Bzzt. It's yours if you bought it. The copyright owner no more has the right to stop you from not watching the naughty bits than he does preventing you going to take a leak during the mushy scenes in Top Gun.
When you download Linux, you DO NOT OWN IT.
Yes you do. If you want to recompile it so that the TTY outputs in Klingon, no one has the right to tell you not to. If you want to not compile in support for an Appletalk network, you don't have to (even if the standard build you grabbed has it). Likewise, if you buy a copy of the statue of David and want to slap a pair of Levi's on the poor guy - hey, it's your statue.
Brigham Young University decided to show Schindler's List to the students. Except, they wanted to show their own versi"offensive content" removed. Speilberg said "no way", and he was fully within his rights to do so.
Perhaps they didn't have the right to broadcast, or to render it for public showing. But if you wanted to buy a copy, and then watch it in fast forward while standing on your head drinking a Pepsi, that's again your right.
"What we did before we purchased the company (Greenwich) was to spend considerable time and resources evaluating this portfolio as to whether we think these patents are valid and whether they are enforceable," Berman said. "We did several prior art searches... It was important to go to the marketplace knowing what we had was valid." [snip] "We're not willing to put anyone out of business; we're not looking to change anyone's behavior," Berman said. "If people feel that this is something they need to challenge in court, fine. But if they challenge this in court, 75 percent of the people will likely spend more in court fees than they'll spend in royalties to us. If they're successful, they'll recoup those fees. If they're not successful" Berman shrugged.
Really says it all, doesn't it? That's the strategy of all of these patent claims: Comapnies that can handle the fees will settle because it is easier, and possibly cheaper. Companies that cannot will either simply bow out without firing a shot, or will be outspent by the now successfully revenue generating lawsuit machine. Plus, although a company settling and agreeing to play the patent fee doesn't set a legal precedent, it has to sway the courts somewheat if the lawers can argue that N multi-million dollar corporations are paying the fees.
I for one hope the adult companies fight this one and win. If they do, perhaps people will stop buying these absurd patents solely for the revenue lawsuits can generate.
OK, OK, I know that the lead-in blurb was a little misleading, but come on, people.
1) The FBI is not using cookies to hunt down the suspect.
2) The FBI isn't paying for the banners.
3) Prof^H^H^H^H The "clerk" example in the article is *not* the suspect, but rather someone who might have seen the suspect.
Somehow, I think that G. Cooke, Tx, would give this whole set of threads a very poor review...
Re:In other news....
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
[From the article] > Remembrances may be donated to Children's > Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle.
Seriously, it might be nice if any bigfoot reward money were instead donated to the medical center. It would be a nice legacy for the man, and a good ending to the story.
Probably never happen, though - I bet that Bigfoot hunting goes on for the next hundred years.
Anyone else care to bet that a lot of the same people who doubt the moon landing will continue to believe in Bigfoot?
> In this case it's to simulate the > actual folding process
My understanding is that the folding model they're using is based on molecular kinetics. I agree that we need further investigation of the area, and it may absolutely be that physical chemistry is the only way to address the problem.
But the similarity of the problem space to other complex systems would seem to indicate that there may be another way. All I'm saying is that as long as we are forced to address the problem with horsepower, as opposed to refining a theoretical approach (possibly a radical approach that does not come directly from the underlying molecular mechanics), the solutions are going to remin one-shot deals. There are just so *many* proteins we're interested in that taking a long time on an @home type project just will not be able to address them.
If I'm incorrect, and this is the actual point of the research, I aplolgize... It just didn't look that way from their website (based on a recent, and cursory, examination).
OK, granted that this project may be a waste of computing power (assuming that they're not going to be just sitting there wasting cycles anyway), but I saw a lot of people suggesting that users instead participate in the folding@home project. That got me to thinking...
I'm not against folding@home, but I don't think that the number crunching approach to solving protein folding is ever really going to give us the breakthroughs we want. We need to theoretically address the issue of folding and find more simple behavioral theories with which to approach the problem. I know a lot of work is currently being done from the physics front with spin glasses and other complex systems models.
