Well, when you come up with a better way of scientifically detecting patterns in large volumes of information, and using that to make predications which come true at a signficant level (and how do you determine whats significant without statistics without resorting to "seems like", "looks like", or other non-scientific nonsense?), you be sure to let everyone know. If you really think statistics in general are worthless, you are beyond ignorant as to their underlying workings. Oh, and where's your "proof" that these particular statistics are worthless? Do you have access to information that self-built systems significantly contribute to overall desktop use? How did you determine its significance, using "worthless" statistics? Or is your proof just some random thoughts of a non-expert who has absolutely no clue what they're talking about?
I'd absolutely LOVE to see you PROVE that these statistics are worthless, and without statistics like significance tests, averages, etc... since those are so worthless. The only thing that pisses me off than bad statistical analyses is people like this troll who discount the entire field because of their ignorance.
"Combining two opioids is more effective than one opioid at the same dose as the first opioid alone"
This is only obvious if you don't know much about the pharmcodynamics of opiate/opioid pain medication and think they all work the same. There are at least three major classes of opiate receptors in the mody, mu, kappa, and sigma (there's more, and even these have multiple types i.e. mu-1 and mu-2), and every different opiate has a different affinity for each of these receptors. Combining opiates with different affinities allows for stimulating each receptor at different levels, while not overstimulating one and causing side effects. So, combining two medications allows more analgesia than simply upping the dosage of one.
This really is not obvious unless you're well versed in opiate pharmacodynamics, and should not be called obvious because the only meaningful way to summarize it for lay people makes it seem obvious to them. You'll find this is the case with alot of research. Furhermore, even if something is obvious at all levels, not all people follow logic and it's essential to have the solid research to prove the point.
So it's your contention that one projectile colliding with another projectile on a consistent basis is impossible? All the current missile defense programs have shown us is that it's harder than initially anticipated, but to think it's theoretically impossible shows a complete failure to grasp classical mechanics. There's absolutely nothing going on with two missiles that makes colliding them impossible. Criticize the right wing propagandists all you want, just realize the left spews bullshit like this "missile defense is impossible" too. Seriously, how is this parent modded informative?
And as for funding such programs... eventually, there WILL be another war with a state with ICBM technology, and you'll be very happy if we achieve an effective missile defense system before this happens. So I think it's worth the money. If you don't, fine, it's a valid opinion, but don't give me bullshit like "it's impossible to do".
The impact of these states tends, on average, to be an unacceptable social cost.
As opposed to say, alcohol and tobacco? Alcohol and tobacco are FAR more detrimental to onesself and society than ANY illegal drug, and this is not a subjective claim either, it's hard science.
They also have no medicinal value whatsoever in their present forms (not subjective).
This is completely wrong. Cocaine is still used as a local anaesthetic (hence why it's CSA/II and not CSA/I). PCP is still used as a veterinary anaesthetic, and is also CSA/II.
Health Rating: 1 - Slight
Flammability Rating: 1 - Slight
Reactivity Rating: 0 - None
Contact Rating: 1 - Slight
Looks like very nice stuff to me, considering lots of common chemicals have higher hazard ratings. If you're going to link to something sophistcated like a MSDS, at least know how to properly interpret it.
It depends on your car really. I drive a V8 Mustang with manual transmission, and I can notice a very large difference when driving agressively and driving "normally". The difference is so vast the tank goes empty so quickly doing measurements is not needed to determine a significant effect; but one clear measurement is my regular 206 mile trip on the open interstate... I can make it on 3/4ths of a tank if driving normally, can't make the whole trip on a full tank if punching it and cruising at 130-140mph.
Slow, automatic transmission vehicles with a V4 or V6 obviously can't put out the kind of performance that really sucks up the fuel, no matter how hard you try to push it.
