At least its more secure than Android because its closed source. Its not like anyone *gasp* found a way of looking at the iOS source code is there?. Isn't that right Mister Trend Micro chairman?
I read TFA. It has some interesting ideas about promoting a semantic web of sorts, and pretty much showing an amount of hate for propriety stuff which bypasses the web. Why not have an interesting story on that? This is news for nerds.
Instead no lets go for a DUUUUUUUUUR THEY HAS QWIKER VERZION NOS NOW! DUUUR! Story.
I'm pretty sure it won't make any difference technically. I'm sure they won't be moving any quicker, slower or whatever compared to usual.
Just when people go "WOW Chrome is better than Firefox because it updates so regularly!!!111one" - I guess mozilla marketting is pandering to those idiots now.
Let me tell you how much difference it makes to me whether its Firefox 4.1 or Firefox 5... none at all.
And the purpose of a search engine is to link the queries with the results.
So if you took the query AND the result of search engine X, then isn't it the equivalent of using the search engine?
If Bing had asked "What are you looking for?" and then watched you while you browse the web without using a 3rd party search (or using Bing's search) then YES, totally legit and fair.
The fact remains that they are taking using Google - who's purpose in this is to link the query and results.
I have a tablet. And I used to think like you. Tablets would never replace laptops.
And I still think they won't. The thing is, I personally don't view tablets as 'small laptops' but rather 'large mobiles'. If you think of it that way, you get the clearest idea of what they're going to replace. You can't type as fast on a tablet , that's true. But if you want to read a document? Its brilliant. I can walk around, holding my Galaxy Tab in one hand, and I can sustain that for hours. I can watch videos on the bus. I can play games on it when I'm bored.
So no. Tablets won't replace laptops. But I think they'll replace Mobiles. Or rather fall in between. Carrying a 7'' tablet around is borderline. 10'' I'd say impossible.
Bing does this. It checks to see what you're searching for on Google. It sees which link you clicked and then uses that information to improve ITS OWN search engine. If Google search was broken, did not work, or got bogus results - then Bing receives broken results. So we can ascertain that Bing is depending on Google for this information.
Now, Google employees used terms which made no sense. This is part of what is called an "Experiment". Because if you try it with a popular word, you won't get results. So they tried it, and apparently when a user with BingBar searches for a thing on google and chooses link X, Bing automatically puts a link between that search term and Link X. Why?
An application is a self-contained piece of software which is used for a particular task.
An app is a 'tiny' (by some metric) application.
Firefox addons can be seen as "Apps" if they did something large. Remember this is an 'end user' term. End users don't weigh how 'good ' a program is by LOC, by how many states it has or whatever, they weigh it by how much it does for them.
For them to be 'weighed higher' they would have to have a weight of more than 0 to begin with. This isn't a case of Bing noticing "Oh look, people are searching on the Bing service for XXX , lets raise them"
This is a case of Bing going "Hmm, when someone searches google for X, they click on link Y. Lets put Y in our search results so that other people who use Bing can do the same".
That counts as copying. That counts as using a competing search engine as a "Black box" to see where your own search engine is shortcoming.
They can take customer data off their own products/services.
I would think its copying simply because, if you look at how search engines work - there is NO REASON AT ALL why that term should have come up. There is no word which is common, even if you were to perform a spell correction and take synonyoms - the vectors are too distant. If they used the data to push up a popular page further up - that might have been borderline sleasy but you can't really say it was copying. The fact that they're making (hard coded?) links between queries and pages based on the results of another search engine makes it unfair.
A clever search engine (one with high precision and recall) will give you the results you want. If you click on a result, you are assumed to have found that link useful. Google does that on its own search engine - and that's fair enough.
Now if I capture "Query" and "Correct Result", I am basically using the other search engine's technology (which is used to supply that good result) and the result of all the data collection, research and whatever - in order to improve my search results. That's not a very fair game. If my search results heavily depend on Google's search results - I am piggybacking off them.
I've nothing wrong with Google or Bing reading my searches I input into them and improving their product that way - I don't think its fair if the other company steals this data off other search engines.
Slashdot Mirror
If you feel this way about our precious kiddies then please keep it to yourself. We don't want to shatter our impression of our kiddies.
At least its more secure than Android because its closed source. Its not like anyone *gasp* found a way of looking at the iOS source code is there?. Isn't that right Mister Trend Micro chairman?
Oh so this was a secret plan was it?
Was it commissioned by the ministry for the bloody obvious?
Is this a repentance on the part of the iPhone?
After all, it was Apple that brought us into this mess of sin in the first place.
Also very useful at stopping new companies from setting up shop.
If they cough, you sue the crap out of them. They won't have enough Patent Power to fight back and they collapse.
Driving Innovation Forward.
Since Sarcastic O'Clock.
Not to mention OS X....
Or nuke the existing OS and install Linux.
It'll work out cheaper as well, even at the loss of your Windoze license.
I read TFA. It has some interesting ideas about promoting a semantic web of sorts, and pretty much showing an amount of hate for propriety stuff which bypasses the web. Why not have an interesting story on that? This is news for nerds.
