Creativity, innovation, a couple billion dollars in Google stock and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.
I agree Eric has a lot to lose (monitary-wise) with this bill. But if he wants to protect it, he's going to need to spend some of it (it's just how it works). Considering he's worth a billion or so, he should just threaten to run his own candidate (or throw his money) against every money-grubbing politician that's in favor of it.
I'm pretty sure the legislators would think twice if Eric said that Google would post this message around election time on the home page:
"Did you know senator/congress person [your legislator here] voted in favor of allowing the telecoms to charge Google to provide content to you? Your monthly ISP rate has probably increased as a result. Happy Election Day!"
Legislators need to be gently reminded that Google can reach more people than the telcos can.
Godwin's Law is closer to the equivalent of a debate that devolves into a flat out name calling match towards the end. (Which you apparently believe it is having called me "nit".) Hitler and the Nazi's are often mentioned at this end stage of the conversation because they are the most recent global "evil" to befall the world in recent memory, and as such are often used when an argument devolves.
However, the point I was trying to make was that most totalitarian governments tend to bring the country together by blaming and ostracizing a certain portion of it. By drawing a distinction between "us" and "them". The Jews in Nazi controlled Germany were just the first example that came to mind. I am sure there are others throughout history, but I couldn't think of them off-hand. In any case, the last bit was more of a what-will-happen-next if history repeats itself. Internment camps are usually the next step, usually with slowly worsening conditions. (We've already got one at Gitmo.) But I think we're quite a ways away from flat-out executions. (The gov't would have to silence the media before that would ever happen.)
You know whats scary?
Im an immigrant, I moved here legally, from the UK, ive paid thousands of dollars just to be here, i contribute a lot of money to the US economy and employee a number of US workers... and for my efforts to play by the rules, [...] I get the opportunity to be chipped.
Has anyone else noticed the parallels between US's take on Immigrants and Germany's prior take on Jews? I realize it's a little bit of a stretch, but if we're trying to implant people with chips, it's not too different from making the Jews wear those stars back then. Fascism tends to gravitate toward blaming a certain group of people for a lot of problems to help get the country's nationalism way up. Granted, it's quite a stretch, but still. What's next, internment camps for the immigrants?
The fact that you spouted off something so bereft of critical thinking leads me to believe that:
You need a few history lessons
You're a youngling didn't live through the McCarthy era
When the government knows everything about you, it has the power to scapegoat anyone they choose to by latching onto a single fact about you and blowing it out of proportion. Whether you have or have not done anything wrong is irrelevant. The McCarthy era was about generating an atmosphere of fear and unwavering trust in the government by repressing anyone and everyone as it saw fit. No one was safe, no one spoke out, and nothing good came from it.
People treated anyone targetted by the government as social pariahs. Career? Dead. Friends? Gone. A person's life was destroyed for very little reason. The people who were targetted then did nothing wrong, and they still had their life destroyed by the government.
Just to bring you frame of reference more into focus. Let's play "How many steps away from the terrorists are you?" You post on slashdot, which has definite liberal bias. All liberals are against the war. Being against the war is unamerican and supports the terrorists. Therefore, you are supporting the terrorists. Is the reasoning inanely stupid? Yes, but it was stupid back then too and it still happened.
When was the last time a major newspaper did real investingation?
Most local (and more than a few regional) newspapers' content is straight off the Associates Press or Reuters, with a few niche stories taken from the PR Newswires. The editors rewrite sections of it and tailor it to their customers. This dirty secret was hidden from most of the populace during the 80's and 90's and has only come to light more recently since Yahoo, Google, and every other portal has copied the business model to great effect. Most newspapers are getting pushed out of the market because they never did any actual reporting in the first place (outside of some local news). As the industry moves forward, you'll see sites like the New York Times and other "real" journalism sites stay around, but the majority are either going to need to adapt to the internet age in some feasible way or go out of business. It's just the nature of the beast.
"In order to detect terrorism on American soil effectively, we'd need a larger data set."
G. Dubya is working on that one. And I think he is doing a fine job.
Actually, we don't know exactly what he's working on, so it's a little premature to pass judgement on whether he's proceeding down the correct path. We think he's mainly collecting data on Americans, not terrorists. Unless every American is a terrorist and will act in the near future, this data is useless for detection purposes.
