Not so. The Tyrannosaurus Rex was, according to consensus of scientific opinion, a opportunistic scavenger rather than an out and out predator, despite what films such as Jurassic Park portray. Heavy plate armour is so successful a defense mechanism, you might wonder why many more species don't utilise it.
This just goes to show that Nature, with a decent head start, can produce some pretty spectacular materials, an example that springs to mind is Morpho menelaus a butterfly with striking laser-blue irridescent wings, which uses an optical trick to make them shine so brightly. I was always fascinated by a little tray my father had when I was a kid, which was just the top side of the wings of these butterflies pressed under glass. I had a hard time believing it was from an organic being. Anyway, you can't get things like that anymore (I've looked) which is probably due to them having to be a protected species. Shame on all of us really, for hunting these creatures to near extinction, like the dinosaurs.
Wikipedia's main flaw is that many of the entries are written by people graduating from the world of Usenet, IMHO. These are people who have their own personal bugbears and are entrenched in their own opinions, having written them and debated them for so many years. They find it difficult to accept new evidence, or even sometimes just take a balanced look at their subject. Beyond this, the editors themselves have their shared percieved biases, which impact even how they view an articles "balance".
However this is nitpicking. Apart from this small problem on extremely contentious entries, or very obscure ones, Wikipedia is a valuable resource I have consulted often, and even supplied material for myself.
Wikipedia could solve its other problem, trust in an articles accuracy, by freezing certain pages once they have been comprehensively checked out. Of course there would be an unfreezing process by which new data could be added, but at least a frozen page would give you confidence some malicious user hadn't introduced subtle errors that slipped past notice.
One would assume conterfeit drugs are being sold from unethical pharmacies; how then will giving pharmacies the ability to detect conterfeit drugs be of any use in this situation? Unethical pharmacies will go on selling counterfeit drugs: how are consumers supposed to tell the difference? We don't have RFID readers.
Are they saying counterfeit drugs are being introduced into the supply chain in deliveries from the manufacturers themselves? This is the online thing that these chips will counteract, and at the same time will have numerous disadvantages for the consumer: higher cost any tom dick and harry with a reader knowing what you are buying, continued data mining.
I'm the webmaster for a small, select website, and I've been having various problems with Google bots crawling all over it. I object to this: they are stealing from me in a very material way, which they have no right to do. Unless I adhere to their own arbitrary rules, then they index my pages and copy my images (many of which are original and created, copyrighted by myself) without right of reply or respect for my rights of freedom of expression. I simply do not want the average surfer to be able to visit my site, I am not interested in serving my pages to them, they simply would not appreciate or understand what it is I am showing. I have informed Google of this, but corresponding with google is like talking to a mute, they simply do not care. Their motto may as well be "Don't be blatantly evil (merely confine your evilness to various small scale unsavoury attacks on Net denizens)"
The problem is really search engines in general, they act like road hogs of the Internet bandwidth, and I have to waste valuable time to prevent them from bothering my own, special webspace. I am not compensated for this time. There is an Internet crime EVERY DAY.
Google have built up a market by offering ad views alongside their search engine, thus making money. It isn't about the search, it's about that market, and Microsoft moving into new markets is what it is all about.
They do not need a better algorithm than Google (which is becoming increasingly gamed by shady companies and not as good as it was anyway), they just need something "good enough", like their OS is "good enough".
As for reversing the trend, Microsoft have 1) leverage in the form of their existing OS userbase (as others have mentioned, using MS search as default), 2) Massive cash surplus 3)Brand recognition. They do not have to give things away for free. They have to fight against a competitor with a larger market share, something they have done in the past quite successfully. Do not confuse the Slashdot echochamber with objective reality.
...already patched by Microsoft. Really, I swear half their security problems just come from clueless users not keeping up to date on patches. How hard is it to turn on Windows Update for chrissakes?
I think this artificially inflates Linux et al.'s security record to some degree, as Linux / other OSs administrators are more likely to be up to date, being generally more technically savvy.
Is it obvious much that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.
What was it Rob said when politics.slashdot.org was launched? They wanted to comment on politics, and that the editors represented a pretty wide base of political belief?
We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.
How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?
Just look at the headings. There's at least a 20:1 ratio favouring Kerry fluff ie. "Kerry MAY perhaps consider repealing DMCA" appeared a few days ago (he won't). So much for balance. Pathetic.
