NationStates Jolt Archive

Google and Microsoft are at war.
Which company do you prefer?

Google, no doubt.

at war?

search-engine wise: google
company wise: MS

i like MS - they make quality products that set a coherent world standard both in terms of quality of product and in terms of computer-user and user-user interface/communication
what they do is good, but perhaps the way they go about doing it is a tad suspect...

google search vs. MSN search, gmail vs. hotmail, desktop search, browser(?), yeah I'd say they are at war, or will be shortly

I personally find Google's business practices much less intrusive and invasive than MS. Compare google ads to MSN ads. Also, compare the beautiful simplicity of google front page vs. the MSN mess of a front page. If you want an advanced search, you go to advanced. Simple as that. Don't you wish windows was like that ...

Now a google browser (or OS for that matter), that would really be something.

i like MS - they make quality products

You are joking, right? MS might be suitable if all you want to do is send a few e-mails and write a couple of simple documents, but it's terrible for anything more advanced. For any application you can name, far better software exists and in most cases it is cheaper (yes, I'm a open-source fan...).

that set a coherent world standard both in terms of quality of product and in terms of computer-user and user-user interface/communication

Microsoft routinely ignore or corrupt established international standards to lock-in their customers, and then use patents to block other companies from making compatible software.

what they do is good, but perhaps the way they go about doing it is a tad suspect...

If what they were doing was any good, they wouldn't need to use illegal business practices.

Safalra's got the idea. Microsoft is probably one of the most non-user-friendly companies I've worked with. It is almost as if they intentionally design their systems to be faulty so computer-illiterate people have to spend a fortune in repair costs, etc.

I've never had a Windows installation go without error for the first couple or few times. I'd still rather go through some of the long-ass installations of Red Hat or something of the like, than have to use Windows. But unfortunatly, Windows has a monopoly in the PC gaming industry, and most good programs. Thus, many people are forced to have Windows, if they wish to play games.

Whilst Google offers very user-friendly, reliable, powerful, and free web-search and email services. Gmail was the best thing that ever happened to me when under the topic of email. I mean, it's free, and I have 2444 MB (as of right now) of space.

The war will come, Google will win. It has been... foreseen.

Nothing against Microsoft, great company, can't wait for Longhorn.

You are joking, right? MS might be suitable if all you want to do is send a few e-mails and write a couple of simple documents, but it's terrible for anything more advanced. For any application you can name, far better software exists and in most cases it is cheaper (yes, I'm a open-source fan...).

their software suits my needs. office does everything i need for documents, word processing and data analysis (Acess & databases is a bit lacking, granted). their products do what is required for most people, too. its only usually the properly computer-savvy, the net nerds or the IT professionals who complain so bitterly about MS's products. MS don't spend millions on market research to find what the average consumer wants out of their software for nothing - if they don't have a specific function or feature its most likely that the consumers they surveyed did not require that function - unlike the IT professionals and nerds who subsequently complain.
MS's products are generally aimed at the middle-of-the-road average PC user, and any extra functionality is a bonus (to a degree of course)
as i said their products suit my needs fine.

of course for other tasks i use non MS-products - Frontpage is too low-end so i use Dreamweaver. MS photo-editing software is crap and agian designed more for the average user, so i use bespoke Corel products.


Microsoft routinely ignore or corrupt established international standards to lock-in their customers, and then use patents to block other companies from making compatible software.
well here i plead ignorance - i didn't know that. however back in the day when computers using different OS's and different software were unable to share files or communicate, MS's world domination of the PC market came along and now communication and sharing of data & files is so easy - at least in part thanks to MS. i mean to get some files accross to Macs (who many printers i work with still use :rolleyes: ) is still a pain in the ass (though not as bad as the old days of course)



If what they were doing was any good, they wouldn't need to use illegal business practices.
and other firms in this market don't do the same? please :rolleyes:
Intel are being brought to court for anticompetitive behaviour by AMD who, apparently, have a strong case. Cisco Systems only get around this by buying dozens of companies a year so they steal ideas legally. its the nature of this over-globalised industry where the firms make more profits than the GDP of some small countries. its the business environnent and culture that is to blame seeing how they are all doing it. there needs to be greater regulations on businesses to prevent and deter this behaviour, or it'll just keep happening.
i don't know everything about the PC market & firms, but from what i do understand MS is just as bad as its peers but it gets picked on a shitload more for some reason

The war will come, Google will win. It has been... foreseen.

