Slashdot Mirror

Wonder if it will take Skype down again with it too.

Sometimes things do manage to work out for the best.

But then, you discover that your child's toys are full of lead (or worse, cadmium), that practically all canned foods contain BPA, and that building codes are sometimes ignored, especially in countries like Haiti.

You definitely want to make sure that the multi-ton metal box you ride around in is not provided by the lowest bidder.

And maybe those mass-produced foodstuffs are truly scary, and really shouldn't be called foodstuffs.

I, for one, am worried.

The iPod and iPhone were certainly transformative products, but that's not the case for every single new product Apple announces. How many people here have an Apple TV under their television set? It's certainly exciting to speculate, but like the GP said, it's getting out of hand. Every single blog on the Internet is speculating wildly, and the New York Times isn't even taking the time to qualify "news" about the device as rumors anymore. Chances are good that Apple will announce something pretty spectacular next week, but until then I think it would a lot of people some good to simply step back and take a deep breath every once in a while.

...the whole Lisa Nowak traveling-cross-country-in-diapers-to-kill-my-romantic-rival thing. You get coked up enough and that starts to make sense.

Mod parent up! :)

Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.

What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to copy something, it still costs money to create something. There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.

I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times' front page every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.

Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'". I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, a developer of open-source software.

People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user. A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program.

The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community. In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list. For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support. Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service. Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation. Webconquest very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.

Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code. And, there is a Free Windows Civilization clone for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with.

OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software. OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.

Their global page shows less of that focus:

http://global.nytimes.com/

This reminds me of the Smiley Face trademark escapades. The posters for the Watchmen movie were different depending on the country. There was also an issue with Wal-Mart using it, apparently.

Copyright lawyers have to earn their salaries somehow, I suppose.

I think what China is defending is national pride, trying to artificially level out the success of foreign vs. domestic films, and preserving the traditional Chinese identity.

Considering the consternation caused by the success of Kung-Fu Panda within China, I think I agree with you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/weekinreview/20bernstein.html

The whole idea that they are censoring it for political reasons seems like a story made up for westerners and incongruous with the fact that they left it playing on all those 3D screens.

First, I've no interest in trampling anything, but religion is a poor excuse, and if your right to practice Scientology with all ten other Scientologists denies 45 million people healthcare, I'm all for healthcare. There's something to be said for *scale* here.

Second, we make cars safer all the time, and yet highway deaths increase because we drive more. Deaths per mile, however, decrease, whereas the number of uninsured and deaths among them is *increasing*. The problem is that we're already addressing highway deaths (though we need better driver ed) and nothing's being done about healthcare. Third, everywhere I've been it's been mandated that you have car insurance. It's effectively federal. Would you have a problem with a state mandating health insurance? As far as citizenship goes--you can leave. It's optional, though you're not going to find another similarly developed country that doesn't offer universal healthcare, so I think you're SOL on that one. But you can still go to Zimbabwe or something.

Fourth, Candidate Obama was wrong on that, and we all knew it at the time.

Fifth, about half of the legislation's $900b is going to states for Medicaid, so this isn't entirely unfunded either. And this theory that none of the cuts will stick has been debunked, as it turns out that most similar cuts in the past have stuck.

And finally, making you buy health insurance minimizes risk. This enables you to be *free* to live without the worry of someday getting hit by a car driven by an uninsured motorist and to live the rest of your life in suffocating debt. To me, that sense of safety makes me *more* free--free to leave my job, for example, and find another because I know I won't be denied coverage. Furthermore, unionization of a fraction of the population does benefit the collective. Just look at the income disparity numbers from the golden age of unions in the 50s and 60s. And with higher unionization, as union wages go, so go the wages of nonunionized workers. This is less true nowadays, but were we still more unionized, it would mean that when they renegotiate cheaper healthcare plans the higher salaries they'd exchange them for would be seen by nearly everyone.

