Slashdot Mirror

"Vole" insider here...

I've used Google for ages now (6 or 7 years?). In my pre-"Vole" days I worked at a web startup and was constantly recommending Google to our customers - as well as working hard to make sure we showed up on Google.

But recently I've found Google to be doing a worse job when I'm searching for things I care about at work. It used to be the exact opposite. MSN used to never return anything close to what I wanted. Instead it gave me a bunch of jibber-jabber that I didn't care about. Today Google is the one full of jibber-jabber, and MSN is right on.

I'll give you an example. Now, if you're not an MS employee YMMV (FileSystemWatcher).

Google
MSN

Google: MSDN shows up #6
MSN: It's #1

Another example - if you're more into win32 vs .NET (CreateProcess):

Google
MSN

Google: The MSDN documentation isn't even on the first page
MSN: It's #1

Ok, maybe it's just MS documenation where MSN is excelling... Let's try something else (fwrite):

Google
MSN

Ok, #1 is PHP for both, not what I expected, but hey, they're equal.

Google #2 is also PHO. #3 is opengroup, discussing C. So is #4. #5 is cplusplus.com, discussing C. #6, some .ru, discussing C. #7 cppreference.com, C. #8 more PHP. #9 MATLAB. and #10, more CPP.

MSN gets PHP (as mentioned) for #1, C++ (cplusplus.com) as #2, and MATLAB as #3. From there on out it's a mixed bag of C and PHP, but most likely what you wanted was in the top 3.

It's a strange shift, but it seems like Google is starting to lose its edge.

"Vole" insider here...

I've used Google for ages now (6 or 7 years?). In my pre-"Vole" days I worked at a web startup and was constantly recommending Google to our customers - as well as working hard to make sure we showed up on Google.

But recently I've found Google to be doing a worse job when I'm searching for things I care about at work. It used to be the exact opposite. MSN used to never return anything close to what I wanted. Instead it gave me a bunch of jibber-jabber that I didn't care about. Today Google is the one full of jibber-jabber, and MSN is right on.

I'll give you an example. Now, if you're not an MS employee YMMV (FileSystemWatcher).

Google
MSN

Google: MSDN shows up #6
MSN: It's #1

Another example - if you're more into win32 vs .NET (CreateProcess):

Google
MSN

Google: The MSDN documentation isn't even on the first page
MSN: It's #1

Ok, maybe it's just MS documenation where MSN is excelling... Let's try something else (fwrite):

Google
MSN

Ok, #1 is PHP for both, not what I expected, but hey, they're equal.

Google #2 is also PHO. #3 is opengroup, discussing C. So is #4. #5 is cplusplus.com, discussing C. #6, some .ru, discussing C. #7 cppreference.com, C. #8 more PHP. #9 MATLAB. and #10, more CPP.

MSN gets PHP (as mentioned) for #1, C++ (cplusplus.com) as #2, and MATLAB as #3. From there on out it's a mixed bag of C and PHP, but most likely what you wanted was in the top 3.

It's a strange shift, but it seems like Google is starting to lose its edge.

D'oh! I click on the link and it just redirects to a .gif for pistonheads.com. Do you have the link to the original article? I'm actually really interested in the powercurve graph.

To be fair, though I did pick the most extreme engine I could think of off of the top of my head, I would have to disagree with the sentiment that most cars peak around 2000 - 2500. Some examples off of the top of my head...
My 2003 Civic (a relatively normal car) peaks at 4800: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2003&make=Honda&model=Civic&trimid=-1
A 2006 M3 peaks at 4900: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=BMW&model=M3&trimid=-1
A Chevy Aveo is a little closer to your range at 3600: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2004&make=Chevrolet&model=Aveo&trimid=-1
A Chevy Impala peaks at 4000 or 4400, depending on the engine: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Impala&trimid=-1
Even the Camry, the best selling car in America, peaks at 4000 for the 4-banger and 4700 for the V6: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1
And lastly, the Ford F-Series trucks, quoted as being the best selling vehicle in North America, peak at 3500 or 3750 depending on the motor: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Ford&model=F-150&trimid=-1

While it may have been true at one time that most engines peak at 2000 - 2500, I would venture a guess that it's not the case today.

