I understand your analogy, but that doesn't apply to any other leased presence. (I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm agreeing but for a totally different reason.) In today's world, the idea that a server as a business presence seems quite obvious on one hand, and quite obviously not on the other.
So, I'll take a different tact. It's a factory. If I have a server in China, but am selling shoes in the US, my presence in China is as a factory, leased or not. I use power located there, electricity located there, and physical workers somewhere maintaining things that keep that server going.
Now, Apple can either lease a building and do business there, or it can contract a company there to do its work (which is what it actually does). The fact is, though, that no Chinese authority mistakes a contracted company for anything other than what it really is. Though not owned, it's a presence for Apple. And that presence means that China knows that when it talks to the management of that factory, it is talking to Apple.
In the virtual space, though, considerations ARE different. In the case of Apple, they're talking about labor and safety. In the server market, this is far, far from being the case, at least in the US. While I'd say you have a factory in Texas, for all practical intents and purposes, you don't have "factory issues" in Texas. While technically there, you're not practically there so long as you are contracting with a company that IS there, and who rightfully must take into account taxes, labor laws, etc.
So, I agree with you, but more for practical reasons of another company taking your place, paying your state income taxes for its employees, etc. rather than you owning the building and having employees there who fall under labor and tax laws.
Several horror films, but not much else except a story here or there by someone who get's a bee hive in/on/near their house (in which case, it really doesn't matter what kind of bee it is, they'll all want you to go far far away from them). But they've yet to terrorize and drive us into the oceans yet.
Doesn't worry me. I can think of more dangerous creatures, like the Philosorapture.
Not really. Evolution is a funny thing. You can either become resistant to your worst predator, or out populate it. Sure, it will kill X, but if you raise the ratio, you survive more by populating faster than by growing giant fangs to bite it back.
Make bees more tolerant to any other factor that inhibits its propogation, and they can outgrow anything, even infection. And, by increasing the numbers, you raise the chance for them to naturally evolve to resist infection or fungus or whatever it is that's killing them now.
I was once slicing potatoes. I always done this by hand, but I had one of those new plastic cutting boards with the blade built in that I wanted to try. I loved the speed, but I didn't know just how fast it cut. I would do half a potato, then switch to holding down the potato with a hand held plunger thingy. The plunger was really hard to hold, so I'd go longer and longer without it. By the 5th potato (the last), I went so fast and so far that the pain of slicing a millimeter off the tip of my thumb was an instant and panic filled moment.
Immediately my mind raced...
Undo! Undo! Undo!
The doctor that used something like a needle tipped hot gun to cauterize my thumb got a kick out of the story. I've never used one of those demon machines since.
You're over thinking the problem. The bashing will be real toilet humor, heh. Something about them being full of shit, or about what floats, or you can't keep a good gates flushed down.
That's far easier than sinking a joke about windows or getting potty mouthed. But, fighting the urge is just pissing in the wind. When mother nature calls with a joke, Just go with it and let it flow.
Who says he isn't? When my company buys out of state, we pay our use tax or VAT, whichever the case may be. My company doesn't care either way. We pay, because that's the law. You are required to pay if this is the law in your state. This isn't optional, it's illegal if you don't. All this says is that the company is required to collect the money upon sale, not that you are no longer allowed to not pay. You were never allowed to not pay.
Now, if people wanna vote away the requirement from the tax law of their state, that's another matter. Right now, it is law in most states.
On Facebook, Mark sees other people's info, and they can't see his.
On Google+, he set his profile public, and they can all see him, and he can't see all the stuff they set private like he can on Facebook.
See? Privacy... Concern...
Unless Mark can be private while at the same time looking into everyone else's dirty little secrets (I wonder exactly how many private nude pictures he's check out late nights at FB...), then it's a concern for him, a... privacy... concern...
Besides, this is a publicity stunt. He is trying to throw privacy concerns Google's way to make them look just as bad as him. Of course, it could be the biggest FAIL of the year. It'd be like McDonald's calling out Wendy's on obesity concerns.
does not match what people would define as "Linux"
...but they refused to define who the people are and what their definition of Linux is.I'm going to put this argument not just to bed, but in its damn grave once and for all.
Let me quote someone for you all, Linus Torvalds, you know, the guy who created Linux from scratch and named it after himself (emphasis added):
In a separate incident Linus Torvalds the father of Linux expressed his anger at Google. Linus accused Google of undermining the role of Linux in Android. Due to Google's marketting of Android, apart from the tech-sisterhood, no one knows that Android is Linux. To give Linux its credit Linus is asking Google to call it Linux/Android or Android+Linux.
