After reading a few books on my PDA (Palm Tungsten E), I've found paper-books to be extremely annoying. They're just so big and bulky. You have to have two hands to read them (not that my other hand is doing anything important while reading, I don't read THOSE sort of novels) and you can't lie on your side (I lie on one side for one page, then it's difficult to read the other page, PDA's only have one "page").
Having said that, reading on a cell-phone is insane.
Problem being they burn dirty. Dirtier than wood or the deeply despised coal, and MUCH dirtier than fuel oil or natural gas.
I'm assuming dirtier means more greenhouse gases, well apparently:
Yet burning grass pellets as a biofuel is economical, energy-efficient, environmentally friendly and sustainable, says a Cornell University forage crop expert.
Cherney points out that grass biofuel pellets are much better for the environment because they emit up to 90 percent less greenhouse gases than oil, coal and natural gas do.
Now it's possible the person is lying, but I'm more likely to believe him then some random poster on slashdot with no sources to back up his claims. And incidentally, most "biofuels" return less energy that it takes to grow, harvest and process them into fuel.
I thought solar power was used to grow biofuel? You know, from the sun. Well the sun is wasting all that energy, regardless on if it grows something or not, so let's take that out of the equation and your comment may no longer be factual. However even including it, the article makes your same point.
grass is converted to useable heat at over 80% efficiency, with an energy output:input ratio exceeding 10:1, compared to other bioenergy sources with typicalsystem energy output:input ratios around 1:1.
So your comment about MOST biofuels is correct, however when in the context of the article, it makes it sound like grass-pellets is included. However according to the article, grass-pellets are much better then "most".
There's no clean fuel that's practical for large scale generation other than nuclear right now.
We don't need to completely replace fossil-fuel, lessening the dependance on it is a good first step. And apparently Europe has been able to use grass for energy for decades.
People that criticise any fossil-fuel alternative always use the card "it could never be used in the quantities that we use fossil-fuel." Well we don't need that, if we cut-down our use of fossil-fuel by using the alternatives in conjunction, we'll have fossil-fuel for a little bit longer then had we not used the alternative. And who knows, if we continue to research alternatives and use them in conjunction, we might find that one day, we do have enough different alternatives that all add up to the amount of fossil-fuel we use. But no, some people will have us only use one thing that can immediately replace fossil-fuel completely.
or just wack in Rolands site in this plagiarism detector and see for yourself how he rips off other peoples content and reposts it for profit without permission
All the content that the copyscape claimed as plagarism was obviously quoted on his website. Fair use covers this blog entry, You can use quotations (especially if you mark them as such) if you have sufficient original information. Does he have sufficient original information? I'd say so, although IANAL.
By the way: Information can be original by reading other sources and placing it in your own words. This is how wikipedia gets most/all of it's information. I don't hear rants here everytime wikipedia is mentioned on how they steal their content.
A huge market barrier is that consumers won't take the chance because they're not confident they will find gas stations that supply this stuff (not to mention all the other alternatives that have been around for a while).
I thought a benefit to biofuel was that you could use it in any car that accepted . So if you're at home, you can fill it up with your biofuel, and fill up the rest with at your local gas-station.
Why do you feel the need to take his content and re-post it? The information was contained in the article, this seems like a karma-whore tactic.
If you did it as a way to "stick it" to someone you don't like, I've got a much more simple way to "stick it" to him. Stop clicking on stories he has submitted. If enough people do this, page views will go down, so slashdot will get less money. They'll see the trend and stop accepting the unpopular articles.
If you want the information he provided, go to his website and read the information. Or do a google search for the information and go to other sources. Reposting his content is not needed and dishonest (how would YOU like someone to steal your work after all). It definitely isn't fair-use.
It works at a range sufficient to work in toll booths. What's to prevent the state from putting up a reader on the street corner? On every street corner? On every mile marker sign on the highway?
Holy shit! You're right. Oh wait, we're talking about RFID? I thought we were talking about license plates.[/narky response]
[non-narky response]They can already track us in our cars if they so desired too. While RFID does make it cheaper, but come on. They haven't done it yet, I don't see why they'll start anytime soon. Don't be afraid of the technology that allows this (because it's been around for years now), be afraid of those in power.[/non-narky response]
I don't know about everyone else, but if there is a page that is obvious and easy to find I don't bookmark it. Easier to go to Google and simply type e.g. "scan today" is Scan's Today Only offers page (UK hardware- but mind the extortionate shipping charges.
