I think it's also the case that these figures probably largely include general, rather than targeted. Remember - it's in the Pentagon's best interest for America to be under threat. It means more money, more respect and more, er, money.;)
The fact that the source of these attacks isn't concealed might also mean that... However, it doesn't need to mean that. After all, the US military might be run by a bunch of short-sighted politicians that don't listen to what their military advisors tell them, and they might bleed billions through dubious supply deals, but they're not a complete load of idiots. Even if China attempted to hide attacks, the US would ferret it out. I'm not sure anyone is in the same league as the NSA, for example. All hiding the attacks would do is make it look like China is serious. Doing it fairly openly is classic Chinese psychology: they're openly demonstrating the position of strength they are in vs. a US that has (stupidly, imo) committed its military resources heavily in the Iraq, squandered a lot of the tolerance and good will of the people of the USA for countenancing military action and, far more significantly than that, is driving home the point that economic retaliation by the US would be mutually assured destruction.
Given the source for all this information is from parties with a reason to enhance the public perception of threat, we have to regard it as dubious. However, that attacks have an obvious origin, isn't conclusive either way.
They either want to eliminate guns out of blind fear or out of some sort of socialist/totalitarian agenda.
What the shuddering fuck is it with the US indoctrination about Evil Socialism? Socialism is an economic model focusing on public ownership. It has NO implications for gun ownership for or against.
There's a few sad exceptions I know of - all to do with the British arms industry. Last year, BAE was being investigated for bribery to a Saudi Prince (well known corrupt tosser Prince Bandar, but the British Government intervened directly to halt the investigation. Everybody and their dog knows that BAE are guilty - and the bribes amount to US$2bn. TheNew Labour government would eat poo if BAE Systems told them to. They have no pride where that company is concerned.
But where are all the signs that say he's watching?
I can't speak for Chicago, but in London there are posters like these. I'm not kidding with you - they're actually real. Someone in power has a sick sense of humour and a lot of confidence in what they can get away with.
I don't want a camera in my office. We don't need to aim for equivalency. They work for us. And that's a feed line for someone to race in and make a joke, I know. But the moment we start realising that again, is the moment that we start being pissed off when they go against our interests and taking real action against such behaviour.
As far as the health care thing, the proposed health care "reform" is worse than the current, it would seem...
I suspect that may well be true. And this is speaking as someone who used to work in a socialist health care system and approves of the model. I think (though its hard to tell when the proposal is over a thousand pages long) that what is being pushed in this bill is not socialist health care, nor privatised health care, but public money being ploughed into privatised health care for whatever sense that means. And not in a simple sense of a government hiring private companies to fulfill needs, but in a byzantine "where did the money go" sort of subsidisation of private industry.
I only have time for a quick reply and wont be online for a few days, so I'll just comment on a couple of points.
It brings up, hm, feelings of injustice.
Several points in your post such as this indicate that the benefit of imprisonment to you is that it makes you (as you put yourself in the role of the victim) feel better. I'm not sure revenge is a motive for imprisonment that I agree with necessarily. I'm more in favour of restitution than imprisonment which only turns out people far worse than they went in for the most part, as well as often forcing them into the very circumstances when they come out, that led them to commit the crimes for which they were put in. It's not easy building a life after prison which is a strong contributing factor to repeat offenses. I suspect from your post that you see a large difference between yourself and criminals, whereas I see the difference between criminals and non-criminals to be in large part the circumstances people find themselves in. You may disagree but if that's the case, you must explain the disparity in crime rates between different demographics to me.
I personally don't think people in prisons should be allowed to simply live off taxpayers
This is prejudicial language. These people are not "allowed" to live off taxpayers. They are forced to do so. You would find very few indeed that wouldn't stop doing this and leave were they allowed to. It is a common complaint that prisoners get to live off taxpayers but it is logically incorrect to blame someone for that which you yourself force upon them.
Thirdly, you talk in the abstract but draw conclusions in the specific. Repeatedly you illustrate how bad prisoners are with reference to rapists and murders, but apply consequences to everyone. You need to consider what portion of inmates are actually there for such crimes as opposed to those who are in for theft, drug use, and other less emotive things. My point is that prison produces worse criminals than they otherwise would be and this is backed up by numerous studies. To refute it, you need to do more than refer to a specific subset of criminals and say that they are already bad. If you wish to draw a distinction between different groups of prisoners, that is a different matter and you may find me in some agreement with you. The usefulness of prisons to my mind, is primarily in those cases where they protect others from someone that would almost certainly commit further crimes.
