Maybe I'm missing something, but none of us are safe from Massengil ads!
My wife watches some shows and I watch others. Guess what? Sometimes we watch together! Since they don't know who is watching when, there will be a profile on my account that includes:
Douching/Tampons/Potpourri
Window Blinds/Curtains
The Softer Side of Sears
Gateway Computers
Bud Girls (oops Budweiser)
Pr0n
Until you have to keep a thumbprint on the zapper to watch, they are not going to be able to profile the home watcher effectively.
It would seem pretty simple to me for someone to write a plug-in for IE or Netscape which would parse the HTML and remove doubleclick (or some configurable list of domains) image tags.
What's the problem with doing this?
Another way to do this, although potentially harder, would be to do what was suggested here during the last round of postings and produce a plug-in which would suppress creation of cookies for domains external to the displayed page.
Whatever sophistication Doubleclick has in identifying this info, the fact is that *we*are*giving* this information to them with our stupid browsers.
When a company gives you options, you will owe taxes on the value of the option, not on the strike price of the option. In most (99.9%)startups, options have zero value until the IPO or buyout because they are "out of the money" (market price less than strike price, because there IS no market price).
This means that the vast majority of option grants for startups are basically tax neutral. Option grants of existing companies are going to be valued at market - strike basically, and WILL count as income. Most companies will equalize you for this income tax, especially if you raise it as an issue with them.
This brings me to something I haven't seen anyone say yet. If you are going to a startup and they are talking significant options or even percentages, GET A LAWYER to look at their corporate structure, their regulations and shareholder agreements, etc. YOU DO NOT KNOW everything you need to to tell if you'll get screwed or not.
There are myriads of complexities. LLCs vs. Corps. Units vs. Shares. Vesting plans. Vesting Plan accelerations. Tax implications now and at the time of the event. On and on...
I think sites like yours are going to be the absolute wave of the future. I'm a director for a consulting firm and Net incubator down south, and probably 20-30 percent of the dot-com ideas that come across my desk are related to broadband access and rich media (video in particular).
The thing about these guys is that their bandwidth requirements are enormous although their applications are not all that big a deal. I spent all week helping out one company in figuring out their architectures and partnerships, because we're forecasting their bandwidth growth rate at somewhere around 2.5 TERAbytes per month.
The mid-tier ISPs had better get on the stick and realize that this is coming, or the big guys (MCI, Qwest, Intel, etc.) are going to take all business in the next big landgrab on the Net--the reinvention of the Web as a video tool.
I truly believe that we'll be laughing at the Net we have today in five years, kinda like we chuckle about TRS-80s and Apple ]['s today...
I'm a believer in Interland. They are a BIG web hosting company, have Unix and NT options available and are fairly good about their customer service. One neat thing they have is a HUGE forms-based support area, so that you can go in and set up your own email accounts, ODBC DSNs, subwebs, user accounts, real audio links, etc. It all happens pretty instantly.
They are also pretty reasonable. I just upgraded from a "Plan 1" basically FrontPage account to a "Plan 2" which is ASP, ColdFusion, SQL Server 7, RealNetworks streaming, etc. The Plan 1 was about $260 a year, and the Plan 2 must be around $600 a year total. (I'm sure the prices are on their website.)
They host something like 50,000 domain names. They have the drill down pat. We have like 5 domains with them in total, and in two years we've only had unplanned downtime once when they moved the website to a different machine without updating the DNS. It was accessible only through IP addresses for a day or so, and then it was back.
I'm physically _at_ Disney in Orlando as I write this, and so I feel qualified to talk about what Disney is getting at with it's futuristic attractions.
First and foremost, Disney is in the business of moving merchandise and putting asses in seats. That is what has made them a $100 billion company. Their ability to separate you from your money (which I have seen firsthand this week) is absolutely mind-boggling.
They do this by selling you on *Dreams*. The suspension of disbelief that makes people cry in movies is what makes them buy Disney sweatshirts, Mickey Mouse ear hats, rice krispy treats in the shape of Mickey's head, leather briefcases with silver Mickey head clasps, etc.
They keep up the suspension of disbelief to an amazing degree. There are constantly things going on to encourage it. Buffet breakfast lunch and dinner with characters in costumes walking around handing out autographs and hugs. Goofy's voice talks to you on the elevator in the hotel. Thousands of people are involved in putting on "special" parades which are actually held 2-4 times per DAY, 365 days a year.
