Tempus

Contrary to what Arthur thinks, I believe the deal will go through because the money is desperately needed. There will be behind-the-scene deals to offset China's anger.

Missing options:
* I don't run windows
* I'll switch to a non-windows OS instead

That would've been interesting. I think I'll make a poll on that.

It depends, need more info: Which way do the crooks make more money? Please don't think they're worrying about solving the crisis, there's this famous quote from a top investment banker who says "you've got to buy when there's blood in the streets". As someone who's gambling with other people's money, right now there are lots and lots of opportunities.

Remember that the stock-exchange is a zero-sum game: Money does not disappear, it just moves somewhere else.

Missing option: Not interested in either (e.g. "already own a Wii")

Sorry, I'd like to contest the judgement. As the link by Homer shows, it was above $2 before the end of September - e.g. on Sep. 29. and on Sep. 26.

It fell again, but it did go above $2.

Absolutely not. Steve is a smart guy who knows where his place is and what his strengths are. Besides, Apple already has a very successful marketing campaign with the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" couple.

Absolutely. Shareholders were panicked for a while, now they've seen the taxpayer bails them out, so there's no reason to sell anymore.

Not very likely. A lot of child abuse happens within the family - parents are way, way more often the guilty party then all the "think of the chiiiildren" scaremongers want us to believe.

Nothing in the news. I'd figure an attack would hit the news big time.

No way. They'll milk it for what it's worth first.

What happened to France can and will happen to other countries.

Google is an ad-based company, I can't imagine them changing their business model and getting into direct competition with Apple, among others.

MS already has a search engine and wants Yahoo (for many reasons). AOL is dead and simply not in a position to acquire anyone. And with Google having shown just how much you can profit from a good search engine, I doubt anyone will offer enough just now. It's wait-and-see on both sides.

Apple is too careful for this stuff. They will introduce multi-touch gradually, not with a big step that can backfire.

Wikipedia is hot, but breaking at the seams. It has failed to gain the acceptance of the academic society, and that's where high-quality content for many topics would have to come from. Right now, Wikipedia is quickly becoming a collection of mundane and street-level knowledge, not an encyclopedia. By my guess, there's more articles on movies and rock bands than there is about entire fields of science. Two years from now, half of those movies and rock bands will be barely worth mentioning.

Wikipedia is also quickly losing it's "new and shiny" factor. Lots of people are disappointed with it by now, for a variety of reasons, and its administrative structure seems bogged down in in-fighting.

Since Knol is the only serious competitor right now (i.e. the only one with the required publicity), people will very likely jump there.

Yes, given a few years. Google looks invisible, but that's exactly it's problem - it isn't as dynamic anymore. It can't change without millions of people crying foul.

There is one benefit and one harm that I see. Everything else is hogwash or not substantiated reliably (like links between rape and porn - you will find studies both ways).

Benefit: Free expression. Porn has more than once spearheaded the Free Speech movement and done a lot of good in this area, and porn is a big enough industry to pay for this fight, contrary to Free Speech idealists.

Harm: Porn depicts sex in a way that is not like we experience in the real world. Teens watching too much porn too early will form a wrong impression of what sex should be like. Our sex lives are already modified by porn (how many girls shave? compare that to 10 years ago).

All in all, I'm not sure about the overall effect. Like most things, it's difficult to say "good" or "bad", unless you have black-white world-view to guide you.

I don't even have a TV anymore. There's nothing on it, anyways.

Where's the "no, I already have one" option?

I'm not lining up, but I don't agree with the "this is crazy" notion.

I think it's a fad that will fade soon. Like most new toys, it's cool while new, then gets abandoned. More importantly, I think that most of the people with the necessary cash on hand would think the same, and would watch it for a while longer before any acquisitions are made.

However (that's why I predicted 40:60) it might be that its founders also realize they are sitting on a "hip for now" product, and would seek to sell it, even cheaply, to some sucker.