What happened to good old-fashioned capitalism and entrepreneurialism? Why must we depend on the government to do everything for us? If the government isn't funding things that people *want*, why aren't they stepping up to the plate and funding it themselves?
I think people just need a scapegoat, and blaming things on the religious right is currently in vogue.
Greenhouse gasses accumulating in the atmosphere? It's the religious zealots pumping out all those CFCs.
Economy in a slump? It must be those ignorant religious fanatics.
So what would happen if we got someone in the White House who was the total opposite of GBW? Evidently, all our problems would go away: Terrorists would stop hating us, the economy would boom, parents would get their children interested in the sciences, everyone could smoke weed any time they wanted, and there would be world peace and flowers for all, because everything would be funded and subsidized by the government.
Actually, religion looks at mythology and people's opinions about theology, morals, the proper social order, and the existence of a lot of unevidenced supernatural stuff.
I consider the last item, "unevidenced supernatural stuff", to be somewhat of an oxymoron.
For example, suppose person A wants to prove a supernatural event to person B. If person A could summon a supernatural event anytime they wished, could it still be classified as a supernatural event? As natural beings, anything that we do or accomplish is a "natural" activity. Similarly, a supernatural event can only be initiated by something supernatural. In essence, it is impossible for natural beings, of their own power, to do something supernatural.
If person A witnesses a supernatural event, the only evidence they can provide person B is their eye-witness account, or a photo/video, or some other natural evidence of the event. However, these things are considered insufficient by the sceptic, who is looking for reproducibility, something that cannot be accomplished by natural beings.
How does one prove the supernatural? As a natural being, one can't reproduce supernatural events, which means that for some people one can never provide enough evidence.
Consider the following scenario: a reality existing entirely within a computer system and containing organisms with minds based on simulating the human brain. The beings within have no way to interface directly with the code of the system, and their perceptions are limited to the simulated reality.
Assuming these virtual humans are conscious and self-aware, they would be understandably curious about their environment. What conclusions could they come to about the nature of their reality?
On their own, they would have no possible way to determine the true nature of their existence, because the universe ends at their perceptions. They could only describe their existence in terms of the fundamental building blocks of what they perceive to be matter and energy. They could never determine that at their basic level they are composed of numbers that are manipulated by sophisticated software running on an electronic device.
The only way they could understand the true nature of their existence would be for someone from outside their reality to make contact with them and explain it to them. To them, this would be a supernatural event, because it would be outside the realm of their normal experience and contrary to the physical laws of their reality. What they haven't realized until now is that they are simply part of a greater reality, and the sphere of their control and perception extends only to certain borders thereof.
Does anyone else besides me think that anarchy is probably the most fragile form of "government"?
If safeguards are put in place to preserve anarchy, along with methods to enforce such safeguards, would it still be anarchy?
Is anarchy truly "the will of the people"? If so, could they decide they don't want anarchy any more? If not, is it still anarchy?
It seems to be an anti-entropic effect. A government could always flow away from true anarchy, but never toward it. Given that any existing government usually has safeguards to prevent changes to the core system, then it appears that the only way to convert any currently existing government to anarchy would be violent revolution. Thus, it seems the only way to preserve perpetual anarchy would be a constant state of violent revolution.
Considering the number of violent revolutions that have occured in the past, especially during the time when the idea of anarchy was so wildly popular among so many, why was there not one successful implementation of a truly anarchistic society?
My personal view is that the framers of our constitution considered these issues, and they chose the best combination of democracy and self-perpetuating government.
Anything that has been "common for a long time", with no effective corrective action, is deliberate.
I've worked on a couple big IT Projects in the government, and you are giving the managers waaaaaay too much credit.
Hanlon's Razor most definitely applies in this situation. There weren't any directives coming down from the top that told the managers to do things like:
- ordering all the equipment before doing any testing. - trying to develop process documentation before they knew what the processes would be. - deflecting all technical objections with statements like "you have to look at this from a wide perspective".
Despite all the similarities to previous games, Blizzard did this one right. If you have been eagerly anticipating this game you have a lot to be happy about.
I was eagerly expecting this game too, and I must say I have been severely disappointed so far. I will address each point individually...
First off, though, I should say I've only played three MMORPGs in the past: Ultima Online (I loved it and played it for years), Star Wars Galaxies (hated it and played it for 30 days) and City of Heroes (love it and currently still playing it).
