and if you were to take a second to look at the book I was referring to, you would see that he does. He agrees with you that the Turing Test does not prove intelligence, though he thinks the quest to pass it has its merits. He is concerned with how intelligence is developed in brains, specifically human brains since we have consciousness. He looks at things not as "What makes me intelligent" as you _assumed_, but more importantly, "How does this thing(Brain) work? Seriously, you are arguing with me when I said almost nothing and chose to leave it to the user to look at the link and see for themselves. One of, if not the intro chapter to On Intelligence is a critique of 'standard practices' and how they are rubbish by and large.
Re:Great Book on AI
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Like I said, "His work is about understanding how the brain really works so that you can make truly intelligent machines." Your notion is dismissable as we could not fathom what we have no clue about, that being your alien. The best we can do on earth is to look at how the most intelligent species we know, humans, actually develop and groom their intelligence.
Intelligence defined is one thing, intelligence understood biologically is something else altogether.
Check out this great book by Jeff Hawkins, creator of the Palm, called On Intelligence. His work is about understanding how the brain really works so that you can make truly intelligent machines. Fascinating stuff and firmly based in the facts of reality, which is refreshing to say the least.
I believe the most important element in this may be how the actual service itself performs. Is the service easy to use and understand? Is the established Amazon user base going to be willing to give it a shot? Will the previewing, along with their peer-rated review system add value to the service? Will the quality, sound and technical requirements hinder the service in any way?
Amazon can absorb some losses if their initial price point turns out to be too high. They will still gain the valuable data they need to improve the system for an update, which could include their price reductions for the service. These sorts of offerings are nearly impossible to get right the first time out. Amazon has the position and resources to take a risk now and still come out ahead in the long run if they are able to adapt to the consumers wants and needs.
Like I said, most people have to be moral to have a moral society. There were a ton of bigots and racists around then, but there were gobs of good people too. The civil rights movement was a product of good people standing up to the bad. The fact that they prevailed tells me something about society back then. Yes, people did horrible things, but they also did wonderfully positive things too.
BUT.. you think Libertarianism will reduce the number of boom and bust cycles in an economy? Seems pretty unlikely. Economies are fundamentally non-linear, full of time lags, instabilities and positive feedback loops. It is critical to realize that the idea that economics is not zero-sum means that the sums can be negative. The idea that zero structure will work seems very naive to me.
Oh I agree 100%. Booms and busts are normal. I was not advocating they would vanish in any way whatsoever.
As for your other points, well... point taken. We both understand there are no is no perfect answer as we currently see things. I was speaking from the point of what should be where you identified, quite accurately, what is. I believe we agree with each other more than you might think.
The March of Dimes was funded via donations and achieved great success in a short period of time. What happened there is people realized the implications of the disease and made it a personal priority to donate to find a cause. Those affected by cancer in their families will opt to donate to finding a cure there. Those, like you and me, who value scientific development/advancement will donate to the cause we think most deserving. Again, you see how this is a matter of personal opinion?
Much of this discussion we are having is idealogical. I agree about the unrealistic belief about human behavior in our current day and time. What I imply requires a moral society which we do not have. In the past(30's-60s) we have had a moral society and hopefully we get back to that someday soon. It does not require a society where _everyone_ is morally sound, just enough people to influence the rest. For me to forsake my beliefs because most people out there are bad, immoral people, would be to commit the worst evil I can conceive. What is right, is right; What is wrong, is wrong; my morality should not influenced by how others define their morality.
If business schools teach that and you feel it is wrong, then the issue is with the school, not the Libertarian viewpoint. If, on the other hand, what they teach is true, then perhaps the results of long-term research will have to be achieved another way... like incremental progress over time from the short-term R&D companies do. There are, of course, pros and cons to each situation, I am not saying that my theory has no cons or flaws, merely that there are other points to consider.
@2,3: What is to stop someone from keeping their company privately held and doing what they wish with their capital?
Any reasonable economic theory takes into account externalities and game theory ideas like the prisoner's dilemma.
Oh, because the other parties have it all figured out? Libertarianism has issues addressing externalities? The credit crunch is rife with examples of what not to do already. Those decisions have come from both parties too. If Libertarian economic theory has holes in its argument, that is fine, but you cannot neglect the fact that both the Republican and Democrats economic theories resemble a sponge for the amount of holes it has in comparison to the L's.
