The Wrong Way
-
Looks like a committee to me. How about this one? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Three_Graces_Louvre_Ma287.jpg[^]
-
Man that is one fugly vehicle, I refuse to call it a car!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Here is Bing's next strategy.[^] I want Bing to win the search engine wars - or at least put in a respectable showing. However, they seem to be taking this thing in the wrong direction. When I look at the proposed new Bing what I see a complex mess. Hey, I'm just looking for a piece of example SQL code - I don't want to be presented with a really busy screen full of tons of interactive features. I don't know why Microsoft insists on doing this when so many other companies make huge profits off keeping things as absolutely simple as possible. Compare the DrudgeReport with CNN.com - the reason I use the DrudgeReport is because I don't want my browser locking up because of crap flying around all over the screen. Is the art of the simple, functional, informative web page dead? I really think the best way for Bing to make in-roads is to become simpler than Google and then remain that way for a couple of decades. I hear people complaining about this sort of thing in the trenches all of the time. They are getting tired of things flying around the screen, stuff crammed into every little corner, the lag, the learning curve, the busy menus - just stop already.
I use Bing so I can get Amazon gift cards. The weird part about Bing is that on average their search results are as good as Google, sometimes better, but when they are off, they are absurdly off. (Like getting nothing but Chinese results for a search.) What disturbs me that article is their fascination with Katie Perry.
-
I've always believed it's a stupid name for a search engine. It reminds me of that irritating twerp of an insurance salesman in Groundhog Day. He's the wally that appears when the weatherman, Bill Murray, keeps stepping off the kerb into the icy puddle. An appropriate name then for Microsoft's offering. :-D
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
SeptimusEjjog 151576 wrote:
It reminds me of that irritating twerp of an insurance salesman in Groundhog Day.
Ex.Act.Ly! (Or should I say "BING!"?)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I use Bing so I can get Amazon gift cards. The weird part about Bing is that on average their search results are as good as Google, sometimes better, but when they are off, they are absurdly off. (Like getting nothing but Chinese results for a search.) What disturbs me that article is their fascination with Katie Perry.
-
AIRI, there were three items in the list, and only one co-ordinating conjunction, meaning that the three items were independent. [jumps in the Tardis] Here it is: "It's only people who want to advertise, sell, or steal who want the more complicated stuff." The punctuation alone makes the meaning purdy damned clear. Compare: -- people who want to advertise, or sell or steal
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
well, that punctuation isn't valid in my language so, before your explanation, the two phrases had the same meaning for me =p
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p) "Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241 "'Sophisticated platform' typically means 'I have no idea how it works.'"
-
Here is Bing's next strategy.[^] I want Bing to win the search engine wars - or at least put in a respectable showing. However, they seem to be taking this thing in the wrong direction. When I look at the proposed new Bing what I see a complex mess. Hey, I'm just looking for a piece of example SQL code - I don't want to be presented with a really busy screen full of tons of interactive features. I don't know why Microsoft insists on doing this when so many other companies make huge profits off keeping things as absolutely simple as possible. Compare the DrudgeReport with CNN.com - the reason I use the DrudgeReport is because I don't want my browser locking up because of crap flying around all over the screen. Is the art of the simple, functional, informative web page dead? I really think the best way for Bing to make in-roads is to become simpler than Google and then remain that way for a couple of decades. I hear people complaining about this sort of thing in the trenches all of the time. They are getting tired of things flying around the screen, stuff crammed into every little corner, the lag, the learning curve, the busy menus - just stop already.
I'll wait until it's really here and there have been some tweaks. The preview looks to be adaptive and I hope that it will still be productive (more productive?) when I, like you, search for some help on tricky SQL syntax, documentation on using a class or an obscure error message. I use Bing all the time as I believe if gives superior results to Google, so I'm wary of change (if it ain't broke ...) I do understand why MS is trying ideas as despite (IMHO) the better search results, Google still tops the charts (remember VHS vs Betamax!) I agree about flashy tricks and unneccessary chrome (although I like Bing's images), especially as I have a crap connection at home. Fingers crossed!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
-
AIRI, there were three items in the list, and only one co-ordinating conjunction, meaning that the three items were independent. [jumps in the Tardis] Here it is: "It's only people who want to advertise, sell, or steal who want the more complicated stuff." The punctuation alone makes the meaning purdy damned clear. Compare: -- people who want to advertise, or sell or steal
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
"It's only people who want to advertise, sell, or steal who want the more complicated stuff."
Dang, can't remember the comedy pair who started "Who's on first!". but I thought of it because I wanted to leave out the first word on "Dr Who said that?" (It's either him, a sidekick, or a thief that would jump in a Tardis.) Well, I guess you can leave out the last because on that series, thieves never say anything sensible. I agree that the statement reads like 3 separate things, but I'd also include the computer's "or" definition to make it possible the same person wants to do all three.
-
A Camel is a horse designed by a committee.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Dalek Dave wrote:
A Camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Careful the religious right might take exception to that. (IE. only one creator allowed.) If you look at it, the Camel is exceptionally well designed for its habitat. ("Well designed" is not something usually associated with committee designs) It can easily live in environments that would kill a horse. (And most other mammals.) Quite efficiently expresses it's contempt for humans.(A very sensible attitude for a human from a non-human's perspective.) Well... we did have a horse at one time that matched the camel in that area. Can spit huge distances, usually at a human. There's more, but I forgot it. (I'm only human)
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
"It's only people who want to advertise, sell, or steal who want the more complicated stuff."
Dang, can't remember the comedy pair who started "Who's on first!". but I thought of it because I wanted to leave out the first word on "Dr Who said that?" (It's either him, a sidekick, or a thief that would jump in a Tardis.) Well, I guess you can leave out the last because on that series, thieves never say anything sensible. I agree that the statement reads like 3 separate things, but I'd also include the computer's "or" definition to make it possible the same person wants to do all three.
Abbot and Costello[^]. Slooowly he turned, step by step...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