Character creation is a straightforward process.
Yep... straightforward and very, very simple, since there is very little room for detailed character customization. I expected something better from Blizzard, considering how long City of Heroes has been out now and how rich the character customization was there. Once in the game, everyone looks like a clone of everyone else... even different clothing and armor takes on a bland and uniform appearance.
Moving through the landscape is more like walking through a painting than playing a game. Particularly picturesque landscapes such as the snowy Dwarven home of Dun Morogh or the sweltering jungle of Stranglethorn Vale require real pauses to stop and drink them in.
Yep, plenty of time to drink in those landscapes considering how much walking you will do (technically you are running but running in this game seems like crawling). Unlike other games where mounts are available at early levels, you have to wait until you get to a fairly high level before you can start getting around quickly.
Each race faces specific challenges, bourn out by the quests you receive immediately upon entering the game world....Quest goals are clearly marked, as are the rewards you will receive from completing the quest.
I have to agree here. Quests goals are clearly marked: 1) Kill X number of creature A 2) Kill as many of creature A as it takes to collect X number of item B from them (not every creature A will drop item B though!) 3) Click on X number of container C to collect item B. Everyone else is also looking for container C, and for certain quests you will have to look for several hours to find enough container C's to fill your quest. 4) Go click on NPC D. Maybe you are delivering something, or supposed to convince them of something, or supposed to resurrect them, but really all you have to do to complete the quest is click on them. Also, NPC D may be half an hour away walking distance, even using public transportation. Also, your quest log may say what city NPC D is in but won't say where in the city, which means a long drawn out search door to door unless you cheat and Google the NPC name (quests are being catalogued and categorized as we speak).
Beyond simply providing you an impetus for getting out into the world, these quests are the hook that allows you to stop being just some person wandering around killing monsters and allows you to actually become a hero
I really didn't get much sense that my actions were having much of an effect. When I click on an NPC to complete a quest he might jump in the air, or swallow the invisibility potion I brought them and disappear, but then after a few moments they magically appear again to provide the same experience for the next person with the same quest. I just brought the severed head of the mastermind thief I killed, but so did my buddy. How many heads did the guy have anyway?
From the start, you're participating in events that are keeping your fellow countrymen safe and secure. Beyond just simple "go here and kill the thingie" quests, there are endless opportunities to become involved in the lives of your people. Here, you take a note to an important official notifying him of how a pest eradication campaign goes, while there you collect the pieces necessary for a powerful potion.
Step 1: click NPC "joe with message for important official". Step
Considering that most all of our electrical energy comes from burning COAL and not oil, the only thing switching to nuclear power would do is clean up the air... it wouldn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil to run all of our vehicles.
Re:Being able to decompile code....
on
Decompiling Java
·
· Score: 1
My guess is that in the first example, the byte code first evaluates the value of the expression (IsLoggable == true), and then tests whether the result is true. The question then becomes, why didn't the compiler optimize the expression (boolean-value == true), since it is equivalent to (boolean-value)?
In the second example, there is no intermediate expression to evaluate so the value can be tested directly.
Could this also mean that the compiler will fail to optimize an expression such as (boolean-value == false) to (!boolean-value), or in the case of the if statement, would the statement
if (!boolean-value)
be optimized such that a different compare or branch is used instead of performing a NOT first?
Regarding your assembly example, what I have found from looking at compiled C programs is that a boolean test looks more like this:
mov eax, isLoggable test eax, eax jz skip_if
test eax,eax runs faster than comparing against an absolute value and of course the machine code uses less bytes.
I know what Clear Skies is, and I know it will actually achieve what the old laws couldn't: real reductions in pollution. Now, it may not be as much as some people prefer, but at least it is a start.
Environmentalists complain that the administration should just enforce the old laws. The problem with the current laws is they don't apply to old power plants, unless they've had a significant upgrade (the "new source" factor). This has encouraged power companies not to upgrade, so they won't have to pay more to comply.
Another complaint is that Clear Skies does nothing to combat global warming. Neither do the current laws.
But for some people, any positive change just isn't good enough... even if it makes a step towards an end goal. Everyone wants the ideal situation right away, which sometimes just can't happen.
Here's a study that shows that both the current laws and Clear Skies concentrate too much on something that really may not be a problem in the first place: fine particulate pollution -- http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,03622.cfm
I think the author was being sarcastic... i.e. inferring that the violence-obsessed teens watching the movie wouldn't understand the concept of "truce" or "peace".
