"Had to"? Who said you had to switch to IE, when there are so many other choices out there? Google Chrome is the first thing that comes to my mind as an excellent alternative, but both Safari and Opera are excellent browsers as well.
[Windows 7] is a *huge* improvement, both in performance and security, over both XP and Vista.
Citations? You have not provided any. Any studies I have seen comparing Win 7 with either XP or Vista certainly do not show "a *huge* improvement" in performance.
when your 14-year old son insists that you buy Windows...
...you have a wonderful opportunity to sit down and have a good talk with him about what a monopoly is and why we don't want to promote one and how bad their business ethics are, just like we educate our children about the environment and other important issue.
Yet while Mozilla dropped updates for Firefox 2.x, Microsoft still keeps patching IE 5.01 for Windows 2000 and will until Windows 2000 drops out of extended support next year.
Sorry - I don't get your point. What do you mean to imply here? Microsoft sells IE, in the sense that it bundled with the operating systems they sell. Therefore, Microsoft is obligated to support IE like it is obligated to provide support for all of its other products. Meanwhile, Firefox is a free download, and under no such obligation. In spite of this, it is clear from the statistics that Firefox users can be largely trusted to update, most likely because they have made a concious choice to use Firefox in the first placed.
Many, many home users don't know what a browser is or don't realise that there are alternatives... Gradual adoption of Windows 7 will certainly help in the second case.
Gradual adoption of Windows 7 will help people learn what a browser is or that there are alternatives?...and this faulty reasoning is somehow "insightful"?
Chrome would be my browser of choice were it not for the lack of Adblock, Noscript & IETab
I love Chrome! It is just so blazingly fast, I don't have the patience to open Firefox anymore in spite of the fact that I was once a stelwartly loyal fan. The last time I opened Firefox, I counted to 10 before it loaded. I resisted leaving Firefox at first just because of the protection NoScript provided, though it was such a nuisance when it updated itself every day. Then when I learned that Chrome provides the equivalent protection I never went back. I reasoned that Google is in a very good position to know what web sites need blocking. Chrome also blocks pop-ups. I'm not completely sure what IETab is, but clearly it is having no negative impact on my browser experience or I would know more about it. I think Chrome is an undiscovered gem quietly awaiting its turn for the limelight.
I'm now genuinely hoping that Windows 7 will massively succeed so that we can put an end to this abomination.
It was Microsoft created the very browser you call "this monster from the digital stone age" in the first place but you want to see Microsoft's Windows 7 massively succeed??? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Microsoft deliberately ignored standards with IE 6 as a ploy to hijack the internet and promote their monopoly. Now you are wishing that very same monopoly massive success -...and getting modded up for promoting Microsoft! What is wrong with this picture? Why would anybody mod you up for that? Massive adoption of Windows 7 will only further empower and embolden Microsoft to pull more tricks like destroying the ISO to push through their proprietary MSOOXML standard or planting bugs in Firefox.
"I'm now genuinely hoping that Windows 7 will massively fail so that we can put an end to this abomination" - there - corrected it for you.
Under Gates MS acted like a schoolyard bully. Petulant, overly aggressive, petty, and ultimately self defeating. - Deliberately sabotaging the competition...
So that's changed now? Not! Think how they bullied their way through the ISO with OOXML, and continue to bully it through the committees. Think of how they tried to sabotage Firefox with their damn sneaky modification planting a vulnerability instead of offering users a plug-in. I'm still waiting for an apology for that, and for them to do the honourable thing and withdraw OOXML and give proper support for ODF.
I ordered a new system based on an Intel CORE i5 750 2.66GHZ CPU running on the Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium w/8 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz ram two days ago, and have been monitoring the net for signs of this mobo to actually hit the shelves. I will be running this with an unremarkable 64 GB Patriot SDD as the boot drive, until the new SATA 6 Gbps SSDs come out - which could take a awhile I imagine. I expect blazing speed from this platform, and can hardly wait for it. The only unknown is when will the mobo arrive. If it drags on and on, at least there is the option of an add on card that will convert one of the other ASUS X58 boards to USB 3 & SATA 6. I just hope I haven't made a mistake with the decision to wait. The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29.
Here are a host of links I collected on it this morning...
