__/ [ Jim ] on Saturday 13 May 2006 16:33 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Jim ] on Saturday 13 May 2006 13:40 \__
>>
>>>remember the guy who sued Apple because he couldn't get his iPod to play
>>>Realmedia files (or something equally daft)?
>>
>> This tends to remind me of the lady who sued McDonald's for selling her
>> unhealthy food.
>>
> or a woman (many copycats) who sued McDonald's for selling her hot
> coffee. My answer: Get the hell out of my courtroom and take your
> snivelling, scummy ambulance-chasing dirtbag of a lawyer with you. Coffe
> is /supposed/ to be served hot, you retard!" Of course now, McDonald's
> serve coffee tepid and even more undrinkable than it was before...
> almost makes me want to go to Starbuck's (who have never heard of
> /coffee/ flavoured coffee!)
Did you see Krmaer in that episode which took this further? Hilarious! The
Layer Jackie Childs: "who told you to put the cup on? Did I tell you to put
the cup on?"
>>>"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. antitrust authorities on Friday rejected
>>>concerns that a search feature in the new version of Microsoft Corp.'s
>>>Internet Explorer browser would give the company an unfair advantage
>>>over Google Inc..
>>>
>>>The Justice Department said it had investigated and found no basis for
>>>concerns voiced by Google that a new search box included in the Internet
>>>Explorer 7 browser would give an unfair advantage to Microsoft's MSN
>>>search service.
>>>
>>><snip />
>>
>> I fail to see a clear correlation to the scenario above. However, I can
>> assure you that many amateur users will use MSN/live.com search by
>> serendipity, until the next-door neighbour changes the settings and
>> *suddenly*, Lo and Behold!, search is perceived as something valuable. I
>> gave Yahoo a test run yesterday. Still no good*. MSN is even worse.
>> Wikipedia is the best bar none (default in my Firefox search bar),
>> _provided an article matches your search phrase_. But, then again, it's
>> not a search engine... just a site with a search facility and external
>> links...
>
> Much like the iPod is Apple's baby, search engines are Google's baby,
> IE7 is Microsoft's baby. Each is gagging to get into the other's
> established market, by any means possible, including underhanded tactics
> like format wars, FUDspreading, setting people up to sue their
> competition into the ground...
Welcome to the United States of America. I suppose it could happen pretty
much everywhere, but laws must be instated to better _protect the
customer_ who is, despite being innocent, getting caught in the midst. The
inability to assess from unbiased benchmarks, the lockins, the invites
(invitations), as well as the demise of mom-and-pop stores... think about
it... a gruelling and corrupted marketing strategy in a world where
production is nill (software manufacturing versus distribution cost)...
this begs for new legistlation. Interaction, standards and protocols are
only few among the many means which prevent this.
>> *Results are too broad. They don't crawl deep enough and they index very
>> few pages in comparison to Google, who recently had storage problems and
>> dropped many duplicates to entail quality degradation.
>>
>
> Google started out with a room full of old boxen and 180GB storage space
> spread out in external caddies, inside machines, and various other bits
> and bobs set up just to keep the whole shebang from falling on its arse
> under the load.
Was that a quote? I think I heard it before...
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate (Medical Biophysics)
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:10pm up 16 days 0:07, 12 users, load average: 2.11, 1.90, 1.76
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
