... I remembered reading about a study like this years ago. Turns out, I did. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/21465

I've often wondered if there were any studies along these lines, but with the x-axis as intensity of religious convictions. Do atheists fear death more or less than the devout?

Who do I talk to to get a gov't grant for this sort of thing?

Who has asserted there's nothing to hide?

I'm at a loss to see what an antivirus software needs with social networking integration. Can you explain; perhaps I'm missing something.

I'm being a dick here, but making a point. You say the definition is smart while simultaneously *NOT* using it correctly.

> There are solar systems ... rocky planets.

No, they're not planets. According to this "smart" definition.

My real name is only slightly less common (in the anglo world) than "John Smith", so Googling my name comes up with stuff about a famous golfer, several musicians (some also famous), and a boatload of just normal guys. I was also fortunate(?) enough to have gotten my name as a gmail account when only Google employees could send you invites, so I get misdirected email ALL THE TIME.

I was thinking the same thing. Apple's stuff from a hardware perspective is pretty, and the UI is... well thought out certainly. But overall I haven't seen Apple's software to be quite so orgasmatronical as the headline seems to assert.

Of course, MS' offerings are indeed bloated and underwhelming in everything but size.

Yes, I'm sure you are correct. Perhaps between his perception and mine somewhere the truth actually lay... =)

Yeah, I occasionally use hyperbole to make a point too.

I didn't specify this, but this guy has totally turned around from previous points of view he was passionate about; for example, software patents were as infuriating as hitting his thumb with a hammer.... unnnnntil he got to MS. Now they're ok, IF they're MS patents. There are other examples, but stuff like that and the whorish girlschool gushing (which is not like him, so I'm fairly sure it's enforced in some way, and not genuine), makes me distrustful of the company and how it treats people and/or forces them to act.

I don't actually DISLIKE Bing, but I haven't found it to be ... good. It's got a pretty background, but the services it offers just aren't that much (if at all) better than Google's. It's irrational I'm sure, but when my buddy just gushes like a schoolgirl over it I have an immediate disgust and distrust of it. But again, that's just me.

> Looks like someone turned off their logical thinking skills.

> I google for things on Bing.

Indeed.

Well, yes and no. It'd be interesting, but I have a friend in the Bing group and he's turned so totally fanboy about it that it's sickening on the level of listening to a true believer evangelist. Perhaps he always was and I never saw it, and perhaps it's more him than the company, but if working there turns off your critical thinking so wholly... no thanks.

> They want the work to be accurate.

I have not found this to be true; at least in the last 12 years or so. They'd much rather have it quickly. If it's accurate, that's great too, but not if it comes at the expense of quickly. The usual grind is that management asks development how long something will take. Once given an answer, they make up the number they wanted to hear and use that. Then push the devs relentlessly to get it out by then. Quality slips. QA gets end-run (end-ran?). The product gets put out in SOME form on time, with a conference call or press release that almost always has "high quality" and "on time" in it. The manager moves on, after having received accolades.

Then, as the bug reports come rolling in, the support team does what it can since the original developers have moved to another project, and/or knowing what fate awaited them with the crap they were forced to put out, moved out of the company.

I understand your point here, but I'm not sure this claim is exceptional. I think one of the points was that although this is the first (assuming it's true), this sort of thing is probably pretty common in the context of the size of the universe.

> Even if MSFT has a basically credible mobile phone OS, what do they have to draw people away from Apple, Android, or Blackberry?

1. Have more than a "basically credible" mobile phone OS.
2. To displace RIM, have complete, seamless, reliable and robust integration with the Office suite; mainly Outlook. That includes all the enterprisey stuff like remote wipe, complete security, etc. And make the integration free to entice companies to get rid of that RIM server crap that needs to be installed. Give phones away to high visibility companies that are already on the RIM solution.
3. To displace Android, lighten up on the walled garden crap. Open up a bit and really lower the barrier to entry for developers. (To be fair, I don't know what their stance is now, so maybe this is already the case.)
4. To displace Apple, fire Ballmer and/or spin off Mobile to not be under his domain, and hire someone as much a visionary and with the force of will and sense of style as Jobs. Even this won't displace Apple, but it would help.