I've said it before and I'll say it again in the hopes that Google is listening. Google, use just some of your billions of dollars, your business might, your juggernaut capacity / might / influence in the telecomm industry to sell a cellular phone data-only plan at $40.00 or less and I will gladly buy your Android branded, unshackled, full capability (Google) phone at full retail price! What you would give me _that I can't get now_ is a fair price for service WITH a phone device that I can use as I please. To wit, tethering, SIMPLICITY of payment, no gotchas from the likes of the majors.
> TV networks can't operate with shows that turn up occasionally.
Dood, Inspector Lynley*, and Wallander did and do!
But then that's non American TV; but then again as an American I'm fed up with the shiz on my telly anywayz. So exception to your generalization. Pax.
* I recently banged out all the Lynley episodes via netflix---I had watched something like two episodes all year in ~2005 even though I had looked for it regularly, and I caught those two perchance at ~3 a.m.---and I was shocked to discover that the BBC/WGBH production of that very good detective TV series was approximately 2-4 episodes per year till it ended. To my surprise I had seen most of the series and not realized it over the years; the number of episodes is short. BBC series vis-a-vis USA series are for a short number of yearly episodes and not more than a year or two if that many.
Are you kidding? Yes AV was the first major search engine but you seem to forget or be ignorant of how it sold search positions AND how it bragged to the IT media how AV was farsighted, how that approach was the way forward, and only a fool could think otherwise. That and untargeted display advertisement was their doom. Now you say that's 20/20 hindsight thinking, but, here on/. concurrently it was discussed and highlighted how their approach was completely wrong and how time would prove it so. And it came to pass, and not too long afterward the ascendancy among geeks of alternative engines was apparent. I have no love lost nor nostalgia for them, their results sucked hard at the time, we were all fed up with their bad quality never mind the paid results.
Their domain was disconnected for years and sold repeatedly at base prices. They tried to come back as an mp3 engine for a while but then the mafiaa got into the ass kicking game.
> reputable automotive journalism in mags like Car & Driver and Road & Track
I don't feel you. I stopped reading those rags, even though they became free online years ago. A decade ago I tried to read them online and they were either paywalled, just used teaser snippets or didn't have anything worthwhile then. That continued for years till I stopped caring in the least what they had done. They lost me permanently. Like Jalopnik with their endless silly try-so-hard neologistic "carpocalypse,"---or is that autoblog, is there a difference between the two, really, come on---with those magazines you have to stoop over the bad sophomoric writing and brainless _endless_ mentions and _variations_ of "four-bangers, windmill, tranny, ponies" and whatnot. Is decent automotive journalism so hard to make? No. Is an alternative to such bad journalism boring? No. I found a great alternative from all mentioned above elsewhere! Thank gad for that. And it's not a European publication.
I have yet to find one for motorcycle quality coverage though, dang!!!
BTW, on the random instance I am at the doctors I'll pick one of these, proceed to skip 4 or 5 introductory paragraphs and see if the writer has YET stopped pontificating, masturbating, salivating, PADDING and reached the subject at hand.
BTW what is with the common practice of describing engines thusly: The Subawerke MRX 3TI has a 265 hp 500 foots-pounds 2.5-liter DOHC 33.5 valve varivalvetiempolift turbocharged 4 cylinder engine. ? I personally like to know the number of cylinders first and foremost but typically I hae to wade through all the other schlock to get it, and then start to make sense in my head of what I'm dealing with and how that configuration will typically respond like and whether then that torque is adequate. WTF. Am I alone?
> No, you pay for a high speed connection to the INTERnet and > they are providing a high speed connection to their own > INTRAnet with a congested gateway to the internet.
I just realized, seriously, exactly when did the fcc, guvment do away with `network providers cannot be content providers?'
This would fix the issue.
Under what administration? Was it the Clinton or the G. W. Bush deregulation, dumb-as-we-wanna-be White House was this done? The DMCA was done under Cinton's auspices. Now there was a Ball dancing, weekly book reading, Barbra Streisand ticket holding, friend of my aunt Dorothy.
