With the number of developers Microsoft has, they can do a lot of development work, so have the potential to add a lot to the Vista/2008 codebase.
The only thing that makes that statement true is the word "potential" - which we learned from all the scaled back and incomplete features in Vista, truly translates into "the most infinitesimally small potential to..."
Wow... maybe you were going for a +1 Funny? I can see why you posted that one anonymously.
Vista took almost a decade.
Vista was supposed to be the culmination of numerous projects, some of which started in the mid-late 1990's.
At the last minute, many of those features were dropped - but the work on Vista started much longer ago than your indicated 2.5 year timeframe (including realizing that after nearly 10 years, numerous features still didnt work properly).
Now, perhaps you are discussing one of their numerous announcement dates? ("Gee, we're gonna make Vista!!!") - that would be different - but not in any way applicable to the thread you were responding to.
First, if anyone thinks they can buy a PC with "as little on it as possible" I think they are deluded. I'm not talking about you Drakin, I understood your point and agree. Just reminding everyone else that what MS plans for inclusion has nothing to do with what OEMs will shove on computers - especially with this void created by MS. I think more people would prefer "Ooooh, click this app, and do my work" even from OEM added crap, then they would prefer having to (a) download and install stuff from MS's site, and/or (b) run their apps on MS's servers.
That aside, and discussing bare-bones installs from OEM disks (as I believe was your intent), way back in the day, Windows used to have installers that allowed you to choose what "accessories" and such you wanted to install.
It would be very very simple for Microsoft to include everything on the disk and then simply ask users what they want to install.
Odd thing is, the only reason I can think of that Microsoft is not including this stuff (since none of it is what makes the OS... Vista, XP, whatever version slower) is so they can try to "forcibly" convert more users to their online Live Services.
Guess that means their plans for searching and indexing user created content on their locally run software is either (a) not going to happen due to their fears of being slammed for it, and/or (b) not going to happen because they are having trouble implementing it. This new method (using Live, and having much of your work stored at Microsoft) is a much easier method to ensure Microsoft can index and catalog your data much easier to help boost their ad revenue and profiling methods.
Of course, that's just my opinion... only time will tell - and by then, it will of course be too late.
One could argue that Windows NT 2.0 was sold as OS/2; the low-level APIs are very similar in semantics, though the names and calling convention are different between OS/2 and NT. And, of course, they pulled the OS/2 GUI and file manager and put the Windows ones on it.
The OS/2 GUI you speak of, at that time, was the Win3.x style GUI on OS/2 (OS/2 v1.3), retooled for NT from the joint OS/2 code.
This argument is helped by the fact that "OS/2 Warp 3" is versioned as "2.3", and "OS/2 Warp 4" is "2.4". Microsoft got the V3-and-up rights, and IBM kept the V1-and-V2 rights in the OS/2 break-up.
IBM's versioning conventions seem to follow this path...
v1 = MS/IBM joint venture (they both wrote code, IBM fixed MS's so a product could be released)... the numbers corresponded to vX.Z meaning X=version, Z=subversion.
v2 = IBM's OS/2 releases, where much of the MS code was thrown out (and we saw IBM's GUI instead of MS's GUI).
Thus a 2.xz release is 2=IBM, x=version, z=subversion.
It gets a little more odd though... internally (in the code/DLLs/kernel), version numbers are quite different... for instance, you can find stuff like v20.45.?? in version responses from the kernel... meaning (20) IBM release, v4.5, update ??
Microsoft got the V3-and-up rights, and IBM kept the V1-and-V2 rights in the OS/2 break-up.
MS kept the v1.x OS/2 rights. IBM created the v2.x releases. MS and IBM had a technology/code sharing agreement for all the releases. NT started based off the OS/2 v1.x code, and the MS/IBM code that was supposed to have went to OS/2 v2 but didnt due to the split, (and of course other "borrowed" code went into the first version of NT as well).
Oh, and there was a weird release (beta? alpha? rc? early test NT platforms? dont recall which) that co-branded NT and OS/2 in many parts of the Windows code.
And yes, the NT line, to this day, carries over legacy OS/2 1.x code. The XP line still even carries over the early versions of IBM REXX. Sadly (for Windows) all of that code is either 16bit, or been re-ported to 32bit, or some kludge inbetween.