I would write more, but don't have the time.
Regards,
H.
Your views are fine. Socialism can work well. Capitalism can also work well. But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad. What you have in the USA today is a debased form of capitalism. What's capitalist about giving enormous amounts of public money to the banks for example? Nothing. The manipulations the federal reserve engages in... You're better off with a low-corruption government that carries out socialist policies than you are with a corrupt "capitalist" one. Because the more it is corrupt, the less it is a model of a workable system (socialism or capitalism) and the more it is a model of redirecting wealth to the powerful. Whatever your preference for economic structuring, you need to clean house. It's true here in the UK and I think it's true in the USA also. And to do this, we need to first make sure we have the power to do so and by preventing the corrupt from having too much power over us.
Then you're free to build a capitalist utopia. (I recommend yoinking a socialist health care model, though. You're paying through the nose with your insurance based model).
Are you telling me you can't think of people you know that you wouldn't want being able to follow you everywhere about your daily business or track down where you are or were at any time? And who with? Are you telling me you don't know anyone who wouldn't be vulnerable because of that?
Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...
Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.
Chicago has been violating the civil rights of it's residents for years in ways that are far more obnoxious than recording public spaces. What makes you think the good people of the windy city are going to grow a backbone at this point?
If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.
What if you want to do something illegal? What if something you do is made illegal? What if you want to do something that isn't illegal but is disliked or held against you by others, including those in power. What if the government starts doing things that you disapprove of and you want to discuss it with people but you know everywhere you go and everyone who comes round is monitored and recorded. What if you have an affair? What if your partner has an affair? What if a policeman has a grudge against you? What if the minimum wage lad paid to watch the cameras has a grudge against you? What about when all these things don't apply only to you, but to your neighbours and your friends and your family until everyone is living with the knowledge that they're being watched all the time or at any time? Do you think the climate of fear and of being judged the whole time wouldn't stifle life? Look at what has gone on in even such a blessed country as the USA just in the last half-decade and consider the use constant surveillance would make if the government wasn't your friend (or more precisely, if you didn't consider the government your friend).
You acknowledge that the cameras grant power to the authorities. Consider also that the abuse of authority proceeds to whatever extent it is able to get away with. Permit authority to establish increased power over yourself, and expect that power to be taken advantage of.
If you want to understand why many of us dislike the cameras, just realise that we (a) consider the removal of our privacy to be a threat to our lives and freedom, and (b) are the sort of people who are always looking over our shoulder at history and seeing what dark periods we have had to fight our way out of each time we allowed the steady encroachment of forces establishing power over ourselves.
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
I'm not going to dig all day, there are others, you don't think the press on this was accidental do you?
Dig all day? We've seen one claim from you that the results for "Least Secure OS" are skewed, when the initial results of both Google and Bing are identical. We've also seen you complain that when you type "Google" into Bing, you don't get the results you want (which apparently are something other than Google). Here for all to see are the comparison results: http://yfrog.com/5hgooglevbingp. I think the one on the left actually looks less cluttered and I like the way all the popular Google services are neatly collated for you at the top. So yes, as you're the one making accusations of conspiracy and saying how many instances of this there are, you do have to do more digging if you want to convince anyone.
You seem incredulous that people think the press on this was "accidental". It's just a news story. Either you're saying that the results aren't true and that Bing doesn't have 10%, or you think this isn't newsworthy. If you have evidence to disprove the former, bring it. If you don't think the latter, don't bother posting.
I think you're actually a Microsoft shill trying to push people into arguing the benefits of Bing by posting such easily refutable arguments against it. It's more plausible than someone actually saying these things because they believe them. Am I right?
the results of the search "least secure os" are not the same in bing and google. Why don't you stop misrepresenting your answer with false information?
Seeing as you can't be arsed to check the truth of what you're saying yourself, I'll post the links here for everyone to try, though I see other people have also been posting that the results are the same...
Here are the results in Bing: http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+OS
Here are the results in Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=least+secure+OS
And the first results in both are the story about Linux being the least secure OS. After that the order of the remaining first page results gets shuffled aroud slightly, but are mostly the same. They first vary at result number 3 where Google reports that Microsoft might be the most secure OS and Bing reports that Vista 7 might be the least secure OS ever. So we have two possibilities - either you have some bizarre distortion in your query results, e.g. your searching in a variant site, e.g. google.cz or something, or you're just spewing FUD. What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this? Multiple people are pointing out that you're lying and anyone can verify it for themselves by clicking the above links.
