I think most people would read it as I did, considering that you quoted "How is this less security" in your post rather than "most users will have the same user/pass combination for most if not all their logins." Something like 'I think SSO is actually more secure, because...' might have clarified your post (or I may still be missing your point). Further, the same objection applies.
If someone uses the same password for admin on their box as they do on throwaway sites (NY Times, etc.), then they are using that password policy badly. However, it is quite reasonable to use the same password to log in to both the NY Times and the Washington Post.
Btw, you might want to go back and reread the post to which you replied. Rereading your responses, you seem to be assuming that "this" (from the first quote) is sharing passwords for multiple logins rather than single sign on. I'm fairly certain that the original poster meant "this" to mean single sign on. I.e. how is single sign on less secure than sharing passwords across multiple sites.
"Because if I find out one of your unimportant accounts password, I can root your computer with it!"
That's generally not how these things work. I have had single sign on capability with networks previously. While they let me log in to my desktop from multiple computers, they didn't include admin access to that box, just access to personal information.
Any model that does allow this (e.g. this often occurs in Microsoft Active Directory networks) would be fundamentally broken. However, that is a problem with the implementation, not the concept.
"Because you don't have the choice to decide yourself wether a given login is important enough to justify a different password."
Why not?
Seriously, why not. It would be easy enough to add the ability to specify an extra password for certain accounts. If that's not in the various solutions that are currently available, that's a weakness in the *solutions*, not the concept. I couldn't find any information explaining if SAML or Ping's implementation included this capability or not. If they do not, then it should be added.
Frankly, for most sites with passwords, I don't really need a password at all. For example, with/. I only need it to verify that my computer (and account) is doing the posting. Same thing for recommendations on Amazon (although more authentication is needed for purchases). That's why I currently allow those sites (and others) to store my login info in cookies.
"Still can't figure out why cybershitter blocks a credit card merchant site, but I just told her to disable the software when she logged in to do CC stuff."
The one time that I used blocking software (it was a beta service in software I was testing), there was a place to report links that were categorized incorrectly (sites about breast cancer and family photo sites were examples of things that might be blocked automatically). It was my understanding that that service was pretty responsive after links were reported. Not sure if this service would be the same or not.
"I still believe using solarpanels and using electrolysis for getting hydrogen is still the best way. No CO2, no nuclear waste..."
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that solar panels contain as much radioactive waste as does nuclear fission when you talk about similar amounts of electrical generation. Further, electrolysis is less effective than this method...that's why they developed this method. Solar panels also produce considerable non-radioactive waste, as solar panels are usually built from highly poisonous materials. Further, electrolysis is a two step process in this context: first, you create the electricity; second, you use the electricity to separate out the hydrogen.
Geothermal would be a better alternative here. Like nuclear, it produces hot water on the way to electrical generation. This process would probably still work with similar efficiency with geothermal heating the water.
Leave the solar panels for electricity generation to power air conditioners.
The same article says, "How tragic if we insist on plundering Alaska for petroleum, spreading oil slicks down the western seaboard, stripmining New Mexico and choking the air of the southwest . . . to run electric toothbrushes in Los Angeles." Which is silly. We don't burn oil for electricity; that's coal's purpose. Oil is converted into gasoline for use in cars. Oil is hard to replace, which is why we're talking about replacing it with hydrogen (which is an energy sink; it generally takes more energy to refine the hydrogen than the hydrogen provides when used).
"There is no experiement we can make that will tell us what the effects of burning x barrels of oil over y number of years will be on the environment z years from now."
Your post is correct, but I also wanted to point out that we do have a pretty good idea of a worst case. Oil and coal are made from living organisms. Where did these organisms get their carbon? From other organisms and the air. In other words, the practical bounds of global warming would be a return to the conditions that existed in the days of the dinosaurs, when current oil and coal deposits were being made. This would be bad, but it's not the "total destruction of our environment."