I'm happy to say I haven't seen a 16-bit OS/2 program in 12 years
16bit OS/2 programs are not a problem. NT's OS/2 subsystem (and the one MS originally helped with for the 1.x OS/2 releases) is the problem. Under OS/2, they run just like any other 32bit app. Part of the crap (16bit code handling) that IBM had to rewrite for OS/2 v2.
Until recently, Microsoft's inability to "mix and match" code like that, showed all sorts of performance issues (for the individual code, and/or for the whole OS when running stuff like that). Some of that has been mitigated with the acquisition of Connectix, and the enhancement of those subsystems using Connectix work, and the adding of new subsystems to do similar things (such as WoW - and no, I dont mean World of Warcraft).
Or should you instead read the two posts I was replying to - and then re-read mine, to see what I was stating was that though DustyShadow is correct in his thinking, it in no way stops any entity from issuing an invalid takedown notice - which still needs to be honored, and then fought before the content can be reinstated (or the OSP/ISP risks losing their Safe Harbor protection, if/when the person who issued the takedown brings the matter to court).
Somehow I think you just skimmed through those posts and thus accidentally missed where that conversation was going... which reminds me... I need more coffee...;-)
True... maybe. There is of course, the big "what if the fatality counts refer to the number of fatalities caused by someone of that age range?"
In which case, your statement is only correct if a high number of fatalities caused by older drivers are of older people... as opposed to an older driver hitting a younger person, surviving, but killing the younger person.
So, all in all, without more of a breakdown of the data, that study isnt the most helpful...
Which is why I also pointed out the IIHS study - which debunks the often claimed "younger drivers cause more accidents than older ones" stuff that circulates every time new legislation is proposed to re-test older drivers on a regular basis.
Yes, there is... dunno where my long-buried copy of the DMCA is though.
IF I remember correctly, the problem is proving that the person/entity who issued the takedown notice did so for some criminal or monetary gain, not knowing that their usage was incorrect. Tough to prove, as, IIRC, others have found out who have tried to fight them - and it requires the entity who put up the takedown notice to file suit, followed by finding their claim unjustifiable, followed by a countersuit or some such.
This is from a 5 year old memory of having read that section (and me being too lazy to Google it again)... so anyone, please feel to correct me or expand on this.
I agree... and hope I too make that judgement call correctly. In at least a few states though, a driver re-certification test after a certain age is a necessary, recurring requirement to remain licensed (DC) or on proposed bills (MA).
And to others who have claimed teens have more fatal accidents, I guess it depends on who's study, and what age groups...
Carnegie Mellon University's Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation shows that drivers older than 85 have 11.47 fatalities per 100 million miles driven, compared with 3.3 fatalities in the 16-to-20 age group.
And another interesting tidbit from the IIHS...
Per mile driven, the crash rates for elderly drivers are as high as those for teenagers, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Older drivers, however, have fewer accidents per capita, largely because they drive fewer miles, and there are fewer of them on the road.
That above is probably the statistic that is misquoted by those supporting the elderly having less accidents - which is of course an erroneous use of the statistic.
You are both right... but DustyShadow, you forget... you do not have to own a copyright in order to issue a DMCA takedown notice (you only need to own a copyright for it to be a valid DMCA takedown notice).
Yeah, you are supposed to own the copyright (or legally represent the owners for such matters, etc)... but big companies play this game quite often - and if fought, turn around with a "we're sorry" and never get penalized.
Ummm... the "statistics" (I presume you are talking about the quote from People Magazine on the left?) say nothing of the sort.
They say:
For every age group, the fatality rate per 100,000 population was lower for females than for males. The injury rate based on population was higher for females than for males in every age group, except for people under 5 years old and people over 65 years old.
Which says absolutely nothing useful. Here is just one reason why... it does not (nor do the actual statistics) indicate anything about the person who caused the accident.
Inotherwords, how old was the driver at fault? Any other age related data is pretty irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make - and sadly, that information is lacking.
I can see the mistake being an easy one... the Peope Mag quote is confusing at best, retarded at worst.
Scouring the road side is part of safe driving -- for this system to be as safe as that, you'd need to affix GPS transponders to ever kid, deer, dog, soccer ball, and car
Dont worry, our government is working on just that...
(Am I joking? Crazy? Serious? Correct? Or all of the above?...I'll let you know as soon as I figure out the answer to that myself)
That, sadly will happen to all of you... I mean us...;-)
But it will also happen to eyesight, reaction time, ability to accurately gauge/apply brake and/or throttle pressure, etc.
