Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft is starting to fall apart, even if this is not entirely obvious.

Was this modded as funny? Microsoft continues to do well whether or not you like them.

watching his stake's value dwindle to $1.9 billion from $6.8 billion amidst the AOL imbroglio

I think it's pretty clear that Sony's been hedging their bets against MS's operating system hegemony for a long time by shipping their PDAs with Palm's OS. They didn't go with Palm just because it's a superior handheld OS (though it is in some ways). They went with it because it's not Microsoft, and I suspect they already saw Microsoft as their chief competitor years before the Xbox came to try to wreck their most profitable division. Forbes has been following the increasing rivalry between MS and Sony for years

What's interesting about the main story in this thread is that if Apple buys Universal, they will be throwing themselves into the same battle, and will essentially be challenging the Microsoft/Sony duopoly on their own turf (integrated hardware/software/Intellectual property publishing). The guys running these companies see the future, and it is integrated entertainment.

This is an extraordinarily ambitious project, if Apple is serious about it. But I suspect Jobs doesn't think Apple will survive if it doesn't get ambitious.

If it wasn't for the floundering of AOL-Time Warner, the Vivendi-Universal merger would be the one everybody talks about. The CEO selling shares, then forced to step down, now revealing that they "fixed" their annual reports last year. Just a big cluster.

And remember that Universal Music is the number 1 music company in the world... by a lot. So with the downturn (whatever the root: music piracy, crappy music, overpriced cds) there is a desire to dump those assets right quick. I'd call it a disaster if mainstream music didn't suck.

All 3 articles are FREE! Try thousands, not 200Gs.
An interesting quote regarding a FPGA web server application (in case you didn't get your free login ID just like /.): "The result is that a WinCom server with a few $2,000 FPGAs can blow the doors off a Sun or an Intel-based machine. "We're 50 to 300 times faster."

Here's a question that isn't flamebait:

We started to hear rumblings from SCO about Linux earlier this year (and, typically, ignored them). Specifically, the possibility of SCO charging users of Linux for using what SCO claimed was its IP. Therefore, my question is: does SCO plan to attack other companies or *users* at any point, regardless of what happens with IBM? For instance, would SCO bill Google $96 for each installation of Linux on that massive server farm? Or do you plan to seek licensing from actual Linux vendors like RedHat? The IBM lawsuit seems to simply cover damages.

Second question: on that note, what is the point to suing IBM? If you seriously believe that Linux infringes on SCO's IP in some way, how is suing the largest and wealthiest company working with Linux fundamental to your strategy? This seems like an uphill route to take, and not necessarily the best way to establish a basis for future settlements with other Linux vendors. (Unless, of course, SCO is so fucked already that you're hoping for some quick money from a buyout or one-in-a-million surprise win.)

Third question: aside from the obvious fact that you've crippled SCO's ability to ever compete in the Linux (-compatible) market and have ensured that no open-/free-software developers will ever work with you, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? This is IBM. Who once shook down Sun, just for the hell of it. Who made $1bn profit on $22bn revenues just last quarter, and whose revenues have gone up by more than 20% just this year when we're in an economic downturn. Oh, and they've got $96bn in assets. I bet they employ more lawyers than SCO has total employees. Do you expect SCO to have any cash reserves left by the time IBM's lawyers are done with you?'

Fourth question: if you're unable to secure a full injunction against IBM on Unix sales, will you continue the lawsuit? The way I see it, the only way you have any chance is if the judge grants the injunction, in which case IBM might panic and settle.

Haven't the US patent office worked out yet the system is being abuse?

The problem is, that the US Patent Office sees itself as a government profit center. It has no desire to correct any abuses because it doesn't see abuses, it sees all the money it is raking in with the fees it charges in granting and maintaining patents. To make any kind of reform in the USTPO, a major paradigm shift needs to occur within the USTPO concerning its place in the United States Government.

We may all agree that the place of the USTPO is to encourage innovation by rewarding those who perform the research nessessary to create advancements. It is my belief that this was the original purpose of the USTPO. In 1980, The United States Supreme Court broadened the scope of what is patentable - allowing "anything under the sun that is made by man" to be patented. Then again in 1998, the scope was broadened even further allowing "methods of doing business" patentable.

We are now seeing the fallout of these decisions. Individuals and corporations patenting ideas and concepts that previously were not patentable, irregardless as to any prior art of such ideas or concepts. Perhaps someone should patent the idea of a corporation or a business and sue anyone who would use a patent as a cudgel to extort a small organization instead of using it for its intended purpose - defense of inventions from those who would profit from their research.

