Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

Summary: Over the last week, we've seen a lot of buzz around Bing. More precisely, we're seeing that Google is worried about Bing, and that they Sergey Brin has assembled a group of his finest Googlers to analyze Bing and figure out what makes it tick.

SHARE:

Over the last week, we've seen a lot of buzz around Bing. More precisely, we're seeing that Google is worried about Bing, and that they Sergey Brin has assembled a group of his finest Googlers to analyze Bing and figure out what makes it tick.

Is Bing really posing that serious of a threat? It's impossible to say right now, but as Chris Matyszczyk puts it, Google may actually want us to think Bing has them worried. The story could have been propagated by Google itself, rather than from a leak.

If that's what has happened, it actually makes a lot of sense. Google could be simply looking to change their appearance to regulators who are taking aim at the company, just waiting for the right time to declare them a monopoly. If Bing can make Google squirm, then is Google really that impenetrable?

What do you think? Make your comments in the Talk Back!

Topics: Google, Government, Government US

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

28 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

    In the tech industry no company is impenetrable.
    Even Google is not impenetrable. Google has one
    main source of revenue and that is search. If
    they lose a little in the search business that
    impacts them more than if Microsoft losses a
    little business for MS Office. Microsoft has
    various other sources of major revenue such as
    Windows, Office, Xbox and SQL Server.
    LongingCrib
    • Search to Google = Windows to Microsoft = Ipod\Iphone to Apple.

      And they can't lose in this field, no matter what it takes. That's why they need to be very awared of any possibilities.
      Dealing
      • Poorly reasoned from inaccurate premises

        This chain of inference just doesn't hold together.

        First, Google has android, gmail, and a number of other services that
        drive a synergistic system. Even so, search is clearly their primary
        vehicle.

        More importantly, however, Microsoft does no just have Windows. In
        fact, Windows is often a loss leader for them, making little to no profit.
        What MS DOES have is Office, which is the juggernaut in the field.
        Certainly they do not have a single profit channel.
        Lastly, Apple clearly has more than just the iPod and its ilk. The mac
        business is a VAST profit leader for them, and accounts for roughly
        50% of their income.

        All three have other channels to fall back on, but clearly MS and Apple
        are not in the same boat as Google.
        SpiritusInMachina
  • RE: Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

    Google could be simply looking to change their appearance to regulators who are taking aim at the company, just waiting for the right time to declare them a monopoly.

    This is a special angle. Nice try.
    But meanwhile, I also think Bing will somehow threat Google in countires like U.S.. In China, who knows, coz most of the eye-catching features features can't been used right now.
    lynn32
    • Google can always incorporate AI

      The next step for Google would be artificial intelligence that will scare the bejeevers out of MS
      marc_90292@...
      • Turn that around...

        The next step for Microsoft would be artificial intelligence that will scare the bejeevers out of Google

        If it can happen from one company, it can happen from other companies in the same business.

        Not only that, Microsoft is better equipped, with all of its many and varied software development teams, than is Google.

        All that aside, how would AI fit in with a search engine? And, wouldn't AI slow down the search process to the point that people would migrate to other search engines?

        Furthermore, no matter what people say, and even though AI research has been done and talked about for over 40 years, it still hasn't produced anything approaching real intelligence. My take is that there really isn't any "artificial intelligence". Everything that "AI' has produced have been highly technical and highly efficient systems or "programs: which are nothing more than emulators of simple intelligence.
        adornoe
  • Sunday paper

    Bing Forced there way on to my browser and I will remove it... If i am in business and am looking for something then Google if its the weekend bing is the the sunday paper Watch out Sunday New York times. IF bing were smart they would allow you to pick browsers based on time of day or day of week.
    thornwood
  • So Microsoft ended up doing google a favor?

