Slashdot Mirror

Bring it!

If Microsoft EVER makes any threatening sounds regarding Samba, I hope the EC Competition Commissioner will come down on them like a ton of bricks: link

Let's not kid ourselves ...

Sure, other governments "[route] all digital traffic in the country through a single choke point, using the capabilities of deep packet inspection" and so do we, in the US. I couldn't think of a better place to put fiber splicers than the "AT&T office in San Francisco." Facebook, and of course other social networking and technology companies, must be a gold mine for them. All they need to do is connect the social networking dots, as they currently do with American's phone calls -- there's no concern for domestic wiretapping laws involved -- it's simply call delivery data for them, and a bit of connecting the social network dots. Hence the reason Verizon Wireless sent out a snail-mail privacy notice to their customers regarding their use of call delivery records in light of the possible broad-surveillance lawsuits, a few years ago. One doesn't need the full conversation if it's possible to ascertain and forward onto other agencies the usual suspects. Separately, Larry Wall, the creator of Perl, once said that he doesn't "tell people the NSA uses Perl. [He merely tells] people the NSA thinks everyone uses Perl. They should know, after all."

Those are smart scientists and engineers over there, to be sure. I'd love to work for them, too. :-)

The article to which you are referring is probably this one It's not quite clear how 1.9 Mbs is the average. Is it a mode, a median, or a mean?

The paper behind the article includes this gem.

There are 8 megabits in a megabyte, so a 100 megabit per second connection takes 8 seconds to transmit a 100
megabyte file.

Read this:

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-pricing-announced-cheaper-than-vista.ars

Windows 7 Home Premium ($49.99) and Windows 7 Professional ($99.99)

That's valid at Best Buy, Amazon, Fry's, etc etc. Yes, it's only for preorders so you can argue its merits as you like, but if you're actually interested in 7, it's the way to get it.

Yup, looks like I had old data. Probably worth noting that it took them 4 months to get in, and they had to remove features to make it happen.

Flash performance on Linux and Mac are equally awful (in terms of FPS) although the Mac versions seams less buggy. Further reading for those interested in this topic... http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/benchmarking-flash-player-10.ars

Although your item #3 is above is technically correct, it distorts the story badly:

Nonetheless she could have appealed the penalty,

Yes, she could and did appeal the penalty.

[She] decided instead to appeal the ruling that she was guilty instead on the basis of a dubious technicality which was unlikely to change the final jury verdict.

The word "instead" here is incorrect or misleading.

You call it a "dubious technicality," referring I assume to the making-available legal theory. However, the making-available argument was the linchpin of the RIAA's argument in the first trial, and the subject of fairly heated debate. Personally I consider this argument to be bunkum and balderdash, but federal judges have weighed in on both sides. It's no technicality, it is a live wire of case law.

It was not a pointless retrial -- when the judge gives the jury rotten instructions, a citizen damn well deserves a new trial.

She lost in court, was given a penalty that while high, was actually on the lower end of the possible outcomes.

No, the law says penalties range from $750 to $150k per offense, so the median there is $75375, and so a per-offense fine of almost-$80k is on the higher end of possible outcomes (exceeding the median, to be precise). Moreover, the real story here is that the penalty wasn't just "high," it was stratospheric compared to the worth of the items in question.

I agree with you on the facts of the case though -- the evidence was squarely against her, she (IMO) lied to the jury, and deserves some penalty. The important question is how much, and that is where the debate should lie. Pretending this punishment is anything but manifest injustice and a cruel absurdity is, I think, misinformed or disingenuous.

Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it. But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.

Folks, I am not trolling so have a look for yourselves and compare. There were efforts to "QT-size" it on Linux distros running KDE but that effort has no results I can see though there was something done by Nokia.

In its current status, Firefox needs serious love on Linux. Even my 14 year old sis can see the ugliness that Firefox shows.

In addition to all the features, a nice looking application is always pleasing to work with. Ask Apple or even Windows folks. They will agree.

Or even then...How would a good looking Firefox harm Firefox?