In order to train a computer correctly, relevant data needs to be collected. In this scenario a single relevant data point would be classified as communications leading up to, and immediately after a terrorist event. So far we only have one such data point to use (9/11), and this assumes we have a comprehensive collection of communications to train the computer with. Unfortuantely, one data point is not enough to train the program (not even enough to give it a head start), so we need a better source of data (which is why I suggested Iraq).
Simply mining all American communications for potential "signs" of terrorism is pointless until the NSA has a better dataset to work off of. While I'd like to believe they already have this covered, the NSA is not open about it, and as such one can not assume that what they are doing will work, or will even be remotely effective.
I admire your conviction that G. Dubya is doing the right thing, but there's a severe lack of evidence to support the claim. I hope he's doing the right thing, but he is a politician after all, and their words are not to be trusted without evidence. (Democrat or Republican)
Not really. Computers are good at recognizing patterns only when there is a large repository of data to "train" the computer with. For example, neural networks are often better at recognizing patterns than if a person were to program a set of rules into a system. Man-made rules are often incomplete or lack the depth that a computer can bring to the table. A good example of this is Google Translate, which is considered one of the better translation programs and is essentially an advanced neural net that was fed a huge wad of data to train from.
America's data set on terrorism is in the single digits, and the data they do have is only partially complete. This means the only system that can be programmed is a set of user-created rules that "flag" questionable behavior. The solution is a poor one and will only improve our chances at detection by a fraction of a percent. (Seems a huge price to pay for privacy trampling to me.)
In order to detect terrorism on American soil effectively, we'd need a larger data set. Otherwise we're just attempting to reverse engineer a process that essentially defines itself as dynamic enough to avoid detection. We'd need a frequent source of terrorism that we could derive models and nets off of. The immediate source that comes to mind is Iraq. If I were in charge of the NSA program, I think the best course of action would be to harness the call-traffic (satellite and domestic), email activity and other "data" that precedes suicide bombers (or other known acts of terrorism) in Iraq. Using this data you could train a system to recognize similarities in America. Short of that, anything the NSA is trying is a crap shoot.
No. Freeing up lines of communication, preparing quick and actionable responses to warnings, and better general population awareness are probably more effective than grabbing a billion pieces of data and sifting through it for answers. It's impossible for a human to know what to look for, and until the NSA comes clean in what it's actualy doing, there's no justification for stomping out the few freedoms we still have. There are better alternatives out there that can be done with the help of the community and still preserve the integrity of our privacy.
Id just like to congratulate Mr. Alex Bendiken on a job well done and that his design was also one of my favorite designs throughout the contest. I cant wait till the design is rolled out onto the live server.
Now Alex, please stop posting kudos to yourself using alternate logins. CmdrTaco already told you that it'd take a few days before he could put up your design [read: before your check clears], so please be patient and stop fooling the newbies that don't know any better (it's not very nice).
That'll help all those EU-citizens a lot, that had their data sent to the USA in the past two years to be stored for the rest of eternity is all kind of dubious databases in the USA.
This is exactly what the NSA is using the records for. No one is sitting there recording 2 billion phone calls a day. They're building a large call graph and using it as an investigative aid.
If this is all the administration is doing, polls have shown that most Americans are okay with this type of call pattern tracking. If true, the administration has little or no reason to to hide this fact. (The terrorists will still use phones and e-mail for communication.) However, the administration is fighting any attempt of oversight, which implies it IS doing something that is questionable.
When the populace of a country has no privacy, but its ruler maintains absolute privacy, the ruler is a despot, and we are his subjects. However, the president is OUR EMPLOYEE, and therefore should be held accountable for his actions. No manager would permit his or her employee to spit back "None of your business" when they ask him or her what they were up to. Nor should we.
The most immediate result would be the health insurance industry lobbying to have access to that data. Say goodbye to affordable health coverage if you're predisposed to any of the easy to spot DNA indicators for disease. This assumes that they're keeping a DNA sample versus a DNA signature, as a signature would be less Gattaca-like, but still scary.
To be heard in the not so distant future: "Happy Birthday! Our records show that you are now in the high risk category for the following illnesses, and your monthly statement has increased respectively." If DNA databases start to take root, the only way to avoid people from being denied coverage (or charged so much that it ends up acting like the same thing) is to nationalize it.