Nothing against Microsoft, great company, can't wait for Longhorn.
its not longhorn any more, its veritas or something similar, read the news

Safalra's got the idea. Microsoft is probably one of the most non-user-friendly companies I've worked with. It is almost as if they intentionally design their systems to be faulty so computer-illiterate people have to spend a fortune in repair costs, etc.

I've never had a Windows installation go without error for the first couple or few times. I'd still rather go through some of the long-ass installations of Red Hat or something of the like, than have to use Windows. But unfortunatly, Windows has a monopoly in the PC gaming industry, and most good programs. Thus, many people are forced to have Windows, if they wish to play games.

Whilst Google offers very user-friendly, reliable, powerful, and free web-search and email services. Gmail was the best thing that ever happened to me when under the topic of email. I mean, it's free, and I have 2444 MB (as of right now) of space.

You know, Windows 98 is the only one that ever gave me any trouble of any kind. Really, I have never read a single complaint about them that really rung true from personal experience. I have been led to believe that the problem with Windows is the one that exists between the keyboard and the chair. XP has been great for me.

Safalra's got the idea. Microsoft is probably one of the most non-user-friendly companies I've worked with. It is almost as if they intentionally design their systems to be faulty so computer-illiterate people have to spend a fortune in repair costs, etc.

I've never had a Windows installation go without error for the first couple or few times.
see this is an odd thing - a friend of mine hates MS cos their products always seem to screw up on him
me however, i've never had a troublesome install of windows. win XP has not crashed... ever i think (though my hard drive failed, but thats probably cos it was a cheapy Maxtor job)
i find the GUI's MS design simple and intuitive - more so than the cluttered clumpiness of OSX for example.

i suppose MS is like Marmite - either you get on with their products and like em, or you just plain hate em



if you want non-user friendly, lets take a look at Adobe or Macromedia products... now there's some counter-intuitive interfaces :headbang:


can't stick around here arguing this shit all day - got work to do, sadly

I have been led to believe that the problem with Windows is the one that exists between the keyboard and the chair. XP has been great for me.

It's a big insult to say to someone that the true error with windows lies in the user's head. Come on! The interface makes it nearly impossible for anyone to screw up when installing it. It's obviously an error with the disks.

Yeah, it's all my falt when the "auto-install" screws up and that little bar stops moving and a big notice pops up on my screen.

"windows has encountered an unknown error"

This is why i hate windows. There are so many errors they ran out of numbers and went with the get out of jail free card of "unknown"

Actually the reson I hate windows is that whenever I have to use IE i am swamped with pop ups... are these real pop ups or are they actually wrote into the code as one of the programmes was drunk and thought it would be really really funny

I agree with Safalra about for any application there is a better and cheaper alternative, google (IE), gmail (hotmail), winamp for music (windows media player), im a fan of WinDVD for dvds and other visual media...

Sadly I do own a PC. And all the wonderful wonderful errors and crazyness that comes with it. I'm saving up for a mac (also I believe they are less suseptable to viruses as they don't run of all those pesky exe. files) However I believe microsoft's demise and basic rubbishness are because Bill-the-devil-gates has too much money to care. He knows people will buy them and many buisnesses will have to buy them as all of their existing programmes and applications run on the windows platform.

Back in the day with Windows 3.11 never had any problems. It was fast (for its time!) reliable, i don't think it ever crashed or came up with any stupid error messages. However as the money started rolling in they got progressivly worse (ME was a joke right?)