If you type google into bing, no, you don't get a whole lot of results. You have to expand to add more. All it defaults to is just google and the linked basic google pages. Read my comment above. That's not what I'm looking for when I look for google. Likewise with Microsoft.
You said you get ONE result. Now you admit that you get more, but you say that when you type in Google, you're not looking for Google. So what are you looking for that you expect Bing to magically bring to you? Bing displays by default (maybe you have fucked around with your preferences), a neat collection of all the popular Google services, helpfully laid out at the start, followed by a few links to Google itself, and then some organised categories following that such as Google Downloads, Google Jobs, Google Company Background.
If you want something more specific than that, such as Google Shareprice, then why don't you type in "Google Shareprice" or whatever. Honestly, you're making yourself look like an idiot and if your aim is to discredit Bing, you're having the exact opposite effect as you're getting a lot of people to test your claims and some of them thinking, "actually, that looks quite nice".
I think you're a shill, but I think you're a Microsoft one! You deliberately represent anti-Microsoft types as name calling troll types as a principle of reverse psychology to discredit the real anti-Microsoft types. Am I right? Don't worry - I know you can't actually confess to it, but I reckon I am.
I don't really game - I have played a few. I'm curious as to relative performance. Where do modern consoles sit on the scale of PC gaming performance? I assume they're not out an out superior. Is a PS3 for example, equivalent to a dual core 2.5GHz processor with a HD4830 and 2GB of RAM? Better? Worse? Xbox 360, etc? I'm just trying to get a rough feel for this.
why don't you read my other comments buddy, I have plenty of links to MS skewing. the "where's your cites" thing is a waste of my time. I'll copy my own cites from my other comments. Oh right, here it is. http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+os&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&adlt=strict . How's that? I can add cites for everything I've done, but then again I don't need to.
That's your evidence of conspiracy behind Bing? If you enter the same search term into Google "Least Secure OS" then you get the same 'Linux' result as #1 that Bing gives you. The rest of the initial results are all similar too. Yahoo is slightly different - they drop the same 'Linux' result down to third position. So in summary - your citation has just been quickly discredited.
Very few results = 1. search for google on bing (just the word), and there is 1 result unless you hit show more. How many is 1. It's not 202 million, you putz. Counting is good, you know. Even the word Microsoft on bing shows more results. Remind me, do tell. Or remind me that there might be things I want other than just google's homepage when I search for google?
What are you talking about? I just typed "Google" into Bing and got a page full of results. Not 1. And the results are actually pretty useful. I get Google itself as the promoted top match, quickly followed by links to Google Maps, Google software, et al. And really, when you're comparing numbers above what a human would ever look through, does it matter whether the results number 200 million or 2000 million. A search engine's usefulness is the appropriateness of the first few pages of its results.
I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid,
If you're going to have a go at someone for inflammatory language and trolling, you should probably cut back on statements like this.
Left to my own impressions, I would have assumed this was subtle humour. But you've been modded Insightful so clearly some people regard it as a valid point. So I'll deconstruct it regardless.
Well, one is tempted to mention the fact that Bing has been made only for the purpose of stealing users and customers from Google
Created for the purpose of stealing Google's customers is logically flawed (though I'm sure you know that). It presupposes that Google has some a priori right to these people and that it is wrong for another company to lure them away. Secondly given that we are seeing things from the customers' point of view (because that's what we are), we see no harm to ourselves in moving to a different provider if we are given a better product. In short, this statement is not a criticism that can be levelled at Microsoft, it's just a double standard.
who built a search engine for the purpose of making information more accessible and easy to find. It just happened to be a fantastic business idea as well...
And to steal customers from Yahoo, of course.;) But we'll leave the double standard critiques. I don't believe that anything on the scale of Google "just happened". There was a business model all along. But really it's irrelevant. If the comment above is a criticism, which from phrasing and context it must be, then it's implying that there is something inherently more wicked about something being a business idea, which is a notion I reject. You don't get moral superiority over business rivals because you don't want to make money (not that Google aren't after every penny they can get. They censor web results in China after all which is suggestive of priorities).
Therefore at least one reason Bing is piece of crap is because of it's evilness!
"Crap" in the context of this discussion has clearly been along the axis of Good-Bad, not Moral-Immoral. Prejudice against Microsoft has no logical impact on whether their product is actually good or not. Though reading through the Slashdot comments, that thought is clearly lost on many.