Asus Unveils USB 3.0 Motherboard
Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium
The motherboard, unveiled Wednesday [October 28 2009], is 4.8 inches by 3 inches and is scheduled to be available next month for $299.
October 28th, 2009 ASUS debuts USB 3.0 motherboard and add-on card
The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29. Both will be available November.
Well - I've been at this for awhile, and I have never seen this happen. When I first saw your insightfully post, it was marked +3 Insightful, and I added another insightful. Immediately after my moderation, it was +2 Insightful. Then after I posted the comment above, invalidating my moderation, it was 2. Now it is at 1. The ms shills must be jumping all over you, and I suppose you will end up at -1 flamebait. Sorry - I tried, and of course now I'm locked out of moderating in this topic.
I liked your comment and modded it up a point, then when I checked immediately after, it was actually down a point. I don't know what happened, whether it was a bug in the software, or it was me with finger trouble, or somebody else moding you down at the same time I was moding you up, but I am posting this now to invalidate my moderation. Here's hoping you will go up after I do this rather than down...
You seem quite knowledgeable about this EULA. Tell me then - does it say that you are giving Microsoft permission to sabotage Firefox? Does it even mention Firefox?
You only have Microsoft to blame for that. This is a serious vulnerability that Microsoft created, and both Microsoft & Mozila agree that blocking it is necessary.
It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion. This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable without the block.
"A vulnerability which has already been patched." - maybe on your machines, but there could be millions of machines out there where it wasn't - that's the problem.
It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion. This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable without the block.
It is unfortunate that you have a lot of extra work awaiting you, but you only have Microsoft to blame for that. This is a serious vulnerability that Microsoft created, and both Microsoft & Mozila agree that client's protection must come first.
Please mod parent down! He is not a real person anyhow, but a member of Microsoft's psy-op team, spreading disinformation. It is outrageous to see shills modded up to +5. You gotta wonder about the motivation of someone who is defending something that was installed by stealth instead of a normal opt-in procedure. Who of those fictitious users of One-Click he is referring to actually installed this plugin on Firefox? None of them!...because it wasn't offered or advertized, and there was no opportunity to deliberately download this plugin, and therefore nobody asked for it.
Fundamentally, Microsoft introduced a security risk into Firefox with these add-ons. That risk came to fruition and thus Mozilla closed the risk entirely. Both have agreed to this, at least for the time being.
Mozilla is only blocking the unpatched vulnerability. It's just that there's no appreciable difference between the patched and unpatched versions so it's all blocked at once. Firefox users are by no means guaranteed to have both the update that caused this and the update that fixed this. Updates are not magic. Some people have them now; some don't. If it's not 100% then it's vulnerable and hence the block.
It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion. This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable until it is available to them and installed.
Mozila suggests that if you are one of the very small minority that need this software that was by and large installed into users' browsers without their permission or knowledge then you request Microsoft to write a clean version completely free of this and Mozilla can allow that through.
Neither the plugin nor the extension are updated by the hotfix, only an OS component that they depend upon is changed. All versions of the extension or plugin are affected if the old version of the system component is installed, none are affected if the new version is installed. Firefox doesn't contain a mechanism for checking system library versions, so there's no way to automatically block the plugin only on affected systems. It's all or nothing: disable this functionality completely, or allow even on systems with the vulnerability.
Opera (a purveyor of second-tier browsers) managed to get what it couldn't earn in the market.
I think you may be being a bit deliberately thick here. That's the whole point of the EU ruling. Opera complained that it couldn't get a toe hold in the market because with Microsoft's overwhelming dominance, there wasn't a level playing field.
The EU has played this game in the past, favoring EU companies by penalizing US companies
Your attempt to provoke nationalist sentiments to rally Americans against the EU and their ruling against Microsoft is very transparent, and has been attempted on several other occasions here on Slashdot. It won't work. In the case of Microsoft, these actions, rather than being thinly-veiled protectionism, are an essential attempt to balance a market that has been in a stranglehold by the dominate player Microsoft for over a decade. The other complaints you have about the EU are irrelevant to this discussion.
"Umm...actually finding gravitational waves would help 100% of the population."