    That supposition is too funny but it actually makes a lot of sense.
    InAction Man
  • Publicity backfiring on Google

    I had originally not even given Bing a second thought. When I heard about Sergey Brin might be looking at analyzing it, I decided to give it a try. My verdict....it did ok. Basically just like Google and Yahoo....just ok. So if this is some ploy by Google (which I doubt) it may backfire on them by giving their competition free publicity.
    Salonikios
  • RE: Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

    The more that Google skitters about with the perception of worry, the more article are written about Google's perception of fret, the more people will be inclined to see what all the hubbub is all about.

    People are sheep - If Google is perceived unworried, than the sheep will be calm and happy with their present search engine.
    Bodazapha
  • RE: Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

    <i>Google could be simply looking to change their appearance to regulators who are taking aim at the company</i>

    That makes no sense at all.

    Government or any auditing agency would not make major decisions of "appearance". The numbers are what matters. So, if Microsoft were to actually have created the nicest looking, and even perhaps the "best" search engine around, and they still remained at the level they're at, the decision-maker would still be "the numbers: .
    adornoe
    • Re: Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

      adornoe, you are joking, right? Surely you can't think he meant the physical appearance of the sites.

      Google has nothing to fear from the present administration. Google execs poured too much money into the Obama campaign to have such concerns.
      dianemerkel
      • The meaining of "appearance" is what's throwing you off...

        <i>adornoe, you are joking, right? Surely you can't think he meant the physical appearance of the sites.</i>

        I was not, of course, referring to the actual "appearance" of a web site. I suppose that perhaps the best word to substitute in order to clarify what I was staging is: "perception".

        In essence, then, if the government has the perception that a company is monopolistic, that government may then feel it has the duty to try to correct the situation. But, again, no government or auditing agency should operate on "perception" or "appearance of wrongdoing" in order to make or force any major decisions or changes.

        <i>Google has nothing to fear from the present administration. Google execs poured too much money into the Obama campaign to have such concerns.</i>

        Google, and any media company, does indeed have much to fear. When government gets to the point of being intrusive and possessive, as the current administration has, then who is to stop that administration from attempting to control or dictate what is written or how a company should operate. If the government can take over major businesses such as General Motors and Chrysler and AIG and Citibank and Chase and other major banking institutions, then no company is immune from government intervention. Though the Google people and a many media outlets may be friendly towards the administration right now, they could end up being targets of the overzealous Obama and his cohorts. They have, as an example, threatened to control the radio airwaves by re-enacting the "Fairness Doctrine". If that were to happen, then they could get away with enacting any other control features (through "legislation") on the internet and TV and newspapers.

        There are many instances in history where an inch was turned into a mile by despots.
        adornoe
        • That's what the black helicopters are for

          "Google, and any media company, does indeed have much to fear.
          When government gets to the point of being intrusive and possessive,
          as the current administration has, then who is to stop that
          administration from attempting to control or dictate what is written or
          how a company should operate."

          Well, let's see, first, there is Congress and the courts, including the
          Supreme Court. Next, there are the share holders and debtors of the
          companies in question. Both of these "controls" have been evident in
          the Chrysler and GM cases. Next there is the fact that the present
          administration has no interest in controlling these companies, and, in
          fact, has nothing to gain from assuming this control.
          Aside from absurd levels of paranoia with absolutely NO empirical
          evidence to back it up, there is absolutely no reason to make these
          ridiculous suppositions.

          "If the government can take over major businesses such as General
          Motors and Chrysler and AIG and Citibank and Chase and other major
          banking institutions, then no company is immune from government
          intervention."

          Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Seriously, do you?
          All the businesses you name would have gone under if it were not for
          federal intervention. My guess is that the boards of the companies
          concerned, if faced with the choice of either corporate failure and
          liquidation of all assets, or spending a brief time under federal
          control, it is exceedingly clear which tack the company would CHOOSE
          to take. How is this clear. Because the boards of these companies
          freely decided, through an open vote, to go down this avenue. You
          imply by your ill-informed diatribe that the Obama administration
          performed some sort of aggressive, hostile takeover. Leaving aside the
          fact that the majority of these takeovers took place under the Bush
          administration, and that it is doubtful that any of these companies
          would even still be in existence if not for this intervention, no one
          forced these companies into relationships with the federal
          government.

