I like to use both Bing and Google when I'm trying to get work done. Using both has helped me get results that the other search engine doesn't show or ranks differently.
I use Google as a default because I use their services and I actually like being logged into to Google when I search so I can customize my search results. I sure as hell hope they are using my search behavior (and those of other users) to modify their results because it seems some really idiotic results have somehow bubbled their way to the top. Just being able to filter out experts-exchange has been a bonus.
I'm not sure if I feel that Bing's image search is better or that either engine returns better results , but I do like how Bing search results are laid out, especially their image page. The Bing default search page is pleasant as well. The daily pictures with the mouse-over boxes to different search types is interesting.
Your last sentence rings very true to me. Whenever I'm just doing a quick search I use Google. If I'm curious about a movie and the cast or my son asks me a question about his math homework I can typically Google it and get what I want. Why would I waste time following that up with a Bing or Yahoo! search?
You know what's funny is I just did a search for "Flash-based MAME" (no quotes) in both Google and Bing. Digg is the first result in Google and the site you would like people to visit is the top result in Bing. In fact the site you post in your sig is the first 4 results in Bing. In Google your site is second with all the sub-sites folded and hidden in the collapsible sub-list. The rest of the results on each page seem relevant.
If you've done research, enough to "know what's going on" then post the results so we can all see them, else it's just obvious anecdote being obvious. I really think people are having a hard time coming to terms that Microsoft is doing some things right.
Bing isn't a bad search engine at all. When I have to get work done I almost always have both Google and Bing up so I can get better results from what each might have missed or ranked differently. When I'm just casually surfing I stay with Google because I use their other services much more than Windows Live services and Hotmail. For me, what makes Google search my preferred engine is custom search results, promoting results, and pruning irrelevant entries (no longer do I have to filter through experts-exchange listings).
I say use what tool works and know whos feeding that info to you, whether it's Google, Bing, Yahoo!, Wikipedia, or whatever.
There is evidence. They murdered someone. They broke the trust of society. Their sentence may have satisfied their debt to society based on the laws of their country but it doesn't mean they are automatically entitled to trust because they paid their debt. In my opinion they have to earn society's trust back. The first step to earning that trust is being honest to society about who you are and what you've done and then demonstrating over time and by action that new trust is deserved.
When a child misbehaves and is punished (let's say put in the corner or sat down in a chair for a time) it's not just their behavior one watches while they're being punished, but how they act afterwards.
My guess is that they don't really care about the past. They care about now. $1.25Bn is a lot of money coming in especially in the current economic climate. This and the patent deals means that AMD can move forward on relevant technologies now and in the future without worrying over spending money on lawsuits.
I read the original news article. Most of the posts have been deleted, but I the whole conversation was politically charged. Hipcheck may have made personally snide remarks that were irrelevant to the discussion, but everything in that conversation related to the topic. One could ask the question why that mother allowed her underage son to enter a public forum where her and her opponents constituents were engaged in a vitriolic and heated debate. What is even more puzzling is that she's using this example to further her "save the children" agenda.
In what way did the alleged offender cross the line? He didn't, according to what we know, actually threaten the person nor did he start a public smear campaign. He insulted the alleged victim. That is all.
The problem with deciding these issues on a "case by case basis" is that criticism will be silenced by those that have the power and money to oppose those who don't. That is, most people can't afford to defend their opinions in a court of law. Politicians could then keep the masses quiet by threat of court action. There should be no doubt that personal or public harm is done before a suit goes forward. In cases where a minor is involved in adult public political debate the parent should be held equally responsible for exposing their child.
I disagree. This type of speech is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect. The person being named or anonymous is totally irrelevant to the protection. The protection was put in place to protect those criticizing political figures. There is nothing in the article saying that the person is protected only if they're named or anonymous. Historically we see many political critics using pseudonyms just as some chose to use their real identity. This whole lawsuit smacks of an agenda to silence those who would criticize those in power. Can politicians now hide behind minors in a debate? A little far-fetched I know but that is what is happening in this case.
That makes the trail more difficult, not impossible to follow. If you use your laptop at a WiFi point someone still has your MAC somewhere. Nothing on that list guarantees anonymity.
Why is the mother allowing her son to participate in an adult forum? Why is the news site allowing under age posters on their site? I find it odd that both the parent aren't being held equally responsible for exposing the minor to adult language in an adult forum especially in light that the discussion is political and those always get heated. People say offensive and rude remarks in the heat of political discourse. If this anonymous poster went over the line where does that place Fox News pundits who disparaging remarks about people continually.