Finding gravity waves is the key to finding anti-gravity waves. You see, every particle has its anti-particle. The are electrons and positrons. The are protons and anti-protons. There are top quarks and there are bottom quarks. There are charming quarks and there are boring quarks. There are gluons and anti-gluons. Just imagine what a beam of these would do to your enemy. Leaves nothing but quarks flying in all directions! Not a pretty sight. There is the w-boson, also called the "God particle" and its opposite - the "Atheist particle." Then finally there are gravitons and there are anti-gravitons. Anti-gravitons are the basis of your common tractor beam. I hope you found this discussion illuminating.
Thank you for your interpretation of the meaning behind today's article. It was a revelation for me to consider gravity waves as an analogue of electromagnetic waves.
On the The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves web site there is more information. They say "The timing precision of today's best measured pulsars is less than 100 ns. With improved instrumentation and signal-to-noise it is widely believed that the next decade could see a pulsar timing network of 100 pulsars each with better than 100 ns timing precision." I thought it interesting that they only get 100. Then if you did a long term integration of these signals, you may get down to pico-second timing. Such a timing base may be used to correct atomic clocks in GPS satellites and have many other uses. This is all just pure speculation by a non-physicist, so take it with a grain of salt.
I remember those days. I was tasked with updating our assembler libraries to take advantage of the 386. We had the FS and GS registers, and assembler commands such as LFS - Load Pointer Using FS, LGS - Load Pointer Using GS to simplify the loading of far pointers from the stack. It was very tedious at the time, and I think slower to access memory, taking half a dozen clock cycles. However, I think you have an interesting idea. Back in those days security didn't take on the same dimensions as it does today.
3) Try to get people to download it, install it alongside or replace their current OS (how many of us would really do this except to try it out as a toy and then go back to our other OS?
It has a lot more potential on the desktop than you suggest. Imagine dual booting between Windows and the Google Chrome OS. You could boot nearly instantly into the Google OS to browse the web in complete security. The Google OS could also run from a VM for secure web browsing as well. Windoz users becoming routinely p0wned will be a thing of the past.
It crashed when I tried to load an mp3. Of course, too late I read that one needs to download a DLL for that, but it shouldn't just crash. Anyhow - very interesting concept. Unfortunately, couldn't try the main point, which is to, I believe, spray paint some frequencies, because it kept wanting to reload/reprocess and I couldn't wait any longer at the moment.
I have been working towards something vaguely like this but so far it is more of a toy in comparison to what you have done, though I believe it has useful functionality in its own right. Maybe we could colaborate. I don't have useful idea on marketing but I am sure others will supply that.
Over the years, Microsoft has proven to be particulary inept at getting any traction with their search business. In January 2008, Microsoft made an unsolicited bid to purchase Yahoo. Their efforts were frustrated when Google came to Yahoo's rescue. To get their revenge Microsoft mobilized their army of lobbyists in a Plot to Kill Google. Microsoft persuaded other companies and trade groups to lend support to their FUD campaign against their arch enemy. You will recall that the powerful American Corn Growers Association was among them - this same organization who's members get billions in subsidies to produce environmentally unfriendly ethanol from corn.
An article in the New York Times details Google's public-relations offensive to counteract the Microsoft generated FUD.
The Times articles states about Google: "regulators are intensely scrutinizing its every move, as they once did with... Microsoft. (My bold)
Why is it - "as they once did with Microsoft"? Microsoft never changed the behaviour that lead to civil actions filed against Microsoft in May of 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states.
They have made a big mistake. The DOJ is after the wrong company! With a new administartion in place, their first priority should be to get Microsoft under control. The EU has really shown the world the the US DOJ has been asleep on its watch. If the DOJ woke up and stepped up to its long neglected responsibilities, it would be the USA raking in the billions in fines it will take to get Microsoft to behave itself, instead of the EU. Why in the world are they going after Google at this time?
Google has been a shining example of how a good corporate citizen should behave, and Microsoft should be encouraged to emulate Google's example. Google doesn't lock people into its software or services. Any time you want you can use another search engine or pick up your Google docs and walk away. If there are some justifiable concerns about Google, I suggest that the DOJ first take care of elephant in the room - Microsoft - before turning to Google. It is just so disheartening to see the good guys getting DOJ's attention while the bad guy slips away. Microsoft, you hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from Google's eye.
PS: I couldn't have written this short essay without Google there by my side the whole time as a friend to help me with the research.
