Google is already making the choices. They are "liberals" and they are not to be trusted. The "Brave New World" is here. The individual must become a "thinking" person in order to survive what is coming. But beware, you are a "savage" if you think for yourself. And you will be branded as such by the majority who simply LOVE the ignorant.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

It seems like the battle lines in the new media are being drawn.  There are conservative and (stupid) liberal blogs.  We know that Yahoo and Google are unabashedly liberal.  This new revelation does not bode well for conservative bloggers....at least the small and growing bloggers.

I see a time where the internet is fully seperated into political factions with browsers, search engines, etc. that pertain to a certain political philosophy. In fact, I think I'm going to invent a new conservative search engine today while watching the NFL.  Of course, at first it will only have Newsbusters and Angry White Dude...lol.

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.c...

     I had to see if I could continue to Google Tiananmen Square in the US.  I figured their "editorial judgement" decision was only a matter of time considering the fact that Google didn't put up much (if any) fight against Chinese sensorship when they expanded their market there. 

Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration

http://www.despair.com/government.html

... but the fact remains that one really does need to do a great deal of +/- fanoogling to get to info that isn't MSM or Wiki oriented.  I think that katainkent is correct about the back of the bus, but quantity counts.  If you Google 'global warming,' you'll get lord only knows how many entries supporting the Hansen model/theory (I have a theory that my stubbed toe was caused by AGW).  This is because a ridiculous majority have fallen for this questionable science.

I can understand the percentage of MSM v skeptics.  What I can't accept is that Wiki tops the list on most topics.  Wiki is often useful but when it comes to politically charged topics like AGW or dreaded second hand smoke, Wiki deletes entries that refute their 'beliefs.'

Part of my work involves rooting out junk science -- in essence researching research (what an odd job).  This usually involves reading (gasp!) entire studies.  You'd be amazed at how many abstracts and conclusions are not supported by the actual data (the boring stuff) that's written in between the two.  With very rare exceptions, reporters regurgitate the press release that touts the conclusion rather than ferreting through the meat of the paper.  My guess?  They can't comprehend statistics, confidence intervals and relative risks.  Thus, if it bleeds, it leads.  Putatively scientific publications (JAMA, BMJ etc) select papers that scare the folks.

I've a colleague who wrote a cogent, thoroughly annotated entry refuting the idea that SHS is a carcinogen.  It was up less than 24 hours.  I submitted a comment regarding this topic that discussed publication bias.  Gone in 48.  I mean, geez guys, publication bias exists.  It's not limited to SHS.  If you look to Wiki for 'pub bias' you'll find this:  "Publication bias arises from the tendency for researchers, editors, and pharmaceutical companies"

There's no mention of government agendas (can we spell 'power/control addiction,' children?  Of course we can.)

I look to Wiki as a good source of truly basic information -- the chemical composition and elemental struction of say 'hydrogen.'  By the same token, Wiki does a good job with 'ethanol,' but Google, after featuring Wiki, goes right into political/belief mode.

I am now going to pour a bit of Irish ethanol into some coffee and call it a day.

anneftx

Typical-These companies start off small, with a good idea-and then they figure later on that they're just sooooo big and important that no one can do without them and have to adhere to whatever they want.

Uh-uh.

The main reason I switched to Google was that I could opt to have 100 hits come up on one page.  Years ago I used to use Webcrawler for that reason, but then they cut it back down to 50 max so I switched.  I always found Yahoo and some of the others to be rather 'fussy' somehow.

Also, look at Netscape vs. IE.  Myself-I use Firefox now as I've had enough of both of the others.  Fortunately, so far, there are always other options and others in the comp world who are hungrier.

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

Microsoft hates Google and thus will do anythng it can to gain an advantage. They are also the only company that has the money to take them on.

Live Search (Microsoft)

Microsoft is not the enemy as the open source communists would have your believe.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution