Am I the only one who is put off by this whole chrome hype?
Would we have the same hype if Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, etc had released the same browser?
I admit, I downloaded it. I opened it once to look at the comic explaining the technology. Neat stuff, but this incomplete product is hardly a replacement for FF3. I am much more interested in Mozilla looking into the sandboxing/process spawning for each tab (even though with 20-40 tabs open regularly, I wonder how much overhead that would create).
And in terms of this browser potentially being faster? By the time they have implemented all the standard features of a modern browser, it'll be even.
Why is everyone so eager to *switch* to this browser even though it's just one more of Google's unfinished, perpetual beta products?
Patents, so what? Microsoft's covenant not to sue means that you can use all of those patents freely in any way without any restrictions and it also means that no other company can go ahead, patent the same stuff and make you pay for it. What do you want more? As long as we have to live with software patents (which are in my opinion just bad), that's the best you'll ever get. Microsoft will take care of enforcing those patents against anyone trying to claim the involved technology as his or her invention while at the same time letting everyone use it for free and without any restrictions.
Not sure where the whole patent and IP stuff comes from. Microsoft did issue a covenant not to compete, hence this is a non-issue.
Last time I checked, I was employed by a university.
The author is pretty dismissive about OpenXML, yet doesn't explain why OpenXML wouldn't meet the criteria. The bill would take effect December 1, 2007. By then OpenXML will probably be an ISO standard and there will probably be more than one adaptation of it (Novell is working on one for OpenOffice). So:
"interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications": Doesn't really say whether this interoperability has to be possible or whether such platforms and applications have to already exist. Also, it is to be expected for internal ones that the support for the open format would have to be implemented first. Then of course, what is meant with "diverse". Does two count as diverse? Does it need to be three, four, five,...? This is vague and very open to interpretation.
"published without restrictions or royalties": OpenXML already fulfills this today
"fully and independently implemented by multiple software providers on multiple platforms without any intellectual property reservations for necessary technology": Once Novell did it for OpenXML, there will be three vendors (Novell, Microsoft and the open-source project doing the ODF-OpenXML converter) on multiple platforms (Windows & all platforms OpenOffice runs on). Sounds like OpenXML has this one in the pocket as well.
"controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard": Ecma is such a body. But for all skeptics, once OpenXML is an ISO standard in 6 months or so, this will be a given.
The article is outdated. Microsoft changed the Vista EULA today. It now allows an unlimited number of transfers of the retail copy from one computer to another, instead of just one as the article still says.
You can read more about this change at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=166
Or download the full EULA from http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/defa ult.aspx
I am glad that the pressure on Microsoft worked and they changed that license term!
2 months? I would have burnt down their building by then. Seriously, anything longer than 2 weeks is totally unacceptable. I personally always spend the additional money to get next day warranty on-site, because I am not even willing to wait 2 weeks for a computer or run the risk of shipping it in.
How did a non-verifiable, non-reproducible post with such a huge accusation make it onto slashdot? Especially as an anonymous posting?
Such an accusation wouldn't even survive a few minutes in any newsgroup, but it makes it onto slashdot without anyone actually trying this? I'd really like to know which interesting, truthful, non-FUD story didn't make it onto slashdot because of this bs posting?
I just don't buy that argument. In Germany, all voting is also paper-based only and everything is counted by hand. Polls close at 6 pm and we generally have firm results the latest around 10 pm. The morning newspapers the next day have the preliminary official result on the front pages. The final official result is only available several weeks later, but that is the same in the US (election results are officially certified by each state's Secretary of State in the weeks after election day). The process in which votes are counted in Germany scales perfectly well (each precinct counts its own ballots, then reports the results to the county from where it goes to the state level and then finally to the federal level): Elections didn't suddenly take longer to count after we added 16 million citizens through the reunification.
Just to add some data: In the 2004 US presidential elections, 122,293,548 valid votes were cast. In the 2005 federal elections in Germany, 48,044,841 valid votes were cast. Germany has 16 states.
Why not? I am sure the lawsuit costs IBM more than what SCO is worth. Buy SCO, fire everyone and make SCO's IP freely available to everyone. Advertise it is "it was nice playing with you guys while it lasted, but now we ran out of patience with you".
