Slashdot Mirror

DuckDuckGo's sources include Yahoo(now Oath) and Bing. ( https://duck.co/help/results/s... ).

And Yahoo gets their results from google. ( https://searchengineland.com/y... )

And Bing gets results from google ( https://www.wired.com/2011/02/... )

Actually something entirely else will happen. Rather than being opted-out, they want Google to include their links and demand from them a share of the revenue (11%). Not a joke (see Axel Springer lawsuit against Google in Germany).

You probably confused it for adverts, it did say it was a "sponsored result" at the top. It popped up regularly for me in Australia and in Germany prior to the EU antitrust ruling. I haven't seen it since though I'm told it's still around.

Or maybe you're lucky. That could legitimately be the case. Some user groups often slip through the cracks when it comes to something contentious. I run standard Windows 10 Pro at home and I have *never* had Candycrush installed, a popup saying how good Edge is appear, or seen an advertisement for OneDrive other than the one first presented when you install Windows for the first time. Yet there are clearly documented cases of when this has happened.

Google has even made a change to it's Shopping system in response to the ruling. So they clearly know they were pushing it.
This article: https://searchengineland.com/r... shows what the shopping in search results looked like.

It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

That's my reaction, also.

The article is poorly edited: "Expenses grew too, but not as much, from $361 million to $337 million...". The numbers should be reversed. When the editing is that sloppy, can we depend on other information being accurate?

Also, the article does not tell the full story. For example: "Mozilla in 2014 signed a major five-year deal with Yahoo to be the default search engine in the US, but canceled it only three years in and moved back to Google instead in November."

During that 3 years, Mozilla was dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft paid Yahoo to use Microsoft's Bing search. Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to make Firefox browser use "Yahoo Search", which was actually Microsoft Bing search.

A repost of part of a previous comment:

The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year (December 22, 2011) to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) (April 16, 2015) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged in several ways, apparently deliberately. For example, file saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Mozilla Foundation said it will no longer improve the Thunderbird email client. Is that because Microsoft wants more customers for Microsoft products like Outlook? Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

We are seeing technology companies that are shockingly badly managed. Why is that happening? Are we experiencing a general social breakdown?

One small but indicative example: On the Mozilla Foundation Download Firefox in your language web page the 32-bit and 64-bit versions have the same file name!

Mozilla Foundation could be far better at communicating with users. Basically, however, Mozilla Foundation does what big corporations want, apparently. Now that Google is paying Microsoft huge amounts again, will the Firefox browser continue to improve in some ways, but continue to be degraded in others, as in losing important add-ons?

A long time ago, I tried the Google Chrome browser. It installed 3 system services. Google had more control over my computer than me as a limited user!!

In my view, the 3 years of Microsoft paying Mozilla Foundation were 3 years of destructiveness in numerous ways.

Should a United Nations agency demand that browsers not be abusive? That is a world-class goal.

One AC comment about Microsoft: Microsoft's a blight, stuffing ballots, poisoning standardization processes, bribing decision makers, spying on users and using their market power to sell inferior products. Your typical big-corp sociopathic behaviour.

One of the many, many stories about poor management

We are seeing technology companies that are shockingly badly managed. Why is that happening? Are we experiencing a general social breakdown?

One small but indicative example: On the Mozilla Foundation Download Firefox in your language web page the 32-bit and 64-bit versions have the same file name!

The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year (December 22, 2011) to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) (April 16, 2015) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

Google started giving higher rankings to websites with HTTPS/SSL than websites without a certificate. Since Let's Encrypt is a free option at my hosting provider, I got certificates for all my domains and subdomains.

http://searchengineland.com/google-starts-giving-ranking-boost-secure-httpsssl-sites-199446/

after it completes the sale of its core search business to Verizon

WTF? What search business?

http://searchengineland.com/bi...

July 31, 2009
The deal is done. Microsoft has swallowed Yahoo search whole and we can all be put out of our long, lingering misery. Yahoo has given up on search and thrown in the towel.

