In the comparison I spoke about in my previous post, Yahoo actually did provide some relevant results which Google and Bing failed to show. But Yahoo also showed a lot more completely irrelevant results too. If I had to rate the three for my own test, it would be Google, Yahoo, and Bing as a far, far third. If were were to use a signal to noise analogy, it would be:
Google - Very high signal to noise ratio. Almost all signal. Almost no noise. The low noise is at the cost of some minor signal. Yahoo - Excellent signal to noise ratio. A lot more noise but also slightly more signal. For some result sets it may be worth it. Bing - Moderate signal to noise ratio. Lots and lots of noise with the exact same signal provided via Google. The end result is nothing but wasted time. If time is important to you, Google and Yahoo seem to do a far better job...at least for my informal test.
Agreed. I've used it a half dozen times now and compared the results against Google.
The first time I used Bing I got a lot of results which Google didn't even show. I thought, "Wow! Maybe Bing really is better." Then I really started looking at the results. Most all that Google didn't provide required translation. None provided any value. With the exception of the results that Google also provided, the extra results were nothing but garbage. Even after translation they provided no value.
Result - Google won every comparison. Google did a far better job of removing the superfluous, irrelevant, and downright unrelated. Bing provide far more results but all of the "far more" was nothing but garbage.
Once you consider that despite Bing's serious advertising campaign their traffic has already significantly fallen off and their results (at least for me) were far worse than what Google provides, I can't possibly see how Google is worried. In fact, this entire story smells of Microsoft paying for a story and placement. As I said before, MS is an excellent marketing company. They've been caught doing this type thing many times before. I can't imagine they are not doing is now - especially since they have so much riding on it.
How is this any different than any other phone which comes out for a carrier?
This sounds like iPhone users being users demanding free stuff for absolutely no reason. They sound like self entitled users.
The entire reason the carrier offers these deals is to bring new users to their network. Period. Once they have you on a contract they have zero incentive to offer a discount. Why even require a two year contract if they allow these users to upgrade at a discounted rate? Wouldn't they then be obligated to allow all of their users to upgrade their phones at any time for no cost? How does this make any sense?
Grow up people. You signed a contract. Why should you get an upgrade without paying for it? Why should you be excused from your contract?
Interestingly enough, after 9/11, when all air travel was halted, it was observed that temperatures actually went up because of far fewer, reflective contrails, which prevent some of the sun's energy from reaching the earth.
So its actually likely that fewer planes flying means higher temperatures for everyone. That in turn means more energy used by people to keep things cool. Once you add that in, it likely means the total cost of man flying is far, far cheaper than most ever realize.
And, in the end, those planes would still be emitting pollutants, probably worse than what we are doing right now. Not to mention, the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market.
Here's some interesting tidbits. Jet engines only reach peak efficiency at high altitudes; usually in the 30k-45k foot range. When at altitudes lower than their cruise, fuel consumption goes up. This means those commuter planes are generally a huge waste of fuel. This is also why you typically see turbo-prop planes used for commuter flights - as they are more efficient at lower altitudes. Interestingly enough, many light GA, single engine aircraft are actually far more efficient people movers than are turbo props - especially for hops less than three or four hundred miles.
Did you read what I posted? Obviously not based on the questions your asking.
Someone already provided links to the destroyer comment. Have you heard of something called search engines? Its really not that hard to look up things. Tell me, in conversation with people, when someone tells you something you didn't know, do you immediately demand they provide a link to you and walk off? People have become so incredibly lazy. Believe it or not, people had conversations before the Internet came along.
Just as the MS-destroyer comment was well publicized, so was the fact that MS was never on the approved OS list. Furthermore, the people who would approve OSs are also on the record stating the MS will never be approved. Additionally, even after it was found MS' OS was being deployed, these same people were also on record stating that MS' OS would never be able to meet their OS requirements without massive changes and rewrites to the core OS. Those changes never took place.
In other words, if MS is currently on the approved list of OS, you can rest assured its there ONLY because of mandate and not because of any qualification. That's because those that understand the situation do, in fact, see Microsoft's OSes as a national security threat. There are even other articles available stating this fact.
