Or more importantly, it is generally not recommended to expose a pregnant female to radiation. (Often, recommendations are against flying in the last trimester as well.)
Therefore, she would be given a pat-down and let through.
I know it would be easy, and callous, to say "Don't go to those places."
You may have little choice in the matter. You may have family in those places. You have have other equally compelling reasons to visit those places. These scanners present a powerful and unique invasion of privacy that could only be matched by a strip search or a very intimate pat-down search.
Thank you for being willing to share your thoughts on the matter and for bringing an important, if uncommon, perspective to this debate.
Thank you for making such a strong and clear case as to why these things are such a bad idea, and all for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with protecting people from terrorism.
Rene, that is my point. "What proof?" It is easy enough for one party to lie about something like that.
It's one thing to lie and claim that your spouse beat you, but then there would be signs of injury to back up your claims. Self-inflicted injuries can often be distinguished from non-self-inflicted injuries, so unless you have someone ELSE beat you and then claim your spouse did it, you'd have a hard time making a false accusation like that.
However, where there is no physical evidence of this verbal abuse (and I fully believe that verbal abuse is real, happens, and can be true abuse), how can you distinguish a false accusation from a real accusation in the case where the accused seems to be a calm, self-controlled individual? How many times have you seen news reports about a violent crime being committed where neighbors or relatives all express total disbelief, saying "I never imagined that he / she would be capable of doing that" or something similar?
Some people are quite good at hiding their true personalities.
I also fully agree with your interpretation that this will have the effect of "inventing" violent men. I am not sure if it was intended to do that, but I agree with you that it will certainly be part of the result of this new law.
This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers. Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry. The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes. It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.
How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?
What will be done with the money from these tariffs? Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?
Not only unenforceable, but difficult to prove. It is often hard enough to prove physical abuse. How to they intend to prove these charges?
While I'm sure there are plenty of cases where reliable witnesses can be brought forth, I suspect this will become a "he said / she said" situation where it will ultimately depend on which side (plaintiff and attorney vs defendant and attorney) can convince the judge that their story is what really happened. I'm sure there are legitimate situations where this will truly help someone, but I suspect those will be few and far between.
And, not only that, but what if the plaintiff loses? I would strongly suspect that the relationship would be shot at that point anyway.
If your spouse asks for a divorce, don't try to fight it because she or he has already decided to give up, and usually decided a long time ago and was just waiting for a less inconvenient time to tell you. Seriously... how can you save a marriage when one spouse really wants out? Once one spouse accuses the other of cheating, it seems like all trust is gone in the relationship anyway and it's only a matter of time before the relationship ends one way or the other (divorce, abandonment, or violence).
Just like this law in France... how can you repair a relationship like this?
Also, what does this do to the defendant's ability to carry on with life? I've only been to France once in my life (late in 2009), so I am not that familiar with their culture and I'm not sure how this would impact someone's ability to get a job, etc.
I am sure that those who authored and approved this law were well-intentioned, but at least from a surface examination it seems to be far too easy to abuse if it is enforced, but it also seems far too difficult to enforce fairly.
Never underestimate your opponent.
Anyone who forgets that rule is doomed to failure.
The safe rule is always to assume that your opponent is AT LEAST as well trained and capable as you are. You may be able to make intelligent suppositions regarding supplies and equipment, but never underestimate training, intelligence, and skill.
This will only make phishing attacks easier unless there are SERIOUS checks on domain name registrations.
There are letters in the Cyrillic alphabet that have different character codes than their look-alike letters in the Latin alphabet. I'm sure there are other collisions as well. I'm sure they accounted for this in the proposal, but the problem always lies in the implementation.
From a security standpoint, this is a VERY bad idea without proper regulation of domain name registrations, and so far it has been demonstrated that we cannot manage them properly even with only the Latin alphabet.
From a cultural and usability standpoint, this is a good thing. It will be easier for someone whose native language uses a non-Latin alphabet to recognize the supposed purpose of a web site by its domain name if some of those domain names can be in their native language. A hypothetical native Tamil speaker who speaks no English will be able to recognize the purpose of a site with an appropriate domain name in Tamil, for example
I've never encountered this region locking problem, and I have an unmodified Wii. I've purchased games in Hong Kong for my kids (Mario Karts and Wii Sport Resort) and both play without any difficulties. The Wii was purchased in the US at a "Toys-R-Us".