"I don't care if you put cart in front of horse or horse in front of cart. If you want to go somewhere you have to keep them together."...
When RMS was asked to further explain his point, he said. "I have maintained from the very beginning that when you refer to whole system you must call it GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux but when you are referring only to the kernel its Linux and not GNU/Linux."
Is it GNU/Linux? No. Is it Linux? YES. And going further, And speaking in reference to someone's claim that Google Android violated the GPL (emphasis added):
It seems totally bogus. We've always made it very clear that the kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived work as per the GPL, and the kernel details are exported through the kernel headers to all the normal glibc interfaces too. The kernel headers contain various definitions for the interfaces to user space, and we even actively try to make sure that the headers can be used by user space (and try to mark which of the headers are expected to be usable in such a way). Exactly because we know user space needs those details in order to interact with the kernel. So I haven't looked at exactly what Google does with the kernel headers, but I can't see that they'd want to do anything fundamentally different from glibc in this respect.
Of course, we do have our own 'internal' headers too, and we have stuff that is meant to be relevant only for the kernel. But there would be no point for Google to even use those, since they are useless outside of the kernel, so I don't see what the whole brouhaha would be all about. Except if it's somebody politically motivated (or motivated by some need of attention). If it's some desperate cry for attention by somebody, I just wish those people would release their own sex tapes or something, rather than drag the Linux kernel into their sordid world.
So, please, please, if you don't know what what you are talking about, refer to Linus and even RMS (shudder) who BOTH call Android Linux. So much so that RMS clarifies exactly how to call it Linux and Linus is pissed that it isn't named Linux!
Oh, in that case, I'll just call you wrong and be done with it. If nobody called it Linux, they there'd be nobody arguing that it isn't Linux. The topic completely disproves beyond all doubt that nobody calls it Linux.
By "people" define who these "people" are? I've been a Linux admin since the days of Caldera. So... who are these "people"?
Chris Dibona calls OSX Linux (at least that's what I got from him FTA), and I'd agree. Apple has gone much further away.
I completely agree, it isn't GNU, it's a mixture. The reason FTA has to do with Patents. GNU is not as patent friendly as what they need. On the other hand, their Apache license give free reuse of all patents that touch their Apache licensed software. I mean, damn, there is absolutely nothing more they could do to make it open. This is the very far limit of what any company could ever do. And they are following the lead of other companies that said, "Listen, we have a ton of patents, and we're opening them up. We're keeping the patents so that nobody can ever try to enforce them, and we'll counter-sue the hell out of you if you challenge our patents... but here you go, nonprofits and commercial, have fun with this portion of our patent portfolia."
In that light, I really don't wanna hear objections, cause there are no valid objects to say, "Google is being evil!" That's just false and is what is implied by those objections if they are to have any other real meaning.
That's why the debate is meaningless. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Google could do to be more open and still be a corporation. I'm environmental, but freakish tree huggers tick me off. I'm all about FOSS, and yes, I do mean capital F, which RMS is all whiny about, but it's the freakish OSS people like Stallman and "Android is not Linux" people that just royally pisses me off. The implications they make is that money is evil and any profiting from code is super evil, nevermind that Google doesn't make a dime directly off the code.
They really need to take the tin foil off or go busy themselves at a G8 summit protest or something. It's anti-corporatism, not OSS, if you really boil it down. For my part, I'm skeptical of all companies. Hell, I spent more than half my life screaming the Hacker Manifesto by The Mentor in IRC chat rooms with my friends, and we were all anti-system. But sweet Jesus, does nobody realize that we were fighting against the technopolies, Ma Bell, Microsoft, and their kind? Google is what we wanted these companies to be!
And now that we have one of the world's largest companies being a proactive, peaceful, and open source as hell, we gotta bitch over the semantics of at what level is something Linux as if they just aren't good enough?
Having come from the community that I have, which was Anonymous before there was an Anonymous... it kinda pisses me off. There is a time to fight, and there are a hell of a lot of things to fight. This is NOT one of them. This is FAR from it.
FFS don't bring this argument up again. You're talking about apps and marketplace. I'll say it slowly... nobody... cares. You can install from totally free 3rd party markets, including GetJar and Amazon and you can download totally open sourced apps.
The same is true of Ubuntu and the Multiverse. You can CHOOSE to run pay software, the same as Android. I can run a commercial server daemon on pure, fully open Linux. Does that cease to be Linux? No.
