pay $50 once a month to play tons of games that I get bored with after two weeks.
Like I said, though, that's an "at the moment" statement, and by this time next year I might be trying to save up to buy a Nintendo Wii because they're so much fun.
You bring up very good points. And you're right, when I got my hunter to 70, I didn't want to l33t him out with epics, I just wanted a couple of good things so I could run my low level friends through stuff if the needed. So I grinded for rep with The Consortium to get a blue gun. While it was kinda fun to do with my friends, alone it got kinda old and annoying.
But end content being very intensive is almost necessary for their business model. Otherwise they'd have to be constantly releasing new expansions to keep everyone involved... and I suppose that's where my argument breaks down. I'm just whiney.:)
Sure, that's true. But I'd rather go from 1 to 80 as opposed to 60 to 80. I still get to see stuff I might have missed with the XPAC the first time through and I get it to last a while. This is all my preference, I suppose, but I want the game to take a while. I want it to be long and sometimes tedious (though not often). It makes the payoff sweeter, especially when you get training at every other level and sometimes unlock new abilities.
It also allows me to pay $15 a month for one game as opposed to paying $50 once a month to play a game for a little while and get bored.
Slashdot Mirror
The main reason I would want an iPhone is to eliminate the need to carry around my phone and my iPod. Since I have just over 25GB of music on it at the moment, it looks like I'll have to wait a little longer. I'm not sure why they came out with a 32GB iPod touch and not a 32GB iPhone, but it's pretty disappointing to me.
I stand corrected. I had spoken with Ask.com representatives, but obviously they were just trying to generate some additional revenue and I failed to do any additional research (doh!). Here's the scoop and some analysis.
I have it on pretty good authority that Ask.com will likely not renew their contract with Google for serving paid ads. Ask has been developing their own platform and is working pretty heavily to recruit advertisers to it. You can see it here.
This isn't just useful for one person but has very broad implications. The goal of Google is to provide the most relevant data to the most people. If they had access to all sorts of data about you (such as income, marital status, gender, age group, etc. etc.) they could potentially determine the kind of results certain segments of the population are looking for. They could apply that data across the board and achieve fantastically relevant data for all sorts of people.
While this sounds great for search results, it's terrifying in regards to privacy. Does any company have the right to that kind of data? Does any person? Most of us would say no. So for the time being, it comes down to you individually tailoring your own algorithm and building off of Google's base work. Which I guess, is pretty good.
Even worse, Yahoo accepts paid submission into their organic results. Google's policy is try to find what's relevant for the end-user. Yahoo!'s policy is allow people with money to buy relevance.
Google results for the query "Search Engine"
You'll fine search.live.com on the second page. Below Google (who's also on the second page).
Well that's what scares me. If a bunch of morons can game the system for a few days with horrible meta info, what could some serious SEO-ers do? What have they already done? Can I really trust most of Google's results?
I tend to browse Google results with McAfee SiteAdvisor installed as a plugin. I don't particularly like McAfee, but I do like being able to see reputations of sites before I click on them. Of course, if McAfee hasn't tested the site yet, I accept the risk.
I'm probably too late on this discussion, but I thought something needed to be said. I work in online marketing (no, that doesn't mean I am a spammer) and I think this speaks volumes about what Google is hard-pressed to admit. The system can still be gamed. And it seems to me that no matter what Google does to improve their algorithm, the system will still be vulnerable to gaming.
In part, I think this has to do with the oddness that is their ranking strategy. They want to find the most relevant sites for any given query. So they study online behavior and adjust their algorithm to reflect that behavior. At the same time, they publish "guidelines" on how webmasters should design their sites and link out/in. It seems like they're trying to influence how websites behave online and then say that they're picking up on the organic trends. But in the end, they generate the trends. And then they tell everyone how to do it. Because of this, the system will always be vulnerable.
Until, that is, PigeonRank(TM) is launched.
Oh... well... ok...
But where's the +funny in that?
Huh? I'm still trying to figure out how Comcast was blatant and deceptive.
Wait, wait, I got it. They are so dumb, they failed at being deceptive and ended up being blatant! What kind of a world do we live in when a multi-million dollar evil corporation can't even be counted on to lie properly?!?
I lived in Malaysia and can verify this. The Christians (or Buddhists or Hindus or whatever) who are there (primarily comprised of Chinese and Indians) are not legally allowed to "convert" any Malay. If a Malay does convert, he or she is generally ostracized and sent to a "reeducation camp" where I heard stories of mild to severe forms of torture employed to convince a convert to recant. The last part I only heard second-hand, but the locals seemed to believe it pretty strongly.
To which I reply, don't forget, there was also a Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings.
I am an internet marketer. That's my job. I primarily work with Google Adwords, but I also work with things like banner ads and the like. I do not create annoying flash ads (for the record).
That said... I use Firefox and AdBlock Plus. I block ads most of the time, but not all the time. For instance, if I'm on a highly targeted niche forum site, I won't disable the ads simply because (if they're smart) the publisher shows non-obtrusive ads that are for products I may be interested in. And that's also the kind of advertising I prefer to use for my clients. Non-obtrusive on sites that are relevant. It shouldn't be up to the publisher to force ads down people's throats, IMO.
