Slashdot Mirror
A Pair of Google Bits
Vengeance writes "Check out this excellent BusinessWeek story about Google's business strategy and how it can survive without selling out to banner ads. The best line in the article: Google saves money by using Linux :)" Here's a second story about Google's Toolbar Plugin and privacy concerns that it raises (course in this case, it looks like it blatantly tells you what its doing, so if it bothers you, you at least can't claim ignorance. And it doesn't look like a big deal either). It raises an eyebrow, but not my red flag.
Well, they assume that we spend the web searching all the time. That it's natural to put our start page on a search engine, or portal hub.
It isn't.
Most people I know pick news sites, or even something to make them laugh. I search when I need too, and I use different engines for different needs. I use google for something technical like Motherboard BIOS updates, I use Yahoo for something local, I use IE's integrated search for other things. I use Ask Jeeves for amusement...
The point is that why should we dedicate our real estate to a tool that doesn't get all the searching done for us? Where does this business model fit into gathering the millions of users, and a service that other search engines don't have?
And they wonder why the market is crashing, it's because the companies still don't understand the consumer...
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
Concerns over where Google is going to make it's money, and the fear current users have that Google is going to change, really only confirms one thing; the interests of customers and the interests of businesses are not compatiable with each other.
An obvious point, I guess, but it is pretty curious, seeing as how businesses exist strictly to perform a service for customers.
Here's hoping Google finds a way to thrive without "selling out" to banner ads or somesuch. I'd love to see conventional thinking get shaken up were Google to manage what most folks consider will be impossible.
Did anyone else join the generous Google Affiliates program, and then be disqualified and accused of fraud (resulting in non-payment of commission)?
I work at an ISP that put the google search form on the front page, which resulted in customers doing around 25000 searches for which Google promised $0.02 each.
It would have been much more polite to say "we ran out of money" instead of claiming they were being cheated and not paying up. Then they refuse to answer queries on how they arrived at this conclusion, even though we wanted to continue to promote Google for free.
I'd rather they let advertisers pay for it.
As long as the ads don't slow the page from loading, who cares? (and if they do slow it, you can always use junkbusters or whatever to block the ad).
Um. They're NOT selling your privacy. They're just providing a service where it looks up whatever page you're on on their site, which incidentally has to send the address you're on to them, because it's part of how it works.
RTFA.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Well, I don't want to give away the secret at this early stage, but Google makes most of its money from licensing the search engine itself (like to yahoo), and they hardly make any money off of the main site, www.google.com. They consider the www.google.com more of a demosite for rich inve$tor$ from big, expensive companies.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Who's talking about stopping using Google itself? That would be a completely irrational response to a feature that they don't force you to use, in a program that they don't force you to use.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
RTFA.
The thing that sends the addresses of sites you visit to Google, only does so if you _choose_ to use that feature in a program you _choose_ to download. It even tells you in the install what the feature does, and asks whether you want it on or off.
If Microsoft had made something like this and done it as well as Google, I'd say "Holy shit, they got a clue".
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Yes, there are two versions of the new Google toolbar. Yes, even if you download the advanced version with PageRank, you can easily turn it off.
Yes, it is quite likely that the 23 million search requests that Google handles every day, any of which result in a Google cookie with a unique ID in it generated by Google (assuming you don't already have such a cookie), are not personally identifiable at this time.
But added to these 23 million requests per day, are now the PageRank surfing history lists. These use the same Google cookies. If you don't have one already, one gets set immediately the first time you visit any page after your toolbar is installed with "advanced features" activated.
Most people don't know anything about cookies. Google is well on its way to building the best database in the world on search terms and surfing patterns.
What happens if someone buys Google and changes their current privacy policy?
And consider this ugly little fact:
The PageRank toy on the toolbar is a trick. It's only significant to less than one digit, ranking almost all non-porn sites between 5 and 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. The real PageRank is significant to at least 4 digits, according to a paper by Brin and Page delivered at an April, 1998 conference. You are potentially giving up a lot of privacy for this bogus PageRank toy in their toolbar.
