This is completely incorrect. Even if that "beta radiation" made it through the glass, they would be stopped by the air within an extremely short distance (unless you make a habit of watching TV in a vacuum?)
I don't think you understand how radiation shielding works. I assure you, a few X-Ray-frequency photons do indeed make it through the leaded glass and strike your eyes.
Beta radiation consists of high energy electrons, not X-Rays.
I don't have time to find a reference at the moment, but at the kind of electron energies you're talking about for a CRT can manage a few centimetres through the air at 1 bar, so unless you've got your head stuck to the front of the CRT you're not going to have a problem.
Like that cache memory leak, right fanboi? Oh, no, I'm sorry. They haven't fixed that yet in a stable release version.
I am not a "fanboi" - I just dislike fanboys such as yourself misrepresenting the facts to try and "prove" that their choice in software is the only viable one.
However, I have seen no significant memory leaks in Gran Paradiso.
Simple enough people wouldn't buy them. IE would have the Microsoft name slapped on it
Please cite proof that people wouldn't buy something just because there is a Microsoft alternative. The very fact that stores are selling Apple machines proves that you don't need "Microsoft" printed on the box for people to buy it. Go into your local computer shop - you'll see shelves and shelves of software that doesn't have the Microsoft name on it.
so the people who would buy a web browser would be buying what they know.
"What they know" would only be IE if they have already been using Windows with IE installed. Sure, at first IE might remain dominant, but over time its dominance would be diluted as more people come to the market who were never given IE to begin with.
the same reason they use MS products for the simple things like email
And yet more and more people are using services such as Gmail, which does not have the Microsoft name stamped across it.
The idea of having no browser to download said browser is why I would decide to no longer support microsoft
You shouldn't need a browser - you should be able to download the software from a repository (with no significant barriers to third parties) much as you can under most Linux distributions.
I enjoy microsoft but I do not support taking advantage of people who do not know better.
But this is exactly what they do - they bundle inferior(*) software with Windows in the hope that the "people who don't know better" will stick with it instead of choosing a third party alternative. If you stop bundling this software you raise awareness of the alternatives, which increases the number of people who find the best solution for themselves rather than putting up with an inferior piece of software under the false impression that it is their only option.
(* Inferior == not standards compliant, riddled with security holes, less features, or just plain not as good for the specific user, etc.)
Gran Paradiso is alpha software, and as such is not ready for prime time. So while I'm glad that Firefox and other Mozilla based browsers will pass the Acid2 test eventually, the fact remains that they don't have a stable release that passes today, 12/13/2007.
Ok, firstly, it is not "alpha software" - it is at beta stage. Secondly, you didn't mention anything about software quality, you just categorically stated that there was no browser other than Opera that could do it. Thirdly, I would suggest that even though it is still at the beta stage, it is of higher quality than IE, so if IE can be considered "ready for the prime time", Gran Paradiso certainly can too. I guess the Mozilla Foundation just have higher standards than Microsoft and thus don't declare software to be a full release until they have ironed most of the bugs out.
Microsoft has every right to create a web browser and integrate it into their other products. It is no fundamentally different than Konqueror being the default browser within the KDE environment.
It is fundamentally different for one very good reason: Microsoft are a convicted monopolist, the vendors using KDE are not. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their market position to leverage other markets, which is exactly what they are doing.
Also, I should point out that I know of no Linux distribution which comes with only one browser.
If Dell and others feel comfortable distributing **Linux**, what makes you think they wouldn't distribute Opera and Firefox if there were a demand for that?
Because there is no financial incentive to do so. They have already paid for IE (since it is bundled as part of the cost of Windows), so shipping another browser instead doesn't save them any money. It is easier for them to just leave the Windows installation as-is rather than having to remove IE (which is easier said than done) and install another browser.
On the other hand, if IE wasn't bundled with the stock distribution the cost to Dell of installing any (free) browser would be the same, giving other browsers an equal footing.
The people that Opera is whining about not having access to, are largely the people who think that Internet Explorer is "The Internet."
By either not bundling IE, or bundling alternatives, these people's awareness would be raised and they might actually try alternatives (and find something that suits them better) rather than assuming IE is "the internet". I see no reason why peoples' ignorance should be used as a reason for perpetuating their ignorance.
