If they can't produce a product that somebody wants then they don't deserve survive as farmers. I'm sure that farmers will not agree with that statement but it sounds like one of the rules of the market place to me.
Thank you. I did RTFA. I accept what you say. But the point that I was making is that, by eating too much of anything, then you will get fat. The high quantities of HFCS do, as you say, inhibit the body's natural limiting function, which results in the individual eating too much of everything because they have eaten too much HFCS.
Well changing the UA string with my UK bank's website makes the difference between 'Your browser is not supported' to a fully functioning web page which obviously doesn'trequire anything in IE to make it work. Mock all you want, I have to do this all the time - and I have just checked again to make sure that I am correct.
I don't think 1 is a majority, unless everyone else is 0. But I know why you are trying to say.....
You can download the source code for Firefox to check that it is not being naughty, you know? And you can then compile it yourself so that you can sleep at night. If not use Epiphany, Opera, Lynxs or make your own fork.
Now look, I didn't say the Microsoft isn't stupid, but changing the rest of the world to suit MS is not the way I choose to go. Why should we modify everything else to suit one company?
But the solution is easier still. MSIE doesn't have to change, if people just stop designing websites that use MS-specific extensions. It can be done, you know. MSIE can accept whatever it wants but if no-one is using MS specific extensions then it will still work.
There are many Firefox users who select MSIE as their User Agent string in order to get sites to even allow them access, banks being one particular group that springs to mind, but I am sure that there are others. I cannot imagine that any MSIE users would need to select Firefox as the User Agent. In which case the figures will be conservative for Firefox usage and optimistic for MSIE usage. What we don't know, or at least I don't know, is how much this skews the figures.
I was reading a few weeks ago that, in Europe, the impetus to change web sites that only supported IE was significantly increased by showing how large a market share they were missing out by tying their site to proprietary software 'standards'. I am trying to find the professional journal in which I read the article and, when I find it, I will try to find if there is an electronic link that I can post here for others to read. The usage of Firefox, Opera et al in Europe is much higher than in the States and so our businesses have much more to lose but the principle is the same wherever you are, particularly in these days of globalisation.
There is no need for a IE-Compatibility mode in Firefox/Mozilla, simply get MSIE to use the accepted standards and the problem is solved.
As an example, removing subsidies from corn producers shouldn't cost too much money. The farmers will need a short time to plant different crops but it needn't take long. The subsequent reduction in carbohydrates (in the form of HFCS etc) in foodstuffs which do not need it will not cost the manufacturers anything. The only change will be one of taste. People will get used to it in my opinion.
I had a genuine question regarding the payment of health care which you have kindly answered. Thank you. But, as it seems you are contributing to the cost for people other than yourself and your dependants, I would expect you to want to have a say in how much that contribution is. Reducing the health bill would appear to be in your interests.
Public roads, parks, nationalised pension plans are provided for everyone, not just those who maintain a healthy lifestyle. Transportation is not necessarily a health issue, nor are parks. My nationalised pension plan was contributory - I have paid for the pension that I am now receiving, thank you.
I am not arguing for the right to be able to buy fatty things for myself but not allow anyone else the right to do the same. But when I am taxed at source to fund a spiralling health bill which, in part, pays for the cost of smokers and obese people, then I DO object to having my money spent for me. As I have said, for genuine medical problems I have no complaint. People should be taxed according to their income for the good of all. But the system is, in effect, being abused by those who do not look after their health but expect me to pay for their treatment.
The outright removal of taxes is unrealistic. My wife has a serious medical problem. It is not caused by any fault of her own nor is it curable. In the worst cases it can be fatal. I expect medical support for her (having paid my taxes for over 40 years) and I do not begrudge others from receiving medical treatment when it is required. Then we are back to the arguments of the previous paragraph i.e. treatment of conditions which, in some cases, are entirely avoidable.
I have taken great care throughout my posts to NOT state that ALL obesity is self-inflicted. I have no argument with the medical profession in general or geneticists in particular. I contend that the growing obesity problem is not a change in our genes over the last century, but something to do with our lifestyle. We are eating too much of the wrong things and not exercising enough. The solution to me seems fairly obvious Change peoples' diet and get them exercising. If they won't do it of their own accord, find some way of 'persuading' them. In Europe health care costs are spiralling. Something has to be done but saying that we do not have the right to legislate for the problem because that is intrusion is, in my view, wrong. Where health problems are caused by things that are avoidable and not accidental then those who need the treatment should have to contribute more. But they are often, though by no means exclusively, from the lower paid professions. If they can't contribute more in financial terms then perhaps we have every right to expect them to change their diet or take more exercise. How else can they contribute? Or are you suggesting that we just suck it up and all suffer because of them?
