The definition of success-rate is not user-centric.
'The market watcher defines "success rate" as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.'

How do we know this matches what a user finds interesting? As someone mentioned, typically with Google you don't even need to go to a website, the answer you're looking for is already shown in the search results. That may not sit well with the website owner, and this study is clearly measuring success from the perspective from the website owner.

But who cares about that when you want to find something? Clearly the users are voting with their feet.

Another interesting thing: what if, after a Google search, you're happy with the first search result. That's one hit. But if you go to Bing, say the first result is not relevant and you need to visit the first 5 links. Will that make Bing 5 times as "successful"?
Certainly from the perspective of the website owner or advertiser, but surely not from the user.

So I don't think the way Experian Hitwise measures has a lot of bearing on "success" from the perspective of a user. And that is what makes things popular, not whether it satisfies the advertiser.

I'm sorry to say, but this comparison is nonsense.

A stock trader is a free actor. It has choices that it can make. For one, the choice to employ an automated system without human supervision, And even the automated system could respond in any way it liked, and was not obliged to respond in the way that these two stock traders envisioned.

A head being subjected to an entering bullet has no choice. It can only follow the laws of physics.
In that case, it is not the head that is responsible for what happens to it, but the last person or entity who had a choice in which action to take.

I think you're much too kind here to your average apple fanboy, or you are not reading sites like MacRumors. Here's an example that is coherently written (a big plus among posts from people who would like to see Apple buy ARM)

It will give Saab employees a little bit more time to search for a new job.
That's all.

If you want to do anything, do it in a positive way. Offer to back up their laptop when they have a long meeting in which they don't need it, or give them the tools to do it themselves, or something of that sort. It doesn't matter. Accept it if they decline. That is a positive move.

If there is no such way, don't point them to the policy unless you are a very tactful person. They know about the policy but it somehow hampers them. They probably figure it costs them more in time and business to follow that policy then not.

Are you responsible for policy enforcement? Probably not if you have to ask this question here. Inform someone who is responsible and let it be, unless you can do it in a positive way and not focused not rules.

Same problem here with the lack of caffeine. Hmm. It almost seems these figures are a factor 10 too high, but then the numbers get too low again.
And they don't factor in the wind-drag which is proportionate to the square of your speed, as the article mentions later.

Don't know. I guess the wikipedia article needs more references; I don't think you can say "Generally used figures" and then not provide a source.

The average in-shape 70kg person can produce 200W for a more than an hour on a bicycle (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance)
Ever sat on a bicycle in a gym with a wattage meter? It is actually very hard to only produce 125W on a bicycle. On the road you'd go very slow and risk falling over, and in the gym the pedals almost spin faster than your legs.

And of course Lance Armstrong can do that. I am a "recreational" amateur cyclist who does no more than 2500 km/year and can maintain more than 250W for hours. It's not difficult.