That said, I don't have access to the power curves for any of those vehicles (and frankly don't have enough time to look them up at the moment), but I would venture a guess that they all start to make "usable torque" around 2000 - 2500 RPMs.

Speaking from experience, the Civic really doesn't start to produce good power until 2500 - 3000. The Aveo is dog slow no matter how you cut it and I hope to never drive one again. I haven't driven the most recent incarnations of the Impala and Camry, but the previous generation models both seemed to produce appreciable torque starting at around 2000rpm. I know the F-series truck has good low end torque, and I haven't been fortunate enough to drive the modern incarnation of the M3. (They'll never be able to improve over the first geneneration M3 in my opinion, anyway.)

That article is really good though and actually supports my reasoning for why I like the S2000 (even despite its anaemic torque output) - I loooove my revs, and the S2000 due to its relatively flat torque curve seems to have good throttle response all through the rev range. It's actually a shame that Honda is cancelling the car since I probably won't be ready to buy a new car for another year or two.

Or maybe I'll get lucky, win the lottery, and go buy that turbo Porsche I've always wanted...

D'oh! I click on the link and it just redirects to a .gif for pistonheads.com. Do you have the link to the original article? I'm actually really interested in the powercurve graph.

To be fair, though I did pick the most extreme engine I could think of off of the top of my head, I would have to disagree with the sentiment that most cars peak around 2000 - 2500. Some examples off of the top of my head...
My 2003 Civic (a relatively normal car) peaks at 4800: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2003&make=Honda&model=Civic&trimid=-1
A 2006 M3 peaks at 4900: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=BMW&model=M3&trimid=-1
A Chevy Aveo is a little closer to your range at 3600: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2004&make=Chevrolet&model=Aveo&trimid=-1
A Chevy Impala peaks at 4000 or 4400, depending on the engine: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Impala&trimid=-1
Even the Camry, the best selling car in America, peaks at 4000 for the 4-banger and 4700 for the V6: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1
And lastly, the Ford F-Series trucks, quoted as being the best selling vehicle in North America, peak at 3500 or 3750 depending on the motor: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Ford&model=F-150&trimid=-1

While it may have been true at one time that most engines peak at 2000 - 2500, I would venture a guess that it's not the case today.

That said, I don't have access to the power curves for any of those vehicles (and frankly don't have enough time to look them up at the moment), but I would venture a guess that they all start to make "usable torque" around 2000 - 2500 RPMs.

Speaking from experience, the Civic really doesn't start to produce good power until 2500 - 3000. The Aveo is dog slow no matter how you cut it and I hope to never drive one again. I haven't driven the most recent incarnations of the Impala and Camry, but the previous generation models both seemed to produce appreciable torque starting at around 2000rpm. I know the F-series truck has good low end torque, and I haven't been fortunate enough to drive the modern incarnation of the M3. (They'll never be able to improve over the first geneneration M3 in my opinion, anyway.)

That article is really good though and actually supports my reasoning for why I like the S2000 (even despite its anaemic torque output) - I loooove my revs, and the S2000 due to its relatively flat torque curve seems to have good throttle response all through the rev range. It's actually a shame that Honda is cancelling the car since I probably won't be ready to buy a new car for another year or two.

Or maybe I'll get lucky, win the lottery, and go buy that turbo Porsche I've always wanted...

D'oh! I click on the link and it just redirects to a .gif for pistonheads.com. Do you have the link to the original article? I'm actually really interested in the powercurve graph.