I don't think anyone is suggesting you take one side over the other here. That's the point. There are two mutually contradictory stories here, and only time will tell which story stands up to scrutiny and which one is mud flung across to obscure the trail. Wait a little before forming an opinion because otherwise you will find yourself trying to defend that which has proven to be false. For an example, look at the Daily Kos and its behaviour when the false memo was finally shown to be a forgery. They fought tooth and nail for something they must have realised early on wasn't worth it.
But back to the explosives, I brought it up because it was a recent issue where the facts are somewhat in doubt. But because you think the facts weren't in doubt, you claimed it was irrelevant. I think you demonstrate the overall point of my original post quite well, that black and white characterisation of complex issues does nothing to help find the truth.
Feeling a bit lonely and bored now the kids have moved out and don't return your calls?
Get a livejournal account
Post an appeal for someone to kill the President
Report yourself to the FBI
Within a week, two nice, polite young men will stop by for a quiet chat about who you are and what you get up to. They will be very interested in you. They will listen to your anecdotes while they sip tea and munch homemade biscuits. And agree your son Albert is a good for nothing scoundrel who never calls his mother.
Yeah, I agree the Guardian is left of centre, it makes that pretty obvious. I badly expressed what I meant, but I intended to hold the Guardian up as an example due to the nature of its backers being a board instead of a huge media conglomerate with its own agenda.
Is that the finger pointing begins before the facts have even been established. It's not clear whether this is an innocent mistake, but already voices are raised and accusations are being levelled. This may be nice for news corporations, but this is meant to be a calm and adult, and above all, very important process that should be treated with more seriousness. Perhaps dirty tricks are involved in the missing ballots. More likely they are not.
The serious point is that it debases the whole debate: look at the explosives question for example. A serious error may have been made, in the inadequate securing of high explosives placed under seal by the IAEE. Kerry immediately accuses Bush of failure to correctly secure them. But the information isn't at all clear cut, the explosives may in fact have already been moved, there are conflicting reports. From the initial hasty accusations, you have Bush aides furiously spinning a defense based on lies, then suddenly Kerry aides furiously spinning a defense of their candidates position. Somewhere in all the kerfluffle, the truth is lost, people become apathetic, and an important issue is trivialised, made "old news" and drops off the radar.
The fact is, candidates nowadays are so eager not to miss an opportunity to win a few points that the "news hysteria" near to election reaches fever pitch.
America needs a publicly funded TV and Newspaper source dedicated to impartiality like we have the Guardian and the BBC. The Guardian recently had an outreach program to get UK readers to help educate voters about how the world percieves America, to give them some perspective that is missing from their weekly digest. Unfortunately the campaign was DDOS and filibustered out of existence by republicans spinning a "foreign interference" false call to arms, but while it was ongoing I felt it did useful work and contributed myself. I hope I get an answer!
Billions of dollars have been invested in the silicon infrastructure and its processes of fabrication. This material and the fabrication process associated with it are now the standard of the microelectronic industry. It is crucial that technologies directed towards chip applications be compatible with these process.
Basically silicon is where the fabrication technology has been going for years, and the level of technological sophistication and, bottom line, commercially lower costs means Silicon based microcircuitry is the most sensible choice.
There may be a potentially more valuable material that has properties to make it better than silicon that will eventually superce silicon technology, but until there is pressure from silicon reaching its theoretical limits, the money and time won't be spent to achieve the same level of sophistication.
But it seems to me that the case has no real basis, it's just another use of C&D notices as a cudgel to censor people. As the article suggests, it needs some moderately wealthy backer to help fight stupid take down notices like this. Judges in the States should also fine companies much more who indulge in this sort of behaviour, to discourage the practice.
OK, Nader's out there and is good for democracy, sure. And its a shame that some votes don't count because they're in a majority state, once that 51% is passed, it don't matter. But proportional representation has its own problems, too much fractionisation and ineffective leadership. It might work in penny ante institutions like the EU, but it'll never work over here.
I don't get why some folk are voting Nader when its so important to get rid of bush. The reason why I ain't voting for Bush is because he's had everything handed to him on a plate, he ain't never had to work for nothing. His daddy got him a job working for some friends of his in oil and although he messed up, he still got the money and the power. His daddy even bailed him out of active duty by getting him some plum assignment pretending to fly airoplanes in the boondocks.
