And frankly, the only thing that prevents me from using Bing is it's code searching. It really does not handle queries related to code well at all. Everything else seems pretty much even with Google. Unfortunately for Microsoft, I use Google as my default because of that limitation.
What incentive does Microsoft have to ceding search (and search related ads) to Google? It has nearly 30% US marketshare and it's growing (combined with Yahoo, which uses Bing for its backend).
When Bing first launched, Bing scared Google and forced them to start innovating again. Competition is good after all. Even if Bing dies off, I see no advantage, as a consumer, to have Bing disappear. I also see no advantage, for (not as) an investor to cede that entire domain to one of their two biggest competitors. Throw away the entire investment that has signs of paying off in the future, and give a major investor even more money to play with to cut into your market? That's really the best idea?
Having some competition certainly helps spur production and innovation. After all, Windows Vista took so long because they had no serious competition until OS X started seriously stealing the spotlight. Apple gave them a good reason to produce faster, and at a higher quality (Windows 7).
It's not going to happen. People keep hoping that it does to fit their old, draconian image of Microsoft.
Microsoft wants people developing in C#. It helps them. It's not like that 1% is going to even affect them. Mono is a surprisingly good platform that Linux zealots blindingly refuse to use just because it has links to Microsoft. I would be far more afraid to use any variant of Java than I would to be using any variant of.NET. And I say that as a day-to-day, primarily Java developer.
Good luck suing someone that you have publicly stated that you will not sue, for the reason that you told them you won't sue them. Even in East Texas, that wouldn't go very far.
Fortunately for me, I'm not a failure and I'll even have my Master's from a top, in-class (real) university in December, so I'm not fundamentally anti-academic. I can't really say the same for most of the teachers that I have had the displeasure of being taught by over the years.
Not even remotely comparable. I have Amazon Prime, and since I get access to their instant video catalog, I decided to give it a shot. I literally cannot remember a single video that I actually wanted to watch.
The current collection is terrible. I am sure that there are some niches filled there, but they have few, if any licenses to stream online for now.
That's probably one of the most interesting, and scarily accurate descriptions of the power vacuum that consumes a lot of teachers. The only thing you neglected was that they earn near the six-figure mark while getting at least most of the summer off as well.
So you are suggesting that comparing Exchange performance being rough before Windows 2000 came out to today's standards using today's software, even on old hardware, is a remotely fair comparison? The person is clearly taking old, probably second-hand knowledge and comparing it to questionably current knowledge. Frankly, that's ridiculous, regardless of what system you are comparing.
While we're at it, why don't we compare the original ~128 GB spinning disc hard drives to Intel's latest 128 GB SSD.
I'm also confused by the mocking "ship with bugs and patch later" shot, as I doubt you are using OpenBSD. Both open source and commercial products live on that model because, eventually, you simply have to ship (see Firefox). In many cases, you don't realize you have bugs until a million users start using it.
As you put it, people should only be using OpenBSD. Feel free to hate a company, project or even a person. But, try and be reasonable about it because, otherwise, you will inevitably miss a something significant simply out of spite.
This is the exact reason that I have so far avoided Google+. I use Gmail and I love it, but I am not about to give the biggest online ad presence even more access to my private life by actively showing them both my real, and online friends. They have enough from "generically" scanning my email and serving me ads.
Add in the prospect of something stupid like having your Google+ account sinking your Gmail account, and that's more than enough reason to ban Google+ from sites that I ever plan to use. As much as I hate Facebook, at least if I lose my account, then I am not hosed in any ways except maybe losing the hand full of petty pictures that I have there unsaved. It sounds like the grass really isn't any greener on the Google+ side of the fence in terms of customer service (unlisted reasons, just like Facebook), which I have never heard good things about Google with respect to anyway.
You implied every single point to suggest the system was rigged only to protect the rich, as you intentionally rigged up the straw man yourself. You literally attacked my counter points because they provided a much broader example usage than you did.
A lot of them do not. Why do you think those check cashing places exist?
Entirely to scam people both with and without bank accounts. Often people go to those places to hide money from their spouse as well; if the money never hits the bank account, then the spouse never knows it exists.
You either don't understand what a straw man is, or you think it's only okay to use when you're arguing (likely because that's the only way you can make points).
All involved lawyers should be disbarred. Not only for the initial, in-bad-faith filing, but also for abusing the legal system with in-bad-faith DMCA letters.
They have no factories to be protected by the police
The police exist to protect people as well. I guess without factories, then there would be no rape, assault, theft or murder.
they own no deposits to be insured by the government
Then they do not have a single bank account (see FDIC), which is highly unlikely.
they own no home to be protected from fire.