Slashdot Mirror
"Had to"? Who said you had to switch to IE, when there are so many other choices out there? Google Chrome is the first thing that comes to my mind as an excellent alternative, but both Safari and Opera are excellent browsers as well.
Citations? You have not provided any. Any studies I have seen comparing Win 7 with either XP or Vista certainly do not show "a *huge* improvement" in performance.
...you have a wonderful opportunity to sit down and have a good talk with him about what a monopoly is and why we don't want to promote one and how bad their business ethics are, just like we educate our children about the environment and other important issue.
Sorry - I don't get your point. What do you mean to imply here? Microsoft sells IE, in the sense that it bundled with the operating systems they sell. Therefore, Microsoft is obligated to support IE like it is obligated to provide support for all of its other products. Meanwhile, Firefox is a free download, and under no such obligation. In spite of this, it is clear from the statistics that Firefox users can be largely trusted to update, most likely because they have made a concious choice to use Firefox in the first placed.
Gradual adoption of Windows 7 will help people learn what a browser is or that there are alternatives? ...and this faulty reasoning is somehow "insightful"?
I love Chrome! It is just so blazingly fast, I don't have the patience to open Firefox anymore in spite of the fact that I was once a stelwartly loyal fan. The last time I opened Firefox, I counted to 10 before it loaded.
I resisted leaving Firefox at first just because of the protection NoScript provided, though it was such a nuisance when it updated itself every day. Then when I learned that Chrome provides the equivalent protection I never went back. I reasoned that Google is in a very good position to know what web sites need blocking. Chrome also blocks pop-ups. I'm not completely sure what IETab is, but clearly it is having no negative impact on my browser experience or I would know more about it. I think Chrome is an undiscovered gem quietly awaiting its turn for the limelight.
It was Microsoft created the very browser you call "this monster from the digital stone age" in the first place but you want to see Microsoft's Windows 7 massively succeed??? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. Microsoft deliberately ignored standards with IE 6 as a ploy to hijack the internet and promote their monopoly. Now you are wishing that very same monopoly massive success - ...and getting modded up for promoting Microsoft! What is wrong with this picture? Why would anybody mod you up for that? Massive adoption of Windows 7 will only further empower and embolden Microsoft to pull more tricks like destroying the ISO to push through their proprietary MSOOXML standard or planting bugs in Firefox.
"I'm now genuinely hoping that Windows 7 will massively fail so that we can put an end to this abomination" - there - corrected it for you.
So that's changed now? Not! Think how they bullied their way through the ISO with OOXML, and continue to bully it through the committees. Think of how they tried to sabotage Firefox with their damn sneaky modification planting a vulnerability instead of offering users a plug-in. I'm still waiting for an apology for that, and for them to do the honourable thing and withdraw OOXML and give proper support for ODF.
I ordered a new system based on an Intel CORE i5 750 2.66GHZ CPU running on the Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium w/8 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz ram two days ago, and have been monitoring the net for signs of this mobo to actually hit the shelves. I will be running this with an unremarkable 64 GB Patriot SDD as the boot drive, until the new SATA 6 Gbps SSDs come out - which could take a awhile I imagine. I expect blazing speed from this platform, and can hardly wait for it. The only unknown is when will the mobo arrive. If it drags on and on, at least there is the option of an add on card that will convert one of the other ASUS X58 boards to USB 3 & SATA 6. I just hope I haven't made a mistake with the decision to wait. The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29.
Here are a host of links I collected on it this morning...
Asus Unveils USB 3.0 Motherboard
Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium
The motherboard, unveiled Wednesday [October 28 2009], is 4.8 inches by 3 inches and is scheduled to be available next month for $299.
October 30th, 2009
USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview - ASUS brings the goods
the P55-Express based P7P55D-E Premium is very close to hitting the market.
October 29th, 2009
USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview
October 29th, 2009
This Is The First USB 3.0 Motherboard
October 28th, 2009
ASUS debuts USB 3.0 motherboard and add-on card
The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29. Both will be available November.
October 28th, 2009
ASUS brings the first mobo with SATA 3 and USB 3
October 28th, 2009
ASUS P7P55D-E Motherboard Offers USB 3.0 and SATA-III 6G Performance
North American Availability
The P7P55D-E Premium and U3S6 expansion cards will be available at ASUS authorized retailers early November at $299 and $29 respectively.