I think it's a huge stretch to label that remark as lewd, or rather more lewd than what that minor is legally exposed to on television, news, or entertainment media. I do believe in being responsible for ones actions and words, however, this seems (similar to Palin and Letterman) to continue a current trend where ordinary people are at risk for criticizing political figures and their representatives or constituents.
I think they have a great idea with Ubuntu One. I think this type of idea (syncing your desktop data, sharing, and collaboration) is going to be wildly popular. However, I think they have have their business model out of whack. The idea of expensive recurring service fees from a software vendor is about as archaic and unpopular as expensive recurring version licensing fees from proprietary vendors. To put it bluntly $120/yr for 50GB is too expensive. Other players like Google will offer a more ubiquitous service at a more reasonable price point with a wider integration into their existing services. I like Ubuntu and would love to see this succeed. I just think they are missing the mark.
When I see almost good ideas like this I just cringe. This is similar to the idea Microsoft has put out with their Live Services. There you get 25GB of free storage for your pictures, files, or whatever for free (web pages have adverts on them though), however the interface, file management, and integration between online services and the desktop is klunky at best. The team that gets this right (all the way right) first will own this market. My bet is on Google.
I didn't really get that message from his OP though. What he was saying was how great open source is and how it's the way to go then goes on to say except with his project. The message I get from that is open source is the way to go except when it's not.
I don't have a problem with how he's licensing or why. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that open source should be used except when it's more beneficial to close it. Google does this awesomely in my opinion (some wide open projects and others tighter than a tick). The duality still boggles me though.
Well to be a bit fair the guy is talking about how awesome open source is when it benefits him and how much more awesome closed source is when it benefits him. Not that I mind the infighting, but it sounds pretty hypocritical to me too.
Funny because about 30 years ago it was IBMs competition and lock in on its proprietary hardware (basically giving away their OS) that started this whole Microsoft thing. Competition on proprietary hardware and vendor lock-in isn't much different than competition on proprietary software with vendor or platform lock-in.
I'm fine with IBM competing however they want (legally), but I doubt I'll ever see them as much different from Microsoft. To me they're the same animal with a different skin.
I think it will be important to watch and see what happens over the next 5 years. One big area, after interoperability, where I think they will have to step up their game will be consistency. There have been a few really cool ideas MS has come up with but after their initial burst of enthusiasm they just let them die with no graceful transition. Their current Live Services are neat, but I'm pretty apprehensive they will continue to support all of those features beyond Hotmail and Calendar or at least provide a good transition from them to newer technologies. This is one of my biggest gripes with close proprietary systems because the user community can't do much if anything at all.
We'll have to see how their commitment to Samba pans out in the longer run. If they see the potential revenue stream go away then I could see them leaving everyone hanging.
I'm kind of surprised you don't get what's going on here. MS sees a way to make money from open source. I doubt they'll trumpet that from the rooftops, but I think it's exactly what's happening lately. This will be a selling point for Server 2008 and another reason for MS customers to upgrade from Sever 2003 to 2008. So this potentially has the ability to increase upgrade sales to existing customers and provide possible sales to new multi-platform customers.
Everyone is so worried about the MS of 10 years ago that I think they're missing the dynamic now. Free and/or Open Source software and platforms aren't going away. If you can't make your competition leave then you might as well capitalize on them and make money. MS has far more to gain from interoperability with Linux, BSD, and other open source platforms than they do from not working together (it's just taking a long time for the boardroom to move it in that direction). FOSS on the other hand has far less to gain, in my opinion, by working together and everything to gain by not making things work together since the main business model of FOSS is support service oriented.
I think what we're seeing with this and their VM offering is to make themselves a viable player with Linux in the server arena.
No of course I don't consider PC-DOS an early version of Windows. I also didn't decide that PC is often used as slang for Windows. I was just pointing out it's not really a confusing tag for most people.
and to get the damn Live-Mail, you almost have to use IE and jump through a lot of hoops just to get it. Went through that the other day and it was a real PITA as the Live Downloaded wanted to install a whole rash of other crap, just like all the other freebies out there. Of course instead of adding the Ask Toolbar, it wanted to add in Messenger, the damn Blogger accelerator for IE and sign you up for both a Live Id and a damn hotmail account.
That's a total load of crap. You don't "almost have to use IE and jump through a lot of hoops just to get it." You're making that up. Do people just make things up so they're complaints sound solid? I must be new here.
