Slashdot Mirror

this fight is closer and this fight isn't even close

Seeing the googlefight site brings up a question... why do they have links to the http://www.mozbot.com/ search engine?

this fight is closer and this fight isn't even close

Seeing the googlefight site brings up a question... why do they have links to the http://www.mozbot.com/ search engine?

-B

1. Sir is not capitalized. This miscreant tendency is American ignorance of the proper title Sir as given during knighthood by royalty. You may call Sir Edmund Hillary with the capitalized Sir. Given your obvious deep familiarity with the 19th century, perhaps I should also refer to Sir Mick Jagger. Some random person on Slashdot most likely has not attained such a title.
2. "is it informative" - you've got a typo, and informative is not a proper noun, even when cataloguing moderator points.
3. As an aside, please don't refer to something as informative unless you know privately. As I display in another reply, in fact the parent post to which you refer is bunk.
4. To debase is to make immoral, not to water down with ill speech.
5. To draft is to draw, sketch, or make a crude preliminary version of something. Whereas speech can be drafted, unless this is a particularly subtle insult - which your usage of language suggests that it is in fact not - then what you are looking at is a final copy, not a draft. Even email programs get this one correct.
6. Queen's English is posessive.
7. It's called the King's English. The Queen's English is a reference to specifically Queen Victoria, and was a temporary tipping of the hat to the first gynarch generally recognized by Britons. We do not continue to tip our hat to her.
8. It's hard to tell whether a reference to proper English, immediately followed by the appalling "Internetland," is intentionally tongue in cheek. As a rule of thumb, if people aren't sure whether you're joking, then your joke has failed.
9. To obtain is to take something which someone else had had previously. Given that frist psot!!1!eleven is not something which can be stolen away from someone else, to use obtain in this fashion is ill.
10. To covet is to desire or lust for something sexually; it comes through Old High French's "covitiere," thence from Latin's "cupidere," the cherub of Eros. If you covet first post, seek help.
11. Furthermore appropriately follows further. You've gone from first to third. Further, it makes you look stupid. Furthermore, it should be stated in the fashion I've just given.
12. Epistles are letters sent by clergy as regards scriptural canon. Even were you the Pope of Grammar, which you are not, this would be incorrect.
13. "So to speak" is the verbal equivalent of the better-recognized editorial "[sic]." It indicates specifically that you are repeating what someone else has said verbatim, despite being aware of language errors of some or another form. Hence, if I were to say that you had said "pole position of posters, so to speak," so to speak, I would refer to your inane use of the phrase "so to speak."
14. Congratulation is singular. To refer to congratulations is to refer to a group of such statements, or to such a statement given to a group as a set of individual congratulatory statements. That said, I do applaud your use of the contextually accurate accolade, and hereby give you congratulation therefore.
15. A toast, in the context of wine, is a speech. You cannot drink a speech.
16. One drinks for you, not to you.
17. It is common misconception that the word concieve may be used to refer to impregnation. To concieve a child is to begin to attempt impregnation. Many people who concieve a child never have children, and in most cases time is taken between conception and impregnation.
18. Correspondance is the third or latter piece of a private exchange between a small group. This is an edict, if anything.
19. You wish that something should, not that it shall. Shall is affirmative. The sun shall continue to rise. Something which is indefinate should continue. Murder should remain illegal. Wishing for something definate is silly.
20. The idea that a correspondance would be eternal is a bit chee

Not all scientists agree that the 20th century is the warmest period in recent history

Would they still think this in lieu of the following recently uncovered data?

Global Warming vs. Ice Age
Global Warming vs. Global Cooling
Global Warming is true vs. Global Warming is false

Not all scientists agree that the 20th century is the warmest period in recent history

Would they still think this in lieu of the following recently uncovered data?

Global Warming vs. Ice Age
Global Warming vs. Global Cooling
Global Warming is true vs. Global Warming is false

Not all scientists agree that the 20th century is the warmest period in recent history

Would they still think this in lieu of the following recently uncovered data?

Global Warming vs. Ice Age
Global Warming vs. Global Cooling
Global Warming is true vs. Global Warming is false

Its all over now, we have a winner http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=george+w.+bush&word2=genetics/

and this can help choose which sister to date as well http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=monica&word2=melissa/

Its all over now, we have a winner http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=george+w.+bush&word2=genetics/

and this can help choose which sister to date as well http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=monica&word2=melissa/

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1= goobuntu&word2=googlix

Googlix wins! (for now...)

Or to make it a single result with a nifty flash anim, GoogleFight. :)

Well in that case, Google has nothing to worry about, since the Bush administration is heavily outnumbered!

Googlefight has Steve Jobs as winner.

Bill G = 35,200,000
Jobs = 142,000,000

Actually, it's:

Information Technologist: 8,050,000

Red Neck: 37,200,000

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=Informa tion+Technologist&word2=Red+Neck

Seems that Occam has made it into public consciousness more than Ockham. Wikipedia sites Occam first with an AKA for Ockham. In fact, a searc in wikipedia for Ockham's Razor returns the Occam's Razor page.

Also, if you do a Google Fight with the two Occam wins.

This doesn't make you wrong, but it is understandable why the GPP used Occam rather than Ockham.

Windows does not have a cult following. Its just what comes with their computer. Proof:

Search on "Windows cult following":

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& q=windows+cult+following&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Search on "Apple cult following":

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& q=apple+cult+following&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Only on slashdot does a Googlefight count as proof.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=%22C%2B%2B%22&word2=Java C++ has always been the de facto programming language and will be in the future too.

It first came to my attention that Google was evil when I did:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=winip&btnG=Go ogle+Search
and got See results for Winzip
and see also winipcfg
in the middle of my searches.


