Owns 333.3m shares. Up $2.86 so far. Not too shabby a day at the office.

My guess is that he was probably referring to the above comments that "if you plan to use Office in a commercial setting, you need an extra license key." I agree with you, it still includes office and in what looks to be a decent form for a tablet, but I can see why some people are frustrated with the condition. (Though my guess is that this is not a huge issue, as I'd hope that most offices have office wide licences that they could use...)

Picture of your post using the obligatory: http://xkcd.com/1075/

Conversely though, lawyers often charge extortionate hourly fees and then take their sweet time doing seemingly simple tasks.... I've been billed 3 hours time for 3 emails and proof reading a 1 page document... all at an eye watering rate.

I think you misread the quote above, he was talking about people who were taking the other side, ie Betting that contact wasn't made..... so 1/100 odds, or 1%.....

And therefore arguing that it was brilliant by the bookie, he keeps the nut job's money outright, and he only has to pay 1% to the people the bet the other way...... As he said...Brilliant!

I think in many ways it is better to have all this information stored forever. As with most decisions, the more information you have the more informed a decision you can make...

I think the argument that people forget and therefore can forgive is true, but I think we need to then adapt how we forgive. If we accept that people change, then it doesn't matter that we have a store of someone's past actions - we can let then 'reinvent' themselves while still knowing where they came from.

Right now that may be difficult, but that's because the internet is still a relatively new phenomena in Human history. As we progress, I assume we'll evolve to accept that all our actions are remembered indefinitely, and mature to not let past events completely out way current ones.

I mean logistically - my PC is on my desk in the corner of my room. My consoles are in the living room with my TV and lots of space... which is why the Wii works. I can flail about to my hearts content - but not so in front of the PC......

Thanks for replying - not sure why people felt i was trolling.

I agree on the implementation side I don't know enough to say whether any current systems will bring the whole thing down or not, but I disagree with your point in that its a bad road to go down.
In terms of hiding child porn from ignorant/masses, thats a damn sensible thing. Those that really want to get at it will, regardless of whats done - but it will require a fairly high level of know how. The 'average' (if that word is applicable) paedophile i doubt happens also to be incredibly IT literate. This reminds me of a quote I heard years ago -"Locks don't keep thieves out, they keep normal people from becoming thieves".
So, if a large base (and I don't claim to know what % of paedophiles are IT literate vs not) cannot easily get access to the material, well, then there's less incentive to produce which will filter down the system.
I also happen to completely disagree with the overall message that censorship of the internet is fundamentally wrong (a separate issue, but seems to be brought up a lot here - 1984esc comments). We live in society that is far from actually having free speech (racial incitement laws, prohibition of anti-holocaust views, etc).
Why should the internet be special? I agree places like China are a disaster, but I'm not a believer in the "we're going down that road" - china was down that road and is actually moving the other way...etc etc (as I said, separate debate)

Your point that it is noble to prevent children suffering - yes, agreed. And that should be a focus, but very hard to do if people have incentives to cause children to suffer. Take away the incentives, help the children.
However, your point that the law swings to far is very valid - and I hope that when cases like the one you mention (parents taking pics of children) are challenged and over-ruled.
Overall, I feel the goal is sensible and worth pursing, however, I cannot comment on the feasibility, and if checks are not currently in place, then yes, they should be put there.

Ok, so these guys are going about it the wrong way and screwing up. But the basic premise is still sensible, so we just need a more efficient and less crazy way of doing it - the concept is still a noble one, no?

I don't quite follow why everyone is against putting in legislation. I'm not saying I am, i just don't quite follow what the issue is....
So they try and block all child porn - job well done, no?
Yes it doesn't stop the underlying porn existing, but if no one can get at it, then that will filter through to less people making it, no?
I'm just confused as to what all the uproar is about? (as in an honest question - not trying to take a stupid position...)

Thats completely incorrect. Demand has fallen, and fallen off a cliff.
A huge factor in Oil's drop from $147 in July is due to he the massive decline in both OCED and non-OCED demand. non-OCED (ie China) was supposed to be the key, decoupling etc... wow that was wrong!
Speculation was just thrown about by politicians - Net length and Open Interest are almost as high now as they were in July!! (they came of substantially towards the end of last year, but now picked up again). Currently there are almost 4mmb/d of OPEC excess capacity... no supprise that oil is now trading at ~$40.