If a browser wasn't included they would have no idea how to get some free version browser like firefox. Thier only option would be to go down to the store and pick up a copy of IE.
If the local computer store is going to sell a boxed version of IE, why would they not also sell a boxed version of FireFox, Opera, etc?
Granted I'm sure some people wouldn't buy windows if they started doing something like that but people in general are not aware of the alternatives to windows and IE.
That is _exactly_ the point though - because MS only bundle a single web browser, to a lot of people that is "the internet" and they have no concept of there being alternative software for browsing the web. If MS provided several browsers, or the users were required to go pick one themselves (whether that be by downloading it or going to the local PC store) then this awareness would be raised.
What is really needed is a Windows packaging repository, similar to the Yum or Apt repositories used on Linux distros. There are no significant barriers to getting your software into these repositories - so long as you are prepared to jump through the relevant quality and packaging hoops you can get your software in the stock Fedora repositories (for example) at no cost. Something similar for Windows would allow people to pick and install the browser they wanted really easilly, without having to have advance knowledge of what options are available to them.
Also I enjoy Windows enough to deal with some of the problems but if they were to do something like that it would probably give me enough of a reason to start dual booting and just using windows strictly for games.
If the idea of having to spend 5 minutes doing a one-off download in order to get a web browser when you first install Windows makes you switch to a different OS, I can only conclude that you don't enjoy Windows much at all.
I'm not sure about the browser (which MS have always claimed is "integrated" and can't be removed). However, I believe they were required to unbundle things like Media player. I believe this resulted in them producing 2 versions of Windows, one with Media Player and the other without (which was ok per the ruling since they were providing an unbundled option), at the same price. So of course, given the choice, how many people are going to pick the version that is missing some functionality and costs the same?
Really, I think they should be forced into pricing the 2 versions significantly differently to compensate for the missing software, but who's going to decide what is an appropriate price difference?
It's also a way to point out to the uninformed masses that Opera is the only browser for Windows right now that passes the Acid2 test.
I would be surprised if this is the case - Gran Paradiso certainly passes Acid2 under Linux so I see no reason why it would be different under Windows, and I was under the impression that Safari passed Acid2 as well.
I agree that the risks associated with ionising radiation are massively overstated by the media and public perception. However, that isn't an excuse for spreading misinformation.
Wanna know what a CRT really is? A particle accelerator. It's beaming beta radiation... directly into your eyes.
This is completely incorrect. Even if that "beta radiation" (high velocity electrons) made it through the glass, they would be stopped by the air within an extremely short distance (unless you make a habit of watching TV in a vacuum?)
they (like all radiation exposures) cause cancer
This is _exactly_ the sort of misinformation that causes the idiotic "wifi causes cancer" scares. Your statement is completely wrong: ionising radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer. Nonionising radiation does not pose such a risk.
Agreed, storage as hydrogen is a far better method than compressed air. That way any surplus can be sold and can be used to power practically anything. It'll even work in petrol engines.
Cracking water into hydrogen is pretty inefficient...
Yes Ogg is completely patent-free. Thats the entire point of it. The reference implementation (libogg) is BSD licenced and the specs are public domain. The FSF is also behind it. Even RMS likes it.
Sorry, just because the designers of a CODEC haven't patented it and have released their implementation as public domain, doesn't mean that someone else hasn't (either before or after the CODEC was designed) patented something the CODEC relies on. It's pretty much impossible to do an exhaustive search of patents (and it's widely believed that it is impossible to write any non-trivial software without infringing someone's patent).
Even if the patent is invalid (e.g. there is prior art), it doesn't stop you being sued and having to fight the patent in court, which can cost you a lot of money - especially since you can have an injunction placed on the sale of your product while you are fighting the case.
I'm a big supporter of the Ogg CODECs, but to believe that they are guaranteed to be patent-free is naieve.
But you wouldn't reach for the hand of a child -- you'd just end up pulling them into the street with you.
If you grab the hand of the child and pull hard enough you will throw the child into the street and create a big enough reactive force to save yourself.:)
There are around 49 freely availiable digital channels and 5 analog channels in the uk, all of which can be seen if you buy a £20 digibox (or freeview box whatever itsa called) if you get sky theres probably somewhere in the region 200-300 channels.