Which games are region locked?
Ferengi rule of acquisition 219: "Possession is eleven tenths of the law." (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Ferengi_Rules_of_Acquisition)
Let the "canon" vs "non-canon" flame-war begin!
Actually, it's a brilliant move on the part of the MS lawyers:
The "Ribbon" interface appears to be Microsoft's intended replacement for menus on everything. Office had it, IE will have it, I'm sure most other apps will have it. By allowing other applications to have it, developers will jump on the "ribbon" bandwagon for one or more of the following:
it's new, therefore it's cool!
It's a new technology, so let's play with it.
It's the new Windows standard, and I want my app to "fit" into the new Windows look and feel.
By blocking Office suite competitors from using it, but allowing everything else to use it, they help make the ribbon the new Windows standard, making the other office apps look "old" or "klunky" by comparison.
As much as I dislike the ribbon myself (mostly because I'm accustomed to menus), this looks like a brilliant move on their part to help push the ribbon and to make other office suites look out of place on Windows.
For those competitors who pay the money to use the ribbon, Microsoft has more money and I'm sure their license terms have the licensees in a sufficiently bad position that Microsoft benefits either way.
Just my speculation, of course.
And for those of us who cannot obtain cable service, we buy BBC-produced DVDs.
There are many ways to support worthwhile television. If the US networks ever started producing some, maybe I'd watch more TV and fewer imported DVDs.
> Which will be followed up by some Christian suggesting that is the Mark of the Beast....
Actually, most of the Fundamentalist-type Christians I know (and I know quite a few since I live in South Carolina) would, if anything, oppose the elimination of cash. Credit cards, etc. all allow tracking and centralized control at a much greater level than cash. Cash is supposed to be accepted no matter what. (Granted, there are limitations on how much you can pay in coins, but other than that, cash is legal tender for all transactions, both public and private.)
Cash is negotiable without any form of identification. As long as you can be fairly sure that the bank notes are ligitimate, there is no reason to refuse cash. No ID needed. Checks and credit cards usually require additional ID, and can be linked directly back to the user.
There are even some who would suggest that a credit-only system would require "the Mark of the Beast".
I doubt there are many 8-12 year olds on Slashdot, but many of us here have children in that age range and can comment on what held our children's interest.
I believe Slashdot would be a good place to ask this. I suspect that I am not along among parents on Slashdot who, when considering a new game or toy for our children, consider how well it maintains their interest as well as replayability.
It works quite well against the casual attacker, and even a bit against a more skilled attacker.
I would try to summarize, but instead here is what i think is the best brief summary
http://www.petri.co.il/how_does_efs_work.htm
The super-short summary is as follows:
It uses your certificate (automatically generated if not available) and the recovery agent (if it exists) certificate to generate a File Encryption Key, which is then used to encrypt the data. Then a special header is added to the file which contains the File Encryption Key encrypted with your certificate and with the Recovery Agent's certificate (if it exists).
It is similar, in that way, to how PGP works.
The encryption algorithm itself for the file is DESX.
The "cool" thing about it is that it is completely transparent to the end user other than checking a little box one on the Properties dialog that says "encrypt". From then on, you have little to no idea that it's happening.
Scotty WAS an officer. A Captain, actually, which is the mark of a true career man to make it to that rank and not be commanding a ship. Scotty was THE engineer. You don't make it to that high of a rank and not command a ship unless you're REALLY good at what you do, and Scotty was one of the best. (Sorry, LaForge, Scotty still has you beat.)
(FWIW my dentist is a retired US Navy Captain, and yes, he was a dentist in the Navy. He has some very interesting stories.)
Granted, EFS (Encrypted File System - the "encrypt" option on NTFS) isn't the greatest, but it's there, it's included with Windows (and thus, perceived as "free as in beer"), and people use it.
Kon-Boot will grant you access to the account, but not to anything that the user encrypted using EFS. I have just tested this today to be sure before posting.
That is one reason why people would want to know the current password rather than just bypass the password, though Kon-Boot certainly still has its uses.
You and I are using the term "hidden" in slightly different ways.
