View allAll Photos Tagged wordcloud
Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
Isaiah 55: 1-2
Willemsparkweg 31/05/2021 18h56
Originally the company Pasteuning on Willemsparkweg was a deli, but nowadays for wine and spirits. Love the word cloud in the window and their rosé on display.
Willemsparkweg
The Willemsparkweg is a street in Amsterdam Zuid in the Museumkwartier neighbourhood. The street starts at the Van Baerlestraat and ends at the Konininginneweg. The length is 800 meters.
The street was built in the year 1881. Since 1903 tram line 2 is serving this street and the neighbourhood.
More: Wikipedia - Willemsparkweg (Dutch)
The Lizard Lighthouse is a lighthouse at Lizard Point in Cornwall, England, United Kingdom, built to guide vessels passing through the English Channel.
A light was first exhibited here in 1619, built thanks to the efforts of Sir John Killigrew, but it was extinguished and the tower demolished in 1630 because of difficulties in raising funds for its operation and maintenance.
The current lighthouse, consisting of two towers with cottages between them, was built in 1751. Trinity House took responsibility for it in 1771, and it was automated and demanned in 1998.Originally both towers were lit, but since 1903 only the Eastern Tower has remained in use; the lantern has been removed from the Western Tower.
Opened in 2009 with a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund,[3] the Lizard Lighthouse Heritage Centre is located in the lighthouse engine room, which still features some of the original engines. Interactive exhibits and displays focus on the history of the lighthouse, the life of a lighthouse keeper, and the role of lighthouses in sea safety.
I was reading this article "Why Wordle" By Steven W. Anderson this morning and decided to try one out. I thought the "Think Different" monologue from the classic Apple commercial might be a nice choice. View large.
You can see my photo of the wall mural of the monologue at the Apple Campus here.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UPDATE 12/16: Welcome all TUAW visitors.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Apple's "Think Different" monologue.
"Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them, disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They explore. They create. They inspire. They push the human race forward. Maybe they have to be crazy. How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art? Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written? Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels? We make tools for these kinds of people. While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who actually do."
Wordle image created by the www.wordle.net/ web application and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
This is a Wordle word cloud I generated using one day's worth of comment spam to my WordPress blog, The Hobby Blogger.
An overview of discussion from the first week of Medicines Adherence from King's College London. Sign up for the course at ww.futurelearn.com/courses/medicines-adherence-2
WordCloud résumant les 1.000 recherches les plus populaires sur le thème de la rencontre en ligne (Thème pour la St Valentin)
A word cloud from an article titled "What is the Euro Crisis".
To use please credit:
www.eurocrisisexplained.co.uk/guides/what-is-the-euro-cri...
If you can't doodle - wordle.
I have read some amazing blog posts in the last few days. This word cloud is a summary of the text from seven of them.
Sums things up quite nicely, dontcha think?
International Education Week Celebration of World Cultures...coming soon...to a high school library....Monday, Nov. 16, 2009...students wrote these collective thoughts in essay format as ticket to attend...will hear exchange students speak...special guests from across Central Iowa coming...International Feast of Foods for all...should be fun???
Source: CC-wordle-vanhookc
Infographic by Bill Rapp *Photo courtesy House GOP Conference
As part of our post election poll of voters who stayed home or switched to the GOP, we invited participants to offer their advice in their own words to President Obama and the Republican leadership. We took their responses and created “word clouds”. The larger/more prominent the words, the more frequently we heard... them from our respondents. The results are, to our minds, very interesting. The most frequently heard words for the GOP? “Compromise” and “Work Together”.
REVIEW THE THIRD WAY POST ELECTION POLL HERE: www.thirdway.org/publications/352
Voters Who Stayed Home Offer Clues for Democrats
•By GERALD F. SEIB, The Wall Street Journal
A popular theory of this year's midterm election holds that Democrats took a shellacking in part because big chunks of the party's core liberal base, discouraged at the path of the Obama administration, stayed home rather than show up to vote as they did in 2008.
It's an interesting narrative. It also doesn't appear to be entirely accurate.
While it's correct that some key parts of the Democratic coalition—young voters and African-Americans among them—didn't perform as they did in 2008, evidence emerging as the dust settles from this month's election suggests the bigger hole in the side of the Democratic ship came from moderates in the political center who didn't show up. (Those absences were in addition to the wave of independent swing voters also from the center who, exit polls showed, turned out but switched their votes to the Republicans.)
The case of the missing voters is important because how it is resolved will go a long way toward determining how Democrats respond to their midterm woes. If they conclude, as some argue, that the problem was an undermotivated liberal base, then the logical reaction would be a turn to the left and a staunch resistance to compromises with the Republicans who now control the House and hold expanded power in the Senate.