This is somewhat misleading. There are:
5 free analogue channels: BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 (or S4C in Wales) and Five. Although Five is not available in all areas. These are progressively being turned off over the next 4 years.
41 (42 in Wales) free digital terrestrial channels and a bunch of "+1" channels which can be received in much of the UK using a standard DVB-T receiver.
8 subscription digital terrestrial channels, which can be received in much of the UK using a standard DVB-T receiver with a CAM
A few hundred UK-based free digital satellite channels, which can be received over the whole of the UK using a standard DVB-S receiver and a small dish pointed at the Astra 28.2E and Eurobird 28.5E cluster (known as "Free To Air" satellite channels).
A few dozen UK-based subscription satellite channels, which can be received using proprietory Sky branded DVB-S receivers and a small dish pointed at the Astra 28.2E and Eurobird 28.5E cluster.
A few free UK-based satellite channels, which can be received using proprietory Sky branded DVB-S receivers and a small dish pointed at the Astra 28.2E and Eurobird 28.5E cluster (known as "Free To View" channels).
A few dozen subscription cable channels, which require a Virgin Media subscription.
There are also a few hundred free channels which can be received with a standard DVB-S receiver and a satellite dish pointed at other satellite clusters (these satellites are used for distribution of channels aimed at Europe, but some of the Sky subscription channels (which require proprietory receivers) are available for free on these beams). These satellites also carry a number of subscription channels aimed at Europe which can be received with a standard DVB-S receiver and appropriate CAM + subscription card.
So in short, there are hundreds of channels available via many different distribution platforms, most of which are available for free with the appropriate receiver. Sadly, most of the British public have been lead to believe that they must either use terrestrial, cable or Sky and aren't aware that they can use a normal DVB-S receiver and a dish to get at a lot more channels.
Because HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) method is the only viable way of transmitting electricity for distances over 200km in length point-to-point due to capacitance and dielectric issues in AC transmission. One of the major reasons it's not deployed 'unless needed' is because of the cost - AC is 'sufficiently good enough' for short to medium distances.
At the time that AC vs. DC fight was playing out, there was absolutely no viable way to do HVDC. Who knows, maybe AC will die away as the technology required to handle DC becomes cheaper, but to claim that AC has always been an inferior technology to DC is completely bogus.
To put it more simply, the record companies must believe they are better off revenue-wise putting on copy protection. If they spend $Z to get DRM on every CD, they'll stop X% piracy leading to $Y more revenue. If Y is greater than Z, then it makes sense to put on DRM. If Y is less than Z, then the DRM won't be put on.
Your calculation ignores 3 important factors:
1. You ignore the number of sales that will be lost _because_ of the fact you're using DRM. 2. Much of the "piracy" (actually, copyright infringement) you prevent is committed by people who wouldn't have actually bought the product anyway. 3. Much of the copyright infringement is committed by people who are doing try-before-you-buy and would later pay for the music they downloaded (which leads us back to (1) since if those people can't try before they buy, many of them just plain won't buy).
It is a EULA, which is a great departure from the GPL of old.
But EULAs (should be) unenforceable since there is no way to prove the user agreed to it.
Distribution licences, such as the GPL, work on the fact that without the licence you didn't have the rights to distribute the software, so if you are distributing it by extension you must have accepted the licence.
EULAs take away rights that you had anyway, so there is nothing forcing the user to agree to it since they can still use the software even if they don't agree to the licence.
Since when has "ample warning" helped? <points at Y2K and the IPv4 address shortage>
No, everyone leaves these problems until the last minute and then runs around trying to prevent the sky from falling in, even if they are known about years in advance.
I live at 5 degrees east. Thus, I know that because I'm at GMT+1, the sun will be exactly in the south at 12:40 PM....Except the exact time the meridian passes under the sun varies throughout the year since the Earth's orbit isn't circular.
Don't get me wrong - I think removing the leap second is just silly but your point is rather bogus.
basically, to solve the time discrepancy, just slightly lengthen the second. Everything lines up.
You would need to make the second variable length since the leap second is inserted at variable intervals to compensate for the non-constant slowing of the Earth's rotation.
If they wanted a local copy, they could store it on a external USB drive and carry that around in their pocket whenever they had to leave the laptop behind.
Yes, because it's so much harder to lose a USB pen drive than a laptop...