My opinion matters only to me, and to those who represent me democratically. It is the latter who will decide how much tax I pay, how my health care will be funded and what nature that care will take. I do not expect you to value my opinion but I welcome the current discourse about our individual views.
Yep, the spelling and grammar mistakes are all my own work. However, to continue the discussion:
Who is paying for the lost man hours due to ill-health caused by obesity? The people who run the business, that's who, and they pass it on to every customer. So, guess what, YOU are paying for it. Who is paying for the extra burden on the medical support? Is it all paid by the obese people themselves? Is every hospital, every medical facility paid for by private money and health insurance? This is a genuine question because I do not know the US system sufficiently well to answer it. But if there is any Government subsidy or investment then YOU are paying for it again. My healthy lifestyle does not cost anyone else anything to support it. I suspect that their unhealthy lifestyle DOES cost someone other than themselves which is why you not only have a right to have a say in the matter but you should also be actively encouraging them to enjoy a more healthy diet. Freedom for everyone to do as they wish is OK providing that it does not affect my freedom to spend my money as I wish, nor wastes valuable medical resources treating a condition that is of their own making. In general terms, when it has to go in taxes to support those who cannot or will not look after themselves then I want a say in what they do and what they eat. Accidents happen, but obesity in many cases is self inflicted. Those that have a genuine medical condition which results in obesity will get my support, those that are gluttons or simply can't be bothered to look after themselves will not.
I am not suggesting that passive fructose intake is a a problem or even possible. My point is that the Government can (and will) act when it can see significant savings to be made. It really doesn't matter whether the Government are trying to save billions by reducing the effects of smoking first-hand or passively, the savings are still there to be made. There is a huge group of people who do not want to be subjected to someone's smoking habit so the passive lobbyists still have some influence. I have no problem with anyone smoking themselves to death but it shouldn't cost me, directly or indirectly, anything when they do so. Unfortunately, that is not the case the medical problems caused by things such as obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse cost everyone something in their taxes.
No, because you are taking things to an illogical extreme in my opinion. Is there any sound reason for having such high levels of fructose in soft drinks, other than to get rid of the fructose that you have too much off? If the farmers grew oranges, for example, you could simply serve fresh orange juice which is a far healthier alternative to sodas. But if people are too stupid not to stop eating the wrong things when they are becoming patently obese what is your better suggestion? All your government has to do is reduce or remove the subsidies for farmers, they will produce something else, and you will have less fructose to get rid of. You can therefore reduce its use in foodstuffs. You don't have to put people in a bubble, just stop making it so attractive to produce something you do not need and encourage everyone can eat far more healthily.
Agreed, with one exception. Overwhelming odds they may be, but my salad dressing does not come in a bottle. Its 1 part balsamic vinegar, 1 part lemon juice, 2 parts olive oil, herbs, salt, pepper. Perhaps its a European thing - I simply do not know enough about the American lifestyle - but many people appear to use convenience foods much less than in the US. Personally, we eat very little frozen vegetables, most are fresh and locally produced (locally == within 50 miles). Fruit is a mixture of locally produced and imported . Meat is often frozen of course but it hasn't been produced into any other form - its just meat from a butcher, and living in a fishing village means that fresh seafood is always available. I also take reasonable exercise (gardening, decorating, walking perhaps more than my American counterparts etc) and I am managing to keep my weight down despite having retired.:-)
I agree entirely. But in both the USA and, to a lesser degree, Europe obesity is on the increase. We all know it is bad and we all know what we should do to prevent it. At what point (i.e. when what % of the population is clinically obese) do we accept that some people just cannot think for themselves and take action to prevent over-consumption of fructose? In many places in the world you cannot now legally smoke in confined spaces. We acknowledge the harm that tobacco smoke can cause and we are taking (too little, too late perhaps) measures to help people maintain their health. I do not know how much obesity costs in the US in lost working days, medical treatment etc but at some point the corn farmers are going to have to get used to the idea that they are not the only group of people in the USA who count. Changing the crop that they grow shouldn't be that difficult a task. Politicians need to be thinking about this now, or is it too difficult a challenge for them?