The difference between these two approaches is the difference between the current encryption cracking projects, and a Sneakers-like approach to actually find a mathematical solution to the large number factoring problem.
> If there is a "triumvirate" that rules > evolution it has to be "genetics, ontogeny, > and natural selection"
On the other hand, ontogeny is also genetic. Even the development constrained (or encouraged) by environmental conditions are responses that pushes the organism down an existing genetic pathway. Heterochrony is an important aspect of evolution, but it is an aspect of genetic adaptation, and cannot stand alone (although I agree that it can be singled out for purposes of study).
Natural selection acting on genetic (or, better yet, phenotypic) variation is the whole of evolution (and here I'm considering the neutral network stuff to also be phenotypic as it is a product of the genome's position in a topoloical structure).
I have to disagree with you. The approach taken by computational biologists, at least the ones leaning more towards simulation than data crunching (i.e., mining genome databases) is closer to theoretical biology than computer science in some ways. Computers are to biology what mathematics is to physics (to qoute Harold Morowitz) - a tool for analysis and for manipulation of theoretical models.
If you drill down a bit you find this letter from a programmer that complains about Open Source. While I found it both sad and funny, it does shed light on how Microsoft and other commercial software vendors view the movement.
To summarize: OSS is a bad thing because if free software is available no one will want to pay for software, which will drive programmers out of work. OSS is good in that it establishes competition for Microsoft, but that competition is better done through litigation or other commercial software.
Applying this point of view to Microsoft is humorous, of course, considering what they did with IE.
I actually don't think the developer has a point, though. Open source software has created far more jobs than it took. Linux, Apache, and other free platforms and development tools have meant, in my experience, that corporations are financially able to deploy systems that would otherwise have been prohibitive. The spread of such tools has also increased the number of people who are exposed to them - how many people would be running personal Unix systems if they had to have commercial systems? These people are able to get jobs in IT they would otherwise not be qualified for, or perhaps even know about.
In any case, Perens' response likening software development and protective measures against open source competition to buggy whips (actually ice, in his analogy) is only half the story.
Is it just me, or does this music sound like virtually every.MOD file downloaded in the early 90's?
Now, I admit to being enough of a square that I played my mods on a PC, and I admit that they probably didn't sound nearly as good as I remember them (although axelf.mod was *very* popular at the time...), but these tunes are eerily familiar...
Natural selection is a predicative theory. It predicts that the "fittest" individuals (whether those individuals are considered to be genes, organisms, or whatever your model uses) will tend to survive in a competitive environment, at the expense of less fit individuals. Evolution follows as a result of this differential survival rate when reproduction is a factor.
As a direct example, John Holland's schema theory predicts that the number of schema S in a population at time t + 1 equals a function of it's number at time t multiplied by it's relative fitness and survivability under crossover and mutation.
What I'm saying, though (and you're right) is that it would take a campaign in the office along the lines of "You know, every 17 year old intern we have working in IT can read every email you send if you don't use encryption" or "Your bounced message to Mr Smith dealing with your weekend in the country ended up in my account. Maybe you got his address wrong?"
Maybe that's a little too in-your-face (and, depending on the company, might get people fired), but it will bring the subject home to people in a way they can understand. It's better than explaining about packet sniffing and other things that make people's eyes glaze over (like Carnivore).
Scare people with a dose of reality. Make it easy to use. They'll begin to understand, and start using encryption. After that, they'll be more ready to adopt stronger techniques.
There are, IMHO, two things that keep the average email user from using encryption:
First, it has to be absolutely transparent. It can't put more of an overhead on a standard email send-and-receive than already exists. Key management would have to become at least as easy as address book management (say, having addresses and keys automatically integrated into your keyring). While this would present a security hole, most users aren't going to want to go and verify keys. They're also not going to want to type their password every time they send an email. Most users of apps like Outlook just store their passwords on their PCs anyway, because they can't be bothered logging in once per session (ever deal with someone who didn't remember their password because they never type it in anymore?). IIRC, PGP had several of these features, but with some apps you still had to encrypt to the clipboard and then paste the encrypted message back into your document.
