"The way in which you recognize an evildoer, somebody who wants to throw a bomb, somebody who wants to unfurl a Tibet flag is not on the basis of their identity,"
I don't know about identities, but I'd say there's quite a difference between someone throwing a bomb and unfurling a Tibet flag, but maybe that's just me.
From the overly brief article, it appears that the "overwhelming" probability is largely an artifact of the greater mass of clay on comments than on a young Earth. This is overly simplistic, and more bluntly, wrong, for four reasons.
1) Ultraviolet light; surface area to volume. While the mass of clay on comets may exceed that on a young Earth, since Earth is one giant sphere and not a bunch of clumps of dirt flying through space, more ultraviolet light will strike Earth-based than comet-borne clay. The surface area exposed to space will be greater on Earth. Furthermore, given the lesser gravity on a comet, liquid water will likely be on the interior of a comet, vs. the exterior of Earth, another factor reducing the UV rays striking the clay and water on comets.
2) Consistency of conditions. Earth's orbit is much less elliptical than the orbits' of most comets. This is vital to life. Even if (and this is a big if) liquid water can exist on a comet throughout its orbit, extreme variations in radiation or temperature would still significantly hinder the formation of life.
3) Weather. Earth has weather, and comets don't. Weather, and lightning in particular, is pivotal in most theories regarding the origin of life. The Urey-Miller experiment, for example, proved that dynamic weather conditions can be extremely conducive to the formation of the complex molecules, such as amino acids, necessary for life to exist.
4) Most importantly, life is on Earth. We need to consider not the mass of all comets in the Solar System, or even all those harboring liquid water, but rather, all those harboring liquid water which collided with Earth at the time that life first originated. Since life is on Earth, we know that only a comet which collided with Earth could have been responsible for life on Earth. The mass of these comets which collided with Earth is clearly much less than that of the Earth itself.
Considering all of these factors, I think it is safe to say that in light of this research, life still likely originated on good old planet Earth.
From the overly brief article, it appears that the "overwhelming" probability is largely an artifact of the greater mass of clay on comments than on a young Earth. This is overly simplistic, and more bluntly, wrong, for four reasons.
1) Ultraviolet light; surface area to volume. While the mass of clay on comets may exceed that on a young Earth, since Earth is one giant sphere and not a bunch of clumps of dirt flying through space, more ultraviolet light will strike Earth-based than comet-borne clay. The surface area exposed to space will be greater on Earth. Furthermore, given the lesser gravity on a comet, liquid water will likely be on the interior of a comet, vs. the exterior of Earth, another factor reducing the UV rays striking the clay and water on comets.
2) Consistency of conditions. Earth's orbit is much less elliptical than the orbits' of most comets. This is vital to life. Even if (and this is a big if) liquid water can exist on a comet throughout its orbit, extreme variations in radiation or temperature would still significantly hinder the formation of life.
3) Weather. Earth has weather, and comets don't. Weather, and lightning in particular, is pivotal in most theories regarding the origin of life. The Urey-Miller experiment, for example, proved that dynamic weather conditions can be extremely conducive to the formation of the complex molecules, such as amino acids, necessary for life to exist.
4) Most importantly, life is on Earth. We need to consider not the mass of all comets in the Solar System, or even all those harboring liquid water, but rather, all those harboring liquid water which collided with Earth at the time that life first originated. Since life is on Earth, we know that only a comet which collided with Earth could have been responsible for life on Earth. The mass of these comets which collided with Earth is clearly much less than that of the Earth itself.
Considering all of these factors, I think it is safe to say that in light of this research, life still likely originated on good old planet Earth.
I cannot be the only one to have noticed that the results of this trial do NOT indicate that the vaccine is effective in protecting against the HIV virus. The trial patients were not ever injected with live HIV viruses.
All that has been demonstrated is that the vaccine doesn't have an immediate lethality in a small group of (presumably) ethnically similary people. They placed HIV virsues in blood samples obtained from these people, and the blood mounted an immune response. I'd like to point out that even people dieing of AIDS demonstrate an immune response to the HIV virus -- this is the very nature of the ELISA test used to diagnose the disease! Further, a demonstrated "immunity" in a small sample of blood is nothing; the body demonstrated immunity to the disease, often for the better part of a decade, before dying of it during the normal course of HIV/AIDS.