Why doesn't anyone get the point that it's about choice. I'd go line by line, but honestly, it's a worn out argument with flamebait about credit card processing and other stuff that borderlines on conspiracy theory topics. All I really have to say is, get off your soapbox. Like every other discussion about opensource, I default to "If you don't like it, do better or GTFO." You say you can't. *shrug* Other's do, and I hear them bitching less and coding more.
I don't mean to sound offensive, but I'm REALLY flipping tired of hearing "Andoird is not Linux". That's pure flaimbait and all you talked about was apps and that has NOTHING! NOTHING! to do with the OS.
If you want to start a new project this kicks of our timeclock where my office, patents and trademarks all have three days to approve it or to say why they can't. If they don' act the project gets automatically approved and you can do the release. Usually we finish all the paper work and all the bureaucracy before the developers are done with the process of engineering for release.
For larger projects - like Android and Chrome - we engage with them years ahead of time. We were talking with the Android guys probably three years before the G1 came out, helping them with their license compliance, selection and strategy.
So you know DAMN good and well Google poured over phone patents, like Microsoft's, and deemed it safe... and had already engaged the lawyers "years ahead of time".
With this knowledge, shouldn't Google rise up and be power flaming MS over suing Motorola and others who use Android? You know every effort was made to avoid a losing legal situation. Having your ducks in a row years ahead of time should scare even a large corporation like MS who probably reacted at even the smallest chance of winning.
I was being tongue in cheek.;) Then again, that actually would be nice to link my/. profile to G+ (or anywhere), rather than just listing it as a website or contact info.
I did the strict "don't mix business with pleasure" on Facebook too. I'd lightened up and added some, but then I got into arguments on Facebook with managers over topics like the mosque project near the Twin Towers (they were actually pretty racist, which I had previously been unaware of), and had to remove them.
With Google+, I feel the same way. I can finally have a public profile again! My Facebook had eventually been completely private, locked down, and I really didn't even enjoy HAVING to respond if someone messaged me.
I'm addicted now. I feel with Google+ like I did when I first joined Twitter. I ran to Twitter to just be myself, and damn the consequences. The only problem there, of course, was eventually locking down that account too.
With both services, it was never really easy to say I want THIS public, I want THIS private, and I want THIS to be a mix. Google+ is both granular and simple. I have no plans to lock anything down again. Circles is what I've been waiting for this whole time.
I don't give a damn if Google+ is bigger than Facebook or not. It's my new home, and if people want to stay at Facebook, so be it. I've got another circle for people who ignore my invites who I occasionally will say hi to and have Google email them my update.
It actually is a feature. FTA: "On Friday, Alex Eckelberry, the general manager of GFI Software's security group and the CEO of Sunbelt Software, said that searches using terms like "sex," "porn," "girl" and "streaming" on the Microsoft site were returning links to pornographic websites at or near the top of the results list."
Well, Gee-flipping-whiz! A search tool brought up porn when someone searched for... porn! Crazy! Call me simple, but it sounds to me that some engineer did his job in delivering relevant search results, poison or not. If you search for sex and porn, odds are that those "poison" results are probably the more relevant results. I understand this is a security site, but either that means you limit it to a list of sites, or you expect open search to, well, search openly.
This is why Bing has to copy Google results. If it didn't, they'd be going nuts over why searches for porn lead to pornography. This way, they still don't know, but they know the internets is happy with Google's strange and mysterious search code that causes pornography to show up on occasion.
As for the poison, its obvious. This wouldn't work on Google because it would take millions of searchers to do this particular technique. I doubt many people actually use this tiny little engine, and a few dedicated people with hours to waste probably thought using it would get around a corporate firewall blocking porn links from Google or something like that. I must say, though, that's a LOT of fapping for this to add up to a poison.
Slashdot Mirror
... aren't aware of any apps outside the Apple app store, phones outside the Apple line, or music outside of iTunes.
Of course, that can also be said of Blackberry users, 99% of which probably don't know it's now 2011. ;)
I always wanted vulnerabilities in my otherwise secure 64bit systems!
I understand your analogy, but that doesn't apply to any other leased presence. (I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm agreeing but for a totally different reason.) In today's world, the idea that a server as a business presence seems quite obvious on one hand, and quite obviously not on the other.
So, I'll take a different tact. It's a factory. If I have a server in China, but am selling shoes in the US, my presence in China is as a factory, leased or not. I use power located there, electricity located there, and physical workers somewhere maintaining things that keep that server going.
