Digital Playground is a pretty large production company. I dated a girl who worked at a porn shop for a while and a lot of their featured releases that were on display were from DP.
Also, seeing as how much demand there is for pornographic content (the small store that my ex works at pulls in atleast 10g's a week) it does make sense that a digital content medium's success could very well be determined by the adult industry's standards. Fact is, HD-DVD now has a large selection of highly demanded exclusive content that Blu-Ray won't have.
How much internet bandwidth do you think is dedicated to porn, how much p2p filesharing is exclusively towards the trade of porn? Face it, people like porn and thus it's a significant industry to this battle.
As an agnostic, and former gamete (formerly a random cluster of molecules) I think masturbation and chemistry are evil. We need to get rid of anything that causes harm to gametes or molecules. It's a human rights issue.
It's cultural progress. Despite the secularization of society, it seems that the moral fabric of our society hasn't grown weaker, but quite the opposite.
Rights are legal / moral entitlements plain and simple. There's little universal consensus beyond this basic definition, so you'll have to elaborate on the philosophical or political model you're specifically referring to which requires these presuppositions.
If what you claim is indeed true, then do children & the mentally incompetent also not have rights? And what then of civil society before the notion of rights was established / popularized? This would seem to contradict the concept of natural rights which most people in our society subscribe to.
Perhaps you are speaking strictly of civil rights granted as part of the civil contract pressumably entered into by all members of a civil society. But even then most still believe in children's rights and civil rights for the mentally incompetent. Furthermore, who's to say that my dog or cat doesn't have the capacity to recognize and respect the rights of others when its behavior clearly denotes a distinct, granted slightly limited, understanding. By your reasoning it should atleast be as deserving of the same rights as a toddler. The level of moral development of various species, like their level of sentience, is debateable. Similarly, human beings also bear different levels of sentience and reflect different stages of moral development.
Regarding human rights, i think it's important to remember that many rights are considered natural rights which are not granted to, nor can be taken away from, the individual by the legal system or any kind of social contract. The liberties of criminals are only encroached upon because of our limited physical means and resources for protecting the rest of society from criminal offenders. And our justice / legal system is rife with flaws so I would hesitate to use it to define the rights of individuals and the conditions (if there are indeed any) of those rights.
Plenty of people seem to support the idea of animal rights just as they do children's rights and natural rights. So frankly there's no reason why the term "rights" cannot be applied here. In the future it might be wise to sound less like a jackass when entering a discussion regarding subjects as controversial as the scope & applicability of legal / moral rights.
They build better cars because they don't have unions? You could argue that their cars are cheaper because of they are all built with robotics rather than manual labor, but that still doesn't account for their reliability and engineering superiority. Also, perhaps you should learn to read more than a single sentence from an article before drawing your conclusions. Toyota's recalls were regarding minor issues and were voluntary recalls by the company, not from customer generated complaints. In fact, the same WSJ article states: "J.D. Power & Associates and Consumer Reports both continue to place Toyota at the top of their rankings in initial and mid-term quality and reliability." Perhaps its willingness to voluntarily recall cars when there have been no customer complaints or government action is what has helped Toyota maintain its reputation and image for selling well-made automobiles.
Dissent from the government on their own time? What the hell does that mean? Preventing the truth about environmental deterioration from being disclosed or by disseminating misinformation regarding the problem prevents the public from making informed decisions in response to it. Having the public believe in lies that the plutocracy made up is no different from having the public believe in lies that the government makes up.
So academic research isn't useful because it's too advanced, and therefor it's over-optimistic, self-congratulatory, and totally disconnected from real applications? Funny, most research grants are only given out if the researchers can prove that their research has real-world applications. Just because it may take 10 years for the research objectives to be attained doesn't mean it's useless. Academic researchers are basically tackling the hardest proprblems in the world of robotics today, and once they've solved the difficult problems that take 10 years to solve, others can benefit from the research with only minor logistical obstacles to overcome.