We know via the Bush domestic spying program and the revelations to EFF about "secret NSA rooms" in the telco switching centers, that the US has this capability on a massive scale. Link for the uninformed My comment at the time was, "Think what you could do with that equipment."

To assume the Brits or any other mostly solvent government on the planet can't do the same 7 years later is not just naive and funny, it is downright ignorant.

Ars Technica?

Several GPL lawsuits have been filed in the United States (Cisco and Verizon/Busybox off the top of my head). So far all have been settled before reaching court. However, the GPL has been upheld by a German court: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2007/07/skype-loses-gpl-lawsuit-in-germany.ars

during a presentation at the Google IO conference, Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux.

via

Android is not even a full-fledged OS. It's more like a glorified browser with interfaces to Google web services. Probably fine for phones if you're OK with handing over all your data, not made for multipurpose computers.

I would love to see more subnotebooks with a free OS, but Android is a strawman here. I don't dispute that Linux distros (and of course Windows) could learn a lot from Android's UI. But it's not a competitor if you want more than a web browsing device.

I don't think so. I couldn't find definitive references and it's been a long time since I installed Ubuntu on a non-Intel-graphics system, but I am pretty sure that since Gutsy Ubuntu has been using a compositing window manager (compiz) by default on systems with Intel and Nvidia graphics (and since some later Ubuntu version also on ATi systems). Of course, compositing requires 3D hardware acceleration, and for Nvidia this means proprietary drivers.

Compare:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/composite-by-default
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2007/09/ubuntu-technical-board-votes-on-compiz-for-ubuntu-7-10.ars

After the appeals and such run out, she may or may not be able to file bankruptcy. IANAL, but i found these bits of info interesting. 1)The jury found Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars 2)Debts arising from copyright infringement judgments are generally dischargeable in personal bankruptcy proceedings unless the creditor (i.e., the copyright owner) can prove that the judgment constitutes a debt for a "willful and malicious injury" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). Moreover, because the legal standards for "willful and malicious injury" differ from those governing "willful infringement" under the Copyright Act, even a willful infringement judgment may be dischargeable in bankruptcy. http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/P2P_bktcy_memo.pdf

Sure, Ray. Whatever. BTW, it WAS an all white jury, according to Ars Technica. In Minnesota, for a Native American, that's a hanging jury.

Right now, in the US, certain media are banned. Somehow we are able to stop the ban-wagon at some point.

Are you sure about that?"

Firefox 2 had a bug. Firefox 3 does use less than Opera. Much less. (I'll admit these benchmarks aren't for the latest build of Opera, but Opera has more features now not less so i think it's still accurate).

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars
http://avencius.nl/content/firefox-3-vs-opera-950-memory-usage

Let's not assume that being against surveillance cameras (or asking ridiculously invasive questions about one's web surfing habits) is a red state/blue state situation. For instance, Mississippi (which I think is generally considered a red state) recently banned red light cameras.

--sabre86

ISP's DEFINITELY won't like this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/congressman-has-a-bill-ready-to-combat-usage-caps.ars

"Massa's solution would be to force ISPs to justify usage-based fees to the FTC before they are implemented. The ISP would have to submit an economic case, based on the capital equipment cost and operational costs, for why they need to charge for usage, and then consider the impact of those fees on users. The FTC would get injunction power, and the ability to fine any ISP that either neglected to file a justification or implemented the plan regardless of the injunction. The bill uses language like "unjust, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory" to describe plans that run afoul of the economic analysis, which Massa says reflects existing statutory language used giving the FTC regulatory power.

It's safe to assume Time Warner won't like this one bit, as a basic economic analysis shows that its plan imposes fees that are nowhere close to those of its fellow duopolists. More generally, the cost of supporting subscribers appears to be dropping in most cases, so it seems unlikely that anyone in the industry would be able to get their plan past the FTC."