115d47m30sWx37d16m30sN
Brings Area 51 right up on Google maps, an old photo at limited resolution. But other satellite services have published better images, see: http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/groom.htm
We all know the really good stuff is underground, and the odds of a classified plane being on the runways is pretty slim. Especially when the companies publish when they'll be collecting images. So no, there's no real supression of commercial satellite images going on.
The reason this censorship is so damaging to chinese society is because it means the average person doesn't know just how hard they're being screwed by the criminals who run the country. The state gets away with telling plausible lies because 98% of the population lacks the skill and gumption needed to uncover the truth.
We have the same problem with cretinism here in the states. Stupidity, ignorance, and indifference are blights of mankind, not of the Chinese society alone.
And just what kind of learning are you referring to? Sophiscated symbolic learning, inferential learning, and overall conceptual learning are very different from dry fact learning, and there is a *vast* difference between below average (95) and gifted (130) in their ability to do higher learning. This is generally at the very highest levels of skill; IQ is more a measure of potential mental capability. There's some overlap with harder work on something leading to more skills than high IQ and slacking, but when pushed to the limits the 130 IQ can go much farther than the 95 IQ. Also consider that a person with a 130 IQ is 2 full standard deviations above the mean, with their mental ability in the top 97th percentile of the population, if you're claiming someone in the 37th percentile has the same ability to learn... I'd be highly suspect of your coursework in psychology.
35 points is a HUGE difference. Now, a few points all within one standard deviation is a small difference. But a few points between scores both more than 3 standard deviations is also a huge difference. I really get tired of people thinking IQ tests are jokes, there's extensive research into it, tons and tons of science going into making each professional test. IQ is a very scientifically sound concept, if you doubt this you need to study psychology some more (as in, college courses, not mainstream therapy-only junk).
Archaic technologies have to be phased out eventually. Next we're going to hear people like you whining about the lack of universal support for rotary-dial analog phones because not everyone can afford to upgrade to touch-tones. It's broadcast TV's time to go, farewell, time to free up that part of the spectrum for more important uses.
What kind of geek reads any instructions whatsoever? Real geeks sit down and figure stuff out themselves. I can program (well) in several languages; it takes only a few lines of pre-made code to extrapolate the syntax and structure of higher languages and get it to do what you want with relatively few trials. And as far as normal apps/configuration programs go, I can use any program in front of me without README, manuals, FAQs, books, courses, videos, etc. True geeks learn by "lets see what this does." Help is for the weak.:)
Just because people are more intelligent doesn't mean they don't care about things like ease of use, compatability range, etc. I'm a few std. devs above the mean myself (z=3.19 (s was 16, professionally administered, normalized, test), or the top 99.93 percentile). I know how to use UNIX/Linux (and obviously apple), and I prefer to use Windows. Windows can be adequately secured by people even 1 s above the mean if they make an honest attempt. Windows is actually very powerful, although tapping into its full power is not easy. This provides the most efficient way to have ease of use in day to day personal uses, yet having power on tap for those who can program well enough to take advantage of it. Now if I was running a server, I'd choose Linux; but for alot of tasks Linux simply doesn't offer enough of an advantage, and in others, such as gaming, is a disadvantage.
I really don't know how you got off talking about normal curves and standard deviation, but while I'd agree that an F-test would reveal the difference in IQs is statistically significant, I'd also contend the mean of IQs of Windows choosers would not be negatively skewed to a significant level, because as I explained high intelligence does not alone imply choosing a non-Windows OS, and in fact because I'd further claim the deficit isn't until at least 2 s's, because because that's really the cutoff between mediocrity and giftedness, making that curve even more normal.
That does not give the *AA the right to use extortionary techniques to threaten University's into installing filtering devices that hurt legitimate Internet2 uses (including research) and suppress the rights of students to use applications such as i2hub for legitimate purposes (like here at UMiami). It does not give them the right to access a private network they are not authorized to access, although they claim to have done it legally, but according to TFA, the exec of I2 says they were not given access. The whole lawsuit thing in general is extortionary... "give us money or else your legal fees when we bring you into court will be far higher." And furthermore, "bastardization of a research network"? Last analysis I looked at showed file sharing did not interfere with research activities, because there's just so damn much bandwidth, bandwidth to dorms is typically throttled according to the academic usage, and peak activity occurs at a different time of day.
