Slashdot Mirror

This is the default galaxy S i9000 homescreen vs the apple home screen. Absolutely identical, aren't they.

They used icons! Unfair! That's our Thing!

Well, they're arguing that
a) samsung galaxy hardware look too much like the iphone/ipad. Cos, it's rectangular with rounded corners. And black, both high original apple features that only they did first.
b) samsung's 'touchwiz' user interface (as opposed to the standard android one) looks too much like iOS. Cos the 'app drawer' shows all installed apps in a rectangular grid. Which no-one would ever have thought of until apple did it.

Given samsung supplies apple with their screens and cpu's, it seems they want to stop their supplier well, using their own stuff and stay just as a parts supplier, not a competitor. That they have to use laughably generic look-n-feel patents to do it shows how baseless the accusation is.

This is the default galaxy S i9000 homescreen vs the apple home screen. Absolutely identical, aren't they. If you picked one up, you'd never be able to tell them apart, they're *that* similar.

I hear they're going to sue nokia next because they sell 'phones', which is a trademark infringement of apple's unique name, iPhone.

The exceptional reputation step was clearly expressed as a shortcut, meaning you'll be in demand rather than the other way round. It doesn't apply to most people - certainly not to me - but it applies to others, some of whom are having their exceptional talents completely wasted because they've transitioned from an active researcher to a sort of trophy/ambassador (aka PR) role.

Top school - I expressed that this was an advantage, but neither necessary nor sufficient. For all the meritocracy, the old boy benefit is still clear.

Re recent changes - true, I haven't looked into it in the past few years. Glad they've dumped the puzzle crap.

Re subjective "how would you improve" thing - it seems that's a known question for certain roles. I'm not surprised - it's a common management type question, but it's not very useful unless you're given time to research and answer the problem in more concrete terms.

I had a mixture of algorithm-type questions, OO design and programming questions (C++ and Java), and some system design questions. All of these topics are applicable to a software engineering position.

No, I'd say that being given an appropriate amount of time to tackle a realistic software engineering problem is applicable to a software engineering position - even if that means going the classical IBM way and providing long probationary challenges. Knowing basic algorithmic complexity/OO stuff is just repeating the tests you took when you got the good grades at school, and I think such exercises are just the interviewer wanting to play teacher.

No one at Microsoft or Google gives a shit if you can memorize standards.

Random search corroborates: HTTP cookies, TCP congestion, API knowledge, etc.

No one at Google or Microsoft is going to ask you questions about your attitude or motivations, except perhaps your recruiter (who doesn't have any say in whether you get hired).

No, but they're asking questions which are engineered to guesstimate this information, just as any employer does - even quirky questions like the Stormtrooper one. If you don't spot this (or, specifically, never reacted in a way which suggests that you've noticed the purpose of a certain question) then, erm, maybe that works to your advantage. Contrast academia where I've found a certain amount of exploring the purpose of a question is encouraged.

That's because you live in the US and telcos have formed a cartel.

In the UK I can get unlimited data for 2 GBP per week (i.e. US$14) per month with a pay as you go SIM

http://phone-shop.tesco.com/tesco-mobile/help-and-support/bundles.aspx#

Thoroughly recommended.

In Taiwan I pay between 375 TWD (US$13) to 1100 TWD ( US$38 ) depending on how much I use. Flat rate would be 750 TWD (US$26), but I don't use it enough to justify that. That's with Far Eastone and a subscription.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://www.fetnet.net/estore/jsp/frontend/plan/html/E375775.html&ei=8rZ3TYW7BIPCvQPsmYncBQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D375%2B40mb%2Bsite:http://www.fetnet.net/%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Divns

It's weird actually the UK used to be the land of cartels. But mobile data isn't that expensive there any more. Tesco Mobile and the like are MVNOs and their existence seems to have resulted in a competitive market.

I recently had a 1.5TB External Seagate drive. it worked for a few months then started clicking and within 2 weeks the thing failed. I did some google searching and really REALLY wish i had done more research before buying the drive because it is a very common problem. I even got a replacement and the same thing happened. I have read of someone having 5 replacements in 6 months. Seagate are aware there is a problem as they replace the drive instantly but no public recall.