But, but, but right here in/. years ago in a Slashdot-de Raadt interview (Search for it ca. 5+ years ago. I can't ever find old shiz using/.'s search nor Google's "site:" either. Searching for such shiz for more than ten-twenty minutes is painful) de Raadt stated that free software's (BSD, GPL, etc.) many-eyeballs-all-bugs-are-shallow maxim is a myth. Reviewing code, and I paraphrase him, in an intelligent, _learned_, methodical, _iterative_, _persistent_, dedicated fashion, as is done in OBSD, is _rare_ in the free software world! It was a post that was highly commented, noticed and discussed as a consequence.
I know you're trolling, but it would be nice if you would've been around for years reading this kind of stuff---this is not new---or used more thoughtfulness. Or, not been rated highly, and insightful no less. *sigh*
I am thinking that maybe you are not aware, plural you, how OBSD repository code is audited. I can't hand feed you, (I've been following them for almost a decade and my institutional, background, misc@ mailing list, past OBSD dramas, Darren-Mudge-fag-apologia-carp-vrrp-DJB-fu, etc., for example) knowledge. In itself it is not mystical just typical of a shut-the-fuck-up-and-learn-the-obsd-ways common sense approach that should be common, but is not. He, OBSD developers have, will tell you that they simplify, reduce, _uncomplicate_, de-whizbang code. They _iterate_ through ALL code in the Release, except for packages*! _endlessly_, fixing bugs, quashing new attack vectors in everything in their code or _base system_*. Again and again, boring year after boring year on new and OLD shit alike simplifying, reducing, _uncomplicating_, de-whizbanging source code AND keeping a jaded eye for bad code. I remember in source-changes@ someone like millert@ or tedu@ telling an _anonymous_ knowitall to go submit his bullshit-fly-by-night-adamant-claim-putatively-superior-crypto-algorithm to multiple international scientific panels for the next ten to twenty years and to comeback after that IF it's then proved rock solid like what was in present use.
But, but, but bugs root compromises in the base install were still found after all. Moral of the story: nothing is perfect. Except a troll's arrogance and, or ignorance.
> Bing is even worse. Bing seems to be totally undefended against bogus business locations. > Search Bing for "New York locksmith". All 5 "places" results are from the same business, which > doesn't really have all those locations.
This has also been happening in the Yellow Pages for decades. To wit, look up "Locksmith", "Carpet cleaning", "Plumber", or "Divorce attorney" in your local yellow pages telephone directory and you will likely reach a boilerroom operation that pretends to be an _independent_ business but is actually a front for various businesses _advertisements_ in the same industry class you need. IOW, for example, you price compare from various Yellow Pages ads' businesses but you are actually talking to the same scammers. You can usually tell when you recognize the voice at the other end of the phone line.
Local advertising is hot! It's the next frontier. That's why Google have a yearning for Groupon and their local sales force; maybe helping obviate valid complaints as you have made. That's their wish, I'm sure.
Boinker claimed to the Times reporter to have used a StreeView image. *Ahem!*
> and sending them a message saying 'I'M WATCHING YOU'" is not only a verbal threat,
The Times article demonstrates Boinker's astuteness. He used that verbiage in a _following_ missive. The threat was designed for _inference_. The easily/naturally _inferred_ threat was not overt nor linked in one thought, message. You are cherry picking words and conjoining them. In toto, the Boinker's intent is clear, oh! but he's a slippery one.
> but one involving an action. Frankly, I'm surprised it took two years to arrest this guy - > if he tried it on me, I would have filed a police report within minutes.
Now I know you didn't read the article. The centerpiece piece victim in the story, a Spaniard residing in NYC, did just that. Repeatedly. Contacted the Attorney General's office, and the feds I believe to little avail. Their response in essence was, we are collating. It was the The New York Times publicity that has greased the wheels!
> And that still does nothing for the identity theft charges or the fraud. Hell, maybe we can > get him on ACTA or something for selling counterfeits.
Frankly I was mystified about one aspect of the reportage that was not mentioned at all, that we know works.
(1.) Why were not the eyewear designers notified about this. Why did she not Tweet about this; it is not an urban myth that companies consider Tweets so magical currently that complaining on Twitter will get you high level support ASAP. This dude lives in NYC, Mayor Mike (Bloomberg) has been on a rampage to clean up NYC's Canal Street for bootleg LV, Gucci, Rolex purses wallets wares that even in these extremely short fiscal budget times he finds the money to fund the copyright NYC cops. Combining the former idea with this suggestion you would get a response ASAP from your Tweet about "piracy," "Canal Street," "Mayor Bloomberg," "fake Yankees merchandise?"