          "Though the Google people and a many media outlets may be friendly
          towards the administration right now, they could end up being targets
          of the overzealous Obama and his cohorts."

          Targets of what exactly? Again, the administration didn't walk in and
          just take over companies on some shopping list. They stepped in with
          federal guarantees to prevent the imminent collapse of these
          institutions. These companies all had the choice not to participate.
          The fact that they would then collapse and cease to exist is due to
          their own behaviour.

          "They have, as an example, threatened to control the radio airwaves by
          re-enacting the "Fairness Doctrine". If that were to happen, then they
          could get away with enacting any other control features (through
          "legislation") on the internet and TV and newspapers.

          Quite clearly you don't know what the Fairness Doctrine is. The
          Fairness Doctrine merely states that "stations are required both to
          present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a
          manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and
          balanced." In no way does this afford the Administration power to
          "take over" these companies, or control their content.

          "There are many instances in history where an inch was turned into a
          mile by despots."

          And there are infinitely more instances where an inch turned out to be
          an inch. Intelligent people are able to discern the difference.
          SpiritusInMachina
          • The truth shalll set you free...

            <i>That's what the black helicopters are for</i>

            Cute... but a dumb way to engage in a conversation.


            <i>Well, let's see, first, there is Congress and the courts, including the Supreme Court.</i>

            Well, let?s see?

            When the congress is of the same mindset as the president, and that congress and the president can determine the make-up of the Supreme Court, then those checks and balances won?t really exist, will they? And, it doesn?t matter if the control of congress and the presidency and the supreme court are entirely in the hands of one party or the other. Lately, both major political parties have been about advancing their own political agendas rather than what?s good for the country. When the congress and the presidency are in agreement on just abut all issues, then there is no watchdog. Lately, the congress and the Obama administration have just been echoes for the same policies.

            <i>Next, there are the share holders and debtors of the companies in question.</i>

            You must be new to this planet.

            So, what the hell good did being a shareholder do when the president and his administration took away the value of their stocks and gave them pennies on the dollar for their stockholdings. The shareholders at General Motors and Chrysler were screwed out of their investments by Obama and company. And, the value of their votes in relation to their stocks was not even an issue when the government got to dictate who the winners and losers would be. Sure, the government had a right to make sure that whatever the government put in as bailout money was protected, but, didn?t the investors also have a right to make sure that their investments were also protected?

            <i>Both of these "controls" have been evident in the Chrysler and GM cases.</i>

            Hogwash!!!

            The controls weren?t anywhere to be found. Obama rammed through whatever legislation or policies he needed through a very complicit democrat controlled congress. No controls there. Then, when the stockholders wanted protection through the courts, the courts went along with the Obama ?strategies?.

            <i> Next there is the fact that the present administration has no interest in controlling these companies, and, in fact, has nothing to gain from assuming this control.</i>

            You definitely must be an alien with no knowledge whatsoever of what?s been happening down here on earth.

            In order to achieve the liberal goals of government control of society, then Obama and the liberal congress need to exert control over industry and the economic engine of the country. They?ve just about managed to take control of some major players in the banking industry, and they?ve done the same with two of the major players in the auto industry. Let me put if very simply for you: when the government is able to ?dictate? it?s terms for bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler, and when that same government can also dictate when the banks who took government bailout money can pay it back, then that?s ?government control?.

            And then, there?s the Obama administration wanting regulatory powers over the economy far beyond what?s already in place. That?s more regulation and control over industry and the economy.

            Obama may talk a good game by claiming that he doesn?t want to control companies or the finance industry, but his actions point in a different direction. He and the democrats seek very major controls over the economic engine of the country. You may be very easily fooled, but, I?m not.

            <i>Aside from absurd levels of paranoia with absolutely NO empirical evidence to back it up, there is absolutely no reason to make these ridiculous suppositions.</i>

            You not only came from a different planet, but as soon as you landed, the first thing you did was to plant your head in the sand and leave it there.