And finally, put this in your pipe and smoke it -- all Google cookies expire on January 17, 2038.
Now I ask you, how does a 37-year cookie help Google improve their customer service? Why not a two-week expiration date? Why not a non-persistent cookie that lasts for the current browser session only?
How long will it be before Google's data gets connected to personally-identifiable information?
Wake up, people.
guess what, an algorithm. Attacking patented algorithms is one of the favorite past times of slashdot and company. While I realize some readers only specifically object to actual abuses, a great many go beyond that by attacking whole classes of patents and people. I simply use this opportunity to illuminate some of the ignorance and fundamental inconsistency of those people. Thats all.
I wonder who has the AdWord "sex"? Or for that matter, "hintz"? I bet those people got a lot of bang for their buck!
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Because privately held corporations have shareholders too. Being publically held simply means that there are MORE shareholders, generally more dollars invested, and that it meets certain SEC requirements.
This is relevant because management has a responisibility to the investors. The founders (or management) can't simply do whatever pleases them; that is not what it means to be privately held. To be more specific, these shareholders are predominantly venture capitalists and they CAN be awefully demanding (sometimes unethically so...I know from experience). Right or wrong, if the founders push it too far they can get fired.
It's unfortunate that we get boggled down first in privacy concerns before discussiong whether the product is a good idea in the first place. I mean, I understand why this has to happen now, it's just unfortunate.
(But I really am interested in people's opinions of the toolbar...)
--
Why does earning money have to play a role?
At no point in time will I begrudge Google from earning money, so long as they keep their priorities straight. If they have to bow to the 'pay-for-top-link' crowd, then make the paid links a different color so we know which link was the commercial link and which was the information link. When the two actually coincide . . . cool, do something special.
The reason I use Google isn't because it lacks banner ads, it is because it gives me good results. The fact I don't have to wade through banner ads is just a wonderful bonus. Let them please make a good living doing this, let Google set the example for other businesses to follow.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Sometimes you don't even have enough information to do a well-refined search. You don't even know the proper jargon to look for. In these cases, unranked search engines like NorthernLight or AltaVista are the worst thing you could use. Google is much better at this kind of search, even though your first few searches may just be spent finding out what your search terms should be.
But I agree that NorthernLight is a very good backup site if the eminently qualified Google can't find what you're looking for.
And I have to observe that while I was using AltaVista, I would regularly see pr0n hits, nothing inconvenient, but they were there. But I never see them using Google.
Also, if I know the site but forgot the URL, and type into Google good keywords, Google always brings the site I want up on the first page, generally in the top 1 or 2 hits.
I can see the fnords!
I'm not referring to PageRank itself, nor any part of it, as an actual algorithm. I compare Google's fundamental design (or value) to a worthwhile patentable algorithm insofar as it is a rather fundamental concept, not something that would be properly protected by a copyright or overly narrow patent. [What's more, even if some insist that the concept itself might not be entirely novel, its execution certainly is.] I suggest that if Google's patenting of PageRank is tenable to individuals on slashdot, then so should be the patenting of algorithms in the broadest and most theoretical sense. Unless, of course, they can give a very specific reason. However, the vast majority of assaults against _any and all_ software patents here would also apply to PageRank.
Without getting too entrenched in the details of this matter, I fully realize there are concerns with the actual application of patents (even here in this specific application). My intention is simply to broaden (or challenge) the thinking of some people here, to let them know that not anything that can be described loosely or (possibly) subject to independent re-invention by other individuals should necessarily be denied IP protection offhand. Most users here can appreciate what Google has done, having suffered inferior search engines before Google's existence. I, also, believe most people here can understand why Google might _need_ to protect this with what appears to be a broad patent (i.e., in laymans terms "using links on the WWW to quantify relevance").
There is only one version of the toolbar, but two different default configurations. You can enable or disable any of the 'features' after you install it.