Now, Apple can either lease a building and do business there, or it can contract a company there to do its work (which is what it actually does). The fact is, though, that no Chinese authority mistakes a contracted company for anything other than what it really is. Though not owned, it's a presence for Apple. And that presence means that China knows that when it talks to the management of that factory, it is talking to Apple.
In the virtual space, though, considerations ARE different. In the case of Apple, they're talking about labor and safety. In the server market, this is far, far from being the case, at least in the US. While I'd say you have a factory in Texas, for all practical intents and purposes, you don't have "factory issues" in Texas. While technically there, you're not practically there so long as you are contracting with a company that IS there, and who rightfully must take into account taxes, labor laws, etc.
So, I agree with you, but more for practical reasons of another company taking your place, paying your state income taxes for its employees, etc. rather than you owning the building and having employees there who fall under labor and tax laws.
Several horror films, but not much else except a story here or there by someone who get's a bee hive in/on/near their house (in which case, it really doesn't matter what kind of bee it is, they'll all want you to go far far away from them). But they've yet to terrorize and drive us into the oceans yet.
Doesn't worry me. I can think of more dangerous creatures, like the Philosorapture.
Not really. Evolution is a funny thing. You can either become resistant to your worst predator, or out populate it. Sure, it will kill X, but if you raise the ratio, you survive more by populating faster than by growing giant fangs to bite it back.
Make bees more tolerant to any other factor that inhibits its propogation, and they can outgrow anything, even infection. And, by increasing the numbers, you raise the chance for them to naturally evolve to resist infection or fungus or whatever it is that's killing them now.
...to the cop when they get pulled over for texting while driving?
Yeah, you don't wanna get caught out in the open mooning a sniper who'll put a shot right up Uranus.
I was once slicing potatoes. I always done this by hand, but I had one of those new plastic cutting boards with the blade built in that I wanted to try. I loved the speed, but I didn't know just how fast it cut. I would do half a potato, then switch to holding down the potato with a hand held plunger thingy. The plunger was really hard to hold, so I'd go longer and longer without it. By the 5th potato (the last), I went so fast and so far that the pain of slicing a millimeter off the tip of my thumb was an instant and panic filled moment.
Immediately my mind raced...
Undo! Undo! Undo!
The doctor that used something like a needle tipped hot gun to cauterize my thumb got a kick out of the story. I've never used one of those demon machines since.
You're over thinking the problem. The bashing will be real toilet humor, heh. Something about them being full of shit, or about what floats, or you can't keep a good gates flushed down.
That's far easier than sinking a joke about windows or getting potty mouthed. But, fighting the urge is just pissing in the wind. When mother nature calls with a joke, Just go with it and let it flow.
Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week folks!
I skimmed it to look for it, didn't find it. Went too quickly. In that case, OP is correct. However, that doesn't change the fact that many do pay.
Who says he isn't? When my company buys out of state, we pay our use tax or VAT, whichever the case may be. My company doesn't care either way. We pay, because that's the law. You are required to pay if this is the law in your state. This isn't optional, it's illegal if you don't. All this says is that the company is required to collect the money upon sale, not that you are no longer allowed to not pay. You were never allowed to not pay.
Now, if people wanna vote away the requirement from the tax law of their state, that's another matter. Right now, it is law in most states.
On Facebook, Mark sees other people's info, and they can't see his.
On Google+, he set his profile public, and they can all see him, and he can't see all the stuff they set private like he can on Facebook.
See? Privacy... Concern...
Unless Mark can be private while at the same time looking into everyone else's dirty little secrets (I wonder exactly how many private nude pictures he's check out late nights at FB...), then it's a concern for him, a... privacy... concern...
Besides, this is a publicity stunt. He is trying to throw privacy concerns Google's way to make them look just as bad as him. Of course, it could be the biggest FAIL of the year. It'd be like McDonald's calling out Wendy's on obesity concerns.
OMG, a google splash screen! Jackpot! ;)
Someone below said Android:
does not match what people would define as "Linux"
...but they refused to define who the people are and what their definition of Linux is.I'm going to put this argument not just to bed, but in its damn grave once and for all.
Let me quote someone for you all, Linus Torvalds, you know, the guy who created Linux from scratch and named it after himself (emphasis added):
In a separate incident Linus Torvalds the father of Linux expressed his anger at Google. Linus accused Google of undermining the role of Linux in Android. Due to Google's marketting of Android, apart from the tech-sisterhood, no one knows that Android is Linux. To give Linux its credit Linus is asking Google to call it Linux/Android or Android+Linux.