Vigilante justice, extortion, and unauthorized access of a private network are not tactics that are justifiable regardless of whether the people you are after are breaking the law.
There are approximately 5.6 million Americans who have served time in State or Federal prison either presently or at some point in their life (2001), which is 2.7% of the general population. Based on these rates and the growth of the rate, ~6.6% of people will serve state or federal prison time in their life. Source.
This incarceration rate is shamefully the worlds highest, exceeding even brutal dictatorships and communist states like China. This is largely do to incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.
Computer expertise is a speciality, working knowledge is not.
You're not a political scientist, but I'm sure you know who the president is, and that the US is not a communist state. You're aware of the 3 branches of government, and probably can describe what each generally does.
You're not a doctor, but I'm sure you know your ass from your elbow, and that licking a dirty surface will make you sick. I'm also sure you're aware smoking causes cancer, and excessive alcohol causes liver failure.
So why shouldn't general computer users be expected to know what behaviors will cause problems with their computer and how to avoid doing them? Computer expertise is programming, advanced circuit theory, optics, engineering, etc. Rudimentary understanding to accomplish things practical to you should be expected and derided as unacceptable ignorance when lacking. Nobody is asking these 'normal' people to write their own OS.
Morphine and other opiates do not cause damage to organs. They produce respiratory despression, which can result in a lack of oxygen to all organs. Morphine is not even used in general anaesthesia, much less euthanasia. For euthanasia, one would likely use a combination of a strong opiate (alfentanil 150+ ug/kg or equiv), not natural/semisynthetic ones, and a benzodiazepine, and possibly a barbituate (etomidate 1mg/kg, others). Lethal dosing with morphine alone is not ethical, and only done by inexperienced people trying to end their own or anothers life.
Re:When was the last time Moore's law was correct?
on
Forty Years of Moore's Law
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Wow, how that display of ignorance got modded +5 Insightful on a site like Slashdot really makes you think.
First of all, Moore's Law implies that the number of transistors per integrated circuit will double every 18 months (which, is not really what he said, see Understanding Moore's Law).
Second of all, this has held true and is continuing to hold true.
Third of all, clock speed does not reflect transistor number or density, neither of which are the sole contributing factor to 'power' or 'performance'.
I don't know what's sadder; wondering if the parent was actually a joke, or wondering how it got +5 insightful. Damn.
Here's an article I wrote a while ago after seeing script kiddies sitting in AOL chats (yes, when I was a kid in the mid 90s I sat around in AOL chats:( ) scrolling messages from their brute force password crackers. It's all about how many possible passwords there are across different lengths and criteria, and how long it would take to try them all. The Numerics of Screen Names and Passwords
I tried such an approach here at the University of Miami, I cited statutes and case law showing that what I was using BT for was legal. They did not care, told me they did not care, and refused to restore my access until I told them I would delete BT from my computer. The censorship level here is extreme, we have virtually all P2P apps blocked, even i2hub, which only 5-6 people in the whole school used. They seem to think that giving all undergrads Napster accounts for unlimited listening and DLing (no burning/mobile devices without paying the 99 cents) compensates for this, because they fail to comprehend legitimate uses for P2P. And they're not only using PacketShaper, they're packet sniffing for P2P so that proxies can't be used, which is an invasion of privacy.
Subsequently, my last bastion of freedom to transfer is IRC. The bottom line is, to university admins insulation from legal liability is far more important than privacy and freedom to use every part of the internet.
Why do I need a media player on my head-less, speaker-less rack-mount server? Playing media is not an OS functionality. Providing access to the sound infrastructure, if an application needs it, is an OS functionality.
-It's a core function for the vast majority of Windows users; most copies of Windows are not used on rackmount servers.