You must have a different definition of easier. That or your bookmark system is extremely difficult to use. (3 mouse clicks = easier then typing something into google).
that's exactly the beauty of open-source: you don't see something you want, so you just go into the source and add it.
Me: It doesn't let me do feature X, it makes me do feature Y. I could code in feature X because it's open source, but I don't have the time. You: No, no. You don't have to do feature Y. Me: Sorry, I meant something else. Here's a clarification. You: Well the beauty about it is you can code it yourself because it's open source. Me: A summary of our discussion so that you can realise you're not listening to me.
Also, trumpeting open source as being so good because it lets anyone add any features is slightly dishonest. Not everyone can add features, only those who know how to code. For those who can't code, this isn't an advantage of open source. It's the same as closed source for us. We have to wait until someone else codes it.
So next time someone says open-source program doesn't have feature X. Perhaps instead of telling them they can add the feature themself (ESPECIALLY if they said they can't beforehand), perhaps say "hey, you have a point." Sorry, pet-peeve of mine.
I haven't RTFA because letting the entire world know what my bookmarks are, without an option to let the world know what SOME of my bookmarks are doesn't appeal to me.
Now I could modify delirious to have this feature but I don't have enough time and incentive. But something I do find odd are the names. I've always thought the del.ici.ous name was odd, but this is ridiculous. Is there something in social bookmarking that requires things to have periods in the middle of everything? Or is delirious just copying delicious?
Here is an in-depth comparison. I searched for the Aboriginal Dreamtime, which I thought was as strange a topic as possible.
GOOGLE: 1. www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page288.htm - #2 in yahoo, #1 in a9 - SEMI USEFUL 2. www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html - #1 in yahoo, #1 in msn - USEFUL 3. aboriginalart.com.au/culture/religion.html - - #7 in yahoo, #3 in a9 NOTHING NEW 4. www.aiatsis.gov.au/lbry/ fct_shts/annbib/annBib97/eMU_18.htm - #8 in a9 - USELESS 5. au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_ 781530188/Dreaming_The.html - #6 in a9 - SEMI USEFUL 6. www.safaris.net.au/info/dreaming.htm - #5 in a9 - NOTHING NEW 7. projects.edtech.sandi.net/ dailard/oceanarts/Dreamtime.html - USEFUL 8. www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/aborigines/dream.h tm - #4 in a9 - JUST A LISTING 9. www.religioperennis.org/Document/Harry/MelodiesE.h tml - #7 in a9 - USEFUL
YAHOO: 1. www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html - #2 in google, #1 in msn - USEFUL 2. www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page288.htm - #1 in google SEMI USEFUL 3. www.geocities.com/opossumsal/Aboriginal.html - wasn't in google or msn, #2 in a9 - NOTHING NEW 4. dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/.../Aboriginal_D reamtime - wasn't in google, #7 in msn - JUST A LISTING 5. www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/religion/tsld004. htm - wasn't in google, #9 in msn - NOTHING NEW 6. v8go.co.uk/.../geographical-religions/aboriginal-d reamtime.asp - wasn't in google - USELESS 7. aboriginalart.com.au/culture/religion.htm - #3 in google - NOTHING NEW 8. uni-duisburg.de/.../projekte/Maksymiuk/abori/Relig ion and Myths.htm - wasn't in google - USEFUL 9. uni-duisburg.de/FB3/.../Maksymiuk/abori/Religion and Myths Seite.htm - wasn't in google - USELESS 10. www.syberg.be/zMentalSpace/sSys/dreamsJ/06seriesJ/ J62e1.htm - wasn't in google - USELESS
MSN: 1. www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html - #2 in google, #1 in yahoo USEFUL 2. www.australianstamp.com/Coin-web/feature/history/a bdream.htm - wasn't in google or yahoo - USEFUL 3. www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892814772/theorde rofthesel/ref%3Dnosim - wasn't in google or yahoo - USELESS 4. news.cous.biz/newspapers/ufglsndfg-aboriginal-drea mtime.html - wasn't in google or yahoo - JUST A LISTING 5. dogeatdogma.sed.ca - wasn't in google or yahoo - USELESS 6. australia.jrn.msu.edu/2002/work/aboriginal/Namarrg on.html - wasn't in google or yahoo - SEMI USEFUL 7. dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spi rituality/Faiths_and_Practices - wasn't in google, #4 in yahoo - JUST A LISTING 8. fs6.depauw.edu/~mkfinney/teaching/Com227/culturalP ortfolios/australia/trads.htm - wasn't in google or yahoo - USEFUL 9. www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/religion/tsld004. htm - #5 in yahoo - NOTHING NEW