And now I hear the new platform (i forget what they are calling it I will call it 05 for now) has had many features removed due to technical and time issues.
So microsoft have billions of pounds and thousands of employees yet they can't even get 05 out without cutting major corners?! It was supposed to be competing with the apples new OS (Tiger?) which I have played about with and is amazing. Smooth, easy to use yet encorperates everything you could possibly want.
However while apple take time out and are willing to get a decent product out to ensure happy consumers Microsoft throw any old rubbish out because if it all goes a bit pete tong they can subsidise it with their endless supply of money (i believe they were losing £50 on each xbox unit sold.... mainly because that was the biggest, ugliest console ever and if it wasnt for Halo they may not have shifted any units)

Sadly Microsoft will continue to rake in the cash because of the monopolisation they have on the market. Hopefully either they will get their act together and start producing decent soft/hardware or the other companies will be able to win people over with their supiour technology.

I'm definatly buying a mac next time

Ihatevacations']its not longhorn any more, its veritas or something similar, read the news

it's Windows Vista (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.mspx). they're already in trouble with it, because a company named Vista is suing them. i chose google because of their kickarse search engine and the perpetually growing Gmail Inbox.

search-engine wise: google
company wise: MS

i like MS - they make quality products that set a coherent world standard both in terms of quality of product and in terms of computer-user and user-user interface/communication
what they do is good, but perhaps the way they go about doing it is a tad suspect...
You didn't try to use ME, did you? ^.^

if you want non-user friendly, lets take a look at Adobe or Macromedia products... now there's some counter-intuitive interfaces

Actually, Adobe and Macromedia make pretty simple progams. It's the company's fault with errors when their programs are all automated and requires just simple button clicking (Windows, etc.), but it's the users fault when they don't all of a sudden become pros at Photoshop or Flash. Those are things that need to be learned. You can't just push a button and 'download' skills in order to play an instrument (although that would be neet).

It only appears non-user friendly at first because it takes a matter of learning the product. And they're actually very easy compared to some other programs, and more 'professional' programs in animation and image editing.

I've never had errors with any Adobe program or with Flash. And the only errors that I did happen to have with Flash were because of my system, not the program.

I didnt vote in this because I hate both companies, Microsoft for trying to take over the world, and Google for invading our privacy even more than Microsoft. Google puts a cookie on your computer that collects every search you do and sends that info to the companie, and the cookie doesnt expire for 34 years or somthing.

www.google-watch.com

You didn't try to use ME, did you? ^.^
lol no, thankfully i went straight from 98 to XP, missing out the apparently awful ME and 2000 :p

ME fondly named "muppet edition" ....probably after the people that wrote it

lol no, thankfully i went straight from 98 to XP, missing out the apparently awful ME and 2000 :p

Same here, except 98 (If only I had a pound every time it crashed) and XP (Treats me like i'm five) are just as bad.

If you want an OS that works, go Debian GNU/Linux.

"windows has encountered an unknown error"

This is why i hate windows. There are so many errors they ran out of numbers and went with the get out of jail free card of "unknown"

Actually the reson I hate windows is that whenever I have to use IE i am swamped with pop ups... are these real pop ups or are they actually wrote into the code as one of the programmes was drunk and thought it would be really really funny



Sadly I do own a PC. And all the wonderful wonderful errors and crazyness that comes with it. I'm saving up for a mac (also I believe they are less suseptable to viruses as they don't run of all those pesky exe. files) However I believe microsoft's demise and basic rubbishness are because Bill-the-devil-gates has too much money to care. He knows people will buy them and many buisnesses will have to buy them as all of their existing programmes and applications run on the windows platform.


Sadly Microsoft will continue to rake in the cash because of the monopolisation they have on the market. Hopefully either they will get their act together and start producing decent soft/hardware or the other companies will be able to win people over with their supiour technology.

I'm definatly buying a mac next time

Well, there is a fun little program that you can find at www.mozilla.org blocks pop up and the such.

And as for Bill Gates, he does not have anything to do with microsoft anymore, hes long gone from the company as far as business goes.

lol no, thankfully i went straight from 98 to XP, missing ut the apparently awful ME and 2000 :pME is IMO the worst piece of software MS have ever released, followed by Frontpage, which is useless for serious work. Windows 2000 isn't so bad. It's basically XP with less bloat. The biggest difference between 2000 and XP is the addition of pointless eye-candy. The underlying system is almost completely the same.