Did it report that the dog was evil, paranoid, a Nazi, in the KKK, or planning a coup?

http://searchengineland.com/go...

For comparison purposes, Google hasn't said exactly how many searches it handles recently, but in 2012 it said it handled 1.2 trillion searches (or averaging 3.3B/day, 137M/hour, 2.2M/minute, 38k/second). It's estimated they handle over 2T per year now (5.5B/day, 228M/day, 3.8M/hour, 63K/second). So Google likely handles in 2 days what DDG has done in 8 years.

Marissa inherited a company with the most popular email, finance, and fantasy sports sites on the internet. Despite still being in an exclusive advertising deal with MS (who wants to use Bing ads?) prior to her arrival, she decided to turn Yahoo into a "digital magazine" (hiring Katie Couric and David Pogue). And she even decided to renew the deal.

On the employee side, she introduced a "stack ranking" policy (shortly before even Microsoft abandoned it) that was done QUARTERLY which turned the whole company into a giant game of survivor. Even free sushi bars and smoothies aren't enough to keep many people from finding a new company (Google, Apple, Facebook) where you aren't constantly worried about being fired. Losing many of your long-time employees and focusing on short-term (quarterly) goals is a target-rich environment for anyone looking to break in and steal passwords.

It isn't hard to imagine a future where Yahoo instead chose to focus on retaining their positions (Draft Kings is more popular now than Yahoo Fantasy Sports) and not renewing their deal with Bing search. The best thing Marissa did is probably improve the cafeteria.

(Disclaimer: I worked for Yahoo in 2013 and have nothing but praise for the other engineers who work there.)

There's this little thing called google that slashdotters need to learn to use!

Here's one article: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

If you want one of the other articles on similar studies done I suggest you learn to google. Here is a great resource for learning how to google:

http://searchengineland.com/gu...

Good question: How does Mozilla Foundation spend $300,000,000 each year?

I understand that Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. That means Microsoft gets more money from advertisers when Firefox users do a search.

Firefox is now, apparently, mostly controlled by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

The browser situation is very, very ugly.

Google is becoming more and more abusive, and more and more incompetent. Want to download the Google Chrome Browser? The download file name does not give the version number. Even the badly managed Mozilla Foundation puts the Firefox version number into the file name. (But the file names for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Firefox are the same.)

An earlier version of the Google Chrome browser installs 3 system services. Google has more control over computers than limited rights users. Is Google paid by the U.S. government to include software to control computers?

I would like Slashdot stories about:

1) The fact that most people aren't technically involved enough to know that their Firefox browser search was hijacked by Microsoft, or how to change back to Google search.

2) Bad and sneaky management. One of the many examples: Microsoft will make more money if it arranges that people are discouraged from using the Firefox browser. Another example: Why was this pastebin script removed?

3) Counteracting abuse. We need stories about web sites like this:

Remove spyware in Windows 10.

Disabling Windows 10 Tracking.

Destroy Windows Spying - Windows spying removal tool.

4) How do download a Windows 10 ISO file: Windows 10 Tech Bench Upgrade Program.

you might have forgotten, Bing has been busted for serving up results found from a Google search. (odds are good that if Bing wasn't able to find a high confidence hit on its own it was querying Google to see if it had any better ideas)

http://searchengineland.com/go...

Google has run a sting operation that it says proves Bing has been watching what people search for on Google, the sites they select from Googleâ(TM)s results, then uses that information to improve Bingâ(TM)s own search listings. Bing doesnâ(TM)t deny this.

So it might not matter who they search first, they just want to ad revenue and will get it either way.

Google is becoming more and more abusive, and more and more incompetent. Want to download the Google Chrome Browser? The download file name does not give the version number. Even the badly managed Mozilla Foundation puts the Firefox version number into the file name. (But the file names for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Firefox are the same.)