For the record, I work for big pharma. And in the US, drugs comprise something like 10% of all healthcare spending. But that's another discussion for another day.

Actually, the people of the Bay State already *have* this system. And they like it. I should know--I am one. Massachusetts liberal to the core. And I know that this proposed system, like the one in MA, is broken. But it's far less broken than what we have, wherein we let people die.

My answer to that would be "lots", but not because I am doing anything wrong or expect to do something wrong in the future.

One of the problems with DNA is that it is circumstantial evidence by nature, but the juries are often too clueless to understand that. The fact of the matter is, odds are almost 100% that at some point in my lifetime, my DNA will be present at or near the scene of a crime. Likewise for every person on this earth. You leave your DNA and fingerprints when you sit on a seat on the bus, when you rest your hands on the counter at Target, when you eat at a restaurant, etc. Given how broadly your DNA gets spread and given the rate of crime in the world, if the DNA of non-criminals were in a national database, the odds of being tied incorrectly to a crime approaches 100% fairly rapidly.

Now if DNA were only allowed in very narrow circumstances, that might be different---if the only use were in rape trials, and only DNA obtained from bodily fluids, the risk of false positives would be much smaller. Even then, though, the risk that the rules would change to allow DNA to be used in a broader range of cases would be looming overhead.

That's not even counting the risk of false positive "matches", which given current testing methodologies is staggeringly high.

So what do I have to hide? Simple. My ordinary, irrelevant daily activities that under normal circumstances would not tie me to any crime because of a lack of any connection to that crime sufficient to result in a DNA search but that in the presence of a national database might easily lead to a conviction on purely circumstantial evidence resulting out of those ordinary, innocent activities.

Dude, they spend $130 million dollars on advertising it. That's how you know it's a quality game.

Estimates for MW2:

$50 million in production. $150 million in marketing. Modern Warfare 2 Costs Millions To Make, Outsells Harry Potter Movies & GTA IV

Estimates for Avatar:

$250 million in production. $250 million in global marketing. A Movie's Budget Pops From the Screen

I don't mean to shrug off quality of life. I think it's very important. I do not believe there is any constitutional protection for someone's quality of life: "life, liberty, and the _pursuit_ of happiness". However, I do believe that we have a moral (not civic) duty to help those in need. So, I'm against public health care on the same grounds that I'm against government ownership of GM - that stuff isn't the government's job.

Actually, charitable giving has gone down due to the economic crisis, but probably not as much as you think: link. I believe it would go up if the government would tax us less...but then again maybe I'm being to optimistic to think people would act humanely without government coercion.

You talk like health care is a never-ending resource. I saw John Q, and I felt terrible, but isn't it true that there are more people in need of a heart transplant than there are hearts available? I would much rather have a private charity or even an HMO and hospital board deciding whether I deserve to be on the list, than a government-run board. We don't have to use vitriolic terms like "death panel", but the truth is that health care is "scarce" in the economic sense. Check out this article: link.

I have no problem with giving health care to people who need it, or with helping people who can't afford it. I just think the government will do just as bad a job with this as they have with so many other services, and the people who need to be helped won't really be helped in the long run. You say private charity is unreliable, but I saw too many people turn to the Salvation Army when OSHA and the Red Cross (I know, RC is not exactly government, but they're much more tied in) were turning people away after Katrina (I was living in Missouri at the time) to agree with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html

Mr. Reynolds did not have much time to exploit the acquisition. In 1980 Sherlock Holmes and Conan Doyle's other works entered the public domain in Britain. In America the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976 gave an author or his heirs a chance to recapture lost rights; Conan Doyle's daughter, Jean, did so in 1981.

its all very confusing, but apparently shoerlocke holmes is still somehow under copyright in some places/ ways. for example, warner brothers made legal agreement's with the copyright holders to make the recent movie

not that the article means anything to me but yet another example of how fucking useless, parasitical, and obstructionist ip law has become. it is everyone's moral duty to ignore or subvert the joke that is ip law

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutrition/04bike.html

you're beating your prostate into submission. the result is impotence and erectile dysfunction. the male prostate was not designed to take the pounding a bicycle seat gives it

they need some form of new bicycle seat for men. greener lifestyles should not result in men who can't have children... to carry on the greener lifestyle

His adventures in books, plays, television shows and movies continue to pay dividends for the heirs of his creator, Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes's latest appearance on film, directed by Guy Ritchie, has sold more than $311 million in tickets worldwide, and on Sunday won a Golden Globe award for its star, Robert Downey Jr.