So, while any development towards a vaccine for the HIV virus is unquestionably a good things, lets not read too far into this.
o.O
I think it's acceptable to use both like I did:
"I both hope and pray..." is a phrase commonly used in the English language, and the way I used it, sans all the complexities of the sentence is: "I both think and hope," which is pretty much the same thing.
I'm pretty happy w/ my sentence. Thanks though.
Sounds like he expects '06 to see properietary gain on OSS. Thats a prediction that I both think is false, but also, for the sake of the computing world as a whole, hope proves false. 2006 (imho) actually does have the potential to be a great year for the linux desktop, assuming that a big hardware company (Dell, HP, anyone) gives it a chance (a novice-oriented linux desktop like Linspire has the potential to get users aquainted w/ OSS and GNU/Linux, and allows them to easily move on up to more advanced distros). Lets hope '06 doesn't live up to Cringely's expectations.
I'm pretty sure I'm missing something pretty obvious here, but since every "secure" internet transaction would involve a transfer of a TPM number, wouldn't it be easy to figure out anyone else's TPM (if you can't figure out what it is, its useless). And once you do that, won't it be easy to tell your computer to send out a different TPM (say the one you stole from somone else) instead of yours. Isn't this about a fool-proof as MAC addresses for machine identification, only the MAC address is being shouted to every other computer in the world at all times? And won't I (using OS software of course) be able to have my browser, Network Adapter, or whatever is responsible for the TPM, just send out a random TPM so that I remain anonymous?
In short, I really don't see how this whole TPM thing threatens privacy at all, or offers any security benefits whatsoever.
On a similar note, however, just as man's processing power increases in accordance with Moore's Law, his appetite and his ability to procure new knowledge will similarilly increase. Further, as some knowledge will always be so "cutting-edge" that it is un-indexable, and some knowledge is inherently unknowable (read Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), it would appear to be alogical to even carryout such a mathematical excercise.
If one hair fell, then another inevitably would (this one belonging to the real criminal). The investigators go "Hey, those two aren't the same!" They release you.
Well, that's the unfortunate case with all DNA evidence. Still, every genetics expert expresses DNA evidence only as a probability -- that is, well, the chances are three-hundred-million to one that the DNA came from this person. However, if the court considers that the victim and the suspect have never met, and if the suspect has absolutely no connection (aside from the DNA) to the crime, they still won't be convicted.
Further, I am sure that authorities will use more than one piece of tissue when doing DNA analysis, so if their is some mishap (contamination, swapped samples, etc...) then it will become obvious (hey, these two pieces of crime-scene DNA don't even match one another!), and more evidence will be taken, or the DNA will be thrown out.
The potential number of lives that could be saved with such a database, taking criminals off the streets immediately and adding an entirely new detterent to crime, vastly outweigh the number of people whose lives would be hurt by such a database. A database containing the DNA of all Americans would definitely be a good thing.
You know, if we required all US citizens to enter their DNA into a national databse, and used that to aid police fighting violent crimes, I would have no objection. To me, that's no different than requiring all citizens to fill out the census. And the identification benefits you mentioned are just an added plus.
Regardless of the name, a database of those arrested of federal crimes (which will includes those convicted) will have a negative connotation -- whether its a "people who were at some time thought to be connected to a crime database" or a "criminal database," the implications are still the same; whether you are convicted of a crime or not, you are still more suspect of future crimes. That is not due process of law.
"Life, liberty or property" has implications beyond the literal sense... I can lose the liberty to not have my DNA in a criminal database. And it seems to me that having information about me (in this case DNA) in a criminal database would mark me as a criminal.
And I think we both can tell that there is a difference between having information entered into the census database (a database of all Americans) and a criminal database (the negative connotation of criminal isn't accidental).
My objection to this bill is not an objection to the DNA that they are collecting; I object to the fact that they collect any information in a database about those who have been simply arrested. The United States was founded on the principles of assumed innocence, until guilt has been proven, and the due process of law. I think that no action should be taken against a man arrested for a crime, and there should be no data kept in a databse about those who were simply arrested.
I would have no objection to a database containing the DNA of convicted criminals -- that is, those who our courts have found guilty. But right up until the foreman reads a guilty verdict, the government has no right to store your DNA, your fingerprints, or even your name in some "criminal database" -- an aquittal is just that -- you are fully absolved of guilt for a crime. Without that, justice as we know it no longer exists.
