You have been proved to be wrong. The proof is that Live.com search results is not the one you have described. For my POV, there is nothing wrong with Live.com results. If you want to lie, at least make sure other people can repeat your result.
There are studies that show that there are people who DO perform violent/sexual acts on children after viewing child porn.>
Only SOME right, not all of them right? That study you linked is not much different to claims that says peer-to-peer applications is wholly done for copyright infringement.
Given this, your question about the "degree of might", that degree gets pushed to 100%
So, this is not exactly a boogeyman, but appears to be a real world problem. Now as to the question of "do the numbers warrant action" or the causation/correlation, that's up to you to decide. However, you view might be a bit different if you were on the receiving side of one these crimes.
Still, don't assume that there is no evidence to support that this stuff really is harmful to both the viewer and the victim.
As for 'receiving side of it' is concerned, I do know how it feels. And you should not assume that this stuff will be absolutely harmful to both viewer and victim, because in my real-life experience, it wasn't always harmful. This 'think of the children' thought sickens me, and the actions of some people that borders on infringement of First Amendment just because children has to be protected only make me angry. Think of the children who grows up just to live in a society that has overbearing laws for the incompetence of the previous generation.
Anyway, he *IS* saying porn can't be harmful, and that is Just Plain Wrong.
So, by saying that "Porn can't be harmful" is wrong, do you imply that porn will never be harmless? Because if you do, I have a lot of evidence (admittedly only anecdotal) where porn is not harmful.
In a midrange computer with Windows, those checksumming and chunking did not take lots of CPU time, disk read/write, RAM, TCP/IP stack etc. The only thing that is overtaxed will be the bandwidth. My midrange computer with an AMD X2 3600+ 2.0Ghz CPU and 1GB RAM which acts as as my BT server did not even flinch during operation, and almost all of the time, Cool n' Quiet downclock the CPU to 1.1Ghz. Never see the burden you are talking about. What is the spec of your computer? I hope it wasn't some 1Ghz computer with 128MB RAM.
Nope, with Safari, you still have to type the URL of the malicious website inside the address bar.It is not that just by loading Safari up, the exploit kicks in. Safari is vulnerable, and has nothing to do with its load time. If he loads up Safari, wait 10 minutes and then type the URL in the address bar, the MacBook Air will still be hacked.
Nope, it isn't, because Mono is developed by Novell and they have guaranteed that they will get all the relevant licenses from Microsoft (if they haven't already with their infamous covenant) to ensure that Mono works well with published ECMA specifications.
Hahaha, accusing me of working at Microsoft while I do not even live in America. But anyway Google Earth and Worldwide Telescope did not work the same way. Terraserver, created by Jim Gray (that missing sailor who works with Microsoft) was created even before Google exists. Can you show me where Google is in 1997? Did not exist yet IIRC. Good luck finding prior arts in this one buddy.
Ok, I am not anonymous (though not the one above). Can you give me a link to a competing product that already does what Worldwide Telescope is doing? Or else you are just trolling?
You will need plugins to view multimedia files such as videos on HTML pages. HTML codes will not cut it. And those plugins need to be DOWNLOADED! I never see Firefox or IE comes out with multimedia capabilities out of the box.
What is this free alternative, that does not need any downloading, that will do just as well? That thing must be available in all platforms (Windows, Linux, OS X, *BSD) and does not require additional installation of plugins/extensions to get more essential features such as multimedia file viewing.
If it isn't scientific, then it is anecdotal. If you want your evidence to be taken seriously from your sample of 40000, you better make your case public, such as how you collect your data, what statistical techniques you use, margin of error etc. If you graduated from a decent university with a computer/multimedia degree, you should at least taken basic statistic subject which should at least help you. Or else, your observation is biased and based on feelings.
Anecdotal evidence is always based on bias and feelings. Your information based on the sample of 40000 people is anecdotal. You do not agree? Then please make your case here professionally, the way you learn it from your statistic classes (or better marketing management classes).
The problem is not so much that MS has an OS and browser monopoly so much as that they have a monopoly on OEM bundling.