Which is... how? What magic tricks should the US perform that will encourage businesses to invest large funds in long-term science that may or may not have any payoff, short-term or long? How is taking one's hands off the market going to encourage such work when market forces explicitly work against such efforts (as this very story demonstrates).
Who said the market wants to invest in the long-term science? Maybe the new landscape of freer markets will promote more competition among companies to produce technological achievements quicker, in order to get a leg up on their competitors. Long-term science might fade away, but that isn't to say an increase in short term research cannot accelerate the development of whatever field they are researching in. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
No, it would not, because a business is interested in optimizing short- to medium-term profits, as you say by creating "marketable products/services", which rules out long-term fundamental science. But no libertarian will admit to that, as you yourself demonstrate.
Umm... only publicly traded companies have those demands on them. Private companies can execute their strategies as they see fit, no matter how ill-fated their decisions may be.
We're talking about fundamental research, here, not donating to your local pet shelter. If you can't see the difference, there's little point in continuing this discussion.
In your opinion, this is fundamental research. With such an opinion, you would be someone who donated to research labs that did research in what you determine to be fundamental research. Other people will think different things, and they can give to those causes. You see how that works? Your opinion is not the same as mine, but you seem to think it is fine to impose your opinions upon all, through government in this case; whereas I think everyone has a right to their opinion no matter what I think and I have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their money, especially in the context of charity.
Meanwhile, you've got libertarians like Bob Barr telling us that the private sector can do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing.
Fixed.
The libertarian platform cannot be taken in bits and pieces, just like that of the Republicans or Democrats. The full context here is that if the USA enables the markets to work as they should/ought to, that this research would be done in the private sector with an obvious motive to generate marketable products/services. Now lets take your logic and apply it to another sector and see where it gets you. Let's say that instead of physics research we are talking about general charity. Barr would say that the government should not have a welfare state. Instead, the choice to give to a charity, to help others in some way or another, is left to the individual. As we all can see and you must admit, charity/philanthropy endeavors are primarily funded by donations from private sources/individuals even though the government already spends a great deal on welfare programs itself.
A table has to have a primary key and foreign/unique columns are both keys and as such, double as indexes. What the GP was talking about was how would actual indexes affect data integrity and the answer is, they don't. Having or not having indexes set up in your database will only help with the speed of queries and has nothing to do with data integrity. For example, if you are calling Name, DOB, and Address anytime you scan for a match, if you do not have an index for that query it would take much longer than without one. It goes for just about any query you call with regularity - you want an index set up to make it quicker. Now having too many indexes you don't use could lead to excess overhead and actually slow things down that way, which is perhaps with TFA meant when it mentioned indexes.
I would like to say that the IE7 message is the best with all things considered, IMO. IE7 is actually trying to get you to not visit the page. Every single line of the error message is saying not to trust the site.
I think we agree to be honest. He is laying the groundwork, unknowingly mind you, for a police state of sorts. What will happen is others will come in and use things like the Patriot Act to willingly abuse its powers for their political motives. So basically, Bush is setting things up so that it would be possible to for future leaders to abuse things he put in place to achieve the police state. He, himself, will not doing the evil so much as he created vehicles for others to do evil in the future.
I would say that the next administration here in the USA will determine Bush's legacy. See, if the next president gets in there and starts reversing things Bush put into place, then yes, Bush will be viewed like you describe. On the flipside, if they get in there and do nothing, then Bush's measures would be viewed as justified and his legacy would be much better than he probably deserves. For example, if Obama is elected, repeals the Patriot Act and we get attacked on our home soil, Bush's legacy will instantly go from disaster to flawed savior. These are all 'what if' scenarios, but are worth looking at objectively.
Your comparison really falls apart when you consider the implementation of these measures as a means to a certain end. Bush's goal was to stop terrorism attacks in the USA and abroad if possible. While his methods leave quite a bit to be desired, we still have checks against his actions via our political system. It may not be easy to repeal the Patriot Act, but that is not to say it cannot be done. Now for Stalin, his goal was the direct repression of these people( and their ideas in many cases). Stalin used much much different methods for getting what he wanted, and it premeditated and a top down operation. Compare that to the Patriot Act which was supported by Bush for a means to an end, but is abused by lesser authorities to violate the rights of USA citizens.