Of course, IBM could just wait till SCO loses the lawsuit and then buy them for a few bucks to get their IP.
Microsoft started designing Office 2007 in 2003. At that time, the standardization process had just barely standard. OASIS approved it in 2005 and the submitted it to ISO. It became an ISO standard in May 2006 (OpenDocument standardization, OpenDocument. This means at the time that MS made the big feature decisions for Office 2007 (which happens very early on), ODF was far away from becoming the first Office document standard. It is therefore logical that MS chose not to implement it back then and rather focus its resources on further developing its own XML formats. If ODF had been an ISO standard back then, MS might have decided to implement it natively. It wasn't though, so they made a different decision.
My comment probably came across as flamebait, and I apologize for that. It's just annoying that a lot of people implicitly assume that ODF is better and is the format to use without looking at it closely. There isn't really any fair comparison of ODF and OpenXML anywhere (fair in the sense that OpenXML is not assumed to be bad and evil from the beginning on). Even the Wikipedia article on it is classified as advertisement for ODF.
I agree that the MS formats are highly complicated while ODF is simple, nice and clean. I had my fair share of messing around with OpenXML to the degree that I couldn't make sense of it without reading some documentation (mainly Brian Jones blog). From a technical point of view though, this difficulty makes sense. For example, I completely buy the argument that the extremely short tags used by OpenXML make an OpenXML document faster to parse than an ODF document with longer, more understandable tags.
In my opinion, the users are the only ones who matter in this case. Most users will never touch the actual XML and hence really won't care what it looks like. What they will care though is whether the format provides full fidelity for their existing documents (even losing the tiniest piece in a document will result in a screaming user). Also, If you ask a user whether they prefer their documents to open faster or making the job easier for developers, they will pick the faster opening. In the case of MS Office, there are around 400 million Office users and compared to that the number of developers who (will) actually touch the file formats is extremely small. It just makes sense then to design a file format to give the vast majority everything they'll want and make it more complicated on the small minority of developers.
I actually don't think Microsoft will be changing those formats anytime soon after the release of 2007. Keep in mind that they maanged to go for about 10 years (1997-2007) without changing their binary formats. Especially once the standardization process (Ecma now, ISO later) is completed, MS will be changing the formats even less as they will lose control over them. How many revisions of ODF will happen in a 10 year time frame? (prob. at least two as far as I can tell)
ISO standard doesn't mean that everyone has to use it. It mainly means that if you chose to use it, you know that it is internationally standardized. There is no obligation to use it, which means it cannot be the standard de jure. Hence ODF is advertised as the de facto standard.
Microsoft will submit OpenXML to ISO, and I am pretty sure it will end up becoming an ISO standard as well. Then what? If I were to guess, then I would say that ~90% of all Office documents today are in the 97-2003 formats. Maybe in 5 years, the distribution will be more like 40% in the old formats, 45% in OpenXML and 15% in ODF (allowing for a slight increase of the ODF share even). Why would anyone want to go with the standard that only covers 15% of all existing documents? Especially, if, using your logic, all non-MS Office suite will have to implement OpenXML once it is an ISO standard? Anybody who can do the math will jump ship on ODF and simply use OpenXML.
Even before OpenXML will be an ISO standard, other Office suites will implement it (keep in mind that it will be an Ecma standard). Other Office suites have just been waiting to get rid of the competitive advantage MS currently enjoys through its closed file formats. It is going to be in their best interest to implement OpenXML support, because users will not be asking whether a particular non-MS Office supports ODF, but rather whether they can open their Microsoft Office documents in it without any loss. ODF doesn't allow that, but OpenXML does.
By the way, following your logic making paper that doesn't follow ISO 216 is stupid, yet the US, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Chile and other American countries prefer the non-ISO paper sizes (e.g. Letter, Legal) over the ISO 216 sizes (e.g. A4).
Call me a troll as often as you want, but if you do, give me a valid reason why chosing ODF over OpenXML is going to be a good business decision for anyone? (Assuming the demise of MS Office and a takeover of the entire market by OpenOffice might be desirable for everyone who doesn't like Microsoft, but it certainly isn't very likely to happen).
Read Brian Jones's blog as well as the comments to his OpenXML-ODF translator post to find enough people who think that ODF is the world and nothing else exists.