Well - I've been at this for awhile, and I have never seen this happen. When I first saw your insightfully post, it was marked +3 Insightful, and I added another insightful. Immediately after my moderation, it was +2 Insightful. Then after I posted the comment above, invalidating my moderation, it was 2. Now it is at 1. The ms shills must be jumping all over you, and I suppose you will end up at -1 flamebait. Sorry - I tried, and of course now I'm locked out of moderating in this topic.
I liked your comment and modded it up a point, then when I checked immediately after, it was actually down a point. I don't know what happened, whether it was a bug in the software, or it was me with finger trouble, or somebody else moding you down at the same time I was moding you up, but I am posting this now to invalidate my moderation. Here's hoping you will go up after I do this rather than down...
You seem quite knowledgeable about this EULA. Tell me then - does it say that you are giving Microsoft permission to sabotage Firefox? Does it even mention Firefox?
You only have Microsoft to blame for that. This is a serious vulnerability that Microsoft created, and both Microsoft & Mozila agree that blocking it is necessary.
It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion. This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable without the block.
"A vulnerability which has already been patched." - maybe on your machines, but there could be millions of machines out there where it wasn't - that's the problem.
It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion. This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable without the block.
It is unfortunate that you have a lot of extra work awaiting you, but you only have Microsoft to blame for that. This is a serious vulnerability that Microsoft created, and both Microsoft & Mozila agree that client's protection must come first.
Please mod parent down! He is not a real person anyhow, but a member of Microsoft's psy-op team, spreading disinformation. It is outrageous to see shills modded up to +5. You gotta wonder about the motivation of someone who is defending something that was installed by stealth instead of a normal opt-in procedure. Who of those fictitious users of One-Click he is referring to actually installed this plugin on Firefox? None of them! ...because it wasn't offered or advertized, and there was no opportunity to deliberately download this plugin, and therefore nobody asked for it.
The real story can be found on the Mozila discussion board.
Fundamentally, Microsoft introduced a security risk into Firefox with these add-ons. That risk came to fruition and thus Mozilla closed the risk entirely. Both have agreed to this, at least for the time being.
Mozilla is only blocking the unpatched vulnerability. It's just that there's no appreciable difference between the patched and unpatched versions so it's all blocked at once. Firefox users are by no means guaranteed to have both the update that caused this and the update that fixed this. Updates are not magic. Some people have them now; some don't. If it's not 100% then it's vulnerable and hence the block.
It's important to note that the vast majority of users with this add-on installed did not know that it was installed, or ask for it to be installed, and it's very difficult to uninstall cleanly due to the hidden extension that is left behind, as well as the "9.*.*" maxversion. This means that users who don't normally care about IE updates, because they are Firefox users, will be vulnerable until it is available to them and installed.
Mozila suggests that if you are one of the very small minority that need this software that was by and large installed into users' browsers without their permission or knowledge then you request Microsoft to write a clean version completely free of this and Mozilla can allow that through.
Neither the plugin nor the extension are updated by the hotfix, only an OS component that they depend upon is changed. All versions of the extension or plugin are affected if the old version of the system component is installed, none are affected if the new version is installed. Firefox doesn't contain a mechanism for checking system library versions, so there's no way to automatically block the plugin only on affected systems. It's all or nothing: disable this functionality completely, or allow even on systems with the vulnerability.
I think you may be being a bit deliberately thick here. That's the whole point of the EU ruling. Opera complained that it couldn't get a toe hold in the market because with Microsoft's overwhelming dominance, there wasn't a level playing field.
Your attempt to provoke nationalist sentiments to rally Americans against the EU and their ruling against Microsoft is very transparent, and has been attempted on several other occasions here on Slashdot. It won't work. In the case of Microsoft, these actions, rather than being thinly-veiled protectionism, are an essential attempt to balance a market that has been in a stranglehold by the dominate player Microsoft for over a decade. The other complaints you have about the EU are irrelevant to this discussion.
Excellent, well thought out review. Where's the mod points???
"Umm...actually finding gravitational waves would help 100% of the population."