What Disney is NOT in the business of is predicting the future. TomorrowLand in the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT (aka "Eisner's Personal Coin-Operated Toy";-) have futuristic themes, but it is just to snare the suspension of disbelief from people who are not snared by Mickey or Goofy. Between the two groups, they've covered almost everyone. Throw in Disney-MGM for movie lovers, Animal Planet for animal lovers, not to mention FrontierLand, AdventureLand, blah blah blah, and you'll see that they've found a way to tug at the heartstrings and pursestrings of virtually everyone who visits.
To think that they have created that futuristic stuff as a serious attempt to model future society is very naive. All they are doing is making a synthetic reality, mirroring back to people what those people think is cool. "That was a great ride honey! Let's get the T-shirt!"
Isn't the Melissa virus (and its cousins) really already an example of a similar worm? It basically did the same thing as the Internet worm years ago and affected tons of users and companies.
The thing about it is that whoever wrote it didn't *need* to find mysterious stack overflows in the IP drivers or even in the mail programs. The mail program (Outlook, in this case) HELPED the worm work! The Power of VBA at your fingertips, as MS would say.
If there is a checkbox to "turn off" security and run scripts automatically, people are going to use it. If a message box appears to verify that the user wants to run the script, even though it may cause problems, users are going to just click OK without even reading it and the happy few who do read it are going to assume that the message is fine and click OK anyway.
This issue is not just about Microsoft either. Sun crows about how Java is "secure" because it can't get at your personal files on your local drives, since the scripts are running in the VM. What they don't say is that, in their world, no one HAS any files local because their Java apps are saving everything on the servers, which theoretical Java-based viruses *would* have access to.
Someone might want to challenge me on this, but imo, security and script-enabled applications/OS are opposites.
The reason this story is depressing isn't because the silly VC's can't see the genius of this guy's idea, it's because a guy can spend years working on something like this and still no so little about how to justify it to someone.
The fact is that there are THREE criteria that have to be met *strongly* for an idea to get funded, not one.
1) Is it a good idea?
The ways to tell this of course are what most of us are used to thinking about in the startup world. Where is the money? What is the revenue model? What kind of capital requirements are there to create the necessary factories, etc. to produce the product (this one is why dot-coms are so attractive.)? How long will it take to make money? Are there lots of customers? How will the market change over time? etc.
My sense from the article was that he has a *couple* ideas for uses and customers, all of which are basically centered around the government. Ideas get moderated down if they involve changing heavily bureaucratic organizations. It's just not going to happen, imho. But ok, let's grant point #1 and say it's a great idea.
2) Who is the competition and how will you handle them?
This idea is one which clearly has numerous competitors, some of which are heavily entrenched (like the existing balloting systems), and some of which are still under development (like the other poster doing the PalmPilot balloting). There are also all sorts of apples-to-oranges competitors like punched cards, CD-ROMs, etc.
Point #2 basically says that it's not enough to show the Promised Land to the VC... you have to show him that you understand the minefield between you and the Promised Land, and each and every mine between here and there, and how you're going to get through it.
This article did not give me a comfort feeling that this guy understands his competitors and understands a) how he is different from/better than each one, b) what is the barrier to entry for those competitors to do something similar, or c) what he will do to raise the bar on them when they do figure out how to react to him. But for now, let's grant him point #2 as well, just to get to #3...
3) Why You?
The last question is usually the hardest for entrepreneurs to answer. They hem and haw and say "well because it's my idea." Well guess what? Good ideas are a commodity. Everyone (including the poster I'm replying to here) has their own great idea. Lots of people have duplicate ideas. So why should the investor sink millions of dollars into YOU personally?
Most of the time the answer is helped by proprietary technology, patents, etc. But the real reason is because of the *team*. The saying among VC's is "Bet on the jockey, not on the horse." In the original posting, the inventor was quoted as saying "well you have to KNOW someone to get meetings with VCs." Well guess what? Yes you do. After this many years, it should tell him something that he doesn't have A-1 talent signing up to help him out. Where is his board of directors and advisory board full of A-list players who have taken companies like this public before? Where is his team of technologists and his team of financial guys? Where is his team of VC experts who KNOW the people you need to know to get the right meetings?
I've been going through it recently (and gotten this education), and trust me, it's not that hard to find these sorts of people if your answers to Points #1 and #2 are good.