Google Link to LOTS of web pages details the issues http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Seagate+External+drive+clicking
Seagate Forums
http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Other-External-products/Seagate-Expansions-producing-loud-clicking-sound/td-p/30962/page/3
http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Maxtor-OneTouch-Products/Maxtor-External-Hard-Drive-Clicking-Noise-Not-Working/td-p/16446
http://forums.seagate.com/t5/Other-External-products/Solution-Seagate-Expansion-Desktop-External-Drive-clicking/td-p/49865

I could supply more links, but from a personal view NEVER use seagate for anything but Throw away data. I was using it as a backup for my PC and in the end lost 500gb of data in the process.
Do not by Seagate hard drives

Since the original link seems broken:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Alexia Sloane

Also - slightly misleading summary - from the various news articles discussing this, it appears she won a local community "Most Courageous Child" award, and as part of it was given the opportunity to go to Brussels and sit in on and interpret for an environment committee meeting - not quite sure how much of a prize that is!

Challenge Accepted

"Nine out of the first ten websites which pop up on Googleâ(TM)s search engine are run by pirates who have downloaded Adeleâ(TM)s output and offer it online far more cheaply than official copyrighted sites and High Street retailers."

This isn't the only piece of fiction in this article but this is so damingly wrong I'm in disbelief that an editor of a newspaper could make such a error. Anyone can easily type in Adele into Google to reveal this piece of fiction. As evidence I offer: http://www.google.com/search?&q=adele

Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but are you in Britain? You need to remember that although Google is global, their search results are biased by region and it's possible that the top 10 results in one country will be different from the top 10 in another (I think it depends on Google Trends' interaction with PageRank). That said, if the top 10 sites are actually all pirated then I'll eat broken glass, in all likelihood they probably added extra keywords that the aren't bothering to mention (intentional confusion with misleading statements is one of the most common weapons in the inflammatory editorialist's arsenal).

This is true, however you can get the regional difference by going to the regional domain directly:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=adele

http://www.google.com/search?q=adele

For me (in Australia), I get slightly different results for those two links. That said, not one pirated song in either list, at least the first page.

I took the comment about pirated music results in the same spirit I took the rest of the article: witless prattle from someone who hasn't the slightest clue regarding their chosen subject matter.

It's still mostly a 90's Geocities-style website with 3D renders of products and lacking any real information.

Yes, it's horrendously amateurish and dated, not in an 80s-nostalgia style, just in a badly-designed, incompetent way.

Anyway, if people here think that their C64 was somewhat cynical, at least with *that* they've put it in a case that looks broadly similar to an actual C64.

Elsewhere on the site (when it isn't saying "Service Unavailable") they're using the famous "Vic" name to sell something that looks similar- or identical- to one of those Eee PC "all-in-one" keyboard/computer things that has **** all to do with the original Vic under the moniker "Vic Pro", and something else called a "Vic Slim" that is equally unrelated.

But that's not all! Would you like an Amiga 1000? Well, don't get your hopes up, it's just a generic HTPC/Media Centre case that has precisely jack s**t to do with the original Amiga 1000 (or any other Amiga) and doesn't even look like it. Ditto the "Amiga 2000" and "Amiga 3000". All backed up by more incredibly ugly and badly-designed web pages.

I strongly suspect they have the rights to use the Amiga name and logo, but nothing else. At any rate, it's possibly the most blatantly cynical and low-rent attempt to milk the Amiga name for all its nostalgic worth while doing f*** all.

Utter tat.

(Canned links to cached Google versions for when their shite website isn't working:- Vic and Amiga.

It's still mostly a 90's Geocities-style website with 3D renders of products and lacking any real information.

Yes, it's horrendously amateurish and dated, not in an 80s-nostalgia style, just in a badly-designed, incompetent way.

Anyway, if people here think that their C64 was somewhat cynical, at least with *that* they've put it in a case that looks broadly similar to an actual C64.

Elsewhere on the site (when it isn't saying "Service Unavailable") they're using the famous "Vic" name to sell something that looks similar- or identical- to one of those Eee PC "all-in-one" keyboard/computer things that has **** all to do with the original Vic under the moniker "Vic Pro", and something else called a "Vic Slim" that is equally unrelated.