All I am trying to point out here is that you are going to great lengths to connect these two individuals when you really should have seen that they are not comparable in the context of your point/discussion.
It is the Olympics, not Western Olympics. Every other Eastern country is participating and following the rules just like everyone else. That logic does nothing for your argument.
Ok. You point out an issue that would make oil prices high, there are little to no alternatives to oil to satisfy our energy needs. To stay on topic, that has nothing to do with the speculators allegedly driving prices up, but instead the prices are influenced by the immense demand for the product.
There is more to it. There are 2 sides to every sale. In order for someone to sell a barrel of oil at a set price, someone else must buy that barrel at the said price. Speculation alone cannot drive up the prices like you suggest since there are people out there willing to pay the price. It is supply and demand. Keep that in mind when you think about the issue. Speculators certainly play a role, but their influence is made possible by the end consumers willingness to buy at that price. I know the issue is complicated with oil being such a vital part of our economy and lives, but when you boil it down to its source, the blame is most certainly not on the speculators. Instead, it is the people, if they believe the price of oil to be inflated as much as $30 to $60 a barrel, who buy the oil at that inflated rate. Chew on that.
It is almost a question of what is more evil... doing evil or allowing evil to be done. Most rational people would say allowing evil to be done is worse than actually committing the evil deed. In this case, the buyers are allowing the evil to be done. While both are wrong, one is certainly worse, if even only from a philosophical standpoint, it is most certainly a valid point.
Well this confirms your lunacy at the very least. You are in no way correct. Libertarians are very much right leaning and in fact are REAL (Jefferson) Republicans, not this charade being put on currently by the GOP. Essentially, if the GOP was true to its base/foundation of small government, then to get the Libertarian party you just remove the social conservative values (religion, abortion, gay marriage type stuff).
I just want to emphasize how very wrong you are when you infer that Libertarians are liberals. This requires a minor history lesson though. A liberal, in early America(not now) and in still today in some places abroad are referred to what we in America now call Libertarians. However the term 'liberal' has been changed over the course of time to represent the left in American politics. As a result, the term 'classic liberal' was coined in order define Libertarianism and avoid confusion in modern times when people read older works. For example. F.A. Hayek mentioned classic liberals countless times in The Road to Serfdom, as he himself is in the 'classic liberal' camp. Now to make the point here, Hayek could not possibly disagree more with you, the modern liberal - he is the antithesis a modern day "Liberal American".
Your ignorance is astonishing considering your assertions of 'highly educated, intelligent people' came from your mouth and you are obviously not part of the group. Thus, I can infer that you have no business making such a claim.
Good joke. Liberals are the intelligent and educated bunch? Wrong. Libertarians take the cake in that regard and it is not even close. Libertarians have a much large mind share of people that are considered high educated and intelligent. It works like this. 5% of Dems, lets say, are generally seen as intelligent people. That % is way, way higher in the Libertarian camp even though the overall numbers do not come close to comparison. If you were asking just intellectuals to vote, you would see Libertarians right up there with Dems and the GOP in the results.
This is an easy one and is true in nearly every aspect of the web where good people do bad things.
Anonymity breeds immorality. People know they will not be caught, so they steal it. Suppose a different application and it becomes apparent. Take for example a grocery store that we all visit with frequency. Now imagine that if everyone went there knew that if they simply filled up the cart and wheeled it out of the store they could get everything for free and they would never be caught for whatever reason. Now imagine if everyone knew this and knew that it was true - how many people would skip that checkout counter?
The answer is 95%.
Game developers should stay muted on the issue because the more they talk about it, the more people find out they can do it and the problem snowballs. There is no answer where anonymity is ensured. Most people are only good people when eyes are upon them to pass judgment.
Putin is Russia. Putin does not appear to concerned with modernizing his country nearly as much as he is with controlling the media(2004!), or markets, or government, or... oh I give up. In Soviet Russia, the people control Putin.
Furthermore, a decent chunk of IE users are the "computer = magic black box" type, who use IE because it's what came on the computer. If those people aren't doing Windows Updates (likely enough, imo), they won't get IE7. By contrast, the vast majority of Firefox users use it by choice, not because it was there. Those people are far more likely to manually upgrade.
Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner. You hit the nail on the head. Really, your whole reply was spot on, but this part in particular cannot be overlooked.