Anyway, I've been writing long enough... but *sigh* if even ONE entrepreneur out there reads this and saves themselves 10 years of needless frustration, it will have been worth it.:-)
...Crash
Re:Mozilla marks the end of browser duopoly
on
Mozilla M12 Released
·
· Score: 1
Sorry--wrong formatting choice! Repost.
I think the optimism of this posting is admirable, but gosh what a string of assumptions... If the people actually *working* on Mozilla had this level of confidence, they wouldn't feel such urgence to get it done.
a) This mass customization idea sounds good in theory, but is actually just going to just result in various window trappings being reconfigured, like "skins" on WinAmp.
b) Application developers aren't going to start building Mozilla into their applications, because using IE's COM framework is going to remain infinitely easier to integrate into tools like Visual Basic, which like it or not, is what 90% of application developers are using.
c) Computer manufacturers aren't going to create proprietary versions of the browser with proprietary features, because increasingly they are marketing to newer and less computer-savvy users. Standardization is what they most crave, and what browsers brought to the dance in the first place. My forecast is that at most, computer OEMs will customize the splash screens and the logos.
d) M$ may be forced to unbundle the browser and not require OEMs to use IE, but the fact is that they will. Things like ActiveX compatibility have gotten TOO entrenched in the intervening time during the Mozilla development to be overcome that easily.
e) Even if Microsoft ends up having to use the Mozilla layout engine (which is a big IF), so what? IE5 still rules the roost and their ActiveX architecture and their JVM still dominate.
Your final point is that MS is going to lose a barrier to entry, which doesn't seem to be supported by your preceding comments, but is still going to be GAINING market share as the victory dance of the Mozilla guys goes on!
The fact is that Mozilla is going to be great. Mozilla is going to be the one and only really worthy competitor to IE5. I am looking forward to using it--I hate MS's tactics as much as the next guy. But the fact is that no one--no one--has demonstrated the capability to sling as good of code as fast as Microsoft...
Re:Mozilla marks the end of browser duopoly
on
Mozilla M12 Released
·
· Score: 1
I think the optimism of this posting is admirable, but gosh what a string of assumptions... If the people actually *working* on Mozilla had this level of confidence, they wouldn't feel such urgence to get it done. a) This mass customization idea sounds good in theory, but is actually just going to just result in various window trappings being reconfigured, like "skins" on WinAmp. b) Application developers aren't going to start building Mozilla into their applications, because using IE's COM framework is going to remain infinitely easier to integrate into tools like Visual Basic, which like it or not, is what 90% of application developers are using. c) Computer manufacturers aren't going to create proprietary versions of the browser with proprietary features, because increasingly they are marketing to newer and less computer-savvy users. Standardization is what they most crave, and what browsers brought to the dance in the first place. My forecast is that at most, computer OEMs will customize the splash screens and the logos. d) M$ may be forced to unbundle the browser and not require OEMs to use IE, but the fact is that they will. Things like ActiveX compatibility have gotten TOO entrenched in the intervening time during the Mozilla development to be overcome that easily. e) Even if Microsoft ends up having to use the Mozilla layout engine (which is a big IF), so what? IE5 still rules the roost and their ActiveX architecture and their JVM still dominate. Your final point is that MS is going to lose a barrier to entry, which doesn't seem to be supported by your preceding comments, but is still going to be GAINING market share as the victory dance of the Mozilla guys goes on! The fact is that Mozilla is going to be great. Mozilla is going to be the one and only really worthy competitor to IE5. I am looking forward to using it--I hate MS's tactics as much as the next guy. But the fact is that no one--no one--has demonstrated the capability to sling as good of code as fast as Microsoft...
I went out and watched it for a while (the unfiltered one, of course;-), and I agree that the porn-oriented ones were only about 20% of the searches. The funny-in-a-sad-way thing was that about 10 or 15% of the searches were MISSPELLED! It's like no matter how freaking easy we (geeks) make it for people to find stuff on this 8 Billion Terabyte database we call the Internet, people will still find a way to NOT be able to do it. This whole discussion on search engines is going to be irrelevant if the planet continues its slide towards idiocy and illiteracy...
This lawsuit isn't about whether the NSA is reading email it shouldn't be reading (to say nothing of faxes, voice recognition on phone convs, etc.). The evidence is overwhelming that it is. The real issue is whether anyone has the ability to stop them, which I doubt.
They have the story of how all this snooping is necessary to fight against all these imaginary terrorists out there down pat by now.
I'll be surprised if it ever actually gets to a trial.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm missing something, but none of us are safe from Massengil ads!