But that's not all! Would you like an Amiga 1000? Well, don't get your hopes up, it's just a generic HTPC/Media Centre case that has precisely jack s**t to do with the original Amiga 1000 (or any other Amiga) and doesn't even look like it. Ditto the "Amiga 2000" and "Amiga 3000". All backed up by more incredibly ugly and badly-designed web pages.

I strongly suspect they have the rights to use the Amiga name and logo, but nothing else. At any rate, it's possibly the most blatantly cynical and low-rent attempt to milk the Amiga name for all its nostalgic worth while doing f*** all.

Utter tat.

(Canned links to cached Google versions for when their shite website isn't working:- Vic and Amiga.

I don't often get above 30km/h (18mph) in London, there's too much other stuff (junctions, other people, cars) and I don't want to arrive sweaty. If you can average 20mph you're doing very well. 15mph is realistic. If you want the exercise you can always cycle once a week.

I used to work with someone who cycled from Brighton to roughly Gatwick Airport two or three times a week, it was about 30 miles. On that route there's an easy backup plan though: if he didn't feel like cycling home (e.g. surprise rain) he would take his bike home on the train (35 minutes). I don't think I'd want to commit to a 1½hr+ ride after work without that alternative.

Apparently, we are not going to see a repeat of the Android ambush of the smartphone market

It is WAY to early to make this kind of a judgement. There is absolutely no reason why Android couldn't take over tablets as well as smartphones. Judging by the success or failure of a first gen product like the Xoom is definitely not an adequate representation.

Agreed, and the £500 Motorola zoom is not going to prove one way or other whether anyone will buy a £600 iPad 2 ot £400 iPad. Wait until something decent hits the £200 mark

Apparently, we are not going to see a repeat of the Android ambush of the smartphone market

It is WAY to early to make this kind of a judgement. There is absolutely no reason why Android couldn't take over tablets as well as smartphones. Judging by the success or failure of a first gen product like the Xoom is definitely not an adequate representation.

Agreed, and the £500 Motorola zoom is not going to prove one way or other whether anyone will buy a £600 iPad 2 ot £400 iPad. Wait until something decent hits the £200 mark

Apparently, we are not going to see a repeat of the Android ambush of the smartphone market

It is WAY to early to make this kind of a judgement. There is absolutely no reason why Android couldn't take over tablets as well as smartphones. Judging by the success or failure of a first gen product like the Xoom is definitely not an adequate representation.

Agreed, and the £500 Motorola zoom is not going to prove one way or other whether anyone will buy a £600 iPad 2 ot £400 iPad. Wait until something decent hits the £200 mark

Maybe he means something like this:
http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html

Or just go here:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=924&q=how+much+money+does+the+us+give+to+israel&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=f&oq=how+much+money+does+the+us+give+

"Pedestrianised" - where will the bikes and buses go then? Walking is not a replacement for either of these, for distances over a mile.

I mean to change [almost] all the white roads on this map: restrict them to pedestrian and cyclists (and similarly for the City and the East End). Or, just change them so there are no through routes for car-sized vehicles, i.e. by blocking roads with bollards wide enough to let a bicycle pass (but I think signs and a little enforcement should be sufficient).

It would be a much nicer place to be at all times of the day.

I get the feeling that the days of being in public and anonymous are coming to an end.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=guy+fawkes+mask

1, 2 and 3.

HTH.

The term "application shop" was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995.

You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world. Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.

What is more, the term "app store" is clearly descriptive and non-distinctive as far as UK registration eligibility goes.

I think we should send more people to space. Suits optional.

For example, simply peeing in public, in some states, is enough to have you arrested and classified as a sexual predator.

The mod-up to +4, "Insightful" demands, I think, some minimal show of proof that what you say is true.

Is this minimal enough evidence

The way the article is written implies someone with the same name was removed by the police; in the USA, I am not sure it would be Libel. It might be it might not.

Interestingly, this was actually less likely to be considered libel in the UK than in the USA. The UK defamation law recognises a defense against libel, "unintentional defamation", which is allowed in cases of genuine mistake about the information disclosed (mistaken identity is the most commonly cited situation it is used in). This defence doesn't have a direct US counterpart. However, this defence requires the defendant to show that he took reasonable steps to avoid mistakes, which is probably where this case fell down (I guess without having read it).

