Microsoft really would like for someone to use their Live search once in a while. They're even willing to pay again if you use it.
Sure it's quicker to ask Google for an image than to wait for Apple to send you a product shot. But it helps, if you know what you're doing.
Matt Cutts make fun of a reciprocal link exchange offer he must have been tipped off about. Some people seem to be unwilling to accept that things have changed.
A campaign promoting a new small car from Italy in Germany looks like its press release points to a URL occupied by a domain squatter: http://www.500wantsyou.com/.
Not everyone is pleased about Google's ability to play with forms. Firstly, people who don't read specifications, who don't know why there are GET and POST methods, and who never heard of authentication that prevents access only when Javascript is on, will start wondering where their site disappeared to. Others will worry about the number of broken Captchas or sudden orders. There are lots of forms that should, really, be fixed. But they probably will not.

There's a new CMS. I don't think the name is promising.
Nobody really knows, how many people will curse the social networks in future. Or at least the information, people so freely put there.
Especially not, if you're sitting in the glass house. Doesn't stop some people though, if the french source cited about Sony BMG's use of pirated software is right.
Some people apparently have to demonstrate publicly that they really do not understand what they're talking about.
Yet another demonstration why you can't delegate some things in life.
People in the media must be pressed for time. That's why some people have too many hands or fingers, miss a belly button or lack a crack. Photoshop Disasters has a nice collection of mutants.
If you search for piratebay and pirate bay at Yahoo, www.piratebay.org is in first position now. Click on it, and it redirects to the real The Pirate Bay site.
Philip Greenspun had an interesting take on why Microsoft deperately needs Yahoo: "The interesting question is why a company that claims to know how to program would pay anything for Yahoo, much less a P/E ratio of more than 60.". Indeed.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/02/09/microsoft-is-2000-times-less-effective-than-google-yahoo-board-seems-to-be-insane/
Talk about Microsoft and Programming reminds me to show you this picture which is probably as close as you get to a representation of the way the Windows Firewall works.
Microsoft's idea of a Yahoo takeover is not appreciated everywhere. Flickr users - Flickr is part of Yahoo - voice their opinions the way they're used to, by posting often quite creative images.
More and more commercial sites seem to sport a "Hacker Safe" logo, proclaiming to be tested for holes by some authority which claims to know it all. Apart from the fact that it's utter rubbish - they would have to check the complete code running on your server under the microscope - it demonstrates once more, that it's aimed at those who either don't know better or don't care. Unless you know your code is correct and your server is locked down you'd be a fool to say your site is safe.
As an aside: most people still don't know the difference between a hacker and a cracker, and that's why they sign up to silly schemes like this. Some people call it washing their hands.
Using unsanitised data on the web is as dangerous as executing unknown code from unknown sources. You get an even fiercer mix when pairing the two. Even Governments can't help then. In fact, nobody can.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/100630
Some years back Google received praise by its marketing sprouts for providing an answer to a search query which suggested that the emergency a searcher suspected might be real. "I kept thinking, 'you only have minutes...' I found a site that listed symptoms. Indeed, I was having a heart attack."
No, really, this is true, as you can read in a message from Ann.
Now Google has been superseded as a medical reference.
If you ever need to know if something is true, this truth detecting flowchart has the answer.
Matt Cutts entertains today with an hilarious example of an "SEO company" promising their cloaking script cannot be detected by search engines and how to deconstruct such stupid claims.
It appears to be fashionable at the moment to produce movies for near everything to be published irrespective of use or intended audience. Ignoring the fact that movie files don't contain HTML and thus are somewhat difficult to optimise for search engines, one should consider if a movie is the best media type for an application. I don't believe technical documentation should be wrapped in a video: users can't underline or highlight things they deem particularly important, and one can't jump from paragraph to paragraph like I'm used to in a book or printout of a FAQ or Howto.
Which allows me to announce a home movie filmed using a cheap wireless camera bought on an auction site and captured on an old linux box using motion, because I wanted to know where the damn cat comes into our garden to defecate.
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog details that Jimmy Wales' plans for his search engine based on a Wikipedia-like model [i.e. free labour from the public] are based on the acquisition of Grub from LookSmart for just $50,000. Looksmart shelled out $1.3 million for Grub. That makes the deal yet another not so very smart loss.
Market Watch reports renewed efforts by Microsoft to make their type of search more appealing to users.

I'm not normally interested in advertising but someone was kind enough to point this movie out to me. It's funny.
If you're often asked to make the logo a little bigger, to remove some white space, to add more fluorescence or more emotion - you know the type of client - then you'll find the right product mix right here.
Don't faint if you check your links using Yahoo's Site Explorer. Yahoo just announced that the inlink numbers are somewhat off until "next week".
Amazon has been awarded yet another "non-obvious" patent. I wish I knew what these guys are smoking.
Here he claims yet again to have as many or more rights than SCO, and here he demonstrates his eloquence in full.
Just in case you didn't know what "Value Added Tax" was good for, here's a screenshot explaining it all:

I thought it strange when I noticed that lots of Photoshop files were installed with mode 0777 on my Powerbook [for non geeks that means everyone on your system has permission to mess with those files]. That was fixed easily enough with a recursive chmod go-w.
When Photoshop CS3 was published, there were warnings that the installer actually turns off the firewall on the system, something unheard of. Now Heise Security reports that Adobe's web server is abusable. They don't really understand a lot about security, do they?
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/96605
© Copyright 1998 - 2008 Klaus Schallhorn.