-The Windows Media installation stuff that is on those copies being used on rackmounts does not interfere with its functionality, and the space it takes up is hardly worth excluding it in all target audiences.
-You don't need a GUI on your "head-less, speaker-less rack-mount server" either. Or Solitaire; ought Microsoft to be barred from including Solitaire too, because it's not a core OS component for servers and it inhibits competing versions of solitaire?
What is considered a basic function of an OS, like a car, expands over time; including ability to play music and videos on personal computer operating systems is not something that should be barred as anticompetitive. MS engages in alot of anticompetitive activities, but see through the blind hatred to realize there is nothing about including a default player that should be illegal.
Of course, you're overlooking the absurdity of car makers not being able to include CD players to begin with, because it's anticompetitive with all of the aftermarket CD players people install because they're better. Playing media in an OS is something that's considered basic functionality, and forcing a company to make a OS without a media player is the same as making all the car manufacturers stop including their own CD players. Standard equipment that's easily replaceable with an alternative if desired.
Legislators have to consider backlash for voting against bills in their decisions. Re-election is the only thing more important to them than pleasing their campaign donors. Not many legislators want their opponents in the next election to bring up their vote on such a bill and say 'my opponent voted against making your vote count and making elections more fair'. This doesn't apply to things like the DMCA where most people are not really effected and/or do not understand the subject matter, and it would be easy to come up with language to defend attacks. However, voting rights are something people [think they] understand and really get pissed off about. This bill has a legitimate chance of passing.
We actually talked about this in my statistics class today. The professor actually had a friend who could flip a coin and get it to land on whatever he wanted, virtually every time. Made alot of money hustling people with that. It is possible to develop patterns of manipulating 'random' events, through skill of hand (or programming skill), that to most people still look like they're obeying pure randomness, but are actually being subtly manipulated behind the scenes. There's no doubt in my mind it's a possibility that Apple is trying to walk that line.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, when you come up with a better way of scientifically detecting patterns in large volumes of information, and using that to make predications which come true at a signficant level (and how do you determine whats significant without statistics without resorting to "seems like", "looks like", or other non-scientific nonsense?), you be sure to let everyone know. If you really think statistics in general are worthless, you are beyond ignorant as to their underlying workings. Oh, and where's your "proof" that these particular statistics are worthless? Do you have access to information that self-built systems significantly contribute to overall desktop use? How did you determine its significance, using "worthless" statistics? Or is your proof just some random thoughts of a non-expert who has absolutely no clue what they're talking about?
I'd absolutely LOVE to see you PROVE that these statistics are worthless, and without statistics like significance tests, averages, etc... since those are so worthless. The only thing that pisses me off than bad statistical analyses is people like this troll who discount the entire field because of their ignorance.
"Combining two opioids is more effective than one opioid at the same dose as the first opioid alone"
This is only obvious if you don't know much about the pharmcodynamics of opiate/opioid pain medication and think they all work the same. There are at least three major classes of opiate receptors in the mody, mu, kappa, and sigma (there's more, and even these have multiple types i.e. mu-1 and mu-2), and every different opiate has a different affinity for each of these receptors. Combining opiates with different affinities allows for stimulating each receptor at different levels, while not overstimulating one and causing side effects. So, combining two medications allows more analgesia than simply upping the dosage of one.
This really is not obvious unless you're well versed in opiate pharmacodynamics, and should not be called obvious because the only meaningful way to summarize it for lay people makes it seem obvious to them. You'll find this is the case with alot of research. Furhermore, even if something is obvious at all levels, not all people follow logic and it's essential to have the solid research to prove the point.
It never will work.
So it's your contention that one projectile colliding with another projectile on a consistent basis is impossible? All the current missile defense programs have shown us is that it's harder than initially anticipated, but to think it's theoretically impossible shows a complete failure to grasp classical mechanics. There's absolutely nothing going on with two missiles that makes colliding them impossible. Criticize the right wing propagandists all you want, just realize the left spews bullshit like this "missile defense is impossible" too. Seriously, how is this parent modded informative?