See, e.g. Sandford, Libel and Privacy, vol 2 page 10 onwards. IANAL, but I know how to do a faiurly convincing impersonation of one.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=toy+story+3+filetype%3Atorrent
 
Have at it.

Where are you getting that definition from? None of these sources mention root as a requisite of using the term PC, and Wikipedia says only this in its definition:

A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator. PCs include any type of computer that is used in a "personal" manner.

Again no mention of root, just any multi-purpose computer priced and sized for an individual end user. A smart phone would seem to already fit that definition, even without a dock.

LOOK they should sue google! all you do is type the following "filetype torrent tron" and it'll go a torrent searching.....

so why don't they sue google? coz google probably has better lawyers than they do and certainly has better lawyers than isohunt

People talk about Hitler when they mention Propaganda but it begs the question, why is all mention of Captain America forgotten? Issue #1 in 1941 shows him fighting Hitler and he was even gonna be called "Super American" at one point. Then there's the fact that the British attempted to discredit the nazis with smutty material (don't think that'd work now - we'd keep it). http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://marveltools.pl/comics/captain_america_comics/covers/captain_america_comics_1%40m.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.marvelcomics.pl/index.php%3Fcmd%3DshowPub%26pub%3D540&usg=__Va67d60XgngmZr41uM5Iz-DIhhE=&h=1082&w=800&sz=242&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=xcRWSDt0rfgEAM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=106&ei=PA5UTcO9O4ewhAf1tvDQCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCaptain%2BAmerica%2BComics%2B%25231%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-gb:IE-ContextMenu%26biw%3D1224%26bih%3D770%26tbs%3Disch:1,isz:l&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=224&vpy=80&dur=813&hovh=261&hovw=193&tx=103&ty=170&oei=PA5UTcO9O4ewhAf1tvDQCA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

Or what lies to the north of North Pole.

Newcastle upon Tyne.

'Wouldn't we class these "tools" as "snake-oil" or psuedo-science by today's standards?'

They were snake oil even by the standards of the time. From 'Popular Science' magazine in 1932:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SSgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA9

'Radium - Life-Giving Element...deals DEATH in Hands of Quacks'

The whole magazine is worth a look, incidentally. The next item ('Flying Tanks - War's Deadliest Weapon'), nicely illustrated by a formation of biplane-tanks flying into battle, might qualify as 'dead' technology, but Wikipedia suggests there were subsequent experiments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_tank

As for lack of service, pretty much every ISP's contracts state that there is no guarantee on uptime

Note that what a contract says and what a court will decide it means are two different things. See any textbook concerning contract disclaimers and neglicence claims (e.g. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aGCYmYX4cZ8C&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=enforceability+of+us+contract+terms+limiting+liability&source=bl&ots=cW2rVzfFV5&sig=s0lK1frWbFowZsBe9QSieekD5lU&hl=en&ei=YQA4TZPuOoKyhAf-koXICg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false which says:

As a starting point, liability disclaimers are likely to be construed narrowly (and therefore) as not applying to negligence conduct - at least in the absence of clear and express language to this effect. [...] It may not be possible to effectively disclaim a supplier's liability for gross negligence, irrespective of the language used.

This case looks like gross negligence to me, and so the supplier is likely to be responsible for any damages caused by that negligence, regardless of what the contract states.

This is not legal advice; consult a lawyer who is an expert on contracts in your local jurisdiction if you want to rely on it.

I'm sure if i looked around the numerous scientific fields I could find stupid comments made by scientists. I suspect that the author misunderstood the lesson or was so blinded by his faith in science that he misquotes Feyerabend "that there is no such thing as scientific method and that physicists have no better claim to knowledge than voodoo priests" but then again I have never been taught by Feyerabend and if Feyerabend had said something so stupid then he is deserving of ridicule

At the start of my masters programme in the history and philosophy of science and medicine we were reminded of one key thing. I will paraphrase my professors here "planes fly, humans don't" Science clearly works, we live in a world of technological innovation but that doesn't mean what scientists say they are doing is what they are actually doing.