Warning systems are not adequate to address these issue. I, for one, when I get to that point, will simply sell my car and turn in my license for a State Issued ID. Sounds unbelievable, I know... but my grandmother did something much similar one day with no one prompting her to - and she still drove better than many younger drivers out there... just not good enough by her own judgement I guess.
Having a brother who is an EMT, and me having regularly driven everything from motorcyles to small trucks to construction equipment to starships, I've gained more than sufficient respect for what damage I can do behind the wheel if I dont take such steps as I get older.
I wonder if this will cause ComCast to be forced to tell the truth.
Keep in mind, there are numerous reports of users who ceased using P2P software and remained throttled. There is still information missing from ComCast's "finally provided information on its network management practices" such as why, if this is determined based off usage, do people remain throttled?
I think it is a great sounding excuse/explanation... but it just doesnt fit reality very well.
vux984, I'd mod you up on this one if I could spend my mod points in this thread... all of that may be key - if not, at least helpful, to this guy's case.
Generally speaking, ICANN tends to frown on such speculators. The originating entity has a right to their trademarks.
What trademark? And when was it registered? And does the site owner have prior domain over it's use (invalidating any granted trademark)?
Just because someone is crafty enough to beat you to it doesn't mean they should be rewarded.
Nor does it mean that said person should be penalized. If it did mean that, then probably every business person should be penalized.
I cant decide whether you were supporting the domain owner's use or not - or simply pointing out hurdles he may have to overcome. So, I'm not sure if my post is "agreeing with the intent of yours" or "disagreeing with the intent of yours" or simply "providing counterpoints to some of the hurdles you have posted... thus, hopefully you will take my response along a vein that is congruent with your intent.
No, seriously. When does it ever suggest that *anyone* is better off buying a PC?
nine-times: (in agreement with you) From what I have seen, never. I've watched them all. vux984 would have to really stretch the imagination to believe any say such a thing.
Now.. on to Coke, that one I can help you with as well (sorry vux984, you are wrong about Coke as well).
Try the numerous "Coke is it!" commercials from back in the day... they were all about how cool one would be (or was) for drinking Coke. Today, the message may be more subtle, but (1) is still there, and (2) as they are by far the reigning soft drink champion and the market isnt in nearly the flux it was "back in the day" Coca-Cola no longer needs to be so blunt.
And vux, sorry to say, but based off your metaphors above, I simply believe you have very little understanding of what a metaphor is - perhaps that is your difficulty in accurately understanding the metaphor in the Apple commercials (and you finding hidden messages that most of the rest of us dont see).
vux984... you sure you arent Bill Gates by any chance? You seem to have as skewed a perception of what the Apple commercials were trying to achieve as he does.;-)
I never saw it as stereotyping Windows users. I saw it as something more akin to describing Windows itself... rehashing old technology, pretending it is new, trying to dress it up in "everyone else did that years ago" clothing.
Wow... an intelligent post!!! Someone mod this -1 Overrated or -1 Offtopic, or some other minus moderation quickly!;-)
Or... maybe someone with mod points can mod it up, since it is one of the most insightful posts in this topic so far. Fuzzy is right on the mark... Microsoft's (and too many other companies who are starting to play the same game) answer sounds like my brother and I when we were little kids... "But he did that!!!"
This isn't elementary school. These are supposed to be businesses.
Good point$. I'm not $ure why they would do thi$ either. Thi$ idea $tink$ and I cannot $ee why other government$ would do thi$ after decrying China'$ right$ inva$ion$ of their own citizen$ - e$pecially $ince China doe$ not help u$ track down pirate$ and Internet criminal$ in their country...
This is like the old pot calling the kettle black.
Ummm... no it's not. Search engine/"link farm" relevance would be really poor if a search engine listed another search engine/"link farm" as a viable result.
Hmmm... except that if you actually go into a Best Buy, you would notice that many of the Geek Squad members and sales force are not "young and dumb" teenagers working for minimum wage.
Sometimes its a matter of getting a job wherever one can...
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect it would be even simpler to make one or two backups instead.
With the number of developers Microsoft has, they can do a lot of development work, so have the potential to add a lot to the Vista/2008 codebase.
The only thing that makes that statement true is the word "potential" - which we learned from all the scaled back and incomplete features in Vista, truly translates into "the most infinitesimally small potential to..."
Just sayin...
