Slashdot Mirror

Sort of. Lukla (airport village forming one of the entrances to the Everest region) has a "Starbucks" but it's not really the same as the ones you expect. It *does* have WiFi though.

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/bfayolle/4/1257519913/lhukla.jpg/tpod.html
http://www.bing.com/search?q=starbucks+lukla (Yes, I used Bing, it even got me what I was looking for :-)

From the summary: "I'd like to think that there really are (or were) drones over Austin, but would also like to see Google's explanation for the close-up images."

It's Google implementing a feature Bing has had available for over a year - the Bird's Eye view.

Here's a list of 150 cities with bird's eye imagery on Bing: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cid=546E7E30AC2C5011!250

I seem to recall an MS mapping page predating Bing having the feature since 2006ish.

It's cool that Google is doing this, too, and I bet they're doing it the legal way: with small aircraft containing real pilots, not drones.

"'Commonly available cyber defenses such as firewalls, antivirus and automatic updates for security patches can reduce risk, but they're not enough'" Charney said." - By Gregg Keizer October 7, 2010 06:49 AM ET http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9189838/Microsoft_pitches_PC_isolation_ward_to_defeat_botnets?taxonomyId=17&pageNumber=1

They're not as comprehensive as this guide is, this is certain:

http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-3511888-1.php

----

"And who exactly is going to pay for this? If your system is not infected can you be exempted from a "monthly fee" or is it punishing everyone when Windows is the majority of infections? Maybe Microsoft should pay for it all?" - by headkase (533448) on Thursday October 07, @08:12PM (#33831560)

Nobody has to PAY for it: CIS Tool, or MBSA, are 100% free, and they work (both are based on "industry best practices" for "layered security", & CIS Tool is also multi-platform (runs on Windows, Solaris, Linux, and BSD variants)).

Take 1-2 hours of your time and secure yourself with free reliable and highly respected/noted tools as your guides that use the concept of layered security practices.

Do it yourself, & for years to decades of uninfested/uninfected uptime.

E.G.-> It has worked for myself for years, and my customers, friends, and families (along with a LITTLE "user education" - "online behavioral modification" in "best practices online" etc./et al, too), simply by using the concepts of "layered security" noted in the guide's points/tips/tricks/techniques/toolsets.

APK

P.S.=> For testimonials of how WELL it's worked for others? See that at many of the places it is posted on forums worldwide which have DIRECT user feedback in them, and they are found via searching this on google:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Many folks have experienced the same as I have (or Thronka & others at 3dguru.com & MANY other sites - no malware infestations for years after applying this guide and its concepts)... apk

I did.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=crosby&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=

Now what?

You should just bing bing crosby.

The quest for answer is suffering. Only when you have stopped searching can you reach enlightment."

So Bing is the start of the road to enlightenment?
Still not worth it...

Hmmm. Bing has it, too - both hits I got on Google, I got there, as well.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22This+is+why+things+show+up+in+Google+days,+sometimes+weeks+ahead+of+the+other+search+engines%22&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=

I think the mere definition of monopoly doesn't agree with you on this point. Google has a monopoly but it isn't on search, it's on advertising. For a monopoly to exist you need to have "sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it". source

Google can not do this for internet search. People are always free to go to another search engine. Don't believe me? Click Here. Compare that to the ISP example where someone may want to go to another ISP, but can not because they don't live in that small town. Or people wanted to buy a mac but could not because their company was built around Windows only software.

Unless there is something Google is doing to specifically control your ability to freely choose what you type into the browser then it's not a monopoly in the search arena. Internet advertising however is a monopoly granted by the sheer volume of traffic that goes through Google. In this case if you wish to advertise online you almost have little other alternative due to a lack of market exposure provided by many other advertising agencies.

Is that one of those sites that try to profit from the misspellings?

I don't get it. I don't see any biased result: when I google it.

In all seriousness, their algorithm works based on how many people look for something. Sometimes I use the search bar on my Firefox to look for Google (instead of using the URL bar). In any case, I'm not very surprised by the results of this search anyways. Neither from these results although I find interesting that bing doesn't show up in their own search! Of course the latter are very similar to Yahoo's results. But even Yahoo promotes itself and Google (see the "Also try:")

If they asked their users (Bing, Mapquest, etc.) to make it more clear that OSM forms the main portion of whatever they are trying to use it for, it might get more recognition and attention.

