• PeterCaoBlue

    Q&A for flaws in the handling of such criminal cases by certain police officers presented by a Schmidt and Thrun supporter at [i.doubt.it/tag/sebastian-thrun/]

    “Dr. Kelly Arthur of the Sonoma County coroner’s office, is reported to have reviewed it and said she stood by her original finding that there were not any signs of trauma.” — that still would not gurantee a suicide conclusion, wouldn’t it? where/when/how did those trauma come into being, then? Can Dr. Kelly Arthur explain? or would it be wiser for the officer who drew conclusion of suicide to make sure where/when/how did those trauma come into being before drawing conclusion of suicide?
    ——————-
    “Except Peter Cao, who asserts that Mengyao Zhou was murdered by or with the help of Schmidt and Thrun, in order to intimidate him personally.” — Schmidt there were not any signs of trauma.” — that still would not gurantee a suicide conclusion, wouldn’t it? where/when/how did those trauma come into being, then? Can Dr. Kelly Arthur explain? or would it be wiser for the officer who drew conclusion of suicide to make sure where/when/how did those trauma come into being before drawing conclusion of suicide?
    ——————-
    “Except Peter Cao, who asserts that Mengyao Zhou was murdered by or with the
    help of Schmidt and Thrun, in order to intimidate him personally.” — Schmidt did send me life threatening message for sake of Thrun during their fight with Stanford people. I said they killed May Zhou to intimidate me and to terrorize Stanford people; you omitted the serious part. My statement is far more reasonable than police can give, don’t you agree?
    ——————–
    “… and an email that Zhou sent to her 16-year-old sister as “consistent with a goodbye note.” — can we see such an email before we could believe it? How much good-bye is there in it? digital messages could be unreliable, by the way

    ———————

    But then you can’t expect someone killing themselves to make choices that appear rational to others. If it’s not tasteless to speculate, perhaps she felt ashamed and wanted to hide herself.”
    — Is that the way you describe death of an innocent girl as May Zhou is? Shame on you!
    — Would the officer in charge of May Zhou’s case agree? How to get connect with such an officer? I have serious stuff to report

  • Jenksy

    Whoa unto such an unholy alliance, lol.

    (Somewhat) more seriously: how would Google + Bing cause Google monopoly concerns but Google + Yahoo! would not?

    Oh, and Marissa Mayer is a Google plant. That’s what my gut tells me, anyway.

    ^Only half-joking, there, as well, that last line.

  • http://blog.clayburngriffin.com/ Clayburn Griffin

    This is a great idea for Google, and would be the death knell for Bing.

  • Jenksy

    What it would be is another nail in the coffin of transparency and user choice.

  • Maurice Walshe

    Um some one needs to get HR to tell Erric to cut down on the Jazz Cigarettes – when your under investigation for anti trust you do not make silly remarks like this – Hes not related to Mitt Romney is he.

  • http://blog.clayburngriffin.com/ Clayburn Griffin

    Nobody cares about that. Google is the result of user choice. We choose it. If you don’t like it, there’s always Duck Duck Go.

  • Steve B

    Let the FTC investigations begin….if this coupled with the monopolizing of Google search listings for paid and google sponsored results, does not scream of Monopoly, then I don’t know what does. They should just have Larry Page wear a monocle and collect his $200 bucks for passing go. Just don’t roll three doubles in a roll….

  • Jenksy

    (Red herring/Straw man given that I was specifically referencing monopolization of the Search space, but I’ll play)
    Everybody cares about that. The success of Google is the result of myriad factors aside from ‘choice’ that, should Joe and Sally websurfer become fully cognizant of, would dramatically affect Google as peoples’ default engine.

    The ‘love it or leave it’ mantra of Google sycophants has a ridiculous, vainglorious and empty ring to the ears of nearly everyone who has given these things much ethical examination.

    Of course I can go to Duck Duck Go. The reason why you saying this is a vacuous rhetorical jingle is that the ethical dilemmas Google continues to raise at every turn would remain even if I did.

    Monopolies, be they actual and definitive monopolies, or, monopoLIZERS, are not good for anyone; and, have never – not ever, not even once in the history of business – come to the fore by the choice of the people to whom a company is beholden to distribute their goods and services. Even when they have had the best product. They do it by stealth, lack of transparency, disinformation, and money going into the hands of the ‘right’ people.

    Just like Google.

  • http://blog.clayburngriffin.com/ Clayburn Griffin

    Boo hoo. We get what we deserve. Nobody is forcing us to use Google.

  • http://www.bestbackgroundchecks.com/ Dave Jordan

    Seriously? There is no other choice. Bing sucks, Yahoo isn’t even an honorable mention, and the smaller engines are unknown. You might also want to take a look at the SERP’s next time you do a search. You’ll find fewer truly relevant results from informed individuals, organizations, etc, and more results featuring big brands. I’ve also had a number of people complain they’re actually having difficulty finding relevant results more often than not.