I agree with Safalra about for any application there is a better and cheaper alternative, google (IE), gmail (hotmail), winamp for music (windows media player), im a fan of WinDVD for dvds and other visual media...
google only has an add-on for ie to block pop ups, it doesn't have its own thing, get firefox (which google made a toolbar for, but why would you use it with firefox?), hotmail does need better blocking algorithms, and winamp is honestly a REALLY bad music player, it doesn't have an intelligent queue system, nor will it burn, copy music from a cd, or resample music, its just easily skinnable.

See Google 4 teh w1n!!1 (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic)

Google and Microsoft are at war.
Which company do you prefer?Is this a trick question? Google of course!
Microsoft's business model is to let the guy in the garage develop a program and wait until it's successful on the market before they clone it and give it away for free with their crap operating systems, thus eliminated the competition. Ever noticed how microsoft hasn't come up with its own program until after something similar got popular? They make so much money by not taking development risks.

See Google 4 teh w1n!!1 (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic)
wow. that was odd, and oddly scary too :eek:

wow. that was odd, and oddly scary too :eek:
I concurr... :eek:

God no....

The apocalypse has come...

I'll be in my nuclear bunker, trembling with a shotgun and Bible.

I use Google for web searches. Not for webmail; at the time that GMail came out I already had a 250Mb Yahoo! account, since upped to a Gigabyte. Why e3xactly would I want another account?

My computer runs XP Pro.
NT > 2000 Pro > XP Pro > XP > 95 > 98 > ME. In my eyes, at least.

NT was as solid as a very, very solid rock. Not ideal for home users, but 2000 and XP were built upon it, rather then the (reasonably troublesome) 95/8/ME line.

In what, 3 solid years of using XP I haven't experienced one single BSOD. It's crashed occasionally, but only ever because of something I've done, rather then it just having a fit and quitting on me.

I use OpenOffice at the moment for word processing and all that, but before I pack myself off to University in a short while I'll probably call in as many favours as possible and get myself Microsoft Office Student Edition. It's not particularly expensive, and OO.org has trouble coping at times.

Lest we forget, MS also make hardware, and they're damned good at it as well. My MS Intellimousething is fantastic, although, as with keyboards, it's entirely a matter of personal comfort and how you like it. Some swear by a Laser Logitech, some see no point in spending more then a fiver on one.

It seems to me that often it's really cool to badmouth Microsoft. Of course, they have trouble, and I browse with Fx because of what it offers over IE. When IE7 is formally released though, I'll give it a proper whirl, see how it copes, it's only fair. Microsoft provide a lot of the answers for the vast majority of people.

after watching that im selling my computer and living in the basement :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm not a huge fan of MS, but nor am I an open source/non MS zealot like some people. I use a lot of non-MS stuff on XP though, such as DivX(because WMP is just evil), Gmail(Because I don't like hotmails layout and Gmail gives more space), FireFox(because IE almost trys to give you spyware), and Thunderbird(Because It's just better than oputlook XD). Of course, I have used 98 a lot and can say with much confidence, even compared to 2000 it SUCKS, in every possible meaning of the word.

Now a google browser (or OS for that matter), that would really be something.

Now here is an Idea, a distribution of Linux based around Google! XD

I didnt vote in this because I hate both companies, Microsoft for trying to take over the world, and Google for invading our privacy even more than Microsoft. Google puts a cookie on your computer that collects every search you do and sends that info to the companie, and the cookie doesnt expire for 34 years or somthing.

www.google-watch.com
Common practice. Yahoo sets 5 year cookies, MSN 10, however the fact that you are unlikely to go so long without clearing cookies, or purchasing a new computer makes that a moot point.


At least Google doesnt feel the need to purchase spyware companies ;)

wow. that was odd, and oddly scary too

after watching that im selling my computer and living in the basement

I concurr...

God no....

The apocalypse has come...

I'll be in my nuclear bunker, trembling with a shotgun and Bible.

