They were only bad if you didn't know how to use them. I found them to be infinitely better than what we have now - even Google of 3-4 years ago was better than now.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Why would I want crappy results? I want it to give me what I want, which by definition isn't "crappy".
And you think a system built by man can divine what you and everyone else wants at the moment you type it in? That'll be the day. Until then, assume I know what I want and not your system.
Search for what I type in, not what you think I want
I want a search engine that searches for what I want, not what I type, and not even what I think I want.
I can't tell if that's sarcasm, stupidity, or trolling... you actually want a search engine that when you search it ignores your input (ie: gives top results saying "missing: stormtrooper" from a search specifically for stormtrooper information), ignores what you tell it not to give you (ie: -books will still give Google Books results) and generally give you crappy results (ie: try searching for terms which happen to coincide with a syndicated news story - it's impossible to filter out every news outlet that picks it up)?
oops.. never mind. Blekko is already gone... hrm... maybe Ark? Seems more social than geek though.
If you find a good one let me know. I've tried Bing, DuckDuckGo and a smattering of others - they all seem to have the same results or lack any sort of depth which is highly disappointing. My next to try is Blekko - I like the concept of
What made Google so great when it was still relatively new was the results were more relevant, i.e. they weren't just a bunch of advertisements. With the rise SEO that is less the case now, and looking for something on Google for me now means adding "-buy -purchase -price -shop" automatically.
Google seems to ignore '-term' when it comes to certain sites/terms.
Day to day needs I would want 3x2TB SSDs for laptop use, a 2TB SSD external for games run directly off the drive and the remainder could be platters. That would be my ideal situation if SSDs were cheaper. I can't afford that so I've stuck entirely with platters and limiting speed factor on my system is the drives in them... I'm constantly hitting 100% usage for extended periods keeping the systems hanging.
Search for what I type in, now what you think I want. I'm so sick of having to change every search to "verbatim" because my search terms are being ignored. I'd switch to someone else but they seem to be carbon copies.
More plausibly is that there's an array of antibiotic sources in their diet/cultural medicine that led them to develop a resistance.
I want an SSD for the basic performance increase over platter drives for many reasons but I'm not going to pay 13 times more per GB for an SSD over a platter drive. They'd have to bring the $/GB of SSDs to under $0.15 for them to be worth switching. As is I'm looking at 10TB of storage minimum for home use.
Most blatant slashvertisment I've ever seen.
Problem is as a consumer I could care less about the speed of SSD drives. I would like to care about the speed but they've not addressed the major problem: price. $1/GB is just insane in a $0.03/GB world. I need capacity far more than I need speed.
The "technical reasons" are bunk. It's a computer system, anything is possible if you have the desire to make it so.
shoup is very easy when it's printed on the side of the machine.
To me voting machines are something that should be handled by the open source community. 100% transparent, by the people for the people in every sense, and ultimately supported financially by governments who buy the machines.
...."I think this has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it's not fair to say Wikipedia is 'self-correcting.'"
It's fair to say Wikipedia is self-reenforcing and subtlety is lost.
To me, Wikipedia is a cult - you can keep sending them money, contributing to their belief system, and you can never leave (I'm serious, they have no way to delete an account)
Regardless of whether you view Snowden as a despicable traitor or an honorable whistleblower, it's worth a watch.
I didn't think so.
Oliver criticized Snowden for his complex descriptions of complex issues, and asserted that it's Snowden's job to make the facts easily digestible and relatable for the general public. It's not. In the first place, it's the media's job to do that. That is their raison d'etre. In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media. Why fuel that race to the bottom? Idiocracy was supposed to be satire, not prophecy.
[facepalm] Oliver, via his comedy, was simplifying the issue, making a commentary on the media, and the comprehension level of the American people. It was layered and pointed and even managed some balance all wrapped in humour. Brilliant.