Also, the costs involved with using hydrogen in this way does not compete with just oil (coal is irrelevant to the current discussion, as it is not mobile in the way that gas and hydrogen are). It also competes with other mobile alternatives, like biodiesel and ethanol. If it is more expensive to use hydrogen than biodiesel/ethanol, then it's a bad alternative.
"the ones we used here in the U.S. in 2004 ARE inherently buggy."
I think that this is actually a good thing. Electronic voting machines without paper trail are inherently insecure, but most people do not understand security. Since there were bugs, there is a better chance that revisions will be made that will fix the security issues. Without the bugs, they might try to wait until compromise was proved to fix the security issues.
I still think that the primary reason why Microsoft is filing patent applications is to avoid future Eolas issues. If they have all the stupid patents already, then they know that no one else will get them. This is also why they don't care if patents hold up or not. If the patent is ruled invalid, then that protects them as much as a valid patent does.
The bad part here is that instead of trying to fix the system, they are trying to participate in it. This is unfortunate, as Microsoft might actually have sufficient political clout to push through reform.
"unfortunately that patent (if exists) ran out..."
Once a patent runs out, it's supposed to be in the public domain. Further, a patent isn't necessary. Simple publication is enough to get it into the public domain. Patenting *delays* that process. Public domain prior art is supposed to be as useful against a patent as patent prior art.
Of course, in practice, the system does not always work that way.
"What is so surprising about this incident is that cops actually showed up in time to catch the perpetrators."
Why is that surprising? It's not like they were getting any other calls...the 911 system was down. I've been at donut shops, etc. when cops have gotten a call; they don't wait around. Generally, when cops have high response times, it is because there are multiple crimes to which to respond. Want lower response times, pay for more cops.
They might have arrested her for forgery, but they couldn't have arrested her for theft. When you are married, you own property *jointly*. In other words, legally it was her car as much as it was his, that's how marriage works. The forgery might even have been justified on that basis: the car should have been titled in both their names. The guy who founded FedEx got around a forgery charge by claiming that was just the way things were being done at the company at that time.
A better move would have been to claim that the person who bought it must have forged the signature. Then they would have been guilty of theft and forgery, and he would have gotten the car back. Bringing the wife into it ruined any chance of recovering the car (other than suing her for the money and buying the car back).
"Couldn't 911 wire VoIP into their switchboard and treat VoIP calls and pots calls the same?"
Sure, but how would that help them collect taxes to pay for it? Currently, there is a special tax on my phone bill that goes entirely to fund 911 service. They aren't allowed to charge that tax to VoIP users. Note that this tax is not charged for calling 911; it's charged for having a POTS phone.
It's not like 911 pays for calls made *TO* them now. Their main costs are for personnel to answer the calls and dispatch the police. Their salaries are paid by a tax on phone service. No tax, no salaries, no 911. Of course, they could just pay for 911 out of the police budget, which would make more sense anyway (and be more progressive; the 911 tax is on a per phone basis; police are funded by property taxes, where more wealth means more property and thus more taxes).
"I get them through referral networks i.e. I look on Amazon..."
You realize that you are proving my point? Amazon is only going to have listings for things that it sells. If there is no DVD set (with associated marketing), Amazon won't have it. The same thing with newsgroups and forums, except that they are based on the broadcast show (rather than the DVD set). Btw, I watched Evangelion (with original crappy ending) on DVD without ever seeing any ads for it myself. Word of mouth is already considered in the advertising benefits.
It's also worth noting that there are far fewer people watching this way than watch on broadcast. I don't have hard numbers, but I'm guessing tens of thousands as compared to millions. The truth is that if producers were going to do this, they would spend money for advertising so as to bump up the volume.
"For example: Futurama Series 4 cost £35 over here, and contains 17 episodes. That's £2.05 each episode according to my calculator, right on the £1 or £2 quid I said I was happy to pay."
