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?
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.
The issue here about the previous search results (prior comment) is that they are showing other OS's first, and MS is nowhere to be found. This results in being both a: impartial and b: inaccurate. I wasn't even specifying an OS, so why or how would it magically put in linux and mac as insecure when common pageranking would not simply put MS's "why is MS so secure" right after "why is linux/apple so insecure?". It means the answers are intellectually dishonest. If I wanted answers tailored to someone else's purpose I wouldn't be looking for things that are unbiased, as is my requirement.
(re: your reply to me)The other issue here is, when I'm looking for something I don't need bing to tell me what I want to find, that by searching google I don't need it to automatically assume I don't know how to type google.com., which is what it's essentially defaulting. I want to be able to look for news on google, or other actual things of information. Likewise with Microsoft. I don't want "all about Microsoft from Microsoft's webpage", because a company's own view will always be skewed. I want "all about Microsoft from everyone else in the world other than Microsoft". This is a failure of the search engine for me.
And seriously, who would search for just "google" and not be looking for the search engine itself?
Oh I don't know, people looking for *news* maybe? Or updates? Or new google things? Otherwise how many times do you need to search for a site that you already know by name?
People look for things on search engines other than exactly their topic. This is the purpose of stumbleupon, for example.
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.
Thanks for the hostility though! Maybe you should troll less, but it's nice to know how easy it is to out someone who is trolling.
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?
I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid, due to typing up a response without using logic in a clearly inflammatory and trollish manner.
What the christ are you talking about? there's no reason google simply can't increase their marketshare from where it's at. Yes, there's 100% total as is the basis of marketshare. But to say they can't go from x% to x%+1 for example, is fucking idiotic. Nobody said that it wouldn't require someone else to lose 1%.
they said they would have a solution, and this is a viable one. That is exactly what I had in mind as well. Like they say, locks keep honest people honest.
Reasons? Sure. Any result on things is skewed if it relates to MS. How can you call that "reliable"? There's a reason they call it a decision engine and not a search engine. Also, why do I want something that's been rammed down my throat as a default setting? I'd rather choose my own thing not have *constant* hijacking during every IE security update. Just wait for people to do bing bombs as they call "google bombs", and you'll see even more manipulation.
Also, the layout is annoying. Why not have news links up at the top? Why do I give a crap about related searches being linked at the side as opposed to next to each item? Why do I need microsoft self-sponsoring when I search for microsoft on bing? I don't get that with google. Also it sure is interesting that very few search results show up when I put the term google into bing, isn't it?.
I can keep searching more reasons if you want, but the end result is that the quality of results and accuracy is piss poor. Dogpile still beats results/accuracy of bing constantly.
microsoft is making themselves better and more productive? LOL I seriously hope you are joking. Bing is still very skewed to show positive results for things that MS is interested in gaining marketshare from. It's when people realize this, that they start to have less interest in bing. The only reason it has *any* marketshare beyond like 1% is being embedded and defaulted everywhere.
your response is incorrect. Even monopolies can increase marketshare, you know. To say they can't means the market isn't growing, which shows your lack of udnerstanding. Markets expand and shrink continually. Meanwhile, it's not like google should care if their search shrinks or increases because search is by far not the only thing they are doing anymore.
The trickery should be clear because microsoft is trying to gain marketshare by having articles posted every time they get 1/100^56th of a marketshare increase, even though nobody wants that piece of crap. 3%, 5%, 6%, etc. It's search results are crap even. You didn't hear google publicizing every 1% do ya?
well gee, since you put it so factual like that and all!
Or we can look at reality: settings don't get forgotten, there's no blurry display output, and they have the best multimonitor support out now with eyefinity. Maybe there were many versions ago, but both nvidia and amd likely do not have these problems at this point.
I'm not saying AMD is better than Nvidia or vice versa in my comment here - both companies have had their shares of hiccups and successes along the way and everyone has their preference - but your example is so illogical it astounds me. It's like "I had a bad day today and I bought AMD today too, so amd sucks".
