Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


Comment: Re:I agree (Score 5, Insightful) 596

by KarmaMB84 (#35090602) Attached to: Microsoft Vehemently Denies Google's "Bing Sting"
They did offer a defense: it's the customer data. What happens is even if that customer data is only weighted as 0.001% as important as their other metrics, if that customer data is the ONLY data they have for these bogus search terms, this would happen. Google used obviously bogus search terms which have exaggerated the weighting of that data. In reality, that data might only move a page up or down a ranking on page 10 of a real search on Bing for all we know.

Unless they come up with some actual evidence of real copying, this is a non-story. The #1 complaint around here all the time seems to be that Bing ISN'T giving the same results as Google so obviously that customer data isn't be weighted as important enough!

Comment: Re:Suing prospective clients? (Score 2) 187

by KarmaMB84 (#34784090) Attached to: Google Wins Injunction Against Agency Using Microsoft Cloud
It’s really nice how much taxpayer money Google is wasting here. They tried to convince the DOI they could meet their requirements and failed. The DOI wanted their stuff on a separate system and Google said it would be “logically separate”. Google shot themselves in the foot and are now suing and will probably cost the taxpayer more money in court costs than the entire contract would’ve been worth. If they were suing over a large contract where they didn’t legitimately fail at meeting the requirements it would be different. At this point Google is just being malicious.

Comment: Re:Suing prospective clients? (Score 1) 187

by KarmaMB84 (#34782672) Attached to: Google Wins Injunction Against Agency Using Microsoft Cloud

Another interesting point came up the last time this was discussed. DOI's requirements stated 'solution must be FISMA certified' 'BPOS is not FISMA certified' 'that's okay, we choose BPOS (we'll pay to get it certified after it's running)'. And Google's complaint alleged that DOI told Google 'your solution may not be considered because it is not FISMA certified' (although Google's solution has passed FISMA certification already).

From Google’s original filing the DOI could apparently certify BPOS-F themselves. They refused to review Google’s certification package before Google got their certification elsewhere.

Comment: Re:more leaks (Score 1) 394

by KarmaMB84 (#34661418) Attached to: TSA Investigates Pilot Who Exposed Security Flaws
In recent years, we’ve learned quite a few of our elected representatives not only think being fondled is no big deal, but they either like being fondled by other men or like to fondle other men themselves (while publicly stating that homosexuals will burn in hell to boot). It is no surprise that many of our security measures call for hot man on man fondling action.

Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.