There are two separate issues here. First, is the original claim that it would make sense to offer ad free versions at the same time as the broadcast version with advertising is available. DVD sets do not do this. They are invariably offered *after* the broadcast is completed. They are also offered for *less* than the show makes from broadcast and are primarily sold to people who saw the show when broadcast. Direct to DVD releases are not feasible, as demonstrated by their non-existence. If they were feasible, then shows like Firefly and Wonder Falls would have switched to DVD after being cancelled.
The second issue is the question of whether or not it would make sense to release downloads at the same time as the DVD sets. This is more likely to work, although I would point out that it interferes with region encoding. Further, it is unlikely that they will sell episodes cheaper singly this way than grouped on DVD. It is more likely that they will price episodes closer to £2.50 or £3 if they chose to do this. It is also likely that they will create a lower quality format for this (comparable to broadcast, but inferior to DVD; like MP3s and AAC are to CDs).
Sure, except that you are spoofing the address of the router. As far as the outside world can see, the router is just the network card of a PC (or whatever the MAC address says it is). That's the whole point of that capability, to lie about the MAC address of the router.
That's not to mention that it would be no more difficult to mod the network card than it would be to create a mod chip for the Xbox. If this became a serious issue, those network cards would appear.
"I don't see why they don't create a three tier or more system of purchase e.g." [ad and no ad alternatives]
The problem with this is that the people the advertisers want to reach are those who are willing to pay not to see ads. I.e. if you were an advertiser, would you rather advertise to people who prefer to exchange money for services or people who are willing to accept inconvenience to save money? Most advertisers would rather reach people who prefer to pay for services.
Thus, offering people a choice of paying or watching ads devolves into just paying (because advertisers won't pay to reach the unprofitable customers), which will lose out to alternative products that are just ads (people who would prefer to pay than watch ads are more likely to watch ads if that is the only choice than people who prefer ads are to pay if that is the only choice).
This was a common business model in the dot bomb era. It consistently failed then. There is no reason to suspect that it will be more successful now.
"We seek you out, not the other way around, saving on advertising"
That's ridiculous. You're telling us that you would watch a show that received no advertising? How would you know that the show existed? You are implicitly relying on the existing advertising to announce the show to you (in TV listings, etc.).
Shows aren't the equivalent of songs on iTunes. Shows are closer to being albums (which are similar in length but lower in content--no video needed in albums, while sound is needed in both). I would expect shows to cost at least $10 for a permanent license, just like albums are now (may be more in £s). Packaging and production costs are trivial, and even distribution is not that much (apparently about $5-8 per album, since that's how much cheaper iTunes is).
You sound like one of the people who claim that iTunes should sell songs for 10 cents and albums for a $1. It's not going to happen.
That would be The Abyss, which is still a cult favorite.
I would expect that Cameron will be able to strip out the Japanese specific aspects and concentrate on the action and plot. Much the way that Sergio Leone adapted Yojimbo into A Fistful of Dollars.
"Since when can you change the MAC address of a network card, without replacing the whole thing? It's hard-coded in, you know."
Just use a gateway (also called a router) in between the network card and the access point that can spoof its MAC address. They make those so that people can pretend that their network is really just one computer for ISPs that check.
There are probably other, better ways, but that came to mind quickly.
"Maybe someday in the distant future when there are no more serious crimes"
This is foolish. It's like saying that you might buy a new computer when you stop getting hungry each day. Or we'll ignore purse snatchings as long as there are murders (until one day, a purse snatcher who would otherwise have been incarcerated gets in a fight with the elderly lady whose purse he's stealing and pushes her down the stairs).
There is no evidence that that day will ever come. It's not like there is any lack of effort put into finding serial killers now. The computer crimes division does not take anything away from the serial killer division. If anything, the computer crimes division *helps* the serial killer division, as it provides additional people that can be drafted into a serial killer investigation (particularly if the serial killer leaves computer related evidence).