To be fair, though I did pick the most extreme engine I could think of off of the top of my head, I would have to disagree with the sentiment that most cars peak around 2000 - 2500. Some examples off of the top of my head...
My 2003 Civic (a relatively normal car) peaks at 4800: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2003&make=Honda&model=Civic&trimid=-1
A 2006 M3 peaks at 4900: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=BMW&model=M3&trimid=-1
A Chevy Aveo is a little closer to your range at 3600: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2004&make=Chevrolet&model=Aveo&trimid=-1
A Chevy Impala peaks at 4000 or 4400, depending on the engine: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Impala&trimid=-1
Even the Camry, the best selling car in America, peaks at 4000 for the 4-banger and 4700 for the V6: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1
And lastly, the Ford F-Series trucks, quoted as being the best selling vehicle in North America, peak at 3500 or 3750 depending on the motor: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Ford&model=F-150&trimid=-1

While it may have been true at one time that most engines peak at 2000 - 2500, I would venture a guess that it's not the case today.

That said, I don't have access to the power curves for any of those vehicles (and frankly don't have enough time to look them up at the moment), but I would venture a guess that they all start to make "usable torque" around 2000 - 2500 RPMs.

Speaking from experience, the Civic really doesn't start to produce good power until 2500 - 3000. The Aveo is dog slow no matter how you cut it and I hope to never drive one again. I haven't driven the most recent incarnations of the Impala and Camry, but the previous generation models both seemed to produce appreciable torque starting at around 2000rpm. I know the F-series truck has good low end torque, and I haven't been fortunate enough to drive the modern incarnation of the M3. (They'll never be able to improve over the first geneneration M3 in my opinion, anyway.)

That article is really good though and actually supports my reasoning for why I like the S2000 (even despite its anaemic torque output) - I loooove my revs, and the S2000 due to its relatively flat torque curve seems to have good throttle response all through the rev range. It's actually a shame that Honda is cancelling the car since I probably won't be ready to buy a new car for another year or two.

Or maybe I'll get lucky, win the lottery, and go buy that turbo Porsche I've always wanted...

D'oh! I click on the link and it just redirects to a .gif for pistonheads.com. Do you have the link to the original article? I'm actually really interested in the powercurve graph.

To be fair, though I did pick the most extreme engine I could think of off of the top of my head, I would have to disagree with the sentiment that most cars peak around 2000 - 2500. Some examples off of the top of my head...
My 2003 Civic (a relatively normal car) peaks at 4800: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2003&make=Honda&model=Civic&trimid=-1
A 2006 M3 peaks at 4900: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=BMW&model=M3&trimid=-1
A Chevy Aveo is a little closer to your range at 3600: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2004&make=Chevrolet&model=Aveo&trimid=-1
A Chevy Impala peaks at 4000 or 4400, depending on the engine: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Impala&trimid=-1
Even the Camry, the best selling car in America, peaks at 4000 for the 4-banger and 4700 for the V6: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1
And lastly, the Ford F-Series trucks, quoted as being the best selling vehicle in North America, peak at 3500 or 3750 depending on the motor: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Ford&model=F-150&trimid=-1

While it may have been true at one time that most engines peak at 2000 - 2500, I would venture a guess that it's not the case today.

That said, I don't have access to the power curves for any of those vehicles (and frankly don't have enough time to look them up at the moment), but I would venture a guess that they all start to make "usable torque" around 2000 - 2500 RPMs.

Speaking from experience, the Civic really doesn't start to produce good power until 2500 - 3000. The Aveo is dog slow no matter how you cut it and I hope to never drive one again. I haven't driven the most recent incarnations of the Impala and Camry, but the previous generation models both seemed to produce appreciable torque starting at around 2000rpm. I know the F-series truck has good low end torque, and I haven't been fortunate enough to drive the modern incarnation of the M3. (They'll never be able to improve over the first geneneration M3 in my opinion, anyway.)

That article is really good though and actually supports my reasoning for why I like the S2000 (even despite its anaemic torque output) - I loooove my revs, and the S2000 due to its relatively flat torque curve seems to have good throttle response all through the rev range. It's actually a shame that Honda is cancelling the car since I probably won't be ready to buy a new car for another year or two.