The scientific method is all very well, the problem is that it is being performed by humans, who have a tendency to see correlation and to see that as confirmation. A better place to start with an analysis of science would be bruno latours science in action http://is.gd/myOXXC http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sC4bk4DZXTQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bruno+latour+science+in+action&source=bl&ots=W8mIxp89UA&sig=EUuZoalIj9J7Nh_gGckWURJq8lM&hl=en&ei=YcswTcTvIJO6hAfx3aTCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Another place to look might be at the apparent failures in the scientific method http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all - where an apparently strong signal overtime falls back into background noise. The issue here is not fraud but merely that what is published, what is funded has more to do with human failings and the need to provide clear evidence in fields where given an environment where all aspects of all conditions are controlled the organism will do as it damm well pleases

Actually, the first response is google answering the question itself, not a search result. Try it.

Google: define: string quartet. What's wrong here?

I think your best one was to say that the average rainfall is around 6.1 cubic inches! The error is confusing millilitres with millimetres. The first is a measurement of volume (about 6.1 cubic inches) and the second is a length, interpreted in this case as a depth. The area of Brisbane according to wikipedia (I know it's been raining in more than one place but this is an approximation) is 5904.8 square kilometers which gives a total typical rainfall for this area for this month of about 590 million tons or about 3.6x10^13 cubic inches.

I'm sure there should be some sort of record broken for most orders of magnitude out here :-)

Never mind PCs, how about adding some support for small living rooms? Here in the UK a lot of us just don't have the space required, something I wish I'd researched before buying it.

but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess.

You weren't forty years ago.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=vietnam+war+protests&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=iRUrTc-uD6qAhAe7zszcCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CGYQsAQwBg&biw=1345&bih=930

It's a bit oldskool but the G1 keyboard has all the numbers on a separate row. A quick google image search shows a few other models with full keyboards too.

> And let me use quotes, and +/-, and basic boolean logic.

You can do all of those with google. Go here:

http://www.google.co.uk/advanced_search

create your search term using the UI and see what string it comes up with as its search term.

That would be a bug affecting android 2.2 or higher which causes text messages to go to the wrong place.

Or you could just use one of these.

http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?q=mechanical+alarm+clock&hl=en&cid=3439387371748796012&ei=ZVkgTdX5HoGI-gbkoNCzCw&sa=title&ved=0CAoQ8wIwATgA#p

No worries about electricity at all.

if x-raying some guy to check him for explosives guarantees me a safe flight, i say ZAP AWAY!

But it doesn't.

In fact, it probably does more harm than good because it fosters a false sense of security.

Freelance reporter Heather Brooke is a modern-day Deep Throat.

Behold the mighty Google link!

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://jerksinyourarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AutoExec-WM-01-Wheelmate-Steering-Wheel-Desk-Tray-Gray-.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://jerksinyourarea.com/&usg=__o1FaLlI3aEI8GvwUhBMpppBEjaw=&h=300&w=300&sz=13&hl=en&start=0&sig2=r1w01H5w_1rPrQoUwdoRBQ&zoom=1&tbnid=TqNLsEuQjgzBjM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=148&ei=-TIBTZy_F4u3hAfjkYjuBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAutoExec%2B-%2BWM-01%2B-%2BWheelmate%2BSteering%2BWheel%2BDesk%2BTray%2B-%2BGray%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D770%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=130&vpy=69&dur=703&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=108&ty=135&oei=-TIBTZy_F4u3hAfjkYjuBw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

It's not just that. For example, one of the complainants was ciao.co.uk, a Microsoft subsidiary which is integrated into Bing search results in exactly the same fashion as Google Shopping is into Google search results. Except that they did a rather worse job of it than Google.

Compare: Google versus Bing. If you click one of the product links in the Google search, you get a nice clean list of who sells that product and at what price. Do the same in Bing, and you get something rather less pleasant. The search results are below the fold, on one web browser information like price and retailer name is off-screen entirely, and even on something more mainstream the results take up so much vertical space that price comparison is a real pain!

Google is popular because the competition suck more.

It's not just that. For example, one of the complainants was ciao.co.uk, a Microsoft subsidiary which is integrated into Bing search results in exactly the same fashion as Google Shopping is into Google search results. Except that they did a rather worse job of it than Google.