An earlier version of the Google Chrome browser installs 3 system services. Google has more control over computers than limited rights users. Is Google paid by the U.S. government to include software to control computers?

The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

Is Pale Moon fixed? I don't see any mention of that.

We switched to Pale Moon and are now not having problems with the instability of Firefox when there are many windows and tabs open. Since Pale Moon is based on Firefox, most of the Firefox add-ons work.

In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Mozilla Foundation products should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

A few of the many, many articles about abuse by Microsoft:

Microsoft has no plans to tell us what's in Windows patches. Each update is a black box, and it's going to stay that way.

Leaks show that Microsoft writes release notes, so why can't it publish them? The lack of documentation of Windows' updates is a baffling move on Microsoft's part.

Microsoft's Software is Malware. Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user.

How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again?

NSA Backdoor Exploit in Windows 8 Uncovered

Microsoft Gave the NSA Direct Backdoor Access to Outlook, Skype

Microsoft [lack of] Privacy Statement

Here's how to Block Windows 10 "Spying"

googlebot has actually been able to load and process javascript loaded content for quite a while. They've recently gotten really good at it too with the rise of angular and similar client frameworks.

http://searchengineland.com/te...

Unless the feature is going to be added not only to Google Chrome but also to Google Search. The latter already uses HTTPS availability as a weak tiebreaker for ranking.

Apple already made Bing a part of Siri's search ability. http://searchengineland.com/ap...

Good point. Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs: Damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Microsoft has hidden its apparent takeover of Mozilla Foundation by pretending that there is a "Yahoo search".

Yahoo search may not use Bing as a back-end, but Yahoo is its own entity. Microsoft is not pretending there is a Yahoo search to "take over". Yahoo is trying to make money by funneling Firefox through their re-branded version of Bing Search.

Microsoft doesn't have to hide or pretend. They could have just paid Mozilla to use Bing Search directly -- they get more money that way because Yahoo isn't a middleman. *Nobody* cares about the distinction except Yahoo and Microsoft.

Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to trick users into using Microsoft's Bing search engine.

Ridiculous. Yahoo paid the Mozilla Foundation so that they would get their users (not trick their users, get their users) to use Yahoo Search (which, yes, is a re-branded Bing Search) in order to get advertising money.

So, Microsoft paid Yahoo.

Backwards. Yahoo is leasing Microsoft's technology; Microsoft is not paying for Yahoo to use Microsoft's technology. http://searchengineland.com/mi...

I think you're forgetting that the last time Yahoo was regarded as a decent search engine was before Google was a household name.

This said, Yahoo is displaying at least 51% of their ads as Bing ads, so in that sense Microsoft is paying Yahoo to display their ads (using money Microsoft gets from selling advertising to other companies), and Yahoo wouldn't bother doing this if their ad sales didn't exceed what they're paying Microsoft.

Why else would Mozilla Foundation damage the UI of its own product?

This is so far removed from the rest of your sentence that I don't even know where you went wrong. What does paying to change the search default have to do with the UI of anything other than search? Especially Thunderbird, which you mentioned in your previous sentence.

To be clear, before the test began, these queries found either nothing or a few poor quality results on Google or Bing. Then Google made a manual change, so that a specific page would appear at the top of these searches, even though the site had nothing to do with the search. Two weeks after that, some of these pages began to appear on Bing for these searches.

It strongly suggests that Bing was copying Google's results, by watching what some people do at Google via Internet Explorer.

Wait a sec... does this mean IE spies on your google page and sends your google search queries to Microsoft servers?

http://searchengineland.com/go...

That is dishonest because it is not the complete story.

From the same article you linked, is a link to this one which reveals that it barely factors into most search result rankings. Furthermore, whilst Bing gets some information on result rankings from Google, they get that info from any search certain IE users make anywhere on the web, not just Google.

http://searchengineland.com/go...

They got caught red handed.

"People are happy idiots."