LOL - when the rest of your countrymen accept the title cusans we might start using it, until then you are all Americans. The others we will continue to call Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians or whatever is appropriate. By the way, not everyone from outside America is from Europe nor, according to your logic, should all those who do live in that continent be addressed as Europeans, but they can be called British, French, German, Italian etc. Unless you personally know TheEmptySet, I think that you are making an assumption that he is European, but you might well be correct.
Excessive quantities of anything is not good for the diet. It has been known for decades that high quantities of carbohydrates can cause weight increase. The confusion here is linking fructose as being good for diabetics (yes, and it still is in reasonable quantities) and excessive consumption of fructose leading to obesity.
I will have to accept the opinions given but my comment was not issued as a challenge or troll. It was merely to point out that very few people write code that they, themselves, think is poorly structured or inadequately commented. Many will think that their code could be improved but that the time taken to do so would not justify the purely aesthetic improvement; if the code works then, to some, that is sufficient. The subsequent maintenance task, or the reuse of the code, is of secondary consideration. So for someone to say that the code that they have written is well structured and of a high quality cannot be taken at face value. It is only when, as you point out, lots of people have viewed the code and reach a consensus that one can accept the view as a reasonably qualitative assessment. In fact, your opinion of the code and daeg's seem to differ. Daeg thinks it 'neat for the most part' while you say it is 'neither great nor horrible'. You may both be correct as the assessments are subjective.
I'm not sure how anyone can see MS's code - it is all closed source, is it not? - unless you are employed to write such code. In which case, don't you think that such a person might be just a little bit biased regarding the beauty of the code, especially if the claims cannot be verified?
I thought that they already did! That's why we see everything twice - so that we can filter out the articles that we have already seen in order to prevent us from seeing everything twice.... Oh wait.
[Off Topic] A valid point, but the use of the non-word 'concencus' is only one example from a choice of thousands here on/.. I hope that they don't worry you too much. Depending on where you live, you might want to spend more time worrying about the state of your local education system for which you have the privilege of being taxed.
First of all, I do not support the illegal downloading of copyright material. If the only purpose of this software is to prevent the sharing of such material then I probably wouldn't object to the purpose although I would object to the method (i.e. unauthorised software being run on my computer without my permission). I can understand your point regarding certification but it does not, nor will not, affect me. I choose not to run any Microsoft operating systems. If Microsoft wish to abuse their own customers or prevent the use of any software for which they have not received some payment then they are welcome to go ahead. It will simply signal a reduction in the popularity of MS, although there may be sufficient financial benefit from the sale of advertising to compensate for any affect on sales of their OS. In my opinion they would be stupid to follow this route because they will not want to actively reduce their userbase. The may make it difficult to install Firefox or other free software but to stop it altogether wouldn't be in their long-term interests in my opinion. As long as Microsoft's proposal is implemented entirely in software it will not prevent me from loading my OS of choice and defeating whatever software they would like to install on my computer.
My objections stem from issues of privacy and security. The patent is described as a 'framework' and therefore does not describe in sufficient detail how the software will work but it does describe the intended effect. If this effect is deemed to be legal then there are all sorts of problems that could arise that would be implementation specific. There is information on my computer that I would not wish to become public knowledge. Professional data, banking data, tax details etc. Although it is encrypted, software on my computer could access the information when it is being displayed (i.e. when in a decrypted state). What would prevent the software from acting as a key logger and learning how to decrypt the data anyway? The justification that 'the software is intended to assist in the provision of advertising' would be irrelevant, at least to me. Who would be getting such information? How would they use it? How would they protect it? All of this is covered by European Law and I don't see MS getting an easy ride over this issue. Secondly, if MS can access the data you can bet your bottom dollar that someone else will also try to get the information. A cracker might be able to use the software to collect information that is of no interest to MS but is of interest to the criminal fraternity, or redirect the output of the software so that the data is sent to someone other than MS. Finally, who is paying for all of this bandwidth. Microsoft? Oh, I see, they expect ME to pay for it do they. Well guess what? I say no thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
I do it for the one site that needs it, not for every site. I do not use Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo Mail.
If they can't produce a product that somebody wants then they don't deserve survive as farmers. I'm sure that farmers will not agree with that statement but it sounds like one of the rules of the market place to me.