Compare: Google versus Bing. If you click one of the product links in the Google search, you get a nice clean list of who sells that product and at what price. Do the same in Bing, and you get something rather less pleasant. The search results are below the fold, on one web browser information like price and retailer name is off-screen entirely, and even on something more mainstream the results take up so much vertical space that price comparison is a real pain!

Google is popular because the competition suck more.

Sorry to say, but that article was written by a clueless moron who just argues that any price comparison site must fail at SEO, which a) is obviously wrong and b) would mean that Google Products would also never warrant a top position since all its content is as problematic as the author wants to make us believe Foundem's is.

Google Products is actually much better. Compare this Foundem search and the per-product pages with Google Product and its per-product pages. The Google pages offer more useful information up-front, avoid redundant duplication, and are generally better designed.

Even this probably wouldn't warrant a top position for Google Products on most searches, and it doesn't generally get one. What Google does is use it to supplement its search results - if you make a search where Google thinks the Products search results are useful, it displays them as well as the generic web search results. This makes sense - Google wants to offer the best web search results it can, and sometimes that means presenting them in the Google Product format.

Note that Bing does exactly the same thing with ciao.co.uk, which Microsoft also owns and which was one of the other complainants. Except that Microsoft totally screwed this up - the ciao.co.uk pages lack useful information like prices and website names, making them less useful than generic internet search!

It's no wonder that Bing and ciao.co.uk have a much smaller marketshare than Google - they're useless.

Sorry to say, but that article was written by a clueless moron who just argues that any price comparison site must fail at SEO, which a) is obviously wrong and b) would mean that Google Products would also never warrant a top position since all its content is as problematic as the author wants to make us believe Foundem's is.

Google Products is actually much better. Compare this Foundem search and the per-product pages with Google Product and its per-product pages. The Google pages offer more useful information up-front, avoid redundant duplication, and are generally better designed.

Even this probably wouldn't warrant a top position for Google Products on most searches, and it doesn't generally get one. What Google does is use it to supplement its search results - if you make a search where Google thinks the Products search results are useful, it displays them as well as the generic web search results. This makes sense - Google wants to offer the best web search results it can, and sometimes that means presenting them in the Google Product format.

Note that Bing does exactly the same thing with ciao.co.uk, which Microsoft also owns and which was one of the other complainants. Except that Microsoft totally screwed this up - the ciao.co.uk pages lack useful information like prices and website names, making them less useful than generic internet search!

It's no wonder that Bing and ciao.co.uk have a much smaller marketshare than Google - they're useless.

Sorry to say, but that article was written by a clueless moron who just argues that any price comparison site must fail at SEO, which a) is obviously wrong and b) would mean that Google Products would also never warrant a top position since all its content is as problematic as the author wants to make us believe Foundem's is.

Google Products is actually much better. Compare this Foundem search and the per-product pages with Google Product and its per-product pages. The Google pages offer more useful information up-front, avoid redundant duplication, and are generally better designed.

Even this probably wouldn't warrant a top position for Google Products on most searches, and it doesn't generally get one. What Google does is use it to supplement its search results - if you make a search where Google thinks the Products search results are useful, it displays them as well as the generic web search results. This makes sense - Google wants to offer the best web search results it can, and sometimes that means presenting them in the Google Product format.

Note that Bing does exactly the same thing with ciao.co.uk, which Microsoft also owns and which was one of the other complainants. Except that Microsoft totally screwed this up - the ciao.co.uk pages lack useful information like prices and website names, making them less useful than generic internet search!

It's no wonder that Bing and ciao.co.uk have a much smaller marketshare than Google - they're useless.

Just Google it :-)

6ms isn't very long, but we're back into the real world for estimating how far the balloon will have moved in that time, so someone else can take over.

Yes, oddly enough, I looked long and hard for an article on British war crimes on mil.uk but couldn't find any...

Isn't that because the UK uses mod.uk for millitary (Ministry of Defense)?

You should have started the search here:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=war+crime+site%3Amod.uk

Yes, oddly enough, I looked long and hard for an article on British war crimes on mil.uk but couldn't find any...

Isn't that because the UK uses mod.uk for millitary (Ministry of Defense)?

You should have started the search here:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=war+crime+site%3Amod.uk