If you think that they are going to get $50m of PR value from building a high school, then you are SORELY mistaken. To call this "just a PR stunt" is, in a word, ignorant of basic economics.
A PR-stunt is a typically low-budget, outrageous our at least out-of-the-ordinary event designed to get undue media attention - hence "stunt." For example, Bill Gates breakdancing on "Dance Fever" would be a media stunt.
What makes you think that any new features or bug fixes or new features they REDHAT add to the Linux kernel, GCC or whatever won't go back to the community? Tivo did this so why would Sony REDHAT refuse and risk gettine sued?
Wake up and smell the coffee.. virtually every company that creates linux products is NOT adding to the corpus GPL. Rather, they are having their lawyers look at the GPL and are finding all sorts of ways to add proprietary stuff. Redhat does it, sony will do it... they ALL do it.
Use remaining shuttle flights to build a space elevator. Low estimates put this at 6 flights - let's conservatively double this to 12.
Space elevator by 2015 is a possible reality - financially and technologically.
Roadblocks:
"rocket culture" at NASA
"astronaut culture" at NASA
materials science issues are quickly disappearing
some probability of catastrophic (not deadly, just catastrophic) failure early on. must be budgeted using real-options analysis.
10-20B USD. This can easily be funded without "coalition" help. The US would soon own space like never before, as ESA's rockets would quickly look outdated.
Defense concerns - the notion that a space elevator is vulnerable to, say, hostile fighter planes.
SPACE ELEVATOR NOW - it's good science, it's good policy.
This crap article confuses "rights" with "niceties."
1. Let the customer see the contract before the sale.
When was the last time you saw a contract on a loaf of bread at the supermarket before you bought it? There is a certain norm when buying a loaf of bread and there is a norm when buying mass-market software. Deal with it. If you really want to see a license before you buy, I challenge you to find a company that won't let you see one if you call their headquarters or whatever first and I challenge you to find a bread company that WILL.
2. Disclose known defects.
This bread may not be as tasty as (competitor's bread. We use inferior wheat.). It is naive and at cross purposes to think a publisher will do this--for mass market software, this is clearly the role of the press.
3. The product (or information service) must live up to the manufacturer's and seller's claims.
This is a) well covered under existing law b) see a. Disagree? Sue, and you'll win if you're right.
4. User has right to see and approve all transfers of information from her computer.
A naive and shortsighted idea. Shortsighted because it begins with the notion of "computer", as if a computer is a basestation on which the modal form of activity is to install software from boxes or whathave you. This might not be the case in 10-20 years, so the very concept of "see and approve" is ludicrous. This also doesn't say anything about granularity - will a "can this computer do periodic checks of itself" over the internet be sufficient? If no, then you very quickly get into absurdities. At any rate, why is this a "right" rather than a nicety? Why can't the market handle this? Don't buy from companies whose security implementations you don't trust.
5. A software vendor may not block customer from accessing his own data without court approval.
You're saying i can't sell somebody a word processor with a one year time limit? Why the hell can't I? If the market doesn't go for such a thing, then that's their choice.. not for some laws to ourlaw.
6. A software vendor may not prematurely terminate a license without court approval.
I don't quite know what this is in response to, but under current law a vendor (of software or whatever) can't do this without cause and at all times this can be contested legally. What's your point?
7. Mass-market customers may criticize products, publish benchmark study results, and make fair use of a product.
"Make fair use of" is some sort of codeword for something here. Of course they can make "fair use" of in a legal sense, but what "fair use" means is how it has been interpreted. Just because you may disagree is, well, sucks to be you. "May criticize..", yes, unless they explicitly sign away those rights. Nobody sticks a gun to their head to buy the softwarein the first place or to agree to such a license. If there is such a license in which you agree not to criticize the software in a license that you get to read only after you crack open the non-returnable shrinkwrap, i've never heard of it.
8. The user may reverse engineer the software.
This "right", as written, is too broad to be meaningful. IP restrictions are done in the spirit of social contract.. for example, we all agree for the most part that books can be copyrighted for x amount of time because that will give authors incentive to write more books and so forth. now, some of you may complain that this is a ploy by the publishing mafia, but, i assure you, you are fringe idiots if you think this this. the rest of society realizes that copyrights on, say, books, have been a good thing, plus or minus a few borderline questions as to term limits that are really fringe issues. likewise what few anti-reverse engineering rules there are vis-a-vis software have been put in place to allow certain types of businesses to exist that wouldn't otherwise. this benefits not just those businesse
Oh, I'm sorry.. perhaps I should just submit stories to slashdot saying "hear ye, hear ye! code unhacked for 2 years! who is the mighty codesmith who shall smite me, the lord of reasonably protected software! pr0n and geek adoration for the successfull challenger! headaches and lost profits for me!"
