We accidentally besmirch the reputation of Danica Patrick, come up with some reasons why Bing might actually work (except for how it apparently means "disease" in Chinese), and take to task the millions of people who are still deliberately clicking on spam.
WSJ on iPad for $17.99 a month, magazines to be at or near newsstand prices?
Gmail to alert users to suspicious activity
Microsoft's Bing Makes More UI Changes-and Also Checks In With Foursquare
iPhone, Safari, IE 8, Firefox hacked in CanSecWest contest
In response to new rules, GoDaddy to stop registering domain names in China
Toshiba intros highest capacity laptop hard drives
Frenchman Arrested After Hacking Into Obama’s Twitter Accounts
Millions Continue To Click On Spam
Brad in Cincy on Bing
Many have been applauding google for thier stance against china , i just read an article by Paul Thurott that kinda puts into another perspective…Anyways it a good read….Heres a look at a sample of what he wrote
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/paul-thurrotts-wininfo/Let-s-Not-Celebrate-Google-s-Decision-to-Abandon-China.aspx ……”Google has openly done business in this most repressive country for four years, ignoring such abuses while reaping financial benefit. Indeed, Google only left the country after it became clear that the Chinese government itself was most likely behind the highest profile electronic attack in Internet history, an attack that compromised Google’s own systems. (And they haven’t even really left China: Google intends to “continue R&D work in China and also to maintain a sales presence there,” according to an official statement from the company.) So let’s not hurt ourselves slapping Google on the back for doing something only after its own financial and technical interests were compromised. This is a case of simple self-interest: An insurance company-style decision based solely of the risks, costs, and benefits of doing business in a country that is actively working to undermine it. That Google decided that the benefits of working with China were outweighed by the risks doesn’t show any kind of moral constitution at all. It’s simply a cold-hearted business decision, like so many other decisions made by this faceless, mathematically minded behemoth.”
Take Care ,
Bruce from Cali
Shame on you Buzz Crew,
I think you owe Kelvington an apology for goading him to spend 5 1/2 hours creating that great but nonsensical Apple vs. Predator video.
I’m a patent holder, not a patent attorney, so I can’t claim to be an expert in patent law. From what I understand, Prior Art refers to the art of invention, not art in general. You don’t necessarily have to construct a working model of your invention, but you do have to convince the patent examiner that your method of construction works. (Insert Ben Stiller rant from the movie “Envy” about claiming to invent a pair of flying wings that pop out of your back at the push of a button)
From your perspective, nobody will ever be able to patent anything that’s ever been thought of before, and Hollywood can quit making movies to roll around in the dough they’ll be raking in from patent infringement lawsuits. That means no inventor should ever attempt to construct an antigravity vehicle because it is probably the intellectual property of Hanna-Barbera via the “Jetsons” cartoon. Maybe I’ll just invent a way to fold that vehicle up into a portable suitcase… oh wait, they’ve got that patent too! Damn you Hanna-Barbera!
Love the show (oh crap, please tell the inventor of that phrase not to sue me),