I'm glad to see that we can discuss this with a certain measure of civility while we (obviously) vehemently disagree. I am open to change my mind. However, and this is what will really send red flags off to many I think, I do not base my perception of reality only on scientific evidence. As you pointed out, gravity which was so sacred and trusted by scientists was turned on its head. If that's the case... isn't it even remotely possible that one day the theory of evolution as we understand it now could be?
I'm not saying that science can't be trusted. What I am saying is that it can't be fully trusted because the entities who are discovering scientific facts are humans, who are themselves prone to mistakes. This is why, while I am open to change my mind, I will not let science be the only source for defining what my origin and purpose is.
I'm blown away by the unassailable logic in your comment. I realize now that I have been wrong all along and am both stupid and ignorant. I will quit my career in marketing and apply at the first coal mine I can find. Preferably in Kansas. But I wouldn't know if they have any, since I'm both stupid and ignorant. Thanks for shining the light on the shamefulness of my stupidity.
/sarcasm or was that pretty obvious enough?
Do I even need to put the
Yes it does. He might be a biologist by profession but when arguing about Intelligent Design he is doing Theology or at best Philosophy and as such do not speak as a biologist, but as a (hobby) philosopher or theologist. Remember biology is a natural science, biological research must be scientific, and ID is by nature no longer scientific.
No, it doesn't. What I'm saying is that what a person believes philosophically/theologically, it doesn't affect whether or not they are (in reality, fact, truth, whatever) a "real" biologist. When he/she is arguing for ID, sure, you can say he/she is not acting as a biologist. Fine. But that still doesn't mean that he/she isn't one.
Yes, it kind of does. Evolution ascribes the source for changes in species over time to a natural process, the hallmark of science. Intelligent Design ascribes it to a Master Planner, the hallmark of religion. The two are directly at odds with each other.
:)
There are sources and there are sources. Primary sources, secondary sources. A source can itself have a source. So a natural process can still have another source and doesn't necessarily preclude design.
That's not just a philosophical difference. There are more practical ramifications. The evolutionist will go about studying how the laws of nature operate to try to have better insight into the process. Thanks to evolutionists, we've made tremendous strides in fields such as genetics, pathology, and many others.
Many useful innovations and inventions have been the result of evil ideologies and philosophies. Just because something produces something good doesn't mean it is, in and of itself, good.
The reactions of Intelligent Design vary wildly.
The same can be said of proponents of atheists. That doesn't necessarily mean anything.
One more thing. When you're studying science, you must be willing to let go of your preconceptions and keep an open mind about results that you didn't expect, results that counter what everyone thought they knew for a long time.
Great, we agree on something. That still doesn't prove that a real biologist can't believe in Intelligent Design.
And for the record, Christians are after the Truth as well, and we're glad you capitalized it.
All that and you still didn't get the point. Whether or not a person believes in Intelligent Design doesn't affect whether he/she is a real biologist or not. You can argue that in that specific issue they are not being particularly scientific, but not that they aren't real biologists at all.
And closer to this subject, this same press will give as much time to people who promote Biblical Creationism and "Intelligent Design" as they will to real biologists who are doing science.
If you disagree with "Intelligent Design," that's fine. But can you refrain from making side jabs at those who study it by saying that "real biologists" don't believe it? One of the biggest misnomers is that intelligent design even precludes evolution... it doesn't. It simply ascribes a source. You can bash whatever line of it you want, but please don't make blanket assumptions and emotive appeals.
I can't wait to get modded into oblivion on this one.
Actually... yes, I do. Like I said, it might make me boring, but I really do like that stuff. And it's not the actual grinding just for grinding but the overall sense that I'm progressing -- increasing in skill, both in the game abilities and my ability to use those abilities (like my ability to use the word ability over and over and over).
And yeah, that would suit my definition of end-game, I suppose.
I've thought about this type of argument a lot when trying to justify to myself (and my wife) if I should keep playing. The way I see it at the moment goes something like this:
I like the gameplay. Maybe that means I'm a boring person, but it's fun to grind a little to get a reward. And I can spend $15 every month and $40 once a year to play one game that I'm invested in and kind of good at or I can pay $50 once a month to play tons of games that I get bored with after two weeks.
Like I said, though, that's an "at the moment" statement, and by this time next year I might be trying to save up to buy a Nintendo Wii because they're so much fun.
Did I say "kids"? Sorry about that...
a kid on the way
Hey wait. Either you are bad at reading, purposely lying, confused, or you my friend are drunk. If you play WoW, chances are it's all four.
You bring up very good points. And you're right, when I got my hunter to 70, I didn't want to l33t him out with epics, I just wanted a couple of good things so I could run my low level friends through stuff if the needed. So I grinded for rep with The Consortium to get a blue gun. While it was kinda fun to do with my friends, alone it got kinda old and annoying.
:)
But end content being very intensive is almost necessary for their business model. Otherwise they'd have to be constantly releasing new expansions to keep everyone involved... and I suppose that's where my argument breaks down. I'm just whiney.
Sure, that's true. But I'd rather go from 1 to 80 as opposed to 60 to 80. I still get to see stuff I might have missed with the XPAC the first time through and I get it to last a while. This is all my preference, I suppose, but I want the game to take a while. I want it to be long and sometimes tedious (though not often). It makes the payoff sweeter, especially when you get training at every other level and sometimes unlock new abilities.
It also allows me to pay $15 a month for one game as opposed to paying $50 once a month to play a game for a little while and get bored.