Actually, people are unhappy "idiots". When abusers succeed, that causes others to choose to be abusive. When there are a huge number of people doing many kinds of abuses, people begin feeling that they can't protect themselves, and try to ignore the abuses.

The U.S. government in general, U.S. banks, and the many secret agencies of the U.S. government engage in many kinds of abuses. For example, a side-effect of NSA activities also has the initials NSA: No Sales for America. Companies don't want to buy complicated products from the U.S. because agencies of the U.S. government can go to any U.S. corporation and tell executives that they must accept the insertion of spy products, and keep that secret, or go to prison. Since any complicated U.S. product could have methods of control or spying or worse, it is better for foreign customers to avoid buying anything touched by U.S. companies.

One effect of "upgrading" to Windows 10: Windows Media Center will be deleted.

Another loss in Windows 10: Windows Updates will be forced, in at least one version. Will there be other lost features, now or later? Will Microsoft extend its control over Windows in other hidden or complicated ways? The issue is not whether technically-knowledgeable users will be able to stop forced updates; the issue is that most people won't know how to regain control over their systems. That control is important because often Microsoft has given poorly designed updates that have caused problems on user's systems. See this Slashdot story, for example, Windows 10's Automatic Updates For NVidia Drivers Causing Trouble.

More about Microsoft releasing buggy software: The Slashdot story, Windows 10 Launches, says Windows 10 is "buggier than Windows 8.1, 8, 7, or Vista were on their respective launch days" and "During my testing on a variety of hardware, I've run into a lot of bugs and issues -- even with the version that will be released to consumers on launch day".

(At present, the best way to update Windows 7 is to use Autopatcher, because Microsoft's anti-customer "updates" are avoided.)

Online comments say that Microsoft will try to move Windows to a model that requires monthly payments.

Firefox: Embraced, "Extended", soon to be Extinguished? Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs: Damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that what Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

One effect of abuse is that the abusers become VERY unhappy. For years, people called Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer "Monkey Boy". That reflected the results of Ballmer's constant involvement in Microsoft's abuse of its customers.

Microsoft is amazingly badly managed. The

[Mozilla Foundation] "inflicted Australis on the world and changed the default search engine to Yahoo".

Mozilla Foundation lost its $300,000,000 yearly income when Google stopped paying to have Google the default search engine. Now most, or almost all, of Mozilla Foundation's money comes from Microsoft, through Yahoo.

This is the new arrangement: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

Mozilla Foundation has apparently allowed deliberate damage to the Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Was that done because Microsoft wanted it? Is that another example of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that what Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

Slashdot discussions usually don't handle software abuse well. Often those with technology experience don't see that abusers are interested in abusing most people, while avoiding annoying those who would have the technical experience to complain by providing a technical way to avoid that particular abuse.

In my opinion, Microsoft is an extremely badly managed and abusive company. I see these issues as supporting that widely shared opinion:

One effect of "upgrading" to Windows 10: Windows Media Center will be deleted. Microsoft is also apparently trying to kill Windows Media Center software in other versions of Windows, without notice, by stopping providing the TV program schedule (EPG, Electronic Program Guide). That affects hundreds of thousands of users. The issue is not who uses Windows Media Center. The issue is that apparently Microsoft is operating in a sneaky fashion that is extremely anti-customer, and that shows Microsoft is trying to take even more control over its users.

Microsoft and thousands of customers are blaming Rovi. Notice, for example, how many times Rovi is mentioned on this Microsoft web page:
https://connect.microsoft.com/site1145/Feedback

This Microsoft web pages says the TV Guide has been "Updated":
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3078428,
but many Windows Media Center users no longer have a TV schedule, making Windows Media Center worthless because it is very difficult to record without the schedule.

Microsoft is apparently deliberately destroying Windows Media Center, and letting Rovi take the blame. For example, a new installation of Windows Media Center on a fully updated Windows 7 Ultimate computer has several flaws, not just the lack of a TV program guide.