DirectX 11 Support for hardware tessellation will be an explicit part of the DirectX standard for the first time. To date, ATI's HD 2000, 3000, and 4000 series have all contained a hardware tessellation unit
DX11 and DX10.1 will be sharing a lot of features. DX10.0 does not. All the people getting an 8800gt for example, got screwed by that. I'm glad NV has a DX10.1 solution, but when will anyone have a copy of the DX11 card to test?
barely at best, it's still slower than an 8800GT. You can almost get a 4870 for less than that. which would be DX11 compatible/significantly faster. Or get a 4850 which is still significantly faster and DX10.1.
basically, this was a bad move by nvidia, but it's all they have at the moment.
I'm not used to bing's layout nor do I like or plan to use bing even if it were the last search engine in existence, but it appeared to me to be the same result on both from your links.
Please. How could this be an embarrassing love affair? It's clearly made frontpage at slashdot among about 20 other news sites.
That's the best propaganda money can buy, even beyond lobby. It doesn't start with lobbying, it starts with whispers to the press and then moves to lobbying.
Bing is crap. If it more neutral, I'd sing praise, but it's not. The results also don't seem to be even remotely as accurate as google's for many tech issues. Every time a bing page deliberately does something to make MS look better from a search result, and is later corrected after press, people skip on the other 37 times it still goes on.
Easy example: search "windows is the least secure os" or just "least secure os" and look at the first few results on bing. Let me give you the first title page: "Print - Study: Linux Is Least Secure OS" from windowsitpro.com
Bing needs no boost, and wolfram could care less if they are linked by bing (although I suspect they will get pissed at some point due to the use of the bandwidth).
Mark Cuban has a love affair with microsoft and so this is just another part of his love affair. Basically, that's all it is. Bing won't dominate because it's quality is crap, and buying out a lot of customers won't make up for the fact that there will be a: less profitability and b: less quality.
bandwidth issues that will continue even into 4g and othwerwise, it has uses, just not mobile. I agree there may be some PC use - this general idea was not unexpected. With adding graphics support to mainstream virtualization this is somewhat of the next step.
more business = more copyright infringement? How is that a loss? So you have 50 more people who have spread the word about your product to another 50 times (squared) allowing 50^2 possibilities of making extra sales?
I am all for AI research.. My workplace even sponsors some AI research based competitions of the most traditional kind. However, SC AI being ported to SC2 I doubt is insurmountable by a long shot. Blizzard has more developers at their hands than any company I can think of except for maybe microsoft. So really all this is, is a small investment with a big reward for Blizzard, as I said.
I guess I need to give you cites of companies that got fucked for having legal content.
Let's begin:
Pandora Napster Netflix Imeem Youtube Hulu
Notice a trend here? All of these sites have some form of situation where everything they were doing is and was completely legal, but they got fucked by the RIAA/MPAA.
Hulu: cannot have more than 5 episodes of a series, quality is limited, they are forced to go against boxee constantly.
Youtube: videos can be automatically removed via false DMCA claims or copyright claims that don't even legally make sense (such as a gaming exploit for CODMW2 that activision is claiming copyright of the vide).
Imeem: the list of music is horrifically short and they're forced to allow music spambots
Netflix: 1 month delay, forced use of silverlight, maximum quality lowered if using silverlight or any online form versus receiving the discs.
I can keep going if you want. Don't be blaming the people who are supposedly doing illegal activities when they don't have a viable alternative.
It's like giving someone a box, and saying they must stay inside it without any kind of positive alternative. Are you really going to blame them for breaking/getting out of the box?
Slashdot Mirror
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?
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've never heard of IE changing default search to bing? http://searchengineland.com/internet-explorer-6-forces-bing-as-default-search-provider-20398
There you go. I can dig deeper, but that is by far not the only isolated incident.