;-)
Vista in contrast, took only 2 1/2 Years.
Wow... maybe you were going for a +1 Funny? I can see why you posted that one anonymously.
Vista took almost a decade.
Vista was supposed to be the culmination of numerous projects, some of which started in the mid-late 1990's.
At the last minute, many of those features were dropped - but the work on Vista started much longer ago than your indicated 2.5 year timeframe (including realizing that after nearly 10 years, numerous features still didnt work properly).
Now, perhaps you are discussing one of their numerous announcement dates? ("Gee, we're gonna make Vista!!!") - that would be different - but not in any way applicable to the thread you were responding to.
First, if anyone thinks they can buy a PC with "as little on it as possible" I think they are deluded. I'm not talking about you Drakin, I understood your point and agree. Just reminding everyone else that what MS plans for inclusion has nothing to do with what OEMs will shove on computers - especially with this void created by MS. I think more people would prefer "Ooooh, click this app, and do my work" even from OEM added crap, then they would prefer having to (a) download and install stuff from MS's site, and/or (b) run their apps on MS's servers.
That aside, and discussing bare-bones installs from OEM disks (as I believe was your intent), way back in the day, Windows used to have installers that allowed you to choose what "accessories" and such you wanted to install.
It would be very very simple for Microsoft to include everything on the disk and then simply ask users what they want to install.
Odd thing is, the only reason I can think of that Microsoft is not including this stuff (since none of it is what makes the OS... Vista, XP, whatever version slower) is so they can try to "forcibly" convert more users to their online Live Services.
Guess that means their plans for searching and indexing user created content on their locally run software is either (a) not going to happen due to their fears of being slammed for it, and/or (b) not going to happen because they are having trouble implementing it. This new method (using Live, and having much of your work stored at Microsoft) is a much easier method to ensure Microsoft can index and catalog your data much easier to help boost their ad revenue and profiling methods.
Of course, that's just my opinion... only time will tell - and by then, it will of course be too late.
Just a few corrections...
One could argue that Windows NT 2.0 was sold as OS/2; the low-level APIs are very similar in semantics, though the names and calling convention are different between OS/2 and NT. And, of course, they pulled the OS/2 GUI and file manager and put the Windows ones on it.
The OS/2 GUI you speak of, at that time, was the Win3.x style GUI on OS/2 (OS/2 v1.3), retooled for NT from the joint OS/2 code.
This argument is helped by the fact that "OS/2 Warp 3" is versioned as "2.3", and "OS/2 Warp 4" is "2.4". Microsoft got the V3-and-up rights, and IBM kept the V1-and-V2 rights in the OS/2 break-up.
IBM's versioning conventions seem to follow this path...
v1 = MS/IBM joint venture (they both wrote code, IBM fixed MS's so a product could be released)... the numbers corresponded to vX.Z meaning X=version, Z=subversion.
v2 = IBM's OS/2 releases, where much of the MS code was thrown out (and we saw IBM's GUI instead of MS's GUI).
Thus a 2.xz release is 2=IBM, x=version, z=subversion.
It gets a little more odd though... internally (in the code/DLLs/kernel), version numbers are quite different... for instance, you can find stuff like v20.45.?? in version responses from the kernel... meaning (20) IBM release, v4.5, update ??
Microsoft got the V3-and-up rights, and IBM kept the V1-and-V2 rights in the OS/2 break-up.
MS kept the v1.x OS/2 rights. IBM created the v2.x releases. MS and IBM had a technology/code sharing agreement for all the releases. NT started based off the OS/2 v1.x code, and the MS/IBM code that was supposed to have went to OS/2 v2 but didnt due to the split, (and of course other "borrowed" code went into the first version of NT as well).
Oh, and there was a weird release (beta? alpha? rc? early test NT platforms? dont recall which) that co-branded NT and OS/2 in many parts of the Windows code.
And yes, the NT line, to this day, carries over legacy OS/2 1.x code. The XP line still even carries over the early versions of IBM REXX. Sadly (for Windows) all of that code is either 16bit, or been re-ported to 32bit, or some kludge inbetween.
I'm happy to say I haven't seen a 16-bit OS/2 program in 12 years
16bit OS/2 programs are not a problem. NT's OS/2 subsystem (and the one MS originally helped with for the 1.x OS/2 releases) is the problem. Under OS/2, they run just like any other 32bit app. Part of the crap (16bit code handling) that IBM had to rewrite for OS/2 v2.