And as for funding such programs... eventually, there WILL be another war with a state with ICBM technology, and you'll be very happy if we achieve an effective missile defense system before this happens. So I think it's worth the money. If you don't, fine, it's a valid opinion, but don't give me bullshit like "it's impossible to do".
The impact of these states tends, on average, to be an unacceptable social cost.
As opposed to say, alcohol and tobacco? Alcohol and tobacco are FAR more detrimental to onesself and society than ANY illegal drug, and this is not a subjective claim either, it's hard science.
They also have no medicinal value whatsoever in their present forms (not subjective).
This is completely wrong. Cocaine is still used as a local anaesthetic (hence why it's CSA/II and not CSA/I). PCP is still used as a veterinary anaesthetic, and is also CSA/II.
Health Rating: 1 - Slight Flammability Rating: 1 - Slight Reactivity Rating: 0 - None Contact Rating: 1 - Slight Looks like very nice stuff to me, considering lots of common chemicals have higher hazard ratings. If you're going to link to something sophistcated like a MSDS, at least know how to properly interpret it.
It depends on your car really. I drive a V8 Mustang with manual transmission, and I can notice a very large difference when driving agressively and driving "normally". The difference is so vast the tank goes empty so quickly doing measurements is not needed to determine a significant effect; but one clear measurement is my regular 206 mile trip on the open interstate... I can make it on 3/4ths of a tank if driving normally, can't make the whole trip on a full tank if punching it and cruising at 130-140mph.
Slow, automatic transmission vehicles with a V4 or V6 obviously can't put out the kind of performance that really sucks up the fuel, no matter how hard you try to push it.
Who doesn't get to see them via satellite photos?
115d47m30sWx37d16m30sN
Brings Area 51 right up on Google maps, an old photo at limited resolution. But other satellite services have published better images, see: http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/groom.htm
We all know the really good stuff is underground, and the odds of a classified plane being on the runways is pretty slim. Especially when the companies publish when they'll be collecting images. So no, there's no real supression of commercial satellite images going on.
The reason this censorship is so damaging to chinese society is because it means the average person doesn't know just how hard they're being screwed by the criminals who run the country. The state gets away with telling plausible lies because 98% of the population lacks the skill and gumption needed to uncover the truth.
We have the same problem with cretinism here in the states. Stupidity, ignorance, and indifference are blights of mankind, not of the Chinese society alone.
Thanks to the ignorance of the electorate getting the radical republicans into office, we are fucking ourselves over quite good already.
And just what kind of learning are you referring to? Sophiscated symbolic learning, inferential learning, and overall conceptual learning are very different from dry fact learning, and there is a *vast* difference between below average (95) and gifted (130) in their ability to do higher learning. This is generally at the very highest levels of skill; IQ is more a measure of potential mental capability. There's some overlap with harder work on something leading to more skills than high IQ and slacking, but when pushed to the limits the 130 IQ can go much farther than the 95 IQ. Also consider that a person with a 130 IQ is 2 full standard deviations above the mean, with their mental ability in the top 97th percentile of the population, if you're claiming someone in the 37th percentile has the same ability to learn... I'd be highly suspect of your coursework in psychology.
35 points is a HUGE difference. Now, a few points all within one standard deviation is a small difference. But a few points between scores both more than 3 standard deviations is also a huge difference. I really get tired of people thinking IQ tests are jokes, there's extensive research into it, tons and tons of science going into making each professional test. IQ is a very scientifically sound concept, if you doubt this you need to study psychology some more (as in, college courses, not mainstream therapy-only junk).
Archaic technologies have to be phased out eventually. Next we're going to hear people like you whining about the lack of universal support for rotary-dial analog phones because not everyone can afford to upgrade to touch-tones. It's broadcast TV's time to go, farewell, time to free up that part of the spectrum for more important uses.