            From the very beginning, Obama?s plans have been to implement major government control over the economy. Liberals have always been about control over people?s lives. The term ?liberal? is the complete opposite of what the democrats really stand for. In order to implement their ?wealth redistribution? schemes, the government would have to be in control of the economy. Then, the government would be able to determine who the winners and losers would be. In fact, some of the biggest winners have already been determined with the unions taking major ownership portions of General Motors and Chrysler.

            Neat, isn?t it? The government says one thing, and many in the clueless class will believe it while the government does the entire opposite of what they told you to believe.

            Next, watch for the government control of the 2010 census. Rahm Emmanuel is already sticking his filthy hands into running the census.

            <i>Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Seriously, do you? </i>

            I most certainly do. And it?s quite obvious that you don?t.

            The facts back me up. Your understanding of the facts is believing what Obama preaches to you.

            <i>All the businesses you name would have gone under if it were not for
            federal intervention.</i>

            And therein lies the problem. Government intervention. You said it yourself: ?intervention?.

            When the government interjects itself into the economy with the intent of ?saving? the economy, then the government is automatically in charge of determining who the winners and losers will be.

            If a company is not able to survive in a society whose economy is based on capitalism, then that company should be allowed to fail or go the route of bankruptcy. As it is, the government ?invested? close to $100 billion in ?rescuing? the auto industry but in the end, both GM and Chrysler ended up going the bankruptcy route anyway. That?s $100 billion smackers down the drain. And what do we have to show for it? GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy and coming out of it as much smaller players than before ?government intervention? and the American people the losers of $100 billion dollars. At the same time, the government got to decide who would be the winners and losers. So, the stockholders ended up with pennies on the dollar for their investments and the unions ended up being major owners of the companies.

            <i>My guess is that the boards of the companies concerned, if faced with the choice of either corporate failure and liquidation of all assets, or spending a brief time under federal
            control, it is exceedingly clear which tack the company would CHOOSE to take.</i>

            You?re not even facing the reality of what?s happened in the last year? You can?t be for real!

            When the car companies ?chose? the government ?rescue? money, they weren?t expecting the government to come in and ?dictate? to them how they would then run their companies. They didn?t expect the government to dictate the firing of their executives or the salaries and compensation of those executives. I?m pretty sure that if the government had told them originally that the money had conditions which included the government running the companies that those companies would?ve thought a lot more carefully about accepting the government money.

            <i> How is this clear. Because the boards of these companies freely decided, through an open vote, to go down this avenue. </i>

            When the ulterior motives of government (namely, Obama and Rahm Emmanuel and the liberal congress) are not clear in the beginning, then the executives had no idea of what awaited them. I?m pretty sure that knowing what they know now, that the executives would?ve done it quite differently and most likely would?ve gone the bankruptcy route in the beginning.

            <i>You imply by your ill-informed diatribe that the Obama administration performed some sort of aggressive, hostile takeover.</i>

            My information is the truth, and your information is nothing more than a defense of liberal policies which are destroying the American economy.

            The Obama administration?s tactics were nothing more than hostile takeover or control of major sectors of the economy. Those tactics were both hostile and destructive. Without the Obama intervention in the economy, chances are that the economy would be performing a lot better than it is now. The economy has lost trillions in value and many millions in jobs. The ?rescues? programs have been major failures. Jobs are still being lost by the hundreds of thousand s on a monthly basis, huge numbers of companies are folding, people are still losing their houses, and those same people are holding on to their money and not making purchases to help the economy recover. Remember that it is the people who decide winners and losers, not the government.

            <i>Leaving aside the fact that the majority of these takeovers took place under the Bush
            administration, </i>

            Pure, unadulterated, NONSENSE!

            With Bush, there was no intent to ?take over? any part of private industry. The ?takeover? part came into being during the Obama administration. With Bush, the bailouts were meant to assist the banks and the auto industry to recover. Under Obama, the ?recovery? aspect was turned into ?control? or takeover of those companies. Rahm Emmanuel himself has stated that ?you never let a crisis go to waste?. And that?s exactly what the Obama administration has done. They?ve taken advantage of an economy in crisis in order to exert government control over it.