At his age, Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain. But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States, for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty wouldn't have wished them upon him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html

dear all creators:

no, it does not make any fucking sense that your grandchildren should profit from a story you wrote, a song you sang, a movie you directed, whatever

it simply does NOT make sense. it is an intellectually and philosophically corrupt concept

intelletual property law only deserves to be disrespected, fought, and subverted. intellectual property law is a parasitical drain on our culture. intellectual property law must be destroyed. it is not of any benefit to anyone except certain entrenched well-connected, well-lawyered interests

I call BS.
Perhaps you're an elite cyclist, or someone is editing Wikipedia to make you look silly, but averaging anything like 500W for an hour (much less indefinitely) would make you the worlds best distance cyclist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance

Lance Armstrong near his peak was reputed to be capable of ~520W for 20min.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/weekinreview/24kola.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Ok... so your gym exercise bike is a flattering, but I agree that 250W is within the range of most regular cyclists, although most won't push that hard.

> I know I'm able to produce around a kilowatt for 5 minutes or so at a time, and can sustain 500W practically indefinitely.

Maybe you can beat Lance Armstrong and the others:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/weekinreview/24kola.html

Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then. I will read www.bbc.co.uk

It never ceases to amaze me how people who expect their own work to be valued and remunerated balk at compensating, or even acknowledging the value of, that of others.

The ability of the BBC to provide "free" content is based in part, if not wholly, on a subsidy from the British government. A free press is essential to a strong democracy; and, the British have taken action to ensure that regardless of the vagaries of the economy, or the whims of advertisers, their stream of objective journalism will remain unimpeded. If fact, to add to a long list of our dubious distinctions, America is one of the few Western democracies that don't provide a substantial subsidy to the press -- as detailed in "How to Save Journalism"

For the most part, it's the work of reporters at newspapers that generates the news:

• Study Finds That Papers Lead in Providing New Information
• Study: Newspapers Still a Step Ahead in Local News

And, with the loss of other sources of revenue, advertising alone simply isn't sufficient to sustain that endeavor.

Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then. I will read www.bbc.co.uk

It never ceases to amaze me how people who expect their own work to be valued and remunerated balk at compensating, or even acknowledging the value of, that of others.

The ability of the BBC to provide "free" content is based in part, if not wholly, on a subsidy from the British government. A free press is essential to a strong democracy; and, the British have taken action to ensure that regardless of the vagaries of the economy, or the whims of advertisers, their stream of objective journalism will remain unimpeded. If fact, to add to a long list of our dubious distinctions, America is one of the few Western democracies that don't provide a substantial subsidy to the press -- as detailed in "How to Save Journalism"

For the most part, it's the work of reporters at newspapers that generates the news:

• Study Finds That Papers Lead in Providing New Information
• Study: Newspapers Still a Step Ahead in Local News

And, with the loss of other sources of revenue, advertising alone simply isn't sufficient to sustain that endeavor.