As you said, your program is for a very specialized audience, traditionally, the more popular the software, the more likely a crack.
You're absolutely right. I don't want to say too much about it, but my software is also of interest to people in the USA 99.99% of the time, and it would be clear to anybody that I am not making money off the $20 that I was charging. therefore, it was very obvious to me that somebody cracked my previous software simply for the sport of it (it was done by a russian, or, at least, all of the "look at me I'm so great" notes were in russian).
I dont care what the tin-foil-beanie crowd here thinks - product activation is a reasonable anti-piracy strategy.
while NO anti-piracy strategy is foolproof (we can only talk about rates of piracy, not absolute values), the fact of the matter is that product-activation can be done without sending the user's SSN and first-born through the lines.
Actually, I'm just pissed off that some asshole russians wrote "crack" programs (still widely available on all those cracks sites) to break the security of a previous version of some shareware i wrote (cost of shareware: $20 and for a very specialized audience). So, in a later version of my software, I included a type of product activation and wrote a code in such a way that the compiled stuff would be harder to figure out. 2.5 yeas later - still no crack out fot the software that I can find anywhere, plus I am secure in the knowledge that my reg codes are doing a lot less walking.
Or I might protest if I had a sign on the mailbox marked "ABSOLUTELY NO JUNK MAIL" and the mailman or flyer guy went ahead and ignored it.
The mailmain WILL ignore it. it is a violation of federal law for him not to ignore such a message. Try it - ask your mailman to not bother dropping off the latest "or current resident" mail.
I am so glad this topic came up, because it gives me a chance to propose my pet theory.
As i understand it, SoBig was written by some spammers (this according to something I read a few days ago). If this is true, it only reinforces my belief that the Sobig worm was written for the purpose of weakening Bayesian filtering schemes for spam email, thus making it easier for spammers to send spam mail in the future.
How?
Simple. you are getting sobig emails apparently (but probably not really) from people who you may ordinaly receive ham from. If you (as many of you will) flag the SoBig messages as spam, your bayesian filter will remember that spam comes from trustedfriend@ham.com and lo and behond false positives increase.
Think this is ridiculous? I began out of habit flagging my sobig emails as spam before it dawned on my what i was doing. Yes, my filtes caught the sobig, but i did some tests soon to find exactly the behaviour that i described.
This further underscores the FACT that spam is a SOCIAL, not a technological problem. No bullshit, just good legislation.
I am a small businessperson with a legitimate web based business on the web now for 8 years. Three acounts now receive 4500 spam per day, or roughly the equivalent of one 56k modem whose full time job is to receive spam. While we have followed best practices with email addresses, over 8 years and thouands of customers, these things get around.
Anti-Spam bills being considered currently inadequate: 100% correct
Anti-Spam legislation not a primary solution: 100% incorrect.
Legislation is the ONLY way to get rid of spam. Effective legislation and prosecution, that is. The "they will all go offshore" excuse is BS. Sure, some might, but many won't. And then, the country that harbors the offshore spammer is squeezed just as korea was (do you see any korean spam any more? well, yes, but nowhere like the torrents we all received a year ago).
Spam is a social problem, not a technological one. Social problems can only be solved by social contracts or laws. Technological solutions fail. Even bayesian filters, those much heralded bleeding edge anti-spam flavor of the moment, are being beaten regularly--my SpamBayes filter catches still a good deal, but more and more slip through despie over 150,000 'training' emails as the spammers get smarter. And, bayesian filters (even at the ISP level) don't begin to address the crucial problem of bandwidth use.
Legislate Now. Not big brother, not slippery-slope BS about john ashcroft in your inbox - just reasonable, progressive legislation to eliminate the spam epidemic.
In the long run, you can actually attract customers if you build up a rep for good service and pampering your established customer base with new gizmos on a regular basis
Incicates that you really didn't understand what I was saying.
My point was that "good" service is relative. Even the crappiest korean car of today has better reliability than the rolls royces of the first half of this century, but we consider them to be substandard because they are so in relative terms.