They're accounting for the possibility that 'winip' might be a typo for 'winzip' or 'winipcfg'. Given the fact that 'winzip' is approximately 150 times more common than 'winip' (according to googlefight, at least), it's probably not an unreasonable assumption to make. If you search for "winip" (with the quotes) it only looks for exact matches, so doesn't offer up results for possible alternatives. They are actually trying to be helpful, and while it may be annoying to some, you could hardly call it malicious or evil...

You're getting quite a few false positives in both columns by not putting things in quotes. Try this version.

try http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=%22win%24hit%22&word2=winblows instead.

Win$hit? Dude, at least "winblows" rhymes with "Windows". And that dollar sign is just too much... using it to imply that "Micro$oft" is greedy is fine, but combining it with "shit" and tacking it onto the end of "Win" is really reaching.

You need to work harder on your Microsoft bashing.

Gee, where have you been? "Win$hit" is perfectly acceptable - google says so. 48,100,000 hits for "Win$hit".

Or you can http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=win%24hit&word2=winblows googlefight

Win$hit - 82,700,000
Winblows - 296,000

That's several hundred to 1 in favour of Win$hit.

It's not a bug - its a feature :-)

GOOGLEFIGHT!

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1= Google&word2=Rates+Technology

Ooh, this isn't going to turn out well for RTI.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=women&word2=men

But look what else google fight says FIGHT!
We all deep down know that is wrong.

With a subject line like that, you really should've linked here. Looks like they agree with Linus, too.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=gnome&word2=kde

What did Stanford-Benet do to warrant such worship?

And secondly, being able to spell "Binet".

Google more popular than jesus.

No shit!

Try a googlefight for neocon vs. neolib.

3.2 million vs. 32,400. It's pretty easy to see that the term "neocon" is just useless jargon. One could say "troll". The use of the word neocon is meant to elicit a negative or inflammatory response. It has no real utility in defining a political group.

Looks like most folks prefer "Chomping at the bit".

It seems that microsoft is still, by a long way, more evil.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=Ironwood+and+Laneview&word2=Ironwood+and+Ediso n

Googlefight agrees, Ironwood and Edison has over twice the results.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=Sony&word2=Blizzard

Enjoy.

Lets let them http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=open+source&word2=free+software it out

A match won each, what's fair is fair...

But according to these "guys", Microsoft beats Open Source. I'd be a little leary of them.

Only if you don't include quotes. Make them phrases and "open source" wins by a longshot.

Yeah, well, according to those guys, Microsoft beats sex. I'd be a little leary of them...

EBay? My god, people. What an irrational way to resolve such an important issue.

Clearly, we need a good, old-fashioned Google fight...

====

In this corner... measuring in at almost 300km long:

Republic of Taiwan

And in the other corner ... uh, looking absolutely identical in size and appearance:

Taiwan Province

Okay, let's have a clean fight.
DING! DING!

And they're coming out swinging. Oh, there a hard left from the People's Republic, and a hard right from the (non-People's) Republic. And another left, and another right, and... boy they don't really mix it up much, do they? And, OH, there's a really solid hit. And one of the Taiwans is metaphorically down for the count. He's out! And the winner is....

Republic of Taiwan: 96 600 000 hits
Taiwan Province: 26 500 000 hits

This match is over, baby!!

====

In conclusion, clearly, by Google's own standards, they do need to change the name.

But if google had kept their sources private, then anyone who created a derivative work would presumably be allowed to keep their source private too.

If Google keeps the source code private, how can anyone create a derivative work ? Unless you meant Googlefight ;)...

Google Fight! ...And we have a winner.

According to in depth research using googlefight, pay wins.

sooner or later, well, wanna have a fight ? Lets googlefight and settle this once and for all

Google Fight - Solar vs Nuclear power!

Ohh hell, whatever... you guys can have this one but we'll be back.

Larry Paige Vs Sergey Brin = Larry Paige

Gates Vs Ballmer = Gates

Gates Vs Larry Paige = Gates

Hmmmm...

Larry Paige Vs Sergey Brin = Larry Paige

Gates Vs Ballmer = Gates

Gates Vs Larry Paige = Gates

Hmmmm...

Larry Paige Vs Sergey Brin = Larry Paige

Gates Vs Ballmer = Gates

Gates Vs Larry Paige = Gates

Hmmmm...

I'm afraid it doesn't look good...

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=Larry+Paige%2C+Sergey+Brin+&word2=Gates%2C+Bal lmer

Yeah, that's cute and all, but no, the phrase is "to wit," meaning "indicative of knowledge well applied."

The word "whit" means "a tiny amount of something." Pray tell, what would "to whit" mean?

Unfortunately, there's a certain caliber of person which simply blindly believes whatever they were raised on, and chooses to look down on anyone which says otherwise. It's most common that they claim popularity (typically mispercieved) as their justification; let me head you off at the pass.

Impressive, though. Few people's arrogant and erroneous attempts at snide rebuttal develop googlefight results as stilted as 90k versus 2mil.

To wit, it is also common ... to confuse "wit" and "whit", apparently. You consider yourself to be the former, and you're half right.

Buhuhu. Nice try, but you've yet to even make it to the halfwit mark, so pots and kettles and all that jazz.

I have it on good authority that this official report was a significant piece of evidence in determining which syndication method had indeed been adopted as the industry standard.

The winner, once again, by a landslide in every category: George W. Bush is a psychopath! Kerry, not so much.

I'm not American, so posting this hurts me more than you can imagine.

Bush vs. Kerry
93.3M:16.5M; 85:15%

See my point?