So much for reading the article... If you go to the original new s release, you will notice a picture clearly captioned "Chicxulub impact crater region, Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico".
The picture also clearly shows the center of the impact being just off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, and not in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.
The parent post and subsequent moderation has eliminated any respect I had for the collective intelligence of the majority of people that post here. Fortunately, there are a few intelligent people trying to respond and/or correct the situation, but apparently the average is against them.
The fact that people can't differentiate between re-working equations and performing an experiment (to see if the experimental data matches the predicted data) is actually insignificant to the fact that they are making uneducated comments based on a one page article that sums up a complicated experiment in layman's terms.
It is actually comforting to see that people such as these abound everywhere, even in a "smarter" community like Slashdot.
Re:With enough storage, Chess could be solved too.
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 1
I knew someone would catch on sooner or later.... notice I didn't say that sufficient space actually existed.;-)
My point still stands though... one could postulate that any finite game has a "perfect play" scenario because there are indeed a finite number of board states. Each board state has a limited number of possible moves, some of which may lead to an ideal situation.
This even applies to the case where the someone stated there are an infinite number of games... if one returns to the same board state the number of possible moves is still the same, and the "score" for each of those possible moves is still the same as well, thus it would count as one board state in the database (still under construction somewhere in the western arm of the galaxy =).
With enough storage, Chess could be solved too.
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Chess has a finite number of squares and a finite number of pieces, thus the total number of possible boards in chess is also finite.
With sufficient storage and proper linking of data, the decision for the next move could be reduced to simply following the chain that leads the highest probability of success.
Considering that either side can use the same data, it is possible with perfect play chess would also lead to a draw every time.
I can hear the crows talking...
on
Spy Fly
·
· Score: 1
Well, I've seen a house fly,
And I've seen a horse fly,
Hell, I've even seen a dragon fly,
But you know what?
I been done seen 'bout everything when I see a robot fly
The scary thing about the Master was that his ambition was completely without bounds. On at least one occasion I know of, his aim was nothing less than domination of the entire universe. His scheme almost resulted in the *destruction* of the entire universe, but it was thwarted by the Doctor at the last minute (though it cost the Doctor one of his lives).
Even though the Master was completely ruthless, he would still temporarily ally himself with the Doctor when a common foe threatened them both. He was a multi-faceted character, with a supreme intellect, who was the perfect antithesis of the Doctor. The Doctor was the only one who could match wits with him.
If there is to be a new show, I hope they bring back the Master with all his attributes. The show wouldn't be the same without him.
Paradox: Publishing a googlewhack destroys it
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
No sooner than someone finds a googlewhack and posts it, Google indexes that page and then there are two results.
FN 5. "Use of the term 'spam' as Internet jargon for this seemingly ubiquitous junk e-mail arose out of a skit by the British comedy troupe Monty Python, in which a waitress can offer a patron no single menu item that does not include spam . . . . [Citations.] Hormel Food Corporation, which debuted its Spam(R) luncheon meat in 1937, has dropped any defensiveness about this use of the term and now celebrates its product with a website . . . . [Citations.]" (Heckel, supra, 24 P.3d at p. 406, fn. 1.)
What if interstellar space is actually not flat in four dimensions, but curved slightly (i.e. perhaps the shape of the universe is a 4-dimensional sphere).
Could this possibly affect the permittivity of space over long distances? When light is forced to travel through curved space, it loses energy does it not?
Ever notice the level of popular support for Microsoft, even in the face of the most damning evidence against the company?
Well, I imagine there are lots and LOTS of people who have invested money in Microsoft, and all of these people are interested in seeing Microsoft succeed. Thus, they are going to fight anything that comes along that threatens Microsoft, no matter how irrational their arguments.
Picture all the PHBs all over the country looking at Microsoft's history in the marketplace. "Here's a sure thing!" they say to themselves. "I can invest in this and never lose!" Thus, they put LOADS of money into it. Then, when something like the antitrust case comes along, it's like a monkey wrench gets thrown in the works. "How can this be? This was supposed to be a sure thing!"
Ever notice how many people don't care whether or not Microsoft was involved in anti-competitive practices? "It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, the bottom line must be protected! Otherwise, what's going to happen to the value of my stock?"