When I look at the receipt after I go to the store to buy a something, there is a place on the receipt that indicates the total before the tax, the amount of tax paid, and the total after the tax. In South Carolina, since not all things are taxable, there is an indication as to which items were taxed and which were not.
To me, that is not "hidden".
On the other hand, when I fill up the gas tank on my car, the receipt I am given simply states that it cost me $25.00 or so to fill up the tank. (I have a small car.) There is on indication of how much of that is pre-tax and how much of that is the tax. The price per gallon shown on the screen is exactly what is tallied up, and that price INCLUDES the taxes, so there is no easy way from the receipt to know how much of what you are paying is actually the tax. In fact, there is no indication that any tax was paid at all. We only know that there are taxes on gasoline because people complain about them enough that we are reminded that these taxes exist. There is no other indication that the taxes are being charged.
That, to me, is "hidden".
While I disagree with your definition of hidden because my taxes are shown clearly on my pay stub twice a month (salaried position), my property taxes (cars and house) are requested in annual bills, and sales taxes (except gasoline, as discussed above) are clearly marked on receipts, I believe I understand your overall point.
The taxes are taken in small amounts. This is by design, as you have said. I am not sure that the design is so much for nefarious purposes as it is for practical purposes. Taking taxes from the pay before the worker receives the pay ensures that the taxes are collected based on a practical estimate of the actual tax burden based on the tax code.
I still do not see how sales taxes would be "hidden" since they are intended to tax specific actions - SALES. You have to tax them as they occur, or you would require everyone to keep every receipt for everything purchased and then tally then up in April. This would make vending machines annoying to say the least. I certainly don't want a receipt for every bottle of soda I buy from a vending machine, only to have to keep track of the receipt at the end of the year.
This is why rebates require receipts, by the way. People are more likely to misplace the receipts or be too lazy to bother. The current tax system works the same way - it allows the government to take in more money with fewer opportunities for people to prevent paying. Rebates are also designed to keep money in the hands of the company by making it more difficult to receive the money. If they truly expected everyone to file for the rebate, they would simply lower the price by $10 or whatever and be done with it. Processing rebates costs the companies additional money for each rebate (postage, printing cheques, paying someone to process the rebate, etc.), but it costs less than an across-the-board price reduction because not everyone files for the rebate. They make up for the costs in the lower number of people who file for the rebates.
No, most of those taxes are not hidden. You can see them if you simply read your receipts. The collection methods are designed to minimize the perceived impact by taking the money in small increments, but you can still see what is being taken by reading the documentation provided in the receipts. You do not see the tax amount when purchasing gasoline, at least not in any state in which I have ever purchased gasoline.
It's actually a bit MORE in South Carolina, between the federal and state taxes. One local gas station owner was fed up with people complaining about gas prices so he posted the taxes. I never realized it was THAT much... but that is by design.
With a sales tax, you see the posted price and then you see the 6 percent (in South Carolina) added at the end. You see the tax, you feel the pain.
With the gas tax, it's built in to the price. All I see is $2.239 / gallon (that 0.9 cent always bugs me). It is fairly effectively hidden.
Cigarette and liquor taxes work the same way - they are effectively hidden (even though both of those products have their little tax labels on them).
Unfortunately, Microsoft may get away with this under the guise of concern for security. There was a time (and perhaps these are still out there) when links to fake codec were used to compromise the victim's computer. (For an analysis of one of these, please see http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=5302 )
Most of us here know how this scenario unfolds: user is trying to view some form of media, often of "questionable" morality (either pr0n or "pirated" video) and the site claims that the user must install a new codec or upgrade to a new version of Flash or Quicktime or whatever and "kindly" has the link right there. It may even have the simple "click here" puzzle-piece link to install the proper codec/player so you can see the multimedia clip. Victim clicks, wanting simply to see the media clip, and presto!, the victim's machine is now a spam-spewing zombie.
Of course, the link could install other things, too, but the point is that the "fake codec" ploy is common enough that Microsoft could easily claim that they are only allowing "approved" or "signed" codecs out of concern for security. They may state that third party codecs are allowed, and will permit Quicktime (for fear of a suit and driving people to Apple) and Flash/Shockwave, but other third-party codecs could be blocked through some combination of testing and/or certificate/signing fees.
This one is too easy, and it just might work.
(I find it strangely amusing that the captcha, given that these fake codecs are often seen in relation to pr0n sites, is "explicit".)
