HD Blog

     2013 NEW YEARS EVE 





    Very Thin  Video for Jinkys launched Dec 25th








     Romney video launched 31st August



    Niall Ferguson: The 6 killer apps of prosperity
    Over the past few centuries, Western cultures have been very good at creating general prosperity for themselves. Historian Niall Ferguson asks: Why the West, and less so the rest? He suggests half a dozen big ideas from Western culture -- call them the 6 killer apps -- that promote wealth, stability and innovation. And in this new century, he says, these apps are all shareable. in This amazing video 



    \





    Israel Day

    Leo the  Hollywood go to party Guy from LG productions threw an amazing party for Israel Day when u can see?







    Wednesday  27th April

    Well what a day!  launched our new site with much knashing o teeth and tearing of hair. Bhanu had to reprogram all the Java script and put in 15 hours non stop! Sterling work! Lisa our graphics wunderkind is responsible for all the layouts on the new site and miss Witty  (that's part of her skype handle)  is busy turning errant scribbles into meaningful prose. Went to see 4 dentists today and came away smiling

    The Big dental dental NO  NO?
    there has never been a dental ad campaign that featured blood. err... till now please checkout BITEMECLEAN.COM


    Sunday 6th April

    After having a great BBQ with friends we edited the Panoramic bar Concept together.


    Tuesday, February 08, 2011

    This has got to be the coolest app for the month They tell everyone about it and show the consequences. You don't believe they are the first ones to abuse Facebook-Data?

    Tuesday, February 01, 2011

    Google Results, One of Bing's Ranking Signals
    Danny Sullivan has a story about Google's claims that Bing copies Google search results. Google noticed that there's an increasing overlap between the top results at Google and Bing, so it suspected that Microsoft was using Google's results to improve its search engine.

    To verify its suspicions, Google set up a sting operation. For the first time in its history, Google crafted one-time code that would allow it to manually rank a page for a certain term (code that will soon be removed, as described further below). It then created about 100 of what it calls "synthetic" searches, queries that few people, if anyone, would ever enter into Google.

    These searches returned no matches on Google or Bing or a tiny number of poor quality matches, in a few cases before the experiment went live. With the code enabled, Google placed a honeypot page to show up at the top of each synthetic search.

    The only reason these pages appeared on Google was because Google forced them to be there. There was nothing that made them naturally relevant for these searches. If they started to appeared at Bing after Google, that would mean that Bing took Google's bait and copied its results.
      
    This all happened in December. When the experiment was ready, about 20 Google engineers were told to run the test queries from laptops at home, using Internet Explorer, with Suggested Sites and the Bing Toolbar both enabled. They were also told to click on the top results. They started on December 17. By December 31, some of the results started appearing on Bing. Only a small number of the test searches produced this result, about 7 to 9 (depending on when exactly Google checked) out of the 100.
    Microsoft's engineers probably thought that Google's results were pretty good, so why not use clickstream data from Internet Explorer and Bing Toolbar to monitor the results picked by Google users? It's a clever idea, but not when you're using it to artificially add results from Google. Bing's team says that they use "collective intelligence" to improve search results, so we can assume that a non-negligible amount of intelligence comes from Google. When you're including results just because Google does it, you're trusting Google too much and you implicitly admit that Google offers better results.

    Update: Google's Amit Singhal says that "some Bing results increasingly look like an incomplete, stale version of Google results "A cheap imitation" and implies that Bing shows "recycled search results". I think that's an exaggeration and Microsoft has every right to use all the information it has, including analytics data, Bing Toolbar's clickstream, Facebook's popular pages and Twitter's trending topics. Bad mouthing competitors doesn't help Google in the long run.

    Netflix, Egypt, and the Case for Net Neutrality


    In the wake of the FCC decision to approve a basic framework of net neutrality rules, the battle rages. While Internet providers like Verizon file preemptive challenges to regulations that haven't even taken effect yet, Netflix chimes in to defend net neutrality, and the political strife in Egypt provides a poignant illustration of how important it is for the Internet to be free and open.

