I think this is kinda similar to Eat That Frog? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eat-That-Frog-Important-Things/dp/03...
-3 karma · joined September 5, 2009
I'm sceptical as to how scientific this study can be, when as you say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". A measure of beauty changes over time and from culture to culture. I'm sure, if you selected a different data set of beautiful people you could prove the exact opposite.
I get the impression that this has captured the public mood of "sticking it to the bankers", when really Cambridge have gone about this one the wrong way.
#1 Analysts explain it away by saying, for example,
"The market was hoping for even better news than the
good news they got." A simpler explanation is that the
market is being manipulated.
This a false assumption, as I would say it is more likely that the analysts got it wrong. If analysts could predict the stock market with near 100% accuracy, then it wouldn't be a high risk investment option would it? #2 The lack of bombshells in the Wikileak materials
looks mighty suspicious to me
It is also wrong to assume that because no remarkable secrets have been exposed, that any have been leaked in the first place. This is a statement of pure fantasy based on no logic or facts.The pictures don't quite live up to the title of the article.
I see Bing's background as a differentiator to Google, which is why I'm trying to combine the two and promote free media.