The RIAA is a business. They are trying to convince me to be a customer. They exist for my benefit. Not the other way around.
I don't need to rationalize downloading music. I do it because I want to. I don't think it's theft. I don't think it hurts the RIAA, or the artists, or anyone. I don't think it does much of anything. I think many people feel the same way.
I do have to rationalize paying the RIAA for music. I have to come up with some rationalization of some kind of service or worthwhile material they are exchanging if I give them my money. Considering that there is absolutely no shortage of alternate sources for music-- including music which is free and legal on the internet-- there must be some justification present for me to pay the RIAA's usually extremely inflated prices.
Used to, I downloaded quite a lot of music and bought quite a lot of music. I would download music that I did not know enough about to know whether I would like it, and then once I found bands worth supporting, I would buy whatever of theirs I could get my hands on. The RIAA benefited from this arrangement. I obviously myself did not buy enough music to make a direct and personal impact on the RIAAs profits, but I was one of the customers who was a heavy enough buyer that if we all disappeared, the RIAA would be in serious trouble.
In the time since, the RIAA has made it difficult enough to use downloading software, and taken enough directly anti-consumer actions in part of their campaign against downloading music, that I no longer download music. And because I no longer have a good way to find out about new RIAA music and no longer feel the RIAA's actions are something I can bear to monetarily support, I no longer buy music either. Well, OK, I still buy music. But not as much. And never, ever from the RIAA.
The RIAA can buy laws, they can buy advertising to manufacture the public perception the RIAA is somehow owed something by consumers. But I am not going to play along. If the RIAA wants me as a customer, they have to convince me to be one, just like any other business does. They aren't doing that. Instead, in a way that remains constant regardless of any of my actions one way or the other, they would rather treat me like a criminal than a customer. I for one am not going to be treated like a criminal and act like a customer. For the moment I choose to be neither. And this is to the RIAA's loss.
In the meantime, the reason I don't steal cars has nothing to do with legality or illegality. It's because it is wrong, because it hurts people. Congratulations on the Score:5 you've scored by dragging that irrelevant little thing in, though.
T-mobile does not have electricity, food, drinking water, or building materials. They could possibly buy such things, but it isn't what they have on hand. What they have is wireless communication services. They are a cell phone company. They are giving what they have.
I'll agree that perhaps this isn't going to be the most realistically useful thing ever. But at least they are doing something.
Yes, free cell phone service would have possibly been something that t-mobile has which would be even more useful, but there are practical barriers there. That is, most people don't have cell phones which you can just reassign to a different cell phone carrier at will, and even with phones with such features most people don't know how to use them. It seems likely either you're an existing t-mobile customer and can already use their network, or you're not easily going to be getting on their cell network anyway. Wifi may have a more limited utility than cell service, but there's fewer logistics involved in letting people use it.
In the meantime, if you or anyone else reading this is really concerned with being productive, something easy to do to help would maybe be instead of complaining on slashdot, take the time in the next couple of days to donate blood
Riiight. Because we all know that Spotlight was bolted onto Tiger in response to Longhorn. Don't these things take months (maybe years) to create and fine-tune?
Tiger is in a lot of ways the return of concepts that were originally announced for Copland, the ill-fated next-gen operating system Apple was planning in the mid-90s. Some of the aspects of Spotlight are straight rips from the Copland feature list.
One could also draw similarities in many ways to BeOS, or observe that the core of spotlight's functionality is just the iTunes file browser scaled up.
Then after noticing how similar spotlight is to the above things, one might want to notice how incredibly different it is from an sql database...
I'd find it plausible the suits at Apple put a search system on Apple's agenda as a reaction to Microsoft's early claims about "winfs", and that's where spotlight came from. But from the perspective of spotlight itself or anything important about it, other than the idea it was a search system I don't think you can seriously trace ancestry of spotlight from winfs; among other things, the important thing about spotlight is the interface, and I don't think Microsoft said nary a word about that aspect of winfs before spotlight hit (the early hype about winfs contained lots of promises but always seemed awful vague to me). It's a neat trick on Microsoft's part though. Promise "some kind of search system" for years and years and years, then when your competitor releases some sort of search system claim "hey! we invented search systems! or we were planning to invent them, I mean!". Never mind google desktop search has been around how many years now...?
Microsoft could possibly claim they invented every innovation of the next 10 years just by making outlandish claims ahead of time, waiting for Apple/Google to come up with a similar idea, and then saying "well we were going to do that anyway".
