He's not in Alabama, he's in Australia. Agree with it or not, hunting is highly restricted there. I'd rather him keep making videos than be fined or incarcerated out of existence.
That's good news. In any event, the spin cycle is fast enough (in the 1/2m•v^2 sense) that even before the recall, I wouldn't let my small kids in the same room with it. A repair still won't fix that precaution.
Who's to say nothing good comes from a heated (nasty) debate? Sure, a casual user doesn't want the comment section flooded with tripe, but to shut down a discussion may be picking and discarding fruit off the vine before it's ripe.
A solution to this might be rating comment pairs. Any thread that becomes over-heated could be taken "offline" between the two users (or groups), possibly so far as scheduling a live chat if they're so passionate about their topic. The (abbreviated) conversation would only re-appear in the thread (possibly by the readers choice) if the two came to a civil conclusion.
Granted, it sounds like a nightmare to implement, but I'd grant the Nobel Peace Prize to anyone who solved the online discussion conundrum.
Nasty comments can certainly contain interesting ideas. But I believe all those ideas could be expressed just as well if not better without the nastiness.
If a user hits the down-vote then a comment box opens requiring a reason. I don't mind down votes, but I can't stand not knowing why. It's like a (bad) dog owner who comes home and beats the dog for pooping on the rug. Poor dog did that hours ago and thinks hes getting beat just because owner came home. No lesson learned and it fosters a poor relationship between the two and encourages "acting out."
Additionally, if "the reason" received n down-votes HN could automatically cancel the DV to the original comment.
>I think it would have been a much stronger statement.
To who are they trying to make a statement? If to "the rest of the world" then your statement makes sense. However, if they're trying to make a statement to the Chinese population it's probably better that google demonstrates their services worth then pulls the plug.
If the Chinese population would figure very high in their book then they would have made the statement earlier, and that statement would have been in Chinese, not in English.
It is clearly intended for consumption by the rest of the world.
I like your non-partisan approach. At the same time, I wonder; if people who worried about teh terrorists also worried equally about SUVs then maybe their breath would be watered down enough that it wouldn't support encroaching government expansion in either direction. The argument works in the reverse direction as well.
I'd like to see someone who has a real crap phone review one of these smart phones. I have an old Nokia 6101 and believe most of the reviewers to be spoiled (no offence intended). Reviews are always in comparison to an iPhone or a crackberry. If I haven't used one of those, will these minor annoyances mean anything to me?
My 6101 does what it's supposed to do and I think it does well, especially in my fringe area. On that note, why are radio specs never included? I've had 2 other phones and had to go back to the old Nokia because reception sucked.
I just got a Droid after having the same old Motorola phone for several years. The Droid has pretty much knocked my socks off. Contrast my old phone, that could make calls, text message, and take awful pictures, with the Droid which can be used as a phone, an email client, a web browser, an OS for a ton of applications, and even a metal detector (haven't tried that app yet). The one thing I would say that I do miss is a real keypad. I used to be able to punch numbers by feel alone, so if I had to make a call from the car I could just key several numbers of the speed dial without looking (and yes, I do use a headset).
Thanks. Listening to the other reviews makes me nervous about buying anything new. I wonder if those reviews actually provide a service to most consumers or are more suitable for the suggestions box of the manufacturer.
I just got an account today after lurking a few months and read the FAQ just after reading the "Built By Google" story. To poke fun at the FAQ "OMG HN is turning into reddit!!1!" It all ties together nicely from an AI standpoint though. Granted the material is generated by users, but isn't there a hint of AI to it? Look past what the user typed and rather how they're using the service. It's tech and it's a "hack."
I believe he is trying to qualify why this article is appropriate for HN. Read the last two sentences. He is refuting the original comment by saying that this story "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". The AI stuff might need a bit of explanation, though.
You're right on the 1st 1/2. Concerning AI, it's certainly artificial, but how intelligent does it need to be to be considered AI (at least, by the general population)? People seem to be using Google Suggest to get answers to real questions (or at least entertain themselves). If a useful answer is returned, is it not "intelligence?"
I know the term is somewhat vague in it's meaning these days but I don't think many people would consider "show the most common queries with this prefix" to be AI.
Besides, it's the content not the mechanism being presented here, I guess it does support some common biases which is maybe a reason people like it.