What exactly is your complaint against academic research? That you can't make use of it because you don't have the foundational knowledge or the education to understand it? If you want to understand leading edge research and be able to make use of it, you need to pursue an advanced degree in those areas--why is that such a big surprise? Ofcourse only leading researchers in a field can use leading research in that field. Those innovations can only trickle down after many years because the research was done in the first place. So your complaint makes little sense. Without people researching the bleeding edge stuff, there would be no progress in any technological field.
And commercial companies ignore the latest advances because they don't want to invest in the R&D of those technologies since they see no immediate financial returns to be gained. That is the difference between commercial research and academic research. The commercial ventures will wait until the work has been done for them by academic researchers and they see the technology as a sound investment before they will put money into it. In short, they only care about money, not the advancement of science or technology. Your last sentence is illogical--think about it for a moment.
It incorporated new ideas and innovations--the culmination of which was a new and innovative product in itself which others have tried to imitate ever since. In any case, my point still remains: having others copy your idea doesn't negate your ability to continue to profit (lucratively) from something you created first.
How does the patent system protect creative work? By disallowing anyone else from using the same idea after you've patented it? Is that what you call protectiong--by preventing others from benefiting from an idea that others could have just as easily arrived at on their own? Just look at all of the recent patent-related lawsuits. They only protect the right of individuals to monopolize an idea and prevent society from benfiting from the idea or taking the idea further (and in some situations, from even realizing an idea that hasn't been put to work)
Just because you thought of the wheel first doesn't mean you own the exclusive right to use the wheel. You may have come up with the idea first--which gives you an advantage if you want to profit from the idea--but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have thought of it at some point. Say someone invents X and patents it. Then 50 years later another young man independently thinks of the idea to build X. Should he have to pay royalties to the first inventor to use his idea and perhaps improve on it just because he was born later than the first inventor? Patents basically punish people for not being the first to think of the idea. But being the first to come up with an idea doesn't give one any more merit to hold exclusive rights to the idea than what is naturally bestowed to the original inventor.
The advantage you should (and naturally) have is that you can put the product into production and profit from it before anyone else--sometimes that is all it takes to achieve market dominance. If you invent a new type of software, you will be the originator that everyone will see as the genuine thing or real deal. By the time others copy it, you'll have improved the product for the next release of the software. Why do you think even though there are tons of iPod knockoffs that iPods are still unrivaled as the best mp3 player? It works the same way for all technological products.
Just because you've invented something innovative doesn't mean you should be allowed to monopolize that idea and profit off of it indefinitely and charge people royalties for using that idea even if they arrived at it independently just because they got the idea after you did. If you create something innovative and want to profit from it, fine. But you can't expect others to not try to copy the idea and even improve upon it just because you thought of it first. You have to keep improving on your product in order to stay ahead of the game--that's how all industries work. Patents are just a lazy way of making money without having to work to stay ahead of the competition. It stifles innovation in so many ways that only the greedy would argue in favor of their existence.
You said "academic research"--that means all research done at colleges and university labratories, including masters and phd students. The point is, their research is published and shared, not hoarded as "trade secrets" or patented inventions/methods. Being commercialized just means that you can go out and purchase a ready made product. That is of no use to those truly interested in robotics--such as robotics researchers and scientists in academia. What is useful is published research--most of which comes from academia rathe.
That's bullshit. Human-beings are social creatures. We have social needs which means that we must make personal sacrifices and compromises to make others happy or to at least get along with others. People who completely disregard how others feel or think of them and do only what they want are considered sociopaths.
If you didn't care what others thought of you, then why bother spending money on clothes, or buying cologne, or getting your hair cut, etc. Why care how you look at all? Even if your preferred look is considered "unique" you're still trying to convey a certain image to others.
It's natural for people to try to look good for the opposite (or same) sex and try to attact them by having a certain image. There's nothing shameful about that. The only reason I wear cologne, I dress a certain way, and I do my hair a certain way isn't because I really care about how I smell or look. When I'm at home and don't plan to go out I'll walk around my apartment in my boxers and I won't bother doing my hair because it's more comfortable. But if I want to attract girls, I need to make myself more presentable, which means following certain fashions. This isn't selling yourself out or not being comfortable with who you are.