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore, she would be given a pat-down and let through.
Great - now you've given them ideas.
You may have little choice in the matter. You may have family in those places. You have have other equally compelling reasons to visit those places. These scanners present a powerful and unique invasion of privacy that could only be matched by a strip search or a very intimate pat-down search.
Thank you for being willing to share your thoughts on the matter and for bringing an important, if uncommon, perspective to this debate.
Thank you for making such a strong and clear case as to why these things are such a bad idea, and all for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with protecting people from terrorism.
However, where there is no physical evidence of this verbal abuse (and I fully believe that verbal abuse is real, happens, and can be true abuse), how can you distinguish a false accusation from a real accusation in the case where the accused seems to be a calm, self-controlled individual? How many times have you seen news reports about a violent crime being committed where neighbors or relatives all express total disbelief, saying "I never imagined that he / she would be capable of doing that" or something similar?
Some people are quite good at hiding their true personalities.
I also fully agree with your interpretation that this will have the effect of "inventing" violent men. I am not sure if it was intended to do that, but I agree with you that it will certainly be part of the result of this new law.
This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers. Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry. The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes. It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.
How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?
What will be done with the money from these tariffs? Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?
Not only unenforceable, but difficult to prove. It is often hard enough to prove physical abuse. How to they intend to prove these charges? While I'm sure there are plenty of cases where reliable witnesses can be brought forth, I suspect this will become a "he said / she said" situation where it will ultimately depend on which side (plaintiff and attorney vs defendant and attorney) can convince the judge that their story is what really happened. I'm sure there are legitimate situations where this will truly help someone, but I suspect those will be few and far between. And, not only that, but what if the plaintiff loses? I would strongly suspect that the relationship would be shot at that point anyway. If your spouse asks for a divorce, don't try to fight it because she or he has already decided to give up, and usually decided a long time ago and was just waiting for a less inconvenient time to tell you. Seriously... how can you save a marriage when one spouse really wants out? Once one spouse accuses the other of cheating, it seems like all trust is gone in the relationship anyway and it's only a matter of time before the relationship ends one way or the other (divorce, abandonment, or violence). Just like this law in France... how can you repair a relationship like this? Also, what does this do to the defendant's ability to carry on with life? I've only been to France once in my life (late in 2009), so I am not that familiar with their culture and I'm not sure how this would impact someone's ability to get a job, etc. I am sure that those who authored and approved this law were well-intentioned, but at least from a surface examination it seems to be far too easy to abuse if it is enforced, but it also seems far too difficult to enforce fairly.
I'm going with "age". Keep in mind how old these drones are.
Never underestimate your opponent. Anyone who forgets that rule is doomed to failure. The safe rule is always to assume that your opponent is AT LEAST as well trained and capable as you are. You may be able to make intelligent suppositions regarding supplies and equipment, but never underestimate training, intelligence, and skill.
I have never quite understood why a coffin costs nearly one thousand dollars.
Can anyone explain why, other than greed and taking advantage of people who are mourning, that a coffin should cost so much?
This will only make phishing attacks easier unless there are SERIOUS checks on domain name registrations. There are letters in the Cyrillic alphabet that have different character codes than their look-alike letters in the Latin alphabet. I'm sure there are other collisions as well. I'm sure they accounted for this in the proposal, but the problem always lies in the implementation. From a security standpoint, this is a VERY bad idea without proper regulation of domain name registrations, and so far it has been demonstrated that we cannot manage them properly even with only the Latin alphabet. From a cultural and usability standpoint, this is a good thing. It will be easier for someone whose native language uses a non-Latin alphabet to recognize the supposed purpose of a web site by its domain name if some of those domain names can be in their native language. A hypothetical native Tamil speaker who speaks no English will be able to recognize the purpose of a site with an appropriate domain name in Tamil, for example
I've never encountered this region locking problem, and I have an unmodified Wii. I've purchased games in Hong Kong for my kids (Mario Karts and Wii Sport Resort) and both play without any difficulties. The Wii was purchased in the US at a "Toys-R-Us". Which games are region locked?
Ferengi rule of acquisition 219: "Possession is eleven tenths of the law." (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Ferengi_Rules_of_Acquisition) Let the "canon" vs "non-canon" flame-war begin!