Another loss in Windows 10: Windows Updates will be forced, in some versions. Will there be other lost features, now or later? Will Microsoft extend its control over Windows in other hidden or complicated ways? Online comments say that Microsoft will try to move Windows to a model that requires monthly payments. The issue is not whether technically-knowledgeable users will be able to stop forced updates; the issue is that most people won't know how to regain control over their systems. That control is important because often Microsoft has issued poorly designed updates that have caused problems on user's systems. See this Slashdot story, for example, Windows 10's Automatic Updates For NVidia Drivers Causing Trouble.

More about Microsoft releasing buggy software: The Slashdot story, Windows 10 Launches, says Windows 10 is "buggier than Windows 8.1, 8, 7, or Vista were on their respective launch days" and "During my testing on a variety of hardware, I've run into a lot of bugs and issues -- even with the version that will be released to consumers on launch day".

(At present, the best way to update Windows 7 is to use Autopatcher, because Microsoft's anti-customer "updates" are avoided.)

Firefox: Embraced, "Extended", soon to be Extinguished? Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs: Damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is t

Is Microsoft intentionally destroying Firefox? Microsoft pays to have Bing search be the default search engine in newer versions of Firefox. That viciously destructive dishonesty is causing people who don't know how to re-configure Firefox to abandon Firefox. Version changes should NOT cause configuration changes.

Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems, even though it paid a shocking amount.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. File saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.

Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

In my opinion, dishonest people should not be employed in management. In my opinion, the managers and members of the board of directors of both Microsoft and Mozilla Foundation who approved the dishonesty of sneakily re-configuring Firefox should be immediately fired, and not allowed to have management positions in the future.

Mozilla Foundation may be desperate now that it has lost the incredible amount of money paid by Google.

"remember back when Google used to be behind Firefox?"

Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

It's amazing to me how much Slashdot readers hate discussing business management. Discussing business management is often painful, but I think we should accept the pain and get the job done. For example:

Marissa Meyer is not competent, in my opinion. A dishonest or sneaky CEO should be fired. This is the 2nd recent nasty manipulation Meyer has arranged. This is the first:

Has Firefox been Embraced and Extended with the intention of Extinguishing it by Microsoft? Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search. Marissa Meyer's sneakiness is damaging Firefox's reputation.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last file name chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that what Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

Change in subject: It's amazing how fast computer programming languages die. Pascal died in 2 years. Java is almost dead because the U.S. government issued a very negative warning.

One effect of "upgrading" to Windows 10: Windows Media Center will be deleted.

Another loss in Windows 10: Windows Updates will be forced, in some versions. What other sneaky methods will Microsoft use? Will there be other lost features? Will Microsoft extend its control over Windows in other hidden or complicated ways? At present, the best way to update Windows 7 is to use Autopatcher, because Microsoft's anti-customer "updates" are avoided.

Firefox: Embraced, "Extended", soon to be Extinguished? Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. How? Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs: Damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that what Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

Microsoft is amazingly badly managed. The company apparently survives only because of having an unregulated virtual monopoly that allows it to charge full price for each new version, and to alternate good and bad versions, so customers pay twice for new versions. (Windows XP, good. Windows Vista, bad. Windows 7, good. Windows 8, so bad the next version, Windows 10 is "free".)

"Monkey Boy" The cover of the January 16, 2013 issue of BusinessWeek magazine has a large photo of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer (now replaced) with the headline calling him "Monkey Boy". See the BusinessWeek cover in this article: Steve Ballmer Is No Longer A Monkey Boy, Says Bloomberg BusinessWeek. The BusinessWeek cover says "No More" and "Mr.", but that doesn't take much away from the fact that the magazine called Ballmer Monkey Boy -- on its cover.

Worst CEO: Quote from an article in Forbes Magazine about Steve Ballmer: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today."