So now we're going to build special highway lanes, probably with special enforcement needs and special technological measures to make sure nobody with a 1987 grand am "cheats" and tries to get in, so that specially built and probably rather expensive robotic cars can have a safe (assuming they work right) place to move within?
At which point, exactly, does this stuff start to get so incredibly crazy and expensive that people start to realize there are worse things than creating public transportation infrasctructure?
That's the obvious and reasonable interpretation, yep.
However, it might not be particularly unrealistic to suspect that Google might be considering starting an ISP.
Right now the ISP market is kind of shrinking because last-mile issues are effectively preventing anyone from providing broadband service unless they already own a high-bandwidth wire going directly into your house. However if 802.16 and similar technology delivers on its promises, it could remove this obstacle-- meaning that you'd be able to break into the ISP market with little more than the kind of purchases Google is making right now.
This theory is most definitely a stretch! However, unlike Business 2.0's "make a second internet and provide free access for some reason!" theory, at least it isn't stupid.
Also, who's to say Google even has a plan as to what to do with this dark fiber? As even Business 2.0 notes, now is a really good time to buy this stuff; you can get it cheap. Anybody ever heard of buy low, sell high?:P
So what you're saying is that we should treat computer programs-- which are nothing but a series of instructions, potentially human-readable instructions, that just happen to be written in a language that a machine can interpret--
In the same way we treat real-world devices designed for and capable of killing very large numbers of people?
They've missed the important point: you have to podcast about something. You can't just podcast.
See, and that's where you're wrong. It's like "blogs". You'd think they'd have to "blog" about something? Nope, it turns out "I'm blogging!" and "blogs are important!" are both perfectly sufficient messages to sustain a blog.
Your insistence that you need content to broadcast is outmoded thinking. Blogs and podcasts, and with them the internet, have moved beyond that. "New Journalism" doesn't need content, or quality, or accuracy, or informative value, or entertainment value; it just needs to be there. What we are observing here is a revolution, and its goal is to revolutionize. It's not revolutionizing anything in particular, mind you. It's just revolutionizing.
but what do you think of the almost totally exclusive Caucasian researchers who are consistently claiming that Eastern Asian populations, as well as Jewish populations, are scoring significantly higher on IQ tests than Caucasians and Africans?
I don't particularly have anything to say about them. I am at the moment trying to discuss Mr. Lynn and his history, because it seems to me he has an agenda and a history of distorting facts to fit his agenda-- and since this article is about Mr. Lynn's research, Mr. Lynn's academic integrity is directly relevant to this article. Discussing the other researchers you mention, meanwhile, would seem to be a distraction.
but I think it is fally to try to paint all of the Eugenics movement as a "cleansing" movement
I am at the present time only trying to paint Mr. Lynn in this manner. I think it is safe to paint him in this manner because of his statements, one of which I quoted in my post.
I would have some statements to make about Eugenics movement in a different discussion, but right now I'm only trying to talk about Mr. Lynn.
One of his recent notable peer-reviewed articles, published 2002 in the journal Population and Environment, is titled Skin color and intelligence in African Americans. In it, Lynn purports to prove that African-Americans with lighter-colored skin have higher intelligence than those with darker skin. [3]
Looking him up on amazon.com will find the fascinating detail that he has written twofull books in favor of Eugenics, trying to "rehabilitate" eugenics.
Seems like this guy has kind of a... well, sort of consistent slant to the kind of research he does, doesn't he? And his history gets more interesting the more you probe. He apparently engendered a great deal of controversy in the 90s because the book The Bell Curve cited a piece of "research" by Mr. Lynn from 1991 which was widely derided as unscientific, distorting and racist. This page quotes Mr. Lynn as saying
"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of 'phasing out' such peoples...Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."
