How does it feel being an anonymous coward with -1 score?

OK so I said "the way people find news is shifting to social" and you said four things which say "I think HuffPo is bad"

Did you want to say anything that counters my assertion, or are you just trying to get ratings or votes or something? It's sad that many people will read what you wrote, and agree with it because they don't think logically and realize that you said nothing. Go google straw man. You attack something which I didn't say. Everyone thinks they're on Fox news.

Anyway, if you're capable of logic, follow me for a minute. Do you really claim that if an actual piece of journalism, an actual news item, one that met your discerning standards were to be shared on Twitter or Facebook it would somehow become not real news? That seems completely illogical and counter interintuitive, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant that the things that people share are not real news. But again, that does nothing for your claim.

It kinda feels like I'm doing all the work for you, right?

You might have meant that it's not true that people are shifting from search to social in order to find news. Maybe you don't like the things people consider news, but it's happening. News is entertainment, whether you like it or not.

And I don't care about being "useful or respected in any way" especially by a random douche on the internet.

The reason comments/shares/engagement are important is because the way people find news is shifting to social. SEO is still important because news on TV and Radio (and read over the shoulder of the guy in the subway) necessitates searching for the article when you get yourself online.

Disclaimer: I'm root@buzzfeed.com - Jonah Peretti (Huffpo's technical co-founder) is our CEO

When you don't notice that Jean-Louis Gassée is a co-author

What WP7 brings to the table is perfect compatibility with MS Exchange servers and MS Office file formats.
By "WP has perfect compatibility with Exchange" I of course mean "MS would make sure every other phone out there would have less than perfect compatibility with Exchange".
So that's really the selling point of WP7, except of course MS can't say that out loud.

I would favor more preemptive and swift action to prevent future attacks like this coming cyberwar

See, there are things where military is really really really inefficient - usually the ones where you have no idea who or where the enemy is.
I.e. imagine that you have an "attack" - let's say someone exploiting SCADA system - coming from let's say Toronto.
This could be:

• A "cyber-attack" from a hostile maple-syrup drinking hockey-watching enemy state, aboot to be followed by an invasion, eh ?
• An act of an individual citizen acting w/o Canadian govt knowledge
• Zombie computer being controlled by someone outside of Canada

And the most important thing: you have no idea which one it is. So to treat this as a military attack is just stupid.

Actually this is kind of amazing: we have wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - the later two having nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever - but the guy who actually attacked US was from our "ally" Saudi Arabia and he was living inside our "ally" Pakistan. In a mansion, no less.
It's great that we finally killed the bastard, but I have to wonder how much of the whole "war on terror" effort is spent on actually killing terrorists vs. doing useless things that create new terrorists.

So essentially Bing does aggregation and caching of Google's results, exactly the same way Google News aggregates and caches stories from news outlets like NY Times, AP, etc ? And Google is outraged because it's freedom of information when they do it with other people's publicly accessible web sites, but it's morally wrong when someone else does it to their publicly accessible web site ?