Many people that do not pay taxes live in free, or highly subsidized government housing (e.g., paid for by taxes). This building/house will also be insured. Government housing is also not always the slums that it is trumped up to be, particularly when referring to subsidized housing.
They do not use the roads to make money
I guess they're not looking for work. Not going to work. Not going to the grocery store. Not having food/groceries delivered. Not going to school.
nor do they benefit from the legal system to uphold their patents or copyrights
That's all the legal system is for? I suppose they can't sue corporations. No one has ever sued, say McDonald's, for spilling coffee on themselves.
Every single point that you made is downright stupid. Go enjoy justifying stealing from people. I suppose it will be easy, as the police aren't there to stop it from happening in your world.
Alt-Med has been growing like gangbusters, its popularity at an all time high: it must work.
I am not posting this to necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but growing popularity definitely does not correlate to effectiveness. After all, there are a lot of stupid people out there that will fall for anything, such as the less-reputable side of any business.
A few years back, my brother was hit by a reckless driver, and my brother's car was thrown into a tree. Long-story-short, he had nasty back problems for a long time. However, he went and saw a chiropractor, which absolutely helped him (combined with healthy eating and rigorous exercise regiments). I doubt he's 100%, but he's probably in the 90+%.
Still, just as there is one positive example, I am sure that there are numerous counter examples. Of course, that's not to say that there aren't an equal number of problems with traditional medicine (especially among general practitioners that get forced to do everything, as I found out last year).
I want to be able to report that I receive spam from one of their users WITHOUT having to create an account on their system.
The principle of the idea is sound, but the implications of them being--ironically--spammed to hide real problems is probably not appealing to them.
I believe quite a number of them is not hacked by bruteforcing the password
This is almost certainly true, but the features simply came out at the same time due to their relationship, and having your password brute forced is not a requirement to having your account flagged by your friend.
He was tricked into releasing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of classified documents. There is absolutely no way that he could confirmed that none of them contained names and locations of people helping to fight terrorism (which many did, although a lot was scrubbed by WikiLeaks, and not by him).
There is no question that he committed treason.
Our security and relationships were absolutely placed in jeopardy. How people do not feel any long term negative effects will result from the release of the diplomatic cables alone is beyond me. I will not pretend that I have read every piece coming from WikiLeaks, but some did contain operational details do put the people out there in danger.
The truth is, Bradley Manning was, and is an idiot. He was willingly tricked, through encouragement, into releasing these documents by someone that knew that they were not going to feel the burden of the law within the US.
Term limits are fraught with its own host of problems, including limiting peoples right to vote for whom they wish and creating lame-duck officials all over the place.
The first is an interesting option that I had not considered, but I am not sure how realistic of a problem it is. After all, you cannot vote for the same President for a third term anymore.
I am not convinced that creating a near-guaranteed one-term position for two years (House) or six years (Senate) is actually better than presenting term limits that eventually create a similar, but staggered situation. In particular, I see very little reason for a one-term politician to not be corrupt and bring home as much pork as possible because that's the only way they would be well known enough to stay in office. It would lead every politician to force their name into the news by any means necessary, which most likely means bringing home some pork.
You would see a lot of what happened after the election last year. Big decisions made by politicians that had lost the election that went against their constituents clear desires, but were still around until the new terms started. I feel like that would simply be the way with practically everyone serving single terms. At least with term limits, that lacking fear of reprisal is staggered, and they could be shoveled out in a timely manner.
Ah yes, because in the US it is frequent for asians, blacks and latinos to be questioned, beaten or shot for carrying a telescope. American police are regularly overzealous, and many times they are just downright stupid, but I have never once heard of someone struggling to explain telescopes. In fact, I used to live near a mountain peak that was frequented by all kinds of people for amateur astronomy without problems from the police. And the police were pretty stupid in that city.
This type of fear and expectation of racism that many people present breeds racism itself. It absolutely causes tensions that otherwise would not exist.
But it's not stupid enough to dismiss out of hand.
Yes, it is. The clear liberal slant of each idea shows why you should not rewrite the document on a whim just because others are doing it: bias. I don't know of a single state that actually blocks any of the enumerated items you listed, and none of them are privacy concerns as noted by an AC. I do know plenty of states that are against it though (particularly abortion).