I thought I'd check out how exactly Bing was using OSM and it would appear that they are offering it as an alternative layer:
Bing Maps Adds OpenStreetMap
If you follow the link to the maps it says "(c) OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY".
I think the reason they're doing it is to show off serving map data from the Azure CDN and the APIs of Bing itself. More an interesting side project really.

If they asked their users (Bing, Mapquest, etc.) to make it more clear that OSM forms the main portion of whatever they are trying to use it for, it might get more recognition and attention.

I thought I'd check out how exactly Bing was using OSM and it would appear that they are offering it as an alternative layer:
Bing Maps Adds OpenStreetMap
If you follow the link to the maps it says "(c) OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY".
I think the reason they're doing it is to show off serving map data from the Azure CDN and the APIs of Bing itself. More an interesting side project really.

Your joke is more true than you know: Search for "Unreliable Ferrari". Looks great, goes fast, expensive to maintain because it's constantly falling apart.

Ok, so "low tech" maybe isn't quite the most accurate way to look at these two atrocities, but let me give you a fucked up example, where even a "champion" for one of these, shows how stupidly it can and will be abused, to the frustration and disappointment of the public, in a way that negates all the technological advances they have come to accept as daily reality.

Yesterday. That was the day I finally installed Silverlight on my work computer. Why did I do that? Because I wanted to make sure Bing wasn't having any problems crawling a website that I handle, so I headed over to Bing Webmaster Tools. Bing Webmaster Tools used to be a website and it worked ok, but now they only have a page that sends you this Silverlight application for you to download and run. Ew. But I have a job to do so I went ahead.

The new Bing Webmaster Tools offers nothing, no really new capabilities that a web app wouldn't also be able to do. (Well, no advantages except that now I'm running some Microsoft code (!) on my machine with all my privileges, instead of on their server. I can see how that might be an advantage for somebody but surely not for me.)

But balancing this nothingness, let's look at the technological disaster of this new crippled UI. At first, it looks like a web page, maybe because you see it in your browser. But if you treat it like a web page, you'll find that you can't do the things that you've taken for granted the last decade or so. Try to open a "link" in another tab or window -- oops, all I have is a "Silverlight preferences" menu option, not the usual stuff. Wanna open a link other than having it open in your current window? Sorry. Wanna inspect element? Wanna override some styling? Wanna save an image (other than using our OS' screen grabber)? Bzzt. Wanna have any of your unenumerable browser plugins do .. whatever.. with the data on the page? Sorry, the data you're looking at isn't really in the DOM, except as an inpenetrable >object< chunk. Want to clip an error message and paste it into a search blank to find out how other people are interpreting it and dealing with it? Yeah, right. Wanna have the computer speak some highlighted text? Sorry, even if you could highlight text, this wouldn't work. It's not that I need the computer to speak (my problem is the opposite; my hearing is trashed), the point is that if Microsoft didn't think of a feature, then you don't have it.

You just went back in time over 15 years. All the improvements to browsers, all that progress, suddenly doesn't exist anymore. All that incremental building-up and stacking power upon power, is gone.

It's jarring. It's shocking and immediately in your face as soon as you try to use it. That first-image impression of being a web page, shatters and is replaced with disappointment, the instant you try to do anything.

Of course, Flash is just as bad, for some of the same reasons. If you're asking me which pre-web tech (holy crap, I know people who can walk and speak, who are younger than the web now!) that I'm rooting for, I say fuck you both.

Hail to the web, baby. For all of HTML5's problems with getting adopted, the codec standardization problem, etc, its present-day reality is still so many years beyond the alternatives, that it's not even funny.

So what was your source that supported non-differentiation between the two categories?

My... source? My single source? Well, if I have to boil it down to just one (and discount any supporting evidence or writings)... I would go with reason based on history (for a start).

Given how explicit the Constitution is about some things... such as certain election processes or the Presidential oath of office... it seems odd that such an important thing such as declaring war is left so vague... that leaves two options either a) it is so well understood what the meaning was that no further expansion is necessary, or b) something that will be expanded upon by statute at a later time.

You would no doubt be quick to point out that A is the correct answer (which it is) and that it proves your case... only that assumes that declarations of war were at the time known and understood to be a written document which always contains the words "declaration of war" right up at the top... forgetting the meaning of the word declaration.

I'll pause here as you look it up.

Now let's go back to the signing of the Constitution... do you think it was well understood that a formal declaration of war follow an exact format, starting with the title "Declaration of War"... or that it was simply understood and accepted that such a declaration have a few key parts... such as why you are initiating military force, against who, and possibly conditions for the ceasing of hostilities?