Or maybe I'll get lucky, win the lottery, and go buy that turbo Porsche I've always wanted...

D'oh! I click on the link and it just redirects to a .gif for pistonheads.com. Do you have the link to the original article? I'm actually really interested in the powercurve graph.

To be fair, though I did pick the most extreme engine I could think of off of the top of my head, I would have to disagree with the sentiment that most cars peak around 2000 - 2500. Some examples off of the top of my head...
My 2003 Civic (a relatively normal car) peaks at 4800: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2003&make=Honda&model=Civic&trimid=-1
A 2006 M3 peaks at 4900: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=BMW&model=M3&trimid=-1
A Chevy Aveo is a little closer to your range at 3600: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2004&make=Chevrolet&model=Aveo&trimid=-1
A Chevy Impala peaks at 4000 or 4400, depending on the engine: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Impala&trimid=-1
Even the Camry, the best selling car in America, peaks at 4000 for the 4-banger and 4700 for the V6: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1
And lastly, the Ford F-Series trucks, quoted as being the best selling vehicle in North America, peak at 3500 or 3750 depending on the motor: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Ford&model=F-150&trimid=-1

While it may have been true at one time that most engines peak at 2000 - 2500, I would venture a guess that it's not the case today.

That said, I don't have access to the power curves for any of those vehicles (and frankly don't have enough time to look them up at the moment), but I would venture a guess that they all start to make "usable torque" around 2000 - 2500 RPMs.

Speaking from experience, the Civic really doesn't start to produce good power until 2500 - 3000. The Aveo is dog slow no matter how you cut it and I hope to never drive one again. I haven't driven the most recent incarnations of the Impala and Camry, but the previous generation models both seemed to produce appreciable torque starting at around 2000rpm. I know the F-series truck has good low end torque, and I haven't been fortunate enough to drive the modern incarnation of the M3. (They'll never be able to improve over the first geneneration M3 in my opinion, anyway.)

That article is really good though and actually supports my reasoning for why I like the S2000 (even despite its anaemic torque output) - I loooove my revs, and the S2000 due to its relatively flat torque curve seems to have good throttle response all through the rev range. It's actually a shame that Honda is cancelling the car since I probably won't be ready to buy a new car for another year or two.

Or maybe I'll get lucky, win the lottery, and go buy that turbo Porsche I've always wanted...

D'oh! I click on the link and it just redirects to a .gif for pistonheads.com. Do you have the link to the original article? I'm actually really interested in the powercurve graph.

To be fair, though I did pick the most extreme engine I could think of off of the top of my head, I would have to disagree with the sentiment that most cars peak around 2000 - 2500. Some examples off of the top of my head...
My 2003 Civic (a relatively normal car) peaks at 4800: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2003&make=Honda&model=Civic&trimid=-1
A 2006 M3 peaks at 4900: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=BMW&model=M3&trimid=-1
A Chevy Aveo is a little closer to your range at 3600: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2004&make=Chevrolet&model=Aveo&trimid=-1
A Chevy Impala peaks at 4000 or 4400, depending on the engine: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Impala&trimid=-1
Even the Camry, the best selling car in America, peaks at 4000 for the 4-banger and 4700 for the V6: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1
And lastly, the Ford F-Series trucks, quoted as being the best selling vehicle in North America, peak at 3500 or 3750 depending on the motor: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Ford&model=F-150&trimid=-1

While it may have been true at one time that most engines peak at 2000 - 2500, I would venture a guess that it's not the case today.

That said, I don't have access to the power curves for any of those vehicles (and frankly don't have enough time to look them up at the moment), but I would venture a guess that they all start to make "usable torque" around 2000 - 2500 RPMs.