This is what you have to do to get Live Services including the mail client (and I did it in Google Chrome):
Open a search page (I used Google)
Type in "Windows Live" (quotes or no quotes it doesn't matter)
Select the "Get the Latest" sub-result from the "Home - Windows Live" result and you are at the download page
If you decide just to go to the Windows Live result and want to download the software you can select "More" from the dropdown menu. It doesn't add any more crap than you want to unless you mean the.NET runtime or sync services. Then again that is true anytime you install any platform's interpreter. It happens when I want to play flash, or use a web page that runs Java. You may not like all the extra "cruft" of language interpreters or web service utilities like sync or gears, but that doesn't mean it's "making it even harder on people to simply get a copy of Outlook Express."
Windows Live Mail is actually a fairly good mail client especially for free. I've tried it out and have the family use it since the interface is simple and setting up multiple mail clients is easy. It syncs with Windows LIve mail services including calendar. If you have a single Hotmail account it's perfect. If you have a GMail account you can set up via POP or IMAP, but I found the mail client and GMail's IMAP are klunky and requires some kludgy hacks to manage Googles system folders.
Unless you need robust Exchange functionality Windows Live Mail is every bit as good (if not better) than Outlook 2007.
If you're going to be that broad with the definition of "PC" then Mac would fit in that category as well since it's also a personal computer. It's pretty much accepted slang that PC means Windows when describing OS versions.
You could be right, but maybe there is more to it. Nobody thought two digit year dates would be a problem either or saw a need to look forward (maybe some did individually but not as an industry). I can't see why expanding architecture would be a bad thing especially if it could smooth transitions to newer ways of computing.
That's just it. There aren't two definitions of criminal as a noun. A criminal is a suspect who is convicted of a crime (dictionary.com, reference.com, merriam-webster.crom, and wiktionary all support this definition). Until a person is convicted they are a suspect. It takes a conviction in a court of law to become a criminal.
Judges to grant warrants to investigate innocent people that are suspects. What is the point of the warrant then? The police suspect a person may have committed a crime, but weren't there to have probable cause for search. They petition the judicial system for permission to search that person or their property. I'm under the impression that the police need to provide a reason to the judge for the warrant to be issued. This is the check to help prevent unreasonable searches. Isn't this how it works?
Slashdot Mirror
I like to use both Bing and Google when I'm trying to get work done. Using both has helped me get results that the other search engine doesn't show or ranks differently.
I use Google as a default because I use their services and I actually like being logged into to Google when I search so I can customize my search results. I sure as hell hope they are using my search behavior (and those of other users) to modify their results because it seems some really idiotic results have somehow bubbled their way to the top. Just being able to filter out experts-exchange has been a bonus.
I'm not sure if I feel that Bing's image search is better or that either engine returns better results , but I do like how Bing search results are laid out, especially their image page. The Bing default search page is pleasant as well. The daily pictures with the mouse-over boxes to different search types is interesting.
Your last sentence rings very true to me. Whenever I'm just doing a quick search I use Google. If I'm curious about a movie and the cast or my son asks me a question about his math homework I can typically Google it and get what I want. Why would I waste time following that up with a Bing or Yahoo! search?
You know what's funny is I just did a search for "Flash-based MAME" (no quotes) in both Google and Bing. Digg is the first result in Google and the site you would like people to visit is the top result in Bing. In fact the site you post in your sig is the first 4 results in Bing. In Google your site is second with all the sub-sites folded and hidden in the collapsible sub-list. The rest of the results on each page seem relevant.
If you've done research, enough to "know what's going on" then post the results so we can all see them, else it's just obvious anecdote being obvious. I really think people are having a hard time coming to terms that Microsoft is doing some things right.
Bing isn't a bad search engine at all. When I have to get work done I almost always have both Google and Bing up so I can get better results from what each might have missed or ranked differently. When I'm just casually surfing I stay with Google because I use their other services much more than Windows Live services and Hotmail. For me, what makes Google search my preferred engine is custom search results, promoting results, and pruning irrelevant entries (no longer do I have to filter through experts-exchange listings).
I say use what tool works and know whos feeding that info to you, whether it's Google, Bing, Yahoo!, Wikipedia, or whatever.
There is Sharp Develop[www.icsharpcode.net]. An open source IDE for .NET. It supports C#, VB, Boo, and F#.
There is evidence. They murdered someone. They broke the trust of society. Their sentence may have satisfied their debt to society based on the laws of their country but it doesn't mean they are automatically entitled to trust because they paid their debt. In my opinion they have to earn society's trust back. The first step to earning that trust is being honest to society about who you are and what you've done and then demonstrating over time and by action that new trust is deserved.