To destroy Microsoft, all one would need to do is;
1) Disallow Volume Discounts to OEMS. A standard price for Windows for all.
2) Disallow "Exclusivity" clauses in OEM contracts. OEMS should be allowed to sell whatever OS they care to without penalty.
3) Stop hiding the cost of Windows in the price of the PC. The PC hardware should be offered at $X and the purchaser then offered a selection of OS and support options to choose from.
4) Force MS to adopted accepted industry standards and disallow the use of proprietary protocols and formats which are designed solely as a means to lock in users to the Microsoft platform.
Do these things and Microsoft's "monopoly" would disappear within a couple of years. No. 1 is illegal and we will not see this happen. Discounts has never been illegal or Black Friday shopping spree will never happen. No. 2 has already happened, and does not seem to have any effect. That's what the original oversight contains after all. No. 3 is same as no.1. Regulating how companies should do business (as in determining how they should sell their product) will not be popular. As of today, there are no recourse to prevent that from happening, only when after it happens. No. 4 also not going to happen? Example: Forcing Microsoft to use ISO standard like ODF instead of their own non-ISO OOXML is not going to work, especially if their competitors are not bound by the same rules. Having a proprietary file format is legal after all.
Monopoly is not illegal, abusing it is illegal. That's why all antitrust cases against Microsoft centered around the monopoly on operating systems. Have Microsoft ever being sued for anti-trust violations based on their monopoly on office suites? Never IIRC. Why is that? Microsoft seems to have a license to do all it wants with its monopoly on Microsoft Office (which is even stronger than its monopoly with Windows). Why no one is suing Microsoft for that? May it is because having a monopoly IS LEGAL after all.
China is not an option really, with their currency tied to US dollars and that their market is not liberal enough. Liberal factors also affects both Japan and EU. US market is desirable because it is one of the most open economies in the world.
Another bigger reason why US dollars is hot is that many of the central banks of other countries do not want the dollar to slide too far down compared to their currency thus making their exports to USA more expensive.
Generally, supply and demand rules usually takes place, but this is USA we are talking about.
If OPEC switch to dong, the price will be higher than it was before the switch, at least in the beginning. Chavez and Ahmednijad want a switch not because they hate America, but because they feel the oil is undervalued in the current trend of dropping dollar value, which to a certain extent is true.
So, at that time, US and China and others will want to buy US dollar oil from non-OPEC members because it is cheaper. OPEC sees this and lower their dong-based oil. Plus, as you said, demand caused US dollar oil to rise. US/China and others see this and their next (very short contract) contract will be from Saudi Arabia in Dong. Norway and other non-OPEC members see this and they do what OPEC has done, which is lowering their price, and USA+China switches again to US dollar oil. This will repeat ad-nauseum.
The market will never stabilize on Vietnam Dong oil or US dollar oil. The competition will be huge and the winner will be USA and other consuming countries. The oil-producing countries will not get the huge profit they get now. Meanwhile, Vietnam's economy will be terrorized by the hugely fluctuating value of their currency and the government will peg the currency on US dollar or a basket of currencies that has US dollar in it.
If OPEC unilaterally switch, the oil market will not be stable again but the price will go on a downward trend. Which would be a win to consumer countries.
Haha, that is not what will happen if OPEC switches currencies. If Norway does that, their current customers will point to the price at NYMEX or ICE and say a hearty 'fuck you'. Selling oil at a price more expensive than market price, in a very competitive market is basically an economic suicide.
Given that Norway can only sells oil at a certain price point (for God's sake Norway is not a Microsoft-like oil producing monopoly to the point that they can single-handedly control the price - there are a shitload of oil producers out there), Norway can choose to continue selling to their current customers or get in USA favor by selling to them instead. You did not have to be a rocket scientist to deduce who Norway will sell their oil to. If Norway won't, others will do it. There are plenty of non-OPEC members who are more than willing to sell oil to USA. Even Hugo Chavez will do it.