Another quote: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs." (May 12, 2012)

I just looked back at digg.com for the first time in a couple years from when it flamed out heroically on it's 2.0 launch. It's not horrible now, there doesn't appear to be too much drama on their front page. Looks like delicio.us Just a abc/cbs style repost of yesterdays "hot web news"

I'm being nitpicky, but it was actually their v4 release that drove everyone away. It was sold two years later for a mere $500k.

"Microsoft alleges that Google's anti-competitive practices include stopping Bing from indexing content on Google-owned YouTube; blocking Microsoft Windows smartphones from "operating properly" with YouTube"

You mean Google won't allow Microsoft to scrape content, like for example they do with Wikipedia. some time ago Microsoft was even caught scraping Google search results and 'incorperating' it into Bing. Google: Bing Is Cheating, Copying Our Search Results

Google made money as a search provider without using Yahoo-esque tactics

Mm...

http://searchengineland.com/go...

Twitter is already doing this successfully. Look at their interface: light, efficient, smooth, and fast.

I'll respectfully disagree. Try it on a 1st-gen iPad: the only thing that'll crash Safari faster than Twitter due to out of memory errors are news sites stuffed with MB worth of JS to serve ads, collect analytics, and clutter screen real-estate with floating navigation elements.

Search Engine Land: Our guide to getting the most of out NORAD Tracks Santa and Google Santa Tracker

Assuming the summary is correct (I know, I know), the legislation doesn't require payment by Google, it only allows the original publisher to collect payment from Google. If the small publishers want to have links to their sites show up in Google News without Google paying them, all they would have to do is send a letter to Google granting them permission. It would be up to each publisher to decide which way they want to go.

From what I've read the Spanish law specifically does not allow publishers to opt out.

"If you are a digital editor that publishes with a copyleft license, like myself, and you minimally understand how the internet actually works, you cannot decide to not charge Google News. It is compulsory. More than a right it is an obligation. Therefore, Google cannot exclude sites requiring payment from Google News. It would still need to pay for those it includes, even if they do not want to be compensated."

And what makes you thing Bing doesn't have to obey EU laws when it does business in the EU? The situation with Bing could in fact be even more dire than with Google. Duckduckgo will be closer to the real thing.

"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.

Yes, there is, of course. As described in TFA, the woman certainly qualifies for the term. Anybody abusing their power over others is a bad person ("bitch", "asshole" — pick your gender-specific name). And, in addition, malicious prosecution — which she threatened to bring upon him — is a felony, you know...

and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening.

If complaining on Tweeter about rudeness can be considered either "intimidating" or "threatening" — or, indeed, "interfering" — then the First Amendment is null and void. Is that, what you are telling us?

"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft [emphasis mine -mi]] being operated under this part."

The gate-agent being talked about was not aboard the aircraft (nor part of the crew). In other words, your citation is invalid and inapplicable even if it were appropriate for a stewardess or a pilot on board.

the tweet identified someone by name.

Her name is publicly displayed. There is nothing "intimidating" about repeating it — or even taking pictures.

there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.

Whether the victim was "reasonable" or not is not being discussed. The agent threatened him with arrest over his accusing her of rudeness. What else would you blame a victim for? How about posting a negative review of a restaurant? Maybe, we "should be more like Europe" and punish people for that too?

Willms isn't the only one to survive and thrive after the government imposed a huge Internet ad-related fine. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt even managed to get named to the Mayo Clinic Board of Trustees in November, after his company agreed to forfeit $500 million for allowing online Canadian pharmacies to place advertisements through its AdWords program targeting consumers in the U.S., resulting in the unlawful importation of controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs. In December, the Mercury News reported on Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's ongoing efforts to stop Google from making it too easy to buy drugs online without a prescription (screenshot). In his 2011 Senate testimony (PDF), Schmidt said "we absolutely regret what happened. It [drug advertising] was a mistake," and replied "Absolutely" when asked if Google had "taken steps to make sure that that sort of thing never happens again."

Time to resurrect the blinky tag?