Speaking from experience, the Civic really doesn't start to produce good power until 2500 - 3000. The Aveo is dog slow no matter how you cut it and I hope to never drive one again. I haven't driven the most recent incarnations of the Impala and Camry, but the previous generation models both seemed to produce appreciable torque starting at around 2000rpm. I know the F-series truck has good low end torque, and I haven't been fortunate enough to drive the modern incarnation of the M3. (They'll never be able to improve over the first geneneration M3 in my opinion, anyway.)

That article is really good though and actually supports my reasoning for why I like the S2000 (even despite its anaemic torque output) - I loooove my revs, and the S2000 due to its relatively flat torque curve seems to have good throttle response all through the rev range. It's actually a shame that Honda is cancelling the car since I probably won't be ready to buy a new car for another year or two.

Or maybe I'll get lucky, win the lottery, and go buy that turbo Porsche I've always wanted...

I call bullshit. Many cars don't reach peak torque until very late in the rev range. The 2000 year model Honda S2000 doesn't reach peak torque until 7500 RPM: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2000&make=Honda&model=S2000&trimid=-1. That's only 1500 RPM below Redline, btw. I have a hard time believing that the engine is actually working most efficiently at 7500 RPM.

The agency has acknowledged that the longtime midlevel employee -- who has since been fired -- improperly took the information home on an unsecured personal laptop for three years, apparently without his supervisor's knowledge.

Ye...saw that one and using it. I found meanwhile the Reuters article and is exactly as quoted here. Wonder how 30boxes got there though. No mention in their official blog and neither no trace in Yahoo IM Plugins... The Yahoo Calendar plugin is pretty sleak though

Coincidentally, just a few minutes ago I submitted a slashdot story about a telerobotic construction challenge which NASA is funding, which could spawn technologies which would be quite useful for a lunar mining facility. In case the submission gets rejected, here's the text of it (hopefully my posting it here doesn't somehow lead to an auto-rejection):

The non-profit Spaceward Foundation has released a rules draft for a telerobotic construction competition. Competitors will have 24 hours to use their robots to construct a water-tight pipeline at least 25m long through Mars-like terrain, with a control latency of 20 minutes. The foundation is seeking feedback on the rules draft until July 15, as well as ideas for contest names and logos. NASA will provide $250K in prize money to competition winners, as part of their Centennial Challenges program for space technology competitions.

I'd recomend not comparing it to Safeway:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10976595/?page=2 [msnbc.com]

Daateline did an article on the number of health violations found at Supermarkets across the US. I am anticiapting a similar thing to be done with Amazon when/if they pull this off, but if it's just for pre-packaged goods that sit in a warehouse anyway before they get to the shelves of the local grocery store I don't see much of a difference. I do wonder how Amazon would stack up in this kind of test. Many of the categories such as freezer and refrigeration temperatures may not apply so they might actually do quite well.

FTA:
Dateline Supermarket Sweeps
Store Chain Average number of violations per 10 inspections
Safeway 25
Albertsons 24
Publix 22
Kroger 17
Winn-Dixie 14
Sam's Club 12
Costco 12
Wal-Mart 9
Save-A-Lot 9
Food Lion 8

Here ya go: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=online+gambli ng+casino

No paid ads though. I wonder if that's new since the law. Google gives plenty of ads on the same search.

MS is not in the ad business

LOL. Of course they are.

MS is not in the ad business

LOL. Of course they are.

Really, I'm much more in the mood for yellow curry with chicken or perhaps a couple pieces of unagi than power; Guess I should go eat dinner... On a more serious note, I look forward to hearing more from Ray Ozzie. He's a brilliant, fascinating guy, and well worth reading. It's a bummer he hasn't posted in over two months, now.

Eh? Well, security contractors are going to exist no atter what. Making them illegal would be a violation of the constitution. [...] I'm not sure what you're refering to when you speak about "keeping discipline" amongst them. It's certainly not the governments job to do that. Like any other civilian company, it's up to the firms themselves to enforce discipline as they see fit.