Sean
Google is currently hiring for a usability analyst. Hopefully they'll smooth out the rough edges.
I started using google long ago, when it was still .stanford.edu. I guess they had only 4 or 5, or maybe even just 2 people at that point. Since then, from my end-user perspective, almost nothing changed (which is, by the way, a GOOD thing - the site's just as awesome as it used to be). So what the fuck do these 100 people (including 30 PhDs) in the research department work on? The only thing that comes to mind is scalability, but 100 people.....
Just why do the companies, even the great ones, think that their headcount MUST grow?
Nooooo, it's not because they use Linux that we're not beating the hell out of them (although I am sure that it helps). The key issue here is that they are extremely upfront about what their toolbar program does. In fact, they even present a default config that sends no information to Google. I have no doubt that if they had kept this secret, someone would have found out (let's face it, someone always finds out), and they would have gotten slammed. It boils down to this: If you want to collect information on someone, let them know that you want to, and give them a way to opt out. They have done this with their big warning box and privacy-friendly default config option. Hence, while I wish it didn't send stuff back to Google, they were very above-the-board about this.
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
Ok, now this I gotta see. Here's yahoo's results:
You might note that Yahoo has recently switched to using Google instead of Inktomi. If you had read the article, you would have noticed that. His friend might have done the search before they switched. That would also explain the mysterious "duplicate the same couple resources over and over again" that you noticed. Just a thought.
Based on traditional citation analysis, PageRank has made the search provider an instant hit on the Web,
And I can vouch for having seen in Science mention of exactly such citation analysis, identifying important papers by how many other papers cited them. OTOH, AIUI Google is more complex than a simple citation count, since the contribution from the citing papers is weighted by how important those papers themselves are, based on their own citations... I haven't heard that traditional citation analysis does that. But I don't know that much about the details.
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Friend of mine works for (large Texas-based computer manufacturer who uses Ask Jeeve's engine as the basis of their online tech support thing, called Ask Dudley or some equally shitty name). According to him it would give "interesting" results sometimes when it was first brought online and it's vocab hadn't been trained/tuned much.
For example: searching for ATAPI.SYS would bring up as one of the options something like "I'd like to know more about EAT PUSSY." (Somehow ATA PI.SYS (space for empahsis) sounded like that to Ask Jeeve's engine.)
Needless to say, that was changed real quick. :-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Only if they abuse it like certain organisations.
Of course this glaring omission will be overlooked, these are Linux zealots you're asking.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
And there are also two versions of this article on Slashdot right now. Usually there's at least a few days lag before accidentally reposting identical stories. Someone didn't even check the last few hours of new articles...
Sure, I have, though for most everything it's exceptionally fast. I believe the strategy is simply to fit in a combination of common words, but a unique query (never used by other users...they seem to cache). To this end, you can type something like: Peter Jane Josh Mike Joseph Jack Dave Ted Frank Fred....only change one or two of the names, it should take 1.3 seconds or so. Gotta run, bye
I don't mean to distract you all from your ranting, but has anyone noticed that this Google toolbar is really, really cool? It's not just another obnoxious way to make sure you get funneled towards their site (i.e. both IE's and Netscape's "search features".)
Among other things, it can highlight instances of your search terms on a page, instantly transfer you to Google's cached copy of your current page, and search for pages on the same site as the one you're viewing. It also adds an "up one level" button (the web equivalent of "../").
The only feature that has privacy issues is the "PageRank" display, which tells you how "important" the current page is. It's not very useful, and it's easily disabled.
Google also gets points for using all of IE's advanced features properly. Those of you who frequently claim that ActiveX is only useful for trojans should try installing this toolbar, as it's an excellent counter-example.
Nice job, Google people.
MSK
3. Actually not patentable because there's prior art.
Just one simple question: How do you know?Do you have access to a database containing all prior art? No you have not - that's one of the main problems with software patents! You can't make a "complete" search for prior art, so how do you know that there isn't someone which created excatly that feature years ago, but for some reason didn't patent it?