Now Kerry, he had nothing. What he got, he had to EARN it. And he paid us all back by fighting oversease and putting his life on the line for America. He didn't get no easy route to the top, when he needed money he had to earn every scrap. George got a handout from his Dad but John had to marry some rich bitch, who must make his life hell.
Everytime I see that snooty cow on TV I'm filled with admiration for John. Not only did he somehow win her over to get his hands on some loot, thaw that ice queen, but he's got to put up with her for every goddam day of his life thereafter. Now that's duty, persevernce and the American Way. And that's why, unlike George, he's gonna make a GREAT president.
There I was, the other day, peacefully walking down the road thinking about the Bible, when I was set upon by a gang of atheists with a movie projector, a gramaphone, a copy of Beethoven's 5th and eyelid forcers.
Why not buy their own Internet filth protective equipment? A blindfold and earmuffs can't cost that much after all.
I hate these high minded religious nuts determined you must live by their rules. Like those nuts in America who fined that TV station for showing J Jackson's breast. I've yet to see a scientific study showing how a glimpse of a mammary gland corrupts the mind of youth. With me, it was the bra / shower section in Mum's catalogues.
You followed the link to a Slashdot story which, in its write up stated "several companies [...] have migrated from Linux to Windows"
What could Sulli have meant?
That, while one person (quoted in this story summary itself) is moving away from Microsoft, more (i.e a greater number) have been known to move away from Linux, as reported on Slashdot?
I'm just as confused as you are. I'm wading in a sea of confusion here. The mud of confusion is seeping into my wellies.
That unusual blue writing that comprised the sentence is what is know colloquially as a "link". Perhaps if you click on it, it will explain the sentence itself....()...What do you know, it does? Well, I think we've all learnt an important lesson today. Perhaps sentences on the Internet which are also hyperlinks have meaning beyond just what is immediately obvious.
By the way, if you're still having trouble, they're moving to Windows. Thanks! Come Again!
Of a readers letter I really enjoyed from The Register UK IT mag. It was an answer to an article about Microsoft saying basically they get too much stick. Managed to track it down via Google: Enjoy, if it's your thing.
..
"Microsoft simply makes some fairly mediocre software and charges a lot for
it."
No.
Microsoft deliberately designs software that is inherently insecure and
refuses to fix the fundamental design flaws no matter how bad the outcome is.
When Microsoft merged IE and the desktop, almost ten years ago now, I
immediately acted to get IE and Outlook banned at work. Why? Because using
the same APIs to operate on trusted (local) and untrusted (email, internet)
objects makes every program that uses those APIs responsible for
determining, independently, whether an object is trusted or not.
I and every security administrator I knew wrote Microsoft telling them this
was a horrible idea. Nothing. They ignored the security community and went
on to actually build IE in to the next release of Windows so you couldn't
leave it out, as part of their game-plan to try and outflank the DoJ.
I didn't know what the result would be, but I knew it would be bad. I did
what I could to discourage our users from running IE and Outlook, and waited.
We didn't have long to wait.
When the Melissa virus showed up, I thought, "OK, this should let them know
they've got a problem. They'll pull out IE and settle, and we'll be able to
secure Windows again". Boy, was I naive.
Here we are, it's 2004 instead of 1996, and there are still weekly exploits
found in IE, Outlook, Windows Media Player, programs that use the MSHTML
control. Get rid of that and you'd cut the virus problem by a factor of 10
or 100. 90-99% of the time spent fighting and cleaning up after viruses
should be billed directly to Redmond, and because they did it to illegally
avoid complying with the agreement they had with the DoJ, there should be
criminal charges on top of that.
Microsoft doesn't merely charge a lot for mediocre software, they
deliberately and knowingly force people to chew up lifetimes fighting a
problem that should not exist, and they do it to win a little extra market
share for a secondary product that they don't even charge money for.
Slashdot Mirror
had to contend with T Rex
Not so. The Tyrannosaurus Rex was, according to consensus of scientific opinion, a opportunistic scavenger rather than an out and out predator, despite what films such as Jurassic Park portray. Heavy plate armour is so successful a defense mechanism, you might wonder why many more species don't utilise it.