Yes, the internal messaging on sites like Facebook is probably about as widespread among my friends that I've added
I have yet to understand why anyone ever wants to use the internal messaging on websites rather than email. Having to waste my time logging into a large number of websites in order to read and reply to messages instead of them all landing in my inbox is crazyness...
Not only that, but when using email I get to use one well designed user interface of my choice, whereas messaging on websites, forums, etc require me to use a different (usually badly designed and slow) UI on every site.
Helping people isn't enough of an incentive for making new drugs? Saving lives isn't enough of an incentive? That's pretty fucked up.
When you look around for a savings account to invest your money in, do you look for the one with the highest interest rate or the one with a big fat 0%?
Slashdot Mirror
Beta radiation consists of high energy electrons, not X-Rays.
I don't have time to find a reference at the moment, but at the kind of electron energies you're talking about for a CRT can manage a few centimetres through the air at 1 bar, so unless you've got your head stuck to the front of the CRT you're not going to have a problem.
How am I going to download an Internet browser if my Operating System has no way of browsing the Internet?
yum install firefox
Like that cache memory leak, right fanboi? Oh, no, I'm sorry. They haven't fixed that yet in a stable release version.
I am not a "fanboi" - I just dislike fanboys such as yourself misrepresenting the facts to try and "prove" that their choice in software is the only viable one.
However, I have seen no significant memory leaks in Gran Paradiso.
Simple enough people wouldn't buy them. IE would have the Microsoft name slapped on it
Please cite proof that people wouldn't buy something just because there is a Microsoft alternative. The very fact that stores are selling Apple machines proves that you don't need "Microsoft" printed on the box for people to buy it. Go into your local computer shop - you'll see shelves and shelves of software that doesn't have the Microsoft name on it.
so the people who would buy a web browser would be buying what they know.
"What they know" would only be IE if they have already been using Windows with IE installed. Sure, at first IE might remain dominant, but over time its dominance would be diluted as more people come to the market who were never given IE to begin with.
the same reason they use MS products for the simple things like email
And yet more and more people are using services such as Gmail, which does not have the Microsoft name stamped across it.
The idea of having no browser to download said browser is why I would decide to no longer support microsoft
You shouldn't need a browser - you should be able to download the software from a repository (with no significant barriers to third parties) much as you can under most Linux distributions.
I enjoy microsoft but I do not support taking advantage of people who do not know better.
But this is exactly what they do - they bundle inferior(*) software with Windows in the hope that the "people who don't know better" will stick with it instead of choosing a third party alternative. If you stop bundling this software you raise awareness of the alternatives, which increases the number of people who find the best solution for themselves rather than putting up with an inferior piece of software under the false impression that it is their only option.
(* Inferior == not standards compliant, riddled with security holes, less features, or just plain not as good for the specific user, etc.)
Gran Paradiso is alpha software, and as such is not ready for prime time. So while I'm glad that Firefox and other Mozilla based browsers will pass the Acid2 test eventually, the fact remains that they don't have a stable release that passes today, 12/13/2007.
Ok, firstly, it is not "alpha software" - it is at beta stage. Secondly, you didn't mention anything about software quality, you just categorically stated that there was no browser other than Opera that could do it. Thirdly, I would suggest that even though it is still at the beta stage, it is of higher quality than IE, so if IE can be considered "ready for the prime time", Gran Paradiso certainly can too. I guess the Mozilla Foundation just have higher standards than Microsoft and thus don't declare software to be a full release until they have ironed most of the bugs out.
Microsoft has every right to create a web browser and integrate it into their other products. It is no fundamentally different than Konqueror being the default browser within the KDE environment.
It is fundamentally different for one very good reason:
Microsoft are a convicted monopolist, the vendors using KDE are not. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their market position to leverage other markets, which is exactly what they are doing.
Also, I should point out that I know of no Linux distribution which comes with only one browser.
If Dell and others feel comfortable distributing **Linux**, what makes you think they wouldn't distribute Opera and Firefox if there were a demand for that?
Because there is no financial incentive to do so. They have already paid for IE (since it is bundled as part of the cost of Windows), so shipping another browser instead doesn't save them any money. It is easier for them to just leave the Windows installation as-is rather than having to remove IE (which is easier said than done) and install another browser.
On the other hand, if IE wasn't bundled with the stock distribution the cost to Dell of installing any (free) browser would be the same, giving other browsers an equal footing.