"For obesity is it just because video games cause children to be obese causing them to stay at home with little activity to play games, or is it that children who have a tendency of being obese don't want to go outside and play (for reasons of security, lack of proper parental supervision, or just no one else in the area to interact with) So they will stay in side and play video games, where if there were no games then they would Watch TV all day."
This doesn't explain why obesity is *increasing*. However, it is true that TV is also to blame here.
Also, I feel that the issue is better taken as it involves sex and violence. However, that is not to say that a move to games with less sex and violence might not push back against the native urges of those who feel this way.
"since the pornographers depend on search engines to drive traffic to them it is in their interest that there are as many players (search engines) as possible so that they become less dependent on any one engine to drive traffic to them."
Many people (not just pornographers, other industries as well) view this the other way. Having many engines is wasteful, as it means that they must optimize their sites for multiple search engines.
Due to the ephemeral and virtual nature of web businesses, if they are blacklisted, they just start a new site. If they get a bad listing, they just redo their content to do better.
Social security (5.2%) and medicare (2.45%) taxes add up to 7.65%. This is what you pay if you have a traditional W2 job. Your employer matches that with an additional 7.65% that they pay. If you are self employed (and get a 1099), you pay *both* sides. However, you are able to deduct the employer's share from your *income*. You still pay the full self employment tax, you just don't have to pay *income* tax on half of it (as a work expense).
The Medicare part of it (2.45% or 4.9%) is charged on *all* income, not just the first $87,900. Only the 5.2% (or 10.4%) stops after the first $87,900.
How so? All the relevant Supreme Court decisions were *against* software patents. That open source indemnification insurance company that PJ from GrokLaw helped start could end up taking a case to the Supreme Court and getting the entire concept invalidated. Or Microsoft could (vs. Eolas, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
"I think you misunderstood."
I think most people would read it as I did, considering that you quoted "How is this less security" in your post rather than "most users will have the same user/pass combination for most if not all their logins." Something like 'I think SSO is actually more secure, because...' might have clarified your post (or I may still be missing your point). Further, the same objection applies.
If someone uses the same password for admin on their box as they do on throwaway sites (NY Times, etc.), then they are using that password policy badly. However, it is quite reasonable to use the same password to log in to both the NY Times and the Washington Post.
Btw, you might want to go back and reread the post to which you replied. Rereading your responses, you seem to be assuming that "this" (from the first quote) is sharing passwords for multiple logins rather than single sign on. I'm fairly certain that the original poster meant "this" to mean single sign on. I.e. how is single sign on less secure than sharing passwords across multiple sites.
"Because if I find out one of your unimportant accounts password, I can root your computer with it!"
That's generally not how these things work. I have had single sign on capability with networks previously. While they let me log in to my desktop from multiple computers, they didn't include admin access to that box, just access to personal information.
Any model that does allow this (e.g. this often occurs in Microsoft Active Directory networks) would be fundamentally broken. However, that is a problem with the implementation, not the concept.
"Because you don't have the choice to decide yourself wether a given login is important enough to justify a different password."
/. I only need it to verify that my computer (and account) is doing the posting. Same thing for recommendations on Amazon (although more authentication is needed for purchases). That's why I currently allow those sites (and others) to store my login info in cookies.
Why not?
Seriously, why not. It would be easy enough to add the ability to specify an extra password for certain accounts. If that's not in the various solutions that are currently available, that's a weakness in the *solutions*, not the concept. I couldn't find any information explaining if SAML or Ping's implementation included this capability or not. If they do not, then it should be added.
Frankly, for most sites with passwords, I don't really need a password at all. For example, with
"Still can't figure out why cybershitter blocks a credit card merchant site, but I just told her to disable the software when she logged in to do CC stuff."
The one time that I used blocking software (it was a beta service in software I was testing), there was a place to report links that were categorized incorrectly (sites about breast cancer and family photo sites were examples of things that might be blocked automatically). It was my understanding that that service was pretty responsive after links were reported. Not sure if this service would be the same or not.