Fucking paranoid nostalgics hell-bent to reversing progress and advancement. :rolleyes:

Come on people, this is the way of the future, how our lives will be in the next decade. Don't get left behind over some cocked up paranoid bullshit. Who would have thought that the "progressive liberals" would be the ones scared shitless by technological advancement like a bunch of midevial Catholics. :rolleyes:

Really people, I'm the "ignorant and backwards conservative" and this sort of thing thrills me.

Fucking paranoid nostalgics hell-bent to reversing progress and advancement. :rolleyes:

Come on people, this is the way of the future, how our lives will be in the next decade. Don't get left behind over some cocked up paranoid bullshit. Who would have thought that the "progressive liberals" would be the ones scared shitless by technological advancement like a bunch of midevial Catholics. :rolleyes:

Really people, I'm the "ignorant and backwards conservative" and this sort of thing thrills me.
its the triviality of information that scares me. i like my news coming from (semi) trusted sources of real journalists, not just some dude with a wifipod and i don't like the idea of a computer algorithm putting this and some other dickhead's unresearched thoughts together and calling it "news"

Fucking paranoid nostalgics hell-bent to reversing progress and advancement. :rolleyes:

Come on people, this is the way of the future, how our lives will be in the next decade. Don't get left behind over some cocked up paranoid bullshit. Who would have thought that the "progressive liberals" would be the ones scared shitless by technological advancement like a bunch of midevial Catholics. :rolleyes:

Really people, I'm the "ignorant and backwards conservative" and this sort of thing thrills me.

Libertarianism isn't "backward", it's authoritarianism that's antiquated.

There's nothing wrong with technological progress; I just don't want companies using my personal information for their selfish benefits, do you?

Privacy can't be sacrificed for -- or misconstrued as -- progress.

Google. It's always been easier then anything else on my mom's computer to find anything.

No jokes about the mom thing! I'm not out of highschool yet :headbang: :sniper:

They're two totally different things! I can't decide! Don't make me!

NT was as solid as a very, very solid rock. Not ideal for home users, but 2000 and XP were built upon it, rather then the (reasonably troublesome) 95/8/ME line.


NT 4.0 was only solid if you were running the "magic" service pack for your particular machine. It always seemed to be a different on for different boxes. If you didn't have the right one, you'd get Blue Screens of Death on a regular basis.

So far XP has been more consistent for me than NT.

its the triviality of information that scares me. i like my news coming from (semi) trusted sources of real journalists
Ooh, time for me to go on a tangent. I really like this tangent, actually.

How is it that we know how much we can trust these 'real journalists'? What is it makes a journalist that is being paid to do it any more real than one who is doing it on their own?

Personally, I find that the situation with or without the newscorps has an underlying similarity. Many people don't trust certain newscorps or all newscorps now, and many people look to multiple newscorps to correlate information. I'd think the situation in which news created by individuals would be similar, although on a different scale.

*jumps on the tangent bandwagon*

I think a lot of the preconceptions concerning how "real" and trusting journalists are varies greatly from country to country. Many Americans seem to be highly suspicious of.. well most things whereas in the UK we seem to take that tabloids are a bit liberal with the truth but the good ole BBC are pretty accurate and honest.

Discuss...

Now a google browser (or OS for that matter), that would really be something.
A google browser or OS would have to have ads. Google is planning on releasing a browser though, they recently bought gbrowser.com

i Use Bubblecunt and am very happy about it.

My husband is in the computer industry, security to be specific and the things he could tell you about MS products are nauseating. I think it would be easier to compare MS to Google if they made all the same products. So far in the email and search departments, I'd say Google has already won.

I prefer Google.

Google's search engine is way better than M$'s search engine. msn.com has way too much uneeded content making it both more distracting and slower to load. Also Google has an advanced search feature to make it easier to find more certain things (like a movie with a long name). Google's search also has parental controls (safe search), which according to AOL comercials is the most important feature a product can have.

While I do not have a Gmail account (haven't been invited), but from what I have heard it is much better than Hotmail. With Gmail you can freely use Mozilla Thunderbird, they also provide you with instructions. M$ does provide instructions but you have to _buy_ software in order for it to work. Gmail also has better spam filtering. This could be because you are not on many spam lists yet so you aren't being sent as much spam.