You would have to go through most of what is published on the internet (and more), which you simply just can't.
When the patent office (at least in Denmark, but I believe it's the same practice elsewhere) is searching for prior art, they only search in *their own database*! Most prior art doesn't exist in their database - it is published on the internet and/or elsewhere.
Another problem is that patents is supposed to further innovation by publishing the invention, others should be able to benefit from it, but how often do you search in a patent database for information?
Are patents easy to read and understand? No, they most certainly are not - mostly, they are written i an obscure language, which only patent lawyers understand.
Ps. Sorry if some of this is not clearly written, english is NOT my primary language, and is just a quick comment. Take a look at one of my prior comments here . It contains references to other places for more info, and it is probably more clearly written...
Greetings Joergen
The fact is there's no easy way to do the pagerank stuff without sending your URLs to Google. (I can think of some funky crypto protocols to do it, but it'd be messy). Given that they have a reasonable use for the data, and they disclose their collection of that data, I have no problem at all with what they're doing.
I turned pagerank off anyway. My main concern is that private internal URLs also go to Google.
PS - the Toolbar is really cool.
It probably depends on (as the other reply states) how Google treat their patent, and whether they start wielding it aggressively.
It also depends on what they've patented. If it's perceived as being genuinely innovative and useful, then the typical
One thing to note is that they've patented the technique they're using, not the software they've used to implement the technique. It's an algorithm, it's a non-obvious one (in the 'paperclick' style) and it's a bloody good idea - with an exceedingly well created implementation.
I think most people find silly patents comical - it's only when they are used aggressively that peoples' hackles rise. And so far Google have shown a considerable clue level, so if that continues, I think they'll probably get away with having the patent flame-free.
Kudos to them for having easily the best search engine I've ever used.
~Cederic
Some of us think that approaches to a problem that are both non-obvious and extremely powerful (which, IMO at least, is true of Page Rank) are exactly the reason that patents were invented. This is not a patent that is:
Patents exist precisely to protect inventions that don't fall into one or more of the above categories. It's not so much patents that most slashdotters are angry about, it's patent abuses, and Google's patent clearly isn't abusing the system.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
why does a privately held company have to please shareholders?
tcd004
A bear is sub-culture of gay men. They are typically larger, hairier men, and older men or those who are attracted to them. Typically we simply want to be ourselves and are accepting of anyone. I suggest you look at the informational sight Resources for bears.
There are two versions that you can install ... ...
...
...
One doesn't gather info, but you don't have all of the 'features' either
Guess everything's a trade-off
Back to work
Silpon Designs
Scented Paper Products
Yes, you are right, though it doesn't explain lycos. I was about to slam you for not trying an Inktomi-based search and posting the results.... but I tried to do the same, and it's damn difficult to tell if someone's using Inktomi or not. I found (via google) this out-of-date list. Inktomi has a list of partners, and yahoo's on the list, but it doesn't say what services each partner actually uses. This page at Inktomi mentions that AOL, iWon, MSN, and more (aprarantly 125) are using their search (it's mentioned in the top yellow box on the right side of the page). So, with that in mind, let's give these three a try and see if they product any porn sites with a query for "black bear":
- AOL's results list Condos, T-shirts, AllAlaskanGifts (paid adverts), pages about actual black bears, the B&B, Hunting, Campgrounds (not the nude one from yahoo's present search), wildlife and conservation. Pretty good...
- iWon's results page displays nothing if Javascript is disabled. I gotta get that
javascript popup filtering junkbuster patch installed. For the sake of this slashdot post, I'm turning javascript back on for a moment: hmm, they're doing funny stuff and that link may not take you directly to a results page.... easy enough to do the search, but here's what I'm seeing: page about different types of bears, lodging per state, travel info, photos and articles about american and alaskan black bears, more stuff about american black bears, american bear association, dietart habits of bears, wildlife park, black bear systems (a company, funny that none of the other searches turned this one up in their top results), campground, an inn, web design company named black bear, more stuff about bears and camping. So far one of the best search results in this "black bear" benchmark, and not a single porn site yet (neglecting yahoo's return of a clothing-option campground with black bear in the name), but still one more chance for porn at MSN.......