Until recently, Microsoft's inability to "mix and match" code like that, showed all sorts of performance issues (for the individual code, and/or for the whole OS when running stuff like that). Some of that has been mitigated with the acquisition of Connectix, and the enhancement of those subsystems using Connectix work, and the adding of new subsystems to do similar things (such as WoW - and no, I dont mean World of Warcraft).
Or should you instead read the two posts I was replying to - and then re-read mine, to see what I was stating was that though DustyShadow is correct in his thinking, it in no way stops any entity from issuing an invalid takedown notice - which still needs to be honored, and then fought before the content can be reinstated (or the OSP/ISP risks losing their Safe Harbor protection, if/when the person who issued the takedown brings the matter to court).
Somehow I think you just skimmed through those posts and thus accidentally missed where that conversation was going... which reminds me... I need more coffee... ;-)
Video games... on a big screen (maybe a nice 50" or so)... should help as well - to an extent.
A combination of the two would be best...
(Any excuse to play video games works for me)
Exactly... and at least the two of us realize that. The media loves their stats - and their ability to make them say seemingly anything.
Though I must admit, I play that game sometimes too... but only on /. to try to fuel a debate... ;-)
True... maybe. There is of course, the big "what if the fatality counts refer to the number of fatalities caused by someone of that age range?"
In which case, your statement is only correct if a high number of fatalities caused by older drivers are of older people... as opposed to an older driver hitting a younger person, surviving, but killing the younger person.
So, all in all, without more of a breakdown of the data, that study isnt the most helpful...
Which is why I also pointed out the IIHS study - which debunks the often claimed "younger drivers cause more accidents than older ones" stuff that circulates every time new legislation is proposed to re-test older drivers on a regular basis.
so for some criminal or monetary gain, not knowing that their usage was incorrect.
Should have read:
so for some criminal or monetary gain, knowing that their usage was incorrect.
(remove "not")
Sorry
Yes, there is... dunno where my long-buried copy of the DMCA is though.
IF I remember correctly, the problem is proving that the person/entity who issued the takedown notice did so for some criminal or monetary gain, not knowing that their usage was incorrect. Tough to prove, as, IIRC, others have found out who have tried to fight them - and it requires the entity who put up the takedown notice to file suit, followed by finding their claim unjustifiable, followed by a countersuit or some such.
This is from a 5 year old memory of having read that section (and me being too lazy to Google it again)... so anyone, please feel to correct me or expand on this.
I agree... and hope I too make that judgement call correctly. In at least a few states though, a driver re-certification test after a certain age is a necessary, recurring requirement to remain licensed (DC) or on proposed bills (MA).
And to others who have claimed teens have more fatal accidents, I guess it depends on who's study, and what age groups...
Carnegie Mellon University's Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation shows that drivers older than 85 have 11.47 fatalities per 100 million miles driven, compared with 3.3 fatalities in the 16-to-20 age group.
And another interesting tidbit from the IIHS...
Per mile driven, the crash rates for elderly drivers are as high as those for teenagers, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Older drivers, however, have fewer accidents per capita, largely because they drive fewer miles, and there are fewer of them on the road.
That above is probably the statistic that is misquoted by those supporting the elderly having less accidents - which is of course an erroneous use of the statistic.
You are both right... but DustyShadow, you forget... you do not have to own a copyright in order to issue a DMCA takedown notice (you only need to own a copyright for it to be a valid DMCA takedown notice).
Yeah, you are supposed to own the copyright (or legally represent the owners for such matters, etc)... but big companies play this game quite often - and if fought, turn around with a "we're sorry" and never get penalized.
Ummm... the "statistics" (I presume you are talking about the quote from People Magazine on the left?) say nothing of the sort.
They say:
For every age group, the fatality rate per 100,000 population was lower for females than for males. The injury rate based on population was higher for females than for males in every age group, except for people under 5 years old and people over 65 years old.
Which says absolutely nothing useful. Here is just one reason why... it does not (nor do the actual statistics) indicate anything about the person who caused the accident.
Inotherwords, how old was the driver at fault? Any other age related data is pretty irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make - and sadly, that information is lacking.
I can see the mistake being an easy one... the Peope Mag quote is confusing at best, retarded at worst.
Scouring the road side is part of safe driving -- for this system to be as safe as that, you'd need to affix GPS transponders to ever kid, deer, dog, soccer ball, and car
Dont worry, our government is working on just that...