Slashdot Mirror
and if you were to take a second to look at the book I was referring to, you would see that he does. He agrees with you that the Turing Test does not prove intelligence, though he thinks the quest to pass it has its merits. He is concerned with how intelligence is developed in brains, specifically human brains since we have consciousness. He looks at things not as "What makes me intelligent" as you _assumed_, but more importantly, "How does this thing(Brain) work? Seriously, you are arguing with me when I said almost nothing and chose to leave it to the user to look at the link and see for themselves. One of, if not the intro chapter to On Intelligence is a critique of 'standard practices' and how they are rubbish by and large.
Like I said, "His work is about understanding how the brain really works so that you can make truly intelligent machines." Your notion is dismissable as we could not fathom what we have no clue about, that being your alien. The best we can do on earth is to look at how the most intelligent species we know, humans, actually develop and groom their intelligence.
Intelligence defined is one thing, intelligence understood biologically is something else altogether.
Check out this great book by Jeff Hawkins, creator of the Palm, called On Intelligence. His work is about understanding how the brain really works so that you can make truly intelligent machines. Fascinating stuff and firmly based in the facts of reality, which is refreshing to say the least.
I believe the most important element in this may be how the actual service itself performs. Is the service easy to use and understand? Is the established Amazon user base going to be willing to give it a shot? Will the previewing, along with their peer-rated review system add value to the service? Will the quality, sound and technical requirements hinder the service in any way?
Amazon can absorb some losses if their initial price point turns out to be too high. They will still gain the valuable data they need to improve the system for an update, which could include their price reductions for the service. These sorts of offerings are nearly impossible to get right the first time out. Amazon has the position and resources to take a risk now and still come out ahead in the long run if they are able to adapt to the consumers wants and needs.
Testing something.
Like I said, most people have to be moral to have a moral society. There were a ton of bigots and racists around then, but there were gobs of good people too. The civil rights movement was a product of good people standing up to the bad. The fact that they prevailed tells me something about society back then. Yes, people did horrible things, but they also did wonderfully positive things too.
BUT.. you think Libertarianism will reduce the number of boom and bust cycles in an economy? Seems pretty unlikely. Economies are fundamentally non-linear, full of time lags, instabilities and positive feedback loops. It is critical to realize that the idea that economics is not zero-sum means that the sums can be negative. The idea that zero structure will work seems very naive to me.
Oh I agree 100%. Booms and busts are normal. I was not advocating they would vanish in any way whatsoever.
As for your other points, well... point taken. We both understand there are no is no perfect answer as we currently see things. I was speaking from the point of what should be where you identified, quite accurately, what is. I believe we agree with each other more than you might think.
The March of Dimes was funded via donations and achieved great success in a short period of time. What happened there is people realized the implications of the disease and made it a personal priority to donate to find a cause. Those affected by cancer in their families will opt to donate to finding a cure there. Those, like you and me, who value scientific development/advancement will donate to the cause we think most deserving. Again, you see how this is a matter of personal opinion?
Much of this discussion we are having is idealogical. I agree about the unrealistic belief about human behavior in our current day and time. What I imply requires a moral society which we do not have. In the past(30's-60s) we have had a moral society and hopefully we get back to that someday soon. It does not require a society where _everyone_ is morally sound, just enough people to influence the rest. For me to forsake my beliefs because most people out there are bad, immoral people, would be to commit the worst evil I can conceive. What is right, is right; What is wrong, is wrong; my morality should not influenced by how others define their morality.
If business schools teach that and you feel it is wrong, then the issue is with the school, not the Libertarian viewpoint. If, on the other hand, what they teach is true, then perhaps the results of long-term research will have to be achieved another way... like incremental progress over time from the short-term R&D companies do. There are, of course, pros and cons to each situation, I am not saying that my theory has no cons or flaws, merely that there are other points to consider.
@2,3: What is to stop someone from keeping their company privately held and doing what they wish with their capital?
Any reasonable economic theory takes into account externalities and game theory ideas like the prisoner's dilemma.
Oh, because the other parties have it all figured out? Libertarianism has issues addressing externalities? The credit crunch is rife with examples of what not to do already. Those decisions have come from both parties too. If Libertarian economic theory has holes in its argument, that is fine, but you cannot neglect the fact that both the Republican and Democrats economic theories resemble a sponge for the amount of holes it has in comparison to the L's.