It sounds like a good idea on the outset, but weather this will actually increase neutral networks through carrier competition depends on 3 things:
1. Lock in: Google has done a pretty good job of fighting against handset lock in, but we will never get past the fact that we have both CDMA and GSM networks, and even the GSM networks don't have the same 3G. So you will never be able to bring your latest and greatest unlocked phone to Verizon from AT&T, for example. Couple this with the fact that most phones have to be "unlocked" even to work on another network with the same protocol and you have a real problem. Even without handset lock in, every wireless provider will require you to sign a 2 year contract, meaning you won't be able to change phone service so easily.
2. Carrier Collusion: When one provider upped the price of texting from 10 cents to 20, every other provider followed suit. They could easily do the same thing by switching off access to Hulu at the same time.
3. Consumer Awareness: If every consumer really makes net neutrality their top priority, than they can affect change with the new competition, assuming there is no lock in and collusion between networks. The problem is, most people care more about the other things, mostly network quality and price. If you spend $75 for provider A's neutral network, but provider B blocks Hulu but gives you an alternative site provided by them, as well as free cable TV and unlimited on demand for as part of a $60 "double play" package, most people will forget their principals and go with the better value.

Name an important piece of investigative journalism done by the Times in the last ten years. I can't. And I'm a regular reader.

So am I. Here's a recent example: Toxic Waters, a series that ran late last year. The Times put a lot of time - and thus, money - into researching the series, combing through the data (and filing the FOIAs, etc.), as well as the interactive features, which were well done.

And WTH? Mercury?

Kids are stupid. Also, embalming fluid.

This reminds me of what happened to Rober Ebert. He lost his voice, and this is what happened:

"I am one of those you write about who uses a computer voice after losing the power of speech as a result of cancer surgery. After trying an $8,000 custom device with little computing power and a small, dim screen, I tried the built-in speech software on my MacBook and found it much more practical.".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/opinion/l19speech.html?_r=3

Not only was the "official" solution crap, it was also a lot more expensive than the consumer-device was, which was not even designed for this particular task.

CRU being hacked and proven to provide false data, never reported by NYT.

Because the stolen e-mails proved no such thing. But since you request: Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered, never reported by NYT.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His opinions are not news. Similarly, if I call Rush a doodie-head that's not news, and if some other media organization misquotes Rush it's not news. But since you asked, here is the New York Times topic page for Rush Limbaugh. Find me where he was misquoted and slandered by the Times and you may be onto something.

The list is COUNTLESS

You've almost counted to one so far. You're doing well, don't stop now.

you just don't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news

Based on your own preferred source of news entertainment, I'd reckon the list of my sources of news would be beyond your comprehension.

CRU being hacked and proven to provide false data, never reported by NYT.

Because the stolen e-mails proved no such thing. But since you request: Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered, never reported by NYT.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His opinions are not news. Similarly, if I call Rush a doodie-head that's not news, and if some other media organization misquotes Rush it's not news. But since you asked, here is the New York Times topic page for Rush Limbaugh. Find me where he was misquoted and slandered by the Times and you may be onto something.

The list is COUNTLESS

You've almost counted to one so far. You're doing well, don't stop now.

you just don't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news

Based on your own preferred source of news entertainment, I'd reckon the list of my sources of news would be beyond your comprehension.

The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news...

It is usually unwise to make unqualified statements.

You may not like the NY Times, but it certainly appears there are counter-examples to the assertion that it "has never given us accurate and factual news." For example, a trivial spot check reveals an article on the site today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/us/17census.html?ref=us That article reports that Census Bureau data shows "the decline [in employment] was greater among black and Hispanic couples than non-Hispanic white ones." This appears to be true (see: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/014540.html ), and as a consequence your statement appears false.

It is likely the Times has made many mistakes over the years, but if your intent is to demonstrate the Times is a poor source of news you should probably show that it has made more and/or more significant errors than other news organizations, especially as related to the quantity of information reported. It would be interesting to see real data arguing that, as opposed to anecdotal or notional generalizations.

As it stands, it's hard to take seriously your comment's moderation as "insightful."