The sheepish, follower mentality represented within the entire idea of rewriting the Constitution is naive and borderline reprehensible. This goes up just as high as the movement to change, or even do away with the Electoral College. It was there for a reason, and the US is intentionally a Republic rather than a pure Democracy. A single state should not be able to sway an entire election, which is the goal of the movement (California, which is the state in the worst shape in the entire nation for a reason).
What does need to change in the Constitution is that we need term limits for all elected officials (Congress), and the Supreme Court, just like the President got thanks to FDR attempting to be an elected dictator (22nd Amendment for those still reading). That should help to weed out corruption by preventing it from sticking around too long, enabling do-gooders (probably the majority of politicians initially, on both sides) to get in and do good until the lobbyists have had time to both corrupt and own them. There will obviously be corrupt individuals still seeping through the cracks, but this should help to get them out sooner rather than when they die or retire.
The movie industry limits the streaming so that we, as consumers, cannot rapid-fire watch a bunch of streams. It also definitely limits how many people can simultaneously watch a movie using the same service. Netflix lets you use the same account with multiple devices (I believe 5?) with streaming.
That could easily be 5 different people in 5 different houses. Now, since I know that people simply queue up DVDs and rip them as they come in, I don't think this really stops anything, but no one has ever claimed that the movie industry is either accepting of technology or simply reasonable with its customers. After all, it's awfully hard to argue with a cartel.
I think this has more to do with the fear of innovation and the lowered profit margins than anything else. After all, it's harder to convince people it's worth $20 for a movie they can download compared to a DVD. Of course, standard economics may prove that the sheer number of people that would rather spend $5 to download a movie (and then download more movies as a result) would gain them a lot more money, but this is turning into a circular discussion of their unreasonable nature and fear of technology (not to mention "Hollywood accounting").
No, they had provided a new, streaming only option in addition to unlimited streaming + N DVDs. They also raised the price of that plan by a dollar or two. Now, they're completely separating the two services, and increasing the price almost by factor of two if you want both. Looks like I'll be watching less DVDs and getting them randomly from RedBox when I do want one.
As it was, I watched about 2-4 DVDs per month. The $4 that would cost me at RedBox is less than the $8 it will now cost me on Netflix. So, Netflix just lost half of a customer, as I will stick around for the streaming. Shame.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha. Throw in logic, and it brings up this. The funny thing is that I am typing this from Google Chrome, with Google as the default search engine.
Boo hoo. I have a brain and can think reasonably. I'm only surprised you didn't use "M$" throughout your post.
My own "damn link" literally says, quote:
[emphasis mine]
And frankly, the only thing that prevents me from using Bing is it's code searching. It really does not handle queries related to code well at all. Everything else seems pretty much even with Google. Unfortunately for Microsoft, I use Google as my default because of that limitation.
See quote from my original post, which you responded to:
It even has a reference link.
Oops. Guess math works.
What incentive does Microsoft have to ceding search (and search related ads) to Google? It has nearly 30% US marketshare and it's growing (combined with Yahoo, which uses Bing for its backend).
When Bing first launched, Bing scared Google and forced them to start innovating again. Competition is good after all. Even if Bing dies off, I see no advantage, as a consumer, to have Bing disappear. I also see no advantage, for (not as) an investor to cede that entire domain to one of their two biggest competitors. Throw away the entire investment that has signs of paying off in the future, and give a major investor even more money to play with to cut into your market? That's really the best idea?
Having some competition certainly helps spur production and innovation. After all, Windows Vista took so long because they had no serious competition until OS X started seriously stealing the spotlight. Apple gave them a good reason to produce faster, and at a higher quality (Windows 7).
It's not going to happen. People keep hoping that it does to fit their old, draconian image of Microsoft.
Microsoft wants people developing in C#. It helps them. It's not like that 1% is going to even affect them. Mono is a surprisingly good platform that Linux zealots blindingly refuse to use just because it has links to Microsoft. I would be far more afraid to use any variant of Java than I would to be using any variant of .NET. And I say that as a day-to-day, primarily Java developer.
Good luck suing someone that you have publicly stated that you will not sue, for the reason that you told them you won't sue them. Even in East Texas, that wouldn't go very far.
Fortunately for me, I'm not a failure and I'll even have my Master's from a top, in-class (real) university in December, so I'm not fundamentally anti-academic. I can't really say the same for most of the teachers that I have had the displeasure of being taught by over the years.
Sometimes, the truth just hurts.
Interesting. I didn't notice those, but I'll admit that I gave up after a few pages.
Not even remotely comparable. I have Amazon Prime, and since I get access to their instant video catalog, I decided to give it a shot. I literally cannot remember a single video that I actually wanted to watch.