Which is... how? What magic tricks should the US perform that will encourage businesses to invest large funds in long-term science that may or may not have any payoff, short-term or long? How is taking one's hands off the market going to encourage such work when market forces explicitly work against such efforts (as this very story demonstrates).
Who said the market wants to invest in the long-term science? Maybe the new landscape of freer markets will promote more competition among companies to produce technological achievements quicker, in order to get a leg up on their competitors. Long-term science might fade away, but that isn't to say an increase in short term research cannot accelerate the development of whatever field they are researching in. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
No, it would not, because a business is interested in optimizing short- to medium-term profits, as you say by creating "marketable products/services", which rules out long-term fundamental science. But no libertarian will admit to that, as you yourself demonstrate.
Umm... only publicly traded companies have those demands on them. Private companies can execute their strategies as they see fit, no matter how ill-fated their decisions may be.
We're talking about fundamental research, here, not donating to your local pet shelter. If you can't see the difference, there's little point in continuing this discussion.
In your opinion, this is fundamental research. With such an opinion, you would be someone who donated to research labs that did research in what you determine to be fundamental research. Other people will think different things, and they can give to those causes. You see how that works? Your opinion is not the same as mine, but you seem to think it is fine to impose your opinions upon all, through government in this case; whereas I think everyone has a right to their opinion no matter what I think and I have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their money, especially in the context of charity.
Meanwhile, you've got libertarians like Bob Barr telling us that the private sector can do this work, and therefore government funding of fundamental research is a bad thing.
Fixed.
The libertarian platform cannot be taken in bits and pieces, just like that of the Republicans or Democrats. The full context here is that if the USA enables the markets to work as they should/ought to, that this research would be done in the private sector with an obvious motive to generate marketable products/services. Now lets take your logic and apply it to another sector and see where it gets you. Let's say that instead of physics research we are talking about general charity. Barr would say that the government should not have a welfare state. Instead, the choice to give to a charity, to help others in some way or another, is left to the individual. As we all can see and you must admit, charity/philanthropy endeavors are primarily funded by donations from private sources/individuals even though the government already spends a great deal on welfare programs itself.
Nice dodge. That is not what he is saying.
A table has to have a primary key and foreign/unique columns are both keys and as such, double as indexes. What the GP was talking about was how would actual indexes affect data integrity and the answer is, they don't. Having or not having indexes set up in your database will only help with the speed of queries and has nothing to do with data integrity. For example, if you are calling Name, DOB, and Address anytime you scan for a match, if you do not have an index for that query it would take much longer than without one. It goes for just about any query you call with regularity - you want an index set up to make it quicker. Now having too many indexes you don't use could lead to excess overhead and actually slow things down that way, which is perhaps with TFA meant when it mentioned indexes.
Well done.
I would like to say that the IE7 message is the best with all things considered, IMO. IE7 is actually trying to get you to not visit the page. Every single line of the error message is saying not to trust the site.
I think we agree to be honest. He is laying the groundwork, unknowingly mind you, for a police state of sorts. What will happen is others will come in and use things like the Patriot Act to willingly abuse its powers for their political motives. So basically, Bush is setting things up so that it would be possible to for future leaders to abuse things he put in place to achieve the police state. He, himself, will not doing the evil so much as he created vehicles for others to do evil in the future.
I would say that the next administration here in the USA will determine Bush's legacy. See, if the next president gets in there and starts reversing things Bush put into place, then yes, Bush will be viewed like you describe. On the flipside, if they get in there and do nothing, then Bush's measures would be viewed as justified and his legacy would be much better than he probably deserves. For example, if Obama is elected, repeals the Patriot Act and we get attacked on our home soil, Bush's legacy will instantly go from disaster to flawed savior. These are all 'what if' scenarios, but are worth looking at objectively.
Your comparison really falls apart when you consider the implementation of these measures as a means to a certain end. Bush's goal was to stop terrorism attacks in the USA and abroad if possible. While his methods leave quite a bit to be desired, we still have checks against his actions via our political system. It may not be easy to repeal the Patriot Act, but that is not to say it cannot be done. Now for Stalin, his goal was the direct repression of these people( and their ideas in many cases). Stalin used much much different methods for getting what he wanted, and it premeditated and a top down operation. Compare that to the Patriot Act which was supported by Bush for a means to an end, but is abused by lesser authorities to violate the rights of USA citizens.