Opera is is in trouble. .
Its desktop share is less than even Chrome.
As for the mobile market, it is being surpassed by iPhone.
See the arstechnica analysis of misleading statcounter results here

With worldwide IE market-share now down to 65% (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/may-2009-browser-stats-rivals-chip-away-at-ie.ars
  I don't think you can say that the world is waiting any longer for Microsoft's word on the matter.

When IE usage is below 50%, are you still going to say that Microsoft's endorsement is necessary?

But wasn't the GNOME project founded because KDE depends on Qt, which is not adequately "free?"

Historically yes, but that's no longer the case.

If that's true, could someone explain to me how MS.NET is "more free" than Qt?

I agree whole-heartedly. It's shit like this that will push the FOSS loyalists away from GNOME and to other window/desktop managers. KDE4 is becoming a very attractive option as it becomes more mature.

Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains. The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and isn't buying most of the defense's excuses. I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars

I was aware of the article and, more importantly, of the ruling to which it refers. That related solely to the motion to suppress on the ground of illegality; it had nothing to do with the Rule 702 objection.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/05/safari-and-mac-os-x-hold-steady-for-april-while-iphone-climbs.ars

IE: 66%

In April 2009. Sure firefox grabbed market share. Is it enough? No. Is it beating IE? No. Is it beating the world's worst browser, IE6? By 3%.
  There was a time when IE was the best browser because it was the only browser and every site out there was coded for IE, not for the web, not per W3C standard nor common sense.

Firefox has not proven that innovation works, firefox has proven that the only thing that was keeping back innovation was IE.

It's worse than that. ars technica looked in to some of the numbers, and found that some of them derive from numbers that are cited because they are cited. There's some basis in a survey about losses due to "inadequate protection", and some estimates from that. But newer stuff which uses those reports drops all the contexts, jumps to the high end of estimated ranges, and so on.

So, every single number Mr. Hatch says needs to be suffixed with "[citation needed]".

So if MacOS X with Safari becomes more popular then Windows with IE, should they be also sued?

If MacOS X ever becomes the dominant desktop operating system (not quite the same as "as popular as Windows") then yes, maybe Apple would have to change some of their policies - but they've got a long way to go first.

The EU and others have already had a few sniffs at them re. iTunes - but their strong position in the media player market is nothing compared to the PC/Windows monoculture.

Yeah, that was an awkward moment when they were talking about tethering and totally skipped over AT&T, wasn't it?

Well, AT&T had no problem repeatedly, illegally spying on me and selling me out multiple times and then lobbying to get themselves off.

I canceled them as my home service and will never EVER use them again, which precludes an iPhone (for now).

Which is fine, because rooted Android has had tethering (bluetooth & wifi) for a while now.

What it actually says is that browsing functionality will be disabled in Windows 7. Remember the help system still requires the core HTML rendering engine. As does any web applets, like embedded search in the applications, such as Microsoft Office.

'The E versions of Windows 7 will include all the features and functionality of Windows 7 in the rest of the world, other than browsing with Internet Explorer'

Firefox users in Europe are in the majority now, and IE only has a minority of less than 36% market share.

That makes for a nice headline, but is quite misleading: according to your link, FF3 has overtaken IE7 only because IE users are in the middle of upgrading to IE8. Taken together IE users account for around 50% of the market. Which is already an impressive statstic - no need to over-egg it.

They very well could assume that people will want what they are used to and ship IE anyway, and in all honesty that is probably a safe bet.

If they assume such a thing, then they are not in touch with their market. Firefox users in Europe are in the majority now, and IE only has a minority of less than 36% market share.

The article submitter fails to note the EU is not necessarily on board with this as they've been circulating a survey asking PC companies about how many and what browsers should be pre-installed as well as asking questions about if MS is pressuring them on the issue.

RIAA / MPAA? That number is even more absurd than the older numbers that Ars Technica analyzed recently: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/rep-howard-berman-calls-for-new-ip-law-using-dodgy-data.ars
The job loss claim is ludicrous! 300.000+ jobs? How? Where? So if all download their stuff legally from then net that number of jobs will be created? Or does he expect that CD and DVD stores will spring back to life in this digital age at the cost of LEGAL downloads?

