Amoral + Near-term-focused = Long-term-evil

Atlantic Richfield, Amoco, Exxon, and Mobil all purchased photovoltaic technologies in the late 70's and soon thereafter lobbied for the repeal of tax credits for solar power. Now why would they do that? Because once they've hedged their bets with IP acquisitions, they can go right back to protecting their core business. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable if all you care about is the fiscal year, but it's perfectly evil if the larger community is running out of time to develop and transition into oil alternatives.

If oil companies had sincerely developed and promoted these technologies when they acquired them 35 years ago, we would now see much wider adoption of solar in the US, and we would be significantly less dependant on oil.

How is this better than ranked voting? The last thing we want is more power for deeply grooved special interests.

No, it means negotiating an ACTA agreement beyond public purview, with stipulations that all parties at table must get their ducks in a row within six months. This is the result of "international politics" not "diplomacy", which, in its traditional forms, is extinct.

That's not what I'm suggesting. To know that a price is less appealing you would have to comparison shop. I think it's possible that MS is trying to exploit it's nonsavvy aol-like users under the assumption that most will either fail to comparison shop through other search engines, or will think that non-bing vendors' prices are too good to be true. I also think it's possible, and more likely, that participating vendors are just ensuring their bottom line without complaint from MS. In either case, as a later poster points out, discriminatory pricing is illegitimate and should merit some policy response from MS.

Taking the time to "game the system" is also a cost. What I expect from /. is astute agitation and bad PR for large players who try to game us.

The "yes" answer can't be calculated up front, but we can do our best to push toward it.

Could MS be liable in a class action lawsuit if it explicitly offered or otherwise encouraged this practice? This story could have teeth.

Oh god, don't believe the hype about NZ. Freer perhaps, if you don't count the social incarceration of the Anglo-regressive bigots who run the country. That country is SOLD OUT, and you will be too if you go there with anything less than a fortune of investment capital. You'll find your job options very limited as well, especially if you're asian or some other less white race. Immigration Services likes to talk about how they have lots of jobs and too few Kiwis to fill them--but they neglect to mention that most Kiwis are reluctant to hire foreigners, no matter how good their qualifications. Also know that you can be free with your opinions in NZ, so long as you don't criticize NZ or the Kiwi way of life. Believe me, not even a humble helping of constructive criticism goes down easy in New Zealand...not when it's offered by a foreigner. Finally, consider the freedom afforded you by your information infrastructure. NZ's is as antiquated as its building codes.

All of this is starting to feel like more than just an Iranian power struggle. I wonder if we might look back in a decade and see this moment as a first sign of Web Sovereignty--and realize that for all our hand-wringing over the BRIC countries' economic rise, the next truly global power will not be national in origin, but technological. Even if the popular protests "fail" in Iran, the comraderie, the sense of identity and belonging, as *citizens* of the Web, is likely to persist.

I have long asserted that conscious minds-in-general must accept as first principle the existince of free will as the indisputable result of the world's easiest thought experiment. This is not epistemological chicanery; it is ontological honesty. Given such a first principle, one should then view quantum uncertainty as a categorical imperative of reality. I am confident that when we begin simulating living, evolving virtual realities from the "ground up", we will find that the uncertainty principle and the observer's paradox are more fundamental to our "intelligent designs" than any constant or formula. In fact, they are necessary to the computing substrate on which these designs execute. In essence, we live inside a self-improving, tail-recursive algorithm. SITRA for short.