It's not actually clear, from the discussion, whether or not a user had to follow any of the links from the Google search result, or if Microsoft was simply scraping the top Google search result off of the page and making it their own top 'search' result.

Another thing to note is that, apparently, most search users won't go past the first link, so -- if bing is quietly presenting Google's top result as bing's own top result (as opposed to second, third or last on the page), then they are -- for the most part -- really stealing Google's results because the non-Google results will be irrelevant to most searchers. ... just window dressing.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work." (wikipedia)

I think that the wikipedia definition pretty much says it. If Bing had put their purloined searches up as "Google top result", with a convenient link back to the Google page they scraped the result from -- then there'd be not be much to snark about. The problem with what they've done is they make it look as if they've independently come to the same conclusion as Google -- and, by implication, that the rest of 'their' results are equally relevant).

That is so incredibly WRONG. Shutting down a site is a form of censorship and should only be allowed with the moderation of the courts. Allowing the courts the ability to lift a ban could easily result in a case like we saw recently in Russia where a site is taken down without just cause and, because of various legal shenanigans it takes months (or even years) before a court order reversing the shutdown is issued.

If prosecutors have a clear case of violation, then let them get a court order (preferably with knowledge of the victim so that they can respond). That way overzealous prosecutors don't cause a chilling effect.

And the nasty thing is that -- despite the fact that txt messages are almost free for cell providers, they recently went to parliament to try and justify raisng the prices because it was 'so costly to provide'. Almost makes me sick.

There is, at the same time, a recent article on the CBC website saying that Mounties are asking people (especially youths) to please not text messages to 911.

This, on one hand, explains why twitter is so popular -- it makes it easier to text to more of your friends.

Twitter, on the other hand, amplifies the number of texts you receive, and gives you more impetus to send to your friends.

Well, given that the display doesn't actually exist, I expect that the object will actually fall through, after which it will be very easy to see where the display is (supposed to be).

Besides which, a 19inch 2400pixel display with one sensor per pixel would only give you a 126dpi scan ... that's not enough for much of anything, these days.

Actually, What it seems like they did was that they went to the local MS lawyer and said "There's illegal software on this computer ... RIGHT?

at which point the MS lawyer either blindly says that it's illegal or (at best) prevaricates. 4-8 months later, if the organization manages to prove that everything is legal, they will hopefully get their machines back.

This was easy to do in the past because "everybody knows" that everybody runs windows, and few people in Russia have legal licenses. Now, even if they claim that it's an illegal copy of photoshop, they now have to actually look at the machine first -- or plant the software, which is even more work....

And some people, by now, hopefully know to download GIMP, if they want to stay one step ahead of (corrupt) law enforcement.

Scientists have been prevented from considering certain possibilities, and researching in various directions. Given that speaking out on something as trivial as a 13,000 year old flood took days, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that papers that didn't support the Government's position on more contentious issues have been suppressed.

Actually, if you listen to the comments of some DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) scientists when asked about their thoughts on the (many years) raging 'controversy' over whether or not sea lice and other contaminants have been (drastically) affecting salmon runs their answers (or lack thereof) seem to make it pretty clear that they're not allowed to even think about the answers to those questions.

A few weeks ago, the Canadian Government decided that filling out 'long form' census questions would no longer be mandatory. They declared that Stats Canada scientists had assured them that this would not affect the quality of the data collected. The head scientist of Statistics Canada had to quit his job in order to counter the lies spoken by the Prime minister and his Cabinet.

Given the kind of control that they've taken over what government scientists can say, I have little question that some political hack is going to declare that submitting a paper to a scientific journal about a contentious issue is going to fall under this new policy.

Personally, I think that this is a flagrant violation of scientists' rights to free speech, but that's a matter for the courts to decide.

The GP Post sounds like it's made by a Microsoft astroturfer.

Perhaps the reason why DLL hell isn't a problem that Linux people can solve is that it's a problem unique to Windows..... and Linux people aren't inclined (or even legally allowed to solve problems in Microsoft's Windows code base.

... not to mention the prestige factor of being able to say that you live there.

It's also an incredible place to base your business. If you leave a message saying "Pleasd call Bill Smith at The White House 773-555-1376", You're almost sure to get a callback.

Well, I'm pretty sure that they have a rough idea, and it's way more than what they're saying in public. They just don't want to formalize their estimates, because then they'll have to report the numbers. I did some napkin (units(1)) calculations based on the volume of dispersant that they say they've been using and, if they're using at the suggested dilution, then at a minimum they're dealing with 60K~500K barrels per day.
((don't have the actual calculations on hand, right now, and I'm on a different computer, so I can't even just look at my command line history))

And that's a minimum.... the volume that they're using may be limited by the supply chain.

I'm guessing that, in internal conversations, they're duck-speaking their way around solid numbers... For example, they can talk about how much dispersant they'll need ( a number based on oil flow), but there's probably an unwritten rule about never mentioning the oil flow estimate that underlies that calculation, because it'll be seekable in disclosure requests, and they'll still be able to 'truthfully' claim that they've never talked about the actual oil flow.

In the case of the RIAA/MPAA/SPA, it's an assertion, not an assumption. They really don't care if it's true or not. In fact, they are probably fully aware that the claims are false. They make the assertions because they're good PR and not obviously false in the eyes of Joe Public.
(kinda like BP's original 5000 barrels/day claim.)

At this rate, he probably wouldn't even pass high-school math -- oh, wait!

As I understood it, the Heisenberg principle declared that you could not determine both without affecting one or the other (or both).

In this case, the laser chopsticks, by suspending the particle are affecting the particle's velocity, if not it's location. Thus the principle survives to this day.

(It's easy to violate a principle if you ignore it's conditions.)