Only researchers that develop commercial products contribute to the advancement of technology? So Einstein made no useful contribution to the sciences or society because he never commercialized any of his research?
Academia has always been at the forefront of science and technology. Commercial ventures only step in after someone finds an angle to make money from the innovations established by academic research.
Where do you think all the first nuclear scientists came from? They sure didn't come from commercial research divisions since no nuclear power companies or any other commercial companies existed which had any previous use for nuclear power or nuclear physicists.
And what do you think was harder, creating the first sustained nuclear reaction/pioneering nuclear fission, or commercializing that research? Which takes more genius and talent? I'm guessing there's a lot more people who can commercialize the research than there are who can conduct the initial research so there would be technology to commercialize in the first place. Usually those who commercialize the research are simply people with the business acumen and funding, not necessarily people who are particularly knowledgeable in the field--they recruit academic researchers for that.
Why do you have to solve it again just because the research wasn't commercialized? If it was solved by academics then the research would have been published. It just means you can't just go out and buy a prepackaged solution--what's the fun in that? If it had been solved by private companies then they might not release the privately conducted research, and you'd be forced to solve it again and possible get sued for solving it. Academic research, unlike commercial research, is shared with other researchers and those interested in the research. If you're waiting for someone to sell you a prepackaged solution then you aren't a researcher or hobbyist. You're just a consumer.
First off, Tobacco is not a chemical. Secondly, nicotine is not nearly as physically or psychologically addictive as drugs like cocaine, meth, opiates, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or alcohol. You would have to be a heavy smoker for many many years to become physically dependent on nicotine, and even then it only produces mild withdrawl symptoms which go away after a week or two of abstinence. Many smokers who've never experienced true addiction before simply use the exagerated addictiveness of nicotine within the public mind as a cop out when they try to quit smoking.
What does this have to do with Web 2.0? The MySpace music player is a flash application. Web 2.0 is just a term to describe the new generation of social web apps which team up various mature technologies in innovative new ways to deliever a richer user experiences compared to the previous generation of web applications.
Web 2.0 sites simply focus more on user and community interaction, collaboration, and content-contribution. They also marry pre-existing technologies (javascript, xml, serverside-scripting) to create more responsive interfaces. What is inherently flawed or insecure about it? Digg, Del.icio.us, Flickr, Gmail, YouTube, and Last.fm all seem to be doing fine. Even older sites like Amazon.com, Google, Yahoo Mail, and Slashdot have adopted Web 2.0 trends. Technologies naturally grow and adapt to fill new or changing needs and demands over time. Web 2.0 just represents the next evolutionary stage of web development as people realize the potential for richer web experiences by combining various key technologies.
It sounds like you're just afraid of a little change. Making up FUD to scare your managers out of keeping up with growing web trends just seems like a cop out to avoid learning new development techniques and adapting to the new business climate and changing consumer demands. Almost all large sites are gradually taking advantage of Web 2.0 development techniques. You can't fight progress forever.
Easier when you can actually find the album. It's hard to find an active torrent of a lot of artists on Pirate Bay. Between no song and a 96kbps MP3, most people would download what they can get. No one is suggesting this as a substitute for P2P downloads; it's just a useful tool for when you stumble upon an artist or song on MySpace that you like and wanna grab it. There have been many occasions in the past where I've discovered an artist on MySpace directly, or found them some other way and went to their MySpace page for a listen, and wanted to save the track but couldn't. I would very much have liked to have this tool in those situations.
When you withdraw money from the bank it is no longer their money. They have transferred the money to you. It is up to you to protect it. However, authenticating an account holder before transferring the money to them is a bank's job. When they transfer money out of your account to another person, they are at fault. That's why the bank must do everything they can to prevent fraud. If your ATM card gets stolen, that doesn't mean it's your fault for not looking after the card. PIN numbers are implemented because sometimes people lose their cards. People err, that is to be expected.