(2.) Why wasn't a DMCA notice(s) used?! This guy is bright but for most folks the DMCA is legal dynamite. It tends to stupefy. This guy would have been slapped around a whole new set of regs, threats, and no one would have said do you have proof Ms. Jane Q. Public.
> One thing I respect that dude for, is his ambition. Not even the 'strongest' nation on earth > could derail him.
USA self restraint does not equal invincibility for Assange. Don't get so easily confused. I love it when ego maniacs get mislabeled as do-gooders. Like musicians get into it for the chicks maybe Assange got into it for the pussy, sorta sounds like it at this point. Or at the least all the media attention is a great ego boost for him. Who knows maybe he's innocent, even the paranoid have enemies and so far hearing what the King of the house of Saud thinks about a rival is not on par with the Pentagon Papers. But hey that's just me I got perspective.
Anyway when are we going to see the leaks from Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Myanmar, Israel, Venezuela? How about China?! Ahhh, yeah, let the western democracies go first. Right.
I'd watch my back lest you go the way of Gerald Bull, Assange. Some lesser "'strongest' nation" doesn't hamper itself with political assassination bans.
Wikileaks is China's friend. The PRC loves it, it does their work for them. The west's secrets are handed to them, what's easier. It does double duty besmirching the USAs reputation to their own Chinese people; no Chinese bureaucrats needed. Gravy all over.
I noted it before but no one payed notice. Google has horded fiber "the likes of Gad hasn't even seen!" (jaja---Dune ya'know.) They will not need to pay _anyone_ to carry their "huge" traffic.
"I spoke recently with an old friend who is a bandwidth broHe buys and sells bandwidth on fiber-optic networks around the world. And he told me something that I found not completely surprising, but I certainly hadn't known: Google controls more network fiber than any other organization.
[snip]
It is becoming very obvious what will happen over the next two to three years. More and more of us will be downloading movies and television shows over the net and with that our usage patterns will change. Instead of using 1-3 gigabytes per month, as most broadband Internet users have in recent years, we'll go to 1-3 gigabytes per DAY -- a 30X increase that will place a huge backbone burden on ISPs. Those ISPs will be faced with the option of increasing their backbone connections by 30X, which would kill all profits, OR they could accept a peering arrangement with the local Google data center."
+ Rampant Fraud Threat to China’s Brisk Ascent:
o Nonchalant Cheating
o Plagiarism and Fakery
o A Lack of Integrity
"He cited the case of Chen Jin, a computer scientist who was once celebrated for having invented a sophisticated microprocessor but who, it turned out, had taken a chip made by Motorola, scratched out its name, and claimed it as his own. After Mr. Chen was showered with government largess and accolades, the exposure in 2006 was an embarrassment for the scientific establishment that backed him.
But even though Mr. Chen lost his university post, he was never prosecuted. “When people see the accused still driving their flashy cars, it sends the wrong message,” Mr. Zeng said.
The problem is not confined to the realm of science. In fact many educators say the culture of cheating takes root in high school, where the competition for slots in the country’s best colleges is unrelenting and high marks on standardized tests are the most important criterion for admission. Ghost-written essays and test questions can be bought. So, too, can a “hired gun” test taker who will assume the student’s identity for the grueling two-day college entrance exam."
> Why flush money down a losing venture until it starts to see a return?
Intelligence? They're (essentially) a one trick pony, and they know it. Why wait around for your own funeral; "rage rage against the dying of the light."
> Because they can.
They're monopolists, not (standstill) dumb monopolists.
> And one of the many faults of capitalism is that those with a ton of money can do the > stupidest shit and still come out okay.
MS is an elephant that can fly. Until it can't.
They're hedging their bets; diversifying; putting their eggs in more than one basket.
I don't. I couldn't find shit with it 10 years ago. What're you going to que up next? Hotwired? =) I feel you with Google though. SEO boyz are hammering that raised nail. They're being kneecapped.
> Google image search back to the way it used to be before they shitified it. > It's so damned annoying to use now that I'm actually using Bing when I want > to search images.
Ahem! Google copied Bing on that new image search format.
I agree that it can get annoying, my CPU locks something fierce lots of times when I have that Google Image search scrolling and multiple tabs. But at least on google you can single-click (in the same window) to the image/site-in-background---Bing forces a new tab. *ugh*
If your point was that you just wanted to one-click to the image itself, yeah, Google has mucked that up with multi steps. It matters to me too, as I click on a lot of images, links, references on my research. All those clicks add up. To one big pain.