I'm willing to bet that the MPAA can claim ignorance on this one. While I have no doubt that the MPAA execs greenlighted this project, I also don't doubt that the MPAA will scapegoat the executive in charge. I expect a press release to be forthcoming stating that the executive in charge of the project undertook this act on his own accord, without the knowledge or approval of MPAA.
Unless the hacker has more direct contacts than one or two people inside the MPAA, I'd expect this to be swept under the carpet fairly quickly. I really hope the MPAA gets some bad press because of it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
What I would like to see is some vendor honesty. How about making a list of known bugs available to your customer prior to purchase?
Unfortunately vendor honesty has nothing to do with it. If a software vendor posted a list of all known bugs on the internet, that vendor is then liable for any of those bugs that can be exploited. In addition to the liability concerns, it scares away customers. A good portion of people that buy software fall into group 2 (Software has bugs?), and as such will gladly visit your competitor's site which does not proudly display it's bug count.
Software ships buggy because it's often not cost effective for mid to small size companies to spend X months eradicating them. And (for those unfamiliar with bug fixing) it is not uncommon to introduce one new bug for every two fixed. Thus the process is often not as straightforward as you may think.
Bug fixing takes away time and resources from feature development, and therefore cuts into a companies ability to compete effectively. This is not to say that bug fixing never occurs, but merely that it is usually given a lower priority compared with deal closing features. The best analogy I can give is that it's similar to buying a new car. If you buy a brand new model right away, it's going to have problems. If you instead wait two years (AKA v2.0), most of the major problems should be gone.
mjeppsen writes "PlagiarismToday offers a thought-provoking article that frankly discusses concerns with plagiarism and rote content theft among bloggers. In the section entitled "Block quotes by the Dozen" the author mentions the so-called "gray area". That is PlagiarismToday's classification of the common blogger practice of re-using large blocks of text/content from the original article or source, even when the source is attributed."
3 - Congress pockets bribe money, makes a speech about bettering the internet, and then says a prayer thanking the gods that the overwhelming majority of American people he represents only believe what the TV tells them to.
In the next 10 years? I'd wager under 1000 (and even that's a stretch). Even if a terrorist hijacks another airplane or two, I don't see the casualties going that high. The biggest office building they can crash into now is the Sears Tower, and I doubt the plane would get further than a mile before the air force shoots it down this time.
The only way I can see a terrorist breaking the 1000 casualty mark is by getting hold of a nuke. Iran, while consistently spouting anti-American rhetoric, is not stupid enough to provide one to radical islamists. Iran has had chemical weapons for ages now and has never given one away to terrorists. Even if they develop a nuke, they'd only give one away if the US launched a military attack on their home soil. It's probably more likely that a terrorist group stole one from Russia when it wasn't looking.
In any case, barring a nuclear detonation, there's very little evidence (not counting movie fiction) that terrorists could repeat the scale of 9/11. The coming flu pandemic will most likely be more devastating.
What I still find fascenating is that radical islamists focus on America because we are now labelled worldwide as "evil". A better terrorism prevention mechanism would be to improve our image abroad and start improving the lives of the people that hate us. If you remove the hate, you remove the impetus to act on that hate.
Because the citizens paid for the telecom infrastructure.
And there-in lies the rub. We built it initially, but I'm pretty sure the telcos maintain it (at least I tend to see their vans near construction sites and not federal marked vans). Unfortunately this gives them a valid point in which to make a ruckus. Since the internet is not regulated like a utility, market forces are free to come up with whatever assinine system they can to make money off of it. We shouldn't be surprised to see this happening.
Telecom companies are having a tougher time making their shareholders happy. The Telcos haven't found a way to increase profits at the same pace that internet companies have done, yet these same companies are profiting off of the delivery path maintained by said telcos. (AKA: Chokepoint) Every telco executive is going to latch on to this as a way to make thier company more profitable, and won't stop until some legal force smacks them down.
Begin Outlandish Analogy
Let's say all road maintenance in my state is performed by Company A. This company charges each driver a fee based on the top speed of their automobile. However, unlike traditional road repair, Company A's maintenance costs are only higher if there are more roads (not if there is increased traffic on the same roads).
Now then, let's suppose an executive at Company A finally notices that all roads leading to Smallville are packed with end to end traffic. There are two ways he can choose to profit off of this observation. The first method is to charge the customer more (via toll roads) to reach Smallville. The second method is to charge the city of Smallville a fee based on what speed limit the roads leading into the city are at. The first method upsets the drivers, who are already paying for the use of the roads. The second method upsets the city (and equates to extortion), who promptly begs the state to pass a law preventing the questionable behavior.