For simplicity, go back to the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier on Declaration of war and refer to the first sentence (emphasis mine):

A declaration of war (aka DOW, DoW) is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations.

Note 'speech act'... which means (in short) that such a declaration does not have to take the form of a written communication/act, but can be delivered not only verbally, but almost certainly entail the aspects I listed above... or do you wish to continue to claim that even that address/speech must contain the words "declaration of war" in that order?

More so... seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that it took until the 1907 Hague Convention before they formalized such a thing? Though even then... they didn't do that, did they? To quote Article 1 of Hague III:

Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

More uses of the word 'declaration'... but still no definition of what constitutes 'declaration of war' is... now what is a declaration again? Oh yes... simply a formal (and usually public) statement... so based on a continued lack of formal and explicit definition of what exactly constitutes a 'declaration of war'... we are left with the need of a dictionary!

Declaration we've already defined, and war... well that's pretty self-explanatory... so together we have a formal statement (written or not) that a state of hostility (very possibly resulting in armed conflict) now exists between one nation/group and another.

But when it comes to something you can read... good chapter on a related subject in the book Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America when discussing the run-up to Iraq. Be warned though... the book reads like a legal brief (meticulously detailed and dry)... though that isn’t surprising given the aut

So what was your source that supported non-differentiation between the two categories?

My... source? My single source? Well, if I have to boil it down to just one (and discount any supporting evidence or writings)... I would go with reason based on history (for a start).

Given how explicit the Constitution is about some things... such as certain election processes or the Presidential oath of office... it seems odd that such an important thing such as declaring war is left so vague... that leaves two options either a) it is so well understood what the meaning was that no further expansion is necessary, or b) something that will be expanded upon by statute at a later time.

You would no doubt be quick to point out that A is the correct answer (which it is) and that it proves your case... only that assumes that declarations of war were at the time known and understood to be a written document which always contains the words "declaration of war" right up at the top... forgetting the meaning of the word declaration.

I'll pause here as you look it up.

Now let's go back to the signing of the Constitution... do you think it was well understood that a formal declaration of war follow an exact format, starting with the title "Declaration of War"... or that it was simply understood and accepted that such a declaration have a few key parts... such as why you are initiating military force, against who, and possibly conditions for the ceasing of hostilities?

For simplicity, go back to the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier on Declaration of war and refer to the first sentence (emphasis mine):

A declaration of war (aka DOW, DoW) is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations.

Note 'speech act'... which means (in short) that such a declaration does not have to take the form of a written communication/act, but can be delivered not only verbally, but almost certainly entail the aspects I listed above... or do you wish to continue to claim that even that address/speech must contain the words "declaration of war" in that order?

More so... seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that it took until the 1907 Hague Convention before they formalized such a thing? Though even then... they didn't do that, did they? To quote Article 1 of Hague III:

Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

More uses of the word 'declaration'... but still no definition of what constitutes 'declaration of war' is... now what is a declaration again? Oh yes... simply a formal (and usually public) statement... so based on a continued lack of formal and explicit definition of what exactly constitutes a 'declaration of war'... we are left with the need of a dictionary!

Declaration we've already defined, and war... well that's pretty self-explanatory... so together we have a formal statement (written or not) that a state of hostility (very possibly resulting in armed conflict) now exists between one nation/group and another.

But when it comes to something you can read... good chapter on a related subject in the book Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America when discussing the run-up to Iraq. Be warned though... the book reads like a legal brief (meticulously detailed and dry)... though that isn’t surprising given the aut

Too late.

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r1c4qr7k5y8t&scene=38572790&lvl=2&sty=b

Bing maps has had aerial imagery for forever. The area around my house is higher res than this link, actually (down to a swingset).

Go ahead, try it. "Binging" for "Google" produces a far more useful result than I would've expected.

What color is it in your world? None of those features are available on an OOtB (out-of-the-box) install of XP Pro. Show me a retail link for WXPx64. There are none. WinXP cannot encrypt entire volumes OOtB, only files. One TB+ hard drives are very, very common. And XP certainly cannot image a drive at all.

There are lots of 3rd party apps to do all those things, but licensing it tricky at the enterprise level for those.

This uses DisplayPort, so

a) Maximum cable length of 3m (~10ft) from PC to display
b) Maximum length of 15m (~45ft) for reduced bandwidth
c) I don't think anyone does this in plenum grade (not that you probably care about anything like fire codes)
d) Wi-Fi Picture Frames tend to start at $150 or so. 12 - 24 monitors, plus pc, plus this very specialized card, plus cabling? No way you'll approach $150 per endpoint.