When a child misbehaves and is punished (let's say put in the corner or sat down in a chair for a time) it's not just their behavior one watches while they're being punished, but how they act afterwards.
Kind of like SLES and RHEL. I don't really see anything wrong with doing that. It's okay to make money and people like shiny.
Think of the lawyer's children!
My guess is that they don't really care about the past. They care about now. $1.25Bn is a lot of money coming in especially in the current economic climate. This and the patent deals means that AMD can move forward on relevant technologies now and in the future without worrying over spending money on lawsuits.
I wanna know what sound that answer makes.
I read the original news article. Most of the posts have been deleted, but I the whole conversation was politically charged. Hipcheck may have made personally snide remarks that were irrelevant to the discussion, but everything in that conversation related to the topic. One could ask the question why that mother allowed her underage son to enter a public forum where her and her opponents constituents were engaged in a vitriolic and heated debate. What is even more puzzling is that she's using this example to further her "save the children" agenda.
In what way did the alleged offender cross the line? He didn't, according to what we know, actually threaten the person nor did he start a public smear campaign. He insulted the alleged victim. That is all.
The problem with deciding these issues on a "case by case basis" is that criticism will be silenced by those that have the power and money to oppose those who don't. That is, most people can't afford to defend their opinions in a court of law. Politicians could then keep the masses quiet by threat of court action. There should be no doubt that personal or public harm is done before a suit goes forward. In cases where a minor is involved in adult public political debate the parent should be held equally responsible for exposing their child.
I disagree. This type of speech is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect. The person being named or anonymous is totally irrelevant to the protection. The protection was put in place to protect those criticizing political figures. There is nothing in the article saying that the person is protected only if they're named or anonymous. Historically we see many political critics using pseudonyms just as some chose to use their real identity. This whole lawsuit smacks of an agenda to silence those who would criticize those in power. Can politicians now hide behind minors in a debate? A little far-fetched I know but that is what is happening in this case.
That makes the trail more difficult, not impossible to follow. If you use your laptop at a WiFi point someone still has your MAC somewhere. Nothing on that list guarantees anonymity.
Why is the mother allowing her son to participate in an adult forum? Why is the news site allowing under age posters on their site? I find it odd that both the parent aren't being held equally responsible for exposing the minor to adult language in an adult forum especially in light that the discussion is political and those always get heated. People say offensive and rude remarks in the heat of political discourse. If this anonymous poster went over the line where does that place Fox News pundits who disparaging remarks about people continually.
I think it's a huge stretch to label that remark as lewd, or rather more lewd than what that minor is legally exposed to on television, news, or entertainment media. I do believe in being responsible for ones actions and words, however, this seems (similar to Palin and Letterman) to continue a current trend where ordinary people are at risk for criticizing political figures and their representatives or constituents.
Here is a link to the official press release from the Epic site: Epic Games Announces the Unreal Development Kit, Powered by Unreal Engine 3.
I think they have a great idea with Ubuntu One. I think this type of idea (syncing your desktop data, sharing, and collaboration) is going to be wildly popular. However, I think they have have their business model out of whack. The idea of expensive recurring service fees from a software vendor is about as archaic and unpopular as expensive recurring version licensing fees from proprietary vendors. To put it bluntly $120/yr for 50GB is too expensive. Other players like Google will offer a more ubiquitous service at a more reasonable price point with a wider integration into their existing services. I like Ubuntu and would love to see this succeed. I just think they are missing the mark.
When I see almost good ideas like this I just cringe. This is similar to the idea Microsoft has put out with their Live Services. There you get 25GB of free storage for your pictures, files, or whatever for free (web pages have adverts on them though), however the interface, file management, and integration between online services and the desktop is klunky at best. The team that gets this right (all the way right) first will own this market. My bet is on Google.
I didn't really get that message from his OP though. What he was saying was how great open source is and how it's the way to go then goes on to say except with his project. The message I get from that is open source is the way to go except when it's not.
I don't have a problem with how he's licensing or why. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that open source should be used except when it's more beneficial to close it. Google does this awesomely in my opinion (some wide open projects and others tighter than a tick). The duality still boggles me though.
Well to be a bit fair the guy is talking about how awesome open source is when it benefits him and how much more awesome closed source is when it benefits him. Not that I mind the infighting, but it sounds pretty hypocritical to me too.
Funny because about 30 years ago it was IBMs competition and lock in on its proprietary hardware (basically giving away their OS) that started this whole Microsoft thing. Competition on proprietary hardware and vendor lock-in isn't much different than competition on proprietary software with vendor or platform lock-in.