It's hillarious that posting something in support of Microsoft on slashdot gets labelled as troll.
Every supporter of ODF sounds as if ODF is the most used format world-wide and the de facto standard. Every supporter sounds as if there is no alternative to ODF and that it is the holy grail. But they all forget the realities that exist today. The de facto standard is not ODF, but the Microsoft Office 97-2003 binary formats. Billions and billions of documents are in those formats today and the number of documents currently in ODF pales compared to it. With Office 2007, Microsoft will offer a free method to upgrade all those documents to the OpenXML format. It's free, because the converter itself will be available as free download from Microsoft. OpenXML provides full-fidelity for all 97-2003 documents, which means that users can upgrade their files to OpenXML without losing anything. In contrast, 97-2003 documents cannot be converted without any loss to ODF, as ODF doesn't support everything in those formats. This means in a few years, the vast majority of documents will be in the OpenXML format and everyone will be wondering why we even need ODF.
Microsoft providing an OpenXML-ODF translator is a stop-gag measure to prolong the eventual death of ODF.
No one is going to dispute that the MS Word HTML code sucks. MS designed that code with the idea that it's full fidelity, meaning as close to your original Word document as only possible. The outcome of that we all know....
The successor products of FrontPage are SharePoint Designer (part of the the Office 2007 Suite) and Expression Web Designer. The first one is targeted at SharePoint sites, whereas the second one is targeted at standards-compliants websites. From what I have seen so far, the code looks pretty good.
Microsoft heard you about the file format issues. Excel, PowerPoint and Word will now use an XML based file format. The file formats split every document into many, many small XML files, which are then along with all the other file content (images, movies, etc) zipped up. In essence, a file in the new file format is a zip file with XML content. Obviously ZIP won't do you much good with JPGs and other already compressed files, but if you take those out of the equations, files are generally a lot smaller in the new XML formats than they used to be in the binary 97-2003 formats. MS claims at least 30% and actually advertises this as one of the great new benefits of 2007 (save server space).
Germany had two intelligence agents in Baghdad during the war. Their identities are fully known to the press which has tried not to reveal them. What happened?
Both agents were doing everything but keeping a low profile in the days before the evacuation of the German Embassy in Iraq. Apparently they had no problems mingling with the press.
Both had websites with pictures of their current postings. For example, one guy showed himself with his family at his new post in Australia.
Their websites had guestbooks. Other agents left "well concealed" messages on there. For example, one post ended with "greetings from Pullach". The CIA equivalent of that would be "greetings from Langley".
Yes, I am a FireFox user. I am actually not particularly concerned about the breadth of search engines available to FF or IE7. However, there was a controversy with earlier versions of IE7 in which Google was missing from the search box (yet MSN, Yahoo were there), and the Google Toolbar wasn't working.
I just installed beta 2 (on XP) and I am surprised that Google is my default search engine! The only other one installed is MSN. I had the Google toolbar installed in 6, and it is right there in 7 as well. All of it works perfectly. It seems as though MS has addressed the concerns in earlier versions.
The list of search engine providers includes AOL, Ask Jeeves, Google, MSN and Yahoo. There are also providers for specific websites, e.g. amazon and MSDN. Looks pretty good!
Shares didn't rise because of USPTO
on
Hopes Rise for RIM
·
· Score: 4, Informative
RIM shares were up almost one per cent on Friday trading on the TSX.
Analysts and fund managers who hold RIM shares say its looks increasingly likely that RIM will settle its ongoing patent dispute with NTP Inc. of Virginia, rather than see the service blacked out.
Also, one of TFA includes no information that would justify the comment that the USPTO is under pressure from congressmen to speed up its process of looking into the NTP patents. From the TFA:
The U.S. represents about 70 per cent of the BlackBerry market, and the prospect that a judge would issue an injunction closing down the service has business executives and political leaders wondering how they will get along without the devices.
The U.S. government has even joined the dispute, arguing that BlackBerry's are vital to national security.
Instead, there is an analysis into the patent dispute in one of TFA:
Right around the time the parties will be meeting in Judge Spencer's courtroom, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may be moving toward a final resolution of the NTP patents at the heart of this dispute. Last December, the office issued another set of preliminary rulings that found NTP's patents to be invalid. NTP's response is due by Feb. 28.