This just goes to show that Nature, with a decent head start, can produce some pretty spectacular materials, an example that springs to mind is Morpho menelaus a butterfly with striking laser-blue irridescent wings, which uses an optical trick to make them shine so brightly. I was always fascinated by a little tray my father had when I was a kid, which was just the top side of the wings of these butterflies pressed under glass. I had a hard time believing it was from an organic being. Anyway, you can't get things like that anymore (I've looked) which is probably due to them having to be a protected species. Shame on all of us really, for hunting these creatures to near extinction, like the dinosaurs.
Wikipedia's main flaw is that many of the entries are written by people graduating from the world of Usenet, IMHO. These are people who have their own personal bugbears and are entrenched in their own opinions, having written them and debated them for so many years. They find it difficult to accept new evidence, or even sometimes just take a balanced look at their subject. Beyond this, the editors themselves have their shared percieved biases, which impact even how they view an articles "balance".
However this is nitpicking. Apart from this small problem on extremely contentious entries, or very obscure ones, Wikipedia is a valuable resource I have consulted often, and even supplied material for myself.
Wikipedia could solve its other problem, trust in an articles accuracy, by freezing certain pages once they have been comprehensively checked out. Of course there would be an unfreezing process by which new data could be added, but at least a frozen page would give you confidence some malicious user hadn't introduced subtle errors that slipped past notice.
One would assume conterfeit drugs are being sold from unethical pharmacies; how then will giving pharmacies the ability to detect conterfeit drugs be of any use in this situation? Unethical pharmacies will go on selling counterfeit drugs: how are consumers supposed to tell the difference? We don't have RFID readers.
Are they saying counterfeit drugs are being introduced into the supply chain in deliveries from the manufacturers themselves? This is the online thing that these chips will counteract, and at the same time will have numerous disadvantages for the consumer: higher cost any tom dick and harry with a reader knowing what you are buying, continued data mining.
I'm the webmaster for a small, select website, and I've been having various problems with Google bots crawling all over it. I object to this: they are stealing from me in a very material way, which they have no right to do. Unless I adhere to their own arbitrary rules, then they index my pages and copy my images (many of which are original and created, copyrighted by myself) without right of reply or respect for my rights of freedom of expression. I simply do not want the average surfer to be able to visit my site, I am not interested in serving my pages to them, they simply would not appreciate or understand what it is I am showing. I have informed Google of this, but corresponding with google is like talking to a mute, they simply do not care. Their motto may as well be "Don't be blatantly evil (merely confine your evilness to various small scale unsavoury attacks on Net denizens)"
The problem is really search engines in general, they act like road hogs of the Internet bandwidth, and I have to waste valuable time to prevent them from bothering my own, special webspace. I am not compensated for this time. There is an Internet crime EVERY DAY.
Google have built up a market by offering ad views alongside their search engine, thus making money. It isn't about the search, it's about that market, and Microsoft moving into new markets is what it is all about.
They do not need a better algorithm than Google (which is becoming increasingly gamed by shady companies and not as good as it was anyway), they just need something "good enough", like their OS is "good enough".
As for reversing the trend, Microsoft have 1) leverage in the form of their existing OS userbase (as others have mentioned, using MS search as default), 2) Massive cash surplus 3)Brand recognition. They do not have to give things away for free. They have to fight against a competitor with a larger market share, something they have done in the past quite successfully. Do not confuse the Slashdot echochamber with objective reality.
But we'll have to wait another few months (and read European newspapers) to REALLY see if Ohio is sound. Remember Florida.
...already patched by Microsoft. Really, I swear half their security problems just come from clueless users not keeping up to date on patches. How hard is it to turn on Windows Update for chrissakes?
I think this artificially inflates Linux et al.'s security record to some degree, as Linux / other OSs administrators are more likely to be up to date, being generally more technically savvy.
Is it obvious much that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.
What was it Rob said when politics.slashdot.org was launched? They wanted to comment on politics, and that the editors represented a pretty wide base of political belief? How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?
Just look at the headings. There's at least a 20:1 ratio favouring Kerry fluff ie. "Kerry MAY perhaps consider repealing DMCA" appeared a few days ago (he won't). So much for balance. Pathetic.