No it wouldn't be Unconsitutional -- not any more than it is illegal to make drug dealers, prositutes, and hitmen illegal. It's also isn't illegal to ban trade with Apartheid South Africa or dealings with terrorists and drug cartels overseas. That's a ridiculous assertion.

You don't have to make security contractors illegal to improve things, though. You can make it clear that contractors working for US companies are subject to US law and will be harshly punished for running rampant and acting like thugs.

Allowing heavily armed cowboys outside of the central chain of command to run around in an occupation and reconstruction effort is a recipe for disaster. It's a PR nightmare in a war for hearts and minds. Iraqis hate a lot of the security contractors because they're famous for pushing people around like they own the place. Former contractors for Custer Battles (a firm under investigation for mispending of coalltion authority money and war profitteering) have alleged that contractors have carried out abuses. Private contractors were involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Why do we allow out of control thugs to tarnish our name when we could provide soldiers ourselves? Estimates show that security contractor levels are at 1 for every 10 soldiers. Would hiring them through official channels and keeping them in the chain of command be that bad of an idea?

There HAS to be regulation to ensure that they don't just go running rampant. Of course, we don't put forth such rules because "private contractors" are wonderful deniable assets. They don't wear uniforms identifying them as working for us, they're bosses are uncertain, and they don't count in offical military KIA totals if they fall. The use of them for such work is often a sign of the dirtiness of the deed and is just one more reason to take them off the table as an option.

What you're really asking is "can we change human nature so that none of our soldiers will ever commit murder again".

No, I'm not. What I'm asking for is that they not be put in stressed out situations, that they not be put in situations where it's impossible to tell foe from bystander to the point that no one looks like a bystander anymore. I'm asking for accountability and punishment for wrongdoing instead of coverups. I'm asking for discipline.

Really? What part of history? [List of atrocities.] Which part of history exactly shows that "we can do better than this"? If anything, you're better today then you've ever been in history.

Things get better in some areas and get worse in others. The era of wars between Great Powers is hopefully the end of mass civillian casualties as well as the use of WMDs in war. We did not "execute surrendering soldiers on a regular basis" as far as I'm aware, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see some citations on that.

There are things that we did better in the past. We championed the Geneva Convention. We did this to prevent our soldiers from being treated poorly because we saw how they were treated by the Axis powers. We treated POWs fairly and considered widespread word of the soldiers' treatment to be a major psychological warfare advantage. For the past several decades we've avoided unilateral action, and the doctrine of pre-emptive war had been retired from our playbook. And for the love of God, I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but we didn't torture prisoners.

The pattern of history is not one of unblemished purity but one of increasing progress towards a better way of doing things. The problem

here's the link.

Find new space-age delicacies ... like popplers!

And where will they spend and invest it? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7241780/site/newsweek/

I remember hearing about a consumer home show in China, with toilets in the ten's of thousands of dollars. The rich don't neccesarily spend and invest domestically. In fact, smart investors diversify, which will most certainly mean at least some of the money is going outside of China.

-dave

It would seem Microsoft loves to lead the interoperability cause for technologies that they do not have a majority market share (e.g. AOL's instant messaging protocol). If it truly seeks a truce with FOSS, it should extend the olive branch by opening up things like the .wmv format. Also consider MSN's new video venture video.msn.com which requires Windows, IE, and Media Player. How can one face talk about improving interoperability while another continues to push proprietary MS-only content?

Windows Vista runs on the Mac - according to Microsoft's own website!

http://tech.msn.com/business/default.aspx

Clearly seen - the Apple Display, and the Mac keyboard. Running VISTA - wow!

My experience? I perform much worse on these substances. Sometimes I'm jittery and cannot focus. At times I think and work so fast that I make many carless errors that end up taking me more time to fix than if I had done the work slower and did it right the first time. The drugs that kept me up and allowed me to work longer just took more of me the next day.