Finding gravity waves is the key to finding anti-gravity waves. You see, every particle has its anti-particle. The are electrons and positrons. The are protons and anti-protons. There are top quarks and there are bottom quarks. There are charming quarks and there are boring quarks. There are gluons and anti-gluons. Just imagine what a beam of these would do to your enemy. Leaves nothing but quarks flying in all directions! Not a pretty sight. There is the w-boson, also called the "God particle" and its opposite - the "Atheist particle." Then finally there are gravitons and there are anti-gravitons. Anti-gravitons are the basis of your common tractor beam. I hope you found this discussion illuminating.
This space intentionally left blank.
Thank you for your interpretation of the meaning behind today's article. It was a revelation for me to consider gravity waves as an analogue of electromagnetic waves. On the The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves web site there is more information. They say "The timing precision of today's best measured pulsars is less than 100 ns. With improved instrumentation and signal-to-noise it is widely believed that the next decade could see a pulsar timing network of 100 pulsars each with better than 100 ns timing precision." I thought it interesting that they only get 100. Then if you did a long term integration of these signals, you may get down to pico-second timing. Such a timing base may be used to correct atomic clocks in GPS satellites and have many other uses. This is all just pure speculation by a non-physicist, so take it with a grain of salt.
I remember those days. I was tasked with updating our assembler libraries to take advantage of the 386. We had the FS and GS registers, and assembler commands such as LFS - Load Pointer Using FS, LGS - Load Pointer Using GS to simplify the loading of far pointers from the stack. It was very tedious at the time, and I think slower to access memory, taking half a dozen clock cycles. However, I think you have an interesting idea. Back in those days security didn't take on the same dimensions as it does today.
Post each application on Slashdot and we'll all vote on it.
It has a lot more potential on the desktop than you suggest. Imagine dual booting between Windows and the Google Chrome OS. You could boot nearly instantly into the Google OS to browse the web in complete security. The Google OS could also run from a VM for secure web browsing as well. Windoz users becoming routinely p0wned will be a thing of the past.
It crashed when I tried to load an mp3. Of course, too late I read that one needs to download a DLL for that, but it shouldn't just crash. Anyhow - very interesting concept. Unfortunately, couldn't try the main point, which is to, I believe, spray paint some frequencies, because it kept wanting to reload/reprocess and I couldn't wait any longer at the moment.
I have been working towards something vaguely like this but so far it is more of a toy in comparison to what you have done, though I believe it has useful functionality in its own right. Maybe we could colaborate. I don't have useful idea on marketing but I am sure others will supply that.
Over the years, Microsoft has proven to be particulary inept at getting any traction with their search business. In January 2008, Microsoft made an unsolicited bid to purchase Yahoo. Their efforts were frustrated when Google came to Yahoo's rescue. To get their revenge Microsoft mobilized their army of lobbyists in a Plot to Kill Google. Microsoft persuaded other companies and trade groups to lend support to their FUD campaign against their arch enemy. You will recall that the powerful American Corn Growers Association was among them - this same organization who's members get billions in subsidies to produce environmentally unfriendly ethanol from corn.
An article in the New York Times details Google's public-relations offensive to counteract the Microsoft generated FUD.
The Times articles states about Google: "regulators are intensely scrutinizing its every move, as they once did with ... Microsoft. (My bold)
Why is it - "as they once did with Microsoft"? Microsoft never changed the behaviour that lead to civil actions filed against Microsoft in May of 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states.
They have made a big mistake. The DOJ is after the wrong company! With a new administartion in place, their first priority should be to get Microsoft under control. The EU has really shown the world the the US DOJ has been asleep on its watch. If the DOJ woke up and stepped up to its long neglected responsibilities, it would be the USA raking in the billions in fines it will take to get Microsoft to behave itself, instead of the EU. Why in the world are they going after Google at this time?
Google has been a shining example of how a good corporate citizen should behave, and Microsoft should be encouraged to emulate Google's example. Google doesn't lock people into its software or services. Any time you want you can use another search engine or pick up your Google docs and walk away. If there are some justifiable concerns about Google, I suggest that the DOJ first take care of elephant in the room - Microsoft - before turning to Google. It is just so disheartening to see the good guys getting DOJ's attention while the bad guy slips away. Microsoft, you hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from Google's eye.
PS: I couldn't have written this short essay without Google there by my side the whole time as a friend to help me with the research.
Interesting. Thanks for your ideas - more than I could come up with. How did this thing transverse the NAT in my DSL modem?