It's Mercury colliding with other planets, not Earth, and I read the article on Ars Technica yesterday, and you're right, the collision isn't the focus, it's the ability to use more complex equations using variables previously ignored due to that complexity in modelling, coupled with similarity of some previous work, apparently. What's more, they ran 2500 simulations, and less than 1% had Mercury colliding with a planet.

"Out of the 2,500 runs that were performed, only about one percent resulted in a major disruptions in Mercury's orbit. This result is in agreement with prior works that had not taken general relativity or the lunar effects into account" http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/06/kicking-a-planet-out-of-the-solar-system-physically.ars

Nope, it was the Ars article: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/06/kicking-a-planet-out-of-the-solar-system-physically.ars They mention a 'complex time integration scheme' fourth paragraph down. Though with the state of technical journalism on the intrawebs that could mean Euler or leap-frog.

If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

The statement by the RIAA that they've lost money on this (see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/riaa-responds.ars ) means that most of the money has probably moved out of RIAA and into the hands of the lawyers and MediaSentry. One would hope that there would be some grounds to go after not just RIAA, but also their lawyers and MediaSentry, possibly under RICO-like recovery. But IANAL, and maybe a lawyer can comment on if it's possible to recover the $$ from the lawyers if RIAA goes bankrupt.

Actually invensense (the company behind the Wii sensors) has stated absolute position and orientation is possible by combining the IR with accelerometers and gyroscopes (i.e. MotionPlus):

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/08/wii-motion-sensor.ars

"This value proposition was embraced by Nintendo. We don't manufacture the [MotionPlus] accessory--there's been some confusion about that--but we offer a multi-axis MEMS gyroscope to Nintendo that, when combined with the other sensors and the sensor bar, offers a true six-axis motion controller experience."

Six axis meaning six degrees of freedom, i.e. absolute positioning and orientation.

There's a lot of information if you combine these three things together... The gyroscopes give you angles, the IR gives you the distance from the TV and the accelerometers can help to improve the accuracy of the previous measurements.

Nobody knows. See Ars Technica piece mentioning them. Essentially, someone opened up iPhone OS 3.0 and found references to two devices called the iProd and iFPGA in the USB Device Configuration plist, which is used (according to the article) to identify these devices on Mac OS X.

I'm participating in the CLRN Free Digital Textbook Initiative as the author of a physics book. When this was discussed on slashdot recently, I posted skeptically. The same day, I got an email from Brian Bridges, the director of CLRN, saying that he'd seen my slashdot post, and he wanted to reassure me that it really was going to happen. They'd already made a list of potential candidates who they wanted submissions from, and I was on it. I had to go through my books and figure out how they correlated with the list of topics (Word document) that the state standards say are supposed to be covered in high school physics. Then there was a process where I had to set up an account on their server, fill out some online forms, and upload the Word file showing how my topics correlated with the standards.

There does seem to be somewhat of a fog of uncertainty surrounding this whole thing. One thing I've noticed is that although Schwarzenegger has named three top-level state education officials who are supposed to carry this out, some of these people are actually his political opponents. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this is all motivated by the hellish California state budget situation. This article has some useful information about California's dysfunctional textbook selection system, and a previous, unsuccessful free-textbook effort called COSTP, where the state tried to produce a history textbook via wikibooks.org. The present effort seems to be doing a pretty good job of eliminating the bureaucratic obstacles; Bridges sent me a detailed email explaining how to fill out all the forms, saying what it was safe to leave blank, etc.