I'm fine with IBM competing however they want (legally), but I doubt I'll ever see them as much different from Microsoft. To me they're the same animal with a different skin.
I think it will be important to watch and see what happens over the next 5 years. One big area, after interoperability, where I think they will have to step up their game will be consistency. There have been a few really cool ideas MS has come up with but after their initial burst of enthusiasm they just let them die with no graceful transition. Their current Live Services are neat, but I'm pretty apprehensive they will continue to support all of those features beyond Hotmail and Calendar or at least provide a good transition from them to newer technologies. This is one of my biggest gripes with close proprietary systems because the user community can't do much if anything at all.
We'll have to see how their commitment to Samba pans out in the longer run. If they see the potential revenue stream go away then I could see them leaving everyone hanging.
I'm kind of surprised you don't get what's going on here. MS sees a way to make money from open source. I doubt they'll trumpet that from the rooftops, but I think it's exactly what's happening lately. This will be a selling point for Server 2008 and another reason for MS customers to upgrade from Sever 2003 to 2008. So this potentially has the ability to increase upgrade sales to existing customers and provide possible sales to new multi-platform customers.
Everyone is so worried about the MS of 10 years ago that I think they're missing the dynamic now. Free and/or Open Source software and platforms aren't going away. If you can't make your competition leave then you might as well capitalize on them and make money. MS has far more to gain from interoperability with Linux, BSD, and other open source platforms than they do from not working together (it's just taking a long time for the boardroom to move it in that direction). FOSS on the other hand has far less to gain, in my opinion, by working together and everything to gain by not making things work together since the main business model of FOSS is support service oriented.
I think what we're seeing with this and their VM offering is to make themselves a viable player with Linux in the server arena.
No of course I don't consider PC-DOS an early version of Windows. I also didn't decide that PC is often used as slang for Windows. I was just pointing out it's not really a confusing tag for most people.
and to get the damn Live-Mail, you almost have to use IE and jump through a lot of hoops just to get it. Went through that the other day and it was a real PITA as the Live Downloaded wanted to install a whole rash of other crap, just like all the other freebies out there. Of course instead of adding the Ask Toolbar, it wanted to add in Messenger, the damn Blogger accelerator for IE and sign you up for both a Live Id and a damn hotmail account.
That's a total load of crap. You don't "almost have to use IE and jump through a lot of hoops just to get it." You're making that up. Do people just make things up so they're complaints sound solid? I must be new here.
This is what you have to do to get Live Services including the mail client (and I did it in Google Chrome):
If you decide just to go to the Windows Live result and want to download the software you can select "More" from the dropdown menu. It doesn't add any more crap than you want to unless you mean the .NET runtime or sync services. Then again that is true anytime you install any platform's interpreter. It happens when I want to play flash, or use a web page that runs Java. You may not like all the extra "cruft" of language interpreters or web service utilities like sync or gears, but that doesn't mean it's "making it even harder on people to simply get a copy of Outlook Express."
Windows Live Mail is actually a fairly good mail client especially for free. I've tried it out and have the family use it since the interface is simple and setting up multiple mail clients is easy. It syncs with Windows LIve mail services including calendar. If you have a single Hotmail account it's perfect. If you have a GMail account you can set up via POP or IMAP, but I found the mail client and GMail's IMAP are klunky and requires some kludgy hacks to manage Googles system folders.
Unless you need robust Exchange functionality Windows Live Mail is every bit as good (if not better) than Outlook 2007.
If you're going to be that broad with the definition of "PC" then Mac would fit in that category as well since it's also a personal computer. It's pretty much accepted slang that PC means Windows when describing OS versions.
You could be right, but maybe there is more to it. Nobody thought two digit year dates would be a problem either or saw a need to look forward (maybe some did individually but not as an industry). I can't see why expanding architecture would be a bad thing especially if it could smooth transitions to newer ways of computing.
That's just it. There aren't two definitions of criminal as a noun. A criminal is a suspect who is convicted of a crime (dictionary.com, reference.com, merriam-webster.crom, and wiktionary all support this definition). Until a person is convicted they are a suspect. It takes a conviction in a court of law to become a criminal.
Judges to grant warrants to investigate innocent people that are suspects. What is the point of the warrant then? The police suspect a person may have committed a crime, but weren't there to have probable cause for search. They petition the judicial system for permission to search that person or their property. I'm under the impression that the police need to provide a reason to the judge for the warrant to be issued. This is the check to help prevent unreasonable searches. Isn't this how it works?