Then goes on to summarize the 1991 research as:
Taking a look at his "evidence" on African IQ, there is little doubt of its intellectual vacuity. Lynn's "proof" was based heavily on a 1988 review by three South African psychologists who looked at Black South African test performance. But the authors of this study concluded the OPPOSITE of Lynn and Murray and Herrnstein. In fact, when presented with Lynn's interpretation of their work, they responded with the following:
"It would be rash to suppose that psychometric tests constitute valid measures of intelligence among non-Westerners. The inability of most psychologists to look beyond the confines of their own cultures has led to the kind of arrogance whereby judgments are made concerning the 'simplicity' of African mental structure and 'retarded cognitive growth'." The main source for the Bell Curve's claims regarding African IQ was a Lynn article from Mankind Quarterly in 1991, in which he said mean African IQ was 70. Lynn claims that he arrived at this figure by looking at the "best studies" on the subject since 1929. The study he claimed was the "best" was conducted in 1989 and involved 1,093 16-year old blacks, who scored a mean of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. From this, Lynn then extrapolated mean IQ to the whole of Black Africa. Even worse, Lynn completely misconstrued the findings of the study in question. According to the study's author, Dr Ken Owen, his test was "not at all" evidence of genetic intelligence. In fact, Owen has noted that the results were found directly related to the existence of apartheid era oppression, and the fact that the test was in English.
The more I look at this guy the less he seems like somebody to be paying any attention to whatsoever. He mostly looks to be someone with a long-term goal of using psuedoscience to claim the supremacy of caucasian males and the necessity of ethnic cleansing. Given what is known about his past research, I would find it highly doubtful that the study this slashdot article references is either unbiased, or scientifically valid.
Look at the backlash against Microsoft. Compare with the backlash against Google. Look carefully. Look at exactly who is making the complaints, what kind of complaints they are making, what sorts of media coverage they're getting.
Isn't it neat? We now have a near-perfect demonstration case of the difference between people being villainized because of outrage against their actions, and people being villainized because of jealousy against their success.
Funny how liberal statists want the central government to control everything
It is of course easy to win any argument when you found your argument on putting viewpoints into the mouths of your opponents.
What I think is really funny is how the liberal statists think that all Jews should be rounded up and gassed to death, but they think Muslims should have civil rights. Or how liberal statists think that nuclear bombs should be deployed and detonated in all major U.S. cities to end all life on earth, but then complain about depleted uranium missles. Yup, darn those liberal statists for the incredible hypocrisy of not strictly sticking to my randomly conceived notions of what their opinions are.
Actually no, 200 years ago Christianity in America was absolutely nowhere near as strong as it is today. The modern evangelical American Christian movement mostly stems from the Second Great Awakening of the 1810-1820s or so; it's been getting stronger since then but didn't have much of any presence before 200 years ago. Meanwhile Christianity as a force directly in politics-- that is, Christianity acting politically in its own interest, as opposed to politicians or political movements who incidentally happen to be Christian or have Christian supporters-- is an even more recent development, one that's really even hard to identify existing in anything even remotely like the form it takes today before the 1970s or so.
What you are saying, that America has always been a Christian nation the way it is today, is a nice little fairy tale, but it simply isn't true. Members of the Christian political movement that have hijacked America's politics in the last 45 years try to pretend that the spot they hold is their divine right and that they have always held it, that oceania has always been at war with eurasia, but the fact is a political member of the SBC stranded 200 years ago would be nothing but a ranting street preacher. Drop them 225 years ago among the deist-packed "founding fathers" that people are always trying to lay claim to, and they'd be even worse off...
Take any shred of religion out of the government, but don't tell me our forefathers or constitution says it should be that way.
Our "forefathers" and the constitutional law they wrote say it should be that way, in very specific terms:
Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion
The fox has stepped forward and expressed an interest in guarding the henhouse.
Which henhouse?
Well, specifically, he wants to guard the special henhouse, the one within which the hens are manufacturing tanks, semiautomatic rifles, and other weaponry for the purpose of defending themselves against and possibly overthrowing the foxes.
Now, what do you think is the fox's motivation here?
And more to the point, why the hell does everything on slashdot always come down to strained metaphors?
The question is not "does it run linux"
on
J Allard Interviewed
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The question is, does it run linux yet?
Well, maybe something to remember
on
J Allard Interviewed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
All it does is connect the Web server to your Python code with as little fuss as possible. It doesn't make decisions about what other tools to use, so you're free to pick a templating system, database mapper, or other tool on its own terms.
This is kind of a problem though because I actually need a templating system, database mapper, and some other tools. I have some such tools in Perl, but I obviously can't take these with me into Python.
So I am wondering. Were one to use CherryPy, what would be logical tools to build on top of it with? If I need to be able to take objects and convert them into lines in a database or HTML for display or HTML forms for editing or whatnot, what would be the logical things to plug in on top of CherryPy to provide this?