Thank you. I did RTFA. I accept what you say. But the point that I was making is that, by eating too much of anything, then you will get fat. The high quantities of HFCS do, as you say, inhibit the body's natural limiting function, which results in the individual eating too much of everything because they have eaten too much HFCS.
Don't know, I haven't got it.
Well changing the UA string with my UK bank's website makes the difference between 'Your browser is not supported' to a fully functioning web page which obviously doesn'trequire anything in IE to make it work. Mock all you want, I have to do this all the time - and I have just checked again to make sure that I am correct.
Sorry, too many typing mistakes in my last reply: s/why/what/ s/lynxs/lynx/ . Its probably an age thing, it must be time for my cocoa and bed.
I don't think 1 is a majority, unless everyone else is 0. But I know why you are trying to say.....
You can download the source code for Firefox to check that it is not being naughty, you know? And you can then compile it yourself so that you can sleep at night. If not use Epiphany, Opera, Lynxs or make your own fork.
Now look, I didn't say the Microsoft isn't stupid, but changing the rest of the world to suit MS is not the way I choose to go. Why should we modify everything else to suit one company?
But the solution is easier still. MSIE doesn't have to change, if people just stop designing websites that use MS-specific extensions. It can be done, you know. MSIE can accept whatever it wants but if no-one is using MS specific extensions then it will still work.
There are many Firefox users who select MSIE as their User Agent string in order to get sites to even allow them access, banks being one particular group that springs to mind, but I am sure that there are others. I cannot imagine that any MSIE users would need to select Firefox as the User Agent. In which case the figures will be conservative for Firefox usage and optimistic for MSIE usage. What we don't know, or at least I don't know, is how much this skews the figures.
I was reading a few weeks ago that, in Europe, the impetus to change web sites that only supported IE was significantly increased by showing how large a market share they were missing out by tying their site to proprietary software 'standards'. I am trying to find the professional journal in which I read the article and, when I find it, I will try to find if there is an electronic link that I can post here for others to read. The usage of Firefox, Opera et al in Europe is much higher than in the States and so our businesses have much more to lose but the principle is the same wherever you are, particularly in these days of globalisation.
There is no need for a IE-Compatibility mode in Firefox/Mozilla, simply get MSIE to use the accepted standards and the problem is solved.
As an example, removing subsidies from corn producers shouldn't cost too much money. The farmers will need a short time to plant different crops but it needn't take long. The subsequent reduction in carbohydrates (in the form of HFCS etc) in foodstuffs which do not need it will not cost the manufacturers anything. The only change will be one of taste. People will get used to it in my opinion.
I had a genuine question regarding the payment of health care which you have kindly answered. Thank you. But, as it seems you are contributing to the cost for people other than yourself and your dependants, I would expect you to want to have a say in how much that contribution is. Reducing the health bill would appear to be in your interests.
Public roads, parks, nationalised pension plans are provided for everyone, not just those who maintain a healthy lifestyle. Transportation is not necessarily a health issue, nor are parks. My nationalised pension plan was contributory - I have paid for the pension that I am now receiving, thank you.
I am not arguing for the right to be able to buy fatty things for myself but not allow anyone else the right to do the same. But when I am taxed at source to fund a spiralling health bill which, in part, pays for the cost of smokers and obese people, then I DO object to having my money spent for me. As I have said, for genuine medical problems I have no complaint. People should be taxed according to their income for the good of all. But the system is, in effect, being abused by those who do not look after their health but expect me to pay for their treatment.
The outright removal of taxes is unrealistic. My wife has a serious medical problem. It is not caused by any fault of her own nor is it curable. In the worst cases it can be fatal. I expect medical support for her (having paid my taxes for over 40 years) and I do not begrudge others from receiving medical treatment when it is required. Then we are back to the arguments of the previous paragraph i.e. treatment of conditions which, in some cases, are entirely avoidable.
I have taken great care throughout my posts to NOT state that ALL obesity is self-inflicted. I have no argument with the medical profession in general or geneticists in particular. I contend that the growing obesity problem is not a change in our genes over the last century, but something to do with our lifestyle. We are eating too much of the wrong things and not exercising enough. The solution to me seems fairly obvious Change peoples' diet and get them exercising. If they won't do it of their own accord, find some way of 'persuading' them. In Europe health care costs are spiralling. Something has to be done but saying that we do not have the right to legislate for the problem because that is intrusion is, in my view, wrong. Where health problems are caused by things that are avoidable and not accidental then those who need the treatment should have to contribute more. But they are often, though by no means exclusively, from the lower paid professions. If they can't contribute more in financial terms then perhaps we have every right to expect them to change their diet or take more exercise. How else can they contribute? Or are you suggesting that we just suck it up and all suffer because of them?