Also, banks usually have theft and fraud insurance. They are covered when these types of crimes occur, customers are not.
That actually trying to involve every programmer at Microsoft in making Windows better would almost certainly be counter-productive ?
So you are admitting that building an anti-virus isn't actually making Windows itself better (or more secure). Therefore, the EU requiring MS to package the AV separately is--exactly what it sounds like--requiring MS to package an external component separately rather than abusing their monopoly to gain an unfair anti-competitive advantage over other AV manufactuers.
MS can still develop and sell an AV. But seeing as it's clearly not part of the OS, there's no reason they should be packaged together--especially when doing so would basically shutout all other AV manufactuers, not because of being a superior product, but because no one wants to go out and buy a second AV when Windows already comes with a pre-packaged one that you've basically already paid for.
People don't intentionally fall victim of phishing, just like they don't intentionally fall for scams. Old people and certain really naive individuals can't help themselves. This is why we have federal agencies going after these criminals--to protect those susceptible to these scams. If the bank shifts the losses to the customers then they have no incentive to secure their online banking process.
As of right now, banks are devising new ways of combatting phising. This is part of their responsibility as a bank. They are in the unique position to implement security policies to avert phishing/key logging and other types of similar schemes. The current situation promote the continual improvement of banking security. What is being suggested would do the opposite. Banks currently with weak security protections in place would not be encourage to adopt better protections.
Banks are also insured federally--with tax payer dollars. Thus the banks collectively have a responsibility to the tax payers to make these types of financial fraud as difficult as possible. Shifting the losses to the customers would relieve them of that responsibility completely.
Slashdot Mirror
i think i saw that porno once. thanks for making me relive the horror, asshole.
oh god, the things they did with that 6 foot sub...
Digital Playground is a pretty large production company. I dated a girl who worked at a porn shop for a while and a lot of their featured releases that were on display were from DP. Also, seeing as how much demand there is for pornographic content (the small store that my ex works at pulls in atleast 10g's a week) it does make sense that a digital content medium's success could very well be determined by the adult industry's standards. Fact is, HD-DVD now has a large selection of highly demanded exclusive content that Blu-Ray won't have. How much internet bandwidth do you think is dedicated to porn, how much p2p filesharing is exclusively towards the trade of porn? Face it, people like porn and thus it's a significant industry to this battle.
most guys i know prefer a girl who waxes/shaves. i just don't enjoy getting pubes in my mouth.
Heh, if you're looking for a funny porno, I hear Space Nuts is pretty good.
As an agnostic, and former gamete (formerly a random cluster of molecules) I think masturbation and chemistry are evil. We need to get rid of anything that causes harm to gametes or molecules. It's a human rights issue.
To whom? Using their resources to impress the Slashdot userbase isn't as important to them as actually realizing the technology I imagine.
It's cultural progress. Despite the secularization of society, it seems that the moral fabric of our society hasn't grown weaker, but quite the opposite.
That's not a double entendre.
Rights are legal / moral entitlements plain and simple. There's little universal consensus beyond this basic definition, so you'll have to elaborate on the philosophical or political model you're specifically referring to which requires these presuppositions. If what you claim is indeed true, then do children & the mentally incompetent also not have rights? And what then of civil society before the notion of rights was established / popularized? This would seem to contradict the concept of natural rights which most people in our society subscribe to. Perhaps you are speaking strictly of civil rights granted as part of the civil contract pressumably entered into by all members of a civil society. But even then most still believe in children's rights and civil rights for the mentally incompetent. Furthermore, who's to say that my dog or cat doesn't have the capacity to recognize and respect the rights of others when its behavior clearly denotes a distinct, granted slightly limited, understanding. By your reasoning it should atleast be as deserving of the same rights as a toddler. The level of moral development of various species, like their level of sentience, is debateable. Similarly, human beings also bear different levels of sentience and reflect different stages of moral development. Regarding human rights, i think it's important to remember that many rights are considered natural rights which are not granted to, nor can be taken away from, the individual by the legal system or any kind of social contract. The liberties of criminals are only encroached upon because of our limited physical means and resources for protecting the rest of society from criminal offenders. And our justice / legal system is rife with flaws so I would hesitate to use it to define the rights of individuals and the conditions (if there are indeed any) of those rights. Plenty of people seem to support the idea of animal rights just as they do children's rights and natural rights. So frankly there's no reason why the term "rights" cannot be applied here. In the future it might be wise to sound less like a jackass when entering a discussion regarding subjects as controversial as the scope & applicability of legal / moral rights.