Maybe time to resurrect the pink/tan background Google used to put on ads. Over time, the ad background became lighter and lighter. At one time, Google was under a Federal Trade Commission ruling requiring them to clearly distinguish ads from content. Google seems to have escaped from that.

It's getting harder to tell content from ads. Google Shopping is an interesting case. Everything on Google Shopping is a paid ad now. Google Shopping used to be a price search engine, but in 2012, it became strictly pay to play. For a while after the transition, our Ad Limiter was trimming down Google Shopping pages to one entry, because the links there are ad links. That was overkill - you got a nearly blank page with one result. So we backed off on that. Google Shopping also has explicit ads on top of the search results, which are ads too. Google is overdoing it there.

Ad recognition is an interesting problem. We do it by looking at where links go. Then we analyze the page layout in the add-on to find the boundaries of the ad. This is quite different from most screen-scrapers, which rely on specific named CSS tags. So we don't have to update our add-on very often, and it recognizes most new kinds of ads automatically.

AdBlock Plus has a big file of regular expressions for recognizing ads, which are frantically updated as sites change their HTML and CSS. Advertisers can pay to not have your ad blocked by AdBlock Plus. That's the problem with an add-on that's high-maintenance. Somebody has to pay for the maintenance.

The slippery slope rarely ends in genocide.

It's important to note that Google's goal isn't to be a search engine, directing you to pages that might have the content that you're searching for, but to be an ANSWER engine, giving you the result of your query.

If you type "southwest airlines" without "fourth quarter earnings" or "lost my luggage" into Google, they should pretty much show you Southwest Airlines' site and options on that site immediately. Look at the picture from the article:

http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2013/10/google-full-page-sponsored-image-ad.jpg

That's pretty much the ANSWER to typing "Southwest Airlines" in the combo box -- which is where everyone's being taught to "just type whatever they want" and end up in the right place.

It's silly for Google not to monetize this if they can -- because they're still going to give the answer.

If you don't believe Google's "search" engine isn't shifting to an answer engine, try some searches like "new york to california by car" or "alfonso cuaron" and see if a good answer to your query doesn't just appear.

Yes, they want our metadata.
Yes, they want to see ads.

These "banners" are the answer to our queries.

Bring them on.

I should know better than feed the trolls but still...

Nothing special?

Somehow 70% market share in search engine WITH a viable business plan makes the next closest competitor look sick by comparison.

How's that even relevant to users?

But don't forget, most other search engines simply scrape Google. So if Google makes your country go dark, its pretty much dark.

Bollocks. First, the linked article only compares Google against Bing and none of the other competition. Second, if Google services would be unavailable, how would that hinder the availability of the competition? Do they have some kind of magic remote kill switch?

Nothing special?

Somehow 70% market share in search engine WITH a viable business plan makes the next closest competitor look sick by comparison.
French companies would still advertise on Google even if google closed up shop in France entirely. They would just do it elsewhere. Its not that hard.

But don't forget, most other search engines simply scrape Google. So if Google makes your country go dark, its pretty much dark.

The truckload of validation errors in iTunes web pages (to continue down the Call Me Maybe path, I checked the page for the album) don't help. The page has all the keywords it would need and is fairly well structured, so any search-placement improvements would have to come from valid HTML and fetid SEO.

But yeah, Google and friends can treat that problem by calling up Apple and negotiating to link iTunes directly to the crawler, something like how Google and Adobe got all loveydovey and *wham* now Google can read Flash. (I said treat; the cure would be to make the song files downloadable from the page, if for a fee, and be done with the whole RIAA love and general non-webbyness of iTunes and whatnot.)

Windows Phone

No Windows phone is terrible,in every way. The latest saga of bribing developers to set up RSS web site applications to artificially inflate their App store numbers is a disgrace. Windows phone 7 actually gained some positive reviews and since then its just been burning through that karma. As for Privacy, Microsoft is a disgrace, I think the way they acted in china says it all. http://searchengineland.com/google-china-congressional-praise-38796

http://www.webpronews.com/google-preventing-u-s-users-from-disabling-safesearch-2012-12

http://searchengineland.com/google-updates-safesearch-filter-in-image-search-142330

Google is actively participating in the fragmentation of the global web. Their search is not fair and equal across all audiences. Its porn now. But mark my words it will be politics soon, if there isnt some subtle chilling effect already.

