Bing
Yahoo
Ask
Ixquick
duck duck go
dogpile
altavista
cuil
yaggle (not to be confused with yaffle, which is academics only)
excite
go (disney's offering; is it a full search engine?)
hotbot
gigablast
That's 13. I added a few in case you wanted to dispute some, (like go, for example)
No, wait, 12. When I tested out cuil just now, the page was down.
Re: Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
I think the conductor just made the last call to get off at "The Point", and the train's chugged on for a couple of minutes.
If Mike made such a contest, I think I can guarantee there would be no such copyright clause. And if there was, there'd be a lot of angry readers and article writers.
As someone with a major in Studyology, (The study of studies), I assure you that the differences you perceive are merely semantics, and in the view of different base assumptions between the two studies, they never fail to reach the same conclusions.
"Senator Kohl even suggested that when it came to news, the only places to find news are Google or Bing. He flat out claimed that if Bing went out of business, the only way to find news would be Google. Huh?!? As we've noted in the past, we actually get a smaller and smaller percentage of our traffic coming from Google these days."
Valid point, but I think you missed a bigger one. There exist many other search engines; If Kohl is saying only google and bing provide news & search services, he's either ignorant of their smaller competition, or thinks only bing and google provide quality service.
Either conclusion leads to the idea that google got to where it is by being overwhelmingly good. And that certainly isn't against the law . . .
I was hoping to elicit a few more strawmen against you, TBH, and I'm not having that effect.
Nice use of apparent measurements, though. Someone who didn't realize they were using '6 hours of work' as a measurement against an equivalent '10 hours of work' would've tripped up by now ;p
You're effectively saying that you'll pay someone for the work they've done, regardless of the hours they work.
So, you're dodging question 2 instead of answering?
Alright, forget pay rates, and just talk about which employee is better, and deserves to be paid more.
But hey, at least you didn't fall into the trap of question 1 too deeply. You identified correctly what he's paid for, being available to serve. And then you slipped backwards from there . . .
Then pay me by salary, so you can start caring about the work done.
Obviously, you're focusing on the wrong measurement here.
Let's put it in perspective.
1)Waiter at a restaurant. No customers all day, except for the 11-1 period. He was there 8 hours, he 'worked' for 2. How much is it fair to pay him?
2)We have two office workers, Wally and Dilbert. Wally does his work slowly, almost at an invisible pace, but not quite. Dilbert does his work quickly. Unknown to them, you've given them identical assignments because you want to be able to pick from different solutions. They come up with the exact same answer in the end, but Wally works 16 hours, over two days, and Dilbert works 6. As it happens, they ARE paid on salary, on an 8 hour/day assumption. Is Dilbert or Wally the better worker?
No, what you describe sounds more like a spam filter.
First pass: Seems legit
Second pass: Yahoo mail has gotten a chance now to check out the link; what Rich and Jamie say above stops the email and marks it as spam because of the link.
Third pass: Terms associated with 'spam' have started to get blocked as well; The link is now marked as spam, erroneously, so things that people are tweeting with it, such as the phrase and hashtag begin to get blocked alongside it.
"Yahoo now claims that this was a mistake that's been fixed. They say it was a spam filter issue, but I can't see how that makes any sense."
Simple: Bayesian filtering. ("Given that an email contains this word, it is x% likely to be spam")
There are probably a lot of spambots/viruses that email a lot of things about 'wall st.', and I know there are a lot of spam emails that have the word 'occupy' in them. (an example from my spambox: "Occupy her warm hole today")
URLs are automatically suspect to moreorless every mailclient, and the more it looks like a URL, the easier it is to click through, the more suspicious the email will look.
If Yahoo uses predictive markov chains in their Bayesian filtering, I can easily see how this combination, of occupy, wall st., and as a URL, would trigger.
That it had to be manually corrected after a LOT of people noticed either reflects that their system encountered this problem manually, or that their system is very poor.
Or, if I think that Yahoo has more competent programmers & no ill intentions, this could also reflect that occupywallst.org was used as a spammer site before, or, given that this bug is guaranteed to happen for some terms at (given competent programmers), a very low percentage rate, this might also have been the only bug of this type for yahoo in a decade.
(But without such a system, then spambots could get through merely by minor typos or making different combinations of words; ie: XXXX YYYY ZZZZ might fail, and XXXXYYYY ZZZZ might get through, while still being human readable)
TL;DR: That this is a technical error is possible, but I wouldn't stop being suspicious and watching for similar events in the future. Or doing some research and looking into the past.
On the post: NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
On the post: How Quickly We Forget: Google's Competitors Falsely Claim Google Dominates Because It Was 'First'
Re:
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm also not sure why it exists in the first place. Since when does a university need their own search engine? *shrug*
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Re: Re:
Yahoo
Ask
Ixquick
duck duck go
dogpile
altavista
cuil
yaggle (not to be confused with yaffle, which is academics only)
excite
go (disney's offering; is it a full search engine?)
hotbot
gigablast
That's 13. I added a few in case you wanted to dispute some, (like go, for example)
No, wait, 12. When I tested out cuil just now, the page was down.