I think someone just told you about a new hammer drill and you're wondering if it can be used instead of your mom's shoe for hanging pictures...

Year 2010/11 tablets will be the new "netbook," but manufacturers are doing it all wrong. Seeing how nobody wants to use the iPad formula for size and lack of Windows OS, and the prices don't present any temptation to would-be netbook byers, the industry has again misunderstood what we needed.

1. iPad- lack of flash, and strict market with proprietary Apple software needed to transfer files. Mainstream windows users aren't impressed while power users await for flash alternatives. Price is $500+
2. Kno's "tablet" is too huge and heavy (5.5 pounds, mum on the extra battery weight) to be practical.
3. Archos 9 is not even advertised properly or present at important Best-buy type stores in New York city. The Bing link also shows the price around $475. Windows 7 "Starter" is not something I want as a portable OS, and an $80 upgrade to "Home Premium" to "unlock" features. I'll pass on Windows tablets --they probably $$$uck at natively opening office docs too.
4. The Dell Streak is also in the $500 range and is too damn small to promote book reading or movie watching.

I always hoped that the Apple premium would translate to inevitable competition with a slew of Dell tablets costing $200-$300. I guess the US economy killed that idea because everyone wants in on the new "Android-sy" $500 price ranges. The bad part is that contract-less android phones cost just as much as this new breed of full tablets.

Users in this "emerging" market of tablets and e-readers want alternatives here and now, but long term portability goes first or second in our decisions (we already have laptops and desktops.).. Kno is NOT something that can attract first time tablet buyers, because it is too niche-y due to lack of portability. The original 10 Commandment stone tablets were meant to be huge dual tablets ... probably emulated well by this Kno waving it as a threat over web 2.0 pagans' heads. I'll pass on the tablets this year and get and save a bunch of cash with some rave review netbook.

On second thought [...] Let's make these creeps lifelong indentured servant to whomever they have harmed. I wouldn't mind having the guy who stole my credit card and purchased $4000 at Walmart serve as my maid for a summer.

I surely would enjoy having fat geeks around my house calling me "Master!"... just because they're wearing this.

PS: Please call me if you find slender female scammers! There's all these animes I've been watching...

I binged "why i like microsoft", and received 133 hits.

In comparison, bing gives 211.000.000 hits for why i like google.

I binged "why i like microsoft", and received 133 hits.

In comparison, bing gives 211.000.000 hits for why i like google.

The point here is that it isn't illegal. The Pirate Bay itself does not host any copyrighted content. They don't even run a tracker anymore. And the injunction wasn't even against the Pirate Bay, it was against an ISP, an IP packet pusher. If providing internet access to servers which list torrents is grounds for an injunction, then who is Microsoft's ISP?

Oh, before anyone comments on the math:

Each unit (building) was made up of two sub-units. Four toilets per sub-unit, 8 per unit.

Wanna see the place?

Interesting.. According to Bing it's 2.9433732 x 10^9 Parsecs. I wonder what the cause for the variance is.

Here's a quick rundown of various sites that I would use for reference.
Google: 1 light years = 0.30659458 Parsecs
Bing: 1 Light year = 0.30660137 Parsecs
Wikipedia: 1 parsec = 3.26156 light years
                      1 light year = .306601 parsecs
Wolfram Alpha: 1 light year = .306601393805 parsecs

Since Bing uses Wolfram Alpha, I figured they'd match up, but I checked anyway. Interestingly not even those two match after 8 digits.

Interesting.. According to Bing it's 2.9433732 x 10^9 Parsecs. I wonder what the cause for the variance is.

Here's a quick rundown of various sites that I would use for reference.
Google: 1 light years = 0.30659458 Parsecs
Bing: 1 Light year = 0.30660137 Parsecs
Wikipedia: 1 parsec = 3.26156 light years
                      1 light year = .306601 parsecs
Wolfram Alpha: 1 light year = .306601393805 parsecs

Since Bing uses Wolfram Alpha, I figured they'd match up, but I checked anyway. Interestingly not even those two match after 8 digits.

I just watched it and it drags on a while. I wish there was a transcript.

A quick Bing search could have saved you a /. post.

Really? seems to differ and wasn't the only reference I could find for microsoft.com defaced (seventh link).