End Outlandish Analogy
Make no mistake, the only way to prevent a tiered internet from forming in this market driven economy is through state / federal intervention. The telcos are collectively "losing" money, and not a single one of them is going to be against a tiered internet strategy. Their stockholders demand it. So unless Google teams up with other powerful websites, Uncle Sam is the only one who's going to stop this from happening.
By those Conventions, summary execustion of non-uniformed combatants and spies is perfectly legal.
And are we simply supposed to accept someone's seemingly arbitrary judgement as to whom is deemed to be a "spy" or "enemy combatant"? If I fly over to Macedonia, pick someone off the street and call them either a "spy" or an "enemy combatant", can I then shoot them? There are some rules to this game, and the US seems to be bending them.
So, instead of thinking of a better way to defend OUR satellites, they are thinking of ways to obliterate THEIRS? WTF?! If any country stands to lose more from having their satellites blown our of orbit, it's the United States!
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are thinking of the most likely attack that will befall satellites, but the logical step after this is to design something that can divert this type of attack. If the US were to suddenly lose all satellite communications, we'd be in some serious doo-doo. It seems, at least to me, that the prudent course of action would be to make a DARPA type of contest for this technology, or at least focus more grant money in this area. (Granted, the result would probably be to wrap more tin-foil around the things.)
IE users can (and probably will) add Google to the search list, just as they can (and probably don't) add MSN to Firefox's list. There's really no ground for a complaint here, unless you want to complain about the core isue of a browser being bundled with the OS in the first place.
Firefox is not owned by Google, so the fact that Firefox defaults to Google isn't a valid comparison. It just shows the Firefox developers have a decided anti-Microsoft edge to them (which is confirmed by the lack of an MSN Search option.)
The real problem I see is that Microsoft is doing what they always do. They state that IE 7 can be configured to use other search options, but by only populating the search box with MSN Search they're implying (to most non-expert users) that only one site can be used for it. If IE 7 can simply add another search site by right-clicking and "Add site...", then Google doesn't really have much of an argument. If instead the only way you can add a search site is to navigate a confusing set of options or edit a file, then Google can probably play the monopoly abuse card.
It's definitely a dick move by Microsoft, but why would you expect anything less?
If we need an investigation because of stonewalling.. let's have one.
Sadly, as much as I want to see an investigation, the Democrats are too scared of being wrong about it, and the Republicans are too scared that the allegations are accurate. As such, we're not going to see anything but public posturing until some more concrete evidence comes to light.
The majority of people in America are too stupid to know what this means or just do not care what it implies.
All the more reason that you and every other slashdotter (and their families) should send a letter to his or her congress person(s) outlining your concern and future action regarding the matter. One suggestion would be to outline what you are concerned with, and then close with something like:
"All I have to change this country is one voice, one vote, and a little bit of money. Mr. _______, I feel that you are not listening to, or representing, my concerns faithfully. My vote, and the little bit of money I have will go towards the one who does. You have until November 7, 2006 to correct this oversight on your part, and I look forward to reading about your actions (not your words) in the newspapers to come.
As part of Chinese President Hu Jintao's recent visit to Redmond, Microsoft is announcing plans to invest $900 million dollars directly in software and hardware companies in China.
Did anyone else read this and think to themselves, "$900 million is just about what it would take to move Redmond to redland?"
Hire Chinese developers, check.
Fire American developers, check.
Save massively on overhead, check.
Profit!
The whole "China will now start to crack down on Chinese piracy" thing seems kind of a given if Microsoft becomes a Chinese company. (It also would give Microsoft the ability to bottom out the price of Windows if Linux ever becomes a larger threat.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Did you know senator/congress person [your legislator here] voted in favor of allowing the telecoms to charge Google to provide content to you? Your monthly ISP rate has probably increased as a result. Happy Election Day!"
Legislators need to be gently reminded that Google can reach more people than the telcos can.
However, the point I was trying to make was that most totalitarian governments tend to bring the country together by blaming and ostracizing a certain portion of it. By drawing a distinction between "us" and "them". The Jews in Nazi controlled Germany were just the first example that came to mind. I am sure there are others throughout history, but I couldn't think of them off-hand. In any case, the last bit was more of a what-will-happen-next if history repeats itself. Internment camps are usually the next step, usually with slowly worsening conditions. (We've already got one at Gitmo.) But I think we're quite a ways away from flat-out executions. (The gov't would have to silence the media before that would ever happen.)