a9: 1. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page 288.htm - #1 in google, #2 in yahoo - SEMI USEFUL 2. http://www.geocities.com/opossumsal/Aboriginal.htm l - #3 in yahoo - USEFUL (for a9 only) 3. http://aboriginalart.com.au/culture/religion.html - #3 in google, #7 in yahoo - USEFUL (a9 only) 4. http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/aborigines/ dream.htm - #8 in google - JUST A LISTING 5. http://www.safaris.net.au/info/dreaming.htm - #6 in google - NOTHING NEW 6. http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781530188/D reaming_The.html - #5 in google - SEMI USEFUL 7. http://www.religioperennis.org/Document/Harry/Melo diesE.html - #9 in google - USEFUL 8. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/lbry/fct_shts/annbib/ann Bib97/eMU_18.htm - #4 in google - USELESS 9. http://users.wpi.edu/~elisab/Dreamtime-final.doc - USELESS
You could become a blogger right now, but I wager you couldn't immediately get an FPP on slashdot. And say what you will about the quality of slashdot, it is read by a *lot* of people. So I think Om Malik has a little more credibility than you, neh?
Sure, he can have more credibility then me. But that doesn't make him credible. My first post says what I think of Om Malik though.
Wow, I stand corrected. However my "couldn't make a profit otherwise" comment still stands, which is probably why they closed new accounts;) If they were making a profit somehow, SOMEONE was paying the price. Most likely the subscribers.
Then why don't you think some bloggers can have credibility ?I said Blogger evangelists have no credibility. True, I think bloggers in general don't have credibility (because I can become a blogger right now and spout out the same nonesense as this Om Malik), but evangelists are those who preach the propaganda by their masters (sometimes religion, in this case a search engine). If I want reliable facts, I'm not going to go to a preacher.
It needs to be possible to buy music through search engines. When a person searches for a song it should ask "Buy this song?"
Oh yes please! Give us more advertisements. [/sarcasm]
Sorry but Google and Yahoo are cluttered enough (that's right. I said Google was cluttered. Both it and Yahoo displayed about the same amount of wasted space, with google linking to news and print while yahoo linked to sponsored sites. Both are equally annoying). I don't want more clutter.
About the only thing GMail has changed in recent memory is that I can now invite 50 people where before I could invite 6.
Actually Gmail has changed quite a bit. Perhaps you just haven't noticed the changes, but it has added several functions (recently as in: this year). One such addition is the standard view which allows older browsers to access gmail.
Perhaps you consider the changes to be insignificant so there might as well be none. But for people who couldn't access gmail with the javascript interface, the change is actually quite good. There have also been other changes, but I can't find a list of recent changes.
the only one they purchased was dejanews and yeah they haven't done a whole lot with it, but i haven't seen a lot of need for much change with that particular feature
When Google buys something and doesn't modify it: Oh, but it didn't need any modifications.
When Yahoo buys something and doesn't modify it: Look how they've let this wonderful product squander.
I'd say that satisfies cult-like status. When people have one set of rules for 1 search engine and another set of rules for all other search engines, it definitely reaks of cult like status.
cult like status may be true, though i might add it sounds like you are purposefully sounding contrarian, but i would say it stems from two things
Translation: Google has cult status, but it deserves it's status.
Compare withg the biggest French ISP where you get what I describe for free...
No, it's not free then either (unless I can go and sign up for a website free of charge right now). It's available to people who have subscribed to the ISP. And you can bet your ass that it's included in the price (otherwise how could they make a profit?).
Slashdot Mirror
After reading a few books on my PDA (Palm Tungsten E), I've found paper-books to be extremely annoying. They're just so big and bulky. You have to have two hands to read them (not that my other hand is doing anything important while reading, I don't read THOSE sort of novels) and you can't lie on your side (I lie on one side for one page, then it's difficult to read the other page, PDA's only have one "page").
Having said that, reading on a cell-phone is insane.
Problem being they burn dirty. Dirtier than wood or the deeply despised coal, and MUCH dirtier than fuel oil or natural gas.