My wife watches some shows and I watch others. Guess what? Sometimes we watch together! Since they don't know who is watching when, there will be a profile on my account that includes:
Douching/Tampons/Potpourri
Window Blinds/Curtains
The Softer Side of Sears
Gateway Computers
Bud Girls (oops Budweiser)
Pr0n
Until you have to keep a thumbprint on the zapper to watch, they are not going to be able to profile the home watcher effectively.
Crash
It would seem pretty simple to me for someone to write a plug-in for IE or Netscape which would parse the HTML and remove doubleclick (or some configurable list of domains) image tags.
What's the problem with doing this?
Another way to do this, although potentially harder, would be to do what was suggested here during the last round of postings and produce a plug-in which would suppress creation of cookies for domains external to the displayed page.
Whatever sophistication Doubleclick has in identifying this info, the fact is that *we*are*giving* this information to them with our stupid browsers.
Crash Davis
I just tried it out and I thought it sounded pretty good. My first thought was "oh Wow, they've achieved MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour level humanity." ;-)
And now some tone of voice to make it interesting... (on the Newshour, not the software)
Crash
Sorry but this is not exactly right.
When a company gives you options, you will owe taxes on the value of the option, not on the strike price of the option. In most (99.9%)startups, options have zero value until the IPO or buyout because they are "out of the money" (market price less than strike price, because there IS no market price).
This means that the vast majority of option grants for startups are basically tax neutral. Option grants of existing companies are going to be valued at market - strike basically, and WILL count as income. Most companies will equalize you for this income tax, especially if you raise it as an issue with them.
This brings me to something I haven't seen anyone say yet. If you are going to a startup and they are talking significant options or even percentages, GET A LAWYER to look at their corporate structure, their regulations and shareholder agreements, etc. YOU DO NOT KNOW everything you need to to tell if you'll get screwed or not.
There are myriads of complexities. LLCs vs. Corps. Units vs. Shares. Vesting plans. Vesting Plan accelerations. Tax implications now and at the time of the event. On and on...
- Crash
I think sites like yours are going to be the absolute wave of the future. I'm a director for a consulting firm and Net incubator down south, and probably 20-30 percent of the dot-com ideas that come across my desk are related to broadband access and rich media (video in particular).
The thing about these guys is that their bandwidth requirements are enormous although their applications are not all that big a deal. I spent all week helping out one company in figuring out their architectures and partnerships, because we're forecasting their bandwidth growth rate at somewhere around 2.5 TERAbytes per month.
The mid-tier ISPs had better get on the stick and realize that this is coming, or the big guys (MCI, Qwest, Intel, etc.) are going to take all business in the next big landgrab on the Net--the reinvention of the Web as a video tool.
I truly believe that we'll be laughing at the Net we have today in five years, kinda like we chuckle about TRS-80s and Apple ]['s today...
- Crash
I'm a believer in Interland. They are a BIG web hosting company, have Unix and NT options available and are fairly good about their customer service. One neat thing they have is a HUGE forms-based support area, so that you can go in and set up your own email accounts, ODBC DSNs, subwebs, user accounts, real audio links, etc. It all happens pretty instantly.
They are also pretty reasonable. I just upgraded from a "Plan 1" basically FrontPage account to a "Plan 2" which is ASP, ColdFusion, SQL Server 7, RealNetworks streaming, etc. The Plan 1 was about $260 a year, and the Plan 2 must be around $600 a year total. (I'm sure the prices are on their website.)
They host something like 50,000 domain names. They have the drill down pat. We have like 5 domains with them in total, and in two years we've only had unplanned downtime once when they moved the website to a different machine without updating the DNS. It was accessible only through IP addresses for a day or so, and then it was back.
There's my $.02 worth...YMMV
Crash
I'm physically _at_ Disney in Orlando as I write this, and so I feel qualified to talk about what Disney is getting at with it's futuristic attractions.
;-) have futuristic themes, but it is just to snare the suspension of disbelief from people who are not snared by Mickey or Goofy. Between the two groups, they've covered almost everyone. Throw in Disney-MGM for movie lovers, Animal Planet for animal lovers, not to mention FrontierLand, AdventureLand, blah blah blah, and you'll see that they've found a way to tug at the heartstrings and pursestrings of virtually everyone who visits.
First and foremost, Disney is in the business of moving merchandise and putting asses in seats. That is what has made them a $100 billion company. Their ability to separate you from your money (which I have seen firsthand this week) is absolutely mind-boggling.