There is an interesting psychological phenomina that no-one else has mentioned, that your post reminded me of: State-Dependent Memory. Put simply, if you are learning the material while "sober," being on drugs impairs your memory. If you're on drugs when you're studying and on drugs when you take the test, then you tend to do about as well as "normal" for you. The basis for this is a 1977 study of people who drank alcohol and did a Memory test.

Or, in paraphrasing my professor, "You know that time you went out to the bar, and had a few drinks, got that hottie's number, and say 'I'll call you tomorrow' (and mean it)? Then the next day you wake up and can't remember the number? Try heading back to the bar, not just to try and run into them again, but to have those cues of the environment, emotions, and being under the same level of intoxication. It might help you remember. Or, if not, you'll have a few beers and you will care less about it."

I don't know much about the NES homebrew scene, but I do know there are a lot of them. Look around and you'll probably be able to find carts for purchase.

I used Google, AllTheWeb, Yahoo!, and MSN. All the results were for GBA flash carts to which one can write an NES emulator. The only relevant result from the first page of each search engine's results (ars, citing source) was disappointing: "While you can buy the circuit boards from this guy he's pretty adamant about not selling the finished product". If this product requires soldering, then it is a proof-of-concept, not a finished product. Which other keywords on which search engine should I use, or what other method of "look[ing] around" should I use?

I feel really bad.

A MBNA Visa card is in my wallet.

This will change SOON.

and the fact that I am white and middle class. That was all they cared about.

Sadly, this is true on either side of the puddle. And one of these days some white Texan or some white Oklahoman will get away with it, and everyone will stand around in shock and awe that some white person would do such a thing. For about 30 minutes. Then everyone will go back to hurling epithets at people that don't look like they do.

Meanwhile we get pretend security against some enemies.

Look at the net income also HP (2,398.0) compared with IBM (7,934.0) (MSN Money). More money in consulting then selling hardware.

Look at the net income also HP (2,398.0) compared with IBM (7,934.0) (MSN Money). More money in consulting then selling hardware.

What relaxed requirements are you talking about as far as what you listed?

To be certified as organic by the California Certified Organic Farmers, organic animals must eat 100% organic feed, whereas as far as the USDA is concerned, a dairy herd being converted over to organic milk producers may be fed a minimum of 80% organic feed for a portion of the conversion period (which is 1 year). And in general the USDA allows for several classes of labeling scheme that include the word organic. For example, "made with organic ingredients" means that the product is made with >= 70% organic ingredients. (Refs. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9355830/ http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-org anic-food-rules_x.htm )

Usually, something has to actually has to be linked to killing a bunch of people for it to be totally banned, not the other way around. Foods like corn syrup has been regarded to be generally safe by the FDA. That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however.

Off-topic. I never mentioned health aspects.

That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however. Why can't the consumer decide what is good or bad for themselves?

While I agree with you, the government hasn't been laissez-faire with this. Under the Foods Uniformity Act(s), the States cannot issue stricter standards regarding warnings on labels than provided for by the federal government. Thus a company need not have to design a new label for every state with the latter's own nuanced laws. While that is arguably easier on the companies, there is less choice for consumers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12952860/

"President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye."

One could argue that point... if one were Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.

The fact is there's been a sharp rise in global terrorism.

Things are going so well that the State Department has ceased publishing terrorist statistics as they're legally mandated to do.

U.S. ports are extremely vulnerable. Airports are still vulnerable.

I'd say you should be counting yourself lucky, not well-protected.

Microsoft is in the software business.
They are also in advertising bussiness as well. Same way as Google is in.

According to NBC's "To Catch a Predator", about 10 per square foot.

Although I agree with you. Stop trying to raise my kid for me.

I might even buy one to broad cast my own TV channels and music out there ;), me or even copyleft groups like CreativeCommons can some and then take the media companies by storm.

'Scientists float plan to blast water to the moon'

--
Project SLAM
www.space.com/businesstechnology/060524_slam_moon. html
Also studies known crater-formation from impacts

here is the link: MSN: EBay-Yahoo! combine, economy boost stocks
sorry... its an msn site, but it's true...