The issue here about the previous search results (prior comment) is that they are showing other OS's first, and MS is nowhere to be found. This results in being both a: impartial and b: inaccurate. I wasn't even specifying an OS, so why or how would it magically put in linux and mac as insecure when common pageranking would not simply put MS's "why is MS so secure" right after "why is linux/apple so insecure?". It means the answers are intellectually dishonest. If I wanted answers tailored to someone else's purpose I wouldn't be looking for things that are unbiased, as is my requirement.
(re: your reply to me)The other issue here is, when I'm looking for something I don't need bing to tell me what I want to find, that by searching google I don't need it to automatically assume I don't know how to type google.com., which is what it's essentially defaulting. I want to be able to look for news on google, or other actual things of information. Likewise with Microsoft. I don't want "all about Microsoft from Microsoft's webpage", because a company's own view will always be skewed. I want "all about Microsoft from everyone else in the world other than Microsoft". This is a failure of the search engine for me.
Oh I don't know, people looking for *news* maybe? Or updates? Or new google things? Otherwise how many times do you need to search for a site that you already know by name?
People look for things on search engines other than exactly their topic. This is the purpose of stumbleupon, for example.
maybe the appropriate question is, why should this answer bs eo complicated?
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.
Thanks for the hostility though! Maybe you should troll less, but it's nice to know how easy it is to out someone who is trolling.
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?
I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid, due to typing up a response without using logic in a clearly inflammatory and trollish manner.
you know, I actually wonder what mozilla will do it microsoft tries it again at this point.
What the christ are you talking about? there's no reason google simply can't increase their marketshare from where it's at. Yes, there's 100% total as is the basis of marketshare. But to say they can't go from x% to x%+1 for example, is fucking idiotic. Nobody said that it wouldn't require someone else to lose 1%.
they said they would have a solution, and this is a viable one. That is exactly what I had in mind as well. Like they say, locks keep honest people honest.
Reasons? Sure. Any result on things is skewed if it relates to MS. How can you call that "reliable"? There's a reason they call it a decision engine and not a search engine. Also, why do I want something that's been rammed down my throat as a default setting? I'd rather choose my own thing not have *constant* hijacking during every IE security update. Just wait for people to do bing bombs as they call "google bombs", and you'll see even more manipulation.
Also, the layout is annoying. Why not have news links up at the top? Why do I give a crap about related searches being linked at the side as opposed to next to each item? Why do I need microsoft self-sponsoring when I search for microsoft on bing? I don't get that with google. Also it sure is interesting that very few search results show up when I put the term google into bing, isn't it?.
I can keep searching more reasons if you want, but the end result is that the quality of results and accuracy is piss poor. Dogpile still beats results/accuracy of bing constantly.
microsoft is making themselves better and more productive? LOL I seriously hope you are joking. Bing is still very skewed to show positive results for things that MS is interested in gaining marketshare from. It's when people realize this, that they start to have less interest in bing. The only reason it has *any* marketshare beyond like 1% is being embedded and defaulted everywhere.
your response is incorrect. Even monopolies can increase marketshare, you know. To say they can't means the market isn't growing, which shows your lack of udnerstanding. Markets expand and shrink continually. Meanwhile, it's not like google should care if their search shrinks or increases because search is by far not the only thing they are doing anymore.
The trickery should be clear because microsoft is trying to gain marketshare by having articles posted every time they get 1/100^56th of a marketshare increase, even though nobody wants that piece of crap. 3%, 5%, 6%, etc. It's search results are crap even. You didn't hear google publicizing every 1% do ya?
well gee, since you put it so factual like that and all!
Or we can look at reality: settings don't get forgotten, there's no blurry display output, and they have the best multimonitor support out now with eyefinity. Maybe there were many versions ago, but both nvidia and amd likely do not have these problems at this point.