Instead no lets go for a DUUUUUUUUUR THEY HAS QWIKER VERZION NOS NOW! DUUUR! Story.
I'm pretty sure it won't make any difference technically. I'm sure they won't be moving any quicker, slower or whatever compared to usual.
Just when people go "WOW Chrome is better than Firefox because it updates so regularly!!!111one" - I guess mozilla marketting is pandering to those idiots now.
Let me tell you how much difference it makes to me whether its Firefox 4.1 or Firefox 5... none at all.
So what's all the fuss about?
They track what the user searched for on Google and the search results.
What's the difference? You're still copying
"Query" --> "Best Result" which Google is supplying to you. Which is the point of all the search engine technology and research.
And the purpose of a search engine is to link the queries with the results.
So if you took the query AND the result of search engine X, then isn't it the equivalent of using the search engine?
If Bing had asked "What are you looking for?" and then watched you while you browse the web without using a 3rd party search (or using Bing's search) then YES, totally legit and fair.
The fact remains that they are taking using Google - who's purpose in this is to link the query and results.
The original meaning of 'to hack' was 'to do something clever'.
So a "Computer Hacker" is "A person who knows how to do something clever with a computer". A data hacker would be something like that.
Then the media misunderstood Hacker culture and now Hacker == Cracker in their ontology
Machineists. Believers in Carbon Superiority.
I have a tablet. And I used to think like you. Tablets would never replace laptops.
And I still think they won't. The thing is, I personally don't view tablets as 'small laptops' but rather 'large mobiles'. If you think of it that way, you get the clearest idea of what they're going to replace. You can't type as fast on a tablet , that's true. But if you want to read a document? Its brilliant. I can walk around, holding my Galaxy Tab in one hand, and I can sustain that for hours. I can watch videos on the bus. I can play games on it when I'm bored.
So no. Tablets won't replace laptops. But I think they'll replace Mobiles. Or rather fall in between. Carrying a 7'' tablet around is borderline. 10'' I'd say impossible.
Hrm, but wouldn't that definition make Steam, and the Ubuntu software centre "App centres" instead of application centres?
I'm actually rather confused by all of this.I will simply jot it down as "Oh look society is changing the meaning of words again"
*sigh*
Bing does this. It checks to see what you're searching for on Google. It sees which link you clicked and then uses that information to improve ITS OWN search engine. If Google search was broken, did not work, or got bogus results - then Bing receives broken results. So we can ascertain that Bing is depending on Google for this information.
Now, Google employees used terms which made no sense. This is part of what is called an "Experiment". Because if you try it with a popular word, you won't get results. So they tried it, and apparently when a user with BingBar searches for a thing on google and chooses link X, Bing automatically puts a link between that search term and Link X. Why?
Because Google does that too.
Are we getting it now?
An application is a self-contained piece of software which is used for a particular task.
An app is a 'tiny' (by some metric) application.
Firefox addons can be seen as "Apps" if they did something large. Remember this is an 'end user' term. End users don't weigh how 'good ' a program is by LOC, by how many states it has or whatever, they weigh it by how much it does for them.
"Weighted higher" or not weighed at all?
For them to be 'weighed higher' they would have to have a weight of more than 0 to begin with. This isn't a case of Bing noticing "Oh look, people are searching on the Bing service for XXX , lets raise them"
This is a case of Bing going "Hmm, when someone searches google for X, they click on link Y. Lets put Y in our search results so that other people who use Bing can do the same".
That counts as copying. That counts as using a competing search engine as a "Black box" to see where your own search engine is shortcoming.
They can take customer data off their own products/services.
I would think its copying simply because, if you look at how search engines work - there is NO REASON AT ALL why that term should have come up. There is no word which is common, even if you were to perform a spell correction and take synonyoms - the vectors are too distant. If they used the data to push up a popular page further up - that might have been borderline sleasy but you can't really say it was copying. The fact that they're making (hard coded?) links between queries and pages based on the results of another search engine makes it unfair.
Here's the thing.
Search engines work like this
Query ---> [S.E.] --> Results
A clever search engine (one with high precision and recall) will give you the results you want. If you click on a result, you are assumed to have found that link useful. Google does that on its own search engine - and that's fair enough.
Now if I capture "Query" and "Correct Result", I am basically using the other search engine's technology (which is used to supply that good result) and the result of all the data collection, research and whatever - in order to improve my search results. That's not a very fair game. If my search results heavily depend on Google's search results - I am piggybacking off them.
I've nothing wrong with Google or Bing reading my searches I input into them and improving their product that way - I don't think its fair if the other company steals this data off other search engines.
Its funny that you mention that, seeing as in the US and Canada yahoo search is powered by bing.
Psst, we're all being sarcastic here.
The fact that microsoft technology has advanced to the point of linking
"delhipublicschool40 chdjob"
to a Credit Union website
is simply showing how well they understand their potential customers, and has nothing to do with the fact that Google set them up at all.
Thing is that due to the GPL
"The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms"
That even if "Lugaru" was a perfectly legal derived work - selling it would be illegal.