(Am I joking? Crazy? Serious? Correct? Or all of the above? ...I'll let you know as soon as I figure out the answer to that myself)
That, sadly will happen to all of you... I mean us... ;-)
But it will also happen to eyesight, reaction time, ability to accurately gauge/apply brake and/or throttle pressure, etc.
Warning systems are not adequate to address these issue. I, for one, when I get to that point, will simply sell my car and turn in my license for a State Issued ID. Sounds unbelievable, I know... but my grandmother did something much similar one day with no one prompting her to - and she still drove better than many younger drivers out there... just not good enough by her own judgement I guess.
Having a brother who is an EMT, and me having regularly driven everything from motorcyles to small trucks to construction equipment to starships, I've gained more than sufficient respect for what damage I can do behind the wheel if I dont take such steps as I get older.
I wonder if this will cause ComCast to be forced to tell the truth.
Keep in mind, there are numerous reports of users who ceased using P2P software and remained throttled. There is still information missing from ComCast's "finally provided information on its network management practices" such as why, if this is determined based off usage, do people remain throttled?
I think it is a great sounding excuse/explanation... but it just doesnt fit reality very well.
vux984, I'd mod you up on this one if I could spend my mod points in this thread... all of that may be key - if not, at least helpful, to this guy's case.
Generally speaking, ICANN tends to frown on such speculators. The originating entity has a right to their trademarks.
What trademark? And when was it registered? And does the site owner have prior domain over it's use (invalidating any granted trademark)?
Just because someone is crafty enough to beat you to it doesn't mean they should be rewarded.
Nor does it mean that said person should be penalized. If it did mean that, then probably every business person should be penalized.
I cant decide whether you were supporting the domain owner's use or not - or simply pointing out hurdles he may have to overcome. So, I'm not sure if my post is "agreeing with the intent of yours" or "disagreeing with the intent of yours" or simply "providing counterpoints to some of the hurdles you have posted... thus, hopefully you will take my response along a vein that is congruent with your intent.
:-)
No, seriously. When does it ever suggest that *anyone* is better off buying a PC?
nine-times: (in agreement with you) From what I have seen, never. I've watched them all. vux984 would have to really stretch the imagination to believe any say such a thing.
Now.. on to Coke, that one I can help you with as well (sorry vux984, you are wrong about Coke as well).
Try the numerous "Coke is it!" commercials from back in the day... they were all about how cool one would be (or was) for drinking Coke. Today, the message may be more subtle, but (1) is still there, and (2) as they are by far the reigning soft drink champion and the market isnt in nearly the flux it was "back in the day" Coca-Cola no longer needs to be so blunt.
And vux, sorry to say, but based off your metaphors above, I simply believe you have very little understanding of what a metaphor is - perhaps that is your difficulty in accurately understanding the metaphor in the Apple commercials (and you finding hidden messages that most of the rest of us dont see).
vux984... you sure you arent Bill Gates by any chance? You seem to have as skewed a perception of what the Apple commercials were trying to achieve as he does. ;-)
I never saw it as stereotyping Windows users. I saw it as something more akin to describing Windows itself... rehashing old technology, pretending it is new, trying to dress it up in "everyone else did that years ago" clothing.
Wow... an intelligent post!!! Someone mod this -1 Overrated or -1 Offtopic, or some other minus moderation quickly! ;-)
Or... maybe someone with mod points can mod it up, since it is one of the most insightful posts in this topic so far. Fuzzy is right on the mark... Microsoft's (and too many other companies who are starting to play the same game) answer sounds like my brother and I when we were little kids... "But he did that!!!"
This isn't elementary school. These are supposed to be businesses.
Good point$. I'm not $ure why they would do thi$ either. Thi$ idea $tink$ and I cannot $ee why other government$ would do thi$ after decrying China'$ right$ inva$ion$ of their own citizen$ - e$pecially $ince China doe$ not help u$ track down pirate$ and Internet criminal$ in their country...
This is like the old pot calling the kettle black.
Ummm... no it's not. Search engine/"link farm" relevance would be really poor if a search engine listed another search engine/"link farm" as a viable result.
Hmmm... except that if you actually go into a Best Buy, you would notice that many of the Geek Squad members and sales force are not "young and dumb" teenagers working for minimum wage.
Sometimes its a matter of getting a job wherever one can...