Long story short, if MS can't qualify and its unlikely they will ever be able to qualify, and given the DoD/Militarys horrible track record for these types of exceptions, its hardly a leap of faith (as implied in my original post) that large bribes are the sole qualification which allows Microsoft's OSes to be deployed as they are.
Take a look at what they've already done. They have already set up development centers in low labor cost countries like India and China. Moving more of those jobs out of the U.S. would just be a natural progression in the quest for lower costs. The worst part of this is that as time goes by the developers in those up and coming countries are getting just as good as their American counterparts. At some point we're looking at a hiring crisis here in America.
But that was under Bush's administration. Bush decided that no technology worker would be paid a fair salary (now competing with outsourced labor prices and illegal H1Bs) or receive overtime. Obama has said he will incur fees for outsourcing and tax breaks for those how don't. Should MS continue to do this, and Obama does anything he said he would (thus far he's mostly followed McCain's plan, or very closely so), MS will pay one way or another.
As a side note, has Obama actually done anything he said he would do? Has Obama done anything that McCain didn't say he would do? Has Obama given any speeches where he didn't steal from Bush?
Tell that to the IRS. Until the IRS is dismantled, insightful = uninformed or ignorant. I'm sure millions of US taxpayers are relieved to know they no longer are paying taxes. Even more so, I'm sure the self-employed are also happy to hear this nears.
Well I know that the Norwegian Military (particularly parts of the intelligence operations) decided that they would no longer trust or use Windows some years back.
That's likely because they either were not bribed or simply did not accept said bribe. Remember, in the US, MS' OS were put in place despite explicit regulations disallowing its use. Which is to say, it was not on the approve OS list for use which means it should have never been deployed. Yet somehow it magically happened. Endless factual accounts consistently proved every time this type thing happens, its because large bribes have been paid. If it were not for such bribery, its very unlikely MS would ever be in any system other than desktop and unclassified server systems.
One could even argue MS has taken the first step is destroying national security in the US. Hell, they've managed to take destroyers out of commission.
If you buy something and don't pay for it, do you own it? According to the law, "no!" That's the problem. What they do is very clearly fraud and extortion - yet they are allowed to do this stuff knowing full well they are screwing people. IMO, its likely allowed because these fraudulent practices go a long way toward creating a scarce commodity of what is really a row in a database.
And to be clear, I'm speaking in broader terms than the article. Some squatters, the vast minority, actually do own their domains. I'm not talking about these people.
Welcome to the world of ignorance. They don't own it. Period. That's the scam. You obviously need to go educate your self on how most of these squatters operate.
buy up desirable land and then try to sell it off later for a profit.
Most are not buying anything. They are demanding money for what is and should otherwise be free. They are scum and leeches on the Internet in the same way spammers are. Bullets are too good for them.
If you don't get it at this point, I can only assume you're a troll.
So are extortionists. Oh wait, that's what they are. The front grill of a car is the only thing good enough for these idiots.
I wish like hell someone would so something about these idiots and start charging normal prices for these idiots to park all these domains. People don't realize, in most cases, these idiots haven't even purchased the domain names. Rather, they buy them in bulk, don't pay, let them go back, and buy them again. Their tactics are in line with the mob. They are only one step above that of spammers. Scam and scum is an understatement.
heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called. That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.
People who vote for this only show they are complete idiots and have no clue what the hell the word, "war", means in the first place. Attempting to hold Bush and others as war criminals only means the world is full of war criminals. Furthermore, the famed legends of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam are also war criminals - as are all supporters of the "War On Drugs". Not to mention everyone behind every other conflict which has ever occurred in the world to date.
The simple truth is, the "crimes" Bush committed pale in comparison to those committed during every other significant world conflict. Now grow up and realize the world is not just and this course of action is nothing but a waste of time, money, and resources when there are so many other important issues which really matter. Hell, by extension, Obama is now a "war criminal." You willing to after him too?
but these have nothing to do with your typical UFO report
That's the trouble. These really are the "typical UFO report". Its the far exception which goes unexplained.
I do agree those radar videos released by various nations are intriguing. But given the period where they were observed, it is possible those were part of the US' advanced weapons programs.