So, if your advice to phone companies would be that everybody should spend more on keeping existing service and every phone company does this, then none gains competitive advantage - it's a wash. It's a cost sink. So, everybody has to go back to poaching each other's customers with sign-up offers. Ergo, the companies lose.
Look, i hate to just say "you're wrong," but you are. Can _a_ company gain competitive advantage by offering better service? Possibly or even probably. Can the whole industry do this? BLoodly unlikely, especially given that it is a high-technology field.
Or rather, think about this for one tiny second before posting.
The fact of the matter is is that being "better for customer" DOES NOT SCALE. If every company did the set of things that your current company does, then that would be considered the norm, and, given relatively constant demand, profits would go south. I think there a dot-com boom or somesuch that had elements of what I'm describing.
Now, your company is probably doing what it can for a number of reasons:
they're ignorant
they're rich and this is an indirect play for more customers
this is temporary marketing whatever, and you are falling for it
the competitors' cost bases are significnatly higher
your company has some government mandated order for whatever
Maybe because everybody knows that the emperor nero supposedly burned rome or at least played the fiddly while it burned (neither are true, but nevertheless), thus making it easy for a user to associate "nero" and "burning cd-roms" for subsequent uses of the computer, while "k3b" is an essentially meaningless collction of letters and numbers?
I know it doesn't exactly answer your question, but my point is made nevertheless.
Forget around the world - i'm guessing they probably couldn't make it back across.
i dont understand the 'telemetry data' from that one page very much (is it a snapshot of the last known position, or an aggregate of the whole flight?), but consider this: they claim 68 km / h. That's consistent with my guess that the airplane, on a windless day, cruises at about 20-30mph. The problem is that going westbound, you are highly unlikely NOT to find at least someplace (at any altitude) that will give you a massive headwind component - at 20-30mph, sending you if not backwards, then into single digits forward progress, taxing fuel reserves. there's a big difference between 20 + 15 tailwind and 20 - 15 headwind! (people's initial reaction is that the difference is a few percentage points - but no, we're looking at 7 times faster one way vs the other!)
I've flown the north atlantic four times in a small single-engine aircraft, each time but one with long range tanks (I flew an SR22 which didn't need them). Winds are a major consideration.
the parents of some 13 year old girl who downloaded the latest n*stink song, listened to it twice, and forgot about it (nevermind the fact that the song
Myth.
Please show me where this is actually happening, as opposed to people suspected with good evidence of serious and prolonged illegal activity, such as people who have downloaded and/or distrbuted hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of copies of (whatever) illegally.
Statistical anti-spam methods work NOW because they are at the bleeding edge of the spam game. Only a few of us have bayesian filters going, and so the spammers haven't caught up.
Meanwhile, when the spammers catch on, that is to say, once enough ISPs or individuals install bayesian filters that they notice that their spam isn't getting through, they'll compensate, just like they have with EVERY other anti-spam "technology" out there. In fact, I suspect it's already happening - my SpamBayes Outlook add-in is catching less now than ever before. It still does a good job, yet, but false positives are up as are uncaught spam--all this despite 100,000+ "training" spams (I get about 700-1000 spams a day). Why? Spammers catch on. Email looks more innocuous. There are more clever tricks.
I suggest, therefore, that statistical methods are EXACTLY THE WRONG SOLUTION in the long run, therefore, because their net effect is that SPAM will look more like regular email, thus disrupting email service in the long run even more. Yes, it makes sense for an individual on the bleeding edge like you or me to run statistical stuff, but the ultimate answer to SPAM is:
Law, litigation, jail, and accountability.
that's it. it works in other countries, and it could work in yours and mine too. yes, there's that sticky problem that the internet is global, but fortunately there is no government in the world that is ideologically "pro spam." At best, there are ignorant governments that can be manipulated into stupid net tricks as tuvalu and turkmenistan were with their country suffixes, but that's a temporary thing.
SENSIBLE REGULATION OF THE NET TODAY, PLEASE.
not big brother, not slashdot-esque slippery-slope arguments of how once a government gets their hand on anything they can't stop, just reasonable law enforcement and law. if you show a stranger's 7 year old a picture of a man sucking off a donkey in almost any city in the world, you will go to jail. Yet on the internet this happens daily and nobody is punished OR EVEN SOUGHT.