Getting back to the topic at hand... I think you're going to see a lot of Microsoft allies fighting the GPL. Some of these allies are going to be in the top levels of government--lawmakers. The common thread? They're all Microsoft shareholders.
I just signed up for it the other day... it lets use your checking account to send money, and the payee (who gets an e-mail notice) can have it dumped into their checking account.
Perhaps I'm missing something but this sounds a lot like what you are referring to.
Slashdot Mirror
I think people just need a scapegoat, and blaming things on the religious right is currently in vogue.
Greenhouse gasses accumulating in the atmosphere? It's the religious zealots pumping out all those CFCs.
Economy in a slump? It must be those ignorant religious fanatics.
So what would happen if we got someone in the White House who was the total opposite of GBW? Evidently, all our problems would go away: Terrorists would stop hating us, the economy would boom, parents would get their children interested in the sciences, everyone could smoke weed any time they wanted, and there would be world peace and flowers for all, because everything would be funded and subsidized by the government.
I consider the last item, "unevidenced supernatural stuff", to be somewhat of an oxymoron.
For example, suppose person A wants to prove a supernatural event to person B. If person A could summon a supernatural event anytime they wished, could it still be classified as a supernatural event? As natural beings, anything that we do or accomplish is a "natural" activity. Similarly, a supernatural event can only be initiated by something supernatural. In essence, it is impossible for natural beings, of their own power, to do something supernatural.
If person A witnesses a supernatural event, the only evidence they can provide person B is their eye-witness account, or a photo/video, or some other natural evidence of the event. However, these things are considered insufficient by the sceptic, who is looking for reproducibility, something that cannot be accomplished by natural beings.
How does one prove the supernatural? As a natural being, one can't reproduce supernatural events, which means that for some people one can never provide enough evidence.
Assuming these virtual humans are conscious and self-aware, they would be understandably curious about their environment. What conclusions could they come to about the nature of their reality?
On their own, they would have no possible way to determine the true nature of their existence, because the universe ends at their perceptions. They could only describe their existence in terms of the fundamental building blocks of what they perceive to be matter and energy. They could never determine that at their basic level they are composed of numbers that are manipulated by sophisticated software running on an electronic device.
The only way they could understand the true nature of their existence would be for someone from outside their reality to make contact with them and explain it to them. To them, this would be a supernatural event, because it would be outside the realm of their normal experience and contrary to the physical laws of their reality. What they haven't realized until now is that they are simply part of a greater reality, and the sphere of their control and perception extends only to certain borders thereof.
*SPOILER* So I'm assuming you missed the point that Anakin thought the only way to save Padme was to help the Chancellor/Darth Sidious?
If safeguards are put in place to preserve anarchy, along with methods to enforce such safeguards, would it still be anarchy?
Is anarchy truly "the will of the people"? If so, could they decide they don't want anarchy any more? If not, is it still anarchy?
It seems to be an anti-entropic effect. A government could always flow away from true anarchy, but never toward it. Given that any existing government usually has safeguards to prevent changes to the core system, then it appears that the only way to convert any currently existing government to anarchy would be violent revolution. Thus, it seems the only way to preserve perpetual anarchy would be a constant state of violent revolution.
Considering the number of violent revolutions that have occured in the past, especially during the time when the idea of anarchy was so wildly popular among so many, why was there not one successful implementation of a truly anarchistic society?
My personal view is that the framers of our constitution considered these issues, and they chose the best combination of democracy and self-perpetuating government.
Currrent trrends arre forr morre rr's everrywherre.
Anything that has been "common for a long time", with no effective corrective action, is deliberate.
I've worked on a couple big IT Projects in the government, and you are giving the managers waaaaaay too much credit.
Hanlon's Razor most definitely applies in this situation. There weren't any directives coming down from the top that told the managers to do things like:
- ordering all the equipment before doing any testing.
- trying to develop process documentation before they knew what the processes would be.
- deflecting all technical objections with statements like "you have to look at this from a wide perspective".
Do you have multiple accelerator pedals on your car, one for each direction you can go?
Nope, but there are at least two pedals down there... accelerator and brake. If you have a manual transmission then there are three pedals.
I don't see too many arguments from people for single pedal cars based the idea that two (or, heaven forbid, three) pedals are confusing.
Despite all the similarities to previous games, Blizzard did this one right. If you have been eagerly anticipating this game you have a lot to be happy about.
I was eagerly expecting this game too, and I must say I have been severely disappointed so far. I will address each point individually...