- and here's MSN's results (damnit, went to MSN before turning javascript back off, going to shut if off right now.. ok), so let's see how MSN did: Univ of Maine Athletics (mascott is a black bear), more pages about univ of maine, info about diff species of bears, research about animal social systems, stuff about yellowstone, miccesota wince shute wildlife sanctuary, even more pages about univ of maine, the sanctuary in minnesota again, and the texas zoo
Ok, three strikes. You're Out!! Inktomi's site claims these three are using it's search, and not a single porn site linked on any of the first-page search results.I did read the original post, and admittedly his point was that his friend tried "black bear" on yahoo 6 months ago and got porn, but for crying out loud, how fucking difficult is it to actually visit the search engine and type in BLACK BEAR and see for yourself if it really dishes up porn links? Ok, not everyone knows HTML to include nice formatting and links in their messages, but it's pretty simple to visit a search engine and actually see if it dishes up porn, instead of posting about how a third party accomplished this feat half a year ago!
(ok, rant mode off, we all know the cronological order and moderation system reward early postings)
I think it's pretty safe to say that one doesn't risk getting linked to porn when searching for "black bear" these days, and I'm skeptical that this condition really existed 6 months ago on yahoo. Some search engines (notably yahoo and MSN) have problems with wasting valuable browser screen space with redundant links, at least in this simple "black bear" benchmark. For a while now I've believe google was the best, but I'm pleasantly suprised to see that other search engines are doing quite well.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Google also started at Stanford? Hmm...1998. Sheesh, that's not so long ago. I can say the same about Yahoo!, and I'm sure plenty of others here can too.
Side topic: you know how most baby boomers remember exactly where they were when they heard JFK was shot? I have that kind of memory for exactly two things: when the Challenger blew up, and when my Yahoo bookmark (in Mosaic) redirected from stanford.edu to yahoo.com. I had already seen the bad side of internet commerce, but Yahoo was when I realized there could also be good witches in the world.
Scroll forward five years. Yahoo is an enourmous "portal" that actually makes a profit. Canter & Siegel have faded away, but their descendants thrive like cockroaches. Where will Google be five years from now?
You aren't a math major are you? They currently boast 23,000,000 searches per day. Let's assume that if you had to *pay* (nevermind the fact that it's only a penny, if you have to go to the trouble to find a way to pay them, it's easier to use someone else) the daily usage will probably fall to maybe 5 million or less. Then they are raking in $50,000/day. 365 days a year, that's over $18E6/yr -- not bad for a search engine, even at the decreased usage rate -- BUT the big thing here is not the money you have to pay -- it's the privacy issue. IF they have a method to log each time I search, and tie that info to some account with which I pay them (maybe every 1000 searches or so), then it's one short line of perl from there to associating *WHAT* I searched for with my account... right now they can of course associate your searching patterns with your IP, but most people are still unfortuneate enough that they dial into a modem pool with a bank of IP's, and thus the association becomes less meaningful. But if you have an ACCOUNT to pay them with, that gets updated each time you search, I would certainly not use google any longer, despite the fact that they are the ONLY engine I use at the moment..
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
At least not last time I checked. They rank sites based on several factors (what else links to them, matching search words, etc.) but they don't sell. I have noticed that the top line of several searches is an ad but it is highlighted so it can't be confused as a search result.
Icebox
forget the toolbar! for ease-of-use, check out the Google Browser Buttons
this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. highlight a word on any page, click the button, and presto! search results. PLUS it works with Netscape, IE, Opera, etc...
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
How many of you would be willing to pay to use google on, say, a 1 cent/search basis? 2 cents? 5?
1 cent sounds fair to me. I don't want them going out of business 2 years down the line, just because they don't sell pagerank spots or whatever. I need that search!