Re:Not a very impressive review
on
LinuxTag Show Report
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Anyway, this is a breeze of fresh air in the usual climate of corporate demos where they only show the stuff they know to work reliably.
I am sure that this would have been your reaction if it had been a microsoft demo that crashed.
Slashdot Mirror
A PR-stunt is a typically low-budget, outrageous our at least out-of-the-ordinary event designed to get undue media attention - hence "stunt." For example, Bill Gates breakdancing on "Dance Fever" would be a media stunt.
What makes you think that any new features or bug fixes or new features they REDHAT add to the Linux kernel, GCC or whatever won't go back to the community? Tivo did this so why would Sony REDHAT refuse and risk gettine sued?
Wake up and smell the coffee.. virtually every company that creates linux products is NOT adding to the corpus GPL. Rather, they are having their lawyers look at the GPL and are finding all sorts of ways to add proprietary stuff. Redhat does it, sony will do it... they ALL do it.
- Company cleverly circumvents GPL to have its software development subsidized. No source code to community.
- No average end-user will ever know what the underlying operating system is.
- The OS licensing bit is less than 2% of the final cost of the product - in other words, the price savings will not appreciably passed along.
In other words, to parahprase that cleverwhile this isn't exactly funny, it's not exactly flamebait either. why are there no punishments for idiot moderators?
Roadblocks:
- "rocket culture" at NASA
- "astronaut culture" at NASA
- materials science issues are quickly disappearing
- some probability of catastrophic (not deadly, just catastrophic) failure early on. must be budgeted using real-options analysis.
- 10-20B USD. This can easily be funded without "coalition" help. The US would soon own space like never before, as ESA's rockets would quickly look outdated.
- Defense concerns - the notion that a space elevator is vulnerable to, say, hostile fighter planes.
SPACE ELEVATOR NOW - it's good science, it's good policy.1. Let the customer see the contract before the sale.
When was the last time you saw a contract on a loaf of bread at the supermarket before you bought it? There is a certain norm when buying a loaf of bread and there is a norm when buying mass-market software. Deal with it. If you really want to see a license before you buy, I challenge you to find a company that won't let you see one if you call their headquarters or whatever first and I challenge you to find a bread company that WILL.
2. Disclose known defects.
This bread may not be as tasty as (competitor's bread. We use inferior wheat.). It is naive and at cross purposes to think a publisher will do this--for mass market software, this is clearly the role of the press.
3. The product (or information service) must live up to the manufacturer's and seller's claims.
This is a) well covered under existing law b) see a. Disagree? Sue, and you'll win if you're right.
4. User has right to see and approve all transfers of information from her computer.
A naive and shortsighted idea. Shortsighted because it begins with the notion of "computer", as if a computer is a basestation on which the modal form of activity is to install software from boxes or whathave you. This might not be the case in 10-20 years, so the very concept of "see and approve" is ludicrous. This also doesn't say anything about granularity - will a "can this computer do periodic checks of itself" over the internet be sufficient? If no, then you very quickly get into absurdities. At any rate, why is this a "right" rather than a nicety? Why can't the market handle this? Don't buy from companies whose security implementations you don't trust.
5. A software vendor may not block customer from accessing his own data without court approval.
You're saying i can't sell somebody a word processor with a one year time limit? Why the hell can't I? If the market doesn't go for such a thing, then that's their choice.. not for some laws to ourlaw.
6. A software vendor may not prematurely terminate a license without court approval.
I don't quite know what this is in response to, but under current law a vendor (of software or whatever) can't do this without cause and at all times this can be contested legally. What's your point?
7. Mass-market customers may criticize products, publish benchmark study results, and make fair use of a product.
"Make fair use of" is some sort of codeword for something here. Of course they can make "fair use" of in a legal sense, but what "fair use" means is how it has been interpreted. Just because you may disagree is, well, sucks to be you. "May criticize..", yes, unless they explicitly sign away those rights. Nobody sticks a gun to their head to buy the softwarein the first place or to agree to such a license. If there is such a license in which you agree not to criticize the software in a license that you get to read only after you crack open the non-returnable shrinkwrap, i've never heard of it.