The fact that you spouted off something so bereft of critical thinking leads me to believe that:
When the government knows everything about you, it has the power to scapegoat anyone they choose to by latching onto a single fact about you and blowing it out of proportion. Whether you have or have not done anything wrong is irrelevant . The McCarthy era was about generating an atmosphere of fear and unwavering trust in the government by repressing anyone and everyone as it saw fit. No one was safe, no one spoke out, and nothing good came from it.
People treated anyone targetted by the government as social pariahs. Career? Dead. Friends? Gone. A person's life was destroyed for very little reason. The people who were targetted then did nothing wrong, and they still had their life destroyed by the government.
Just to bring you frame of reference more into focus. Let's play "How many steps away from the terrorists are you?" You post on slashdot, which has definite liberal bias. All liberals are against the war. Being against the war is unamerican and supports the terrorists. Therefore, you are supporting the terrorists. Is the reasoning inanely stupid? Yes, but it was stupid back then too and it still happened.
That's right folks it's an election year! Next up, child pornographers get life in prison, film at 11!
In order to train a computer correctly, relevant data needs to be collected. In this scenario a single relevant data point would be classified as communications leading up to, and immediately after a terrorist event. So far we only have one such data point to use (9/11), and this assumes we have a comprehensive collection of communications to train the computer with. Unfortuantely, one data point is not enough to train the program (not even enough to give it a head start), so we need a better source of data (which is why I suggested Iraq).
Simply mining all American communications for potential "signs" of terrorism is pointless until the NSA has a better dataset to work off of. While I'd like to believe they already have this covered, the NSA is not open about it, and as such one can not assume that what they are doing will work, or will even be remotely effective.
I admire your conviction that G. Dubya is doing the right thing, but there's a severe lack of evidence to support the claim. I hope he's doing the right thing, but he is a politician after all, and their words are not to be trusted without evidence. (Democrat or Republican)
America's data set on terrorism is in the single digits, and the data they do have is only partially complete. This means the only system that can be programmed is a set of user-created rules that "flag" questionable behavior. The solution is a poor one and will only improve our chances at detection by a fraction of a percent. (Seems a huge price to pay for privacy trampling to me.)
In order to detect terrorism on American soil effectively, we'd need a larger data set. Otherwise we're just attempting to reverse engineer a process that essentially defines itself as dynamic enough to avoid detection. We'd need a frequent source of terrorism that we could derive models and nets off of. The immediate source that comes to mind is Iraq. If I were in charge of the NSA program, I think the best course of action would be to harness the call-traffic (satellite and domestic), email activity and other "data" that precedes suicide bombers (or other known acts of terrorism) in Iraq. Using this data you could train a system to recognize similarities in America. Short of that, anything the NSA is trying is a crap shoot.
No. Freeing up lines of communication, preparing quick and actionable responses to warnings, and better general population awareness are probably more effective than grabbing a billion pieces of data and sifting through it for answers. It's impossible for a human to know what to look for, and until the NSA comes clean in what it's actualy doing, there's no justification for stomping out the few freedoms we still have. There are better alternatives out there that can be done with the help of the community and still preserve the integrity of our privacy.
[end satire]
When the populace of a country has no privacy, but its ruler maintains absolute privacy, the ruler is a despot, and we are his subjects. However, the president is OUR EMPLOYEE, and therefore should be held accountable for his actions. No manager would permit his or her employee to spit back "None of your business" when they ask him or her what they were up to. Nor should we.
The most immediate result would be the health insurance industry lobbying to have access to that data. Say goodbye to affordable health coverage if you're predisposed to any of the easy to spot DNA indicators for disease. This assumes that they're keeping a DNA sample versus a DNA signature, as a signature would be less Gattaca-like, but still scary.
To be heard in the not so distant future: "Happy Birthday! Our records show that you are now in the high risk category for the following illnesses, and your monthly statement has increased respectively." If DNA databases start to take root, the only way to avoid people from being denied coverage (or charged so much that it ends up acting like the same thing) is to nationalize it.