One thing that I wasn't very clear on before was whether they envisioned this as something that would involve traditional textbook publishers, individual authors who'd put their own stuff on the web, or both. Although I'm sure they don't want to arbitrarily tell certain private entities, like the traditional publishers, that they can't participate, it seems clear to me now that it's aimed at the nontraditional folks like me. Note the word "free" in the name of the initiative. No traditional publisher is going to give their book away for free in digital form. It's true that the big college and high school textbook publishers are very actively involved in an effort to distribute a lot of their books in digital form, but not for free. From what I've observed at the community college where I teach, the idea seems to be to get students to rent DRM'd textbooks. When the student stops paying the rent, they can no longer use the book. This would have the effect of eliminating the used book market, which the publishers hate with a passion. (That's the reason they bring out new editions so frequently.) So no, I don't think any traditional publishers will participate. The general picture really does seem to be that they're doing this as an alternative to the traditional publishers. Further circumstantial evidence comes from the fact that the state has already tried to do a collaboration with wikibooks. One big question in my mind is whether there will be a giant push-back from the traditional publishers to keep this from happening. Seems like a no-brainer if it really advances to the stage where their market is threatened.

A lot of the slashdot posts so far have been about the issue of how students will access the books. Since the initiative has "Free" in the name, I don't think we're going to see too many barriers to access here (rentals, DRM, logging in to a web site to access the book, etc.). Taking my own books as

Sure they can do that via DLC, but if you have physical media, you have a right to sell it even if it's against the license agreement. See this article for the court ruling. This ruling also might have more of an effect later, as the arguments hinged on the fact that even though the software was billed as leased, the transaction had the characteristics of a sale, and therefore the First Sale doctrine applied. Using that logic, would it be reasonable to expect that the bits you paid for could come under the ruling?

eh? please don't misinform people about rates. The upgrade rates for existing AT&T customers (incl those who own an iPhone) are, with 2-year contract,

These are numbers i got from apple.com as I went through the upgrade process - I am an existing AT&T customer with an old (first gen) iPhone.

Don't misinform people by implying that your rates will apply to other existing AT&T customers. According to an Ars Technica article, AT&T will typically allow full subsidized pricing after about 18 months after buying their previously subsidized phone. Also, your first-gen iPhone was not subsidized.

Apple Haters make a big deal out of the standard carrier practice of subsidizing phones and therefore making you pay extra to leave your contract early.

Smarter posters would note that the pricing is as expected, only now you don't have to go to Hong Kong to buy a phone with no commitment. Now the thing to clarify is if these are still carrier locked (sadly probably so) but this is how you avoid a fee in the future if you are worried about it...

Apple announced that Snow Leopard will be shipped in September and will cost $29. The five-license Family Pack will cost $49. Those purchasing new Macs between June 8 and December 26, 2009 will be able to get Snow Leopard for $9.95.

For those looking to upgrade to the latest version of Mac OS X and iLife at the same time, the Mac Box Set with Snow Leopard, iLife '09, and iWork '09 will cost $169, with a Family Pack priced at $229.

Apple is packaging Snow Leopard as an "upgrade" for Leopard users, which explains the $29 price (previous versions of Mac OS X have retailed for $129)

Source Link

They also took out an ExpressCard slot from their MacBook Pros,

While the ExpressCard was dropped from the 15" and there's not one in the new 13" MacBook Pro, the 17" model still has the slot. That new 13 MBP only costs $1200 too.

What was with the Windows-bashing? They didn't even give a reason. All they said was that it's built on top of Vista... well, duh? Snow Leopard is built on top of Leopard.

Whereas Leopard is a good OS Vista sucks. Vista uptake has been slow. When it came out Vista also required the latest beefed up hardware. Leopard ran fine on old Macs though, it will run on a PowerPC G4. While Snow Leopard will not run on PowerPC hardware it will run on 3 year old Intel Macs.

Too many of my friends were turned off by the unnecessary Windows-bashing; I guess if Apple was trying to win over the enterprise crowd, they did a good job of alienating them right from the start.

While Apple pours the Microsoft bashing, anyone who let's marketing and not capability influence them then I don't think their opinion matters much.