The current collection is terrible. I am sure that there are some niches filled there, but they have few, if any licenses to stream online for now.
That's probably one of the most interesting, and scarily accurate descriptions of the power vacuum that consumes a lot of teachers. The only thing you neglected was that they earn near the six-figure mark while getting at least most of the summer off as well.
Maybe their mail server's hard drive filled up again? Only instead of spamming, they now simply don't send emails...?
Either way, Google+ is coming out to be far worse than Facebook. Facebook doesn't hold my email.
So you are suggesting that comparing Exchange performance being rough before Windows 2000 came out to today's standards using today's software, even on old hardware, is a remotely fair comparison? The person is clearly taking old, probably second-hand knowledge and comparing it to questionably current knowledge. Frankly, that's ridiculous, regardless of what system you are comparing.
While we're at it, why don't we compare the original ~128 GB spinning disc hard drives to Intel's latest 128 GB SSD.
I'm also confused by the mocking "ship with bugs and patch later" shot, as I doubt you are using OpenBSD. Both open source and commercial products live on that model because, eventually, you simply have to ship (see Firefox). In many cases, you don't realize you have bugs until a million users start using it.
As you put it, people should only be using OpenBSD. Feel free to hate a company, project or even a person. But, try and be reasonable about it because, otherwise, you will inevitably miss a something significant simply out of spite.
This is the exact reason that I have so far avoided Google+. I use Gmail and I love it, but I am not about to give the biggest online ad presence even more access to my private life by actively showing them both my real, and online friends. They have enough from "generically" scanning my email and serving me ads.
Add in the prospect of something stupid like having your Google+ account sinking your Gmail account, and that's more than enough reason to ban Google+ from sites that I ever plan to use. As much as I hate Facebook, at least if I lose my account, then I am not hosed in any ways except maybe losing the hand full of petty pictures that I have there unsaved. It sounds like the grass really isn't any greener on the Google+ side of the fence in terms of customer service (unlisted reasons, just like Facebook), which I have never heard good things about Google with respect to anyway.
And it's terribly slow by comparison to the other options. Even according to their own research.
You implied every single point to suggest the system was rigged only to protect the rich, as you intentionally rigged up the straw man yourself. You literally attacked my counter points because they provided a much broader example usage than you did.
Entirely to scam people both with and without bank accounts. Often people go to those places to hide money from their spouse as well; if the money never hits the bank account, then the spouse never knows it exists.
You either don't understand what a straw man is, or you think it's only okay to use when you're arguing (likely because that's the only way you can make points).
All involved lawyers should be disbarred. Not only for the initial, in-bad-faith filing, but also for abusing the legal system with in-bad-faith DMCA letters.
What?
The police exist to protect people as well. I guess without factories, then there would be no rape, assault, theft or murder.
Then they do not have a single bank account (see FDIC), which is highly unlikely.
Many people that do not pay taxes live in free, or highly subsidized government housing (e.g., paid for by taxes). This building/house will also be insured. Government housing is also not always the slums that it is trumped up to be, particularly when referring to subsidized housing.
I guess they're not looking for work. Not going to work. Not going to the grocery store. Not having food/groceries delivered. Not going to school.
That's all the legal system is for? I suppose they can't sue corporations. No one has ever sued, say McDonald's, for spilling coffee on themselves.
Every single point that you made is downright stupid. Go enjoy justifying stealing from people. I suppose it will be easy, as the police aren't there to stop it from happening in your world.
I am not posting this to necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but growing popularity definitely does not correlate to effectiveness. After all, there are a lot of stupid people out there that will fall for anything, such as the less-reputable side of any business.
A few years back, my brother was hit by a reckless driver, and my brother's car was thrown into a tree. Long-story-short, he had nasty back problems for a long time. However, he went and saw a chiropractor, which absolutely helped him (combined with healthy eating and rigorous exercise regiments). I doubt he's 100%, but he's probably in the 90+%.
Still, just as there is one positive example, I am sure that there are numerous counter examples. Of course, that's not to say that there aren't an equal number of problems with traditional medicine (especially among general practitioners that get forced to do everything, as I found out last year).
The principle of the idea is sound, but the implications of them being--ironically--spammed to hide real problems is probably not appealing to them.
This is almost certainly true, but the features simply came out at the same time due to their relationship, and having your password brute forced is not a requirement to having your account flagged by your friend.
Only if you had the entire list of passwords. And, even then, it's a predefined list of common passwords: why wouldn't a cracker try them?
Any password cracker absolutely would. A banned, "common" password will never be the best option. A long password phrase always will be.