... Duh!
You have a ball tied to two pieces of string, which is spinning. You use the revolution (rotating around the person holding one of the pieces string) to make the second piece of string stick up. However, the ball happens to be spinning. Because of this, the only way to make it stay erect (w/o a counterweight) is to annull the centrifigal force of rotation (at the pole).
Well, one of the best things we can do is build the elevator at a Pole. Once you get to about 120 km, the power of centrifical force will overpower that of gravity, and a 120 km (not too long) nanotube cable with a counterweight could remain erect in space. That being said, 120 km isn't a very fun place to put stuff (the Clarke makes much more sense). However, if we do have a 120 km elevator, we can simply build more onto it, slowly moving the counterweight up as we go. This would make the project gradual (spread out the cost) and would enable us to start now, yet still take advantage of technologies not yet invented (as soon as we get a more effective fiber, use the current elevator to thread the new fiber into space).
The benefits of a space elevator are too tremendous to ignore... the cost of placing things into orbit (and beyond) would decrease by many orders of magnitude.
One just has to wonder what this guy was high on while he wrote this article (and where I can get some).
His primary argument is that my employer owns me. My employer doesn't just own what I think up while I'm at work. They own what I think up while I'm at home, on my time. He contends that they own me in all respects. Simple logic dictates that something is wrong with this argument... it is far from cogent and it implicates its author to be either an idiot at best or a facist at worst.
His second main argument is that one must do what is best for the computer industry. This is simple, straight-up bullshit. It is like saying... well, I know that millions of people die each year in car accidents... but fuck it breaks cost money, and car companies don't really need to put breaks in their cars... I mean without breaks, car companies would have higher profit margins. Clearly, this is not the goal of our society... to protect buisness. Society is, and must be, inherently altrusitic, bound by a social contract as deep-rooted into the very essence of humanity as civilization itself, stating that society exists only for the betterment of the individual.
To fear what you don't understand is natural, and to scapegoat it is both common and unfortunate. That being the case, this argument appears to be just what it is -- a stupid, baseless attack on Open Source Software based on a simple lack of understanding.
A possibility is to assign every word in a sentence a number of descriptors (tense, part of speech, etc...) and see if they are in a logical order. For example:
I use a grammer checker.
Nominative Pronoun, present tense transitive action verb, general article for non-vowel sounds, adjective, noun.
Simiilarily,
She kick a red ball would have the same pattern.
Assuming that an adequate dictionary is compiled (containing all the descriptors, relying on context for a word such as "grammer" (if before noun, grammer is an adjective, otherwise, it is a noun).
While this system would be very difficult to design, I believe that the basic approach would work.
Well with theater profits plummiting, the movie industry has few methods other than movie sales to generate a profit; and just because it is easy to do something illegally does not> mean that it is legitmate to do so, or that it is in some way unacceptable to defend yourself against these illegal actions. And just so you know, customer generally implies people who paid. These people did not.
Or D)
Its their culture, and their shows / movies... not ours. While some Americans will watch Anime, not that many will
Anime is designed for the Japanese culture, and will be better accepted in Japan.
US animation is designed for Americans, and hence will be better accepted than Anime.
Products do what they are designed for (excluding a certaing clear-glass-pane-inspired-OS)
I absolutelly agree with you -- hence the "more biometric sensors are always better" -- if you have two sensors (or security devices for that matter) you need two "wedges", with three you need three, etc...
And biometrics have the major advantage that in a place where "hacking" in both the technical and physical sense is impossible, say, an airport, the only possible method of gaining access is to supply the proper credentials, and this is where biometrics shine. No-one is going to pry off the sensor-panel and try to upload firmware onto a biometric reader in the middle of an airport. In this new age of security, the more the better is a simple fact.
I guess more biometric sensors are always better -- but at a point, doesn't it seem excessive? I guess I'll be able to sleep easier tonight knowing that if I'm killed in my sleep and my murder spreads my bodyparts across the county, I can still be indentified by the veins in my hands. Thank God.
Google, in their holy crusade against Microsoft has launched their most powerful attack on the monopoly yet -- offering a Windows only tool.
Google... What happened?