Much thanks go to Forbes for the nice link.

If some European politician made any such proposal or in fact any attempt to "secure a market" at this point in time he'd be thrown out of office.

Are you for real?

Proposing deals to secure markets for corporations is a daily occurance in Mercantile Europe. A really quick google news picked up this.

Some commentators in France fear the United States will dominate Iraq's reconstruction, freezing out France since Chirac staunchly opposed the war and incurred the wrath of Washington.

But a spokeswoman at employers federation Medef said an informal working group had been set up to look at opportunities for French businesses.

"It's a cooperation between the (government) administration and companies," the spokeswoman said. "We have not had any meetings. It is informal."

...

Finance Minister Francis Mer said on Sunday French companies including oil giant TotalFinaElf could have a role in assisting in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq's oil industry.

It's also no secret that French opposition to the war has been driven largely by economic interests:

Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth ?60bn - ?75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said.

?What?s distinctive about the Total contract is that it?s not favourable to Iraq, it?s favourable to Total,? Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon?s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.

?One can suspect that there?s some arbitrage there, that in between the real value of that contract and the cash value of that contract there?s a certain amount of political support.

?It?s entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else.?

He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as ?extraordinarily lopsided? in favour of the French company.

Don't trust Richard Perle? How about Egyptian economist Khalil Al-'Anani (as presented in al-Jazeera):

France's opposition to the war in Iraq, rather than being based on political considerations, its historical ties with the Arab world, or an attempt to challenge America's role as superpower, is motivated by pure economic interests. Despite France's attempts to portray its stance against the war as a political one, it is difficult not to imagine the economic benefits to France if the war had not occurred. The consequences of war on the weak French economy will be palpable primarily in the oil and commercial sectors. . . .

The German economy is going through difficult times with a GDP growth in 2002 of 0.2% and unemployment of 11.3% which translates into 4.06 million unemployed workers. The reduction in taxes collected, coupled with rising unemployment benefits, could drive German deficits above the 3% ceiling established by the European Union, which would invite punitive measures. The war in Iraq could result in two immediate negative consequences for the German economy: first, a decline in German exports which is the main engine for German economic growth; and second, higher oil prices could intensify the German economic slow-down. . . .

Not unlike the case of France, it is difficult to overlook the extent and depth of the economic relations between Russia and Iraq which extend over 40 years. Here, again, economic considerations drive the Russian position vis-à-vis the war on Iraq. . . .

I'm drifting, but really,

"Nearly a billion dollars [usaid.gov] is "pitiful quantities?""

Yes, nearly 1B is pitiful, thats about 1/10th what Israel is getting this year (give or take, I don't have the numbers with me), and we didn't even promise to rebuild them. We spend nearly 1B a day on defense. Warlords are running most of Afghanistan from what I have been reading, and it still costs the US about 1.5B a month to occupy Afghanistan.

It's called a supplemental: $74.9 billion

You are refering to the bill that congress had to remind the president failed to even include money promised to Afghanistan? I recall that budget submission yes. I don't expect to see much of that make it to rebuilding Iraq judging by our record with Afghanistan so far. Bush has been intentionally vague about post-war Iraq, just like we were about Afghanistan.

You recall incorrectly. No such plan has even been floated

I'm heading to bed, so further google searching isn't in my plan for the evening, but I'm sure there are many on capitol hill calling for it. I do recall rumsfeld saying something along the lines of Iraqi oil paying for rebuilding as well. If anyone else has some links for this please feel free to share. Bush though hasn't said anything about it, in fact he has avoided the subject of post-war Iraq as much as possible.

Anyone else notice that Halliburton (formerly helmed by Dick Cheney) got a nice contract to put out the oil wells that have been set on fire? Another coincidence?

While some auto industry jobs are leaving the US, others are moving into the US.

From Forbes:

Nissan is building a new plant in Mississippi to build big pickup trucks. The plant isn't in China or Bangladesh. Toyota is going to announce a new truck plant in a couple months for Texas, not Romania. Honda and Mercedes are expanding in Alabama, and Hyundai will build a new plant there. BMW is expanding in South Carolina.

A friend of mine, known as Jfragment on Xbox Live, started the GamerTag Database. It's a site where you can comment on the etiquette of other XbL players, and rate them accordingly.

The site has gotten a surprising amount of attention, considering that it's all done in Jay's spare time It's been featured in Penny Arcade, Forbes, and MSNBC.