One of the finest replies I have ever seen. Hats off to you sir!

the only guy i read there is roger cohen, and you're right, he seems to be in some other country every day. his columns while in iran were incredible

the latest on google and china is good too

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/opinion/15iht-edcohen.html

It's not as if the New York Times has remained silent on this issue.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The Times, said in a statement: ''We respect and commend the Pulitzer board for its decision on this complex and sensitive issue. All of us at The Times are fully aware of the many defects in Walter Duranty's journalism, as we have and will continue to acknowledge. We regret his lapses, and we join the Pulitzer board in extending sympathy to those who suffered as a result of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine.''

Since then, the coverage from the Times has been much more sensitive to the issue. (Random article.)

It's not as if the New York Times has remained silent on this issue.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The Times, said in a statement: ''We respect and commend the Pulitzer board for its decision on this complex and sensitive issue. All of us at The Times are fully aware of the many defects in Walter Duranty's journalism, as we have and will continue to acknowledge. We regret his lapses, and we join the Pulitzer board in extending sympathy to those who suffered as a result of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine.''

Since then, the coverage from the Times has been much more sensitive to the issue. (Random article.)

The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news...

It is usually unwise to make unqualified statements.

You may not like the NY Times, but it certainly appears there are counter-examples to the assertion that it "has never given us accurate and factual news." For example, a trivial spot check reveals an article on the site today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/us/17census.html?ref=us That article reports that Census Bureau data shows "the decline [in employment] was greater among black and Hispanic couples than non-Hispanic white ones." This appears to be true (see: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/014540.html ), and as a consequence your statement appears false.

It is likely the Times has made many mistakes over the years, but if your intent is to demonstrate the Times is a poor source of news you should probably show that it has made more and/or more significant errors than other news organizations, especially as related to the quantity of information reported. It would be interesting to see real data arguing that, as opposed to anecdotal or notional generalizations.

As it stands, it's hard to take seriously your comment's moderation as "insightful."

The NY times also have a flash game where you can try and drive along a freeway while at the same time receiving and sending SMS messages:

Driving Game

That would seem to demonstrate that most drivers will suffer some loss of response time and not see pedestrians (the gray lady in the game).

I'm going to pay. I read the NYTimes online everyday; a habit I started more than 10 years ago. The sites/shows you have listed are really just aggregators. Someone needs to be there, hit the pavement and get the story. This article is a great example of good reporting. I think it is worth value. If I have to pay a few cents for it... so be it.

"Tort reform" is the rich scaring the poor and stupid into absolving them of any real responsibility for when something goes wrong.

That doesn't seem to be the case in the UK; if you have a legitimate case you can sue, but you risk incurring big costs if you lose. In the US it's "free" to sue, the plaintiff might win but almost never loses; the defendant loses no matter what the verdict.

I'd really like to see some sources for that

From this page at wikipedia, under "Attackers and their motivation":

On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many.[79] Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.[80] Mohamed Atta was the ringleader of the 19 hijackers.[81] According to Jerrold Post, a professor of psychology at George Washington University and former CIA officer, the hijackers were well-educated, mature adults, whose belief systems were fully formed.[82]

The reference [80] leads here.

Oh, and we executed Japanese commanders for authorizing the waterboarding of POWs during WWII.

Your ignorance is cramping my conversation. You're so cute with your moral equivalency shtick. Lookee here, pendejo. Did you know that the Japanese Imperial Army, its fucking order-following people, vivisected its EPWs---fuck, not even regular or irregulars, just the populace that made good cannon fodder for its depravity.

explaining what it is like to cut open a 30-year-old man who is tied naked to a bed and dissect him alive, without anesthetic. "The fellow knew that it was over for him, and so he didn't struggle when they led him into the room and tied him down," recalled the 72-year-old farmer, then a medical assistant in a Japanese Army unit in China in World War II. "But when I picked up the scalpel, that's when he began screaming.

Into the present, Japanese participants to the atrocity justify, en masse, the incalculable immorality as the moral, ethical equivalency of pedestrian war duty. They have you beat in the rationalizing department, but you make a good protege. Don't let make me catch you in my neck of the woods, I'll in vivo your ass.

