Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
According to the WSJ, citing Gallup, "62% of the more than 18,000 U.S. consumers it polled said social media had no influence on their buying decisions. Another 30% said it had some influence. U.S. companies spent $5.1 billion on social-media advertising in 2013, but Gallup says "consumers are highly adept at tuning out brand-related Facebook and Twitter content." (Gallup's survey was conducted via the Web and mail from December 2012 to January 2013. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.)
In a study last year, Nielsen Holdings NV found that global consumers trusted ads on television, print, radio, billboards and movie trailers more than social-media ads.
Gallup says brands assumed incorrectly that consumers would welcome them into their social lives. Then they delivered a hard sell that turned off many people.
More recently, changes in how Facebook manages users' news feeds have hindered brands' ability to reach their fans. Rather than a largely chronological stream, Facebook now manages the news feed to feature items it thinks users will want to see.
The result: Brands reached 6.5% of their fans with Facebook posts in March, down from 16% in February 2012, according to EdgeRank Checker, a social-media analytics firm recently acquired by Socialbakers.
Link to Original Source
I remember when Sun made the switch from SunTools to X-Windows. 1987'ish I thought they were nuts using a (slow) client-server architecture when we were fighting for graphics performance. As usual, it turned out to be another smart technical decision by Sun.
Here's a product review of a handful of small, inexpensive oscilloscopes. http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/w... They look kind of handy compared to my ancient HP.
In that case, we should be focused on pollutants rather than CO2. CO2 is a trace gas that is essential to life.
CO2 is not even listed among pollutants in the Clean Air Act. It was put into that category by EPA as an executive measure, after the Supreme Court authorized them in 2007 to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... This was done for the sole purpose of furthering the global warming agenda.
You just proved his point. "spending your day correcting other peoples grammar"
The linky points to a kernel hacking article.
Or allow people to pay more for the luxury of driving 10 mph faster. (I'm being sarcastic.)
Good point. I just mentioned it because Antarctic ice extent was one of the measurements that was used for scaremongering in the past.
If we want to talk about actual ocean rice, then we need to look at the NASA data. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
NASA says that the mean sea level has been rising at the rate of 3.2 mm per year trend since 1993. At that rate, it will take 952 years before the ocean rises 10 feet. So, if you decide to hang out on the beach for the rest of your life, be prepared to lift your beer a few inches.
You don't even need to click on the TFA to see the glaring text: "The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so"
That's really lame scaremongering. And especially bad timing:
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSID), with the support of the NASA Earth Sciences, just announced that Antarctic sea ice has expanded to all-time record levels for April. " http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P...
"Do you know how to use a search engine?"
I've heard of them. In addition to finding home pages, they can also turn up links to climategate emails like this: http://eric.worrall.name/Clima...
“I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah)”
If I were defending a defamation lawsuit, these emails would be of particular interest.
What seems to be missing from this article: Mark Steyn, a conservative talk show host, called Mann a fraud. So, Mann is suing Steyn for defamation. As his defense, Steyn is trying to prove that the data was manipulated and cherry picked. Therefore, proving that Steyn's comments were justified. So, Steyn requested the data under the FIOA, since Mann's work was publicly funded.
But Mann - the scientist who warns us that global warming is real and dangerous based on a computer model - refuses to give out the computer code and data that he used to form his assertions. To me, this doesn't sound very scientific or very honest.
Snowden's best chance of survival is to stay in the limelight, where his keepers will risk public scrutiny if he is harmed. So, assuming that becoming a tool was Snowden's only choice, his required tool-task wasn't that bad. Just lob a softball question to Putin, and let Putin respond with propaganda. Snowden didn't have to lie or endorse anything, and it gave him the necessary renewal of his 15 minutes of fame.
GPL Sounds reasonable. In order to receive organs from other donors, you must also consent to be a donor.
It is easy for an organization or agency to load up with sock puppets, and dominate the moderation process in addition to the discourse.