Personally, I'm not intrigued by the really old depictions of UFOs in history, including references in both the Bible and various artwork - plus references in non-Christian countries to boot.
Do you think that military UFO reports from 60 years ago about objects flying at speeds and accelerations still unattainable today could be top secret government technology that would be kept under the wraps still 60 years after it's been implemented?
Yes. Many, many UFO reports were actually determined to be F117 reports. Keep in mind the F117 was basically conceived of in the 50s (radar experiments indicated it was possible), designed in the 60s (once math theory supported the concept) using slide rulers, built in the late 70s, and remained secret until the late 80s. For that entire time, it remained a secret.
Furthermore, look at aircraft like the XB-35 and the YB-35 (later the YB-49), which was designed conceived of in the early 40s and flew in the mid 40s. The B-2 is basically this aircraft (including dimensions) with computer controls to make it stable in all allowed attitudes. It was commonly reported as UFOs back then and while the B-2 was secret, it too was commonly reported at UFOs. This aircraft alone can explain a huge number of UFO sightings over the last 60 years. And yes, this aircraft is well know for looking like a saucer at various angles.
Furthermore, Kelly Johnson, of the famed Skunk Works program, is on record as saying, something along the lines of, if you think the aircraft of the Skunk Works program are advanced, the aircraft currently in development and flying look like science fiction, fifty to hundred years in the future. Which seemingly implies alternative propulsion and/or undreamed of airframes. Match a futuristic propulsion system with a futuristic airframe and you easily have every UFO report for the next hundred years - starting two decades ago.
As a rule of thumb you're looking at two to three decades from top secret inception to public disclosure. Do you really believe all top secret aircraft development halted at the disclosure of the B-2 program?
How can you compare something that costs $80,000 (plus running costs) to something that costs $800?
Its called an analogy - WHOSH!
Big expensive video card "with status" is to computer nerd that doesn't know any better as big expensive four wheeler "with status" is to wanna-be off-road driver that doesn't know any better. Seemed pretty cut and dry to me.
The point is, what technology has MS really innovated? I'm fairly sure collaborative software isn't a MS innovation. I'm not really familiar with that piece of software - so you may need to correct me here. Typically the items people offer have been acquisitions of other companies who have innovated. Rebranding and marketing is the business model of a marketing company, not a technology company.
Marketing and acquisition is now MS' primary focus - and has been for over a decade. And to be clear, I don't have a problem with that business model, but it doesn't make them a technology company as its no longer their core business focus. The fact that they are marketing technology is only a secondary consideration.
Attribution is fine, but in this case I think the newspapers are within their right to cooperate on this matter, because it's not price fixing if there are still going to be many free alternatives.
Sorry, I'm going to nit here. Price fixing is often used to force a cheaper solutions out of the market. It has frequently been used in the oil industry to prevent cheap oil refinery operation and even the construction of new refineries - despite the government's refusal to prosecute. In this case, we can say "free" is cheaper than non-free. As such, having a free alternative in no way, shape, or form, effects the qualification of price fixing. Besides, you said it your self, if the "free" stuff has no news (is crap), then free doesn't matter in the least and won't even enter the equation.
Microsoft is not a technology company. They have not been a technology company for well over a decade. Microsoft is, rather than a tech company, one of the world's most powerful marketing companies. They just happen to be a marketing company that does some development too.
I used to challenge people to name three MS technology innovations. To date, no one has been able to do it. True tech companies innovate.
There's no way in hell that Old English 800 [wikipedia.org] and Steel reserve [wikipedia.org] are just barley, hops, and yeast. They cause psychotropic effects similar to PCP.
Also, I did some quick searches, the only references I found to those products having psychotropic effects were from shroom sites just talking about drinking beer.
There are some drinks which have such effects but they normally come from distilled worm-wood or close cousins.
Slashdot Mirror
In the comparison I spoke about in my previous post, Yahoo actually did provide some relevant results which Google and Bing failed to show. But Yahoo also showed a lot more completely irrelevant results too. If I had to rate the three for my own test, it would be Google, Yahoo, and Bing as a far, far third. If were were to use a signal to noise analogy, it would be:
Google - Very high signal to noise ratio. Almost all signal. Almost no noise. The low noise is at the cost of some minor signal.