A report this week by analysts at investment banker Goldman Sachs noted that "NTP must prove that these patents contain new inventions on several key patents by Feb. 28 or face the PTO permanently rejecting the patents," the authors wrote. "If the PTO issues final rejections on any or all of the five NTP patents, this could change the course of the lawsuit. To the extent that patents are ruled invalid, we believe that it is likely that this would be considered by the District Court."
The patents are related to the software used by RIM in their Blackberry products (clients and servers). If your service from Nextel provides you with email on your blackberry, you are going to be affected.
The side of the blackberry service you commonly see is the client, namely your little handheld device. However in order for it to work, you need servers (the blackberry network infrastructure) in the background. If that infrastructure is shut down (which the injunction would), your screen goes dark. Sorry.
I guess Google should consider moving their servers out of the reach of the US government. Maybe some tiny island that's outside the reach of most governments would be a good place to relocate.
This attempt by the Bush administration is just a nightmare scenario. If they win this, who is going to demand access next? Your local newspaper maybe to determine who searches for pornography in your area?
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who is put off by this whole chrome hype? Would we have the same hype if Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, etc had released the same browser? I admit, I downloaded it. I opened it once to look at the comic explaining the technology. Neat stuff, but this incomplete product is hardly a replacement for FF3. I am much more interested in Mozilla looking into the sandboxing/process spawning for each tab (even though with 20-40 tabs open regularly, I wonder how much overhead that would create). And in terms of this browser potentially being faster? By the time they have implemented all the standard features of a modern browser, it'll be even. Why is everyone so eager to *switch* to this browser even though it's just one more of Google's unfinished, perpetual beta products?
five minutes of it attempting to boot? Could this be the reason why it takes five minutes: http://pschmid.net/blog/2007/04/20/110
Patents, so what? Microsoft's covenant not to sue means that you can use all of those patents freely in any way without any restrictions and it also means that no other company can go ahead, patent the same stuff and make you pay for it. What do you want more? As long as we have to live with software patents (which are in my opinion just bad), that's the best you'll ever get. Microsoft will take care of enforcing those patents against anyone trying to claim the involved technology as his or her invention while at the same time letting everyone use it for free and without any restrictions.
Unfortunately there is. ODF and OpenXML both have their seat on the open document format table, they just happen to be different ones.
Not sure where the whole patent and IP stuff comes from. Microsoft did issue a covenant not to compete, hence this is a non-issue. Last time I checked, I was employed by a university.
The article is outdated. Microsoft changed the Vista EULA today. It now allows an unlimited number of transfers of the retail copy from one computer to another, instead of just one as the article still says. You can read more about this change at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=166 Or download the full EULA from http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/defa ult.aspx
I am glad that the pressure on Microsoft worked and they changed that license term!
2 months? I would have burnt down their building by then. Seriously, anything longer than 2 weeks is totally unacceptable. I personally always spend the additional money to get next day warranty on-site, because I am not even willing to wait 2 weeks for a computer or run the risk of shipping it in.
How did a non-verifiable, non-reproducible post with such a huge accusation make it onto slashdot? Especially as an anonymous posting? Such an accusation wouldn't even survive a few minutes in any newsgroup, but it makes it onto slashdot without anyone actually trying this? I'd really like to know which interesting, truthful, non-FUD story didn't make it onto slashdot because of this bs posting?
Oh my. Voting in my country is going downhill as well! Thanks for the link.
I just don't buy that argument. In Germany, all voting is also paper-based only and everything is counted by hand. Polls close at 6 pm and we generally have firm results the latest around 10 pm. The morning newspapers the next day have the preliminary official result on the front pages. The final official result is only available several weeks later, but that is the same in the US (election results are officially certified by each state's Secretary of State in the weeks after election day). The process in which votes are counted in Germany scales perfectly well (each precinct counts its own ballots, then reports the results to the county from where it goes to the state level and then finally to the federal level): Elections didn't suddenly take longer to count after we added 16 million citizens through the reunification.
Just to add some data: In the 2004 US presidential elections, 122,293,548 valid votes were cast. In the 2005 federal elections in Germany, 48,044,841 valid votes were cast. Germany has 16 states.