Yahoo's strategy of late seems to be to look around for new areas where some new or expanding company has found an up and coming IT market, and then drop in beside them with a me-too product.
While I guess it's good they're investing into growth markets or what not, doesn't this really kind of seem like a not-great plan in the long run? Because it seems to me like there's a problem here in that this strategy seems to bank on jumping into the market only after someone else has demonstrated how to make the market work and provided a template for Yahoo to run their business on. Or in other words, it means that Yahoo will always be entering the market after it becomes relatively stable and the bulk of the customers are already set up and satisfied with a first choice of providers. It seems like Yahoo is gunning to set themselves up as the second place contender in every single market out there...
Of course the study also demonstrates that on the searched terms, Yahoo's estimate numbers vastly overestimated the number of available results they actually found. So if the pages from the study are even close to representative in that regard then this would make the numbers you quote utterly meaningless.
Which is the entire reason, of course, why they kept the limits under 1,000 in the first place-- that for any number over 1,000, if the search engine says, say, "I found "2.5 million results for 'Valerie Plame'", you have no way to tell whether it's telling the truth or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't owe the RIAA anything. Period.
The RIAA is a business. They are trying to convince me to be a customer. They exist for my benefit. Not the other way around.
I don't need to rationalize downloading music. I do it because I want to. I don't think it's theft. I don't think it hurts the RIAA, or the artists, or anyone. I don't think it does much of anything. I think many people feel the same way.
I do have to rationalize paying the RIAA for music. I have to come up with some rationalization of some kind of service or worthwhile material they are exchanging if I give them my money. Considering that there is absolutely no shortage of alternate sources for music-- including music which is free and legal on the internet-- there must be some justification present for me to pay the RIAA's usually extremely inflated prices.
Used to, I downloaded quite a lot of music and bought quite a lot of music. I would download music that I did not know enough about to know whether I would like it, and then once I found bands worth supporting, I would buy whatever of theirs I could get my hands on. The RIAA benefited from this arrangement. I obviously myself did not buy enough music to make a direct and personal impact on the RIAAs profits, but I was one of the customers who was a heavy enough buyer that if we all disappeared, the RIAA would be in serious trouble.
In the time since, the RIAA has made it difficult enough to use downloading software, and taken enough directly anti-consumer actions in part of their campaign against downloading music, that I no longer download music. And because I no longer have a good way to find out about new RIAA music and no longer feel the RIAA's actions are something I can bear to monetarily support, I no longer buy music either. Well, OK, I still buy music. But not as much. And never, ever from the RIAA.
The RIAA can buy laws, they can buy advertising to manufacture the public perception the RIAA is somehow owed something by consumers. But I am not going to play along. If the RIAA wants me as a customer, they have to convince me to be one, just like any other business does. They aren't doing that. Instead, in a way that remains constant regardless of any of my actions one way or the other, they would rather treat me like a criminal than a customer. I for one am not going to be treated like a criminal and act like a customer. For the moment I choose to be neither. And this is to the RIAA's loss.
In the meantime, the reason I don't steal cars has nothing to do with legality or illegality. It's because it is wrong, because it hurts people. Congratulations on the Score:5 you've scored by dragging that irrelevant little thing in, though.
T-mobile does not have electricity, food, drinking water, or building materials. They could possibly buy such things, but it isn't what they have on hand. What they have is wireless communication services. They are a cell phone company. They are giving what they have.
I'll agree that perhaps this isn't going to be the most realistically useful thing ever. But at least they are doing something.
Yes, free cell phone service would have possibly been something that t-mobile has which would be even more useful, but there are practical barriers there. That is, most people don't have cell phones which you can just reassign to a different cell phone carrier at will, and even with phones with such features most people don't know how to use them. It seems likely either you're an existing t-mobile customer and can already use their network, or you're not easily going to be getting on their cell network anyway. Wifi may have a more limited utility than cell service, but there's fewer logistics involved in letting people use it.
In the meantime, if you or anyone else reading this is really concerned with being productive, something easy to do to help would maybe be instead of complaining on slashdot, take the time in the next couple of days to donate blood
Riiight. Because we all know that Spotlight was bolted onto Tiger in response to Longhorn. Don't these things take months (maybe years) to create and fine-tune?
Tiger is in a lot of ways the return of concepts that were originally announced for Copland, the ill-fated next-gen operating system Apple was planning in the mid-90s. Some of the aspects of Spotlight are straight rips from the Copland feature list.