They build better cars because they don't have unions? You could argue that their cars are cheaper because of they are all built with robotics rather than manual labor, but that still doesn't account for their reliability and engineering superiority. Also, perhaps you should learn to read more than a single sentence from an article before drawing your conclusions. Toyota's recalls were regarding minor issues and were voluntary recalls by the company, not from customer generated complaints. In fact, the same WSJ article states: "J.D. Power & Associates and Consumer Reports both continue to place Toyota at the top of their rankings in initial and mid-term quality and reliability." Perhaps its willingness to voluntarily recall cars when there have been no customer complaints or government action is what has helped Toyota maintain its reputation and image for selling well-made automobiles.
Dissent from the government on their own time? What the hell does that mean? Preventing the truth about environmental deterioration from being disclosed or by disseminating misinformation regarding the problem prevents the public from making informed decisions in response to it. Having the public believe in lies that the plutocracy made up is no different from having the public believe in lies that the government makes up.
So academic research isn't useful because it's too advanced, and therefor it's over-optimistic, self-congratulatory, and totally disconnected from real applications? Funny, most research grants are only given out if the researchers can prove that their research has real-world applications. Just because it may take 10 years for the research objectives to be attained doesn't mean it's useless. Academic researchers are basically tackling the hardest proprblems in the world of robotics today, and once they've solved the difficult problems that take 10 years to solve, others can benefit from the research with only minor logistical obstacles to overcome.
What exactly is your complaint against academic research? That you can't make use of it because you don't have the foundational knowledge or the education to understand it? If you want to understand leading edge research and be able to make use of it, you need to pursue an advanced degree in those areas--why is that such a big surprise? Ofcourse only leading researchers in a field can use leading research in that field. Those innovations can only trickle down after many years because the research was done in the first place. So your complaint makes little sense. Without people researching the bleeding edge stuff, there would be no progress in any technological field.
And commercial companies ignore the latest advances because they don't want to invest in the R&D of those technologies since they see no immediate financial returns to be gained. That is the difference between commercial research and academic research. The commercial ventures will wait until the work has been done for them by academic researchers and they see the technology as a sound investment before they will put money into it. In short, they only care about money, not the advancement of science or technology. Your last sentence is illogical--think about it for a moment.
It incorporated new ideas and innovations--the culmination of which was a new and innovative product in itself which others have tried to imitate ever since. In any case, my point still remains: having others copy your idea doesn't negate your ability to continue to profit (lucratively) from something you created first.
How does the patent system protect creative work? By disallowing anyone else from using the same idea after you've patented it? Is that what you call protectiong--by preventing others from benefiting from an idea that others could have just as easily arrived at on their own? Just look at all of the recent patent-related lawsuits. They only protect the right of individuals to monopolize an idea and prevent society from benfiting from the idea or taking the idea further (and in some situations, from even realizing an idea that hasn't been put to work)
Just because you thought of the wheel first doesn't mean you own the exclusive right to use the wheel. You may have come up with the idea first--which gives you an advantage if you want to profit from the idea--but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have thought of it at some point. Say someone invents X and patents it. Then 50 years later another young man independently thinks of the idea to build X. Should he have to pay royalties to the first inventor to use his idea and perhaps improve on it just because he was born later than the first inventor? Patents basically punish people for not being the first to think of the idea. But being the first to come up with an idea doesn't give one any more merit to hold exclusive rights to the idea than what is naturally bestowed to the original inventor.