If people want to make the case that Bing is worse than Google, they should do so by giving factual examples: real world searches carried out in both search engines which illustrate more appropriate results from one search engine than another.
Odd. I have either the 4830 or 4850 (I can't remember which) and it's working fine under Linux (I use the proprietary drivers). Oh well, sorry to hear that. I should have known when I said support was good I'd immediately get posts from people who'd had problems. Hopefully they'll resolve your issues soon. The release cycle seems pretty fast - certainly far, far better than it used to be.
Are you kidding? Driver support for Radeon is excellent now - better than NVIDIA. And it's continuing to improve. I think there are some older cards that are still badly supported.
Or just show them this re-edit of the 2012 trailer: link. It's pretty much impossible to take the film seriously after seeing that. (Assuming you were inclined to take the film seriously in the first place).
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's also the case that these figures probably largely include general, rather than targeted. Remember - it's in the Pentagon's best interest for America to be under threat. It means more money, more respect and more, er, money.
The fact that the source of these attacks isn't concealed might also mean that... However, it doesn't need to mean that. After all, the US military might be run by a bunch of short-sighted politicians that don't listen to what their military advisors tell them, and they might bleed billions through dubious supply deals, but they're not a complete load of idiots. Even if China attempted to hide attacks, the US would ferret it out. I'm not sure anyone is in the same league as the NSA, for example. All hiding the attacks would do is make it look like China is serious. Doing it fairly openly is classic Chinese psychology: they're openly demonstrating the position of strength they are in vs. a US that has (stupidly, imo) committed its military resources heavily in the Iraq, squandered a lot of the tolerance and good will of the people of the USA for countenancing military action and, far more significantly than that, is driving home the point that economic retaliation by the US would be mutually assured destruction.
Given the source for all this information is from parties with a reason to enhance the public perception of threat, we have to regard it as dubious. However, that attacks have an obvious origin, isn't conclusive either way.
What the shuddering fuck is it with the US indoctrination about Evil Socialism? Socialism is an economic model focusing on public ownership. It has NO implications for gun ownership for or against.
There's a few sad exceptions I know of - all to do with the British arms industry. Last year, BAE was being investigated for bribery to a Saudi Prince (well known corrupt tosser Prince Bandar, but the British Government intervened directly to halt the investigation. Everybody and their dog knows that BAE are guilty - and the bribes amount to US$2bn. TheNew Labour government would eat poo if BAE Systems told them to. They have no pride where that company is concerned.
I can't speak for Chicago, but in London there are posters like these. I'm not kidding with you - they're actually real. Someone in power has a sick sense of humour and a lot of confidence in what they can get away with.
I don't want a camera in my office. We don't need to aim for equivalency. They work for us. And that's a feed line for someone to race in and make a joke, I know. But the moment we start realising that again, is the moment that we start being pissed off when they go against our interests and taking real action against such behaviour.
I suspect that may well be true. And this is speaking as someone who used to work in a socialist health care system and approves of the model. I think (though its hard to tell when the proposal is over a thousand pages long) that what is being pushed in this bill is not socialist health care, nor privatised health care, but public money being ploughed into privatised health care for whatever sense that means. And not in a simple sense of a government hiring private companies to fulfill needs, but in a byzantine "where did the money go" sort of subsidisation of private industry.
I only have time for a quick reply and wont be online for a few days, so I'll just comment on a couple of points.
Several points in your post such as this indicate that the benefit of imprisonment to you is that it makes you (as you put yourself in the role of the victim) feel better. I'm not sure revenge is a motive for imprisonment that I agree with necessarily. I'm more in favour of restitution than imprisonment which only turns out people far worse than they went in for the most part, as well as often forcing them into the very circumstances when they come out, that led them to commit the crimes for which they were put in. It's not easy building a life after prison which is a strong contributing factor to repeat offenses. I suspect from your post that you see a large difference between yourself and criminals, whereas I see the difference between criminals and non-criminals to be in large part the circumstances people find themselves in. You may disagree but if that's the case, you must explain the disparity in crime rates between different demographics to me.
This is prejudicial language. These people are not "allowed" to live off taxpayers. They are forced to do so. You would find very few indeed that wouldn't stop doing this and leave were they allowed to. It is a common complaint that prisoners get to live off taxpayers but it is logically incorrect to blame someone for that which you yourself force upon them.