I'm assuming dirtier means more greenhouse gases, well apparently:
Yet burning grass pellets as a biofuel is economical, energy-efficient, environmentally friendly and sustainable, says a Cornell University forage crop expert.
Cherney points out that grass biofuel pellets are much better for the environment because they emit up to 90 percent less greenhouse gases than oil, coal and natural gas do.
Now it's possible the person is lying, but I'm more likely to believe him then some random poster on slashdot with no sources to back up his claims.
And incidentally, most "biofuels" return less energy that it takes to grow, harvest and process them into fuel.
I thought solar power was used to grow biofuel? You know, from the sun. Well the sun is wasting all that energy, regardless on if it grows something or not, so let's take that out of the equation and your comment may no longer be factual. However even including it, the article makes your same point.
grass is converted to useable heat at over 80% efficiency, with an energy output:input ratio exceeding 10:1, compared to other bioenergy sources with typicalsystem energy output:input ratios around 1:1.
So your comment about MOST biofuels is correct, however when in the context of the article, it makes it sound like grass-pellets is included. However according to the article, grass-pellets are much better then "most".
There's no clean fuel that's practical for large scale generation other than nuclear right now.
We don't need to completely replace fossil-fuel, lessening the dependance on it is a good first step. And apparently Europe has been able to use grass for energy for decades.
People that criticise any fossil-fuel alternative always use the card "it could never be used in the quantities that we use fossil-fuel." Well we don't need that, if we cut-down our use of fossil-fuel by using the alternatives in conjunction, we'll have fossil-fuel for a little bit longer then had we not used the alternative. And who knows, if we continue to research alternatives and use them in conjunction, we might find that one day, we do have enough different alternatives that all add up to the amount of fossil-fuel we use. But no, some people will have us only use one thing that can immediately replace fossil-fuel completely.
or just wack in Rolands site in this plagiarism detector and see for yourself how he rips off other peoples content and reposts it for profit without permission
All the content that the copyscape claimed as plagarism was obviously quoted on his website. Fair use covers this blog entry, You can use quotations (especially if you mark them as such) if you have sufficient original information. Does he have sufficient original information? I'd say so, although IANAL.
By the way: Information can be original by reading other sources and placing it in your own words. This is how wikipedia gets most/all of it's information. I don't hear rants here everytime wikipedia is mentioned on how they steal their content.
A huge market barrier is that consumers won't take the chance because they're not confident they will find gas stations that supply this stuff (not to mention all the other alternatives that have been around for a while).
I thought a benefit to biofuel was that you could use it in any car that accepted . So if you're at home, you can fill it up with your biofuel, and fill up the rest with at your local gas-station.
Why do you feel the need to take his content and re-post it? The information was contained in the article, this seems like a karma-whore tactic.
If you did it as a way to "stick it" to someone you don't like, I've got a much more simple way to "stick it" to him. Stop clicking on stories he has submitted. If enough people do this, page views will go down, so slashdot will get less money. They'll see the trend and stop accepting the unpopular articles.
If you want the information he provided, go to his website and read the information. Or do a google search for the information and go to other sources. Reposting his content is not needed and dishonest (how would YOU like someone to steal your work after all). It definitely isn't fair-use.
It works at a range sufficient to work in toll booths. What's to prevent the state from putting up a reader on the street corner? On every street corner? On every mile marker sign on the highway?
Holy shit! You're right. Oh wait, we're talking about RFID? I thought we were talking about license plates.[/narky response]
[non-narky response]They can already track us in our cars if they so desired too. While RFID does make it cheaper, but come on. They haven't done it yet, I don't see why they'll start anytime soon. Don't be afraid of the technology that allows this (because it's been around for years now), be afraid of those in power.[/non-narky response]
An instrument that can now weigh my penis.
Wait. Did I say that outloud? I guess I better turn off my spam-blocker.
What will the prices be like?
$0.99 per scene.
I don't know about everyone else, but if there is a page that is obvious and easy to find I don't bookmark it. Easier to go to Google and simply type e.g. "scan today" is Scan's Today Only offers page (UK hardware- but mind the extortionate shipping charges.
You must have a different definition of easier. That or your bookmark system is extremely difficult to use. (3 mouse clicks = easier then typing something into google).
that's exactly the beauty of open-source: you don't see something you want, so you just go into the source and add it.