If, on the other hand, the conclusion is that the voters lost were moderates who got aboard the Barack Obama Express in 2008 but missed the train at the station this time, then that would argue for a political and policy strategy designed to appeal to the center of the electorate. And that might suggest more willingness to seek compromises in the middle.
Let's look at some evidence. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll sifted out a group of voters who said they cast ballots in 2008 but didn't vote this year. They do tend to be a bit younger than the overall average of voters. And as a group they like Mr. Obama noticeably more than do voters as a whole, and they tend to identify themselves as Democrats, which suggests that, as suspected, many would have been Democratic voters had they shown up.
But they also were more likely to identify themselves as "not very strong Democrats" rather than "strong Democrats." And the largest share identified their ideology as moderate rather than liberal.
A more direct study of these 2010 no-shows was undertaken by Third Way, a think tank for moderate Democrats, and Lincoln Park Strategies, a Democratic polling firm. They surveyed 1,000 Democrats who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but abandoned the party this year. Half of them were "switchers" who moved their votes to the Republicans this time, while the other half were "droppers" who simply dropped out of the voting this year.
That survey found that, while the droppers were a bit more liberal than 2010 voters as a whole, they were split in almost precise thirds into liberals, moderates and conservatives. Moreover, just 42% identified themselves as Democrats, while 40% were independents and 8% were Republicans. Almost a quarter of them voted for Republican George W. Bush in 2004.
Nor were the droppers largely minority voters, as the popular stereotype might suggest. Eight in 10 were white, while just 7% were African-American and 5% Latino.
In other words, those who stayed home don't, as a whole, fit the profile of a disgruntled liberal base. Instead, they lean toward a profile of a group of centrist voters who weren't motivated this time. Indeed, as that would suggest, the droppers were pretty much split down the middle on whether their concern was that Mr. Obama and the Democrats didn't try to have government do more (45%), or whether they tried to have government too much (39%).
"The Obama voters who stayed home in 2010 encompass more than the Democratic base," concludes the study of these voters. "And disappointment that Obama didn't go farther was not a major factor in their reasons for staying home."
Not surprisingly, the same study found that 2008 Obama voters who showed up this year but switched their votes to the Republicans were much more likely to say that they thought Democrats and the president tried to have government do too much. They were, in short, more conservative, and tended as a group to lean more Republican to begin with, than did those who simply stayed home.
The question for Democrats and Mr. Obama, of course, is whether they can get both groups, the switchers and droppers, moving back in their direction now.
The droppers should be easier to retrieve—though the process of doing so would have to begin with figuring out why they checked out in the first place.
WordCloud résumant les 1.000 recherches les plus populaires sur le thème de la rencontre en ligne (Thème pour la St Valentin)
The reverse of the nfptweetup t-shirt unveiled at the 6th nfptweetup in London. Created by hellobeautifulworld.com, the founders and sponsors of the UK's nfptweetup series of events for charity staff interested in using Twitter and social media.
WordCloud résumant les 1.000 recherches les plus populaires sur le thème de la rencontre en ligne (Thème pour la St Valentin)
WordCloud résumant les 1.000 recherches les plus populaires sur le thème de la rencontre en ligne (Thème pour la St Valentin)
What I Am.
For Self Portrait Challenge -- Introduce Yourself
Word Cloud generated by Wordle
Submitted to Photo Friday - "Self Portrait 2009"
SEGUROS PRIZA te dice. La diabetes es un grupo de enfermedades caracterizadas por altos niveles de glucosa en la sangre como resultado de defectos en la producción de insulina, acción de la insulina, o ambos. Es la causa más común de ceguera, insuficiencia renal y amputaciones en adultos y la principal causa de enfermedades del corazón y derrame cerebral . Diabetes tipo 2 representa hasta el 95 por ciento de todos los casos de diabetes y casi todos los casos de diabetes no diagnosticada. Pre- diabetes , lo que causa síntomas, aumenta sustancialmente el riesgo de un ataque al corazón o un derrame cerebral y de desarrollar diabetes tipo 2.
Word cloud of tweets from the Science Online London conference. Collection of all tweets using the #solo11 hashtag, @usernames and common twitter cruft (RT, MT etc) removed.
The word cloud is produced using tagxedo.com, and is in the shape of the Science Online London logo (the thumbnail probably shows this more clearly, where you focus on the whitespace, and not the words).
This is a visualization of the search terms that were used throughout 2009 to reach photos in my flickr photostream. Size indicates frequency.