            And, hey, by the way? did you notice how you yourself called it a ?government takeover?? If you too believe that it?s a ?takeover?, then why even defend any part of it?

            <i> and that it is doubtful that any of these companies would even still be in existence if not for this intervention, no one forced these companies into relationships with the federal government.</i>

            In the American economy, in its long existence, we?ve had companies, both large and small, fail. And the economy continued growing to the largest and most productive in the history of mankind. So, if even GM or Chrysler were allowed to fail, we?d still have a very dynamic economy. No government intervention needed. The government should never be allowed to intervene in order to determine the winners or losers.

            And, by the way, it doesn?t matter whether it was Bush or Obama that used federal funding to rescue companies. It?s wrong no matter who is the president or who is controlling the congress.

            <i>Targets of what exactly? Again, the administration didn't walk in and
            just take over companies on some shopping list.</i>

            When the government ?dictates? terms for use of federal money, then it?s in effect a ?government takeover?. The shopping list was determined as soon as Rahm Emmanuel and Obama saw a ?crisis which shouldn?t go to waste?. Their shopping list was mostly already predetermined for them by the mortgage meltdown and the auto industry losing heavy sales.

            <i>They stepped in with federal guarantees to prevent the imminent collapse of these nstitutions.</i>

            Again, what part of ?government intervention? don?t you understand? The government should not be in the business of determining who is going to fail or succeed. Let the free markets and capitalism and the people decide who they want to be the winners (or losers).

            <i>These companies all had the choice not to participate. The fact that they would then collapse and cease to exist is due to their own behaviour.</i>

            Many companies didn?t participate when they could?ve in the TARP and bailouts/rescues programs. And most of those companies did pretty well and continue to exist without the government dipping its filthy hands into dictating how those companies should be operated. The companies that did allow government intervention are now paying a heavy price for it. GM and Chrysler might have done better if they had not taken federal money and allowed federal control of their businesses.

            However, GM and Chrysler and the banks and AIG and others had not bargained for federal control of their business when they originally took the federal money. The federal money was mostly as loans which could be paid later as the companies were on better footing. I?m pretty sure that if the executives in those companies had known that with the federal loans came federal control, that they would?ve taken their chances on their own.

            <i>Quite clearly you don't know what the Fairness Doctrine is.</i>

            Quite clearly, dude, it is you that cannot see beyond the top of murky waters. If you had that capability, you?d know that underneath the surface of murky waters there might be some huge crocodile waiting to bite your head off.

            <i>The Fairness Doctrine merely states that "stations are required both to
            present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a
            manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and
            balanced." In no way does this afford the Administration power to
            "take over" these companies, or control their content.</i>

            Ever hear of "freedom of speech"?

            The fairness doctrine was in effect for a long time until 1987. After 1987, conservative talk radio became very popular and ?the people decided? that that is what they wanted. So-called ?right wing? radio got the most votes and liberal talk radio became virtually non-existent. That is where and when the democrats decided that, it was unfair for republican voices to have a virtual monopoly on talk radio. To undo the ?monopoly? they felt the best way would be to re-instate the fairness doctrine. But, how fair is it to ?dictate? to the people what the content of airwaves should be? By ?naming? the doctrine with the ?fairness? label, the people who favor it wish to pull one over the eyes of the people. There is nothing fair where the people don?t get to make their own choices.

            If ?fairness? is what the proponents of the ?fairness doctrine? are after, then, why don?t they talk about instituting that same ?fairness? over the mainstream media which is almost exclusively on the liberal side? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS/NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, and most major media outlets are full of liberal bias. Only FOX is viewed as slightly right of center, along with talk radio. But, the great majority of media is of the liberal bent. Where is the fairness doctrine for that? Yet, the democrats are up in arms about talk radio because the conservatives seen to do better with the people that matter, and that?s the listener or audience.

            But, again, it?s not about ?fairness?; it?s about the liberal wanting to control, through government, what people do and see and hear.

