No argument about the prurient attraction of the piece. I do object to Google being singled out as if they were the only organization with the problem. As if all corporations, government agencies, and NGOs didn't have similar problems. I'd be a bit more worried about who is running the airport T-ray scanners, e.g.

Brought to you by Microsoft. Or Apple. Or Comcast. Anyway, the Google is BAD!

I'm not "going too far" in just trying to determine who this applies to!

I wasn't complaining that they haven't solved IP "problems". I was pointing out that they've made a deal with the devil to get tough, criminal enforcement.

Which organizations? How will Microsoft define "journalist"? Will bloggers qualify? Does the journalist, the publication, and/or the group need to be outside the US?

Will they get a license key and support?

"Whatever the circumstances of the particular cases the New York Times described, we want to be clear that we unequivocally abhor any attempt to leverage intellectual property rights to stifle political advocacy or pursue improper personal gain."

So very naive. Do they think they are getting IP enforcement externalities for free?

The Wikipedia intelligentsia won't even carry spoiler alerts, because that could lead to "censorship", and is somehow "hard to define" (seems like the word "reveal" would be the main tip to me, in the same way as "like" or "as" denotes similes). But then again, they were able to censor the journalist kidnapping stuff, since the ends justify the means. So, who knows?

It's an UMPC (ultra-mobile PC). It's incredibly portable, and a complete system for getting email, updating podcasts, checking websites, Skype calling, OpenArena playing, etc.

Lightweight is a feature.