To see how this compares with the first half of 2010, check out my 2010 Flickrstats infographic.
A wordcloud featuring "Vote". Would appreciate credit for use of this image in the form of a link:
Image by www.scootergenius.com
Infographic by Bill Rapp
As part of our post election poll of voters who stayed home or switched to the GOP, we invited participants to offer their advice in their own words to President Obama and the Republican leadership. We took their responses and created “word clouds”. The larger/more prominent the words, the more frequently we heard... them from our respondents. The results are, to our minds, very interesting. The most frequently heard words for the GOP? “Compromise” and “Work Together”.
REVIEW THE THIRD WAY POST ELECTION POLL HERE: www.thirdway.org/publications/352
Voters Who Stayed Home Offer Clues for Democrats
•By GERALD F. SEIB, The Wall Street Journal
A popular theory of this year's midterm election holds that Democrats took a shellacking in part because big chunks of the party's core liberal base, discouraged at the path of the Obama administration, stayed home rather than show up to vote as they did in 2008.
It's an interesting narrative. It also doesn't appear to be entirely accurate.
While it's correct that some key parts of the Democratic coalition—young voters and African-Americans among them—didn't perform as they did in 2008, evidence emerging as the dust settles from this month's election suggests the bigger hole in the side of the Democratic ship came from moderates in the political center who didn't show up. (Those absences were in addition to the wave of independent swing voters also from the center who, exit polls showed, turned out but switched their votes to the Republicans.)
The case of the missing voters is important because how it is resolved will go a long way toward determining how Democrats respond to their midterm woes. If they conclude, as some argue, that the problem was an undermotivated liberal base, then the logical reaction would be a turn to the left and a staunch resistance to compromises with the Republicans who now control the House and hold expanded power in the Senate.
If, on the other hand, the conclusion is that the voters lost were moderates who got aboard the Barack Obama Express in 2008 but missed the train at the station this time, then that would argue for a political and policy strategy designed to appeal to the center of the electorate. And that might suggest more willingness to seek compromises in the middle.
Let's look at some evidence. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll sifted out a group of voters who said they cast ballots in 2008 but didn't vote this year. They do tend to be a bit younger than the overall average of voters. And as a group they like Mr. Obama noticeably more than do voters as a whole, and they tend to identify themselves as Democrats, which suggests that, as suspected, many would have been Democratic voters had they shown up.
But they also were more likely to identify themselves as "not very strong Democrats" rather than "strong Democrats." And the largest share identified their ideology as moderate rather than liberal.
A more direct study of these 2010 no-shows was undertaken by Third Way, a think tank for moderate Democrats, and Lincoln Park Strategies, a Democratic polling firm. They surveyed 1,000 Democrats who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but abandoned the party this year. Half of them were "switchers" who moved their votes to the Republicans this time, while the other half were "droppers" who simply dropped out of the voting this year.
That survey found that, while the droppers were a bit more liberal than 2010 voters as a whole, they were split in almost precise thirds into liberals, moderates and conservatives. Moreover, just 42% identified themselves as Democrats, while 40% were independents and 8% were Republicans. Almost a quarter of them voted for Republican George W. Bush in 2004.
Nor were the droppers largely minority voters, as the popular stereotype might suggest. Eight in 10 were white, while just 7% were African-American and 5% Latino.
In other words, those who stayed home don't, as a whole, fit the profile of a disgruntled liberal base. Instead, they lean toward a profile of a group of centrist voters who weren't motivated this time. Indeed, as that would suggest, the droppers were pretty much split down the middle on whether their concern was that Mr. Obama and the Democrats didn't try to have government do more (45%), or whether they tried to have government too much (39%).
"The Obama voters who stayed home in 2010 encompass more than the Democratic base," concludes the study of these voters. "And disappointment that Obama didn't go farther was not a major factor in their reasons for staying home."
Not surprisingly, the same study found that 2008 Obama voters who showed up this year but switched their votes to the Republicans were much more likely to say that they thought Democrats and the president tried to have government do too much. They were, in short, more conservative, and tended as a group to lean more Republican to begin with, than did those who simply stayed home.
The question for Democrats and Mr. Obama, of course, is whether they can get both groups, the switchers and droppers, moving back in their direction now.
The droppers should be easier to retrieve—though the process of doing so would have to begin with figuring out why they checked out in the first place.
Feedback from learners on the first run of Medicines Adherence from King's College London. Sign up for the second run at www.futurelearn.com/courses/medicines-adherence-2
WORD CLOUD: The words above represent the views of participants from latest "Droppers & Switchers" poll when asked to describe President Obama.