Second, to even get people to do this minimum, and to demand it in products, they have to see the need for it. Phil put it best, I think, when he drew an analogy in the docs for PGP. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "So you're not saying anything illegal. What would you think if the government outlawed envelopes, and all mail had to be sent on postcards?
Most people don't believe how easy it is to read email, because they have no idea how to go about it. Instead, they shrug and say that they don't care. If instead you ask them how they'd feel about having all of their corporate correspondence and private letters going out on postcards, they'd think twice, and (hopefully) bite the bullet and start using something like PGP. There can be a huge market for applications like PGP, but it has to be sold to people with the right message, and it has to, even at the expense of some security (and yes, I realize the implications of that, and know the argument that no security is better than flawed security), be easy to use.
Fast Track associated spyware can still be removed by several utilities. Rather than hunting down each.DLL, you should simply download and run one of the utilities (which will clean out your system registry as well as.DLL and executables).
One good place for information is here, and a good utility by Lavasoft is available here.
I have not yet installed the new Morpheus client, but a report I read said that at least the latest Kazaa client is still installing these, even with the checkboxes for installing Gator, etc., left empty.
Q: Why is it better than other distributed networks such as Gnutella? A: With Gnutella and similar networks, all connected computers acts as search servers on the networks. When a search query is initiated, it is sent to 2 to 4 other computers, which in turn passes the query to more computers, and so on. Effectively, each search query traverses the entire network. This creates a huge amount of traffic. Clients on slower connections (such as modem dial-ups) cannot keep up with this amount of traffic, which slows down the entire search process.
Seriously, I'm a fan of Morpheus, I just thought this was kinda finny...
Togg: Oetzi, why'd you sell me this bow without a string? What the hell good is it?
Oetzi: Why, Togg, you bought a HUNTING bow, right? Specifically, a DEER hunting bow.
Togg: Yeah.
Oetzi: Well, how am I supposed to make sure you only use it for deer huinting? Why, if I wasn't watching you, you might go off and hunt boar, or bears, or, heck, just about anything! You could even use it as a WAR bow, and not a hunting bow at all!
Togg: But I paid you for it! I should be able to use it however I want!
Oetzi: No, Togg. You bought the RIGHT to USE the bow for deer hunting. The bow itself is still mine.
Togg: Well, what if I just use one of my own strings?
[Togg takes a bowstring from his pouch, and begins to string the bow]
Oetzi: NO!!! That's a circumvention device! You can be trampled by mammoths just for carrying that around! I'm calling the Elders!
[TWANG]
Togg: Well, that's the end of that...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
The problem is that, in the recent past, VC money has flowed into investments expected to pay off quickly (call them flavor-of-the-month, momentum investments, or pyramid schemes). It was far easier to get VC money for Yet Another Dot Com than for a product that was introducing a new technology with a horizon of 5 to 7 years.
From a quick skim of the article, it sounds like these bonds may allow software companies to build up what was usually angel-stage money by taking funds directly from potential clients.
It's so crazy, it just might work!
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Although I agree with the people who point out that Adobe probably changed their stance fully knowing that they'd accomplished their goal of intimidation (why should they continue to get bad press when they'd already gotten what they wanted?), I'd also like to point out that Adobe, by this, is not longer the proper target for activists.
The EFF has moved to
targeting the US Attorney on the case. Further action against Adobe, while perhaps deserved, would be fruitless.
We need to move on to the next step in getting Dmitry released, and in continuing to fight the DMCA. If we do this right, we might be able to get the entire law overturned.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
If Dmitry was really in trouble for selling the product (as opposed to talking about it or writing it), why did they arrent him?
He is a programmer/hacker/researcher (take your pick), not the marketing department of Elcomsoft (who decided to market the product in the US).
Adobe basically said that they knew they'd have trouble going after Elcomsoft (it being a Russian company), so they resorted to using jackbooted thugs (the FBI) as a scare tactic.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
But now that you've pointed out that my front door is flimsy, I can have you thrown in jail. You can sit there and stew next to those criminal crowbar manufacturers...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
You can read all about the different licensing options on the gnu.org's license page. Removing copyleft protection is, IMHO, not a Good Thing, especially for a Linux company.