Why not? I am sure the lawsuit costs IBM more than what SCO is worth. Buy SCO, fire everyone and make SCO's IP freely available to everyone. Advertise it is "it was nice playing with you guys while it lasted, but now we ran out of patience with you".
Of course, IBM could just wait till SCO loses the lawsuit and then buy them for a few bucks to get their IP.
Microsoft started designing Office 2007 in 2003. At that time, the standardization process had just barely standard. OASIS approved it in 2005 and the submitted it to ISO. It became an ISO standard in May 2006 (OpenDocument standardization, OpenDocument. This means at the time that MS made the big feature decisions for Office 2007 (which happens very early on), ODF was far away from becoming the first Office document standard. It is therefore logical that MS chose not to implement it back then and rather focus its resources on further developing its own XML formats. If ODF had been an ISO standard back then, MS might have decided to implement it natively. It wasn't though, so they made a different decision.
My comment probably came across as flamebait, and I apologize for that. It's just annoying that a lot of people implicitly assume that ODF is better and is the format to use without looking at it closely. There isn't really any fair comparison of ODF and OpenXML anywhere (fair in the sense that OpenXML is not assumed to be bad and evil from the beginning on). Even the Wikipedia article on it is classified as advertisement for ODF.
I agree that the MS formats are highly complicated while ODF is simple, nice and clean. I had my fair share of messing around with OpenXML to the degree that I couldn't make sense of it without reading some documentation (mainly Brian Jones blog). From a technical point of view though, this difficulty makes sense. For example, I completely buy the argument that the extremely short tags used by OpenXML make an OpenXML document faster to parse than an ODF document with longer, more understandable tags.
In my opinion, the users are the only ones who matter in this case. Most users will never touch the actual XML and hence really won't care what it looks like. What they will care though is whether the format provides full fidelity for their existing documents (even losing the tiniest piece in a document will result in a screaming user). Also, If you ask a user whether they prefer their documents to open faster or making the job easier for developers, they will pick the faster opening. In the case of MS Office, there are around 400 million Office users and compared to that the number of developers who (will) actually touch the file formats is extremely small. It just makes sense then to design a file format to give the vast majority everything they'll want and make it more complicated on the small minority of developers.
I actually don't think Microsoft will be changing those formats anytime soon after the release of 2007. Keep in mind that they maanged to go for about 10 years (1997-2007) without changing their binary formats. Especially once the standardization process (Ecma now, ISO later) is completed, MS will be changing the formats even less as they will lose control over them. How many revisions of ODF will happen in a 10 year time frame? (prob. at least two as far as I can tell)
ISO standard doesn't mean that everyone has to use it. It mainly means that if you chose to use it, you know that it is internationally standardized. There is no obligation to use it, which means it cannot be the standard de jure. Hence ODF is advertised as the de facto standard.
Microsoft will submit OpenXML to ISO, and I am pretty sure it will end up becoming an ISO standard as well. Then what? If I were to guess, then I would say that ~90% of all Office documents today are in the 97-2003 formats. Maybe in 5 years, the distribution will be more like 40% in the old formats, 45% in OpenXML and 15% in ODF (allowing for a slight increase of the ODF share even). Why would anyone want to go with the standard that only covers 15% of all existing documents? Especially, if, using your logic, all non-MS Office suite will have to implement OpenXML once it is an ISO standard? Anybody who can do the math will jump ship on ODF and simply use OpenXML.
Even before OpenXML will be an ISO standard, other Office suites will implement it (keep in mind that it will be an Ecma standard). Other Office suites have just been waiting to get rid of the competitive advantage MS currently enjoys through its closed file formats. It is going to be in their best interest to implement OpenXML support, because users will not be asking whether a particular non-MS Office supports ODF, but rather whether they can open their Microsoft Office documents in it without any loss. ODF doesn't allow that, but OpenXML does.
By the way, following your logic making paper that doesn't follow ISO 216 is stupid, yet the US, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Chile and other American countries prefer the non-ISO paper sizes (e.g. Letter, Legal) over the ISO 216 sizes (e.g. A4).
Call me a troll as often as you want, but if you do, give me a valid reason why chosing ODF over OpenXML is going to be a good business decision for anyone? (Assuming the demise of MS Office and a takeover of the entire market by OpenOffice might be desirable for everyone who doesn't like Microsoft, but it certainly isn't very likely to happen).