Price war, I'm surprised you actually get it. Price war is not something OPEC desires. If OPEC switch to Vietnam Dong, it means there are 2 suppliers of oil, one selling in Dong, another selling with US dollars. US and China only want to buy in US dollars because at intial phase, OPEC oil in Dong will be expensive compared to non-OPEC oil in dollars. Seeing that selling in US dollars will give short-term profits, non-OPEC members will be scrambling to sell to US in order to get more profits.
Drill this fact into your mind before replying. Existing customers of Norway etc only have short-term contracts with Norway. There is no such thing such as long-term contracts in the oil industry. Thus switching customers is really a non-issue and not that hard to do. Do you really think it is that hard to switch customers? Money talks, and with USA, prestige too.
OPEC then sees US and China (take into mind that yuan is tied to US dollars, thus China will not want to buy oil with other currency, especially with the current trend of plummeting dollar. Actually China is a special case and they may buy from OPEC because of their mercantile tendencies) buying oil from non-members with US dollars, they will naturally have to reduce price to compete with non-OPEC members. Assuming that they did not return to US dollars, US will return back to buy oil from OPEC members, with Vietnam Dong. Seeing that happening, Norway and co. will reduce their price to compete and voila, a price war has happened. This is an oversimplification, but that's the gist of it.
The winner is US (and China). The loser is oil-producing countries. And Vietnam (but knowing them, they will just peg their Dong to US dollars - and OPEC loses).
Do you realize that USA does not says anything when Iran/Venezuela threatened to change the currency OPEC trade their oil in? This is because if this happened, USA will profit overwhelmingly in medium and long-term. Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmednijad are either posturing to appeal to their citizens back home or does not really know how the oil market works at all. If OPEC switch currencies, competition will exists than the consumers (like USA) will win in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
H.264 and AAC are open standards, it is just not free to implement.
You have been proved to be wrong. The proof is that Live.com search results is not the one you have described. For my POV, there is nothing wrong with Live.com results. If you want to lie, at least make sure other people can repeat your result.
Getting hit in the head by a plastic baseball bat is not harmful in any way. Your point is the one that is illogical. Context is always useful.
There are studies that show that there are people who DO perform violent/sexual acts on children after viewing child porn.>
Only SOME right, not all of them right? That study you linked is not much different to claims that says peer-to-peer applications is wholly done for copyright infringement.
Given this, your question about the "degree of might", that degree gets pushed to 100% So, this is not exactly a boogeyman, but appears to be a real world problem. Now as to the question of "do the numbers warrant action" or the causation/correlation, that's up to you to decide. However, you view might be a bit different if you were on the receiving side of one these crimes. Still, don't assume that there is no evidence to support that this stuff really is harmful to both the viewer and the victim.
As for 'receiving side of it' is concerned, I do know how it feels. And you should not assume that this stuff will be absolutely harmful to both viewer and victim, because in my real-life experience, it wasn't always harmful. This 'think of the children' thought sickens me, and the actions of some people that borders on infringement of First Amendment just because children has to be protected only make me angry. Think of the children who grows up just to live in a society that has overbearing laws for the incompetence of the previous generation.
Anyway, he *IS* saying porn can't be harmful, and that is Just Plain Wrong.
So, by saying that "Porn can't be harmful" is wrong, do you imply that porn will never be harmless? Because if you do, I have a lot of evidence (admittedly only anecdotal) where porn is not harmful.
In a midrange computer with Windows, those checksumming and chunking did not take lots of CPU time, disk read/write, RAM, TCP/IP stack etc. The only thing that is overtaxed will be the bandwidth. My midrange computer with an AMD X2 3600+ 2.0Ghz CPU and 1GB RAM which acts as as my BT server did not even flinch during operation, and almost all of the time, Cool n' Quiet downclock the CPU to 1.1Ghz. Never see the burden you are talking about. What is the spec of your computer? I hope it wasn't some 1Ghz computer with 128MB RAM.
Ah yes, my mistake, that was an old beta.