My own feeling is that there's a lot of software out there yet to be written. If Caldera can't or won't make shipping a Linux distro work for them, they should shift entirely, rather than attempt to create some Frankenstein out of tons of different licensing schemes.
So, when's rms going to demand that Caldera specify they're distributing BSD/Linux?
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Note also that the government is trying to crack down only on cafes, not on home users, where presumably, there are parents who will exercise the requisite discipline/enlightenment.
Maybe that's because the cafes are the only place most of these kids have access to the Internet. How many households in China have PCs? How many of these have a connection to the Internet?
Semi-interesting side note: I tried this very question on askjeeves, and Jeeves apparently thought I either wanted a price guide for computer hardware, or cheat codes for the PC game China...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Slashdot Mirror
Bzzt. It's yours if you bought it. The copyright owner no more has the right to stop you from not watching the naughty bits than he does preventing you going to take a leak during the mushy scenes in Top Gun.
Yes you do. If you want to recompile it so that the TTY outputs in Klingon, no one has the right to tell you not to. If you want to not compile in support for an Appletalk network, you don't have to (even if the standard build you grabbed has it). Likewise, if you buy a copy of the statue of David and want to slap a pair of Levi's on the poor guy - hey, it's your statue.
Perhaps they didn't have the right to broadcast, or to render it for public showing. But if you wanted to buy a copy, and then watch it in fast forward while standing on your head drinking a Pepsi, that's again your right.
Really says it all, doesn't it? That's the strategy of all of these patent claims: Comapnies that can handle the fees will settle because it is easier, and possibly cheaper. Companies that cannot will either simply bow out without firing a shot, or will be outspent by the now successfully revenue generating lawsuit machine. Plus, although a company settling and agreeing to play the patent fee doesn't set a legal precedent, it has to sway the courts somewheat if the lawers can argue that N multi-million dollar corporations are paying the fees.
I for one hope the adult companies fight this one and win. If they do, perhaps people will stop buying these absurd patents solely for the revenue lawsuits can generate.
OK, OK, I know that the lead-in blurb was a little misleading, but come on, people.
1) The FBI is not using cookies to hunt down the suspect.
2) The FBI isn't paying for the banners.
3) Prof^H^H^H^H The "clerk" example in the article is *not* the suspect, but rather someone who might have seen the suspect.
Somehow, I think that G. Cooke, Tx, would give this whole set of threads a very poor review...
[From the article]
> Remembrances may be donated to Children's
> Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle.
Seriously, it might be nice if any bigfoot reward money were instead donated to the medical center. It would be a nice legacy for the man, and a good ending to the story.
Probably never happen, though - I bet that Bigfoot hunting goes on for the next hundred years.
Anyone else care to bet that a lot of the same people who doubt the moon landing will continue to believe in Bigfoot?
> In this case it's to simulate the
> actual folding process
My understanding is that the folding model they're using is based on molecular kinetics. I agree that we need further investigation of the area, and it may absolutely be that physical chemistry is the only way to address the problem.
But the similarity of the problem space to other complex systems would seem to indicate that there may be another way. All I'm saying is that as long as we are forced to address the problem with horsepower, as opposed to refining a theoretical approach (possibly a radical approach that does not come directly from the underlying molecular mechanics), the solutions are going to remin one-shot deals. There are just so *many* proteins we're interested in that taking a long time on an @home type project just will not be able to address them.
If I'm incorrect, and this is the actual point of the research, I aplolgize... It just didn't look that way from their website (based on a recent, and cursory, examination).
OK, granted that this project may be a waste of computing power (assuming that they're not going to be just sitting there wasting cycles anyway), but I saw a lot of people suggesting that users instead participate in the folding@home project. That got me to thinking...
I'm not against folding@home, but I don't think that the number crunching approach to solving protein folding is ever really going to give us the breakthroughs we want. We need to theoretically address the issue of folding and find more simple behavioral theories with which to approach the problem. I know a lot of work is currently being done from the physics front with spin glasses and other complex systems models.
The difference between these two approaches is the difference between the current encryption cracking projects, and a Sneakers-like approach to actually find a mathematical solution to the large number factoring problem.