They do this by selling you on *Dreams*. The suspension of disbelief that makes people cry in movies is what makes them buy Disney sweatshirts, Mickey Mouse ear hats, rice krispy treats in the shape of Mickey's head, leather briefcases with silver Mickey head clasps, etc.
They keep up the suspension of disbelief to an amazing degree. There are constantly things going on to encourage it. Buffet breakfast lunch and dinner with characters in costumes walking around handing out autographs and hugs. Goofy's voice talks to you on the elevator in the hotel. Thousands of people are involved in putting on "special" parades which are actually held 2-4 times per DAY, 365 days a year.
What Disney is NOT in the business of is predicting the future. TomorrowLand in the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT (aka "Eisner's Personal Coin-Operated Toy"
To think that they have created that futuristic stuff as a serious attempt to model future society is very naive. All they are doing is making a synthetic reality, mirroring back to people what those people think is cool. "That was a great ride honey! Let's get the T-shirt!"
Regards,
Crash
Isn't the Melissa virus (and its cousins) really already an example of a similar worm? It basically did the same thing as the Internet worm years ago and affected tons of users and companies.
The thing about it is that whoever wrote it didn't *need* to find mysterious stack overflows in the IP drivers or even in the mail programs. The mail program (Outlook, in this case) HELPED the worm work! The Power of VBA at your fingertips, as MS would say.
If there is a checkbox to "turn off" security and run scripts automatically, people are going to use it. If a message box appears to verify that the user wants to run the script, even though it may cause problems, users are going to just click OK without even reading it and the happy few who do read it are going to assume that the message is fine and click OK anyway.
This issue is not just about Microsoft either. Sun crows about how Java is "secure" because it can't get at your personal files on your local drives, since the scripts are running in the VM. What they don't say is that, in their world, no one HAS any files local because their Java apps are saving everything on the servers, which theoretical Java-based viruses *would* have access to.
Someone might want to challenge me on this, but imo, security and script-enabled applications/OS are opposites.
The reason this story is depressing isn't because the silly VC's can't see the genius of this guy's idea, it's because a guy can spend years working on something like this and still no so little about how to justify it to someone.
:-)
The fact is that there are THREE criteria that have to be met *strongly* for an idea to get funded, not one.
1) Is it a good idea?
The ways to tell this of course are what most of us are used to thinking about in the startup world. Where is the money? What is the revenue model? What kind of capital requirements are there to create the necessary factories, etc. to produce the product (this one is why dot-coms are so attractive.)? How long will it take to make money? Are there lots of customers? How will the market change over time? etc.
My sense from the article was that he has a *couple* ideas for uses and customers, all of which are basically centered around the government. Ideas get moderated down if they involve changing heavily bureaucratic organizations. It's just not going to happen, imho. But ok, let's grant point #1 and say it's a great idea.
2) Who is the competition and how will you handle them?
This idea is one which clearly has numerous competitors, some of which are heavily entrenched (like the existing balloting systems), and some of which are still under development (like the other poster doing the PalmPilot balloting). There are also all sorts of apples-to-oranges competitors like punched cards, CD-ROMs, etc.
Point #2 basically says that it's not enough to show the Promised Land to the VC... you have to show him that you understand the minefield between you and the Promised Land, and each and every mine between here and there, and how you're going to get through it.
This article did not give me a comfort feeling that this guy understands his competitors and understands a) how he is different from/better than each one, b) what is the barrier to entry for those competitors to do something similar, or c) what he will do to raise the bar on them when they do figure out how to react to him. But for now, let's grant him point #2 as well, just to get to #3...
3) Why You?
The last question is usually the hardest for entrepreneurs to answer. They hem and haw and say "well because it's my idea." Well guess what? Good ideas are a commodity. Everyone (including the poster I'm replying to here) has their own great idea. Lots of people have duplicate ideas. So why should the investor sink millions of dollars into YOU personally?
Most of the time the answer is helped by proprietary technology, patents, etc. But the real reason is because of the *team*. The saying among VC's is "Bet on the jockey, not on the horse." In the original posting, the inventor was quoted as saying "well you have to KNOW someone to get meetings with VCs." Well guess what? Yes you do. After this many years, it should tell him something that he doesn't have A-1 talent signing up to help him out. Where is his board of directors and advisory board full of A-list players who have taken companies like this public before? Where is his team of technologists and his team of financial guys? Where is his team of VC experts who KNOW the people you need to know to get the right meetings?