He was tricked into releasing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of classified documents. There is absolutely no way that he could confirmed that none of them contained names and locations of people helping to fight terrorism (which many did, although a lot was scrubbed by WikiLeaks, and not by him).
There is no question that he committed treason.
Our security and relationships were absolutely placed in jeopardy. How people do not feel any long term negative effects will result from the release of the diplomatic cables alone is beyond me. I will not pretend that I have read every piece coming from WikiLeaks, but some did contain operational details do put the people out there in danger.
The truth is, Bradley Manning was, and is an idiot. He was willingly tricked, through encouragement, into releasing these documents by someone that knew that they were not going to feel the burden of the law within the US.
The first is an interesting option that I had not considered, but I am not sure how realistic of a problem it is. After all, you cannot vote for the same President for a third term anymore.
I am not convinced that creating a near-guaranteed one-term position for two years (House) or six years (Senate) is actually better than presenting term limits that eventually create a similar, but staggered situation. In particular, I see very little reason for a one-term politician to not be corrupt and bring home as much pork as possible because that's the only way they would be well known enough to stay in office. It would lead every politician to force their name into the news by any means necessary, which most likely means bringing home some pork.
You would see a lot of what happened after the election last year. Big decisions made by politicians that had lost the election that went against their constituents clear desires, but were still around until the new terms started. I feel like that would simply be the way with practically everyone serving single terms. At least with term limits, that lacking fear of reprisal is staggered, and they could be shoveled out in a timely manner.
Ah yes, because in the US it is frequent for asians, blacks and latinos to be questioned, beaten or shot for carrying a telescope. American police are regularly overzealous, and many times they are just downright stupid, but I have never once heard of someone struggling to explain telescopes. In fact, I used to live near a mountain peak that was frequented by all kinds of people for amateur astronomy without problems from the police. And the police were pretty stupid in that city.
This type of fear and expectation of racism that many people present breeds racism itself. It absolutely causes tensions that otherwise would not exist.
Yes, it is. The clear liberal slant of each idea shows why you should not rewrite the document on a whim just because others are doing it: bias. I don't know of a single state that actually blocks any of the enumerated items you listed, and none of them are privacy concerns as noted by an AC. I do know plenty of states that are against it though (particularly abortion).
The sheepish, follower mentality represented within the entire idea of rewriting the Constitution is naive and borderline reprehensible. This goes up just as high as the movement to change, or even do away with the Electoral College. It was there for a reason, and the US is intentionally a Republic rather than a pure Democracy. A single state should not be able to sway an entire election, which is the goal of the movement (California, which is the state in the worst shape in the entire nation for a reason).
What does need to change in the Constitution is that we need term limits for all elected officials (Congress), and the Supreme Court, just like the President got thanks to FDR attempting to be an elected dictator (22nd Amendment for those still reading). That should help to weed out corruption by preventing it from sticking around too long, enabling do-gooders (probably the majority of politicians initially, on both sides) to get in and do good until the lobbyists have had time to both corrupt and own them. There will obviously be corrupt individuals still seeping through the cracks, but this should help to get them out sooner rather than when they die or retire.
The movie industry limits the streaming so that we, as consumers, cannot rapid-fire watch a bunch of streams. It also definitely limits how many people can simultaneously watch a movie using the same service. Netflix lets you use the same account with multiple devices (I believe 5?) with streaming.
That could easily be 5 different people in 5 different houses. Now, since I know that people simply queue up DVDs and rip them as they come in, I don't think this really stops anything, but no one has ever claimed that the movie industry is either accepting of technology or simply reasonable with its customers. After all, it's awfully hard to argue with a cartel.
I think this has more to do with the fear of innovation and the lowered profit margins than anything else. After all, it's harder to convince people it's worth $20 for a movie they can download compared to a DVD. Of course, standard economics may prove that the sheer number of people that would rather spend $5 to download a movie (and then download more movies as a result) would gain them a lot more money, but this is turning into a circular discussion of their unreasonable nature and fear of technology (not to mention "Hollywood accounting").
No, they had provided a new, streaming only option in addition to unlimited streaming + N DVDs. They also raised the price of that plan by a dollar or two. Now, they're completely separating the two services, and increasing the price almost by factor of two if you want both. Looks like I'll be watching less DVDs and getting them randomly from RedBox when I do want one.
As it was, I watched about 2-4 DVDs per month. The $4 that would cost me at RedBox is less than the $8 it will now cost me on Netflix. So, Netflix just lost half of a customer, as I will stick around for the streaming. Shame.