> If there is a "triumvirate" that rules
> evolution it has to be "genetics, ontogeny,
> and natural selection"
On the other hand, ontogeny is also genetic. Even the development constrained (or encouraged) by environmental conditions are responses that pushes the organism down an existing genetic pathway. Heterochrony is an important aspect of evolution, but it is an aspect of genetic adaptation, and cannot stand alone (although I agree that it can be singled out for purposes of study).
Natural selection acting on genetic (or, better yet, phenotypic) variation is the whole of evolution (and here I'm considering the neutral network stuff to also be phenotypic as it is a product of the genome's position in a topoloical structure).
I have to disagree with you. The approach taken by computational biologists, at least the ones leaning more towards simulation than data crunching (i.e., mining genome databases) is closer to theoretical biology than computer science in some ways. Computers are to biology what mathematics is to physics (to qoute Harold Morowitz) - a tool for analysis and for manipulation of theoretical models.
If you drill down a bit you find this letter from a programmer that complains about Open Source. While I found it both sad and funny, it does shed light on how Microsoft and other commercial software vendors view the movement.
To summarize: OSS is a bad thing because if free software is available no one will want to pay for software, which will drive programmers out of work. OSS is good in that it establishes competition for Microsoft, but that competition is better done through litigation or other commercial software.
Applying this point of view to Microsoft is humorous, of course, considering what they did with IE.
I actually don't think the developer has a point, though. Open source software has created far more jobs than it took. Linux, Apache, and other free platforms and development tools have meant, in my experience, that corporations are financially able to deploy systems that would otherwise have been prohibitive. The spread of such tools has also increased the number of people who are exposed to them - how many people would be running personal Unix systems if they had to have commercial systems? These people are able to get jobs in IT they would otherwise not be qualified for, or perhaps even know about.
In any case, Perens' response likening software development and protective measures against open source competition to buggy whips (actually ice, in his analogy) is only half the story.
Is it just me, or does this music sound like virtually every .MOD file downloaded in the early 90's?
Now, I admit to being enough of a square that I played my mods on a PC, and I admit that they probably didn't sound nearly as good as I remember them (although axelf.mod was *very* popular at the time...), but these tunes are eerily familiar...
Will someone please mod this post up? The poster is obviously well versed in the area, and makes several comments worth reading.
Natural selection is a predicative theory.
It predicts that the "fittest" individuals (whether
those individuals are considered to be genes,
organisms, or whatever your model uses) will tend
to survive in a competitive environment, at the
expense of less fit individuals. Evolution follows
as a result of this differential survival rate when
reproduction is a factor.
As a direct example, John Holland's schema theory
predicts that the number of schema S in a population
at time t + 1 equals a function of it's number at
time t multiplied by it's relative fitness and
survivability under crossover and mutation.
What I'm saying, though (and you're right)
is that it would take a campaign in the office
along the lines of "You know, every 17 year old
intern we have working in IT can read every email
you send if you don't use encryption" or "Your
bounced message to Mr Smith dealing with your
weekend in the country ended up in my account.
Maybe you got his address wrong?"
Maybe that's a little too in-your-face
(and, depending on the company, might get people
fired), but it will bring the subject home to people
in a way they can understand.
It's better than explaining about packet sniffing
and other things that make people's eyes glaze
over (like Carnivore).
Scare people with a dose of reality. Make it easy
to use. They'll begin to understand, and start
using encryption. After that, they'll be more
ready to adopt stronger techniques.
There are, IMHO, two things that keep the average email user from using encryption:
First, it has to be absolutely transparent. It can't put more of an overhead on a standard email send-and-receive than already exists. Key management would have to become at least as easy as address book management (say, having addresses and keys automatically integrated into your keyring). While this would present a security hole, most users aren't going to want to go and verify keys. They're also not going to want to type their password every time they send an email. Most users of apps like Outlook just store their passwords on their PCs anyway, because they can't be bothered logging in once per session (ever deal with someone who didn't remember their password because they never type it in anymore?). IIRC, PGP had several of these features, but with some apps you still had to encrypt to the clipboard and then paste the encrypted message back into your document.
