No, Linux vendors would claim theirs OS is safer but they would not bribe (or "give outrageous discounts just get close to almost zero price") another company on spreading it's point of view. MS is free to claim Windows is safer/better/the best thing since sliced bread. Like you said, it can be a point of view but they should at least try to present their case as why they think their software is safer/better/the best thing since sliced bread.

I think this is a lesson on "How to distort the reality". No one cares where the Linux code comes from as long as the code abides to the license and do not try to bend the license terms out of context. This is not what this is all about. People will blame MS not for trying to sell their software (they are encouraged to sell their software) but to have to bribe, lie or tell half-truths to be able to undermine their competition, leaving only their software to be bought/acquired. More precisely (being less polite) abusing it's monopolist position. Why they can't just compete like anyone else, promoting what their software is good for and not trying to get competition out of business with questionable tactics. Only MS gains from it: consumer/user gets screwed (no competition = higher prices and less innovation) and the competition obviously gets screwed.

USA should stop citing "it's all capitalism as it should be" cause it's not. Capitalism says monopolies are bad cause they distort the market. And no bad action can use the excuse of "business as usual", as the companies with better governance and ethics are always the ones that resist more time on market.

But do not forget the 945 chipset eats energy like there is no tomorrow, so combine Atom (~4W)+ 945 (~24W) and then compare to AMD + AMD Chipset and they end like almost same (even favoring AMD a bit) power envelope but AMD will be much more powerful. 945GC eats a little less but only because better idle control.

Even Intel acknowledges it and is using a new chipset will far less consumption, but still with very weak video.

ION plataform is powerful with video but eats almost same power than 945 chipset.

Ok, let me explain some things: yes, I used genius word wrongly, should be "genie" (in portuguese they are translated to the same word, sorry).

Second: about USA position as being the bigger influencer and/or attacker since WWII. Can you just count WWI as 1 conflict and count all big conflicts that happened from WWII up to today? I was trying to say that almost every conflict from 1945 to now has USA deeply entrenched or playing behind curtains. Say Vietnan, Korea, Iraq (2 times), Israel, Lebanon (helping Israel), Afghanistan (2 times), Cold War (ok, not a conflict, just almost one, god bless), and whatever conflict you choose (with exception to some tribe conflicts on Africa). Are you sure any other nation, even old Soviet Union or new Russia or Israel can stand above USA in this infamous dispute?

Ok, let's see: Vietnan started as a French conflict, but USA got there (objective: get mineral resources); Afghanistan started with Russia but USA got there to counter all the influence from Russia (Cold War) and got there again after some towers got down; Kuwait (I was forgetting it) got invaded by Iraq and USA (wanting to ensure oil would not get too expensive and to keep it available) got there; then, after some towers got down, USA decide it was time to fake some reports and go after Iraq again (to get all oil this time); Nicaragua, Panama and Grenada was there just to counter URSS. See, not even the Soviets could ever get close to USA. And I did not count all Israel backing on every conflict they got involved. Like I said, every major conflict known to us has USA in some "privileged" position or playing "World Police" (see North Korea, Libia and a lot of others).

My intention was to show that a paranoid state is not a good response but an expected one from a country that made a lot of enemies and consider eveyone as potential enemy. The better response should not be "every stranger is a potential terrorist" but "let's try to smooth things out" with everyone you can. Good faith and a real demonstration of change can make wonders in destroying terrorist arguments that USA is the representative of Satan on earth (an argument used a lot by terrorists). People all over the world got on USA side cause they were the victims on 09/11 events. The terrorists got arguments of being victims (at least for the population they wanted to influence) when Iraq got attacked for nothing more than oil greed, for example.

I'm not on the side of the terrorists in any way, they are wrong on every aspect, in my opinion. What I'm trying to show is that excluding all the world and making everyone suspicious of trying to destroy USA is not the answer. You can get your wish granted (by a GENIE or by everyone else) and people just exclude USA too. Bad for everyone, worse for USA.

Sorry for any other language or expression error I did, english is NOT my main language (brazilian portuguese is, for reference).

Brazil and Argentina have historical disputes over who is the "best" on South America. Obviously it leads to some funny jokes on either side.

One closely related to USA auto induced paranioa state of mind says that an "argentino" and a "brasileiro" found a lamp. The argentino rubbed the lamp first but the brasileiro hold the lamp for him to do it. A genius emerged and saw the problem immediately: he could not grant 3 wishes, one of them would get 2 wishes and other 1. So he granted 2 wishes, one for each of them. Since the argentino rubbed the lamp first, he wished a great wall would appear on all Argentina frontiers so they could be isolated from the bad interference of their neighbors, being Argentina the greatest nation of all. Wish granted, the genius made a wall one mile high around all Argentina. Next the genius asked the brazilian what was his wish. He asked the genius before anything if the Argentina's wall was really high and resistant. The genius answered that nothing could break that wall. The brasileiro asked immediately: fill it with water.

USA is almost asking for problems when they think all the world want to attck them when USA is the most common attacker or influencer on all wars from World War II and later. They must take care with what they wish: it can be granted.

Disclaimer: I'm brazilian, so the joke is biased.

I think I've read something similar but I can't remember where or when so it's not all my idea:

Any patent infringement suit should be accompained with a deposit of 1/3 of the value you seek. Only then the suit would go on. If you win, you receive your money back plus the value the judge stipulates (at maximum the value you proposed initially) and accused party need to stop selling or license the patent; if you loose, your money goes to the accused party and you still need to indemnify the court and lawyers of the accused party.

This way it's like a poker bet: you may even bluff but someone can call your bluff and you'll pay. The 1/3 part is to protect the little guy that had a real patent violated by a big guy. But It will make patent trolls really worried cause they will now have to limit their bluffs or risk losing all their money.

I bet no patent troll could survive this troll hostile environment. If their patent is so good, they would win a first trial for a lesser value, accuse a second one for more money and go on. Any violating party would have an incentive to settle off-court. But a bad patent would mean a high cost upfront to their extortion schema. And a loss would really impact them.

Just my humble suggestion.