"I still believe using solarpanels and using electrolysis for getting hydrogen is still the best way. No CO2, no nuclear waste..."
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that solar panels contain as much radioactive waste as does nuclear fission when you talk about similar amounts of electrical generation. Further, electrolysis is less effective than this method...that's why they developed this method. Solar panels also produce considerable non-radioactive waste, as solar panels are usually built from highly poisonous materials. Further, electrolysis is a two step process in this context: first, you create the electricity; second, you use the electricity to separate out the hydrogen.
Geothermal would be a better alternative here. Like nuclear, it produces hot water on the way to electrical generation. This process would probably still work with similar efficiency with geothermal heating the water.
Leave the solar panels for electricity generation to power air conditioners.
The same article says, "How tragic if we insist on plundering Alaska for petroleum, spreading oil slicks down the western seaboard, stripmining New Mexico and choking the air of the southwest . . . to run electric toothbrushes in Los Angeles." Which is silly. We don't burn oil for electricity; that's coal's purpose. Oil is converted into gasoline for use in cars. Oil is hard to replace, which is why we're talking about replacing it with hydrogen (which is an energy sink; it generally takes more energy to refine the hydrogen than the hydrogen provides when used).
"There is no experiement we can make that will tell us what the effects of burning x barrels of oil over y number of years will be on the environment z years from now."
Your post is correct, but I also wanted to point out that we do have a pretty good idea of a worst case. Oil and coal are made from living organisms. Where did these organisms get their carbon? From other organisms and the air. In other words, the practical bounds of global warming would be a return to the conditions that existed in the days of the dinosaurs, when current oil and coal deposits were being made. This would be bad, but it's not the "total destruction of our environment."
Also, the costs involved with using hydrogen in this way does not compete with just oil (coal is irrelevant to the current discussion, as it is not mobile in the way that gas and hydrogen are). It also competes with other mobile alternatives, like biodiesel and ethanol. If it is more expensive to use hydrogen than biodiesel/ethanol, then it's a bad alternative.
"No, they won't delete them."
I've had bugmenot logins deleted previously (in fact, the NYT login autofills with one now). However, someone just makes a new one.
"the ones we used here in the U.S. in 2004 ARE inherently buggy."
I think that this is actually a good thing. Electronic voting machines without paper trail are inherently insecure, but most people do not understand security. Since there were bugs, there is a better chance that revisions will be made that will fix the security issues. Without the bugs, they might try to wait until compromise was proved to fix the security issues.
"they just want lots of patents."
I still think that the primary reason why Microsoft is filing patent applications is to avoid future Eolas issues. If they have all the stupid patents already, then they know that no one else will get them. This is also why they don't care if patents hold up or not. If the patent is ruled invalid, then that protects them as much as a valid patent does.
The bad part here is that instead of trying to fix the system, they are trying to participate in it. This is unfortunate, as Microsoft might actually have sufficient political clout to push through reform.
"unfortunately that patent (if exists) ran out..."
Once a patent runs out, it's supposed to be in the public domain. Further, a patent isn't necessary. Simple publication is enough to get it into the public domain. Patenting *delays* that process. Public domain prior art is supposed to be as useful against a patent as patent prior art.
Of course, in practice, the system does not always work that way.
"What is so surprising about this incident is that cops actually showed up in time to catch the perpetrators."
Why is that surprising? It's not like they were getting any other calls...the 911 system was down. I've been at donut shops, etc. when cops have gotten a call; they don't wait around. Generally, when cops have high response times, it is because there are multiple crimes to which to respond. Want lower response times, pay for more cops.
"arrested her for the forgery and theft"
They might have arrested her for forgery, but they couldn't have arrested her for theft. When you are married, you own property *jointly*. In other words, legally it was her car as much as it was his, that's how marriage works. The forgery might even have been justified on that basis: the car should have been titled in both their names. The guy who founded FedEx got around a forgery charge by claiming that was just the way things were being done at the company at that time.