One could also draw similarities in many ways to BeOS, or observe that the core of spotlight's functionality is just the iTunes file browser scaled up.
Then after noticing how similar spotlight is to the above things, one might want to notice how incredibly different it is from an sql database...
I'd find it plausible the suits at Apple put a search system on Apple's agenda as a reaction to Microsoft's early claims about "winfs", and that's where spotlight came from. But from the perspective of spotlight itself or anything important about it, other than the idea it was a search system I don't think you can seriously trace ancestry of spotlight from winfs; among other things, the important thing about spotlight is the interface, and I don't think Microsoft said nary a word about that aspect of winfs before spotlight hit (the early hype about winfs contained lots of promises but always seemed awful vague to me). It's a neat trick on Microsoft's part though. Promise "some kind of search system" for years and years and years, then when your competitor releases some sort of search system claim "hey! we invented search systems! or we were planning to invent them, I mean!". Never mind google desktop search has been around how many years now...?
Microsoft could possibly claim they invented every innovation of the next 10 years just by making outlandish claims ahead of time, waiting for Apple/Google to come up with a similar idea, and then saying "well we were going to do that anyway".
So now we're going to build special highway lanes, probably with special enforcement needs and special technological measures to make sure nobody with a 1987 grand am "cheats" and tries to get in, so that specially built and probably rather expensive robotic cars can have a safe (assuming they work right) place to move within?
At which point, exactly, does this stuff start to get so incredibly crazy and expensive that people start to realize there are worse things than creating public transportation infrasctructure?
Weirdly enough, though, Al Gore is on the board of directors of Apple Computer.
That's the obvious and reasonable interpretation, yep.
:P
However, it might not be particularly unrealistic to suspect that Google might be considering starting an ISP.
Right now the ISP market is kind of shrinking because last-mile issues are effectively preventing anyone from providing broadband service unless they already own a high-bandwidth wire going directly into your house. However if 802.16 and similar technology delivers on its promises, it could remove this obstacle-- meaning that you'd be able to break into the ISP market with little more than the kind of purchases Google is making right now.
This theory is most definitely a stretch! However, unlike Business 2.0's "make a second internet and provide free access for some reason!" theory, at least it isn't stupid.
Also, who's to say Google even has a plan as to what to do with this dark fiber? As even Business 2.0 notes, now is a really good time to buy this stuff; you can get it cheap. Anybody ever heard of buy low, sell high?
So what you're saying is that we should treat computer programs-- which are nothing but a series of instructions, potentially human-readable instructions, that just happen to be written in a language that a machine can interpret--
In the same way we treat real-world devices designed for and capable of killing very large numbers of people?
Hmm.
They already did that
They've missed the important point: you have to podcast about something. You can't just podcast.
See, and that's where you're wrong. It's like "blogs". You'd think they'd have to "blog" about something? Nope, it turns out "I'm blogging!" and "blogs are important!" are both perfectly sufficient messages to sustain a blog.
Your insistence that you need content to broadcast is outmoded thinking. Blogs and podcasts, and with them the internet, have moved beyond that. "New Journalism" doesn't need content, or quality, or accuracy, or informative value, or entertainment value; it just needs to be there. What we are observing here is a revolution, and its goal is to revolutionize. It's not revolutionizing anything in particular, mind you. It's just revolutionizing.
but what do you think of the almost totally exclusive Caucasian researchers who are consistently claiming that Eastern Asian populations, as well as Jewish populations, are scoring significantly higher on IQ tests than Caucasians and Africans?
I don't particularly have anything to say about them. I am at the moment trying to discuss Mr. Lynn and his history, because it seems to me he has an agenda and a history of distorting facts to fit his agenda-- and since this article is about Mr. Lynn's research, Mr. Lynn's academic integrity is directly relevant to this article. Discussing the other researchers you mention, meanwhile, would seem to be a distraction.
but I think it is fally to try to paint all of the Eugenics movement as a "cleansing" movement
I am at the present time only trying to paint Mr. Lynn in this manner. I think it is safe to paint him in this manner because of his statements, one of which I quoted in my post.
I would have some statements to make about Eugenics movement in a different discussion, but right now I'm only trying to talk about Mr. Lynn.
Well, Wikipedia's entry on the man says in part:Looking him up on amazon.com will find the fascinating detail that he has written two full books in favor of Eugenics, trying to "rehabilitate" eugenics.
