Yahoo as a whole offers better/more integration with other parts of thier site, whereas Google is just starting to catch up with this. For instance Yahoo has integrated Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Personals, Yahoo Profiles (360), Yahoo Music and Yahoo's Web Page area. Google with all thier content certainly has the capability to do this (search, image, labs, groups, froogle, local, blogger).
Google sometimes makes you wait an indefinite time to fetch an email (usually in a sent folder, but sometimes in your inbox). Yahoo, only seems to restrict email access during maintenence cycles late at night.
Google does offer more space, though so far I would comment that the spam filter on Yahoo seems to be at least as (though probably more) robust.
Google does have better organization of folders, mail items aka "conversations". It takes better advantage of CSS properties with html, whereas Yahoo seems to be more concerned about maximizing compatibility with all browsers. I'm not a big fan but some number of months ago, I noticed some glitchiness with Gmail on Safari. I don't know how they do on Opera, Lynx or other more limited browsers.
Yahoo does graphical ads, some of which seem to "take over" your navigation space, taking up your time reading as well as load time if you are on a slow connection. Google uses contextual text ads, which I actually don't mind "clicking" on every now and then because they don't seem intrusive and desperate - unlike many Yahoo advertisers.
I won't say either is better. They are both good at what they do, but they are as different as automakers Toyota and BMW.
They can tell you to give up everything you do on your personal time, but how are they going to get any of it unless they can prove that you invented it while working for them?
What you have to remember is that the incentive to give you options is basically giving you pocket full of money (and watering down stock value) without telling investors they are doing it. After all, what investor is going to buy stock in a company that does lots of options? That would be akin to a government printing extra money to pay off thier debts. And yet, with stock options this is exactly what is happening.
The only difference I suppose is that the government had more at stake unless thier assets were already transferred into foriegn currency.
So take options if they give them to you, but at the same time, remember that if they give too many options out, what they're really saying as a company more often than not is "we don't care about our investors". If they give this kind of attitude towards thier investors, do you think they'll treat thier employees any better in the long run?
Next they should retroactively make make government sponsered organizations (cough, monopolies, cough) open source (ie Bell Labs, various power companies, ICANN, yada, yada).
Former "Microsoft" security chief George Schmidt.
One should consider what such a man has to gain before listening to such drivel. Wielding a broken stick doesn't carry much of a threat to those who know.
The best solution to a back problem is not slouching all day but getting some exercise in.
Otherwise, you can always choose to amputate that part of the body that offends you. Reminds me of the AI computers from Buck Rogers....
Slashdot Mirror
All the people that wanted to "mind control" the public by buying out the media are well deserving of losing out in the long run.
That and thier own lack of desire to remain a competitive (and intelligent) source of news has really pushed them away from the public consumer.
Good/Bad:
Yahoo as a whole offers better/more integration with other parts of thier site, whereas Google is just starting to catch up with this. For instance Yahoo has integrated Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Personals, Yahoo Profiles (360), Yahoo Music and Yahoo's Web Page area. Google with all thier content certainly has the capability to do this (search, image, labs, groups, froogle, local, blogger).
Google sometimes makes you wait an indefinite time to fetch an email (usually in a sent folder, but sometimes in your inbox). Yahoo, only seems to restrict email access during maintenence cycles late at night.
Google does offer more space, though so far I would comment that the spam filter on Yahoo seems to be at least as (though probably more) robust.
Google does have better organization of folders, mail items aka "conversations". It takes better advantage of CSS properties with html, whereas Yahoo seems to be more concerned about maximizing compatibility with all browsers. I'm not a big fan but some number of months ago, I noticed some glitchiness with Gmail on Safari. I don't know how they do on Opera, Lynx or other more limited browsers.
Yahoo does graphical ads, some of which seem to "take over" your navigation space, taking up your time reading as well as load time if you are on a slow connection. Google uses contextual text ads, which I actually don't mind "clicking" on every now and then because they don't seem intrusive and desperate - unlike many Yahoo advertisers.
I won't say either is better. They are both good at what they do, but they are as different as automakers Toyota and BMW.
They can tell you to give up everything you do on your personal time, but how are they going to get any of it unless they can prove that you invented it while working for them?
What you have to remember is that the incentive to give you options is basically giving you pocket full of money (and watering down stock value) without telling investors they are doing it. After all, what investor is going to buy stock in a company that does lots of options? That would be akin to a government printing extra money to pay off thier debts. And yet, with stock options this is exactly what is happening.
The only difference I suppose is that the government had more at stake unless thier assets were already transferred into foriegn currency.
So take options if they give them to you, but at the same time, remember that if they give too many options out, what they're really saying as a company more often than not is "we don't care about our investors". If they give this kind of attitude towards thier investors, do you think they'll treat thier employees any better in the long run?
Next they should retroactively make make government sponsered organizations (cough, monopolies, cough) open source (ie Bell Labs, various power companies, ICANN, yada, yada).
Former "Microsoft" security chief George Schmidt. One should consider what such a man has to gain before listening to such drivel. Wielding a broken stick doesn't carry much of a threat to those who know.
Caffiene can also be attriuted to a number of heart conditions. So are we to say that most people die before they get it?
The best solution to a back problem is not slouching all day but getting some exercise in. Otherwise, you can always choose to amputate that part of the body that offends you. Reminds me of the AI computers from Buck Rogers....
Ignorance is no excuse. If it was, we'd all be ignorant and stupid. Shame on you for even posting your sob story on here.