SQL injection != Kernel Flaw

Not an example of bad security but bad programming.

http://www.xatrix.org/article.php?s=3640
"They found the administration page and performed a SQL injection attack, allowing them to manage the content of the section."

OMG!!! Linux is SUPAR UNSAFE!!! It is vulnerable to SQL injection attacks!... Every OS has this issue because some moron decided to not validate their SQL string and/or didn't use parameterized variables.

Actually, I went through and googled a bunch myself and all the results for the past decade where SQL injection or they didn't specify but mostly SQL.

Next time you feel like showing off how un-secure and OS is, I'll load up SELinux, set it up to let root telnet in, give root a blank password, open up all the ports on my firewall and see how long it takes for SELinux to be "hacked"

Really? seems to differ and wasn't the only reference I could find for microsoft.com defaced (seventh link).

Oddly, one feature Bing beats Google on is that its API has a much more generous license, allowing you to use results in non-user-facing apps like scripts; to reorder or filter results or mix them with results from other sources; etc. Google's API only allows you to republish its results, unchanged, within a user-facing app, basically nothing much more complicated than including a "Google results for this term" sidebar.

Somehow I don't think Bing is manipulating the results.
Otherwise they would be top:
www.bing.com/search?q=search+engine

shopping.google.com

I think you've missed the mark on this particular one - it's http://www.bing.com/cashback nowadays.

Are you going to trust what Google says about Microsoft?

Lets try someone without a vested interest in flaunting the vulnerabilities of Microsoft products.

Oh, never mind, looks pretty much the same, carry on.

Bing's April Fools page is... oh, that's their normal search page?

Never mind.

From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing: "Why is Windows so expensive?"

The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously.

well you'll start taking Bing seriously far earlier then I will. You also haven't done the search in a while.

"Why is Windows so expensive?" on Bing

"Why is Windows so expensive?" on Google

With Google, the first Mac response is number 3, the first two are for the search you mentioned, on Bing it's the eighth result. Both for the same Tech Radar UK article which using Occams razor leads me to believe that Tech Radar UK is gaming the search engines to get more results.

But Microsoft will always be second place to Google, if Google gets knocked out of top spot (bound to happen eventually) they will be third to Google and the no 1 contender. Why? Because MS cannot create innovative new technologies, the can modify existing ideas but not by much, once a technology is bought by MS it pretty much stops evolving until another tech is bought and integrated into it. MS don't innovate, they buy and assimilate, it's their strength and you cant hate them for doing what they are good at.

Google will get knocked out of the top spot one day, my bet is on a new technology developed by one or two brilliant people in their garage.

bing seems to think you have an infinite number of search results for everything.
go try a search for something like "inopportuneness" and keep clicking on the "Next" button. You'll eventually get a blank page

It's simpler than that. Bing offers nothing that makes users want to use their search engine instead of Google's. Google is a verb in the English language. When people think of finding something on the web, they think of Google.

Bing doesn't even look like Google when one reaches their landing page; this, accompanied with worries about malware search engines and such, would make people who aren't as in-the-know wonder why that isn't Google. Intelligently, Google protected their landing page to prevent Microsoft from doing exactly that. (This mitigates the argument that making Bing the default search page would steal Google's market share.)

I love their photography, but I'm an amateur photographer, so I'm biased. I would bet dollars to donuts (who came up with that saying? It's stupid!) that most people don't care about the photos or necessarily want them in the first place.

Notice that none of these points address differences in search technology. I think that Bing isn't getting the market share they want because they waited WAY too long to make a dent, just like they waited too long to release the Zune (which, like Bing, has few features that would make people want to not get a household name, especially since the inception of the iPod Touch). Worse, Yahoo! was the place for searching the web before Google stole their thunder, and MSN Search was bloated and unmoving even THEN. (Reference: http://www.msn.com/ NOW hasn't changed much from then in terms of bloat.) Hotmail (now Live! Mail) is a good proof to this. Hotmail was LEADING THE WAY in terms of free e-mail services, with Yahoo going head-to-head with them. Their service was pretty good and definitely reliable (I've never had problems with my msn.com or hotmail.com e-mail addresses when I've used them). Even though Google Mail has been released to the public for years, there are still PLENTY of people who use Hotmail (as shown here , as Hotmail ranks higher than gmail).