Slashdot Mirror
"The way in which you recognize an evildoer, somebody who wants to throw a bomb, somebody who wants to unfurl a Tibet flag is not on the basis of their identity,"
I don't know about identities, but I'd say there's quite a difference between someone throwing a bomb and unfurling a Tibet flag, but maybe that's just me.
Well, I guess I won't be posting anonymously for once.
Whoops, formatting problems! Better repost.
From the overly brief article, it appears that the "overwhelming" probability is largely an artifact of the greater mass of clay on comments than on a young Earth. This is overly simplistic, and more bluntly, wrong, for four reasons.
1) Ultraviolet light; surface area to volume. While the mass of clay on comets may exceed that on a young Earth, since Earth is one giant sphere and not a bunch of clumps of dirt flying through space, more ultraviolet light will strike Earth-based than comet-borne clay. The surface area exposed to space will be greater on Earth. Furthermore, given the lesser gravity on a comet, liquid water will likely be on the interior of a comet, vs. the exterior of Earth, another factor reducing the UV rays striking the clay and water on comets.
2) Consistency of conditions. Earth's orbit is much less elliptical than the orbits' of most comets. This is vital to life. Even if (and this is a big if) liquid water can exist on a comet throughout its orbit, extreme variations in radiation or temperature would still significantly hinder the formation of life.
3) Weather. Earth has weather, and comets don't. Weather, and lightning in particular, is pivotal in most theories regarding the origin of life. The Urey-Miller experiment, for example, proved that dynamic weather conditions can be extremely conducive to the formation of the complex molecules, such as amino acids, necessary for life to exist.
4) Most importantly, life is on Earth. We need to consider not the mass of all comets in the Solar System, or even all those harboring liquid water, but rather, all those harboring liquid water which collided with Earth at the time that life first originated. Since life is on Earth, we know that only a comet which collided with Earth could have been responsible for life on Earth. The mass of these comets which collided with Earth is clearly much less than that of the Earth itself.
Considering all of these factors, I think it is safe to say that in light of this research, life still likely originated on good old planet Earth.
From the overly brief article, it appears that the "overwhelming" probability is largely an artifact of the greater mass of clay on comments than on a young Earth. This is overly simplistic, and more bluntly, wrong, for four reasons. 1) Ultraviolet light; surface area to volume. While the mass of clay on comets may exceed that on a young Earth, since Earth is one giant sphere and not a bunch of clumps of dirt flying through space, more ultraviolet light will strike Earth-based than comet-borne clay. The surface area exposed to space will be greater on Earth. Furthermore, given the lesser gravity on a comet, liquid water will likely be on the interior of a comet, vs. the exterior of Earth, another factor reducing the UV rays striking the clay and water on comets. 2) Consistency of conditions. Earth's orbit is much less elliptical than the orbits' of most comets. This is vital to life. Even if (and this is a big if) liquid water can exist on a comet throughout its orbit, extreme variations in radiation or temperature would still significantly hinder the formation of life. 3) Weather. Earth has weather, and comets don't. Weather, and lightning in particular, is pivotal in most theories regarding the origin of life. The Urey-Miller experiment, for example, proved that dynamic weather conditions can be extremely conducive to the formation of the complex molecules, such as amino acids, necessary for life to exist. 4) Most importantly, life is on Earth. We need to consider not the mass of all comets in the Solar System, or even all those harboring liquid water, but rather, all those harboring liquid water which collided with Earth at the time that life first originated. Since life is on Earth, we know that only a comet which collided with Earth could have been responsible for life on Earth. The mass of these comets which collided with Earth is clearly much less than that of the Earth itself. Considering all of these factors, I think it is safe to say that in light of this research, life still likely originated on good old planet Earth.
I cannot be the only one to have noticed that the results of this trial do NOT indicate that the vaccine is effective in protecting against the HIV virus. The trial patients were not ever injected with live HIV viruses.
All that has been demonstrated is that the vaccine doesn't have an immediate lethality in a small group of (presumably) ethnically similary people. They placed HIV virsues in blood samples obtained from these people, and the blood mounted an immune response. I'd like to point out that even people dieing of AIDS demonstrate an immune response to the HIV virus -- this is the very nature of the ELISA test used to diagnose the disease! Further, a demonstrated "immunity" in a small sample of blood is nothing; the body demonstrated immunity to the disease, often for the better part of a decade, before dying of it during the normal course of HIV/AIDS.