Me: It doesn't let me do feature X, it makes me do feature Y. I could code in feature X because it's open source, but I don't have the time.
You: No, no. You don't have to do feature Y.
Me: Sorry, I meant something else. Here's a clarification.
You: Well the beauty about it is you can code it yourself because it's open source.
Me: A summary of our discussion so that you can realise you're not listening to me.
Also, trumpeting open source as being so good because it lets anyone add any features is slightly dishonest. Not everyone can add features, only those who know how to code. For those who can't code, this isn't an advantage of open source. It's the same as closed source for us. We have to wait until someone else codes it.
So next time someone says open-source program doesn't have feature X. Perhaps instead of telling them they can add the feature themself (ESPECIALLY if they said they can't beforehand), perhaps say "hey, you have a point." Sorry, pet-peeve of mine.
It follows the blog structure, it has people posting stories, people commenting on them...
I'm having difficulty how that is different to this forum.
In a forum there is no real difference between the first post in a thread and the others.
Except, of course, the first post decides the subject matter of the entire thread.
or you could just use d.e.l.i.c.i.o.u.s which already has the feature.
Where?
your comments form a blog of sorts.
It also forms a forum of sorts. But people don't use that word, forum, because it isn't the hip word. The hip word is blog today.
Social bookmarking services don't automatically put all your bookmarks online.
Sorry, I meant I want to put all my bookmarks in the service, but only have certain ones shown to everyone. I see no such feature on delirious.
I haven't RTFA because letting the entire world know what my bookmarks are, without an option to let the world know what SOME of my bookmarks are doesn't appeal to me.
Now I could modify delirious to have this feature but I don't have enough time and incentive. But something I do find odd are the names. I've always thought the del.ici.ous name was odd, but this is ridiculous. Is there something in social bookmarking that requires things to have periods in the middle of everything? Or is delirious just copying delicious?
Here is an in-depth comparison. I searched for the Aboriginal Dreamtime, which I thought was as strange a topic as possible.
GOOGLE:
1. www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page288.htm - #2 in yahoo, #1 in a9 - SEMI USEFUL
2. www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html - #1 in yahoo, #1 in msn - USEFUL
3. aboriginalart.com.au/culture/religion.html - - #7 in yahoo, #3 in a9 NOTHING NEW
4. www.aiatsis.gov.au/lbry/ fct_shts/annbib/annBib97/eMU_18.htm - #8 in a9 - USELESS
5. au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_ 781530188/Dreaming_The.html - #6 in a9 - SEMI USEFUL
6. www.safaris.net.au/info/dreaming.htm - #5 in a9 - NOTHING NEW
7. projects.edtech.sandi.net/ dailard/oceanarts/Dreamtime.html - USEFUL
8. www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/aborigines/dream.h tm - #4 in a9 - JUST A LISTING
9. www.religioperennis.org/Document/Harry/MelodiesE.h tml - #7 in a9 - USEFUL
YAHOO:
1. www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html - #2 in google, #1 in msn - USEFUL
2. www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page288.htm - #1 in google SEMI USEFUL
3. www.geocities.com/opossumsal/Aboriginal.html - wasn't in google or msn, #2 in a9 - NOTHING NEW
4. dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/.../Aboriginal_D reamtime - wasn't in google, #7 in msn - JUST A LISTING
5. www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/religion/tsld004. htm - wasn't in google, #9 in msn - NOTHING NEW
6. v8go.co.uk/.../geographical-religions/aboriginal-d reamtime.asp - wasn't in google - USELESS
7. aboriginalart.com.au/culture/religion.htm - #3 in google - NOTHING NEW
8. uni-duisburg.de/.../projekte/Maksymiuk/abori/Relig ion and Myths.htm - wasn't in google - USEFUL
9. uni-duisburg.de/FB3/.../Maksymiuk/abori/Religion and Myths Seite.htm - wasn't in google - USELESS
10. www.syberg.be/zMentalSpace/sSys/dreamsJ/06seriesJ/ J62e1.htm - wasn't in google - USELESS
MSN:
1. www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html - #2 in google, #1 in yahoo USEFUL
2. www.australianstamp.com/Coin-web/feature/history/a bdream.htm - wasn't in google or yahoo - USEFUL
3. www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892814772/theorde rofthesel/ref%3Dnosim - wasn't in google or yahoo - USELESS
4. news.cous.biz/newspapers/ufglsndfg-aboriginal-drea mtime.html - wasn't in google or yahoo - JUST A LISTING
5. dogeatdogma.sed.ca - wasn't in google or yahoo - USELESS