8. The user may reverse engineer the software.
This "right", as written, is too broad to be meaningful. IP restrictions are done in the spirit of social contract.. for example, we all agree for the most part that books can be copyrighted for x amount of time because that will give authors incentive to write more books and so forth. now, some of you may complain that this is a ploy by the publishing mafia, but, i assure you, you are fringe idiots if you think this this. the rest of society realizes that copyrights on, say, books, have been a good thing, plus or minus a few borderline questions as to term limits that are really fringe issues. likewise what few anti-reverse engineering rules there are vis-a-vis software have been put in place to allow certain types of businesses to exist that wouldn't otherwise. this benefits not just those businesse
Oh, I'm sorry.. perhaps I should just submit stories to slashdot saying "hear ye, hear ye! code unhacked for 2 years! who is the mighty codesmith who shall smite me, the lord of reasonably protected software! pr0n and geek adoration for the successfull challenger! headaches and lost profits for me!"
Will the assorted slashdotters stick to the party line of "don't blame the technology, go after the users"
or
will they fall into the pattern of predictible cheap-shots against the RIAA?
Let's watch....
no, they cracked the earlier version of the highly specialized softawre. read carefully.
You're absolutely right. I don't want to say too much about it, but my software is also of interest to people in the USA 99.99% of the time, and it would be clear to anybody that I am not making money off the $20 that I was charging. therefore, it was very obvious to me that somebody cracked my previous software simply for the sport of it (it was done by a russian, or, at least, all of the "look at me I'm so great" notes were in russian).
while NO anti-piracy strategy is foolproof (we can only talk about rates of piracy, not absolute values), the fact of the matter is that product-activation can be done without sending the user's SSN and first-born through the lines.
Actually, I'm just pissed off that some asshole russians wrote "crack" programs (still widely available on all those cracks sites) to break the security of a previous version of some shareware i wrote (cost of shareware: $20 and for a very specialized audience). So, in a later version of my software, I included a type of product activation and wrote a code in such a way that the compiled stuff would be harder to figure out. 2.5 yeas later - still no crack out fot the software that I can find anywhere, plus I am secure in the knowledge that my reg codes are doing a lot less walking.
Fair is fair.
LMAO.
I continue to fail to understand how, as even a medium term prospect, Yahoo could be seen to be worth anything at all to any investor.
The mailmain WILL ignore it. it is a violation of federal law for him not to ignore such a message. Try it - ask your mailman to not bother dropping off the latest "or current resident" mail.
As i understand it, SoBig was written by some spammers (this according to something I read a few days ago). If this is true, it only reinforces my belief that the Sobig worm was written for the purpose of weakening Bayesian filtering schemes for spam email, thus making it easier for spammers to send spam mail in the future.
How?
Simple. you are getting sobig emails apparently (but probably not really) from people who you may ordinaly receive ham from. If you (as many of you will) flag the SoBig messages as spam, your bayesian filter will remember that spam comes from trustedfriend@ham.com and lo and behond false positives increase.
Think this is ridiculous? I began out of habit flagging my sobig emails as spam before it dawned on my what i was doing. Yes, my filtes caught the sobig, but i did some tests soon to find exactly the behaviour that i described.
This further underscores the FACT that spam is a SOCIAL, not a technological problem. No bullshit, just good legislation.
I am a small businessperson with a legitimate web based business on the web now for 8 years. Three acounts now receive 4500 spam per day, or roughly the equivalent of one 56k modem whose full time job is to receive spam. While we have followed best practices with email addresses, over 8 years and thouands of customers, these things get around.
- Anti-Spam bills being considered currently inadequate: 100% correct
- Anti-Spam legislation not a primary solution: 100% incorrect.
Legislation is the ONLY way to get rid of spam. Effective legislation and prosecution, that is. The "they will all go offshore" excuse is BS. Sure, some might, but many won't. And then, the country that harbors the offshore spammer is squeezed just as korea was (do you see any korean spam any more? well, yes, but nowhere like the torrents we all received a year ago).Spam is a social problem, not a technological one. Social problems can only be solved by social contracts or laws. Technological solutions fail. Even bayesian filters, those much heralded bleeding edge anti-spam flavor of the moment, are being beaten regularly--my SpamBayes filter catches still a good deal, but more and more slip through despie over 150,000 'training' emails as the spammers get smarter. And, bayesian filters (even at the ISP level) don't begin to address the crucial problem of bandwidth use.
Legislate Now. Not big brother, not slippery-slope BS about john ashcroft in your inbox - just reasonable, progressive legislation to eliminate the spam epidemic.