A better move would have been to claim that the person who bought it must have forged the signature. Then they would have been guilty of theft and forgery, and he would have gotten the car back. Bringing the wife into it ruined any chance of recovering the car (other than suing her for the money and buying the car back).
"Couldn't 911 wire VoIP into their switchboard and treat VoIP calls and pots calls the same?"
Sure, but how would that help them collect taxes to pay for it? Currently, there is a special tax on my phone bill that goes entirely to fund 911 service. They aren't allowed to charge that tax to VoIP users. Note that this tax is not charged for calling 911; it's charged for having a POTS phone.
It's not like 911 pays for calls made *TO* them now. Their main costs are for personnel to answer the calls and dispatch the police. Their salaries are paid by a tax on phone service. No tax, no salaries, no 911. Of course, they could just pay for 911 out of the police budget, which would make more sense anyway (and be more progressive; the 911 tax is on a per phone basis; police are funded by property taxes, where more wealth means more property and thus more taxes).
"I get them through referral networks i.e. I look on Amazon..."
You realize that you are proving my point? Amazon is only going to have listings for things that it sells. If there is no DVD set (with associated marketing), Amazon won't have it. The same thing with newsgroups and forums, except that they are based on the broadcast show (rather than the DVD set). Btw, I watched Evangelion (with original crappy ending) on DVD without ever seeing any ads for it myself. Word of mouth is already considered in the advertising benefits.
It's also worth noting that there are far fewer people watching this way than watch on broadcast. I don't have hard numbers, but I'm guessing tens of thousands as compared to millions. The truth is that if producers were going to do this, they would spend money for advertising so as to bump up the volume.
"For example: Futurama Series 4 cost £35 over here, and contains 17 episodes. That's £2.05 each episode according to my calculator, right on the £1 or £2 quid I said I was happy to pay."
There are two separate issues here. First, is the original claim that it would make sense to offer ad free versions at the same time as the broadcast version with advertising is available. DVD sets do not do this. They are invariably offered *after* the broadcast is completed. They are also offered for *less* than the show makes from broadcast and are primarily sold to people who saw the show when broadcast. Direct to DVD releases are not feasible, as demonstrated by their non-existence. If they were feasible, then shows like Firefly and Wonder Falls would have switched to DVD after being cancelled.
The second issue is the question of whether or not it would make sense to release downloads at the same time as the DVD sets. This is more likely to work, although I would point out that it interferes with region encoding. Further, it is unlikely that they will sell episodes cheaper singly this way than grouped on DVD. It is more likely that they will price episodes closer to £2.50 or £3 if they chose to do this. It is also likely that they will create a lower quality format for this (comparable to broadcast, but inferior to DVD; like MP3s and AAC are to CDs).
Sure, except that you are spoofing the address of the router. As far as the outside world can see, the router is just the network card of a PC (or whatever the MAC address says it is). That's the whole point of that capability, to lie about the MAC address of the router.
That's not to mention that it would be no more difficult to mod the network card than it would be to create a mod chip for the Xbox. If this became a serious issue, those network cards would appear.
"I don't see why they don't create a three tier or more system of purchase e.g." [ad and no ad alternatives]
The problem with this is that the people the advertisers want to reach are those who are willing to pay not to see ads. I.e. if you were an advertiser, would you rather advertise to people who prefer to exchange money for services or people who are willing to accept inconvenience to save money? Most advertisers would rather reach people who prefer to pay for services.
Thus, offering people a choice of paying or watching ads devolves into just paying (because advertisers won't pay to reach the unprofitable customers), which will lose out to alternative products that are just ads (people who would prefer to pay than watch ads are more likely to watch ads if that is the only choice than people who prefer ads are to pay if that is the only choice).
This was a common business model in the dot bomb era. It consistently failed then. There is no reason to suspect that it will be more successful now.