I don't think anyone is suggesting you take one side over the other here. That's the point. There are two mutually contradictory stories here, and only time will tell which story stands up to scrutiny and which one is mud flung across to obscure the trail. Wait a little before forming an opinion because otherwise you will find yourself trying to defend that which has proven to be false. For an example, look at the Daily Kos and its behaviour when the false memo was finally shown to be a forgery. They fought tooth and nail for something they must have realised early on wasn't worth it.
But back to the explosives, I brought it up because it was a recent issue where the facts are somewhat in doubt. But because you think the facts weren't in doubt, you claimed it was irrelevant. I think you demonstrate the overall point of my original post quite well, that black and white characterisation of complex issues does nothing to help find the truth.
Get a livejournal account
Post an appeal for someone to kill the President
Report yourself to the FBI
Within a week, two nice, polite young men will stop by for a quiet chat about who you are and what you get up to. They will be very interested in you. They will listen to your anecdotes while they sip tea and munch homemade biscuits. And agree your son Albert is a good for nothing scoundrel who never calls his mother.
A week later, repeat process.
Yeah, I agree the Guardian is left of centre, it makes that pretty obvious. I badly expressed what I meant, but I intended to hold the Guardian up as an example due to the nature of its backers being a board instead of a huge media conglomerate with its own agenda.
Is that the finger pointing begins before the facts have even been established. It's not clear whether this is an innocent mistake, but already voices are raised and accusations are being levelled. This may be nice for news corporations, but this is meant to be a calm and adult, and above all, very important process that should be treated with more seriousness. Perhaps dirty tricks are involved in the missing ballots. More likely they are not.
The serious point is that it debases the whole debate: look at the explosives question for example. A serious error may have been made, in the inadequate securing of high explosives placed under seal by the IAEE. Kerry immediately accuses Bush of failure to correctly secure them. But the information isn't at all clear cut, the explosives may in fact have already been moved, there are conflicting reports. From the initial hasty accusations, you have Bush aides furiously spinning a defense based on lies, then suddenly Kerry aides furiously spinning a defense of their candidates position. Somewhere in all the kerfluffle, the truth is lost, people become apathetic, and an important issue is trivialised, made "old news" and drops off the radar.
The fact is, candidates nowadays are so eager not to miss an opportunity to win a few points that the "news hysteria" near to election reaches fever pitch.
America needs a publicly funded TV and Newspaper source dedicated to impartiality like we have the Guardian and the BBC. The Guardian recently had an outreach program to get UK readers to help educate voters about how the world percieves America, to give them some perspective that is missing from their weekly digest. Unfortunately the campaign was DDOS and filibustered out of existence by republicans spinning a "foreign interference" false call to arms, but while it was ongoing I felt it did useful work and contributed myself. I hope I get an answer!
Basically silicon is where the fabrication technology has been going for years, and the level of technological sophistication and, bottom line, commercially lower costs means Silicon based microcircuitry is the most sensible choice.
There may be a potentially more valuable material that has properties to make it better than silicon that will eventually superce silicon technology, but until there is pressure from silicon reaching its theoretical limits, the money and time won't be spent to achieve the same level of sophistication.
Like everyone else commenting here, I suspect.
But it seems to me that the case has no real basis, it's just another use of C&D notices as a cudgel to censor people. As the article suggests, it needs some moderately wealthy backer to help fight stupid take down notices like this. Judges in the States should also fine companies much more who indulge in this sort of behaviour, to discourage the practice.
Definition: Firmly lodged in place.
Slashdot: Even News Plankton Feed On Us
EAT THE BREAD AND WATCH THE CIRCUS, GODDAMIT.
lameness, do-be-doo doo, lameness, la la laaa. I shouldn't use so many caps, it's like YELLING.
OK, Nader's out there and is good for democracy, sure. And its a shame that some votes don't count because they're in a majority state, once that 51% is passed, it don't matter. But proportional representation has its own problems, too much fractionisation and ineffective leadership. It might work in penny ante institutions like the EU, but it'll never work over here.
I don't get why some folk are voting Nader when its so important to get rid of bush. The reason why I ain't voting for Bush is because he's had everything handed to him on a plate, he ain't never had to work for nothing. His daddy got him a job working for some friends of his in oil and although he messed up, he still got the money and the power. His daddy even bailed him out of active duty by getting him some plum assignment pretending to fly airoplanes in the boondocks.