My other sig is also a
My fiance is just got her degree in journalism. Like the line in Pulp Fiction, that pretty much made me interested in journalism too. ;-) (We did talk a lot about what she studied, pretty relevant stuff to this modern, media-heavy age.)
Anyway, having pull quotes from a business's competitors (NothernLosers and Astalavista, both of whose search engines I can't stand for the cruddiness of their result sets) is really, really stinky journalism. What a suprise both of them slammed Google! I'm shocked! Google must be a horrible company! :-/ This article must have been written by a high-school intern, as it obviously shows the person looked for The Other Viewpoint, but didn't try to get objective other viewpoints (like, at a guess, from stock analysts who are in theory neutral).
And yes, we did snicker about her getting a BJ on graduation day. (Bachelors in Journalism) :-D She always was at the head of her class...
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Here's a radical proposal. A search engine is like a library cardex. While the library buys the books, the publisher pays for the cards in the cardex.
Have the government financially support one pure research web site, like Google.com, and anyone and everyone who wants to have their web site's pages listed there needs to provide an XML description using a standard XML schema or DTD with links back to their own sites and web pages.
That should take care of mom-and-pop porn sites who don't do any indexing work while the governmental nature of the site takes care of the presence of ads. They don't need the revenue stream to survive.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I wonder why that little detail has been left out after the stance slashdot already takes on software patents?
Because google is such a great search engine (relavent and without clutter), does that mean we overlook them when they use software patents?
--
Twivel
Pardon me for being curious, but enlighten those of us who are not involved the porn-surfing scene. He got porn sites from search for "black bear"? HTF does Black Bear has to do with porn? Last time I heard, there were humans, horses, and goats. But black bears?
Great - now, if they would just help US save money by SUPPORTING Linux, we could all be happy. I like the toolbar, but it only suppports Windows with IE5.
Sean
As for Google losing it's "cool" in the near future? I don't think so, the only thing that could screw Google is if someone else comes up with a better search algorythm and Google does nothing to compete with it, but I don't see that happening in the near future.
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
is here.
Jm
On to Yahoo! and Lycos he goes, enters the search "black bear". Guess how many porn sites he got back?
Ok, now this I gotta see. Here's yahoo's results:
- Black Bear Cabin Rentals - manages and rents privately owned cabins located in the mountains of North Georgia.
- Big Black Bear Shop - offering plush Teddy Bears and stuffed toys.
- Black Bear Campground - offers camping in Orange County, New York.
- Black Bear Campground - enjoy the sights, sounds and recreation available
in the area.
- Black Bear Camp & Lodge - clothing optional private campground and
bunkhouse for adult men. --ok, but not really porn
- Black Bear Review - international literary magazine for the concerned poet
and artist.
- Black Bear Camp & Lodge - clothing optional private campground and
bunkhouse for adult men.
- Black Bear Diner - offers a sample menu and locations.
- Black Bear Diner - offers a sample menu and locations.
Yahoo seems to duplicate the same couple resources over and over again, not so good compared to their competition.Lycos did pretty well also, here's the lycos results:
- The American Bear Association (ABA) home page - The home page of The
American Bear Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting
the well-being of bears and all wildlife through a better understanding.
- Black Bear...American Black Bear...Michigan Black Bear - GarLyn Farm
ZOOlogical Park now features american black bear. Photo's, information, and
links to more sites about black bear and other animals.
- NEW NABC INDEX - The mission of the North American Bear Center is to
enhance the understanding of the general public of the habits, needs and environment of bears in
North America.
- Wildlife Endangered Species - Black Bear - they are a rare sight in Texas, the black bear is the
most common kind of bear in the United States. Black bears are considered to be endangered in the
state of Texas. Black bears
- An American Black Bear - Fuzzy, weighing in at more than 400 pounds, lives
at GarLyn Farm ZOOlogical Park. Also links to more bear information.