6. australia.jrn.msu.edu/2002/work/aboriginal/Namarrg on.html - wasn't in google or yahoo - SEMI USEFUL
7. dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spi rituality/Faiths_and_Practices - wasn't in google, #4 in yahoo - JUST A LISTING
8. fs6.depauw.edu/~mkfinney/teaching/Com227/culturalP ortfolios/australia/trads.htm - wasn't in google or yahoo - USEFUL
9. www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/religion/tsld004. htm - #5 in yahoo - NOTHING NEW
a9:
1. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page 288.htm - #1 in google, #2 in yahoo - SEMI USEFUL
2. http://www.geocities.com/opossumsal/Aboriginal.htm l - #3 in yahoo - USEFUL (for a9 only)
3. http://aboriginalart.com.au/culture/religion.html - #3 in google, #7 in yahoo - USEFUL (a9 only)
4. http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/aborigines/ dream.htm - #8 in google - JUST A LISTING
5. http://www.safaris.net.au/info/dreaming.htm - #6 in google - NOTHING NEW
6. http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781530188/D reaming_The.html - #5 in google - SEMI USEFUL
7. http://www.religioperennis.org/Document/Harry/Melo diesE.html - #9 in google - USEFUL
8. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/lbry/fct_shts/annbib/ann Bib97/eMU_18.htm - #4 in google - USELESS
9. http://users.wpi.edu/~elisab/Dreamtime-final.doc - USELESS
Summ
You could become a blogger right now, but I wager you couldn't immediately get an FPP on slashdot. And say what you will about the quality of slashdot, it is read by a *lot* of people. So I think Om Malik has a little more credibility than you, neh?
Sure, he can have more credibility then me. But that doesn't make him credible. My first post says what I think of Om Malik though.
Wow, I stand corrected. However my "couldn't make a profit otherwise" comment still stands, which is probably why they closed new accounts ;) If they were making a profit somehow, SOMEONE was paying the price. Most likely the subscribers.
Then why don't you think some bloggers can have credibility ?I said Blogger evangelists have no credibility. True, I think bloggers in general don't have credibility (because I can become a blogger right now and spout out the same nonesense as this Om Malik), but evangelists are those who preach the propaganda by their masters (sometimes religion, in this case a search engine). If I want reliable facts, I'm not going to go to a preacher.
I was going to say "so we don't watch any american news" but thought I'd get modded down as flame-bait ;) Australian news isn't any better either.
It needs to be possible to buy music through search engines. When a person searches for a song it should ask "Buy this song?"
Oh yes please! Give us more advertisements. [/sarcasm]
Sorry but Google and Yahoo are cluttered enough (that's right. I said Google was cluttered. Both it and Yahoo displayed about the same amount of wasted space, with google linking to news and print while yahoo linked to sponsored sites. Both are equally annoying). I don't want more clutter.
About the only thing GMail has changed in recent memory is that I can now invite 50 people where before I could invite 6.
Actually Gmail has changed quite a bit. Perhaps you just haven't noticed the changes, but it has added several functions (recently as in: this year). One such addition is the standard view which allows older browsers to access gmail.
Perhaps you consider the changes to be insignificant so there might as well be none. But for people who couldn't access gmail with the javascript interface, the change is actually quite good. There have also been other changes, but I can't find a list of recent changes.
the only one they purchased was dejanews and yeah they haven't done a whole lot with it, but i haven't seen a lot of need for much change with that particular feature
When Google buys something and doesn't modify it: Oh, but it didn't need any modifications.
When Yahoo buys something and doesn't modify it: Look how they've let this wonderful product squander.
I'd say that satisfies cult-like status. When people have one set of rules for 1 search engine and another set of rules for all other search engines, it definitely reaks of cult like status.
cult like status may be true, though i might add it sounds like you are purposefully sounding contrarian, but i would say it stems from two things
Translation: Google has cult status, but it deserves it's status.
Compare withg the biggest French ISP where you get what I describe for free...
No, it's not free then either (unless I can go and sign up for a website free of charge right now). It's available to people who have subscribed to the ISP. And you can bet your ass that it's included in the price (otherwise how could they make a profit?).