Well, I didn't sell no algorithm to Microsoft, but I'm sure some other sifters and I can pool our resources for that...

This should be an app for Microsoft's HoloLense.

Microsoft's fault for thinking it was cleaver to combine IE with the operating system.

I mostly use Corel PhotoPaint because it came with CorelDraw suite X5 (they are up to vX7 now). I've always liked Draw better than Illustrator, but not a big fan of PhotoPaint either. I do have Adobe CS5.5 on my work laptop, but I swear anytime I need to do something I think is straightforward, it takes 20 minutes of googling and howtos to get it done.

Gimp is so-so, Pixlr was fun to play with until the annoying ads came. If you have a Wacom tablet (or screen), then Corel Painter is nice. On iPad, the Paper App is really impressive, as is the Dabbler App that comes with nVidia Shield Tablet. Lastly will give a shout-out to Microsoft for Fresh-Paint App on Win8.1 tablets (be careful about your save files though)

I thought I'd comment about this extremely old video, in reflection. It's funny how many devices around me and others I know have changed dramatically. The PC AND the MAC are no longer near "the top" or need to be near the top (granted, Windows is still the platform to beat for personal PC's, but when it comes to mobile platforms...something that BARELY registered back when we were throwing insults around when this video was shown, it's amazing; and now it IS the thing to beat). Now it is all about Android, Apple, or Windows, with a few secondary OS "foundations" (sometimes with hardware) thrown in for fun.

I have one of everything now. My phone an Android, my tablet an Apple, and my PC Windows. Though I still have the one major gripe about Windows and Apple as I did back then; for Apple it is it's need to make self-related products that "you need" to make anything work--much like Nintendo's business model. Microsoft is extremely "information grabby" and they love to lock you down into a certain setup, depending on how you buy or bought your computer (for instance, if you put it together yourself, you can get away from most of these issues--which is what I do; but, most people don't have this luxury). To be honest, I find my Android run devices (my cellphone and my Roku--and as I go forward I imagine a few more will go down that road) to be the best of both worlds, and they typically get along with "both worlds" the most.

Not that Android doesn't have it's own (the Borg) problems, especially as we move into the future. But, as these posts show us, within five years something just like Android (Google) can become a powerhouse that has to be reckoned with. I can't wait.

I still hate Macs!

excellent start to the flame war!

not sure about 8, because I immediately updated to 8.1 from 8... There is a way to just use old school local accounts, not tied to MS account in any way. The only downside is that you can't download (even free) Apps on the Microsoft Store until you create/link an account, but you can run any of the Win7 and earlier "Desktop" apps.
(Unless you have Win 8 RT, in which case, sorry you're SOL because it has no Desktop mode)

counter-point: OS X Yosemite broke many things from Mavericks. I still run Mountain Lion on my main Mac though. I don't sync to iCloud either.

I just spent the entire weekend fighting with my daughter's Windows 8 laptop.
The microsoft account pretty much hijacked the entire computer. We got locked out of the MS account and it kept prompting us to enter a "Code" to unlock it. It wouldn't send us a code.
Tried to contact MS but Apparently, the only way Microsoft will talk with us, is through our MS account -- their site specifically says, "and if you can't access your account, you need to create a second MS account in order to talk to us."

We ended up just abandoning the entire MS Account and creating a new one, and of course, that locked her out of all the Apps on her laptop. She basically had to make new accounts for everything. All because Windows 8 acts just like those viruses that lock you out of your computer, till you give them your credit card number!!

She can't even use her computer without logging into the MS Account.

Despising Windows 8!

Can corporations be treated that way?

By that logic the city could take over any bussiness property they want as long as there is even the smallest drug related offence reported there..
Microsoft here I come!!

Your video, Microsoft's Hyperlapse Technical Summary, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Microsofts-Hyperlapse-Technical-Summary

Microsoft's Hyperlapse Technical Summary has been added as a related post - related requested by darkrowan.

Ummm... I'm confused. Does Trancecoach and others like him think that Netflix doesn't pay to access the Internet? That Google, Amazon, Netflix and the like all have a free access pass to the Internet? Or when they say "In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't." are they talking about end users and not the companies paying millions to access the Internet already? Or are they confused on other aspects?

Perhaps some aspects of this video confused them...

Right now if a person pays $45 a month for 15Mps they should expect all that content delivered to them at 15Mps. The way the ISPs want to rig it, is they want to go to Netflix/YouTube/Google/Amazon and other services and make them pay extra to get to that 15Mps. If Netflix doesn't pay then the ISP slows that content down to 10Mps, even though the end user is paying for 15Mps access. They aren't coming to the end user, yet, and having them pay extra for streaming access as shown in this video, though I'm sure they'll triple dip that too eventually. (Another problem I have with the video, beyond suggesting they'll just charge the end user extra, is that Netflix and others are willing partners in this scam, when Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and all the others have been the biggest ones to support Net Neutrality and are fighting against the cable companies, while the video seems to suggest they'll handing the money over willingly.)

And if they mean the end user... then a person not streaming and only needing access to basic text and web stuff can get the basic 3Mbps option for only $30 or 2Mps option for $15. Streaming users do pay extra already. They pay for the extra bandwidth... if all you do is browse Facebook and tweet and the like and are using the 15Mbps or higher plans than you are an idiot. The end users do pay. As do the content companies like Netflix and YouTube/Google, Amazon and the rest...to the tune of millions a year. Yes, the content itself is far more expensive. For Netflix streaming a movie is cheaper than sending the DVD, postage is semi-cheap, but the people cost a lot. Still, they pay to access the Internet just like everyone else. Nobody is getting a free ride. This is just the ISPs trying to double, and potentially triple dip fees, and Net Neutrality seeks to stop them from double and potentially triple dipping. Bad enough we have to put up with banks double dipping ATM fees...

Big companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon and the like can potentially pay the fees if they have to. The question then becomes can sites like videosift pay whatever ComcastWarner, Verizon, AT&T want? I know my little blog couldn't pay extra... not that my site's users would need more than the 3Mps plan, if that, to access most of the content... save of course when I embed a YouTube video I made.

TLDR: The end user already pays extra if they stream above and beyond what an end user who doesn't stream pays. Also Netfilx, Amazon, Google and the like all pay millions to access the Internet, they don't get their access for free. What the ISPs want to do is tell Netflix, if they want to reach that customer who's paying $40 for 15Mps access at the full speed that consumer is already paying for, then Netflix has to pay that consumer's ISP in ADDITION to the costs they are already paying. If they don't pay, then the consumer is given that content at a slower speed than what they are paying their ISP to get it at. The ISPs are trying to double dip, and someday may triple dip. Net Neutrality would stop the ISPs from doing that.

Your video, 5-year-old boy exposes Microsoft Xbox login vulnerability, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.