I've been going through it recently (and gotten this education), and trust me, it's not that hard to find these sorts of people if your answers to Points #1 and #2 are good.
Anyway, I've been writing long enough... but *sigh* if even ONE entrepreneur out there reads this and saves themselves 10 years of needless frustration, it will have been worth it.
...Crash
Sorry--wrong formatting choice! Repost.
I think the optimism of this posting is admirable, but gosh what a string of assumptions... If the people actually *working* on Mozilla had this level of confidence, they wouldn't feel such urgence to get it done.
a) This mass customization idea sounds good in theory, but is actually just going to just result in various window trappings being reconfigured, like "skins" on WinAmp.
b) Application developers aren't going to start building Mozilla into their applications, because using IE's COM framework is going to remain infinitely easier to integrate into tools like Visual Basic, which like it or not, is what 90% of application developers are using.
c) Computer manufacturers aren't going to create proprietary versions of the browser with proprietary features, because increasingly they are marketing to newer and less computer-savvy users. Standardization is what they most crave, and what browsers brought to the dance in the first place. My forecast is that at most, computer OEMs will customize the splash screens and the logos.
d) M$ may be forced to unbundle the browser and not require OEMs to use IE, but the fact is that they will. Things like ActiveX compatibility have gotten TOO entrenched in the intervening time during the Mozilla development to be overcome that easily.
e) Even if Microsoft ends up having to use the Mozilla layout engine (which is a big IF), so what? IE5 still rules the roost and their ActiveX architecture and their JVM still dominate.
Your final point is that MS is going to lose a barrier to entry, which doesn't seem to be supported by your preceding comments, but is still going to be GAINING market share as the victory dance of the Mozilla guys goes on!
The fact is that Mozilla is going to be great. Mozilla is going to be the one and only really worthy competitor to IE5. I am looking forward to using it--I hate MS's tactics as much as the next guy. But the fact is that no one--no one--has demonstrated the capability to sling as good of code as fast as Microsoft...
I think the optimism of this posting is admirable, but gosh what a string of assumptions... If the people actually *working* on Mozilla had this level of confidence, they wouldn't feel such urgence to get it done. a) This mass customization idea sounds good in theory, but is actually just going to just result in various window trappings being reconfigured, like "skins" on WinAmp. b) Application developers aren't going to start building Mozilla into their applications, because using IE's COM framework is going to remain infinitely easier to integrate into tools like Visual Basic, which like it or not, is what 90% of application developers are using. c) Computer manufacturers aren't going to create proprietary versions of the browser with proprietary features, because increasingly they are marketing to newer and less computer-savvy users. Standardization is what they most crave, and what browsers brought to the dance in the first place. My forecast is that at most, computer OEMs will customize the splash screens and the logos. d) M$ may be forced to unbundle the browser and not require OEMs to use IE, but the fact is that they will. Things like ActiveX compatibility have gotten TOO entrenched in the intervening time during the Mozilla development to be overcome that easily. e) Even if Microsoft ends up having to use the Mozilla layout engine (which is a big IF), so what? IE5 still rules the roost and their ActiveX architecture and their JVM still dominate. Your final point is that MS is going to lose a barrier to entry, which doesn't seem to be supported by your preceding comments, but is still going to be GAINING market share as the victory dance of the Mozilla guys goes on! The fact is that Mozilla is going to be great. Mozilla is going to be the one and only really worthy competitor to IE5. I am looking forward to using it--I hate MS's tactics as much as the next guy. But the fact is that no one--no one--has demonstrated the capability to sling as good of code as fast as Microsoft...
I went out and watched it for a while (the unfiltered one, of course ;-), and I agree that the porn-oriented ones were only about 20% of the searches. The funny-in-a-sad-way thing was that about 10 or 15% of the searches were MISSPELLED! It's like no matter how freaking easy we (geeks) make it for people to find stuff on this 8 Billion Terabyte database we call the Internet, people will still find a way to NOT be able to do it. This whole discussion on search engines is going to be irrelevant if the planet continues its slide towards idiocy and illiteracy...
This lawsuit isn't about whether the NSA is reading email it shouldn't be reading (to say nothing of faxes, voice recognition on phone convs, etc.). The evidence is overwhelming that it is. The real issue is whether anyone has the ability to stop them, which I doubt.
They have the story of how all this snooping is necessary to fight against all these imaginary terrorists out there down pat by now.
I'll be surprised if it ever actually gets to a trial.