Second, to even get people to do this minimum, and to demand it in products, they have to see the need for it. Phil put it best, I think, when he drew an analogy in the docs for PGP. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "So you're not saying anything illegal. What would you think if the government outlawed envelopes, and all mail had to be sent on postcards?
Most people don't believe how easy it is to read email, because they have no idea how to go about it. Instead, they shrug and say that they don't care. If instead you ask them how they'd feel about having all of their corporate correspondence and private letters going out on postcards, they'd think twice, and (hopefully) bite the bullet and start using something like PGP. There can be a huge market for applications like PGP, but it has to be sold to people with the right message, and it has to, even at the expense of some security (and yes, I realize the implications of that, and know the argument that no security is better than flawed security), be easy to use.
Fast Track associated spyware can still be removed by several utilities. Rather than hunting down each .DLL, you should simply download and run one of the utilities (which will clean out your system registry as well as .DLL and executables).
One good place for information is here, and a good utility by Lavasoft is available here.
I have not yet installed the new Morpheus client, but a report I read said that at least the latest Kazaa client is still installing these, even with the checkboxes for installing Gator, etc., left empty.
From the technology section of the FAQ:
Q: Why is it better than other distributed networks such as Gnutella?
A: With Gnutella and similar networks, all connected computers acts as search servers on the networks. When a search query is initiated, it is sent to 2 to 4 other computers, which in turn passes the query to more computers, and so on. Effectively, each search query traverses the entire network. This creates a huge amount of traffic. Clients on slower connections (such as modem dial-ups) cannot keep up with this amount of traffic, which slows down the entire search process.
Seriously, I'm a fan of Morpheus, I just thought this was kinda finny...
Oetzi: Why, Togg, you bought a HUNTING bow, right? Specifically, a DEER hunting bow.
Togg: Yeah.
Oetzi: Well, how am I supposed to make sure you only use it for deer huinting? Why, if I wasn't watching you, you might go off and hunt boar, or bears, or, heck, just about anything! You could even use it as a WAR bow, and not a hunting bow at all!
Togg: But I paid you for it! I should be able to use it however I want!
Oetzi: No, Togg. You bought the RIGHT to USE the bow for deer hunting. The bow itself is still mine.
Togg: Well, what if I just use one of my own strings?
[Togg takes a bowstring from his pouch, and begins to string the bow]
Oetzi: NO!!! That's a circumvention device! You can be trampled by mammoths just for carrying that around! I'm calling the Elders!
[TWANG]
Togg: Well, that's the end of that...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
From a quick skim of the article, it sounds like these bonds may allow software companies to build up what was usually angel-stage money by taking funds directly from potential clients.
It's so crazy, it just might work!
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
The EFF has moved to targeting the US Attorney on the case. Further action against Adobe, while perhaps deserved, would be fruitless.
We need to move on to the next step in getting Dmitry released, and in continuing to fight the DMCA. If we do this right, we might be able to get the entire law overturned.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
He is a programmer/hacker/researcher (take your pick), not the marketing department of Elcomsoft (who decided to market the product in the US).
Adobe basically said that they knew they'd have trouble going after Elcomsoft (it being a Russian company), so they resorted to using jackbooted thugs (the FBI) as a scare tactic.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
But now that you've pointed out that my front door is flimsy, I can have you thrown in jail. You can sit there and stew next to those criminal crowbar manufacturers...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
This sort of article shows that the RIAA feels the same way - it's not about money, it's about maintaining their monopoly.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
My own feeling is that there's a lot of software out there yet to be written. If Caldera can't or won't make shipping a Linux distro work for them, they should shift entirely, rather than attempt to create some Frankenstein out of tons of different licensing schemes.
So, when's rms going to demand that Caldera specify they're distributing BSD/Linux?
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Maybe that's because the cafes are the only place most of these kids have access to the Internet. How many households in China have PCs? How many of these have a connection to the Internet?
Semi-interesting side note: I tried this very question on askjeeves, and Jeeves apparently thought I either wanted a price guide for computer hardware, or cheat codes for the PC game China...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.