There are actually good reasons to keep drafts of a trade treaty secret, or at least to keep Congress from meddling too much in the negotiation of a trade treaty (and one way to accomplish that is secrecy). Often a trade treaty might involve lowering tariffs or other barriers to trade, which result in a net economic benefit to the countries involved as a whole. However, they also hurt specific businesses or industries, which have a strong incentive to mobilize and lobby against lowering tariffs (see, e.g., Chinese tires). By keeping a treaty secret until most details have been hammered out, it gives less time for special interests to derail what can potentially be overall a beneficial product.

That said, as Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth (one of the panelists) pointed out during the event, ACTA is fundamentally not a trade agreement, and it's dishonest to pretend that it is, even if it has "trade" in the name. ACTA seems to be combination agreement on customs and law enforcement (not trade) and on intellectual property (also not trade). This difference is important, because IP agreements have a much more transparent history than trade agreements. This is something that Jamie Love kept trying to point out to Steve Metalitz; Steve was arguing that ACTA is no less transparent than trade agreement X, but the proper comparison would be any of WIPO's recent work, and the fact that NGOs, business groups, and academics all have access to draft WIPO agreements and resolutions, and their input is taken seriously. Draft texts are even put up on the Internet. That's transparency. It's also precisely the reason why ACTA can't be negotiated in a forum like WIPO.

You do realize no matter how big the government numbers look, the private sector (businesses, individuals, and churches) usually trumps it in spades right?

Of course just by your statement I know what side of the political fence you are on, because conservatives are much more generous than liberals as a whole, because we feel it is our duty to take care of our family first, our neighbor second, and our government third. The left believe in government taking care of us first, our families second, and our neighbors third, and using a redistributive tax to do so.

I'm not just spouting that, it's a common difference between left and right, and way of thinking, with research from both sides of the isle finding it true. If you don't like it, then perhaps you should rethink your ideology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3
http://blog.fortiusone.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/
http://blog.american.com/?p=9220

So if you didn't grease the right people new hospitals don't get built. Demand goes up while supply doesn't and costs skyrocket. The medical industry long relied on charities like the Shriners and many others to keep hospitals running. The costs have gotten so high that all but a few charities can actually fund a hospital.

Not necessarily.

You said, "Using IE6 is like using Firefox 1. Are you feeling lucky?"

Note that you were confused by Microsoft public relations that is apparently trying to avoid responsibility. Here is a quote from the article:

"Our investigation has shown that Internet explorer is vulnerable on all of Microsoft's most recent operating system releases, including Windows 7."

Windows 7 uses Internet Explorer 8, the latest version. According to Microsoft, all versions of IE are vulnerable. But Microsoft makes a statement that is apparently meant to confuse:

'Shortly after the report, Microsoft confirmed the new IE vulnerability was "one of the vectors used in targeted and sophisticated attacks against Google and possibly other corporate networks." A company statement said the attacks were carried out against version 6 of the widely used browser and suggested users protect themselves by enabling security features that have been added to successor versions'

At present, 2010-01-15, 03:59 PDT, the Microsoft Security Advisory (979352) tells the truth, but also in a way apparently designed to confuse. This is an exact quote, after the confusing introduction, eliminating other confusing words:

"... Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 on ... Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 are affected."

At present, here is the full, confusing paragraph from that Microsoft web page:

"Our investigation so far has shown that Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 is not affected, and that Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, and Internet Explorer 6, Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 on supported editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 are affected."

For the apparent reason Microsoft allows IE to be insecure, see the New York Times article Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster. As the article explains, operating system corruption and vulnerability to malware is very profitable for Microsoft and its main customers, who are computer manufacturers.

So it would seem. Here's what I meant to link.

China dumping their treasuries ain't all that bad.

And although this is linked in the post I sent you, here's a little more on it.

Except that if they sold them, they'd be doing us a favor.

Humans are not monogamous. Humans did not evolve as a monogamous species. Pairing may be beneficial to raising children, but humans have a long history of sleeping around.