I guess you haven't heard the Taliban are still there. Probably with Bin Laden.

Tribble found in river near Omaha, NE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12889759/

When I got my machine my homepage was Dell MSN Page

Folks, it's worth noting that tests to date have only been on the robot climbing systems themselves, using two inch wide composite fibreglass ribbons and not carbon nanotube ribbons. eg:

This week's testing involved a 12-foot (4-meter) diameter balloon. Safety lines held by team members kept the balloon from floating away. The ribbon dangling from the balloon was made of composite fiberglass, with the robot lifter running up and down the tether.

I expect that they'll eventually hit the 62GPa strength requirements for the metre-wide nanotube ribbons, but I'm not expecting that within the three years that Edwards is predicting.

I hope this kid's lawyer has read the recent "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" appellate ruling. The principal, the school board members, and everyone involved in this blatant violation of Constitutional rights can and should sued in their personal capacities. They know, or should know, that the law is crystal clear on this matter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11767029/

"Someone offers you to come live in their country, but only under the condition that you keep very quiet about your own opinions and never criticize the government."

You are referring to the Netherlands, I assume?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7915125/

Zhongguancun, Beijing indeed looks like it has all the ingredients: entrepreneurial spirit, rich people, nerds, a world-class university, and a cool place to live.

I just installed the latest version of Vista available to TechNet subscribers, build 5308. While it's not as bad as was described here, it hasnt been completely smooth running either.

It seems to do some thing well. Dual booting with XP works great. maybe better than with win2k and XP. All the visual effects run fine, even on my integrated graphics (GeForce 6150, admittedly higher end for integraded graphics). Normal operation is a little sluggish, and sometimes it gets really bad. I've had it lock up completely at least 3 times, doing completely different things. One time it was just trying to open Freecell (which, by the way, they have updated).

I saw a post from a guy who works for microsoft, who said he's been running Vista for a few months, and doing all his work on it. From what i've seen of the build i'm running, I don't see myself being as productive on it as I am with my current XP setup, just becuase of some of these problems. on the other hand, it looks like once they get these things straightened out, it should be fine.

Johnny 5, disassemble?

I'm sorry, but this really isn't that far off from this.

From an article on MSNBC:

"As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation.

By no means was Osama bin Laden the leader of Afghanistan's mujahedeen. His money gave him undue prominence in the Afghan struggle...

...

In fact, while he returned to his family's construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan....

...

It should be pointed out that the evidence of bin Laden's connection to these activities is mostly classified, though its hard to imagine the CIA rushing to take credit for a Frankenstein's monster like this."

From that and other accounts, it sounds to me like the CIA supported the MAK by funneling funds and arms through the ISI. Osama bin Laden was a major player in the MAK, and this flow of resources gave him a position of power. He then used this position to take people and knowledge from MAK and form Al Qaeda. It would then seem fair to say that the CIA helped in bin Laden's rise to power and nurtured the orginization that would later give birth to Al Qaeda.

Saying, "the CIA supported Al Qaeda" then seems to be an oversimplification, but calling it a "myth" is probably an overstatement. Obviously, the question of whether this was wise, in the context of the cold war, is a seperate question.

That seems to be correct, according to this article, dated April 4:

"But having a hand crank stuck to the device likely would have subjected the machine to too many wrenching forces, so it will now be connected to the AC electrical adapter.

In fact, because the adapter can rest on the ground, the power generator might take the form of a foot pedal rather than a hand crank altogether."

Have to agree. If I were reviewing an OS and it wouldn't install easily on my hardware, the first thing I would do is compare installing other operating systems on the same hardware. How does it compare against WinXP? Fedora Core? Ubuntu? FreeBSD? If they all (or mostly) install with no problem, then the problem clearly lies with Vista. Since there's no comparison like this, there's no useful information.

BTW, here's TFA without all the ads and multi-paging.