My opinion matters only to me, and to those who represent me democratically. It is the latter who will decide how much tax I pay, how my health care will be funded and what nature that care will take. I do not expect you to value my opinion but I welcome the current discourse about our individual views.
Yep, the spelling and grammar mistakes are all my own work. However, to continue the discussion:
Who is paying for the lost man hours due to ill-health caused by obesity? The people who run the business, that's who, and they pass it on to every customer. So, guess what, YOU are paying for it. Who is paying for the extra burden on the medical support? Is it all paid by the obese people themselves? Is every hospital, every medical facility paid for by private money and health insurance? This is a genuine question because I do not know the US system sufficiently well to answer it. But if there is any Government subsidy or investment then YOU are paying for it again. My healthy lifestyle does not cost anyone else anything to support it. I suspect that their unhealthy lifestyle DOES cost someone other than themselves which is why you not only have a right to have a say in the matter but you should also be actively encouraging them to enjoy a more healthy diet. Freedom for everyone to do as they wish is OK providing that it does not affect my freedom to spend my money as I wish, nor wastes valuable medical resources treating a condition that is of their own making. In general terms, when it has to go in taxes to support those who cannot or will not look after themselves then I want a say in what they do and what they eat. Accidents happen, but obesity in many cases is self inflicted. Those that have a genuine medical condition which results in obesity will get my support, those that are gluttons or simply can't be bothered to look after themselves will not.
Thanks, I'll try it! :-)
I am not suggesting that passive fructose intake is a a problem or even possible. My point is that the Government can (and will) act when it can see significant savings to be made. It really doesn't matter whether the Government are trying to save billions by reducing the effects of smoking first-hand or passively, the savings are still there to be made. There is a huge group of people who do not want to be subjected to someone's smoking habit so the passive lobbyists still have some influence. I have no problem with anyone smoking themselves to death but it shouldn't cost me, directly or indirectly, anything when they do so. Unfortunately, that is not the case the medical problems caused by things such as obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse cost everyone something in their taxes.
No, because you are taking things to an illogical extreme in my opinion. Is there any sound reason for having such high levels of fructose in soft drinks, other than to get rid of the fructose that you have too much off? If the farmers grew oranges, for example, you could simply serve fresh orange juice which is a far healthier alternative to sodas. But if people are too stupid not to stop eating the wrong things when they are becoming patently obese what is your better suggestion? All your government has to do is reduce or remove the subsidies for farmers, they will produce something else, and you will have less fructose to get rid of. You can therefore reduce its use in foodstuffs. You don't have to put people in a bubble, just stop making it so attractive to produce something you do not need and encourage everyone can eat far more healthily.
Agreed, with one exception. Overwhelming odds they may be, but my salad dressing does not come in a bottle. Its 1 part balsamic vinegar, 1 part lemon juice, 2 parts olive oil, herbs, salt, pepper. Perhaps its a European thing - I simply do not know enough about the American lifestyle - but many people appear to use convenience foods much less than in the US. Personally, we eat very little frozen vegetables, most are fresh and locally produced (locally == within 50 miles). Fruit is a mixture of locally produced and imported . Meat is often frozen of course but it hasn't been produced into any other form - its just meat from a butcher, and living in a fishing village means that fresh seafood is always available. I also take reasonable exercise (gardening, decorating, walking perhaps more than my American counterparts etc) and I am managing to keep my weight down despite having retired. :-)
I agree entirely. But in both the USA and, to a lesser degree, Europe obesity is on the increase. We all know it is bad and we all know what we should do to prevent it. At what point (i.e. when what % of the population is clinically obese) do we accept that some people just cannot think for themselves and take action to prevent over-consumption of fructose? In many places in the world you cannot now legally smoke in confined spaces. We acknowledge the harm that tobacco smoke can cause and we are taking (too little, too late perhaps) measures to help people maintain their health. I do not know how much obesity costs in the US in lost working days, medical treatment etc but at some point the corn farmers are going to have to get used to the idea that they are not the only group of people in the USA who count. Changing the crop that they grow shouldn't be that difficult a task. Politicians need to be thinking about this now, or is it too difficult a challenge for them?
