« Petrie Ditz
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don’t you think? »

Fortunately I Still (Just Barely) Beat Out The Serta Perfect Sleeper

Google, dude.  You used to be so cool.  WTF?

From The Raw Story:

US President George W. Bush is no longer Google's top response to Internet searches for "miserable failure."

Queries for French military victories no longer take one to "defeats."

And why?

…over time, we've seen more people assume that they are Google's opinion, or that Google has hand-coded the results for these Googlebombed queries. That's not true."

Hey Google, just because you don't think Dubbya's a miserable failure or that the French are sissies doesn't mean you have to push your pinko left-coast granola agenda on the rest of us!  I demand you re-enstate our President back to his rightful keywords.  He spent 6 long years earning them, and anything less means the terrorists have won.  Google, don't let the terrorists win!

Have a great weekend everyone.  Peace out. 

This entry was posted on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 at 5:26 am and is filed under Politics, The Internets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Fortunately I Still (Just Barely) Beat Out The Serta Perfect Sleeper”

  1. Sweetmeat Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Hear! Hear! W. seems the most appropriate result for miserable failure that I can think of off hand. I’m sure there are others that are more historicaly relevant, but not any that are more relevant to the times we’re living in.

    P.S. There are a couple words in there that I’m not positive of the spelling on. My appologies to anyone I may have upset by going with a phonetic based solution.

  2. BugHunter Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    You can’t think of a more appropriate result for failure than Bush? PS3 (Sony in general), M$ Vista, TSA, Jack T., Boston City Police, France, Verizon, Lindsey Lohan, etc. Sure he’s in the top 5 easily, but some of those make for some stiff competition.

  3. Maniac-X Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    two words:

    Windows Vista

    why?
    #1) DRM up the hoo-ha. The DRM is so thick in Vista, if you have media (obtained legitimately or not) that is not certified as genuine by Microsoft, it will play back at severely reduced quality, happening at kernel level. That means your audio will sound like you put your speakers up a donkey’s ass, and your video will look like your little sister drooled all over it during naptime (if you get playback at all). It sucks your system’s resources, and detracts from overall system stability and performance.

    #2) It’s inefficient. Remember that modest performance increase when upgrading from Windows 2000 to Windows XP? Yeah, if you’re lucky you’ll only suffer a 15% overall loss in general performance (this is including the 20% increase using a 64-bit processor in 64-bit mode provides).

    #3) It corrupts its own filesystem. Why would you use an operating system that actively destroys the NTFS partition it’s installed on? (Maybe not on purpose… maybe)

    And #4) Microsoft doesn’t trust you even if you have never pirated anything in your life, and never intend to. Microsoft doesn’t trust anyone. They don’t even like you. Why then would you use their products?

    My advice is to keep an eye on ReactOS. Free, Open Source OS, being built from the ground up with an aim for 100% binary compatibility with Windows. It’s still in alpha (version 0.3.0), but is already more stable than real Windows. Add to that the ability to install on EXT2/3/ReiserFS/Reiser4 (at least, it will be able to) instead of NTFS or FAT32, and you’ve got yourself a winner. As soon as they get hardware OpenGL and DirectX working, I’m switching over.

  4. Sweetmeat Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Bug, while I’ll agree several of those things definitely rate, none of them came with a five hundred billion dollar price tag for their steaming vat of liquified shit. Honestly they can’t compete.

  5. BugHunter Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 10:31 am

    …five hundred billion dollar price tag for their steaming vat of liquified shit

    Which media outlet was it that provided that line today? baa baa

  6. Amber Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 10:58 am

    According to CNN:

    Before now, the administration has used supplemental funding requests for most of the roughly $400 billion spent in Iraq, a practice that many in Congress say understates the war's impact on the Treasury.

    and

    The Bush administration's projected cost of more than $100 billion per year for the war in Iraq assumes that operations "will continue pretty much as they are" over the next two years, the White House's budget chief has said.

    500 billion is pretty close to the mark. I'm not so sure arguing money is your best tactic Bug. I don't get invited to the Cylon parties anymore, so I could be wrong, but I believe Ann Coulter would rather you focus on how Nancy Pelosi wants to make our troops gay. So ixnay on the oneymay. ;)

-->