"We seek you out, not the other way around, saving on advertising"
That's ridiculous. You're telling us that you would watch a show that received no advertising? How would you know that the show existed? You are implicitly relying on the existing advertising to announce the show to you (in TV listings, etc.).
Shows aren't the equivalent of songs on iTunes. Shows are closer to being albums (which are similar in length but lower in content--no video needed in albums, while sound is needed in both). I would expect shows to cost at least $10 for a permanent license, just like albums are now (may be more in £s). Packaging and production costs are trivial, and even distribution is not that much (apparently about $5-8 per album, since that's how much cheaper iTunes is).
You sound like one of the people who claim that iTunes should sell songs for 10 cents and albums for a $1. It's not going to happen.
"First big Cameron flop?"
That would be The Abyss, which is still a cult favorite.
I would expect that Cameron will be able to strip out the Japanese specific aspects and concentrate on the action and plot. Much the way that Sergio Leone adapted Yojimbo into A Fistful of Dollars.
"Since when can you change the MAC address of a network card, without replacing the whole thing? It's hard-coded in, you know."
Just use a gateway (also called a router) in between the network card and the access point that can spoof its MAC address. They make those so that people can pretend that their network is really just one computer for ISPs that check.
There are probably other, better ways, but that came to mind quickly.
"Maybe someday in the distant future when there are no more serious crimes"
This is foolish. It's like saying that you might buy a new computer when you stop getting hungry each day. Or we'll ignore purse snatchings as long as there are murders (until one day, a purse snatcher who would otherwise have been incarcerated gets in a fight with the elderly lady whose purse he's stealing and pushes her down the stairs).
There is no evidence that that day will ever come. It's not like there is any lack of effort put into finding serial killers now. The computer crimes division does not take anything away from the serial killer division. If anything, the computer crimes division *helps* the serial killer division, as it provides additional people that can be drafted into a serial killer investigation (particularly if the serial killer leaves computer related evidence).
"For obesity is it just because video games cause children to be obese causing them to stay at home with little activity to play games, or is it that children who have a tendency of being obese don't want to go outside and play (for reasons of security, lack of proper parental supervision, or just no one else in the area to interact with) So they will stay in side and play video games, where if there were no games then they would Watch TV all day."
This doesn't explain why obesity is *increasing*. However, it is true that TV is also to blame here.
Also, I feel that the issue is better taken as it involves sex and violence. However, that is not to say that a move to games with less sex and violence might not push back against the native urges of those who feel this way.
"since the pornographers depend on search engines to drive traffic to them it is in their interest that there are as many players (search engines) as possible so that they become less dependent on any one engine to drive traffic to them."
Many people (not just pornographers, other industries as well) view this the other way. Having many engines is wasteful, as it means that they must optimize their sites for multiple search engines.
Due to the ephemeral and virtual nature of web businesses, if they are blacklisted, they just start a new site. If they get a bad listing, they just redo their content to do better.
Sorry, my numbers are off. Social security is 6.2% (12.4) not 5.2% (10.4) and medicare is 1.45% (2.9) not 2.45% (4.9). The 7.65% is still true.
Social security (5.2%) and medicare (2.45%) taxes add up to 7.65%. This is what you pay if you have a traditional W2 job. Your employer matches that with an additional 7.65% that they pay. If you are self employed (and get a 1099), you pay *both* sides. However, you are able to deduct the employer's share from your *income*. You still pay the full self employment tax, you just don't have to pay *income* tax on half of it (as a work expense).
The Medicare part of it (2.45% or 4.9%) is charged on *all* income, not just the first $87,900. Only the 5.2% (or 10.4%) stops after the first $87,900.
"Too late for the U.S."
How so? All the relevant Supreme Court decisions were *against* software patents. That open source indemnification insurance company that PJ from GrokLaw helped start could end up taking a case to the Supreme Court and getting the entire concept invalidated. Or Microsoft could (vs. Eolas, etc.).