I would love to see Google try and take on MSN messenger next. MSN is ok but seems to be spending alot of time developing useless features (remember MSN plus?), while doing a halfassed job on more importants stuff like being able to adjust the size of a webcam.

Anybody who complains about Windows has never had to use UNIX or DOS.

DOS didn't crash on me.

Anybody who complains about Windows has never had to use UNIX or DOS.

For real, DOS did what you told it to, and if there was an error it would tell you what the issue actually was.

Of course MS-DOS 7.1 was essentially stolen; the first entry in Mr Gates' history of dodgy software dealings.

Now Linux... THAT'S an OS.

Anybody who complains about Windows has never had to use UNIX or DOS.
Of course Windows, as a desktop OS, is going to look good when you compare it to an old server OS and another OS that is over a decade old.

Compare it to OS X or Linux instead. OS X has Windows beat easily.

See Google 4 teh w1n!!1 (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic)

Wow. That was fantastic (imo).

Scary though.

Fucking paranoid nostalgics hell-bent to reversing progress and advancement. :rolleyes:

Come on people, this is the way of the future, how our lives will be in the next decade. Don't get left behind over some cocked up paranoid bullshit. Who would have thought that the "progressive liberals" would be the ones scared shitless by technological advancement like a bunch of midevial Catholics. :rolleyes:

Really people, I'm the "ignorant and backwards conservative" and this sort of thing thrills me.

It isn't the progress we are scared of. It is the way that we are essentially going to watched. I for one find that a bit disconserting (even though I have nothing to hide). It isn't the technology, but the way it can be used.


How is it that we know how much we can trust these 'real journalists'? What is it makes a journalist that is being paid to do it any more real than one who is doing it on their own?

Quick answer: We don't know we can trust "real" journalists. And it is probably unwise too.

But they generally have been trained to appear unbiased and objective (though compare the same story from different sources...)

Also, real journalists tend to have better access to sources and contacts. The same generallly cannot be said about the random musings of random people.

Personally, I find that the situation with or without the newscorps has an underlying similarity. Many people don't trust certain newscorps or all newscorps now, and many people look to multiple newscorps to correlate information. I'd think the situation in which news created by individuals would be similar, although on a different scale.

True. Kinda close to the reason I think websites such as indymedia.org will grow in popularity and size.

DOS didn't crash on me.

Same here.

Google has so far acted like the benevolent dictator. Microsoft has acted like the iron fisted fascist.

Both are ultimately bad for humanity, but Microsoft is the worst at the moment.

Anybody who complains about Windows has never had to use UNIX or DOS.

So Windows is better than DOS or the fragmented Unix - are you saying we should therefore ignore the fact that it's worse than Linux or OSX? Windows is an anachronism, stuck with a mid-90s operating system architecture with newer features just bolted on in an unstable and bug-riddled fashion.

True. Kinda close to the reason I think websites such as indymedia.org will grow in popularity and size.
*was almost going to mention Indymedia in that post*

Comparing MS to google is like comparing apples to hedgehogs. Google is a handy tool, but MS provides the software that I use. Most of you are comparing the OS, which I have never had a major problem with, and the bells, whistles, and games. I work with MS products and they have made my job easier. I use a massive accounting program based on MS access, and I find it easy to write queries for reports I need. I am able to import data from my spreads directly into the software, doing away with time consuming, mind numbing data entry. I do everything from work to home budget in excel spreads with perfect integration with supporting apps...even my online banking. I use outlook for all of my scheduling and have taught everyone in my office how to use it to set up the kazillion meetings and conferences we have without running office to office and calling attendees checking schedules. My office runs PCs and Macs and we have no problem networking them and file swapping and info sharing between them.

Also, my oldest son, who is legally blind, works for MS. MS does not judge his ability or inability to perform his job based on his challenges. He is evaluated on his productivity and the quality of his work. He has consistently been promoted over the years and is in a supervisory position in a sensitive area of MS. Not to mention he is paid very VERY well.