            <i>And there are infinitely more instances where an inch turned out to be an inch. Intelligent people are able to discern the difference. </i>

            Where an inch remains an inch, very likely, there weren?t any issues involved to irritate people. That?s why you don?t hear about those instances.

            However, the real intelligent people of the world are able to discern when big government people are trying to take over control of their lives. That?s why one of the favorite mottos of the liberals is: ?never let a crisis go to waste?.

            A crisis may the ?inch? which they hope to turn into a mile of control. They?ve done a very good job of taking the economic crisis and turning it into more government control. Now they?re pointing to the problems of the past few months or years as more reason to pass more legislation and regulations against industry. Legislation and regulations equate to more government control.

            As another example, democrats point to 47 million people who don?t have medical insurance. They endlessly quote that number in order to justify legislation that would create a national health care system. But, the number the democrats quote has been the same for about the last 10 years. It hasn?t gone up or down, even with higher population growth or higher employment. Something tells me that thy like that number a lot, no matter how untrue it is.

            Yet, that number of ?47 million? includes people who ?choose? not to purchase medical insurance although they are financially capable of doing so. That number also includes some 12 to 20 million illegal aliens who cannot purchase insurance. That number also includes many people who are ?self-insured? by virtue of the fact that they are ?rich? and don?t need to join a health plan, or many of those are self-employed and provide for their own health care. Besides all that, nobody has done a truly thorough study of the ?uninsured? in order to come up with a real number of uninsured.

            And, the democrats will create a ?crisis?, if there isn?t one already, in order to legislate more government control over the people. That?s what a ?national health care? system is about, and that?s? what the ?global warming? junk science is also about.

            So, whoever you are, do try to do real research on the issues, and do try to be honest with your assertions. Ever hear of ?the truth shall set you free??

            adornoe
          • Arbeit macht frei

            "'That's what the black helicopters are for'

            Cute... but a dumb way to engage in a conversation."


            Sorry, but I totally disagree. I think it is a perfectly fine, and witty way
            to engage in conversation.

            "When the congress is of the same mindset as the president, and that
            congress and the president can determine the make-up of the
            Supreme Court, then those checks and balances won?t really exist,
            will they? "

            Of course they will. Do yo understand the point of checks and
            balances? They are not there to ensure that discord reigns, they are
            there to try to ensure that the proper course of action is taken by
            minimizing error due to usurpation of power by one branch. Kinda like
            the executive during the Bush administration.

            "So, what the hell good did being a shareholder do when the
            president and his administration took away the value of their stocks
            and gave them pennies on the dollar for their stockholdings."

            HUH?!? The market is what gave them pennies on their original dollar.
            WIthout the government coming in d providing liquidity, those firms
            were headed for insolvency, at which point they would have collapsed.
            How much would their stock have been worth then? Clue: Pennies is
            more than 0.

            "didn't the investors also have a right to make sure that their
            investments were also protected?"

            Sure, and they exercised that right by voting on policies that got them
            into the mess in the first place. The Government DID protect those
            investments, because without the intervention, they wold have been
            worthless.

            "Obama rammed through whatever legislation or policies he needed
            through a very complicit democrat controlled congress. No controls
            there."

            Sorry, but you are simply grossly misinformed. The majority of the
            wording of the bill was controlling regulation. Try reading it.

            "In order to achieve the liberal goals of government control of society,
            then Obama and the liberal congress need to exert control over
            industry and the economic engine of the country. They?ve just about
            managed to take control of some major players in the banking
            industry, and they?ve done the same with two of the major players in
            the auto industry."

            HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha

            hahahahahahahahaha
            haha
            ha

            Oh, that was a good one. Anyway, after the companies come out of
            bankruptcy and government receivership, how much does the
            government control them?!?
            With several of the key financial institutions already having pulled out
            of TARP (because of the overburdensome regulations that you claim
            didn't exist) and Gm already out of bankruptcy, WTF are you talking
            about?!?

            "Obama may talk a good game by claiming that he doesn?t want to
            control companies or the finance industry, but his actions point in a
            different direction."

