BING is the name of the new search engine from Microsoft. However, even do mainstream media is referring to it as the new search engine on the block and the attempt of Microsoft to battle Google, it is not a search engine. Even Microsoft itself is stating that it is not a search engine.Microsoft BING is a descission engine. When you enter a search criteria in Google it will return you the answer based upon a pagerank from ALL the public sources on the internet. When you enter a search criteria in BING it will return you the answers from all the sources that Microsoft thinks are valid.
In the video on decisionengine.com they state for example that on medical searches they will use the best information sources so that you never will get a opinion from lets say a 13 year old on the subject. Even do it sounds great at first you might want to think that over, "best information sources".... who decides what the best information sources are? In this case it is Microsoft and personlay I would like to have myself to be in controle. It means that Microsoft is controling what will end up in the searchresults where google is just giving math the controle of order it is diaplying it and the enduser (me) the option to decide what is valid in my opinion or not.
An other example what scares me, you can search for products, restaurants and such. On products you can even get a BING discount. I would not be supprised if Microsoft will get a fee for products sold via BING. Now the question is, what if would like to sell a product online and make it searchable via BING (like my results are visible Google) and I do not want to pay microsoft a fee. Will my product come up in a search, will it be at the bottom or will it handeld the same way as a product where Microsoft will make money?
Descision engine sounds great, however, I will stick to a search engine and be the judge myself what is valid or not. I do not want a corporation like Microsoft making the judgment on what I can read and can't read. Even do it sounds great at first it is limited and Microsoft is hoping it will be the new way to make "online money" becauase Microsoft is loosing lots and lots of money with its online services as can be seen in the chart below which I found at businessinsider.com. Where Yahoo, Google and such make lots of money Microsoft can't get it started. With BING I fear they missed it again.
1 comment:
Yes Johan,
You are worried about a corporation like Microsoft making the judgment on what you can read and can't read.
I am worried about those Kantian categories which Bing wants to impose on the mind.
When searching Bing, say for an Audi S8, a set of separate tabs on the left hand side of the page will offer related CATEGORIES, such as for parts, used cars, accessories and sales, while a search for musicians, such as Taylor Swift, brings tags such as songs, lyrics, biography and albums.
(Kumo out, Bing in as Microsoft readies advertising onslaught
Dan Leahul, revolutionmagazine.com, 26 May 2009, 2:05pm
http://www.revolutionmagazine.com/news/908378/Kumo-out-Bing-Microsoft-readies-advertising-onslaught/
Bing puts on top the results it thinks will help you make a decision in certain categories
I am worried about those (Kantian?) CATEGORIES.
Wolfram Alpha which was launched this month also spoke about a framework.
As [Dr Wolfram's company made its] final preparations to release Wolfram Alpha over the next week, [the company] thought it might be helpful to discuss questions like these in [its] blog.
Looking at the Examples by Topic page provides a good FRAMEWORK. You will be able to navigate from the Wolfram Alpha home page to Examples.
http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2009/05/11/wolframalpha-examples/
Categories fitting a framework.
As I explained on the Wolfram Alpha blog under the article
(also on my blog
http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2009/05/12/wolfram-alpha-and-immanuel-kant/ )
This was on the Wolfram Alpha blog:
Ivo Cerckel May 11, 2009 at 7:27 pm
http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2009/05/11/wolframalpha-examples/
Yes, in the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the knowing subject no longer directs itself to the known thing, but knowledge is being achieved by structuring reality according to the categories of the human mind which are inborn. The mind/reason imposes its structures/categories upon reality.
That explains why Kantian psychologists like Jean Piaget (1896 1980) consider intelligence to be a form of equilibrium between all the cognitive structurations. Cognitive structurations which are thus imposed in the Kantian way by the mind upon reality.
But, here’s the rub.
Those structures are reversible, for Piaget.
So if the mind decides that its structures do not fit reality, the mind just changes its structures.
What if the different structures which are imposed upon reality do not fit into a coherent whole?
Well, very easy! The definition of coherence is social, says Piaget.
So if society if society decides so, the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC), it is impossible to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect, can be set aside.
In his preface to Kant’s Jaesche Logic (in: Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Logic Cambridge University Press, 1992, (2004 paperback ed.), 521, pp. 523- 524) J. Michael Young explains how Kant made this setting aside of the PNC possible:
[Kant] restricted the use, the validity, of [the PNC] by banishing it from the sphere of metaphysics where dogmatism (sic) sought to make it valid, and restricting it to the merely logical use of reason, as valid only for this use alone. END OF QUOTE
Of course, if the PNC is no longer a metaphysical principle, then it is no longer the first principle of being.
No longer one of the primary or fundamental elements in human knowledge which serve as the bases for all other truths.
No longer the judgement which is naturally first (just as BEING is the first notion of our intelligence, implied in any consequent notion), and which is presupposed by all other judgements.
Thinking can then also be in contradiction to/with reality.
And one can even hold/have contradictory thoughts.
The definition of consistency is a social definition, isn’t it?
Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
Post a Comment