I feel you. I've used Google products for ~10 years because it worked, as you said, it was no frills. It was a lean and mean searching machine.
I don't care if they a function to JavaScript to blow dry my hair while I search. Give me a choice though.
My homepage had been set to Google News for years and I used it constantly, as any news junkie would. But since they changed that homepage some months ago, they made it unusable to me without going into settings and perma storing a Google cookie. Na, a! No. After about a month, I think, they did allow _some_ modification of the content-sections settings but Google News would not alter the URL so as to transform it into a simple bookmark-preference link. Preserving anonymity, IOW.
As a result I don't use Google News anymore. I read the major newspapers instead. Is that what Google wanted? I doubt it. Oh and I've been using Bing more often; it's a smaller target for the SEO boyz. Google is slowly weaning me away. Alllriiiiighttt!
Shiz! What a write up. I'm quivering in my jump boots. Too bad Halloween already passed. Michael Myers versus Lawrence Ellison, a blockbuster in the making.
> it just says that the state has no right to know if someone bought "Alice in Wonderland" > or "How to make home bombs" or "Meth cooking for dummies".
*wooosh* The smart alecs miss the point, as usual, shooting from the hip is fun, n'est-ce pas? How to tell the taxable from the untaxable when one is given a sum rather then a list? I have bought food from Amazon. Food is generally not taxable. Details, pesky details.
> they used to do was lure the German tank into a village, then drive round back of them. > The German guns were so big they couldn't turn them in in a normal street with buildings > on either side whereas the smaller [...] tank certainly could.
Slashdot Mirror
I've said it before and I'll say it again in the hopes that Google is listening. Google, use just some of your billions of dollars, your business might, your juggernaut capacity / might / influence in the telecomm industry to sell a cellular phone data-only plan at $40.00 or less and I will gladly buy your Android branded, unshackled, full capability (Google) phone at full retail price! What you would give me _that I can't get now_ is a fair price for service WITH a phone device that I can use as I please. To wit, tethering, SIMPLICITY of payment, no gotchas from the likes of the majors.
> TV networks can't operate with shows that turn up occasionally.
Dood, Inspector Lynley*, and Wallander did and do!
But then that's non American TV; but then again as an American I'm fed up with the shiz on my telly anywayz. So exception to your generalization. Pax.
* I recently banged out all the Lynley episodes via netflix---I had watched something like two episodes all year in ~2005 even though I had looked for it regularly, and I caught those two perchance at ~3 a.m.---and I was shocked to discover that the BBC/WGBH production of that very good detective TV series was approximately 2-4 episodes per year till it ended. To my surprise I had seen most of the series and not realized it over the years; the number of episodes is short. BBC series vis-a-vis USA series are for a short number of yearly episodes and not more than a year or two if that many.
Are you kidding? Yes AV was the first major search engine but you seem to forget or be ignorant of how it sold search positions AND how it bragged to the IT media how AV was farsighted, how that approach was the way forward, and only a fool could think otherwise. That and untargeted display advertisement was their doom. Now you say that's 20/20 hindsight thinking, but, here on /. concurrently it was discussed and highlighted how their approach was completely wrong and how time would prove it so. And it came to pass, and not too long afterward the ascendancy among geeks of alternative engines was apparent. I have no love lost nor nostalgia for them, their results sucked hard at the time, we were all fed up with their bad quality never mind the paid results.
Their domain was disconnected for years and sold repeatedly at base prices. They tried to come back as an mp3 engine for a while but then the mafiaa got into the ass kicking game.
I feel you.
> reputable automotive journalism in mags like Car & Driver and Road & Track
I don't feel you. I stopped reading those rags, even though they became free online years ago. A decade ago I tried to read them online and they were either paywalled, just used teaser snippets or didn't have anything worthwhile then. That continued for years till I stopped caring in the least what they had done. They lost me permanently. Like Jalopnik with their endless silly try-so-hard neologistic "carpocalypse,"---or is that autoblog, is there a difference between the two, really, come on---with those magazines you have to stoop over the bad sophomoric writing and brainless _endless_ mentions and _variations_ of "four-bangers, windmill, tranny, ponies" and whatnot. Is decent automotive journalism so hard to make? No. Is an alternative to such bad journalism boring? No. I found a great alternative from all mentioned above elsewhere! Thank gad for that. And it's not a European publication.