So, while any development towards a vaccine for the HIV virus is unquestionably a good things, lets not read too far into this.
o.O I think it's acceptable to use both like I did: "I both hope and pray..." is a phrase commonly used in the English language, and the way I used it, sans all the complexities of the sentence is: "I both think and hope," which is pretty much the same thing. I'm pretty happy w/ my sentence. Thanks though.
Sounds like he expects '06 to see properietary gain on OSS. Thats a prediction that I both think is false, but also, for the sake of the computing world as a whole, hope proves false. 2006 (imho) actually does have the potential to be a great year for the linux desktop, assuming that a big hardware company (Dell, HP, anyone) gives it a chance (a novice-oriented linux desktop like Linspire has the potential to get users aquainted w/ OSS and GNU/Linux, and allows them to easily move on up to more advanced distros). Lets hope '06 doesn't live up to Cringely's expectations.
I'm pretty sure I'm missing something pretty obvious here, but since every "secure" internet transaction would involve a transfer of a TPM number, wouldn't it be easy to figure out anyone else's TPM (if you can't figure out what it is, its useless). And once you do that, won't it be easy to tell your computer to send out a different TPM (say the one you stole from somone else) instead of yours. Isn't this about a fool-proof as MAC addresses for machine identification, only the MAC address is being shouted to every other computer in the world at all times? And won't I (using OS software of course) be able to have my browser, Network Adapter, or whatever is responsible for the TPM, just send out a random TPM so that I remain anonymous?
In short, I really don't see how this whole TPM thing threatens privacy at all, or offers any security benefits whatsoever.
On a similar note, however, just as man's processing power increases in accordance with Moore's Law, his appetite and his ability to procure new knowledge will similarilly increase. Further, as some knowledge will always be so "cutting-edge" that it is un-indexable, and some knowledge is inherently unknowable (read Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), it would appear to be alogical to even carryout such a mathematical excercise.
If one hair fell, then another inevitably would (this one belonging to the real criminal). The investigators go "Hey, those two aren't the same!" They release you.
Well, that's the unfortunate case with all DNA evidence. Still, every genetics expert expresses DNA evidence only as a probability -- that is, well, the chances are three-hundred-million to one that the DNA came from this person. However, if the court considers that the victim and the suspect have never met, and if the suspect has absolutely no connection (aside from the DNA) to the crime, they still won't be convicted.
Further, I am sure that authorities will use more than one piece of tissue when doing DNA analysis, so if their is some mishap (contamination, swapped samples, etc...) then it will become obvious (hey, these two pieces of crime-scene DNA don't even match one another!), and more evidence will be taken, or the DNA will be thrown out.
The potential number of lives that could be saved with such a database, taking criminals off the streets immediately and adding an entirely new detterent to crime, vastly outweigh the number of people whose lives would be hurt by such a database. A database containing the DNA of all Americans would definitely be a good thing.
You know, if we required all US citizens to enter their DNA into a national databse, and used that to aid police fighting violent crimes, I would have no objection. To me, that's no different than requiring all citizens to fill out the census. And the identification benefits you mentioned are just an added plus.
Regardless of the name, a database of those arrested of federal crimes (which will includes those convicted) will have a negative connotation -- whether its a "people who were at some time thought to be connected to a crime database" or a "criminal database," the implications are still the same; whether you are convicted of a crime or not, you are still more suspect of future crimes. That is not due process of law.
"Life, liberty or property" has implications beyond the literal sense... I can lose the liberty to not have my DNA in a criminal database. And it seems to me that having information about me (in this case DNA) in a criminal database would mark me as a criminal.
And I think we both can tell that there is a difference between having information entered into the census database (a database of all Americans) and a criminal database (the negative connotation of criminal isn't accidental).
My objection to this bill is not an objection to the DNA that they are collecting; I object to the fact that they collect any information in a database about those who have been simply arrested. The United States was founded on the principles of assumed innocence, until guilt has been proven, and the due process of law. I think that no action should be taken against a man arrested for a crime, and there should be no data kept in a databse about those who were simply arrested.
I would have no objection to a database containing the DNA of convicted criminals -- that is, those who our courts have found guilty. But right up until the foreman reads a guilty verdict, the government has no right to store your DNA, your fingerprints, or even your name in some "criminal database" -- an aquittal is just that -- you are fully absolved of guilt for a crime. Without that, justice as we know it no longer exists.