The people that Opera is whining about not having access to, are largely the people who think that Internet Explorer is "The Internet."
By either not bundling IE, or bundling alternatives, these people's awareness would be raised and they might actually try alternatives (and find something that suits them better) rather than assuming IE is "the internet". I see no reason why peoples' ignorance should be used as a reason for perpetuating their ignorance.
If a browser wasn't included they would have no idea how to get some free version browser like firefox. Thier only option would be to go down to the store and pick up a copy of IE.
If the local computer store is going to sell a boxed version of IE, why would they not also sell a boxed version of FireFox, Opera, etc?
Granted I'm sure some people wouldn't buy windows if they started doing something like that but people in general are not aware of the alternatives to windows and IE.
That is _exactly_ the point though - because MS only bundle a single web browser, to a lot of people that is "the internet" and they have no concept of there being alternative software for browsing the web. If MS provided several browsers, or the users were required to go pick one themselves (whether that be by downloading it or going to the local PC store) then this awareness would be raised.
What is really needed is a Windows packaging repository, similar to the Yum or Apt repositories used on Linux distros. There are no significant barriers to getting your software into these repositories - so long as you are prepared to jump through the relevant quality and packaging hoops you can get your software in the stock Fedora repositories (for example) at no cost. Something similar for Windows would allow people to pick and install the browser they wanted really easilly, without having to have advance knowledge of what options are available to them.
Also I enjoy Windows enough to deal with some of the problems but if they were to do something like that it would probably give me enough of a reason to start dual booting and just using windows strictly for games.
If the idea of having to spend 5 minutes doing a one-off download in order to get a web browser when you first install Windows makes you switch to a different OS, I can only conclude that you don't enjoy Windows much at all.
Wasn't this part of the settlement before?
I'm not sure about the browser (which MS have always claimed is "integrated" and can't be removed). However, I believe they were required to unbundle things like Media player. I believe this resulted in them producing 2 versions of Windows, one with Media Player and the other without (which was ok per the ruling since they were providing an unbundled option), at the same price. So of course, given the choice, how many people are going to pick the version that is missing some functionality and costs the same?
Really, I think they should be forced into pricing the 2 versions significantly differently to compensate for the missing software, but who's going to decide what is an appropriate price difference?
It's also a way to point out to the uninformed masses that Opera is the only browser for Windows right now that passes the Acid2 test.
I would be surprised if this is the case - Gran Paradiso certainly passes Acid2 under Linux so I see no reason why it would be different under Windows, and I was under the impression that Safari passed Acid2 as well.
I agree that the risks associated with ionising radiation are massively overstated by the media and public perception. However, that isn't an excuse for spreading misinformation.
... directly into your eyes.
Wanna know what a CRT really is? A particle accelerator. It's beaming beta radiation
This is completely incorrect. Even if that "beta radiation" (high velocity electrons) made it through the glass, they would be stopped by the air within an extremely short distance (unless you make a habit of watching TV in a vacuum?)
they (like all radiation exposures) cause cancer
This is _exactly_ the sort of misinformation that causes the idiotic "wifi causes cancer" scares. Your statement is completely wrong: ionising radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer. Nonionising radiation does not pose such a risk.
Agreed, storage as hydrogen is a far better method than compressed air. That way any surplus can be sold and can be used to power practically anything. It'll even work in petrol engines.
Cracking water into hydrogen is pretty inefficient...
I think the parent was referring to this.
Yes Ogg is completely patent-free. Thats the entire point of it.
The reference implementation (libogg) is BSD licenced and the specs are public domain.
The FSF is also behind it. Even RMS likes it.
Sorry, just because the designers of a CODEC haven't patented it and have released their implementation as public domain, doesn't mean that someone else hasn't (either before or after the CODEC was designed) patented something the CODEC relies on. It's pretty much impossible to do an exhaustive search of patents (and it's widely believed that it is impossible to write any non-trivial software without infringing someone's patent).
Even if the patent is invalid (e.g. there is prior art), it doesn't stop you being sued and having to fight the patent in court, which can cost you a lot of money - especially since you can have an injunction placed on the sale of your product while you are fighting the case.
I'm a big supporter of the Ogg CODECs, but to believe that they are guaranteed to be patent-free is naieve.
