Comment Re:bye (Score 1) 531
I wonder if New Tab Tools will ignore this junk?
Comment Re:Jail time (Score 1) 538
Well, if anybody else in government did this, they'd get fired, lose their pension, and possibly face criminal charges.
Sarah Palin didn't, neither will HRC.
Comment Re:Politics aside for a moment. (Score 1) 538
I'll be the outlier then, this was a stupid, arrogant thing to do, especially since Sarah Palin has been busted for the same thing in recent memory.
That being said, it's still not anywhere near enough to make me vote for anyone the GOP has trotted out thus far.
And please don't bring up 3rd parties, last time I voted a 3rd party was in 2000 (in Florida) & we ended up with GWB for two terms.
Never again. Better to change a party from the inside.
Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links 375
wabrandsma writes about Google's new system for ranking the truthfulness of a webpage. "Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them. Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. 'A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,' says the team. The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score. The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings."
Comment Re:Department of Fairness can not be far behind (Score 1) 631
The sad thing is about 100 different commenters have pointed out that it's 8 pages of regulations & ~300 pages of justification & background to these guys & they just keep on spewing bullshit.
Comment Re:Shortsightedness (Score 1) 631
Thank you, I couldn't think of a really good example for that pearl-clutching moron.
Comment Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score 1) 631
Umm, no that is FOX news SOP, I was agreeing with you if you hadn't noticed!
Comment Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score 0) 631
Like most fascists, they think if they repeat something enough, it will become true.
Comment Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599
Since you apparently don't know, the exchange actually tells you how much of your cost is getting subsidized. The amount is $0 for my fiance. We are paying our way, regardless of what you & your neo-con buddies think.
Comment Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599
Keep crying, your tears are sooo delicious!!
Comment Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599
Nope, you are simply ignorant of how the FCC handles the creation of regulation.
Comment Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599
Oh look, yet another low information voter!
8 pages of regulations, 299+ pages of responses to the comments that were left on the FCCs website.
Let me help you with your ignorance problem.
Comment Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599
If that's how it's always worked, then why are you making it an issue? Because you are desperate & clinging to straws!
Comment Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599
Because the FCC generally isn't allowed to release an incomplete regulatory document because of the effect it can have on the markets. It's always been this way with a single exception in my lifetime. If you had actually read this thread you'd know that.
And you wouldn't look like such a doofus.
Comment Re:Sounds good (Score 1) 599
Hahahhahah!!
You're really making yourself look like an idiot here guy!