Thirdly, you talk in the abstract but draw conclusions in the specific. Repeatedly you illustrate how bad prisoners are with reference to rapists and murders, but apply consequences to everyone. You need to consider what portion of inmates are actually there for such crimes as opposed to those who are in for theft, drug use, and other less emotive things. My point is that prison produces worse criminals than they otherwise would be and this is backed up by numerous studies. To refute it, you need to do more than refer to a specific subset of criminals and say that they are already bad. If you wish to draw a distinction between different groups of prisoners, that is a different matter and you may find me in some agreement with you. The usefulness of prisons to my mind, is primarily in those cases where they protect others from someone that would almost certainly commit further crimes.
I would write more, but don't have the time.
Regards,
H.
Your views are fine. Socialism can work well. Capitalism can also work well. But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad. What you have in the USA today is a debased form of capitalism. What's capitalist about giving enormous amounts of public money to the banks for example? Nothing. The manipulations the federal reserve engages in... You're better off with a low-corruption government that carries out socialist policies than you are with a corrupt "capitalist" one. Because the more it is corrupt, the less it is a model of a workable system (socialism or capitalism) and the more it is a model of redirecting wealth to the powerful. Whatever your preference for economic structuring, you need to clean house. It's true here in the UK and I think it's true in the USA also. And to do this, we need to first make sure we have the power to do so and by preventing the corrupt from having too much power over us.
Then you're free to build a capitalist utopia. (I recommend yoinking a socialist health care model, though. You're paying through the nose with your insurance based model).
Are you telling me you can't think of people you know that you wouldn't want being able to follow you everywhere about your daily business or track down where you are or were at any time? And who with? Are you telling me you don't know anyone who wouldn't be vulnerable because of that?
Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.
Hope?
What if you want to do something illegal? What if something you do is made illegal? What if you want to do something that isn't illegal but is disliked or held against you by others, including those in power. What if the government starts doing things that you disapprove of and you want to discuss it with people but you know everywhere you go and everyone who comes round is monitored and recorded. What if you have an affair? What if your partner has an affair? What if a policeman has a grudge against you? What if the minimum wage lad paid to watch the cameras has a grudge against you? What about when all these things don't apply only to you, but to your neighbours and your friends and your family until everyone is living with the knowledge that they're being watched all the time or at any time? Do you think the climate of fear and of being judged the whole time wouldn't stifle life? Look at what has gone on in even such a blessed country as the USA just in the last half-decade and consider the use constant surveillance would make if the government wasn't your friend (or more precisely, if you didn't consider the government your friend).
You acknowledge that the cameras grant power to the authorities. Consider also that the abuse of authority proceeds to whatever extent it is able to get away with. Permit authority to establish increased power over yourself, and expect that power to be taken advantage of.
If you want to understand why many of us dislike the cameras, just realise that we (a) consider the removal of our privacy to be a threat to our lives and freedom, and (b) are the sort of people who are always looking over our shoulder at history and seeing what dark periods we have had to fight our way out of each time we allowed the steady encroachment of forces establishing power over ourselves.
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
Dig all day? We've seen one claim from you that the results for "Least Secure OS" are skewed, when the initial results of both Google and Bing are identical. We've also seen you complain that when you type "Google" into Bing, you don't get the results you want (which apparently are something other than Google). Here for all to see are the comparison results: http://yfrog.com/5hgooglevbingp. I think the one on the left actually looks less cluttered and I like the way all the popular Google services are neatly collated for you at the top. So yes, as you're the one making accusations of conspiracy and saying how many instances of this there are, you do have to do more digging if you want to convince anyone.
You seem incredulous that people think the press on this was "accidental". It's just a news story. Either you're saying that the results aren't true and that Bing doesn't have 10%, or you think this isn't newsworthy. If you have evidence to disprove the former, bring it. If you don't think the latter, don't bother posting.
I think you're actually a Microsoft shill trying to push people into arguing the benefits of Bing by posting such easily refutable arguments against it. It's more plausible than someone actually saying these things because they believe them. Am I right?
Seeing as you can't be arsed to check the truth of what you're saying yourself, I'll post the links here for everyone to try, though I see other people have also been posting that the results are the same...