- Black Bear Conservation Committee - Promoting the restoration of the
Louisiana black bear in its historic range, through education, research,
and habitat management.
- Working With Wildlife - Black Bear - NC State University - Notes about
wildlife management of the Black Bear.
- American Black Bear - (Encarta® Concise Encyclopedia Article)
- American Black Bear - Fact sheet from "About the Animals" where information on a large variety of
animals can be obtained, from present day habitat to estimated populations.
- Black Bear Paging Service - Providing local paging service, products and accessories for West
Virginia and southern Ohio. A member of SoutherNet Association of paging.
- Black Bear Lodge - Located on Little St. Germaine Lake out of St. Germaine WI. A four season resort.
They have fishing, golfing, hunting, skiing, and snowmobiling nearby.
- Black Bear Inn, South Lake Tahoe - The Inn is nestled on a wooded acre, offering luxury
accommodations in a rustic, mountain setting. Black Bear Inn's main lodge has five generous guest
rooms, and there are three cabins on the grounds
- Black Bear B&B - Located in the scenic Sunday River Valley, on Sunday River Road, the Black Bear
offers an alternative to guests who appreciate being within two miles of one of the East's
outstanding ski areas, Sunday
- Black Bear Design - Design professional web sites for affordable rates. All artwork is custom
artwork; no clip art is used.
Looks like Lycos is doing pretty well...I also tried google, and their results are pretty good also.
What's amazing is that someone would post such a comment and not even bother trying the search. Come on, it's pretty damn simple.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Perhaps he means that programmers punch code the same way that cowboys punch cattle. Hmm... I kinda dig that imagery. "Sherrif! Black Bart's causing memory leaks up and down Main Street!" "Hand me my smart pointers, boy."
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go wrangle some ADO objects.
OK. They're not collecting personal information here folks. Frankly, if it helps refine the search(es) that I perform, I'm all for it.
Example:
A friend of mine was working at a provincial park last summer. He was working on the park's web site and decided he needed a picture of a Black Bear. On to Yahoo! and Lycos he goes, enters the search "black bear". Guess how many porn sites he got back? Try this search now on google, and you actually get "Black Bear" information. NOT porn. Anything to refine the database is fine with me.
Why make it governmental? Why force every one of us to pay for it? Why make the poor as well as the rich fund it? Why not let private parties fund it, through the medium of ads? It sure seems to be working so far--Google's great.
You can install the Google toolbar without the PageRank features that transmit URL's back to Google. Those sneaky bastards hid this option behind a huge freaking button that clearly states this.
Sean
Default
Sean
Speaking of which, DoubleClick made the news today: in this article, DoubleClick is cutting their workforce by 10% and this article mentions their stock being downgraded from "buy" to "hold".
DISCLAIMER: This is not investment advice, blah blah blah, it's just gloating over watching web-spam.com fail.
John
John
System Requirements
Microsoft Windows OS
Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.0 or greater
Your operating system does not appear to meet these requirements.
Your system infomation was reported as:
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/2.0; X11); Supports MD5-Digest; Supports gzip encoding
Install the Google Toolbar
Because your system does not appear to meet the system requirements for the Google Toolbar, installation has been cancelled.
try altavista text mode, it loads a little faster for me actually.
http://www.altavista.com/query?text=on
The patent-pending technology, PageRank, is Google's method of rating the importance of Web pages by counting the number of other Web pages that link to them.
So, will Slashdotters (and, more specifically, the editors) jump all over Google once this patent is granted? Or do Slashdot favorites win a "get out of flamage free" card?
They also have to be given credit for being up front about what they are doing, I haven't seen anything change on their site without soem sort of an explanation.
Also, the toolbar shouldn't be a concern for most Slashdotters because it is only available for Windows...or maybe it should, who knows. We rabid computer geeks wouldn't worry about Windows would we?
Icebox
Lycos, Alta Vista, Inktomi, etc. all have had the cool factor and then lost it just as quickly. Whats next - Infrasearch? FAST?