So, if some 13-year-old from Prague has been talking trash, you can log in and kinda 'mod him down' :-)

It is criminal of Dell to be so late to the recycling program for individual customers because it has already had a recycling program for Dell said that since it began recycling computers for corporate customers in 1991, it has collected 2 million computers. . 2 million computers is not a whole lot for Dell which has sold more than 20 million computers. Better late than never. 15 $ is not a whole lot compared to the 50 $ HP is offering for recycling.

Who wants to bet the stock on this comapny is about to skyrocket when they get all the contracts to rebuild Iraq. Hey, they've grabbed billions of dollars of tax funded contracts already.
http://chart.forbes.com/graph.asp?symbol1=HAL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/ar ticles/halliburtonprimer.html

Who wants to be Cheney and Bush have a whole lot of stock in that company? I love it when war profiteers are in charge... wait... No... no I don't. Those are my tax dollars and my friends going to war.

I hope the Iraqi troops surrender, the UN survives and now that he's being cornered and offered no way out, I hope Saddam doesn't unleash any weapons of mass destruction that he might have.

As some of you said, there were many stories published about the SCO vs IBM lawsuit. But I don't think I saw any comments about this Forbes story. Here is a short quote: "Not only has SCO Group filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM for misappropriation of trade secrets, but the tiny company says it will yank IBM's Unix license in 100 days if it does not cease what SCO deems are anti-competitive practices."

To be fair, that 100 - 200 billion (probably more) is not his money. On the other hand, companies that Still have top administration officials on their payroll are getting sweet contracts in Iraq directly related to the war effort.

It looks like a sound business plan to me. Create a market, then exploit it. Don't worry about the Oversight committees, those can be taken care of with a little pressure from the top and a quick nip off the old budget.

Are you sure it's about Unix licensing? I hear everybody on Slashdot talk about AIX, but it seems unrelated to AIX anyway.
There's an article at Forbes where they talk about the Monterey project, and that IBM used that stuff in Linux. So it's not about the original Unix trademarks, patents or IP, but about the IP used in Monterey.

Quote:
The suit charges that IBM "misappropriated the confidential and proprietary information" from a joint SCO-IBM project, called project Monterey, to run Unix on an advanced 64-bit computing system on the Intel platform. The project was terminated in May 2001, SCO says, alleging that IBM "misused its access to the Unix Software Code" to help build the Linux open standard. As evidence, SCO cites numerous statements from IBM and its executives that it would use knowledge from both Monterey and earlier IBM Unix iterations to improve Linux.

My source is that I read the financial section of the paper, and have for years: The evidence adds up. Without delving too deep, I found this snippet from this page. It's quite ironic when many would think that IBM or HP would be selling 1/2 the computers, when actually their revenues are up, just not up as much as they'd like.

"Forrester published a downbeat forecast this week for technology spending to grow just 1.9 percent in 2003 over 2002, saying that complex business software projects would fall back, while systems that save money, make companies feel more secure, and store growing amounts of data will fare better.
The 2003 forecast compares with last year's 2.3 percent spending growth over 2001."

The "slump" is a modest 1.9% growth, following a prior "slump" year with just 2.3% growth.

SCO has a market cap of $25.68 Million. IBM could buy them for $100Million and save %90. Or RedHat maybe.

Actually, someone with a clue should buy them now before, ummm, someone with an interest in seeing Free Software set significantly back figures out that the UNIX IP is pretty much a sitting duck...

Soko

C'mon, man! South Florida has NO JOB market for IT! They could offer $20,000/year, and I bet one of the 10,000 former Motorola guys would jump at the chance to stop waiting tables and use their skills. Not to mention the IT house cleaning that went on in nearby Tampa/St. Pete. Anyway, I don't think Largo is a competetive market on par with the National mean by Comparison.

And this one is intended for public consumption. It's also written from the opposite side of the political spectrum (Newsday is notoriously lefty). Both articles are well worth reading and aren't as far apart as you might think. This one has additional commentary from Clinton and Gates.

How could a list of ultra cool cars be complete without mentioning the ZMW?

(ouch, why are you hitting me?)

This from a Forbes article - Dec 2001 article here

here

And who's the richest man in the world right now?

The number of cards is too large for any gateway IMHO. I will bet money that a private processor network got hacked, or the central database for said network, i.e., ECHO, EFS or something on that scale.

These networks are used for dialup and leased line access for authorizations. This means your grandmother's card used at the grocery store could now be in the hand of a hax0r.