Olivia Judson, evolutionary biologist on reproductive organs:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/a-tyrannical-romance/

In species where females usually mate with a single male during a breeding episode, penises tend to be small and uninteresting. In those where females mate with several males (whether by choice or by force), penises are typically larger, and come with fancy decorations such as grooves, nobbles, and spikes.

The nob on the human male penis was specifically designed to scoop out a rivals sperm and deposit seaman deep into the vagina at which point the penis becomes soft so as to not scoop out its own deposit.

The notion of evolving males is not silly.

The Y chromosome’s rapid rate of evolutionary change does not mean that men are evolving faster than women. " -NYTimes

Silly or not, the headline of this article is deceptive.

Maybe I was talking about this Mike...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?em

I say the people should sue for failing to provide contractual obligations

Which contractual obligations? What contract are you talking about? The Telecomunications act of 1996 is not a contract...

and we file a lien on their entire infrastructure and provide everyone with free service until they deliver on their obligations?

Do you really want to nationalize a piece of infrastructure? Who will run it? Who will pay the workers to maintain the cables? You? The bank-accounts you are planning on seizing will get depleted very quickly, and even if you start charging for the service again, you will not have the business know-how to replenish them.

Sheesh, I know, you were joking, but I suspect, you were only half-joking. It is like Socialism — government-ownership of economy — has not fallen on its face everywhere it was tried. Your friend in Zimbabwe confiscated the farms to "restore justice" and his country — formerly an exporter of food — now needs vast international help to avoid famine. Your friend in Venezuela ran his country into the ground to the point of the bridges crumbling and electricity blackouts. It only took both heroes several years to ruin their respective economies...

However bad things may be, letting the government (or "community") run them will only make them worse.

This article says about 5.5"" thick:

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/

Further reasons the administration might not like what China is doing right now are economic. China ties their currency exchange rate to the U.S. dollar in a way that keeps theirs low relative to ours. This essentially creates a permanent trade imbalance between the exporter (CHina) and the importers (U.S. mostly, also Europe). I hear people say all the time that China owns a huge portion of the U.S. debt and it would be a big disaster economically if they sold that debt. This is incorrect, if the Chinese sold their U.S. debt they'd be doing us a favor because it would depress the value of the dollar and make our manufacturing more competitive. In the past when unemployment has been rock-bottom in the U.S., this wouldn't help us much. Right now it would help our economy a lot to create manufacturing jobs because our unemployment is 10%. Paul Krugman quantified this by saying that China's exchange rate policy amounts to 1.4 million lost jobs in the U.S. The people at the federal reserve and the treasury know this. Ben Bernake himself has been quoted as saying chaiman-speak equivalent for the Chinese are playing with fire.

The conclusion here is that I suspect that if Clinton is mentioning this, the administration is planning on using this as leverage to get economic or other concessions out of the Chinese.

After keeping their populace docile and stupid...

That's untrue. Mainland China's people aren't stupid (maybe some are ignorant, many afraid), and a few brave ones conjure up the balls to endure the inevitable beat-back that always comes when questioning authority.

A better way to characterize the effect of PRC's viciously retrograde policies against their own people might be "repressed and pwned," given the deeply fucked-up nature of the authoritarian and communist government there.

While China's economic liberalization may leave more coin jingling in the average worker's pocket, all else remains the same. Makes me wonder if the West's political mollycoddling of PRC was ever intended to benefit their people, or if it was just to retain a cheap manufacturing source.

There's no hardball involved. Google looks at China and goes "It cost us more than it's getting us." Pure business, with the added bonus of nice PR for being the first corp that said no to the PRC.

Absolutely spot-on. Let us hope they follow it through to total withdrawl and contribute some loss of face for PRC's communist party. Let's not forget the near-complete blind eye turned by Western governments and the lame-stream media during the Olympics in Beijing not so long ago.