First off, though, I should say I've only played three MMORPGs in the past: Ultima Online (I loved it and played it for years), Star Wars Galaxies (hated it and played it for 30 days) and City of Heroes (love it and currently still playing it).
Character creation is a straightforward process.
Yep... straightforward and very, very simple, since there is very little room for detailed character customization. I expected something better from Blizzard, considering how long City of Heroes has been out now and how rich the character customization was there. Once in the game, everyone looks like a clone of everyone else... even different clothing and armor takes on a bland and uniform appearance.
Moving through the landscape is more like walking through a painting than playing a game. Particularly picturesque landscapes such as the snowy Dwarven home of Dun Morogh or the sweltering jungle of Stranglethorn Vale require real pauses to stop and drink them in.
Yep, plenty of time to drink in those landscapes considering how much walking you will do (technically you are running but running in this game seems like crawling). Unlike other games where mounts are available at early levels, you have to wait until you get to a fairly high level before you can start getting around quickly.
Each race faces specific challenges, bourn out by the quests you receive immediately upon entering the game world....Quest goals are clearly marked, as are the rewards you will receive from completing the quest.
I have to agree here. Quests goals are clearly marked:
1) Kill X number of creature A
2) Kill as many of creature A as it takes to collect X number of item B from them (not every creature A will drop item B though!)
3) Click on X number of container C to collect item B. Everyone else is also looking for container C, and for certain quests you will have to look for several hours to find enough container C's to fill your quest.
4) Go click on NPC D. Maybe you are delivering something, or supposed to convince them of something, or supposed to resurrect them, but really all you have to do to complete the quest is click on them. Also, NPC D may be half an hour away walking distance, even using public transportation. Also, your quest log may say what city NPC D is in but won't say where in the city, which means a long drawn out search door to door unless you cheat and Google the NPC name (quests are being catalogued and categorized as we speak).
Beyond simply providing you an impetus for getting out into the world, these quests are the hook that allows you to stop being just some person wandering around killing monsters and allows you to actually become a hero
I really didn't get much sense that my actions were having much of an effect. When I click on an NPC to complete a quest he might jump in the air, or swallow the invisibility potion I brought them and disappear, but then after a few moments they magically appear again to provide the same experience for the next person with the same quest. I just brought the severed head of the mastermind thief I killed, but so did my buddy. How many heads did the guy have anyway?
From the start, you're participating in events that are keeping your fellow countrymen safe and secure. Beyond just simple "go here and kill the thingie" quests, there are endless opportunities to become involved in the lives of your people. Here, you take a note to an important official notifying him of how a pest eradication campaign goes, while there you collect the pieces necessary for a powerful potion.
Step 1: click NPC "joe with message for important official".
Step
Considering that most all of our electrical energy comes from burning COAL and not oil, the only thing switching to nuclear power would do is clean up the air... it wouldn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil to run all of our vehicles.
My guess is that in the first example, the byte code first evaluates the value of the expression (IsLoggable == true), and then tests whether the result is true. The question then becomes, why didn't the compiler optimize the expression (boolean-value == true), since it is equivalent to (boolean-value)?
In the second example, there is no intermediate expression to evaluate so the value can be tested directly.
Could this also mean that the compiler will fail to optimize an expression such as (boolean-value == false) to (!boolean-value), or in the case of the if statement, would the statement
if (!boolean-value)
be optimized such that a different compare or branch is used instead of performing a NOT first?
Regarding your assembly example, what I have found from looking at compiled C programs is that a boolean test looks more like this:
mov eax, isLoggable
test eax, eax
jz skip_if
test eax,eax runs faster than comparing against an absolute value and of course the machine code uses less bytes.
They don't even know what the Clear Skies act is.
I know what Clear Skies is, and I know it will actually achieve what the old laws couldn't: real reductions in pollution. Now, it may not be as much as some people prefer, but at least it is a start.
Environmentalists complain that the administration should just enforce the old laws. The problem with the current laws is they don't apply to old power plants, unless they've had a significant upgrade (the "new source" factor). This has encouraged power companies not to upgrade, so they won't have to pay more to comply.
Another complaint is that Clear Skies does nothing to combat global warming. Neither do the current laws.
But for some people, any positive change just isn't good enough... even if it makes a step towards an end goal. Everyone wants the ideal situation right away, which sometimes just can't happen.
