Comment Re:Yahoo? (Score 3, Informative) 169
So use http://search.yahoo.com/
Comment Re:I believe I've also contributed to Bing's rise. (Score 5, Interesting) 169
That's a great feature in Bing, actually. Especially if looking for more adult material. Another thing is that Google has really crapped their design lately. It relies heavily on javascript and they've gone and hidden the cached link in the side panel that opens when you hover it. It's slow and clumsy. Same thing happened to their image search. It's sad because Google always took pride in providing clear, useful interface, but not anymore. I guess they get more ad clicks by frustrating users who use the normal search.
Comment How is this different? (Score 0, Troll) 102
How is this different
How is this different from when Google uses open source? There's a great article about the supposed openness by Google here
Some good points from it:
Where Google is losing you can count on them pushing the open label in order to build momentum & destroy the asymmetrical information advantages of existing market leaders. But where Google leads non-transparency is the norm.
- At the same time Google is trying to push social sites to offer transparent data, they decided to block some Google search referral data (unless you are paying for the clicks, then you get that data).
- When planning some of the features behind Google+ one of their employees wrote a book about the social circles concept with Google's blessings. Then, after he wrote the book, Google revoked permission to publish it!
- Android is open but internal Google emails revealed that carriers were getting wise to Google using compatibility as a club.
- The Panda update was needed to rid the web of garbage content. And yet Google is pre-paying Demand Media to post videos on YouTube. Since the Panda update downstream Google traffic to YouTube has more than doubled & YouTube is serving over a trillion streams per year!
- In spite of not having permission to do so, Google has been scanning books for nearly a decade now. Yet whenever Google goes to court they try to get the court documents sealed so that their statements couldn't be used against them.
If you only had to manage competing against other market competitors & staying inside Google's editorial guidelines then investment isn't that difficult, but if you have to stay within Google's guidelines in the short term yet try to build a business that is sustainable even after Google enters & destroys the market it is far more difficult.
A Self-serving Bias You Can Count On
When Google enters a market it might buy out a competitor, buy out a supplier, bundle, use predatory pricing, grant themselves superior search placement, adjust the relevancy algorithms and/or editorial guidelines, violate IP, scrape 3rd party content, work with sketchy advertisers & publishers to undermine competing business models, or any combination of the above.
They are rarely transparent with their interests when they enter a market. Almost everything is labeled as "a beta" and "just a test." They promise to "act appropriately" & you may not be aware of the steamroller until you are under it.
Google can bundle themselves into markets, but when others do the same it is a big no no:
A Google spokesman said "applications that are installed without clear disclosure, that are hard to remove and that modify users' experiences in unexpected ways are bad for users and the Web as a whole."
Google's founding research highlighted how bad ad-driven search engines were & then Google's core revenue engine of paid search was built on their violation of Overture's patent. They keep buying swaths of patents to protect against their other violations
.
The business model of "violate & then buy protection" has helped lead to a protection-racket styled marketplace in patents that makes the risk of innovation for smaller players so expensive that it drives them under.
Their "quality content" thesis could have come across as being honest if they weren't still pre-paying Demand Media to upload "content" to YouTube.
I suggest you read the whole article. It tells you about the very dark side of Google.
Comment Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score 0) 241
I tend to disagree. Reddit has a strong arm of users who vouch for the "reddiquitte" and defend those who are backing opinion with tangible facts. Its rare that you see a well written post that gets downvoted into hiding so long as it doesn't flame others or use emotionally charged wording. Sure it wont necessarily reach top comment status but it is still visible.
This is my experience as well. It also leads to discussions on Reddit being more interesting and both sides on the argument can voice their opinion. I've been using Reddit for a few years and I still haven't seen a single instance of where moderation was abused. Obviously bad and troll comments are on the - side, and they're always some one liners with stupid comments. If you present your opinion well, it will be upmodded, and everyone is free to discuss it. Compare that to slashdot where any comment that doesn't go by the groupthink gets modded down, and you can clearly see why this site has been going downhill for a long time.
Submission + - EPIC Suggests FTC Looks At Google+ (epic.org) 1
DCTech writes: Electronic Privacy Information Center has wrote to FTC about privacy and antitrust issues surrounding Google+ and their recent implementation of Google+ results within standard Google search results. EPIC's concerns are that users cannot opt-out of their personal information shown in search results and that Google's changes come at a time when the company is facing increased scrutiny over whether it distorts search results by giving preference to its own content. "Recently, the Senate held a hearing on Google's use of its dominance in the search market to suppress competition, and EPIC urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google's use of Youtube search rankings to give preferential treatment to its own video content over non-Google content. "
Submission + - EPIC Suggests FTC Looks At Google+ Antitrust Issue (epic.org)
DCTech writes: Electronic Privacy Information Center has wrote to FTC about privacy and antitrust issues surrounding Google+ and their recent implementation of Google+ results within standard Google search results. EPIC's concerns are that users cannot opt-out of their personal information shown in search results and that Google's changes come at a time when the company is facing increased scrutiny over whether it distorts search results by giving preference to its own content. "Recently, the Senate held a hearing on Google's use of its dominance in the search market to suppress competition, and EPIC urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google's use of Youtube search rankings to give preferential treatment to its own video content over non-Google content. "
Comment Re:This was suggested on Slashdot (Score 1) 89
For a long time Slashdotters have suggested cutting off internet for anyone who has botnet or malware on their computer. Why are you resisting?
Comment Re:When can we get Reddit's moderation system on / (Score 2, Insightful) 241
The problem with Slashdot is the huge amount of groupthink and related moderation. Slashdot has a HUGE problem with downmodding any non-popular opinion (within slashdot crowd). Reddit addresses that, while Slashdot does not. For example, look at any comment that even points out that piracy might not be right, open source programs might not be that good or that Microsoft could sometimes be right. They are instantly downmodded, based on groupthink and not even wanting to hear dissenting opinions.
Comment Re:This was suggested on Slashdot (Score 1) 89
You really cannot see sarcastic comment thrown at you, can you? And how it relates to botnets, well gee, maybe read the summary
Microsoft has proven that it can take down huge, global botnets like Kelihos, Rustock and Waldec.
Comment This was suggested on Slashdot (Score -1, Troll) 89
Wasn't the usual talk on Slashdot always how government should go after those botnet owners? Yes it was, even suggesting that they should just bomb their location, no questions asked. Seems like a good thing then. I hope Microsoft expands it to all other internet crimes, like stalking, copyright infringement and counterfeit goods!
Comment Re:As soon as (Score 0, Offtopic) 241
Besides, Slashcode is open source and used by many sites, not just Slashdot.
Apart from Slashdot Japan, by who, exactly?
Comment Re:As soon as (Score -1, Offtopic) 241
Why should I be the one submitting patch there? Slashdot has full-time editors and coder(s) working on the site. They turn in a hefty sum of cash every month too, especially considering their advertisement rates. Slashdot makes enough money to improve this site by themselves.
Comment When can we get Reddit's moderation system on /. (Score -1, Offtopic) 241
Frankly it seems to be much better than what we have on Slashdot. Increasingly I've found both people and the moderation on Reddit to be much better than on Slashdot. So when can we get fix for that?
Comment Re:Right to submit future domains, but (Score 1) 304
Sure, but then they won't get the millions of dollars they currently do. They're in the top 100 of most visited websites in the world. Their traffic will drop to 0.001% if they change to darknets, and that would destroy their site (and profits).
Comment Re:Slashdot loves facebook (Score 1) 130
So upon court order law enforcement get your ip? What were you saying?