Yahoo - Excellent signal to noise ratio. A lot more noise but also slightly more signal. For some result sets it may be worth it.
Bing - Moderate signal to noise ratio. Lots and lots of noise with the exact same signal provided via Google. The end result is nothing but wasted time. If time is important to you, Google and Yahoo seem to do a far better job...at least for my informal test.
Agreed. I've used it a half dozen times now and compared the results against Google.
The first time I used Bing I got a lot of results which Google didn't even show. I thought, "Wow! Maybe Bing really is better." Then I really started looking at the results. Most all that Google didn't provide required translation. None provided any value. With the exception of the results that Google also provided, the extra results were nothing but garbage. Even after translation they provided no value.
Result - Google won every comparison. Google did a far better job of removing the superfluous, irrelevant, and downright unrelated. Bing provide far more results but all of the "far more" was nothing but garbage.
Once you consider that despite Bing's serious advertising campaign their traffic has already significantly fallen off and their results (at least for me) were far worse than what Google provides, I can't possibly see how Google is worried. In fact, this entire story smells of Microsoft paying for a story and placement. As I said before, MS is an excellent marketing company. They've been caught doing this type thing many times before. I can't imagine they are not doing is now - especially since they have so much riding on it.
...treatment?
How is this any different than any other phone which comes out for a carrier?
This sounds like iPhone users being users demanding free stuff for absolutely no reason. They sound like self entitled users.
The entire reason the carrier offers these deals is to bring new users to their network. Period. Once they have you on a contract they have zero incentive to offer a discount. Why even require a two year contract if they allow these users to upgrade at a discounted rate? Wouldn't they then be obligated to allow all of their users to upgrade their phones at any time for no cost? How does this make any sense?
Grow up people. You signed a contract. Why should you get an upgrade without paying for it? Why should you be excused from your contract?
Interestingly enough, after 9/11, when all air travel was halted, it was observed that temperatures actually went up because of far fewer, reflective contrails, which prevent some of the sun's energy from reaching the earth.
So its actually likely that fewer planes flying means higher temperatures for everyone. That in turn means more energy used by people to keep things cool. Once you add that in, it likely means the total cost of man flying is far, far cheaper than most ever realize.
And, in the end, those planes would still be emitting pollutants, probably worse than what we are doing right now. Not to mention, the trucks would still be around to get the groceries from the airport to the market.
Here's some interesting tidbits. Jet engines only reach peak efficiency at high altitudes; usually in the 30k-45k foot range. When at altitudes lower than their cruise, fuel consumption goes up. This means those commuter planes are generally a huge waste of fuel. This is also why you typically see turbo-prop planes used for commuter flights - as they are more efficient at lower altitudes. Interestingly enough, many light GA, single engine aircraft are actually far more efficient people movers than are turbo props - especially for hops less than three or four hundred miles.
Read the rest of the replies and learn to use a search engine. Holy shit people are lazy these days.
Did you read what I posted? Obviously not based on the questions your asking.
Someone already provided links to the destroyer comment. Have you heard of something called search engines? Its really not that hard to look up things. Tell me, in conversation with people, when someone tells you something you didn't know, do you immediately demand they provide a link to you and walk off? People have become so incredibly lazy. Believe it or not, people had conversations before the Internet came along.
Just as the MS-destroyer comment was well publicized, so was the fact that MS was never on the approved OS list. Furthermore, the people who would approve OSs are also on the record stating the MS will never be approved. Additionally, even after it was found MS' OS was being deployed, these same people were also on record stating that MS' OS would never be able to meet their OS requirements without massive changes and rewrites to the core OS. Those changes never took place.
In other words, if MS is currently on the approved list of OS, you can rest assured its there ONLY because of mandate and not because of any qualification. That's because those that understand the situation do, in fact, see Microsoft's OSes as a national security threat. There are even other articles available stating this fact.
Long story short, if MS can't qualify and its unlikely they will ever be able to qualify, and given the DoD/Militarys horrible track record for these types of exceptions, its hardly a leap of faith (as implied in my original post) that large bribes are the sole qualification which allows Microsoft's OSes to be deployed as they are.