Here's a nice Op/Ed piece that was originally published in the NY Times -- http://www.ntec.org/air/air/bushcsi.html
Here's a study that shows that both the current laws and Clear Skies concentrate too much on something that really may not be a problem in the first place: fine particulate pollution -- http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,03622.cfm
I think the author was being sarcastic... i.e. inferring that the violence-obsessed teens watching the movie wouldn't understand the concept of "truce" or "peace".
So much for reading the article... If you go to the original new s release, you will notice a picture clearly captioned "Chicxulub impact crater region, Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico".
The picture also clearly shows the center of the impact being just off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, and not in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.
The fact that people can't differentiate between re-working equations and performing an experiment (to see if the experimental data matches the predicted data) is actually insignificant to the fact that they are making uneducated comments based on a one page article that sums up a complicated experiment in layman's terms.
It is actually comforting to see that people such as these abound everywhere, even in a "smarter" community like Slashdot.
I knew someone would catch on sooner or later.... notice I didn't say that sufficient space actually existed. ;-)
My point still stands though... one could postulate that any finite game has a "perfect play" scenario because there are indeed a finite number of board states. Each board state has a limited number of possible moves, some of which may lead to an ideal situation.
This even applies to the case where the someone stated there are an infinite number of games... if one returns to the same board state the number of possible moves is still the same, and the "score" for each of those possible moves is still the same as well, thus it would count as one board state in the database (still under construction somewhere in the western arm of the galaxy =).
Chess has a finite number of squares and a finite number of pieces, thus the total number of possible boards in chess is also finite.
With sufficient storage and proper linking of data, the decision for the next move could be reduced to simply following the chain that leads the highest probability of success.
Considering that either side can use the same data, it is possible with perfect play chess would also lead to a draw every time.
Well, I've seen a house fly,
And I've seen a horse fly,
Hell, I've even seen a dragon fly,
But you know what?
I been done seen 'bout everything when I see a robot fly
Even though the Master was completely ruthless, he would still temporarily ally himself with the Doctor when a common foe threatened them both. He was a multi-faceted character, with a supreme intellect, who was the perfect antithesis of the Doctor. The Doctor was the only one who could match wits with him.
If there is to be a new show, I hope they bring back the Master with all his attributes. The show wouldn't be the same without him.
No sooner than someone finds a googlewhack and posts it, Google indexes that page and then there are two results.
FN 5. "Use of the term 'spam' as Internet jargon for this seemingly ubiquitous junk e-mail arose out of a skit by the British comedy troupe Monty Python, in which a waitress can offer a patron no single menu item that does not include spam . . . . [Citations.] Hormel Food Corporation, which debuted its Spam(R) luncheon meat in 1937, has dropped any defensiveness about this use of the term and now celebrates its product with a website . . . . [Citations.]" (Heckel, supra, 24 P.3d at p. 406, fn. 1.)
What if interstellar space is actually not flat in four dimensions, but curved slightly (i.e. perhaps the shape of the universe is a 4-dimensional sphere). Could this possibly affect the permittivity of space over long distances? When light is forced to travel through curved space, it loses energy does it not?
Obviously this guy didn't even read the article.
Ever notice the level of popular support for Microsoft, even in the face of the most damning evidence against the company?
Well, I imagine there are lots and LOTS of people who have invested money in Microsoft, and all of these people are interested in seeing Microsoft succeed. Thus, they are going to fight anything that comes along that threatens Microsoft, no matter how irrational their arguments.
Picture all the PHBs all over the country looking at Microsoft's history in the marketplace. "Here's a sure thing!" they say to themselves. "I can invest in this and never lose!" Thus, they put LOADS of money into it. Then, when something like the antitrust case comes along, it's like a monkey wrench gets thrown in the works. "How can this be? This was supposed to be a sure thing!"
Ever notice how many people don't care whether or not Microsoft was involved in anti-competitive practices? "It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, the bottom line must be protected! Otherwise, what's going to happen to the value of my stock?"
Getting back to the topic at hand... I think you're going to see a lot of Microsoft allies fighting the GPL. Some of these allies are going to be in the top levels of government--lawmakers. The common thread? They're all Microsoft shareholders.
You mean something like PayPal?
I just signed up for it the other day... it lets use your checking account to send money, and the payee (who gets an e-mail notice) can have it dumped into their checking account.
Perhaps I'm missing something but this sounds a lot like what you are referring to.