"I don't care if you put cart in front of horse or horse in front of cart. If you want to go somewhere you have to keep them together." ...
When RMS was asked to further explain his point, he said. "I have maintained from the very beginning that when you refer to whole system you must call it GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux but when you are referring only to the kernel its Linux and not GNU/Linux."
http://www.muktware.com/blogs/01/2011/943/richard-m-stallman-says-its-linux-not-gnulinux-linus-upset-android
Is it GNU/Linux? No. Is it Linux? YES. And going further, And speaking in reference to someone's claim that Google Android violated the GPL (emphasis added):
It seems totally bogus. We've always made it very clear that the kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived work as per the GPL, and the kernel details are exported through the kernel headers to all the normal glibc interfaces too. The kernel headers contain various definitions for the interfaces to user space, and we even actively try to make sure that the headers can be used by user space (and try to mark which of the headers are expected to be usable in such a way). Exactly because we know user space needs those details in order to interact with the kernel.
So I haven't looked at exactly what Google does with the kernel headers, but I can't see that they'd want to do anything fundamentally different from glibc in this respect.
Of course, we do have our own 'internal' headers too, and we have stuff that is meant to be relevant only for the kernel. But there would be no point for Google to even use those, since they are useless outside of the kernel, so I don't see what the whole brouhaha would be all about. Except if it's somebody politically motivated (or motivated by some need of attention). If it's some desperate cry for attention by somebody, I just wish those people would release their own sex tapes or something, rather than drag the Linux kernel into their sordid world.
http://www.osnews.com/story/24557/Torvalds_Android_GPL_Claims_quot_Totally_Bogus_quot_
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/03/23/014223/Linus-Says-Android-License-Claim-Is-Bogus
So, please, please, if you don't know what what you are talking about, refer to Linus and even RMS (shudder) who BOTH call Android Linux. So much so that RMS clarifies exactly how to call it Linux and Linus is pissed that it isn't named Linux!
DEBATE F%&^ING OVER! QED!
Oh, in that case, I'll just call you wrong and be done with it. If nobody called it Linux, they there'd be nobody arguing that it isn't Linux. The topic completely disproves beyond all doubt that nobody calls it Linux.
By "people" define who these "people" are? I've been a Linux admin since the days of Caldera. So... who are these "people"?
Chris Dibona calls OSX Linux (at least that's what I got from him FTA), and I'd agree. Apple has gone much further away.
I completely agree, it isn't GNU, it's a mixture. The reason FTA has to do with Patents. GNU is not as patent friendly as what they need. On the other hand, their Apache license give free reuse of all patents that touch their Apache licensed software. I mean, damn, there is absolutely nothing more they could do to make it open. This is the very far limit of what any company could ever do. And they are following the lead of other companies that said, "Listen, we have a ton of patents, and we're opening them up. We're keeping the patents so that nobody can ever try to enforce them, and we'll counter-sue the hell out of you if you challenge our patents... but here you go, nonprofits and commercial, have fun with this portion of our patent portfolia."
In that light, I really don't wanna hear objections, cause there are no valid objects to say, "Google is being evil!" That's just false and is what is implied by those objections if they are to have any other real meaning.
That's why the debate is meaningless. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Google could do to be more open and still be a corporation. I'm environmental, but freakish tree huggers tick me off. I'm all about FOSS, and yes, I do mean capital F, which RMS is all whiny about, but it's the freakish OSS people like Stallman and "Android is not Linux" people that just royally pisses me off. The implications they make is that money is evil and any profiting from code is super evil, nevermind that Google doesn't make a dime directly off the code.
They really need to take the tin foil off or go busy themselves at a G8 summit protest or something. It's anti-corporatism, not OSS, if you really boil it down. For my part, I'm skeptical of all companies. Hell, I spent more than half my life screaming the Hacker Manifesto by The Mentor in IRC chat rooms with my friends, and we were all anti-system. But sweet Jesus, does nobody realize that we were fighting against the technopolies, Ma Bell, Microsoft, and their kind? Google is what we wanted these companies to be!
And now that we have one of the world's largest companies being a proactive, peaceful, and open source as hell, we gotta bitch over the semantics of at what level is something Linux as if they just aren't good enough?
Having come from the community that I have, which was Anonymous before there was an Anonymous... it kinda pisses me off. There is a time to fight, and there are a hell of a lot of things to fight. This is NOT one of them. This is FAR from it.
Sorry for the rant, must be the record heat.