What kind of geek reads any instructions whatsoever? Real geeks sit down and figure stuff out themselves. I can program (well) in several languages; it takes only a few lines of pre-made code to extrapolate the syntax and structure of higher languages and get it to do what you want with relatively few trials. And as far as normal apps/configuration programs go, I can use any program in front of me without README, manuals, FAQs, books, courses, videos, etc. True geeks learn by "lets see what this does." Help is for the weak. :)
Just because people are more intelligent doesn't mean they don't care about things like ease of use, compatability range, etc. I'm a few std. devs above the mean myself (z=3.19 (s was 16, professionally administered, normalized, test), or the top 99.93 percentile). I know how to use UNIX/Linux (and obviously apple), and I prefer to use Windows. Windows can be adequately secured by people even 1 s above the mean if they make an honest attempt. Windows is actually very powerful, although tapping into its full power is not easy. This provides the most efficient way to have ease of use in day to day personal uses, yet having power on tap for those who can program well enough to take advantage of it. Now if I was running a server, I'd choose Linux; but for alot of tasks Linux simply doesn't offer enough of an advantage, and in others, such as gaming, is a disadvantage.
I really don't know how you got off talking about normal curves and standard deviation, but while I'd agree that an F-test would reveal the difference in IQs is statistically significant, I'd also contend the mean of IQs of Windows choosers would not be negatively skewed to a significant level, because as I explained high intelligence does not alone imply choosing a non-Windows OS, and in fact because I'd further claim the deficit isn't until at least 2 s's, because because that's really the cutoff between mediocrity and giftedness, making that curve even more normal.
That does not give the *AA the right to use extortionary techniques to threaten University's into installing filtering devices that hurt legitimate Internet2 uses (including research) and suppress the rights of students to use applications such as i2hub for legitimate purposes (like here at UMiami). It does not give them the right to access a private network they are not authorized to access, although they claim to have done it legally, but according to TFA, the exec of I2 says they were not given access. The whole lawsuit thing in general is extortionary... "give us money or else your legal fees when we bring you into court will be far higher." And furthermore, "bastardization of a research network"? Last analysis I looked at showed file sharing did not interfere with research activities, because there's just so damn much bandwidth, bandwidth to dorms is typically throttled according to the academic usage, and peak activity occurs at a different time of day.
Vigilante justice, extortion, and unauthorized access of a private network are not tactics that are justifiable regardless of whether the people you are after are breaking the law.
There are approximately 5.6 million Americans who have served time in State or Federal prison either presently or at some point in their life (2001), which is 2.7% of the general population. Based on these rates and the growth of the rate, ~6.6% of people will serve state or federal prison time in their life. Source.
This incarceration rate is shamefully the worlds highest, exceeding even brutal dictatorships and communist states like China. This is largely do to incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.
Computer expertise is a speciality, working knowledge is not.
You're not a political scientist, but I'm sure you know who the president is, and that the US is not a communist state. You're aware of the 3 branches of government, and probably can describe what each generally does.
You're not a doctor, but I'm sure you know your ass from your elbow, and that licking a dirty surface will make you sick. I'm also sure you're aware smoking causes cancer, and excessive alcohol causes liver failure.
So why shouldn't general computer users be expected to know what behaviors will cause problems with their computer and how to avoid doing them? Computer expertise is programming, advanced circuit theory, optics, engineering, etc. Rudimentary understanding to accomplish things practical to you should be expected and derided as unacceptable ignorance when lacking. Nobody is asking these 'normal' people to write their own OS.
Morphine and other opiates do not cause damage to organs. They produce respiratory despression, which can result in a lack of oxygen to all organs. Morphine is not even used in general anaesthesia, much less euthanasia. For euthanasia, one would likely use a combination of a strong opiate (alfentanil 150+ ug/kg or equiv), not natural/semisynthetic ones, and a benzodiazepine, and possibly a barbituate (etomidate 1mg/kg, others). Lethal dosing with morphine alone is not ethical, and only done by inexperienced people trying to end their own or anothers life.