The advantage you should (and naturally) have is that you can put the product into production and profit from it before anyone else--sometimes that is all it takes to achieve market dominance. If you invent a new type of software, you will be the originator that everyone will see as the genuine thing or real deal. By the time others copy it, you'll have improved the product for the next release of the software. Why do you think even though there are tons of iPod knockoffs that iPods are still unrivaled as the best mp3 player? It works the same way for all technological products.
Just because you've invented something innovative doesn't mean you should be allowed to monopolize that idea and profit off of it indefinitely and charge people royalties for using that idea even if they arrived at it independently just because they got the idea after you did. If you create something innovative and want to profit from it, fine. But you can't expect others to not try to copy the idea and even improve upon it just because you thought of it first. You have to keep improving on your product in order to stay ahead of the game--that's how all industries work. Patents are just a lazy way of making money without having to work to stay ahead of the competition. It stifles innovation in so many ways that only the greedy would argue in favor of their existence.
You said "academic research"--that means all research done at colleges and university labratories, including masters and phd students. The point is, their research is published and shared, not hoarded as "trade secrets" or patented inventions/methods. Being commercialized just means that you can go out and purchase a ready made product. That is of no use to those truly interested in robotics--such as robotics researchers and scientists in academia. What is useful is published research--most of which comes from academia rathe.
That's bullshit. Human-beings are social creatures. We have social needs which means that we must make personal sacrifices and compromises to make others happy or to at least get along with others. People who completely disregard how others feel or think of them and do only what they want are considered sociopaths.
If you didn't care what others thought of you, then why bother spending money on clothes, or buying cologne, or getting your hair cut, etc. Why care how you look at all? Even if your preferred look is considered "unique" you're still trying to convey a certain image to others.
It's natural for people to try to look good for the opposite (or same) sex and try to attact them by having a certain image. There's nothing shameful about that. The only reason I wear cologne, I dress a certain way, and I do my hair a certain way isn't because I really care about how I smell or look. When I'm at home and don't plan to go out I'll walk around my apartment in my boxers and I won't bother doing my hair because it's more comfortable. But if I want to attract girls, I need to make myself more presentable, which means following certain fashions. This isn't selling yourself out or not being comfortable with who you are.
Only researchers that develop commercial products contribute to the advancement of technology? So Einstein made no useful contribution to the sciences or society because he never commercialized any of his research?
Academia has always been at the forefront of science and technology. Commercial ventures only step in after someone finds an angle to make money from the innovations established by academic research.
Where do you think all the first nuclear scientists came from? They sure didn't come from commercial research divisions since no nuclear power companies or any other commercial companies existed which had any previous use for nuclear power or nuclear physicists.
And what do you think was harder, creating the first sustained nuclear reaction/pioneering nuclear fission, or commercializing that research? Which takes more genius and talent? I'm guessing there's a lot more people who can commercialize the research than there are who can conduct the initial research so there would be technology to commercialize in the first place. Usually those who commercialize the research are simply people with the business acumen and funding, not necessarily people who are particularly knowledgeable in the field--they recruit academic researchers for that.
Why do you have to solve it again just because the research wasn't commercialized? If it was solved by academics then the research would have been published. It just means you can't just go out and buy a prepackaged solution--what's the fun in that? If it had been solved by private companies then they might not release the privately conducted research, and you'd be forced to solve it again and possible get sued for solving it. Academic research, unlike commercial research, is shared with other researchers and those interested in the research. If you're waiting for someone to sell you a prepackaged solution then you aren't a researcher or hobbyist. You're just a consumer.