See our new poll & memo here: www.thirdway.org/publications/438
In this memo, we zero in on two sets of voters who will determine the outcome of the 2012 elections. We call them the “droppers” and the “switchers.” These are Obama voters from 2008 who either stayed home (“droppers”) or voted Republican (“switchers”) in the 2010 midterms. For the President and congressional Democrats to succeed, droppers must show up and a large number of switchers must return to the fold in 2012. And in order to woo the switchers back, Democrats must close the ideological gap those crucial voters perceive between themselves and the party—primarily by positioning themselves as growth Democrats, not tax and spend Democrats.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-cloudy-forecast-for-201...
A cloudy forecast for 2012
By Ruth Marcus
The word clouds tell the story — and illustrate the challenges ahead for both sides.
“TRYING,” says the cloud illustrating swing voters’ assessment of President Obama. And then, ominously: “liberal” and “ineffective.”
“STUBBORN,” says the cloud illustrating these voters’ view of congressional Republicans. Followed by “conservative,” “selfish,” “greedy” and — the one unabashedly positive phrase among the top 10 — “trying.”
The images are generated from a fascinating new poll by the centrist Democratic group Third Way. The clouds depict the assessment of what the poll terms “persuadable switchers” — voters in a dozen battleground states who backed Obama in 2008, voted for Republicans in 2010 and describe themselves as up for grabs in 2012.
The Third Way poll, conducted by Stefan Hankin of Lincoln Park Strategies, examined two groups: the “switchers” and the “droppers,” who voted for Obama in 2008 and stayed home in 2010. The “droppers,” it found, are not the president’s problem. Nearly three-fourths say they will definitely or probably vote to reelect Obama.
The switchers represent a bigger headache. Less than a third said they would definitely or probably vote again for the president. A full quarter said they are irretrievably gone.
In all, six in 10 switchers are persuadable, prompting the question: What would it take to do the trick?
It won’t be easy. As the word cloud depicts, these voters continue to like Obama. They think he’s smart and sincere. They give him credit for trying. But the next two words encapsulate their twin doubts: that he is too liberal for their tastes and not effective enough for the country’s needs.
The first word may be easier to knock down than the second. These persuadable switchers describe themselves as significantly more conservative than Obama and his party. Strangely, they see Obama as slightly more liberal than his congressional counterparts. Even stranger, given that they voted for Obama, they see themselves as closer on the ideological spectrum to congressional Republicans than to the president.
The key for Obama may be to convince these voters that he is serious about deficit reduction. They care about the issue — more, as they perceive it, than do the president or congressional Republicans. Yet their preferred approach dovetails nicely with Obama’s. More than two-thirds would be willing to accept tax increases as part of a deficit-reduction plan.
The harder task for Obama will be to dispel the aura of ineffectiveness. This presents a twofold challenge: first, to show he can get something done in the face of a Republican-controlled House that isn’t inclined to hand him any such victory; and second, to demonstrate his effectiveness in the relatively short time remaining. If the ultimate measure is the economy — and more than half the persuadable switchers put it at the top of their list — that will be extraordinarily difficult. Even if Congress were to magically pass Obama’s plan swiftly and in full, the jobs turnaround is apt to be slow and far from assured.
Of course, Republicans aren’t about to be so compliant, but their word cloud helps explain the GOP’s new tone of seeming conciliation. When swing voters who backed you in 2010 come up with words such as “selfish,” “greedy” and “irresponsible” less than a year later, you’ve got a serious problem with the brand.
The political trick for Republicans is to puff up Obama’s “ineffective liberal” portrait while diminishing their image as the intransigent party. Their smartest move would be to quickly co-opt a piece of Obama’s jobs plan — tax cuts and a slice of trade deals, anyone? This jujitsu would dissipate the stubbornness rap without letting the president crow that Republicans acceded to his demand to “pass this bill.” Let Obama look like Mr. All-or-Nothing.
Yet much as he might prefer to, Obama won’t be running against congressional Republicans. This is why Mitt Romney’s approach to Obama — casting him as a nice guy in over his head — could be so potent. Where Texas Gov. Rick Perry can be cutting about Obama, Romney takes more of the “poor schnook” stance. He’s not telling swing voters they were wrong to give Obama a shot — just that the president tried and failed.
“If you think the country needs a turnaround, that’s what I do,” Romney said at the Tea Party debate.
Romney still has some explaining to do about why his private-sector turnarounds so often involved cutting jobs, not creating them. But he is emerging as a formidable candidate against an incumbent for whom trying, however hard, may not be enough.