Actually, it's a brilliant move on the part of the MS lawyers: The "Ribbon" interface appears to be Microsoft's intended replacement for menus on everything. Office had it, IE will have it, I'm sure most other apps will have it. By allowing other applications to have it, developers will jump on the "ribbon" bandwagon for one or more of the following: it's new, therefore it's cool! It's a new technology, so let's play with it. It's the new Windows standard, and I want my app to "fit" into the new Windows look and feel. By blocking Office suite competitors from using it, but allowing everything else to use it, they help make the ribbon the new Windows standard, making the other office apps look "old" or "klunky" by comparison. As much as I dislike the ribbon myself (mostly because I'm accustomed to menus), this looks like a brilliant move on their part to help push the ribbon and to make other office suites look out of place on Windows. For those competitors who pay the money to use the ribbon, Microsoft has more money and I'm sure their license terms have the licensees in a sufficiently bad position that Microsoft benefits either way. Just my speculation, of course.
And for those of us who cannot obtain cable service, we buy BBC-produced DVDs. There are many ways to support worthwhile television. If the US networks ever started producing some, maybe I'd watch more TV and fewer imported DVDs.
> Which will be followed up by some Christian suggesting that is the Mark of the Beast ....
Actually, most of the Fundamentalist-type Christians I know (and I know quite a few since I live in South Carolina) would, if anything, oppose the elimination of cash. Credit cards, etc. all allow tracking and centralized control at a much greater level than cash. Cash is supposed to be accepted no matter what. (Granted, there are limitations on how much you can pay in coins, but other than that, cash is legal tender for all transactions, both public and private.)
Cash is negotiable without any form of identification. As long as you can be fairly sure that the bank notes are ligitimate, there is no reason to refuse cash. No ID needed. Checks and credit cards usually require additional ID, and can be linked directly back to the user.
There are even some who would suggest that a credit-only system would require "the Mark of the Beast".
I doubt there are many 8-12 year olds on Slashdot, but many of us here have children in that age range and can comment on what held our children's interest.
I believe Slashdot would be a good place to ask this. I suspect that I am not along among parents on Slashdot who, when considering a new game or toy for our children, consider how well it maintains their interest as well as replayability.
It works quite well against the casual attacker, and even a bit against a more skilled attacker.
I would try to summarize, but instead here is what i think is the best brief summary
http://www.petri.co.il/how_does_efs_work.htm
The super-short summary is as follows:
It uses your certificate (automatically generated if not available) and the recovery agent (if it exists) certificate to generate a File Encryption Key, which is then used to encrypt the data. Then a special header is added to the file which contains the File Encryption Key encrypted with your certificate and with the Recovery Agent's certificate (if it exists).
It is similar, in that way, to how PGP works.
The encryption algorithm itself for the file is DESX.
The "cool" thing about it is that it is completely transparent to the end user other than checking a little box one on the Properties dialog that says "encrypt". From then on, you have little to no idea that it's happening.
However, when it fails, it's a major pain.
Scotty WAS an officer. A Captain, actually, which is the mark of a true career man to make it to that rank and not be commanding a ship. Scotty was THE engineer. You don't make it to that high of a rank and not command a ship unless you're REALLY good at what you do, and Scotty was one of the best. (Sorry, LaForge, Scotty still has you beat.)
(FWIW my dentist is a retired US Navy Captain, and yes, he was a dentist in the Navy. He has some very interesting stories.)
Granted, EFS (Encrypted File System - the "encrypt" option on NTFS) isn't the greatest, but it's there, it's included with Windows (and thus, perceived as "free as in beer"), and people use it.
Kon-Boot will grant you access to the account, but not to anything that the user encrypted using EFS. I have just tested this today to be sure before posting.
That is one reason why people would want to know the current password rather than just bypass the password, though Kon-Boot certainly still has its uses.
There was a movie about a faked manned Mars landing titled "Capricorn One".
I know that supposedly art imitates life, but life imitating movies?
Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.
That was Fezzik's line, not Inigo's. (Good one for bringing in a "Princess Bride" quote, however.)
You and I are using the term "hidden" in slightly different ways.
When I look at the receipt after I go to the store to buy a something, there is a place on the receipt that indicates the total before the tax, the amount of tax paid, and the total after the tax. In South Carolina, since not all things are taxable, there is an indication as to which items were taxed and which were not.