First off, Tobacco is not a chemical. Secondly, nicotine is not nearly as physically or psychologically addictive as drugs like cocaine, meth, opiates, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or alcohol. You would have to be a heavy smoker for many many years to become physically dependent on nicotine, and even then it only produces mild withdrawl symptoms which go away after a week or two of abstinence. Many smokers who've never experienced true addiction before simply use the exagerated addictiveness of nicotine within the public mind as a cop out when they try to quit smoking.
What does this have to do with Web 2.0? The MySpace music player is a flash application. Web 2.0 is just a term to describe the new generation of social web apps which team up various mature technologies in innovative new ways to deliever a richer user experiences compared to the previous generation of web applications.
Web 2.0 sites simply focus more on user and community interaction, collaboration, and content-contribution. They also marry pre-existing technologies (javascript, xml, serverside-scripting) to create more responsive interfaces. What is inherently flawed or insecure about it? Digg, Del.icio.us, Flickr, Gmail, YouTube, and Last.fm all seem to be doing fine. Even older sites like Amazon.com, Google, Yahoo Mail, and Slashdot have adopted Web 2.0 trends. Technologies naturally grow and adapt to fill new or changing needs and demands over time. Web 2.0 just represents the next evolutionary stage of web development as people realize the potential for richer web experiences by combining various key technologies.
It sounds like you're just afraid of a little change. Making up FUD to scare your managers out of keeping up with growing web trends just seems like a cop out to avoid learning new development techniques and adapting to the new business climate and changing consumer demands. Almost all large sites are gradually taking advantage of Web 2.0 development techniques. You can't fight progress forever.
Easier when you can actually find the album. It's hard to find an active torrent of a lot of artists on Pirate Bay. Between no song and a 96kbps MP3, most people would download what they can get. No one is suggesting this as a substitute for P2P downloads; it's just a useful tool for when you stumble upon an artist or song on MySpace that you like and wanna grab it. There have been many occasions in the past where I've discovered an artist on MySpace directly, or found them some other way and went to their MySpace page for a listen, and wanted to save the track but couldn't. I would very much have liked to have this tool in those situations.
Just because you aren't aware of them and haven't put much thought into trying to solve the problem doesn't mean solutions do not exist. Many solutions have been developed and are being developed.
When you withdraw money from the bank it is no longer their money. They have transferred the money to you. It is up to you to protect it. However, authenticating an account holder before transferring the money to them is a bank's job. When they transfer money out of your account to another person, they are at fault. That's why the bank must do everything they can to prevent fraud. If your ATM card gets stolen, that doesn't mean it's your fault for not looking after the card. PIN numbers are implemented because sometimes people lose their cards. People err, that is to be expected.
Also, banks usually have theft and fraud insurance. They are covered when these types of crimes occur, customers are not.
So you are admitting that building an anti-virus isn't actually making Windows itself better (or more secure). Therefore, the EU requiring MS to package the AV separately is--exactly what it sounds like--requiring MS to package an external component separately rather than abusing their monopoly to gain an unfair anti-competitive advantage over other AV manufactuers.
MS can still develop and sell an AV. But seeing as it's clearly not part of the OS, there's no reason they should be packaged together--especially when doing so would basically shutout all other AV manufactuers, not because of being a superior product, but because no one wants to go out and buy a second AV when Windows already comes with a pre-packaged one that you've basically already paid for.
People don't intentionally fall victim of phishing, just like they don't intentionally fall for scams. Old people and certain really naive individuals can't help themselves. This is why we have federal agencies going after these criminals--to protect those susceptible to these scams. If the bank shifts the losses to the customers then they have no incentive to secure their online banking process.
As of right now, banks are devising new ways of combatting phising. This is part of their responsibility as a bank. They are in the unique position to implement security policies to avert phishing/key logging and other types of similar schemes. The current situation promote the continual improvement of banking security. What is being suggested would do the opposite. Banks currently with weak security protections in place would not be encourage to adopt better protections.
Banks are also insured federally--with tax payer dollars. Thus the banks collectively have a responsibility to the tax payers to make these types of financial fraud as difficult as possible. Shifting the losses to the customers would relieve them of that responsibility completely.