Falcon

For a little bit there was a new page:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

It was pretty light on details and basically had all the same info that was on this PR page that now 404s:

http://www.apple.com/ca/press/2008_06/snow_leopard.html

Here is the original that I gleaned from ars:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/102001262931/p/9

"SAN FRANCISCO--June 9, 2008--Apple® today previewed Mac OS® X Snow Leopard, which builds on the incredible success of OS X Leopard and is the next major version of the world's most advanced operating system. Rather than focusing primarily on new features, Snow Leopard will enhance the performance of OS X, set a new standard for quality and lay the foundation for future OS X innovation. Snow Leopard is optimized for multi-core processors, taps into the vast computing power of graphic processing units (GPUs), enables breakthrough amounts of RAM and features a new, modern media platform with QuickTime® X. Snow Leopard includes out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange 2007 and is scheduled to ship in about a year.

"We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years and Snow Leopard lays the foundation for thousands more," said Bertrand Serlet, Apple's senior vice president of Software Engineering. "In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world's most advanced operating system."

Snow Leopard delivers unrivaled support for multi-core processors with a new technology code-named "Grand Central," making it easy for developers to create programs that take full advantage of the power of multi-core Macs. Snow Leopard further extends support for modern hardware with Open Computing Language (OpenCL), which lets any application tap into the vast gigaflops of GPU computing power previously available only to graphics applications. OpenCL is based on the C programming language and has been proposed as an open standard. Furthering OS X's lead in 64-bit technology, Snow Leopard raises the software limit on system memory up to a theoretical 16TB of RAM.

Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone(TM), Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, which optimizes support for modern audio and video formats resulting in extremely efficient media playback. Snow Leopard also includes Safari® with the fastest implementation of JavaScript ever, increasing performance by 53 percent, making Web 2.0 applications feel more responsive.*

For the first time, OS X includes native support for Microsoft Exchange 2007 in OS X applications Mail, iCal® and Address Book, making it even easier to integrate Macs into organizations of any size."

You need a source that the first iPhone OS "point upgrade" in a year is going to come with a newer browser? Really? Ok... here's one amongst many, many others:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/03/javascript-to-get-3x-speed-boost-in-iphone-os-30.ars

The comments to TFA (I guess I'm not a real ./er either) include links to a properly rigorous academic study (and some news articles) that shows that downloaders spend more money, not less: for every CD downloaded, they buy 0.4 additional CDs. The study's authors also "find evidence that purchases of other forms of entertainment such as cinema and concert tickets, and video games tend to increase with music purchases."

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6418.ars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm

It wasn't a government demand, but Microsoft voluntarily banned these search terms in order to comply with local laws in various countries.

An article on Ars Technica found that 20% of regions had sexual content blocked.

The article states, "Microsoft says it determined this list of regions by looking at their local laws. The company is not taking action in response to specific government demands or regulations; it is simply playing it safe."

Team Content are well aware of the analog hole, and they sure would like to do something about it.

Not especially. The MPAA has recommended use of the analog hole as an argument against a DMCA exemption.

People need to educate the voting public that the 12 year old next to them on the laughing and bragging about how he shot a rifle through someone's head yesterday and made it explode isn't a deraged lunatic.

That is definitely not the kind of game a 12 yr old should be allowed to play.

Anyway, the root cause of moral panic like this is the fact that most people can't wrap their head around the concept of someone who is not a socially inept adolescent boy playing computer games. Their gut feeling is that games are targeted at 12 yr old boys, and the content of many of these games is not suitable for 12 yr old boys.

While the latter is true, the former is not. Most gamers are over 18, according to Ars Technica.

Noone is suggesting a ban on all activities that are unsafe for 12 yr old boys. Driving isn't considered safe for 12 yr old boys, shooting firearms isn't considered safe, drinking beer isn't considered safe, sex isn't considered safe, but for adults we still have a place for these dangerous activities in our societies.

To give Microsoft something to seriously think about, Google needs an OS on the desktop. Android is a good start in my opinion. There are some efforts in this direction already. The good thing is that Android eschews X, which is a pain to work with in its current form.

Next, they will need [meaningful] applications that work no matter what platform one happens to be using.

Third, targeting Microsoft must not be the aim, it must be the unplanned outcome. The aim must be tp "please" we the users.

That way, Google will succeed on the desktop.