Here is the real RTM version. MD5 should be BB25707C919DD835A9D9706B5725AF58.
http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/software/svpk/2008/02/windowsxp-kb936929-sp3-x86-enu_9afedbd6b2941bf568c27046d6688e6ccb5ce018.exe
MD5: BB25707C919DD835A9D9706B5725AF58
SHA1: C81472F7EEEA2ECA421E116CD4C03E2300EBFDE4
Nope, with Safari, you still have to type the URL of the malicious website inside the address bar.It is not that just by loading Safari up, the exploit kicks in. Safari is vulnerable, and has nothing to do with its load time. If he loads up Safari, wait 10 minutes and then type the URL in the address bar, the MacBook Air will still be hacked.
Windows Mail may be a bloat, but it didn't take 2 minutes to launch you know?
Nope, it isn't, because Mono is developed by Novell and they have guaranteed that they will get all the relevant licenses from Microsoft (if they haven't already with their infamous covenant) to ensure that Mono works well with published ECMA specifications.
Hahaha, accusing me of working at Microsoft while I do not even live in America. But anyway Google Earth and Worldwide Telescope did not work the same way. Terraserver, created by Jim Gray (that missing sailor who works with Microsoft) was created even before Google exists. Can you show me where Google is in 1997? Did not exist yet IIRC. Good luck finding prior arts in this one buddy.
Ok, I am not anonymous (though not the one above). Can you give me a link to a competing product that already does what Worldwide Telescope is doing? Or else you are just trolling?
You will need plugins to view multimedia files such as videos on HTML pages. HTML codes will not cut it. And those plugins need to be DOWNLOADED! I never see Firefox or IE comes out with multimedia capabilities out of the box.
What is this free alternative, that does not need any downloading, that will do just as well? That thing must be available in all platforms (Windows, Linux, OS X, *BSD) and does not require additional installation of plugins/extensions to get more essential features such as multimedia file viewing.
H.254 is not a freely available technology. Heavily-encumbered with patents is more like it.
If it isn't scientific, then it is anecdotal. If you want your evidence to be taken seriously from your sample of 40000, you better make your case public, such as how you collect your data, what statistical techniques you use, margin of error etc. If you graduated from a decent university with a computer/multimedia degree, you should at least taken basic statistic subject which should at least help you. Or else, your observation is biased and based on feelings.
Anecdotal evidence is always based on bias and feelings. Your information based on the sample of 40000 people is anecdotal. You do not agree? Then please make your case here professionally, the way you learn it from your statistic classes (or better marketing management classes).
NASDAQ runs on Windows Server 2003, with seven sigma reliability. Ballmer won?
To destroy Microsoft, all one would need to do is;
1) Disallow Volume Discounts to OEMS. A standard price for Windows for all.
2) Disallow "Exclusivity" clauses in OEM contracts. OEMS should be allowed to sell whatever OS they care to without penalty.
3) Stop hiding the cost of Windows in the price of the PC. The PC hardware should be offered at $X and the purchaser then offered a selection of OS and support options to choose from.
4) Force MS to adopted accepted industry standards and disallow the use of proprietary protocols and formats which are designed solely as a means to lock in users to the Microsoft platform.
Do these things and Microsoft's "monopoly" would disappear within a couple of years. No. 1 is illegal and we will not see this happen. Discounts has never been illegal or Black Friday shopping spree will never happen.
No. 2 has already happened, and does not seem to have any effect. That's what the original oversight contains after all.
No. 3 is same as no.1. Regulating how companies should do business (as in determining how they should sell their product) will not be popular. As of today, there are no recourse to prevent that from happening, only when after it happens.
No. 4 also not going to happen? Example: Forcing Microsoft to use ISO standard like ODF instead of their own non-ISO OOXML is not going to work, especially if their competitors are not bound by the same rules. Having a proprietary file format is legal after all.
Monopoly is not illegal, abusing it is illegal. That's why all antitrust cases against Microsoft centered around the monopoly on operating systems. Have Microsoft ever being sued for anti-trust violations based on their monopoly on office suites? Never IIRC. Why is that? Microsoft seems to have a license to do all it wants with its monopoly on Microsoft Office (which is even stronger than its monopoly with Windows). Why no one is suing Microsoft for that? May it is because having a monopoly IS LEGAL after all.