Read Brian Jones's blog as well as the comments to his OpenXML-ODF translator post to find enough people who think that ODF is the world and nothing else exists.
It's hillarious that posting something in support of Microsoft on slashdot gets labelled as troll.
Every supporter of ODF sounds as if ODF is the most used format world-wide and the de facto standard. Every supporter sounds as if there is no alternative to ODF and that it is the holy grail. But they all forget the realities that exist today. The de facto standard is not ODF, but the Microsoft Office 97-2003 binary formats. Billions and billions of documents are in those formats today and the number of documents currently in ODF pales compared to it. With Office 2007, Microsoft will offer a free method to upgrade all those documents to the OpenXML format. It's free, because the converter itself will be available as free download from Microsoft.
OpenXML provides full-fidelity for all 97-2003 documents, which means that users can upgrade their files to OpenXML without losing anything. In contrast, 97-2003 documents cannot be converted without any loss to ODF, as ODF doesn't support everything in those formats. This means in a few years, the vast majority of documents will be in the OpenXML format and everyone will be wondering why we even need ODF.
Microsoft providing an OpenXML-ODF translator is a stop-gag measure to prolong the eventual death of ODF.
No one is going to dispute that the MS Word HTML code sucks. MS designed that code with the idea that it's full fidelity, meaning as close to your original Word document as only possible. The outcome of that we all know....
The successor products of FrontPage are SharePoint Designer (part of the the Office 2007 Suite) and Expression Web Designer. The first one is targeted at SharePoint sites, whereas the second one is targeted at standards-compliants websites. From what I have seen so far, the code looks pretty good.
Microsoft heard you about the file format issues. Excel, PowerPoint and Word will now use an XML based file format. The file formats split every document into many, many small XML files, which are then along with all the other file content (images, movies, etc) zipped up. In essence, a file in the new file format is a zip file with XML content. Obviously ZIP won't do you much good with JPGs and other already compressed files, but if you take those out of the equations, files are generally a lot smaller in the new XML formats than they used to be in the binary 97-2003 formats. MS claims at least 30% and actually advertises this as one of the great new benefits of 2007 (save server space).
- Both agents were doing everything but keeping a low profile in the days before the evacuation of the German Embassy in Iraq. Apparently they had no problems mingling with the press.
- Both had websites with pictures of their current postings. For example, one guy showed himself with his family at his new post in Australia.
- Their websites had guestbooks. Other agents left "well concealed" messages on there. For example, one post ended with "greetings from Pullach". The CIA equivalent of that would be "greetings from Langley".
Pretty bad...Yes, I am a FireFox user. I am actually not particularly concerned about the breadth of search engines available to FF or IE7. However, there was a controversy with earlier versions of IE7 in which Google was missing from the search box (yet MSN, Yahoo were there), and the Google Toolbar wasn't working.
I just installed beta 2 (on XP) and I am surprised that Google is my default search engine! The only other one installed is MSN. I had the Google toolbar installed in 6, and it is right there in 7 as well. All of it works perfectly. It seems as though MS has addressed the concerns in earlier versions.
The list of search engine providers includes AOL, Ask Jeeves, Google, MSN and Yahoo. There are also providers for specific websites, e.g. amazon and MSDN. Looks pretty good!
Also, one of TFA includes no information that would justify the comment that the USPTO is under pressure from congressmen to speed up its process of looking into the NTP patents. From the TFA:
Instead, there is an analysis into the patent dispute in one of TFA:The patents are related to the software used by RIM in their Blackberry products (clients and servers). If your service from Nextel provides you with email on your blackberry, you are going to be affected.
The side of the blackberry service you commonly see is the client, namely your little handheld device. However in order for it to work, you need servers (the blackberry network infrastructure) in the background. If that infrastructure is shut down (which the injunction would), your screen goes dark. Sorry.
I guess Google should consider moving their servers out of the reach of the US government. Maybe some tiny island that's outside the reach of most governments would be a good place to relocate.
This attempt by the Bush administration is just a nightmare scenario. If they win this, who is going to demand access next? Your local newspaper maybe to determine who searches for pornography in your area?