I'm not saying AMD is better than Nvidia or vice versa in my comment here - both companies have had their shares of hiccups and successes along the way and everyone has their preference - but your example is so illogical it astounds me. It's like "I had a bad day today and I bought AMD today too, so amd sucks".
try again.
DX11 and DX10.1 will be sharing a lot of features. DX10.0 does not. All the people getting an 8800gt for example, got screwed by that. I'm glad NV has a DX10.1 solution, but when will anyone have a copy of the DX11 card to test?
Sorry though, I meant to link the 5750, I was looking through stuff. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102859
barely at best, it's still slower than an 8800GT. You can almost get a 4870 for less than that. which would be DX11 compatible/significantly faster. Or get a 4850 which is still significantly faster and DX10.1.
basically, this was a bad move by nvidia, but it's all they have at the moment.
I like apples.
I'm not used to bing's layout nor do I like or plan to use bing even if it were the last search engine in existence, but it appeared to me to be the same result on both from your links.
Please. How could this be an embarrassing love affair? It's clearly made frontpage at slashdot among about 20 other news sites.
That's the best propaganda money can buy, even beyond lobby. It doesn't start with lobbying, it starts with whispers to the press and then moves to lobbying.
Bing is crap. If it more neutral, I'd sing praise, but it's not. The results also don't seem to be even remotely as accurate as google's for many tech issues. Every time a bing page deliberately does something to make MS look better from a search result, and is later corrected after press, people skip on the other 37 times it still goes on.
Easy example: search "windows is the least secure os" or just "least secure os" and look at the first few results on bing. Let me give you the first title page: "Print - Study: Linux Is Least Secure OS" from windowsitpro.com
Bing needs no boost, and wolfram could care less if they are linked by bing (although I suspect they will get pissed at some point due to the use of the bandwidth).
Mark Cuban has a love affair with microsoft and so this is just another part of his love affair. Basically, that's all it is. Bing won't dominate because it's quality is crap, and buying out a lot of customers won't make up for the fact that there will be a: less profitability and b: less quality.
bandwidth issues that will continue even into 4g and othwerwise, it has uses, just not mobile. I agree there may be some PC use - this general idea was not unexpected. With adding graphics support to mainstream virtualization this is somewhat of the next step.
says who that they aren't paid from piracy?
more business = more copyright infringement? How is that a loss? So you have 50 more people who have spread the word about your product to another 50 times (squared) allowing 50^2 possibilities of making extra sales?
they usefulness to raytrace an image on your cellphone...0. Pretty small difference.
I am all for AI research.. My workplace even sponsors some AI research based competitions of the most traditional kind. However, SC AI being ported to SC2 I doubt is insurmountable by a long shot. Blizzard has more developers at their hands than any company I can think of except for maybe microsoft. So really all this is, is a small investment with a big reward for Blizzard, as I said.
I guess I need to give you cites of companies that got fucked for having legal content.
Let's begin:
Pandora
Napster
Netflix
Imeem
Youtube
Hulu
Notice a trend here? All of these sites have some form of situation where everything they were doing is and was completely legal, but they got fucked by the RIAA/MPAA.
Hulu: cannot have more than 5 episodes of a series, quality is limited, they are forced to go against boxee constantly.
Youtube: videos can be automatically removed via false DMCA claims or copyright claims that don't even legally make sense (such as a gaming exploit for CODMW2 that activision is claiming copyright of the vide).
Imeem: the list of music is horrifically short and they're forced to allow music spambots
Netflix: 1 month delay, forced use of silverlight, maximum quality lowered if using silverlight or any online form versus receiving the discs.
I can keep going if you want. Don't be blaming the people who are supposedly doing illegal activities when they don't have a viable alternative.
It's like giving someone a box, and saying they must stay inside it without any kind of positive alternative. Are you really going to blame them for breaking/getting out of the box?
Starcraft AI? Well what do you suppose that is for? Notably you think an open competition won't just be sucked up by Blizzard as a result? duh.
Maybe you should again RTFA or learn what Starcraft is.