    Congress established the FCC in 1934 and designated it with the authority to regulate interstate and International communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and Cable. Verizon and subsequently Metro PCS believes its wires, satellites, and cables are somehow exempt from government regulation, though, and has filed a legal challenge to the FCC's authority to implement a net neutrality framework.
    Meanwhile, Netflix finds itself at the center of the net neutrality debate with its streaming video content drawing attention as the type of traffic that ISPs might like to throttle or discriminate against. In an open letter to shareholders, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said, "Delivering Internet video in scale creates costs for both Netflix and for ISPs. We think the cost sharing between Internet video suppliers and ISPs should be that we have to haul the bits to the various regional front-doors that the ISPs operate, and that they then carry the bits the last mile to the consumer who has requested them, with each side paying its own costs," adding, "This open, regional, no-charges, interchange model is something for which we are advocating. Today, some ISPs charge us, or our CDN partners, to let in the bits their customers have requested from us, and we think this is inappropriate."

    Hastings is referring to the ongoing battle between Level 3 Communications and Comcast. Comcast has demanded that Level 3 pay a surcharge for the privilege of having the Netflix streaming content delivered over its network. However, the Comcast customers are paying for a certain bandwidth of service, and Comcast should not involve itself in whether that bandwidth is used to send e-mails, shop Amazon, post Facebook status updates, or watch Netflix movies. The Comcast customer is already paying Comcast to deliver the content, so Comcast's additional surcharge amounts to double-dipping extortion.
    The political unrest in Egypt this week, and the actions by the Egyptian government to shut down Internet access and wireless communications, illustrate the importance of net neutrality and an open Internet. The country-wide blackout--aimed at disrupting the ability of protesters to communicate and organize--is an extreme example, but what if your Internet provider chose to block Facebook or Twitter? What if your provider throttles traffic from some streaming video providers, while providing optimized delivery of other content from providers willing to cave to the surcharge demands?


    The battle for net neutrality is far from over. In fact, it has just begun. The actual decision by the FCC to finally approve some sort of net neutrality framework is like drawing first blood.


    While the legal wrangling over net neutrality continues, Netflix is doing its part to let the free market speak for itself. By providing data on which Internet providers consistently offer the fastest, and highest quality delivery of streaming video content, Netflix is arming its customers with the information necessary to choose the best ISP and let their purchasing power speak on behalf of net neutrality--at least those customers fortunate enough to have a choice between ISPs.








    January 22, The departure of Eric Schmidt as CEO of Google has led to a lot of speculation 
    about changes at the company as Larry Page moves back into that job in April. But there will be no changes because there is essentially no change in the management of Google.

    People forget that Mr Schmidt held the title of CEO in name only. The decision making was shared between the founders: Larry Page and Sergey Brin; and Mr Schmidt in what they termed a “triumvirate.”

    Here it is explained in extracts from Larry Page’s 2004 Founders’ IPO Letter:
    Eric has the legal responsibilities of the CEO…

    We run Google as a triumvirate. Sergey and I have worked closely together for the last eight years, five at Google. Eric, our CEO, joined Google three years ago. The three of us run the company collaboratively with Sergey and me as Presidents.
    We hired Eric as a more experienced complement to Sergey and me to help us run the business.
    Mr Schmidt always held the minority vote against Messrs Page and Brin. And there is nothing to suggest that they have dissolved their management structure beyond removing Mr Schmidt.

    Mr Page gets to hold the CEO title for legal reasons but the power sharing with Mr Brin is still there. Both founders will continue to make the key decisions.


    Our site is live!

    posted Oct 24, 2010, 12:35 PM by patrick martin   [ updated Oct 24, 2010, 6:49 PM ]

     well today we are in soft launch mode for our site and this is a test

    1-1 of 1