LOL@Flaimbait. IT WAS A SLASHDOT STORY! Read the link, mod dumbasses!
Now this post IS a flame, haha.
FFS don't bring this argument up again. You're talking about apps and marketplace. I'll say it slowly... nobody... cares. You can install from totally free 3rd party markets, including GetJar and Amazon and you can download totally open sourced apps.
The same is true of Ubuntu and the Multiverse. You can CHOOSE to run pay software, the same as Android. I can run a commercial server daemon on pure, fully open Linux. Does that cease to be Linux? No.
Why doesn't anyone get the point that it's about choice. I'd go line by line, but honestly, it's a worn out argument with flamebait about credit card processing and other stuff that borderlines on conspiracy theory topics. All I really have to say is, get off your soapbox. Like every other discussion about opensource, I default to "If you don't like it, do better or GTFO." You say you can't. *shrug* Other's do, and I hear them bitching less and coding more.
I don't mean to sound offensive, but I'm REALLY flipping tired of hearing "Andoird is not Linux". That's pure flaimbait and all you talked about was apps and that has NOTHING! NOTHING! to do with the OS.
TL:DR
FTA:
If you want to start a new project this kicks of our timeclock where my office, patents and trademarks all have three days to approve it or to say why they can't. If they don' act the project gets automatically approved and you can do the release. Usually we finish all the paper work and all the bureaucracy before the developers are done with the process of engineering for release.
For larger projects - like Android and Chrome - we engage with them years ahead of time. We were talking with the Android guys probably three years before the G1 came out, helping them with their license compliance, selection and strategy.
So you know DAMN good and well Google poured over phone patents, like Microsoft's, and deemed it safe... and had already engaged the lawyers "years ahead of time".
With this knowledge, shouldn't Google rise up and be power flaming MS over suing Motorola and others who use Android? You know every effort was made to avoid a losing legal situation. Having your ducks in a row years ahead of time should scare even a large corporation like MS who probably reacted at even the smallest chance of winning.
Screw Ubuntu, now I want Goobuntu!
I was being tongue in cheek. ;) Then again, that actually would be nice to link my /. profile to G+ (or anywhere), rather than just listing it as a website or contact info.
I did the strict "don't mix business with pleasure" on Facebook too. I'd lightened up and added some, but then I got into arguments on Facebook with managers over topics like the mosque project near the Twin Towers (they were actually pretty racist, which I had previously been unaware of), and had to remove them.
With Google+, I feel the same way. I can finally have a public profile again! My Facebook had eventually been completely private, locked down, and I really didn't even enjoy HAVING to respond if someone messaged me.
I'm addicted now. I feel with Google+ like I did when I first joined Twitter. I ran to Twitter to just be myself, and damn the consequences. The only problem there, of course, was eventually locking down that account too.
With both services, it was never really easy to say I want THIS public, I want THIS private, and I want THIS to be a mix. Google+ is both granular and simple. I have no plans to lock anything down again. Circles is what I've been waiting for this whole time.
I don't give a damn if Google+ is bigger than Facebook or not. It's my new home, and if people want to stay at Facebook, so be it. I've got another circle for people who ignore my invites who I occasionally will say hi to and have Google email them my update.
Don't use your slashdot journal? Philistine!
I'm taking a page from Kevin Rose and forwarding my journal to my Google+ profile.
Most other countries don't have military grade militaries.
It actually is a feature. FTA: "On Friday, Alex Eckelberry, the general manager of GFI Software's security group and the CEO of Sunbelt Software, said that searches using terms like "sex," "porn," "girl" and "streaming" on the Microsoft site were returning links to pornographic websites at or near the top of the results list."
Well, Gee-flipping-whiz! A search tool brought up porn when someone searched for... porn! Crazy! Call me simple, but it sounds to me that some engineer did his job in delivering relevant search results, poison or not. If you search for sex and porn, odds are that those "poison" results are probably the more relevant results. I understand this is a security site, but either that means you limit it to a list of sites, or you expect open search to, well, search openly.
This is why Bing has to copy Google results. If it didn't, they'd be going nuts over why searches for porn lead to pornography. This way, they still don't know, but they know the internets is happy with Google's strange and mysterious search code that causes pornography to show up on occasion.
As for the poison, its obvious. This wouldn't work on Google because it would take millions of searchers to do this particular technique. I doubt many people actually use this tiny little engine, and a few dedicated people with hours to waste probably thought using it would get around a corporate firewall blocking porn links from Google or something like that. I must say, though, that's a LOT of fapping for this to add up to a poison.