All I am trying to point out here is that you are going to great lengths to connect these two individuals when you really should have seen that they are not comparable in the context of your point/discussion.
It is the Olympics, not Western Olympics. Every other Eastern country is participating and following the rules just like everyone else. That logic does nothing for your argument.
Ok. You point out an issue that would make oil prices high, there are little to no alternatives to oil to satisfy our energy needs. To stay on topic, that has nothing to do with the speculators allegedly driving prices up, but instead the prices are influenced by the immense demand for the product.
There is more to it. There are 2 sides to every sale. In order for someone to sell a barrel of oil at a set price, someone else must buy that barrel at the said price. Speculation alone cannot drive up the prices like you suggest since there are people out there willing to pay the price. It is supply and demand. Keep that in mind when you think about the issue. Speculators certainly play a role, but their influence is made possible by the end consumers willingness to buy at that price. I know the issue is complicated with oil being such a vital part of our economy and lives, but when you boil it down to its source, the blame is most certainly not on the speculators. Instead, it is the people, if they believe the price of oil to be inflated as much as $30 to $60 a barrel, who buy the oil at that inflated rate. Chew on that.
It is almost a question of what is more evil... doing evil or allowing evil to be done. Most rational people would say allowing evil to be done is worse than actually committing the evil deed. In this case, the buyers are allowing the evil to be done. While both are wrong, one is certainly worse, if even only from a philosophical standpoint, it is most certainly a valid point.
Well this confirms your lunacy at the very least. You are in no way correct. Libertarians are very much right leaning and in fact are REAL (Jefferson) Republicans, not this charade being put on currently by the GOP. Essentially, if the GOP was true to its base/foundation of small government, then to get the Libertarian party you just remove the social conservative values (religion, abortion, gay marriage type stuff).
I just want to emphasize how very wrong you are when you infer that Libertarians are liberals. This requires a minor history lesson though. A liberal, in early America(not now) and in still today in some places abroad are referred to what we in America now call Libertarians. However the term 'liberal' has been changed over the course of time to represent the left in American politics. As a result, the term 'classic liberal' was coined in order define Libertarianism and avoid confusion in modern times when people read older works. For example. F.A. Hayek mentioned classic liberals countless times in The Road to Serfdom, as he himself is in the 'classic liberal' camp. Now to make the point here, Hayek could not possibly disagree more with you, the modern liberal - he is the antithesis a modern day "Liberal American".
Your ignorance is astonishing considering your assertions of 'highly educated, intelligent people' came from your mouth and you are obviously not part of the group. Thus, I can infer that you have no business making such a claim.
Good joke. Liberals are the intelligent and educated bunch? Wrong. Libertarians take the cake in that regard and it is not even close. Libertarians have a much large mind share of people that are considered high educated and intelligent. It works like this. 5% of Dems, lets say, are generally seen as intelligent people. That % is way, way higher in the Libertarian camp even though the overall numbers do not come close to comparison. If you were asking just intellectuals to vote, you would see Libertarians right up there with Dems and the GOP in the results.
This is an easy one and is true in nearly every aspect of the web where good people do bad things.
Anonymity breeds immorality. People know they will not be caught, so they steal it. Suppose a different application and it becomes apparent. Take for example a grocery store that we all visit with frequency. Now imagine that if everyone went there knew that if they simply filled up the cart and wheeled it out of the store they could get everything for free and they would never be caught for whatever reason. Now imagine if everyone knew this and knew that it was true - how many people would skip that checkout counter?
The answer is 95%.
Game developers should stay muted on the issue because the more they talk about it, the more people find out they can do it and the problem snowballs. There is no answer where anonymity is ensured. Most people are only good people when eyes are upon them to pass judgment.
Putin is Russia. Putin does not appear to concerned with modernizing his country nearly as much as he is with controlling the media(2004!), or markets, or government, or... oh I give up. In Soviet Russia, the people control Putin.
What?! The whole story isn't contained in the sensationalized headline?! What is the world coming to!
Furthermore, a decent chunk of IE users are the "computer = magic black box" type, who use IE because it's what came on the computer. If those people aren't doing Windows Updates (likely enough, imo), they won't get IE7. By contrast, the vast majority of Firefox users use it by choice, not because it was there. Those people are far more likely to manually upgrade.
Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner. You hit the nail on the head. Really, your whole reply was spot on, but this part in particular cannot be overlooked.