Take a look at what they've already done. They have already set up development centers in low labor cost countries like India and China. Moving more of those jobs out of the U.S. would just be a natural progression in the quest for lower costs. The worst part of this is that as time goes by the developers in those up and coming countries are getting just as good as their American counterparts. At some point we're looking at a hiring crisis here in America.
But that was under Bush's administration. Bush decided that no technology worker would be paid a fair salary (now competing with outsourced labor prices and illegal H1Bs) or receive overtime. Obama has said he will incur fees for outsourcing and tax breaks for those how don't. Should MS continue to do this, and Obama does anything he said he would (thus far he's mostly followed McCain's plan, or very closely so), MS will pay one way or another.
As a side note, has Obama actually done anything he said he would do? Has Obama done anything that McCain didn't say he would do? Has Obama given any speeches where he didn't steal from Bush?
Tell that to the IRS. Until the IRS is dismantled, insightful = uninformed or ignorant. I'm sure millions of US taxpayers are relieved to know they no longer are paying taxes. Even more so, I'm sure the self-employed are also happy to hear this nears.
Well I know that the Norwegian Military (particularly parts of the intelligence operations) decided that they would no longer trust or use Windows some years back.
That's likely because they either were not bribed or simply did not accept said bribe. Remember, in the US, MS' OS were put in place despite explicit regulations disallowing its use. Which is to say, it was not on the approve OS list for use which means it should have never been deployed. Yet somehow it magically happened. Endless factual accounts consistently proved every time this type thing happens, its because large bribes have been paid. If it were not for such bribery, its very unlikely MS would ever be in any system other than desktop and unclassified server systems.
One could even argue MS has taken the first step is destroying national security in the US. Hell, they've managed to take destroyers out of commission.
If you buy something and don't pay for it, do you own it? According to the law, "no!" That's the problem. What they do is very clearly fraud and extortion - yet they are allowed to do this stuff knowing full well they are screwing people. IMO, its likely allowed because these fraudulent practices go a long way toward creating a scarce commodity of what is really a row in a database.
And to be clear, I'm speaking in broader terms than the article. Some squatters, the vast minority, actually do own their domains. I'm not talking about these people.
Welcome to the world of Capitalism.
Welcome to the world of ignorance. They don't own it. Period. That's the scam. You obviously need to go educate your self on how most of these squatters operate.
buy up desirable land and then try to sell it off later for a profit.
Most are not buying anything. They are demanding money for what is and should otherwise be free. They are scum and leeches on the Internet in the same way spammers are. Bullets are too good for them.
If you don't get it at this point, I can only assume you're a troll.
Meaning they say they will purchase them but never actually pay. I phrased it poorly.
but they are just trying to make some money.
So are extortionists. Oh wait, that's what they are. The front grill of a car is the only thing good enough for these idiots.
I wish like hell someone would so something about these idiots and start charging normal prices for these idiots to park all these domains. People don't realize, in most cases, these idiots haven't even purchased the domain names. Rather, they buy them in bulk, don't pay, let them go back, and buy them again. Their tactics are in line with the mob. They are only one step above that of spammers. Scam and scum is an understatement.
heavily criticizing Bush's presidency and calling out what happened in Iraq as war crimes, as they should be called. That is a serious one, and I for one am glad that it got voted up top.
People who vote for this only show they are complete idiots and have no clue what the hell the word, "war", means in the first place. Attempting to hold Bush and others as war criminals only means the world is full of war criminals. Furthermore, the famed legends of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam are also war criminals - as are all supporters of the "War On Drugs". Not to mention everyone behind every other conflict which has ever occurred in the world to date.
The simple truth is, the "crimes" Bush committed pale in comparison to those committed during every other significant world conflict. Now grow up and realize the world is not just and this course of action is nothing but a waste of time, money, and resources when there are so many other important issues which really matter. Hell, by extension, Obama is now a "war criminal." You willing to after him too?
but these have nothing to do with your typical UFO report
That's the trouble. These really are the "typical UFO report". Its the far exception which goes unexplained.
I do agree those radar videos released by various nations are intriguing. But given the period where they were observed, it is possible those were part of the US' advanced weapons programs.