... Duh! You have a ball tied to two pieces of string, which is spinning. You use the revolution (rotating around the person holding one of the pieces string) to make the second piece of string stick up. However, the ball happens to be spinning. Because of this, the only way to make it stay erect (w/o a counterweight) is to annull the centrifigal force of rotation (at the pole).
Well, one of the best things we can do is build the elevator at a Pole. Once you get to about 120 km, the power of centrifical force will overpower that of gravity, and a 120 km (not too long) nanotube cable with a counterweight could remain erect in space. That being said, 120 km isn't a very fun place to put stuff (the Clarke makes much more sense). However, if we do have a 120 km elevator, we can simply build more onto it, slowly moving the counterweight up as we go. This would make the project gradual (spread out the cost) and would enable us to start now, yet still take advantage of technologies not yet invented (as soon as we get a more effective fiber, use the current elevator to thread the new fiber into space).
The benefits of a space elevator are too tremendous to ignore... the cost of placing things into orbit (and beyond) would decrease by many orders of magnitude.
One just has to wonder what this guy was high on while he wrote this article (and where I can get some).
His primary argument is that my employer owns me. My employer doesn't just own what I think up while I'm at work. They own what I think up while I'm at home, on my time. He contends that they own me in all respects. Simple logic dictates that something is wrong with this argument... it is far from cogent and it implicates its author to be either an idiot at best or a facist at worst.
His second main argument is that one must do what is best for the computer industry. This is simple, straight-up bullshit. It is like saying... well, I know that millions of people die each year in car accidents... but fuck it breaks cost money, and car companies don't really need to put breaks in their cars... I mean without breaks, car companies would have higher profit margins. Clearly, this is not the goal of our society... to protect buisness. Society is, and must be, inherently altrusitic, bound by a social contract as deep-rooted into the very essence of humanity as civilization itself, stating that society exists only for the betterment of the individual.
To fear what you don't understand is natural, and to scapegoat it is both common and unfortunate. That being the case, this argument appears to be just what it is -- a stupid, baseless attack on Open Source Software based on a simple lack of understanding.
A possibility is to assign every word in a sentence a number of descriptors (tense, part of speech, etc...) and see if they are in a logical order. For example:
I use a grammer checker.
Nominative Pronoun, present tense transitive action verb, general article for non-vowel sounds, adjective, noun.
Simiilarily, She kick a red ball would have the same pattern.
Assuming that an adequate dictionary is compiled (containing all the descriptors, relying on context for a word such as "grammer" (if before noun, grammer is an adjective, otherwise, it is a noun).
While this system would be very difficult to design, I believe that the basic approach would work.
Well with theater profits plummiting, the movie industry has few methods other than movie sales to generate a profit; and just because it is easy to do something illegally does not> mean that it is legitmate to do so, or that it is in some way unacceptable to defend yourself against these illegal actions. And just so you know, customer generally implies people who paid. These people did not.
Haha, who says there's no such thing as karma... It's just poetic justice that SCO gets what they deserve.
Or D) Its their culture, and their shows / movies... not ours. While some Americans will watch Anime, not that many will
Anime is designed for the Japanese culture, and will be better accepted in Japan. US animation is designed for Americans, and hence will be better accepted than Anime. Products do what they are designed for (excluding a certaing clear-glass-pane-inspired-OS)
I absolutelly agree with you -- hence the "more biometric sensors are always better" -- if you have two sensors (or security devices for that matter) you need two "wedges", with three you need three, etc... And biometrics have the major advantage that in a place where "hacking" in both the technical and physical sense is impossible, say, an airport, the only possible method of gaining access is to supply the proper credentials, and this is where biometrics shine. No-one is going to pry off the sensor-panel and try to upload firmware onto a biometric reader in the middle of an airport. In this new age of security, the more the better is a simple fact.
I guess more biometric sensors are always better -- but at a point, doesn't it seem excessive? I guess I'll be able to sleep easier tonight knowing that if I'm killed in my sleep and my murder spreads my bodyparts across the county, I can still be indentified by the veins in my hands. Thank God.
Google, in their holy crusade against Microsoft has launched their most powerful attack on the monopoly yet -- offering a Windows only tool. Google... What happened?