I have yet to find one for motorcycle quality coverage though, dang!!!
BTW, on the random instance I am at the doctors I'll pick one of these, proceed to skip 4 or 5 introductory paragraphs and see if the writer has YET stopped pontificating, masturbating, salivating, PADDING and reached the subject at hand.
BTW what is with the common practice of describing engines thusly: The Subawerke MRX 3TI has a 265 hp 500 foots-pounds 2.5-liter DOHC 33.5 valve varivalvetiempolift turbocharged 4 cylinder engine. ? I personally like to know the number of cylinders first and foremost but typically I hae to wade through all the other schlock to get it, and then start to make sense in my head of what I'm dealing with and how that configuration will typically respond like and whether then that torque is adequate. WTF. Am I alone?
> No, you pay for a high speed connection to the INTERnet and
> they are providing a high speed connection to their own
> INTRAnet with a congested gateway to the internet.
I just realized, seriously, exactly when did the fcc, guvment do away with `network providers cannot be content providers?'
This would fix the issue.
Under what administration? Was it the Clinton or the G. W. Bush deregulation, dumb-as-we-wanna-be White House was this done? The DMCA was done under Cinton's auspices. Now there was a Ball dancing, weekly book reading, Barbra Streisand ticket holding, friend of my aunt Dorothy.
But, but, but right here in /. years ago in a Slashdot-de Raadt interview (Search for it ca. 5+ years ago. I can't ever find old shiz using /.'s search nor Google's "site:" either. Searching for such shiz for more than ten-twenty minutes is painful) de Raadt stated that free software's (BSD, GPL, etc.) many-eyeballs-all-bugs-are-shallow maxim is a myth. Reviewing code, and I paraphrase him, in an intelligent, _learned_, methodical, _iterative_, _persistent_, dedicated fashion, as is done in OBSD, is _rare_ in the free software world! It was a post that was highly commented, noticed and discussed as a consequence.
I know you're trolling, but it would be nice if you would've been around for years reading this kind of stuff---this is not new---or used more thoughtfulness. Or, not been rated highly, and insightful no less. *sigh*
I am thinking that maybe you are not aware, plural you, how OBSD repository code is audited. I can't hand feed you, (I've been following them for almost a decade and my institutional, background, misc@ mailing list, past OBSD dramas, Darren-Mudge-fag-apologia-carp-vrrp-DJB-fu, etc., for example) knowledge. In itself it is not mystical just typical of a shut-the-fuck-up-and-learn-the-obsd-ways common sense approach that should be common, but is not. He, OBSD developers have, will tell you that they simplify, reduce, _uncomplicate_, de-whizbang code. They _iterate_ through ALL code in the Release, except for packages*! _endlessly_, fixing bugs, quashing new attack vectors in everything in their code or _base system_*. Again and again, boring year after boring year on new and OLD shit alike simplifying, reducing, _uncomplicating_, de-whizbanging source code AND keeping a jaded eye for bad code. I remember in source-changes@ someone like millert@ or tedu@ telling an _anonymous_ knowitall to go submit his bullshit-fly-by-night-adamant-claim-putatively-superior-crypto-algorithm to multiple international scientific panels for the next ten to twenty years and to comeback after that IF it's then proved rock solid like what was in present use.
But, but, but bugs root compromises in the base install were still found after all. Moral of the story: nothing is perfect. Except a troll's arrogance and, or ignorance.
reminds me of: the only way to win is not to play.
> Bing is even worse. Bing seems to be totally undefended against bogus business locations.
> Search Bing for "New York locksmith". All 5 "places" results are from the same business, which
> doesn't really have all those locations.
This has also been happening in the Yellow Pages for decades. To wit, look up "Locksmith", "Carpet cleaning", "Plumber", or "Divorce attorney" in your local yellow pages telephone directory and you will likely reach a boilerroom operation that pretends to be an _independent_ business but is actually a front for various businesses _advertisements_ in the same industry class you need. IOW, for example, you price compare from various Yellow Pages ads' businesses but you are actually talking to the same scammers. You can usually tell when you recognize the voice at the other end of the phone line.
Local advertising is hot! It's the next frontier. That's why Google have a yearning for Groupon and their local sales force; maybe helping obviate valid complaints as you have made. That's their wish, I'm sure.