China is not an option really, with their currency tied to US dollars and that their market is not liberal enough. Liberal factors also affects both Japan and EU. US market is desirable because it is one of the most open economies in the world.
There are no alternate buyers actually, no EU being tariff-happy and even more so with China/India who does not liberalize their market yet.
Another bigger reason why US dollars is hot is that many of the central banks of other countries do not want the dollar to slide too far down compared to their currency thus making their exports to USA more expensive.
Generally, supply and demand rules usually takes place, but this is USA we are talking about.
If OPEC switch to dong, the price will be higher than it was before the switch, at least in the beginning. Chavez and Ahmednijad want a switch not because they hate America, but because they feel the oil is undervalued in the current trend of dropping dollar value, which to a certain extent is true.
So, at that time, US and China and others will want to buy US dollar oil from non-OPEC members because it is cheaper. OPEC sees this and lower their dong-based oil. Plus, as you said, demand caused US dollar oil to rise. US/China and others see this and their next (very short contract) contract will be from Saudi Arabia in Dong. Norway and other non-OPEC members see this and they do what OPEC has done, which is lowering their price, and USA+China switches again to US dollar oil. This will repeat ad-nauseum.
The market will never stabilize on Vietnam Dong oil or US dollar oil. The competition will be huge and the winner will be USA and other consuming countries. The oil-producing countries will not get the huge profit they get now. Meanwhile, Vietnam's economy will be terrorized by the hugely fluctuating value of their currency and the government will peg the currency on US dollar or a basket of currencies that has US dollar in it.
If OPEC unilaterally switch, the oil market will not be stable again but the price will go on a downward trend. Which would be a win to consumer countries.
Haha, that is not what will happen if OPEC switches currencies. If Norway does that, their current customers will point to the price at NYMEX or ICE and say a hearty 'fuck you'. Selling oil at a price more expensive than market price, in a very competitive market is basically an economic suicide.
Given that Norway can only sells oil at a certain price point (for God's sake Norway is not a Microsoft-like oil producing monopoly to the point that they can single-handedly control the price - there are a shitload of oil producers out there), Norway can choose to continue selling to their current customers or get in USA favor by selling to them instead. You did not have to be a rocket scientist to deduce who Norway will sell their oil to. If Norway won't, others will do it. There are plenty of non-OPEC members who are more than willing to sell oil to USA. Even Hugo Chavez will do it.
Price war, I'm surprised you actually get it. Price war is not something OPEC desires. If OPEC switch to Vietnam Dong, it means there are 2 suppliers of oil, one selling in Dong, another selling with US dollars. US and China only want to buy in US dollars because at intial phase, OPEC oil in Dong will be expensive compared to non-OPEC oil in dollars. Seeing that selling in US dollars will give short-term profits, non-OPEC members will be scrambling to sell to US in order to get more profits.
Drill this fact into your mind before replying. Existing customers of Norway etc only have short-term contracts with Norway. There is no such thing such as long-term contracts in the oil industry. Thus switching customers is really a non-issue and not that hard to do. Do you really think it is that hard to switch customers? Money talks, and with USA, prestige too.
OPEC then sees US and China (take into mind that yuan is tied to US dollars, thus China will not want to buy oil with other currency, especially with the current trend of plummeting dollar. Actually China is a special case and they may buy from OPEC because of their mercantile tendencies) buying oil from non-members with US dollars, they will naturally have to reduce price to compete with non-OPEC members. Assuming that they did not return to US dollars, US will return back to buy oil from OPEC members, with Vietnam Dong. Seeing that happening, Norway and co. will reduce their price to compete and voila, a price war has happened. This is an oversimplification, but that's the gist of it.
The winner is US (and China). The loser is oil-producing countries. And Vietnam (but knowing them, they will just peg their Dong to US dollars - and OPEC loses).
Do you realize that USA does not says anything when Iran/Venezuela threatened to change the currency OPEC trade their oil in? This is because if this happened, USA will profit overwhelmingly in medium and long-term. Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmednijad are either posturing to appeal to their citizens back home or does not really know how the oil market works at all. If OPEC switch currencies, competition will exists than the consumers (like USA) will win in the end.