Jonesing for another late edition of Wildly Off-Topic Microsoft-Bashing Day? Well, never fear, true believers, because as you all know, the question is never "Is there anything to bash?" but rather "Can we narrow the options down to a manageable level without reserving time on the Virginia Tech supercomputer to help us?" Today we thought we'd take a little gander at something that faithful viewer John Haytol tossed onto the pile: a USA Today interview with Bill "Could God Make So Much Money That Even He Couldn't Spend It?" Gates. So strap yourselves in, kiddies, because as anyone who's listened to the Billmeister wax eloquent about, well, just about anything already knows, mentally speaking, the man doesn't occupy the same plane of existence as the rest of us; his brain flickers wildly between this world and some freakish Bizarro dimension in which antitrust laws mean nothing, security is a four-letter word, and haircuts are performed by blind hermit crabs with degenerative muscular diseases.

Now, we could go on about Billy-Boy's comments about how Microsoft has a "more ambitious view of software" than Apple does (we suppose they'd have to be ambitious to cram that many bugs through so many holes). We could also go to town on his answer to the question, "What's your take on making Windows Media compatible with Apple?" His response: "We're big believers in interoperability. We've stated very clearly that if Apple wanted to support interoperability, we'd make that super easy for them." Now, if that sounds like the kind of non-answer better suited to a Presidential Debate, you're just not reading between the lines. What Bill actually said was this: "Windows Media Player 10 for Macintosh? Sure, just as soon as the iTunes Music Store switches to WMA and the iPod follows suit. And stop staring at my hair."

The thing is, since they deal specifically with Apple, those subjects are on-topic, and far be it from us to mess with the sanctity of what will one day no doubt become a national drinking holiday. So instead, let's focus on when the interviewer brings up the issue of Internet Explorer's "well-publicized holes." Because, see, Gates's only response is this: "Understand those are cases where you are downloading third-party software."

Yes, that's what he said. Really.

Now, this leaves us in a sticky situation, here, because the only English-language response that can possibly convey the appropriate level of utter disbelief consists of a simple three-word question which is unfit for broadcast on a PG-rated show like ours. But we suppose we'll make do by replacing the offending third of the phrase with the name of everyone's favorite unfinished never-published 3D frog-hopping video game: What the Flonk?!

Are we reading this right? Did Bill Gates actually claim that security holes in Internet Explorer either only exist or only come into play when users have the gall to download something that isn't made by Microsoft? Maybe he's forgotten about that little "JPEG of Death" episode (given the constant tidal wave of Microsoft security flaws, it's certainly possible), which is the most recent "well-publicized hole" in IE that springs to our minds. You know the one we're talking about-- that one in which the simple act of viewing a tainted JPEG can cause malware to launch immediately on the user's system.

Okay, technically we suppose that is "downloading third-party software," but somehow we doubt Bill really meant it that way.

Or geez, maybe he did, and this is Microsoft's latest strategy to fix its seemingly insurmountable security problem: simply redefine the rules so that there is no problem. From this day forth, all Microsoft products are 100% secure, provided you never violate the new end-user license agreement. May we hazard a guess at Paragraph 16f, Clause iv? "Products are warranted secure provided licensee does not download third-party software, e.g. visit a non-Microsoft web site, read non-Microsoft-originated email, install non-Microsoft applications, etc." There, everything's fixed! Now go about your business.