            Oh really? What direction would that be? Again see above paragraph.

            "The facts back me up."

            Yeah, they sure do. In fact, every major prediction you have made here
            is already empirically false!

            "If a company is not able to survive in a society whose economy is
            based on capitalism, then that company should be allowed to fail or
            go the route of bankruptcy"

            In which case, your "value to shareholders" argument goes down the
            toilet. So thanks for making my point.

            "but in the end, both GM and Chrysler ended up going the bankruptcy
            route anyway. That?s $100 billion smackers down the drain."

            And GM was out of it in less than two months. And in a position to
            begin repaying. How is that money down the drain? You do
            understand what repay means, right?

            "When the car companies ?chose? the government ?rescue? money,
            they weren?t expecting the government to come in and ?dictate? to
            them how they would then run their companies. They didn?t expect
            the government to dictate the firing of their executives or the salaries
            and compensation of those executives. I?m pretty sure that if the
            government had told them originally that the money had conditions
            which included the government running the companies that those
            companies would?ve thought a lot more carefully about accepting the
            government money."

            Um, they were told exactly that. The terms were spelled out in
            advance. Or are you calling them idiots incapable of understanding
            simple legal documents? They have attorney on retainer for a reason.

            "I?m pretty sure that knowing what they know now, that the
            executives would?ve done it quite differently and most likely would?ve
            gone the bankruptcy route in the beginning."

            Yeah, that's funny, because they have been interviewed numerous
            times since then, and have gone on record saying the exact opposite.
            So much for the value of your opinion.

            "My information is the truth, and your information is nothing more
            than a defense of liberal policies which are destroying the American
            economy."

            Which deserves an equally intellectual response:
            I know you are but what am I.

            "In the American economy, in its long existence, we?ve had
            companies, both large and small, fail. And the economy continued
            growing to the largest and most productive in the history of mankind"

            You appear to have not heard of a little thing called the Great
            Depression.

            And WWI.

            And WWII.

            "Many companies didn?t participate when they could?ve in the TARP
            and bailouts/rescues programs. And most of those companies did
            pretty well and continue to exist without the government dipping its
            filthy hands into dictating how those companies should be operated."


            And many failed. But that is not the point. Had all, or even a majority
            failed, the economy would have collapsed.

            "However, GM and Chrysler and the banks and AIG and others had not
            bargained for federal control of their business when they originally
            took the federal money"

            Yes they did. They are on record saying as such.

            "I?m pretty sure that if the executives in those companies had known
            that with the federal loans came federal control, that they would?ve
            taken their chances on their own."

            Again, thanks for making my point that you don't know what you are
            talking about. They agreed to these terms specifically. In fact, when
            interviewed immediately after the agreement, the Chrysler CEO
            commented that he knew he was probably going to have to resign,
            due to the terms of the agreement. He knew full well what he was
            doing.

            "But, how fair is it to ?dictate? to the people what the content of
            airwaves should be?"

            It is completely fair, because in exchange PRIVATE companies get
            unfettered monopolistic control of their portion of the spectrum.
            You want a free market? Then I should be able to setup a rival station
            with more transmitting power on the exact same frequency to drown
            out my competitor. Now, granted, the result would be that most
            people would get no signal at all, but hey, that's the breaks.

            "ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS/NPR, NY Times, Washington Post,
            and most major media outlets are full of liberal bias."

            Bull. What a load of crap. First, name a single major media owner who
            is a liberal. Just one. They only appear to have a liberal slant if your
            perspective is so far to the right, you need to be left handed.

            "However, the real intelligent people of the world are able to discern
            when big government people are trying to take over control of their
            lives."

            True. So what is your excuse?

            "Legislation and regulations equate to more government control."

            And?

            "As another example, democrats point to 47 million people who don?t
            have medical insurance. They endlessly quote that number in order to
            justify legislation that would create a national health care system. But,
            the number the democrats quote has been the same for about the last
            10 years. It hasn?t gone up or down, even with higher population
            growth or higher employment."