Now Kerry, he had nothing. What he got, he had to EARN it. And he paid us all back by fighting oversease and putting his life on the line for America. He didn't get no easy route to the top, when he needed money he had to earn every scrap. George got a handout from his Dad but John had to marry some rich bitch, who must make his life hell.
Everytime I see that snooty cow on TV I'm filled with admiration for John. Not only did he somehow win her over to get his hands on some loot, thaw that ice queen, but he's got to put up with her for every goddam day of his life thereafter. Now that's duty, persevernce and the American Way. And that's why, unlike George, he's gonna make a GREAT president.
So the Playstation 2 will only be bought by faux-scruffy posers?
Oh G-d, you're so right.
There I was, the other day, peacefully walking down the road thinking about the Bible, when I was set upon by a gang of atheists with a movie projector, a gramaphone, a copy of Beethoven's 5th and eyelid forcers.
You won't believe the shit I'm into now.
These people need to get laid.
Why not buy their own Internet filth protective equipment? A blindfold and earmuffs can't cost that much after all.
I hate these high minded religious nuts determined you must live by their rules. Like those nuts in America who fined that TV station for showing J Jackson's breast. I've yet to see a scientific study showing how a glimpse of a mammary gland corrupts the mind of youth. With me, it was the bra / shower section in Mum's catalogues.
Well, I don't want to start a flamewar here but I think it could be regarded as a colloquial AND idiomatic expression. So everyone's a winner.
Jinx! No comebacks!
You read "More people are moving away from Linux"
You followed the link to a Slashdot story which, in its write up stated "several companies [...] have migrated from Linux to Windows"
What could Sulli have meant?
That, while one person (quoted in this story summary itself) is moving away from Microsoft, more (i.e a greater number) have been known to move away from Linux, as reported on Slashdot?
I'm just as confused as you are. I'm wading in a sea of confusion here. The mud of confusion is seeping into my wellies.
That unusual blue writing that comprised the sentence is what is know colloquially as a "link". Perhaps if you click on it, it will explain the sentence itself. ...()...What do you know, it does? Well, I think we've all learnt an important lesson today. Perhaps sentences on the Internet which are also hyperlinks have meaning beyond just what is immediately obvious.
By the way, if you're still having trouble, they're moving to Windows. Thanks! Come Again!
Of a readers letter I really enjoyed from The Register UK IT mag. It was an answer to an article about Microsoft saying basically they get too much stick. Managed to track it down via Google: Enjoy, if it's your thing.
..
"Microsoft simply makes some fairly mediocre software and charges a lot for it."
No.
Microsoft deliberately designs software that is inherently insecure and refuses to fix the fundamental design flaws no matter how bad the outcome is.
When Microsoft merged IE and the desktop, almost ten years ago now, I immediately acted to get IE and Outlook banned at work. Why? Because using the same APIs to operate on trusted (local) and untrusted (email, internet) objects makes every program that uses those APIs responsible for determining, independently, whether an object is trusted or not.
I and every security administrator I knew wrote Microsoft telling them this was a horrible idea. Nothing. They ignored the security community and went on to actually build IE in to the next release of Windows so you couldn't leave it out, as part of their game-plan to try and outflank the DoJ.
I didn't know what the result would be, but I knew it would be bad. I did what I could to discourage our users from running IE and Outlook, and waited.
We didn't have long to wait.
When the Melissa virus showed up, I thought, "OK, this should let them know they've got a problem. They'll pull out IE and settle, and we'll be able to secure Windows again". Boy, was I naive.
Here we are, it's 2004 instead of 1996, and there are still weekly exploits found in IE, Outlook, Windows Media Player, programs that use the MSHTML control. Get rid of that and you'd cut the virus problem by a factor of 10 or 100. 90-99% of the time spent fighting and cleaning up after viruses should be billed directly to Redmond, and because they did it to illegally avoid complying with the agreement they had with the DoJ, there should be criminal charges on top of that.
Microsoft doesn't merely charge a lot for mediocre software, they deliberately and knowingly force people to chew up lifetimes fighting a problem that should not exist, and they do it to win a little extra market share for a secondary product that they don't even charge money for.