PalmOne and PalmSource?
Why not just HyperGlobalMegaMart?
Did they take out a super bowl ad too?
Pardon me while I go PalmOne.
In the long run, you can actually attract customers if you build up a rep for good service and pampering your established customer base with new gizmos on a regular basis
Incicates that you really didn't understand what I was saying.
My point was that "good" service is relative. Even the crappiest korean car of today has better reliability than the rolls royces of the first half of this century, but we consider them to be substandard because they are so in relative terms.
So, if your advice to phone companies would be that everybody should spend more on keeping existing service and every phone company does this, then none gains competitive advantage - it's a wash. It's a cost sink. So, everybody has to go back to poaching each other's customers with sign-up offers. Ergo, the companies lose.
Look, i hate to just say "you're wrong," but you are. Can _a_ company gain competitive advantage by offering better service? Possibly or even probably. Can the whole industry do this? BLoodly unlikely, especially given that it is a high-technology field.
Or rather, think about this for one tiny second before posting.
The fact of the matter is is that being "better for customer" DOES NOT SCALE. If every company did the set of things that your current company does, then that would be considered the norm, and, given relatively constant demand, profits would go south. I think there a dot-com boom or somesuch that had elements of what I'm describing.
Now, your company is probably doing what it can for a number of reasons:
I know it doesn't exactly answer your question, but my point is made nevertheless.
i dont understand the 'telemetry data' from that one page very much (is it a snapshot of the last known position, or an aggregate of the whole flight?), but consider this: they claim 68 km / h. That's consistent with my guess that the airplane, on a windless day, cruises at about 20-30mph. The problem is that going westbound, you are highly unlikely NOT to find at least someplace (at any altitude) that will give you a massive headwind component - at 20-30mph, sending you if not backwards, then into single digits forward progress, taxing fuel reserves. there's a big difference between 20 + 15 tailwind and 20 - 15 headwind! (people's initial reaction is that the difference is a few percentage points - but no, we're looking at 7 times faster one way vs the other!)
I've flown the north atlantic four times in a small single-engine aircraft, each time but one with long range tanks (I flew an SR22 which didn't need them). Winds are a major consideration.
Excitons - the particle formed by the collision of Porntons and GNUtrons.
the parents of some 13 year old girl who downloaded the latest n*stink song, listened to it twice, and forgot about it (nevermind the fact that the song
Myth.
Please show me where this is actually happening, as opposed to people suspected with good evidence of serious and prolonged illegal activity, such as people who have downloaded and/or distrbuted hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of copies of (whatever) illegally.
Statistical anti-spam methods work NOW because they are at the bleeding edge of the spam game. Only a few of us have bayesian filters going, and so the spammers haven't caught up.
Meanwhile, when the spammers catch on, that is to say, once enough ISPs or individuals install bayesian filters that they notice that their spam isn't getting through, they'll compensate, just like they have with EVERY other anti-spam "technology" out there. In fact, I suspect it's already happening - my SpamBayes Outlook add-in is catching less now than ever before. It still does a good job, yet, but false positives are up as are uncaught spam--all this despite 100,000+ "training" spams (I get about 700-1000 spams a day). Why? Spammers catch on. Email looks more innocuous. There are more clever tricks.
I suggest, therefore, that statistical methods are EXACTLY THE WRONG SOLUTION in the long run, therefore, because their net effect is that SPAM will look more like regular email, thus disrupting email service in the long run even more. Yes, it makes sense for an individual on the bleeding edge like you or me to run statistical stuff, but the ultimate answer to SPAM is:
Law, litigation, jail, and accountability.
that's it. it works in other countries, and it could work in yours and mine too. yes, there's that sticky problem that the internet is global, but fortunately there is no government in the world that is ideologically "pro spam." At best, there are ignorant governments that can be manipulated into stupid net tricks as tuvalu and turkmenistan were with their country suffixes, but that's a temporary thing.
SENSIBLE REGULATION OF THE NET TODAY, PLEASE.
not big brother, not slashdot-esque slippery-slope arguments of how once a government gets their hand on anything they can't stop, just reasonable law enforcement and law. if you show a stranger's 7 year old a picture of a man sucking off a donkey in almost any city in the world, you will go to jail. Yet on the internet this happens daily and nobody is punished OR EVEN SOUGHT.
I am sure that this would have been your reaction if it had been a microsoft demo that crashed.