But you wouldn't reach for the hand of a child -- you'd just end up pulling them into the street with you.
:)
If you grab the hand of the child and pull hard enough you will throw the child into the street and create a big enough reactive force to save yourself.
This is somewhat misleading. There are:
There are also a few hundred free channels which can be received with a standard DVB-S receiver and a satellite dish pointed at other satellite clusters (these satellites are used for distribution of channels aimed at Europe, but some of the Sky subscription channels (which require proprietory receivers) are available for free on these beams). These satellites also carry a number of subscription channels aimed at Europe which can be received with a standard DVB-S receiver and appropriate CAM + subscription card.
So in short, there are hundreds of channels available via many different distribution platforms, most of which are available for free with the appropriate receiver. Sadly, most of the British public have been lead to believe that they must either use terrestrial, cable or Sky and aren't aware that they can use a normal DVB-S receiver and a dish to get at a lot more channels.
Because HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) method is the only viable way of transmitting electricity for distances over 200km in length point-to-point due to capacitance and dielectric issues in AC transmission. One of the major reasons it's not deployed 'unless needed' is because of the cost - AC is 'sufficiently good enough' for short to medium distances.
At the time that AC vs. DC fight was playing out, there was absolutely no viable way to do HVDC. Who knows, maybe AC will die away as the technology required to handle DC becomes cheaper, but to claim that AC has always been an inferior technology to DC is completely bogus.
To put it more simply, the record companies must believe they are better off revenue-wise putting on copy protection. If they spend $Z to get DRM on every CD, they'll stop X% piracy leading to $Y more revenue. If Y is greater than Z, then it makes sense to put on DRM. If Y is less than Z, then the DRM won't be put on.
Your calculation ignores 3 important factors:
1. You ignore the number of sales that will be lost _because_ of the fact you're using DRM.
2. Much of the "piracy" (actually, copyright infringement) you prevent is committed by people who wouldn't have actually bought the product anyway.
3. Much of the copyright infringement is committed by people who are doing try-before-you-buy and would later pay for the music they downloaded (which leads us back to (1) since if those people can't try before they buy, many of them just plain won't buy).
It is a EULA, which is a great departure from the GPL of old.
But EULAs (should be) unenforceable since there is no way to prove the user agreed to it.
Distribution licences, such as the GPL, work on the fact that without the licence you didn't have the rights to distribute the software, so if you are distributing it by extension you must have accepted the licence.
EULAs take away rights that you had anyway, so there is nothing forcing the user to agree to it since they can still use the software even if they don't agree to the licence.
On the face of it this licence sounds like a Good Thing. However, it also sounds worryingly close to an EULA... :(
and programmers can be given ample warning
Since when has "ample warning" helped? <points at Y2K and the IPv4 address shortage>
No, everyone leaves these problems until the last minute and then runs around trying to prevent the sky from falling in, even if they are known about years in advance.
I live at 5 degrees east. Thus, I know that because I'm at GMT+1, the sun will be exactly in the south at 12:40 PM. ...Except the exact time the meridian passes under the sun varies throughout the year since the Earth's orbit isn't circular.
Don't get me wrong - I think removing the leap second is just silly but your point is rather bogus.
See http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
basically, to solve the time discrepancy, just slightly lengthen the second. Everything lines up.
You would need to make the second variable length since the leap second is inserted at variable intervals to compensate for the non-constant slowing of the Earth's rotation.
If they wanted a local copy, they could store it on a external USB drive and carry that around in their pocket whenever they had to leave the laptop behind.
Yes, because it's so much harder to lose a USB pen drive than a laptop...
Yes, the internal messaging on sites like Facebook is probably about as widespread among my friends that I've added
I have yet to understand why anyone ever wants to use the internal messaging on websites rather than email. Having to waste my time logging into a large number of websites in order to read and reply to messages instead of them all landing in my inbox is crazyness...
Not only that, but when using email I get to use one well designed user interface of my choice, whereas messaging on websites, forums, etc require me to use a different (usually badly designed and slow) UI on every site.
Helping people isn't enough of an incentive for making new drugs? Saving lives isn't enough of an incentive? That's pretty fucked up.
When you look around for a savings account to invest your money in, do you look for the one with the highest interest rate or the one with a big fat 0%?