Exact same shortcomings? No. Reportedly it works in Linux.

And if it does, I'm kissing Netflix goodbye.

It was all a big Google (mistake) when exposed

I see what you did there.

Wow, I've never heard of a Bing (stupid) fanboy before. How much does Bing (stupid) pay for Google-bombing these days? Clearly, Bing (stupid) is getting desperate...

What lawsuits, exactly? Tying up what wells, exactly?

[citation needed]

Millions of years of dead plant and animal life, plus shifting tectonic plates (and ever-changing coastlines), can give rise to vast undersea reservoirs of oil. Even the oil industry geologists know it: how do you think they find these reservoirs?

But we all see what you're trying to do there. Hmm, maybe oil isn't from dead plant life after all! Maybe it occurs naturally in the Earth's crust, where God put it! Gosh, maybe there's a practically infinite supply! Maybe it's even naturally renewed! Why, that would mean that all this talk about needing to find alternate energy sources is just a load of hooey! Ha ha, those environmentalist whackos sure are stupid, just like Rush said!"

It's a story being advanced by people who either (1) have a vested interest in the continued profits of oil companies, (2) refuse to believe that the earth is more than 6000 years old, or (3) have a political axe to grind against environmentalists.

And at this point, I've pretty much lost my patience with all of those camps.

The wingnuts learned the phrase "democrat party" by listening to Rush Limbaugh -- you know: the OxyContin-junkie radio host that they all worship. Apparently, when a wingnut says "democrat party" it's supposed to make Democrats mad or something. Beats me. I think it's cute, in a pathetic sort of way. Like when a five-year-old calls you a "poopy head" and thinks they've scored a victory or something.

Good. Glad to hear it. Then I say we give it a try.

So, what will you do if and when Bing starts showing results from Twitter/Facebook/LiveJournal? Refuse to use any search engines at all?

Choices are choices. If you don't want results from Twitter, then avert your eyes from that part of the screen.

You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.

"Pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are perfectly neutral and descriptive ... the issue is whether or not you believe a woman should have the right to choose to abort her pregnancy. Personally, I'm pro-choice.

And we all know you're not, or you wouldn't have accused the OP of being "intellectually dishonest". So don't pretend.

The dishonest labels would have been "pro/anti-life" or "pro/anti-abortion". Pro-choicers are not "anti-life" (I just value the life of the mother over the life of a cluster of cells), nor are we "pro-abortion" (I want abortions to be as rare as possible -- but I want them to be legal).

Actually, refraining from degrading women and refusing to validate rape and violence against them automatically makes you a feminist.

It's the "freaking out about depictions of sex" that automatically makes you a conservative.

Nice try, though.

Did you completely prevent your daughter from watching TV -- where she would encounter a steady stream of images of little girls dressed in pink and playing with dolls?

Did you prevent her from reading kids books, which are brimming with descriptions (and illustrations) of little girls wearing pink and playing with dolls?

Did you keep her out of all malls, toy stores, and clothing stores, which display row upon row of pink clothes and dolls in the "Girls" aisles?

Did you keep her locked in a basement, where she would never meet other little girls (whose social approval she would subconsciously seek) dressed in pink and playing with dolls?

Did you prevent her from interacting with relatives who disagreed with your philosophy, and got her dolls and pretty pink dresses?

Of course you didn't.

Societal gender norms creep into every household through a hundred back doors. You can't stop them. And unless you wore pink and played with dolls in front of your little girl, and your wife never did, you were probably doing nothing to counter their influence. Being neutral is not the same as working against.

And by the way: just a hundred years ago, pink was considered a boy's color, and blue was for girls .

Sorry, but the GP is correct: the whole "girls love pink" thing has long been accepted as cultural, not genetic, and a hundred years from now it could very well swing the other way.