Seems like this guy has kind of a
The brilliant name devised by Intel's Committee To Come Up With A Name Dumber Than "Itanium".
Look at the backlash against Microsoft. Compare with the backlash against Google. Look carefully. Look at exactly who is making the complaints, what kind of complaints they are making, what sorts of media coverage they're getting.
Isn't it neat? We now have a near-perfect demonstration case of the difference between people being villainized because of outrage against their actions, and people being villainized because of jealousy against their success.
Funny how liberal statists want the central government to control everything
It is of course easy to win any argument when you found your argument on putting viewpoints into the mouths of your opponents.
What I think is really funny is how the liberal statists think that all Jews should be rounded up and gassed to death, but they think Muslims should have civil rights. Or how liberal statists think that nuclear bombs should be deployed and detonated in all major U.S. cities to end all life on earth, but then complain about depleted uranium missles. Yup, darn those liberal statists for the incredible hypocrisy of not strictly sticking to my randomly conceived notions of what their opinions are.
Private Catholic schools (for instance) have higher aptitude scores for math and science.
Well, this is a good sign, since private Catholic schools teach the theory of evolution.
What you are saying, that America has always been a Christian nation the way it is today, is a nice little fairy tale, but it simply isn't true. Members of the Christian political movement that have hijacked America's politics in the last 45 years try to pretend that the spot they hold is their divine right and that they have always held it, that oceania has always been at war with eurasia, but the fact is a political member of the SBC stranded 200 years ago would be nothing but a ranting street preacher. Drop them 225 years ago among the deist-packed "founding fathers" that people are always trying to lay claim to, and they'd be even worse off...
Take any shred of religion out of the government, but don't tell me our forefathers or constitution says it should be that way.
Our "forefathers" and the constitutional law they wrote say it should be that way, in very specific terms:
The fox has stepped forward and expressed an interest in guarding the henhouse.
Which henhouse?
Well, specifically, he wants to guard the special henhouse, the one within which the hens are manufacturing tanks, semiautomatic rifles, and other weaponry for the purpose of defending themselves against and possibly overthrowing the foxes.
Now, what do you think is the fox's motivation here?
And more to the point, why the hell does everything on slashdot always come down to strained metaphors?
The question is, does it run linux yet?
We at least know you won't be able to play any XBox 1 games on the $300 version. XBox backward compatibility requires the hard drive.
All it does is connect the Web server to your Python code with as little fuss as possible. It doesn't make decisions about what other tools to use, so you're free to pick a templating system, database mapper, or other tool on its own terms.
This is kind of a problem though because I actually need a templating system, database mapper, and some other tools. I have some such tools in Perl, but I obviously can't take these with me into Python.
So I am wondering. Were one to use CherryPy, what would be logical tools to build on top of it with? If I need to be able to take objects and convert them into lines in a database or HTML for display or HTML forms for editing or whatnot, what would be the logical things to plug in on top of CherryPy to provide this?
If EA says their monopoly isn't harmful, then that's good enough for me.
After all, if you can't trust a multibillion dollar corporation with no accountability to anyone except their shareholders, who can you trust?
That part happened FIRST
This may just be my perception of things, but:
Yahoo's strategy of late seems to be to look around for new areas where some new or expanding company has found an up and coming IT market, and then drop in beside them with a me-too product.
While I guess it's good they're investing into growth markets or what not, doesn't this really kind of seem like a not-great plan in the long run? Because it seems to me like there's a problem here in that this strategy seems to bank on jumping into the market only after someone else has demonstrated how to make the market work and provided a template for Yahoo to run their business on. Or in other words, it means that Yahoo will always be entering the market after it becomes relatively stable and the bulk of the customers are already set up and satisfied with a first choice of providers. It seems like Yahoo is gunning to set themselves up as the second place contender in every single market out there...
But even if this is correct, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article you are actually posting in.
Of course the study also demonstrates that on the searched terms, Yahoo's estimate numbers vastly overestimated the number of available results they actually found. So if the pages from the study are even close to representative in that regard then this would make the numbers you quote utterly meaningless.
Which is the entire reason, of course, why they kept the limits under 1,000 in the first place-- that for any number over 1,000, if the search engine says, say, "I found "2.5 million results for 'Valerie Plame'", you have no way to tell whether it's telling the truth or not.