That's off the top of my head; Satisfied?
On the post: NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count
Re: Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
If Mike made such a contest, I think I can guarantee there would be no such copyright clause. And if there was, there'd be a lot of angry readers and article writers.
On the post: NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Valid point, but I think you missed a bigger one. There exist many other search engines; If Kohl is saying only google and bing provide news & search services, he's either ignorant of their smaller competition, or thinks only bing and google provide quality service.
Either conclusion leads to the idea that google got to where it is by being overwhelmingly good. And that certainly isn't against the law . . .
On the post: US Marshals Service Asks Us To Remove A Comment
Re: Re:
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was hoping to elicit a few more strawmen against you, TBH, and I'm not having that effect.
Nice use of apparent measurements, though. Someone who didn't realize they were using '6 hours of work' as a measurement against an equivalent '10 hours of work' would've tripped up by now ;p
You're effectively saying that you'll pay someone for the work they've done, regardless of the hours they work.
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alright, forget pay rates, and just talk about which employee is better, and deserves to be paid more.
But hey, at least you didn't fall into the trap of question 1 too deeply. You identified correctly what he's paid for, being available to serve. And then you slipped backwards from there . . .
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re:
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul can work a 7 hour day, with breaks, or he can work a 10 hour day, without breaks, and get the same work done.
He can't work a 6 hour day, and do all the work, without breaks.
The question is: Would you rather pay him for 10 hours, or 7 hours to do the same work?
On the post: No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, you're focusing on the wrong measurement here.
Let's put it in perspective.
1)Waiter at a restaurant. No customers all day, except for the 11-1 period. He was there 8 hours, he 'worked' for 2. How much is it fair to pay him?
2)We have two office workers, Wally and Dilbert. Wally does his work slowly, almost at an invisible pace, but not quite. Dilbert does his work quickly. Unknown to them, you've given them identical assignments because you want to be able to pick from different solutions. They come up with the exact same answer in the end, but Wally works 16 hours, over two days, and Dilbert works 6. As it happens, they ARE paid on salary, on an 8 hour/day assumption. Is Dilbert or Wally the better worker?
On the post: Is Yahoo Blocking People From Sending Any Email That Mentions OccupyWallSt.org?
Re: Filtering
First pass: Seems legit
Second pass: Yahoo mail has gotten a chance now to check out the link; what Rich and Jamie say above stops the email and marks it as spam because of the link.
Third pass: Terms associated with 'spam' have started to get blocked as well; The link is now marked as spam, erroneously, so things that people are tweeting with it, such as the phrase and hashtag begin to get blocked alongside it.
On the post: Citizen Recording Of Police Proves Officer Lied About Arrest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Criticize The Better Business Bureau... And They'll Pull Your Accreditation
Re: Re:
(Disclaimer: I don't have THAT negative a view of business students)
On the post: Is Yahoo Blocking People From Sending Any Email That Mentions OccupyWallSt.org?
Re: Re:
I'm a purely a theoretical guy; put me out in the field and I'm F&%$ing useless! :p
Thanks, this makes it pretty clear to me that it was probably an actual mistake.
On the post: Is Yahoo Blocking People From Sending Any Email That Mentions OccupyWallSt.org?
Simple: Bayesian filtering. ("Given that an email contains this word, it is x% likely to be spam")
There are probably a lot of spambots/viruses that email a lot of things about 'wall st.', and I know there are a lot of spam emails that have the word 'occupy' in them. (an example from my spambox: "Occupy her warm hole today")
URLs are automatically suspect to moreorless every mailclient, and the more it looks like a URL, the easier it is to click through, the more suspicious the email will look.
If Yahoo uses predictive markov chains in their Bayesian filtering, I can easily see how this combination, of occupy, wall st., and as a URL, would trigger.
That it had to be manually corrected after a LOT of people noticed either reflects that their system encountered this problem manually, or that their system is very poor.
Or, if I think that Yahoo has more competent programmers & no ill intentions, this could also reflect that occupywallst.org was used as a spammer site before, or, given that this bug is guaranteed to happen for some terms at (given competent programmers), a very low percentage rate, this might also have been the only bug of this type for yahoo in a decade.
(But without such a system, then spambots could get through merely by minor typos or making different combinations of words; ie: XXXX YYYY ZZZZ might fail, and XXXXYYYY ZZZZ might get through, while still being human readable)
TL;DR: That this is a technical error is possible, but I wouldn't stop being suspicious and watching for similar events in the future. Or doing some research and looking into the past.
On the post: Police Ticket Guy Who Helped Direct Traffic After Traffic Light Failure; Then Leave Without Handling Traffic
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Freak's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Liked the personal intro
As it is, I can't find you on G+ under "blenster"?
Next >>