In regards to their technology, I think it's actually quite good, especially when compared to MSN Search (which was useless 90% of the time). It does suffer a bit on the tail end, though. Example: my school gives every student a MSDN Academic Alliance account upon request, but I always forget the site. (Yes, I can use bookmarks. NO, I will not make one.) Using the search terms 'stevens msdnaa' on Google gives me my IT department's wiki article on it right off the bat as well as many articles below it that also contain the link. (I know the person who runs that blog, as he's also a Stevens student.) Bing, on the other hand, also gives me the link right from the get go, but wanders into irrelevance after the second hit. When I searched that term in Bing for the first time, I didn't even get the link.

Well, here's a screenshot. I guess it's possible that it's different because I'm Canadian, though it does imply it's not limiting results based on that.

That's interesting. It absolutely is because you're in Canada. I just tried the same search at bing.ca (redirects to http://www.bing.com/?cc=ca for me) and I got the same results as your screenshot.

No, they're not headquartered in Delaware. You're thinking about where they were incorporated. That has nothing to do with their official HQ which is located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway in Mountain View, CA. I binged it!

>>>healthcare costs in Japan for instance are such more lower per capita.

Japan's been in a depression for almost two decades now. I don't think we should be trying to mirror them. http://www.bing.com/search?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=japan's+lost+decade
.

>>>I'm curious, do you wait for a cavity before seeing a dentist?

Yes pretty much. Also when I do okay for my annual cleaning, I'll flat-out deny certain procedures she tries to perform on me, like teeth whitening or Xrays or other "preventative" crap. I'm not wasting a bunch of money just so she can fill-in a little tiny scratch on a tooth, and thereby fill her pockets with my money. Forget that.

Also:

I don't consider life so precious that I have to cling to it like Ebenezer Scrooge on a gold coin. If I develop cancer and die next month, then I die. Big deal. It's where I'm going to end up anyway. I don't comprehend people who are so frightened of death that they'll go-out and bankrupt themselves (or the government's treasury) just to stay alive. Life isn't that great.

Assault has nothing to do with physical contact. That's battery. Also, he was convicted of failing to obey a lawful order, not assault.

He's lucky it was in the US and not Canada.

Also, Watts was the one who started it by refusing, twice, to get back into his car while they were initially attempting to search his trunk. If he had done as he was told, none of this would have happened. This is the same procedure in Watt's home province of Ontario at a traffic stop by the cops. You stay in your car while they do what they have to do, whether it's searching the trunk or running your ID.

A search turns up numbers ranging from 15% (TGdaily) to 30% (retailers' reports) to 54% (user surveys). I suspect the Retailer stat is the most accurate. If 1/3rd of Xbox 360's are failing that is FAR, far worse than the failure rate that existed with the original PS2 (and that was pretty bad). LINK - http://www.bing.com/search?q=xbox+360+failure+rate

The lowest is the Nintendo Wii console at only 3%.

There are discussions and evidence that Nvidia disables multi-core PhysX processing , most likely to make its hardware-based implementation look better.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nvidia+disable+multi-core+physx
http://www.bing.com/search?q=nvidia+multi-core+physx
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nvidia+disable+multi-core+physx

The "official" excuse is that it's "up to the developers to enable it"... but if Nvidia is paying them... then it only makes sense they wouldn't allow multi-core software implementations as that would make their hw less desirable.

PhysX is the GLide of 21st century, except it offers much less and performs poorly (even on high end hardware).

Open standards are the way to go.

Cool idea.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Microsoft%2Bhow%2Bto%2Bdestroy&go=&form=QBLH

Although I agree with some points you make (namely the video is still demo material) the flickr and photosynth embedded in the street view in bing maps is already a reality and way better integrated than google's.

The new maps where you can add apps to the map view (the flickr thing is tech prev but available). Some are either not well supplied of entries or tricky to use, but the photosynth and flickr photos integrate great in the street view. The positioning of the photos is very accurate (not as google's "see the photos without context apart from the geo pos").

Granted that the interface from bing is a bit shaky to use... but in terms of the content at this point it does surpass google's (and also the eye candy of transitions is very good).

Note: I'd still use google maps to get from here to there though... (the interface seems simpler and less clouded...)

Searching for "The best operating system" on : bing google yahoo ask

I do not think Microsoft views Linux as a legitimate competitor.

Besides, why risk losing credibility in manipulating search results, when there's a far simpler strategy? Give yourself free ads for common search terms

Example: content management, sql, mail server, antivirus, email account, instant messenger

I do not think Microsoft views Linux as a legitimate competitor.

Besides, why risk losing credibility in manipulating search results, when there's a far simpler strategy? Give yourself free ads for common search terms

Example: content management, sql, mail server, antivirus, email account, instant messenger