When are the leaks about Wikileaks coming out?
> "taking a picture of someone's home
Boinker claimed to the Times reporter to have used a StreeView image. *Ahem!*
> and sending them a message saying 'I'M WATCHING YOU'" is not only a verbal threat,
The Times article demonstrates Boinker's astuteness. He used that verbiage in a _following_ missive. The threat was designed for _inference_. The easily/naturally _inferred_ threat was not overt nor linked in one thought, message. You are cherry picking words and conjoining them. In toto, the Boinker's intent is clear, oh! but he's a slippery one.
> but one involving an action. Frankly, I'm surprised it took two years to arrest this guy -
> if he tried it on me, I would have filed a police report within minutes.
Now I know you didn't read the article. The centerpiece piece victim in the story, a Spaniard residing in NYC, did just that. Repeatedly. Contacted the Attorney General's office, and the feds I believe to little avail. Their response in essence was, we are collating. It was the The New York Times publicity that has greased the wheels!
> And that still does nothing for the identity theft charges or the fraud. Hell, maybe we can
> get him on ACTA or something for selling counterfeits.
Frankly I was mystified about one aspect of the reportage that was not mentioned at all, that we know works.
(1.) Why were not the eyewear designers notified about this. Why did she not Tweet about this; it is not an urban myth that companies consider Tweets so magical currently that complaining on Twitter will get you high level support ASAP. This dude lives in NYC, Mayor Mike (Bloomberg) has been on a rampage to clean up NYC's Canal Street for bootleg LV, Gucci, Rolex purses wallets wares that even in these extremely short fiscal budget times he finds the money to fund the copyright NYC cops. Combining the former idea with this suggestion you would get a response ASAP from your Tweet about "piracy," "Canal Street," "Mayor Bloomberg," "fake Yankees merchandise?"
(2.) Why wasn't a DMCA notice(s) used?! This guy is bright but for most folks the DMCA is legal dynamite. It tends to stupefy. This guy would have been slapped around a whole new set of regs, threats, and no one would have said do you have proof Ms. Jane Q. Public.
> One thing I respect that dude for, is his ambition. Not even the 'strongest' nation on earth
> could derail him.
USA self restraint does not equal invincibility for Assange. Don't get so easily confused. I love it when ego maniacs get mislabeled as do-gooders. Like musicians get into it for the chicks maybe Assange got into it for the pussy, sorta sounds like it at this point. Or at the least all the media attention is a great ego boost for him. Who knows maybe he's innocent, even the paranoid have enemies and so far hearing what the King of the house of Saud thinks about a rival is not on par with the Pentagon Papers. But hey that's just me I got perspective.
Anyway when are we going to see the leaks from Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Myanmar, Israel, Venezuela? How about China?! Ahhh, yeah, let the western democracies go first. Right.
I'd watch my back lest you go the way of Gerald Bull, Assange. Some lesser "'strongest' nation" doesn't hamper itself with political assassination bans.
Wikileaks is China's friend. The PRC loves it, it does their work for them. The west's secrets are handed to them, what's easier. It does double duty besmirching the USAs reputation to their own Chinese people; no Chinese bureaucrats needed. Gravy all over.
Here is the cache of the prior Cringely page. The original randomly returns a 404 error. WTF
I noted it before but no one payed notice. Google has horded fiber "the likes of Gad hasn't even seen!" (jaja---Dune ya'know.) They will not need to pay _anyone_ to carry their "huge" traffic.
Here is a citation from Mark Stephens, aka, the current Robert X. Cringely,
"I spoke recently with an old friend who is a bandwidth broHe buys and sells bandwidth on fiber-optic networks around the world. And he told me something that I found not completely surprising, but I certainly hadn't known: Google controls more network fiber than any other organization.
[snip]
It is becoming very obvious what will happen over the next two to three years. More and more of us will be downloading movies and television shows over the net and with that our usage patterns will change. Instead of using 1-3 gigabytes per month, as most broadband Internet users have in recent years, we'll go to 1-3 gigabytes per DAY -- a 30X increase that will place a huge backbone burden on ISPs. Those ISPs will be faced with the option of increasing their backbone connections by 30X, which would kill all profits, OR they could accept a peering arrangement with the local Google data center."
I'll add a recent article from the NY Times.