[end orwellian rant]
I'm willing to bet that the MPAA can claim ignorance on this one. While I have no doubt that the MPAA execs greenlighted this project, I also don't doubt that the MPAA will scapegoat the executive in charge. I expect a press release to be forthcoming stating that the executive in charge of the project undertook this act on his own accord, without the knowledge or approval of MPAA.
Unless the hacker has more direct contacts than one or two people inside the MPAA, I'd expect this to be swept under the carpet fairly quickly. I really hope the MPAA gets some bad press because of it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Software ships buggy because it's often not cost effective for mid to small size companies to spend X months eradicating them. And (for those unfamiliar with bug fixing) it is not uncommon to introduce one new bug for every two fixed. Thus the process is often not as straightforward as you may think.
Bug fixing takes away time and resources from feature development, and therefore cuts into a companies ability to compete effectively. This is not to say that bug fixing never occurs, but merely that it is usually given a lower priority compared with deal closing features. The best analogy I can give is that it's similar to buying a new car. If you buy a brand new model right away, it's going to have problems. If you instead wait two years (AKA v2.0), most of the major problems should be gone.
You forgot the last option:
3 - Congress pockets bribe money, makes a speech about bettering the internet, and then says a prayer thanking the gods that the overwhelming majority of American people he represents only believe what the TV tells them to.
The only way I can see a terrorist breaking the 1000 casualty mark is by getting hold of a nuke. Iran, while consistently spouting anti-American rhetoric, is not stupid enough to provide one to radical islamists. Iran has had chemical weapons for ages now and has never given one away to terrorists. Even if they develop a nuke, they'd only give one away if the US launched a military attack on their home soil. It's probably more likely that a terrorist group stole one from Russia when it wasn't looking.
In any case, barring a nuclear detonation, there's very little evidence (not counting movie fiction) that terrorists could repeat the scale of 9/11. The coming flu pandemic will most likely be more devastating.
What I still find fascenating is that radical islamists focus on America because we are now labelled worldwide as "evil". A better terrorism prevention mechanism would be to improve our image abroad and start improving the lives of the people that hate us. If you remove the hate, you remove the impetus to act on that hate.
Telecom companies are having a tougher time making their shareholders happy. The Telcos haven't found a way to increase profits at the same pace that internet companies have done, yet these same companies are profiting off of the delivery path maintained by said telcos. (AKA: Chokepoint) Every telco executive is going to latch on to this as a way to make thier company more profitable, and won't stop until some legal force smacks them down.
Begin Outlandish Analogy
End Outlandish Analogy
Make no mistake, the only way to prevent a tiered internet from forming in this market driven economy is through state / federal intervention. The telcos are collectively "losing" money, and not a single one of them is going to be against a tiered internet strategy. Their stockholders demand it. So unless Google teams up with other powerful websites, Uncle Sam is the only one who's going to stop this from happening.
So, instead of thinking of a better way to defend OUR satellites, they are thinking of ways to obliterate THEIRS? WTF?! If any country stands to lose more from having their satellites blown our of orbit, it's the United States!
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are thinking of the most likely attack that will befall satellites, but the logical step after this is to design something that can divert this type of attack. If the US were to suddenly lose all satellite communications, we'd be in some serious doo-doo. It seems, at least to me, that the prudent course of action would be to make a DARPA type of contest for this technology, or at least focus more grant money in this area. (Granted, the result would probably be to wrap more tin-foil around the things.)
The real problem I see is that Microsoft is doing what they always do. They state that IE 7 can be configured to use other search options, but by only populating the search box with MSN Search they're implying (to most non-expert users) that only one site can be used for it. If IE 7 can simply add another search site by right-clicking and "Add site...", then Google doesn't really have much of an argument. If instead the only way you can add a search site is to navigate a confusing set of options or edit a file, then Google can probably play the monopoly abuse card.
It's definitely a dick move by Microsoft, but why would you expect anything less?
"All I have to change this country is one voice, one vote, and a little bit of money. Mr. _______, I feel that you are not listening to, or representing, my concerns faithfully. My vote, and the little bit of money I have will go towards the one who does. You have until November 7, 2006 to correct this oversight on your part, and I look forward to reading about your actions (not your words) in the newspapers to come.
Signed,
The whole "China will now start to crack down on Chinese piracy" thing seems kind of a given if Microsoft becomes a Chinese company. (It also would give Microsoft the ability to bottom out the price of Windows if Linux ever becomes a larger threat.)