What happens when only governments with clones of googles accurate unfiltered search database are the only ones with access to all information. Do we start segregating people because of their views on what should and shouldnt be on the net? How do people know that its ok to do it in ways other then missionary if they can't find out all the wonderful ways we can literally screw eachother without jumping through hoops. Its an enlightening process that fundementalists need not be protected from in my opinion.

Anyway the Big point I'm trying to get at is people in sweeden who automaticly route to google.se get more accurate results then the average american who doesnt bother to check what their browser is doing. You cant get the same results through America's portal even if you set your setting to "not filter" its not the same. Its illusion. And google is helping to make the illusion that when you search for boobs on the net, thats what you get even if you set your filter low. When its not.

By creating this double standard Google is further seperating the elite from the non-elite. They are literally making people dumb by being authoritarian and permiting information to be managed in a deceptive way like this. Right now its just "sexual" content more or less but I don't think anyone with the attitude that its ok to go this far is trustworthy.

I'm seriously wondering what I will be able to google in the next 10 years. What search engine can I go to. I've tried things like Ixquick etc... I doubt they'll have that much impact though. They scrape from google, but do they scrape from unfiltered results or what.

In the mean time I'm going to be fuming mad about the general impact on peoples understanding of what is out there. People aught to be able to find out about everything and shouldnt have to circumvent google or anything else. Shit should not be this obfuscated and Orwellian.

And seriously I know you didn't have a friendly agreeing post to give back to me, but I appreciate your dialog that you even took the time to respond and tell me why you thought I was wrong.

That's how it seems to be, according to one rater:

So, you knew it was Google-related. At what point did you know that you’d be rating Google’s search results?

I knew before I got hired.

One thing I think the SEO community is missing is that this program has nothing to do with SEO or rankings. What this program does is help Google refine their algorithm. For example, the Side-by-Side tasks show the results as they are next to the results with the new algorithm change in them. Google doesn’t hire these raters to rate the web; they hire them to rate how they are doing in matching users queries with the best source of information.

And the rest of the story is that after the companies complained that they only wanted to be removed from Google News, not Google Search, Google re-indexed them in Search but did not include them in News. Also, the companies in question began using the meta "noarchive" tag to instruct Google not to cache their pages, so there is no "Cached" link when you find them in search (caching had been a major part of their complaint and Google had previously pointed out to them that they could use "noarchive", but it apparently wasn't until they were removed from the index that they agreed to use it.)

did it once... in Belgium... de-listed companies that won a lawsuit (gave them what the court ordered) and they went screaming to the courts that Google was being evil...

I used to visit Digg several times a day. Then they did a site redesign that was horrible.

It's important to point out that Digg v4 was quite a bit more than a "redesign". The closest thing I can compare it to is a ground-up rewrite of a major piece of software, where the new version not only looks different, but is missing some fundamental or well-liked features that were present in the previous versions.

Digg v4: How To Successfully Kill A Community

It's hard to understate just how badly Digg screwed itself over with v4. The backlash was like nothing I had ever seen in, or read about, any similar circumstance. I had Digg Support close my account toward the end of the user revolt. (I refused to migrate to Reddit, though, because that site's design was (and still is) just terrible. It might have good content, but even the Mona Lisa can't spruce up a rusted-out utility shed.)

Earlier this week I got the urge to visit Digg for the first time in a long time... and it is such a sad, pathetic thing to behold. Where the most popular stories on the front page used to break 1000 "diggs", they now have two- maybe three-hundred diggs. Where submissions usually had a minimum of several dozen comments, now only the most popular stories seem to break a dozen. Most have only one or two...