Here are the results in Bing: http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+OS
Here are the results in Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=least+secure+OS
And the first results in both are the story about Linux being the least secure OS. After that the order of the remaining first page results gets shuffled aroud slightly, but are mostly the same. They first vary at result number 3 where Google reports that Microsoft might be the most secure OS and Bing reports that Vista 7 might be the least secure OS ever. So we have two possibilities - either you have some bizarre distortion in your query results, e.g. your searching in a variant site, e.g. google.cz or something, or you're just spewing FUD. What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this? Multiple people are pointing out that you're lying and anyone can verify it for themselves by clicking the above links.
You said you get ONE result. Now you admit that you get more, but you say that when you type in Google, you're not looking for Google. So what are you looking for that you expect Bing to magically bring to you? Bing displays by default (maybe you have fucked around with your preferences), a neat collection of all the popular Google services, helpfully laid out at the start, followed by a few links to Google itself, and then some organised categories following that such as Google Downloads, Google Jobs, Google Company Background.
If you want something more specific than that, such as Google Shareprice, then why don't you type in "Google Shareprice" or whatever. Honestly, you're making yourself look like an idiot and if your aim is to discredit Bing, you're having the exact opposite effect as you're getting a lot of people to test your claims and some of them thinking, "actually, that looks quite nice".
I think you're a shill, but I think you're a Microsoft one! You deliberately represent anti-Microsoft types as name calling troll types as a principle of reverse psychology to discredit the real anti-Microsoft types. Am I right? Don't worry - I know you can't actually confess to it, but I reckon I am.
I don't really game - I have played a few. I'm curious as to relative performance. Where do modern consoles sit on the scale of PC gaming performance? I assume they're not out an out superior. Is a PS3 for example, equivalent to a dual core 2.5GHz processor with a HD4830 and 2GB of RAM? Better? Worse? Xbox 360, etc? I'm just trying to get a rough feel for this.
Nelson? Is that you?
That's your evidence of conspiracy behind Bing? If you enter the same search term into Google "Least Secure OS" then you get the same 'Linux' result as #1 that Bing gives you. The rest of the initial results are all similar too. Yahoo is slightly different - they drop the same 'Linux' result down to third position. So in summary - your citation has just been quickly discredited.
What are you talking about? I just typed "Google" into Bing and got a page full of results. Not 1. And the results are actually pretty useful. I get Google itself as the promoted top match, quickly followed by links to Google Maps, Google software, et al. And really, when you're comparing numbers above what a human would ever look through, does it matter whether the results number 200 million or 2000 million. A search engine's usefulness is the appropriateness of the first few pages of its results.
If you're going to have a go at someone for inflammatory language and trolling, you should probably cut back on statements like this.
Regards,
H.
People who dress up little dogs in funny outfits. Definitely.
A current example, please?
Created for the purpose of stealing Google's customers is logically flawed (though I'm sure you know that). It presupposes that Google has some a priori right to these people and that it is wrong for another company to lure them away. Secondly given that we are seeing things from the customers' point of view (because that's what we are), we see no harm to ourselves in moving to a different provider if we are given a better product. In short, this statement is not a criticism that can be levelled at Microsoft, it's just a double standard.
And to steal customers from Yahoo, of course. ;) But we'll leave the double standard critiques. I don't believe that anything on the scale of Google "just happened". There was a business model all along. But really it's irrelevant. If the comment above is a criticism, which from phrasing and context it must be, then it's implying that there is something inherently more wicked about something being a business idea, which is a notion I reject. You don't get moral superiority over business rivals because you don't want to make money (not that Google aren't after every penny they can get. They censor web results in China after all which is suggestive of priorities).
"Crap" in the context of this discussion has clearly been along the axis of Good-Bad, not Moral-Immoral. Prejudice against Microsoft has no logical impact on whether their product is actually good or not. Though reading through the Slashdot comments, that thought is clearly lost on many.
If people want to make the case that Bing is worse than Google, they should do so by giving factual examples: real world searches carried out in both search engines which illustrate more appropriate results from one search engine than another.
Odd. I have either the 4830 or 4850 (I can't remember which) and it's working fine under Linux (I use the proprietary drivers). Oh well, sorry to hear that. I should have known when I said support was good I'd immediately get posts from people who'd had problems. Hopefully they'll resolve your issues soon. The release cycle seems pretty fast - certainly far, far better than it used to be.
Are you kidding? Driver support for Radeon is excellent now - better than NVIDIA. And it's continuing to improve. I think there are some older cards that are still badly supported.
Or just show them this re-edit of the 2012 trailer: link. It's pretty much impossible to take the film seriously after seeing that. (Assuming you were inclined to take the film seriously in the first place).