+ Rampant Fraud Threat to China’s Brisk Ascent:
o Nonchalant Cheating
o Plagiarism and Fakery
o A Lack of Integrity
"He cited the case of Chen Jin, a computer scientist who was once celebrated for having invented a sophisticated microprocessor but who, it turned out, had taken a chip made by Motorola, scratched out its name, and claimed it as his own. After Mr. Chen was showered with government largess and accolades, the exposure in 2006 was an embarrassment for the scientific establishment that backed him.
But even though Mr. Chen lost his university post, he was never prosecuted. “When people see the accused still driving their flashy cars, it sends the wrong message,” Mr. Zeng said.
The problem is not confined to the realm of science. In fact many educators say the culture of cheating takes root in high school, where the competition for slots in the country’s best colleges is unrelenting and high marks on standardized tests are the most important criterion for admission. Ghost-written essays and test questions can be bought. So, too, can a “hired gun” test taker who will assume the student’s identity for the grueling two-day college entrance exam."
Puleese, this shiz wont last. Anyone remember sitename.UK.CO
???
Last year I tried to find _at least_ one for fun. All gone, UKulele all gone.
> Why flush money down a losing venture until it starts to see a return?
Intelligence? They're (essentially) a one trick pony, and they know it. Why wait around for your own funeral; "rage rage against the dying of the light."
> Because they can.
They're monopolists, not (standstill) dumb monopolists.
> And one of the many faults of capitalism is that those with a ton of money can do the
> stupidest shit and still come out okay.
MS is an elephant that can fly. Until it can't.
They're hedging their bets; diversifying; putting their eggs in more than one basket.
> I wish altavista was back. I miss the old days.
I don't. I couldn't find shit with it 10 years ago. What're you going to que up next? Hotwired? =) I feel you with Google though. SEO boyz are hammering that raised nail. They're being kneecapped.
> Google image search back to the way it used to be before they shitified it.
> It's so damned annoying to use now that I'm actually using Bing when I want
> to search images.
Ahem! Google copied Bing on that new image search format.
I agree that it can get annoying, my CPU locks something fierce lots of times when I have that Google Image search scrolling and multiple tabs. But at least on google you can single-click (in the same window) to the image/site-in-background---Bing forces a new tab. *ugh*
If your point was that you just wanted to one-click to the image itself, yeah, Google has mucked that up with multi steps. It matters to me too, as I click on a lot of images, links, references on my research. All those clicks add up. To one big pain.
I feel you. I've used Google products for ~10 years because it worked, as you said, it was no frills. It was a lean and mean searching machine.
I don't care if they a function to JavaScript to blow dry my hair while I search. Give me a choice though.
My homepage had been set to Google News for years and I used it constantly, as any news junkie would. But since they changed that homepage some months ago, they made it unusable to me without going into settings and perma storing a Google cookie. Na, a! No. After about a month, I think, they did allow _some_ modification of the content-sections settings but Google News would not alter the URL so as to transform it into a simple bookmark-preference link. Preserving anonymity, IOW.
As a result I don't use Google News anymore. I read the major newspapers instead. Is that what Google wanted? I doubt it. Oh and I've been using Bing more often; it's a smaller target for the SEO boyz. Google is slowly weaning me away. Alllriiiiighttt!
Shiz! What a write up. I'm quivering in my jump boots. Too bad Halloween already passed. Michael Myers versus Lawrence Ellison, a blockbuster in the making.
> Just like I allow or disallow people to enter my house
Just as you are rude, I can rudely and loudly point out your rudeness. =) No one said otherwise, d00d. *wazzzup*
> it just says that the state has no right to know if someone bought "Alice in Wonderland"
> or "How to make home bombs" or "Meth cooking for dummies".
*wooosh* The smart alecs miss the point, as usual, shooting from the hip is fun, n'est-ce pas? How to tell the taxable from the untaxable when one is given a sum rather then a list? I have bought food from Amazon. Food is generally not taxable. Details, pesky details.
> they used to do was lure the German tank into a village, then drive round back of them.
> The German guns were so big they couldn't turn them in in a normal street with buildings
> on either side whereas the smaller [...] tank certainly could.
Yeah, I saw Kelly's Heroes too.
Newsflash!
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And drollishly. Power corrupts but we need the electricity. See man fortune .
Or the human impulse for eros and thanatos. Life, self destruction.
These human condition insights have been available for millenia; where's the (new) beef?