Wow, how that display of ignorance got modded +5 Insightful on a site like Slashdot really makes you think.
First of all, Moore's Law implies that the number of transistors per integrated circuit will double every 18 months (which, is not really what he said, see Understanding Moore's Law).
Second of all, this has held true and is continuing to hold true.
Third of all, clock speed does not reflect transistor number or density, neither of which are the sole contributing factor to 'power' or 'performance'.
I don't know what's sadder; wondering if the parent was actually a joke, or wondering how it got +5 insightful. Damn.
A 3.2GHz Intel Xeon processor performs 6.4gflops, but clock speed isn't the only determining factor.
Here's an article I wrote a while ago after seeing script kiddies sitting in AOL chats (yes, when I was a kid in the mid 90s I sat around in AOL chats :( ) scrolling messages from their brute force password crackers. It's all about how many possible passwords there are across different lengths and criteria, and how long it would take to try them all.
The Numerics of Screen Names and Passwords
I tried such an approach here at the University of Miami, I cited statutes and case law showing that what I was using BT for was legal. They did not care, told me they did not care, and refused to restore my access until I told them I would delete BT from my computer. The censorship level here is extreme, we have virtually all P2P apps blocked, even i2hub, which only 5-6 people in the whole school used. They seem to think that giving all undergrads Napster accounts for unlimited listening and DLing (no burning/mobile devices without paying the 99 cents) compensates for this, because they fail to comprehend legitimate uses for P2P. And they're not only using PacketShaper, they're packet sniffing for P2P so that proxies can't be used, which is an invasion of privacy.
Subsequently, my last bastion of freedom to transfer is IRC. The bottom line is, to university admins insulation from legal liability is far more important than privacy and freedom to use every part of the internet.
Why do I need a media player on my head-less, speaker-less rack-mount server? Playing media is not an OS functionality. Providing access to the sound infrastructure, if an application needs it, is an OS functionality.
-It's a core function for the vast majority of Windows users; most copies of Windows are not used on rackmount servers.
-The Windows Media installation stuff that is on those copies being used on rackmounts does not interfere with its functionality, and the space it takes up is hardly worth excluding it in all target audiences.
-You don't need a GUI on your "head-less, speaker-less rack-mount server" either. Or Solitaire; ought Microsoft to be barred from including Solitaire too, because it's not a core OS component for servers and it inhibits competing versions of solitaire?
What is considered a basic function of an OS, like a car, expands over time; including ability to play music and videos on personal computer operating systems is not something that should be barred as anticompetitive. MS engages in alot of anticompetitive activities, but see through the blind hatred to realize there is nothing about including a default player that should be illegal.
Of course, you're overlooking the absurdity of car makers not being able to include CD players to begin with, because it's anticompetitive with all of the aftermarket CD players people install because they're better. Playing media in an OS is something that's considered basic functionality, and forcing a company to make a OS without a media player is the same as making all the car manufacturers stop including their own CD players. Standard equipment that's easily replaceable with an alternative if desired.
Legislators have to consider backlash for voting against bills in their decisions. Re-election is the only thing more important to them than pleasing their campaign donors. Not many legislators want their opponents in the next election to bring up their vote on such a bill and say 'my opponent voted against making your vote count and making elections more fair'. This doesn't apply to things like the DMCA where most people are not really effected and/or do not understand the subject matter, and it would be easy to come up with language to defend attacks. However, voting rights are something people [think they] understand and really get pissed off about. This bill has a legitimate chance of passing.
We actually talked about this in my statistics class today. The professor actually had a friend who could flip a coin and get it to land on whatever he wanted, virtually every time. Made alot of money hustling people with that. It is possible to develop patterns of manipulating 'random' events, through skill of hand (or programming skill), that to most people still look like they're obeying pure randomness, but are actually being subtly manipulated behind the scenes. There's no doubt in my mind it's a possibility that Apple is trying to walk that line.