Look at it a different way, without flat statistics. Convoys which posess fuel are attractive targets for two reasons:

1) Fuel is valuable to the military because they need it to realistically operate.
2) Fuel makes a nice explosion and fireball, causing collateral damage.

So, they've shown that by using this tech, they need less fuel supplies to properly operate a base of operations. That means convoys can be sent out without fuel trucks, or with less fuel trucks. This decreases the value of each individual convoy, and also will lower the amount of collateral damage. Ergo, lives are saved.

Actually, if you typed in Dell and got nothing but complaints, that in itself would be a bias against Dell. You'd be discluding the people out there who do like their Dell products.

Now then, specifically searching for a bias can be useful for research, especially in the realm of argumentative writing. Even when you're representing one platform, you should acknowledge the existance of other ideologies and attempt to counter their claims. What better way to do this than to specifically look for the bias?

Of course, the algorithm and how the results are tagged might be a problem, but I can definitely see a use for it. Unfortunately, the more likely conclusion is people would use it to simply feed themselves more of their own bias.

This seems like a really complex solution to a simple problem. It seems to me the premise for this is it's hard to type on a touch screen with your fingers. If only we could decrease the area of contact with the phone. Maybe a short, thin, plastic rod you could use to tap the screen...

IE9 might not be gaining market share, but thank the diety of your choosing that IE6 is losing market share. Microsoft should probably throw an office party for the occasion.

Can I do searches slanted for voltage bias, bias tape, or Bias the brother of Melampus?

Whose fault, whose fault?
It's San Andreas' Fault!
'Cause Mister Richter
Can't predict her
Kicking our asphalt!

To be a bit more serious though, it probably didn't even come up. At the time, I imagine Microsoft was thinking, "We want our browser to do this." So they did it, even if it broke the standards. Of course, a few years down the line that mentality became a problem.

I actually mentioned this just a couple threads up, but I might be below your reading threshold. I agree with you on this one, and that's exactly how I used the Wall to Wall tool before. I would remember I wanted to look at something a friend posted to me in the past, but I didn't want to have to scour the timeline for it. Since I knew who gave it to me, I could just Wall to Wall and there it is! Facebook's interface is optimized for "present" browsing, and it has very little support for "past" browsing. Honestly, just a search box that shows up for you on your own profile would be amazing.

There's a lot of dependent programs out there. In addition to organizations running older versions of Internet Explorer, there are also those running earlier versions of Java and other constructs which have changed over time. I know some of this is happenstance, you can't force a language to continue supporting everything you put into your program. But some of this is people putting in deprecated objects and functions. Why would you do that? Maybe it'll be faster, but they've already warned you that, "Hey, this probably won't be here in the near future!" Doing it another way isn't going to be better for you now, but it'll keep you from being completely locked in later.

Remember when Facebook used to have a Wall to Wall feature? You know, you'd be able to click on someone's post on your wall, and then you'd see every wall post either of you had ever made to each other. I'm pretty sure you could use it on two friends, but this was a while ago and I can't quite remember. I also believe they removed the feature when they added comments on wall posts. If they didn't they sure hid it from me.

Now we have the See Friendship tool. It does... the same thing, pretty much, perhaps a little more extensively. Essentially you're all complaining about Facebook adding a feature they removed earlier out of redundancy. Do you have a right to complain? Yeah, of course you do. However, if you were fine with that feature before, don't you think it's a little hypocritical to criticize Facebook for putting it back in now, just because it's shiny and "new"?

Slashdot ate my freaking comment the first time, man. :[

You want to see what I see on the Internet, man? I will show you things, man. Crazy things, man. Things you've never even seen before, man. You won't be able to handle it, man. Your mind will melt, man! Game over, man! Game OVER, man!

You want to see what I view on the internet, man? I will show you things, man. Crazy things, man. Things you never even dreamed of, man. Your mind won't be able to handle it, man! Game over, man! Game OVER, man!

Forget this, I'll just wait for the next release. They can call it the Double Rainbow.

Let's put aside the ramifications of giving the President this power and just consider the hypothetical situation. A server is being bombarded by requests, or there's a malicious attack, or whatever. Wouldn't the administrators be smart enough to just pull the server off the network for a while until they get the system under control? You know, remove connections to the outside Internet, physical or otherwise. It's just a cable or configuration setting away.

It seems to me something you'd notice and get done before the bureaucracy even got their foot out the door.