LOL - when the rest of your countrymen accept the title cusans we might start using it, until then you are all Americans. The others we will continue to call Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians or whatever is appropriate. By the way, not everyone from outside America is from Europe nor, according to your logic, should all those who do live in that continent be addressed as Europeans, but they can be called British, French, German, Italian etc. Unless you personally know TheEmptySet, I think that you are making an assumption that he is European, but you might well be correct.
Excessive quantities of anything is not good for the diet. It has been known for decades that high quantities of carbohydrates can cause weight increase. The confusion here is linking fructose as being good for diabetics (yes, and it still is in reasonable quantities) and excessive consumption of fructose leading to obesity.
I will have to accept the opinions given but my comment was not issued as a challenge or troll. It was merely to point out that very few people write code that they, themselves, think is poorly structured or inadequately commented. Many will think that their code could be improved but that the time taken to do so would not justify the purely aesthetic improvement; if the code works then, to some, that is sufficient. The subsequent maintenance task, or the reuse of the code, is of secondary consideration. So for someone to say that the code that they have written is well structured and of a high quality cannot be taken at face value. It is only when, as you point out, lots of people have viewed the code and reach a consensus that one can accept the view as a reasonably qualitative assessment. In fact, your opinion of the code and daeg's seem to differ. Daeg thinks it 'neat for the most part' while you say it is 'neither great nor horrible'. You may both be correct as the assessments are subjective.
I'm not sure how anyone can see MS's code - it is all closed source, is it not? - unless you are employed to write such code. In which case, don't you think that such a person might be just a little bit biased regarding the beauty of the code, especially if the claims cannot be verified?
I thought that they already did! That's why we see everything twice - so that we can filter out the articles that we have already seen in order to prevent us from seeing everything twice.... Oh wait.
[Off Topic] A valid point, but the use of the non-word 'concencus' is only one example from a choice of thousands here on /.. I hope that they don't worry you too much. Depending on where you live, you might want to spend more time worrying about the state of your local education system for which you have the privilege of being taxed.
First of all, I do not support the illegal downloading of copyright material. If the only purpose of this software is to prevent the sharing of such material then I probably wouldn't object to the purpose although I would object to the method (i.e. unauthorised software being run on my computer without my permission). I can understand your point regarding certification but it does not, nor will not, affect me. I choose not to run any Microsoft operating systems. If Microsoft wish to abuse their own customers or prevent the use of any software for which they have not received some payment then they are welcome to go ahead. It will simply signal a reduction in the popularity of MS, although there may be sufficient financial benefit from the sale of advertising to compensate for any affect on sales of their OS. In my opinion they would be stupid to follow this route because they will not want to actively reduce their userbase. The may make it difficult to install Firefox or other free software but to stop it altogether wouldn't be in their long-term interests in my opinion. As long as Microsoft's proposal is implemented entirely in software it will not prevent me from loading my OS of choice and defeating whatever software they would like to install on my computer.
My objections stem from issues of privacy and security. The patent is described as a 'framework' and therefore does not describe in sufficient detail how the software will work but it does describe the intended effect. If this effect is deemed to be legal then there are all sorts of problems that could arise that would be implementation specific. There is information on my computer that I would not wish to become public knowledge. Professional data, banking data, tax details etc. Although it is encrypted, software on my computer could access the information when it is being displayed (i.e. when in a decrypted state). What would prevent the software from acting as a key logger and learning how to decrypt the data anyway? The justification that 'the software is intended to assist in the provision of advertising' would be irrelevant, at least to me. Who would be getting such information? How would they use it? How would they protect it? All of this is covered by European Law and I don't see MS getting an easy ride over this issue. Secondly, if MS can access the data you can bet your bottom dollar that someone else will also try to get the information. A cracker might be able to use the software to collect information that is of no interest to MS but is of interest to the criminal fraternity, or redirect the output of the software so that the data is sent to someone other than MS. Finally, who is paying for all of this bandwidth. Microsoft? Oh, I see, they expect ME to pay for it do they. Well guess what? I say no thanks.
So you actually meant "IMNSFBHO" - you transposed the M and N which made it rather hard for people to work out the true meaning.