Personally, I'm not intrigued by the really old depictions of UFOs in history, including references in both the Bible and various artwork - plus references in non-Christian countries to boot.
which include things like an auto-focus camera, video capture, and a compass
an android phone? Sounds like the G1 spec sheet.
Do you think that military UFO reports from 60 years ago about objects flying at speeds and accelerations still unattainable today could be top secret government technology that would be kept under the wraps still 60 years after it's been implemented?
Yes. Many, many UFO reports were actually determined to be F117 reports. Keep in mind the F117 was basically conceived of in the 50s (radar experiments indicated it was possible), designed in the 60s (once math theory supported the concept) using slide rulers, built in the late 70s, and remained secret until the late 80s. For that entire time, it remained a secret.
Furthermore, look at aircraft like the XB-35 and the YB-35 (later the YB-49), which was designed conceived of in the early 40s and flew in the mid 40s. The B-2 is basically this aircraft (including dimensions) with computer controls to make it stable in all allowed attitudes. It was commonly reported as UFOs back then and while the B-2 was secret, it too was commonly reported at UFOs. This aircraft alone can explain a huge number of UFO sightings over the last 60 years. And yes, this aircraft is well know for looking like a saucer at various angles.
Furthermore, Kelly Johnson, of the famed Skunk Works program, is on record as saying, something along the lines of, if you think the aircraft of the Skunk Works program are advanced, the aircraft currently in development and flying look like science fiction, fifty to hundred years in the future. Which seemingly implies alternative propulsion and/or undreamed of airframes. Match a futuristic propulsion system with a futuristic airframe and you easily have every UFO report for the next hundred years - starting two decades ago.
As a rule of thumb you're looking at two to three decades from top secret inception to public disclosure. Do you really believe all top secret aircraft development halted at the disclosure of the B-2 program?
How can you compare something that costs $80,000 (plus running costs) to something that costs $800?
Its called an analogy - WHOSH!
Big expensive video card "with status" is to computer nerd that doesn't know any better as big expensive four wheeler "with status" is to wanna-be off-road driver that doesn't know any better. Seemed pretty cut and dry to me.
The point is, what technology has MS really innovated? I'm fairly sure collaborative software isn't a MS innovation. I'm not really familiar with that piece of software - so you may need to correct me here. Typically the items people offer have been acquisitions of other companies who have innovated. Rebranding and marketing is the business model of a marketing company, not a technology company.
Marketing and acquisition is now MS' primary focus - and has been for over a decade. And to be clear, I don't have a problem with that business model, but it doesn't make them a technology company as its no longer their core business focus. The fact that they are marketing technology is only a secondary consideration.
Sorry, I'm going to nit here. Price fixing is often used to force a cheaper solutions out of the market. It has frequently been used in the oil industry to prevent cheap oil refinery operation and even the construction of new refineries - despite the government's refusal to prosecute. In this case, we can say "free" is cheaper than non-free. As such, having a free alternative in no way, shape, or form, effects the qualification of price fixing. Besides, you said it your self, if the "free" stuff has no news (is crap), then free doesn't matter in the least and won't even enter the equation.
Finally someone that figured it out.
Microsoft is not a technology company. They have not been a technology company for well over a decade. Microsoft is, rather than a tech company, one of the world's most powerful marketing companies. They just happen to be a marketing company that does some development too.
I used to challenge people to name three MS technology innovations. To date, no one has been able to do it. True tech companies innovate.
it's to fire the horrible teachers that make learning a horrible, horrible chore.
Thanks to the "No Child Left Behind" program, their current goal is to fire all teachers who are not creating a horrible learning environment.
If a school receives federal education dollars, its impossible for them to do anything other than teach how to take a test.
Don't blame your teachers, blame your government!
There's no way in hell that Old English 800 [wikipedia.org] and Steel reserve [wikipedia.org] are just barley, hops, and yeast. They cause psychotropic effects similar to PCP.
Also, I did some quick searches, the only references I found to those products having psychotropic effects were from shroom sites just talking about drinking beer.
There are some drinks which have such effects but they normally come from distilled worm-wood or close cousins.