To me, that is not "hidden".
On the other hand, when I fill up the gas tank on my car, the receipt I am given simply states that it cost me $25.00 or so to fill up the tank. (I have a small car.) There is on indication of how much of that is pre-tax and how much of that is the tax. The price per gallon shown on the screen is exactly what is tallied up, and that price INCLUDES the taxes, so there is no easy way from the receipt to know how much of what you are paying is actually the tax. In fact, there is no indication that any tax was paid at all. We only know that there are taxes on gasoline because people complain about them enough that we are reminded that these taxes exist. There is no other indication that the taxes are being charged.
That, to me, is "hidden".
While I disagree with your definition of hidden because my taxes are shown clearly on my pay stub twice a month (salaried position), my property taxes (cars and house) are requested in annual bills, and sales taxes (except gasoline, as discussed above) are clearly marked on receipts, I believe I understand your overall point.
The taxes are taken in small amounts. This is by design, as you have said. I am not sure that the design is so much for nefarious purposes as it is for practical purposes. Taking taxes from the pay before the worker receives the pay ensures that the taxes are collected based on a practical estimate of the actual tax burden based on the tax code.
I still do not see how sales taxes would be "hidden" since they are intended to tax specific actions - SALES. You have to tax them as they occur, or you would require everyone to keep every receipt for everything purchased and then tally then up in April. This would make vending machines annoying to say the least. I certainly don't want a receipt for every bottle of soda I buy from a vending machine, only to have to keep track of the receipt at the end of the year.
This is why rebates require receipts, by the way. People are more likely to misplace the receipts or be too lazy to bother. The current tax system works the same way - it allows the government to take in more money with fewer opportunities for people to prevent paying. Rebates are also designed to keep money in the hands of the company by making it more difficult to receive the money. If they truly expected everyone to file for the rebate, they would simply lower the price by $10 or whatever and be done with it. Processing rebates costs the companies additional money for each rebate (postage, printing cheques, paying someone to process the rebate, etc.), but it costs less than an across-the-board price reduction because not everyone files for the rebate. They make up for the costs in the lower number of people who file for the rebates.
No, most of those taxes are not hidden. You can see them if you simply read your receipts. The collection methods are designed to minimize the perceived impact by taking the money in small increments, but you can still see what is being taken by reading the documentation provided in the receipts. You do not see the tax amount when purchasing gasoline, at least not in any state in which I have ever purchased gasoline.
It's actually a bit MORE in South Carolina, between the federal and state taxes. One local gas station owner was fed up with people complaining about gas prices so he posted the taxes. I never realized it was THAT much... but that is by design.
With a sales tax, you see the posted price and then you see the 6 percent (in South Carolina) added at the end. You see the tax, you feel the pain.
With the gas tax, it's built in to the price. All I see is $2.239 / gallon (that 0.9 cent always bugs me). It is fairly effectively hidden.
Cigarette and liquor taxes work the same way - they are effectively hidden (even though both of those products have their little tax labels on them).
Unfortunately, Microsoft may get away with this under the guise of concern for security. There was a time (and perhaps these are still out there) when links to fake codec were used to compromise the victim's computer. (For an analysis of one of these, please see http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=5302 )
Most of us here know how this scenario unfolds: user is trying to view some form of media, often of "questionable" morality (either pr0n or "pirated" video) and the site claims that the user must install a new codec or upgrade to a new version of Flash or Quicktime or whatever and "kindly" has the link right there. It may even have the simple "click here" puzzle-piece link to install the proper codec/player so you can see the multimedia clip. Victim clicks, wanting simply to see the media clip, and presto!, the victim's machine is now a spam-spewing zombie.
Of course, the link could install other things, too, but the point is that the "fake codec" ploy is common enough that Microsoft could easily claim that they are only allowing "approved" or "signed" codecs out of concern for security. They may state that third party codecs are allowed, and will permit Quicktime (for fear of a suit and driving people to Apple) and Flash/Shockwave, but other third-party codecs could be blocked through some combination of testing and/or certificate/signing fees.
This one is too easy, and it just might work.
(I find it strangely amusing that the captcha, given that these fake codecs are often seen in relation to pr0n sites, is "explicit".)