*was almost going to mention Indymedia in that post*

:eek:

Indymedia pwns ;)

:eek:

Indymedia pwns ;)
Before anybody jumps in and starts saying something about sbout "Indymedia is stupid because they are leftist hippies!", let me say something:

Even for those who disagree with the content, there is a bit to be said for the structure of it.
If we ignore the conetent and just focus on the way it works, I'd say it works pretty well for something that just lets anybody post news. A large percent of the news is factual. Sure, it has a spin on it, but that is sort of the point of Indymedia, in my opinion, letting people present the news in the way they choose to. You may not be able to trust everything right off the bat without other verification, but I for one think that it is prudent to assume that about most news sources already.

If one is conplaining about how Indymedia is mostly leftists, nothing would prevent someone from, if they so chose, creating a site like Indymedia with a classic liberal spin, or a fascist one, or a centrist one, or one that tries to remain more neutral. Heck, since Indymedia isn't officially affiliated with any political view(if I'm remembering correctly), if one chose they could probably try to set up a presence on Indymedia for their own views, if they wanted to.

Indymedia, to me, seems sort of like what could be the small steps at the beginning of a shift in the way media is used. Along with blogging and RSS feeds.

Ooh, time for me to go on a tangent. I really like this tangent, actually.

How is it that we know how much we can trust these 'real journalists'? What is it makes a journalist that is being paid to do it any more real than one who is doing it on their own?

Personally, I find that the situation with or without the newscorps has an underlying similarity. Many people don't trust certain newscorps or all newscorps now, and many people look to multiple newscorps to correlate information. I'd think the situation in which news created by individuals would be similar, although on a different scale.
the credibility of a news source is always going to be an issue - but thats where the advantage of consumer sovereignty comes in. if a newscorp is found to be, or evidently is biased or untrustworthy, then consumers will respond by a) not trusting that source anymore, and b) not buying or watching that news source. credibility is very important in the news media, and professional newscorps who get their salaries and revenue from their news output will rarely do crazy things to risk their credibility - its a matter of accountability. the only real exception (in the UK - don't know about the US) is the Daily Mail, a right-wing tabloid that blatantly and frequently makes up stories and sources to be yet more and more sensational. however only a few terrified overly right-wing readers actually take the Mail seriously...

but this question of accountability is the problem with gaining news from people or blogs like in that flash movie - these people have no accountabity to the truth. professional newscorps do, no matter how tenuous the link...
plus, pro journalists do research stories... do people in general when forming an opinion? some people do; some people think about the different sides of an arguement, etc, when forming an opinion, but most just respond to whats going on around them. research and what i would call 'journalism' are both out of the window. if our news comes simply from the conjecture and subjective, un-researched and biased opinion of 'ordinary people', who have no accountability to the truth, then i am less inclined to trust the news. i'll have to become a hermit ;)

besides, think of the news that we'll be getting through this form of people-based newsmedia. without the global and objective perspective of newscorps, news from these blogs (or whatever) will become just so local scale and trivial - something i would hate to see happen. there are enough narrow minded people about without this to make it worse :p


if, however, this type of individual journalism were simply combined with traditional newscorps & professional journalists stores as nothing more than first-hand reports, then thats ok. but then we have that already when people, who were 'there when it happened' are interviewed by the newsmedia.

i don't know, but i can't see a world without professional newsmedia as being either trustworthy or credible. if mixed with normal news reports, then there is little difference to what we have today...


[/tangent]

bump

Google has so far acted like the benevolent dictator. Microsoft has acted like the iron fisted fascist.
Both are ultimately bad for humanity, but Microsoft is the worst at the moment.

I like both of them; them and Yahoo are hiring up a storm in the US, so they get my approval.

Ah yes, Microsoft is evil, Google is the saviour, blah blah blah.

What people don't get is that they're both corporations. Microsoft is currently top dog, so people are trying to tear it down, because thats just what you do with the top dog. When it's gone, and Google is top dog, the cycle will begin again, because suddenly people will start noticing "problems" that weren't there before - mainly because nobody cared to look.

Of the two, I prefer Microsoft. Someone has to.