            You are living in a fantasy world. The number of uninsured has been
            steadily rising over the last two years.

            "Yet, that number of ?47 million? includes people who ?choose? not to
            purchase medical insurance although they are financially capable of
            doing so."

            So? The importance of the statistic i not in the specifics, if that
            specific group remains stable, as this group has. There is not a
            growing number of people who chose not to have insurance.

            "That number also includes some 12 to 20 million illegal aliens who
            cannot purchase insurance."

            Um, no, it doesn't. You are either a puppet sycophant parroting the
            view spoon-fed you by your talking media heads, or an idiot.

            "That number also includes many people who are ?self-insured? by
            virtue of the fact that they are ?rich? and don?t need to join a health
            plan, or many of those are self-employed and provide for their own
            health care."

            Again, no it doesn't. Ibid.

            "Besides all that, nobody has done a truly thorough study of the ?
            uninsured? in order to come up with a real number of uninsured. "

            Um,yes, they have. Your ignorance of same does not make it any less
            so.

            "That?s what a ?national health care? system is about, and that?s?
            what the ?global warming? junk science is also about."

            Don't even bring up science. You are not even remotely qualified to
            make comments on science. Are you a scientist, do you work in a
            scientific field? I sincerely doubt it, as your obvious lack of even the
            remotest bit of critical thinking skills makes that next to impossible.
            There is a reason why the VAST majority of ACTUAL scientists accept
            global warming. There is also are reason why the other side is forced
            to parade a bunch of glorified engineers, and pass them off as
            scientists, to pretend that their is some sort of contention in the field.

            "So, whoever you are, do try to do real research on the issues, and do
            try to be honest with your assertions. Ever hear of ?the truth shall set
            you free??"

            I have done more research in the course of an hour than you have
            clearly done in your entire lifetime.

            And yeah, I know John 8:32. You ever hear of "arbeit macht frei?"

            Where is it in the bible where Jesus says "Don't give to the poor, it
            only encourages laziness"?
            SpiritusInMachina
  • RE: Bing posing a serious threat to Google?

    Google is not creating a monopoly. The services offered by
    google do have their counterparts in Microsoft at one or
    other level.

    People are free to chose whichever is best. It does not come
    shipped with your PC ;-)
    rajkt
  • a Microsoft product..

    to pose a serious threat to Google? Please, get realistic.
    EmperorDarius
    • Master Joe Says...

      What a closed-minded, narrow point-of-view. Congratulations, though. Most people, who are morons, refuse to acknowledge it, and actually do their best to make it seem like they aren't. You, however, all but wear a sign on your back that says, "I'm a moron, and I cannot see anything passed the tip of my nose." Microsoft has a massive collection of products, which run both personal consumer PCs, as well as enterprise networks and servers, from BizTalk, to SQL Server, to Exchange, to Windows Server, to the Windows operating system. With the upcoming release of Windows 7, and Windows Mobile 7, Microsoft only stands to gain even more market share in both the PC and smartphone industry. Oh, and by the way, which search provider does Verizon use? I believe Microsoft is the answer. Where is the Android revolution Google hyped? It can't even beat Apple, who sits a distant second to Microsoft in the operating system for desktops market, and isn't even on the radar in the server markets. Google Chrome? Not that impressive. Google had one product to offer, which was not a waste of time; the search engine. Now, Bing comes along, jostles Google execs to the point where they take the "US government approach" to their issues by throwing money at them, bringing their top developers and analysts in to figure out what makes Bing tick. And, don't forget that Wolfram/Alpha is hovering around as well. Google always had the luxory of there not being any REAL competition in the saerch industry. Yahoo!, Microsoft Live, and others were minor players. Now that two major opponents have emerged, let's see what Google really has to offer.

      --Master Joe
      SteelCityPC
  • Give the man a cigar.

    You nailed it. I've tried Bing and while it is clean it isn't a threat to Google. One of the advertised strengths of Bing is shopping. I did a search for some items I'd like to buy using mfg part numbers. Results, Bing gave me 0 hits while Google had pages of them.
    Keeping Current