Reuters is reporting 5 million cards.

Neither Visa nor MasterCard would disclose which institution were involved.

''This is not something regional, it was throughout the nation and could be any bank,'' Abrams said.

[Han Solo voice] I have a bad feeling about this..

And how the stolen cards will be managed? put them in a list of banned card numbers? emit 2Millon free cards for each one of the involved users? What if anyone in that big number says that some buying was done by the cracker and not by him?

In the other hand, 2 Millon CC numbers that can't be used could be used to make jokes to Nigerian scammers... if they still don't learned which key is caps lock maybe they can be fooled with this big time.

This paper outlines a potential business strategy for Sun Microsystems Inc. that differs from the current strategy by limiting Java's release to Solaris only, open-sourcing Solaris and Sun ONE, and then allowing the cloning of Sun's SPARC architecture. Ideally, the market becomes suffused with inexpensive Sun compatible hardware working with Sun's free Java software (or licensed competitor offerings). To work, this strategy requires developers choose the J2EE platform instead of Microsoft .NET so then industry must use Sun or Sun compatible hardware without the choice of selecting Intel based hardware including those from IBM, HP or Dell, as Java is not available on those platforms. Sun's sustainable advantage comes from owning, implementing, and licensing the Sun SPARC and Java standards. Both of these standards become dependent on each other so that an implementation of each is required in any one system for it to operate correctly. The strategy is possible because Sun is the last vertically integrated computer company, making its own chips, circuit boards and software (Forbes, 2002) while also controlling the popular Java programming language. The strategy partly comes as a response to the speech McNealy on Strategy with the company affliction that it mentions. However, the window of opportunity for this strategy's execution is limited due to the growing enterprise functionality and corporate support of the open-source Linux operating system and the growth of the Microsoft .NET software platform. Not discussed in this paper is the additional possibility of Sun merging with Sony so that the author's GrooveTip entertainment idea may be executed. If you are happy with this strategy to save Sun then please sign the petition.

Regrettably, Forbes dosn't think this is a big deal. It shows Motorola's hedging its bets, as they are also a Symbian licensee and have developed their own OS internally.

Milalwi

Woops, forgot the Forbes.com link:

Forbes: Bowl-a-Drama

From near the end of the article:

"It raises a lot of serious concerns and is troubling as a generic matter that they have gotten this far along and tell people that there is nothing in the works. What that suggests is that they're waiting for a propitious time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun. At that time there would be less opportunity for discussion and they'll have a much stronger hand in saying that they need these right away."

This has been the tactic of the Bush administration from the very beginning - control and timing of information to maximize spin and reduce adverse effects on the administration's goals. Yes, other administrations have done this, but this one has an incredible mastery of it. Or are we just not paying attention? The author of this article "gets it."

I've got a hundred dollar bill that says that, even though we've already seen the first drafts of what they propose, it won't be sent to lawmakers until the war starts... or ends. And there is going to be a war, Bush needs it to prop up his approval ratings. And he has to have it now, Next year will be too close to the election.

If it started next year and dragged on into the time of the elections, it could be a benefit for him as the people don't usually like to change administrations in the middle of a war. But if it went badly, there wouldn't be enough time to spin it positively before the election. But this year is perfect. If it goes well, he will be "the war-time president that kept us safe from those dirty terrorists." If it goes badly, the people will forget or at least the emotional intensity about it will fade by election time. (BTW, regards the 'dirty terrorists' issue, there was a poll conducted (not by salon, but by the Princeton Survey Research Associates) that said that 50% of the American public believed that one or more of the 9/11 hijackers was an Iraqi, 33% didn't answer and only 17% knew the truth that none were. - That's how well the spin and disinformation works.)

The chief architect of the administration's PR, spin and disinformation organization is Karl Rove, one of the members of Richard Nixon's dirty tricks squad and a long-time political strategist who has been a consultant on many campaigns over the years. There is a good article here that describes Rove's tactics.

The key points of this strategy are:

Use whatever excuse is available at the time to justify the administration's long-term ideological agenda. That's what we're talking about here.

Count on the American public's (and the media's) inability to remember anything from one year to the next. Ok, pop quiz. Who remembers that in the debates Bush said that the military should not be used for 'nation building'? Sort of like what we're doing in Afghanistan and about to do in Iraq?

Keep everything under wraps. J. H. Hatfield's book Fortunate Son - The Making of an American President (70,000+ copies of the uncomplimentary biography suggesting Bush's cocaine conviction were recalled by the publisher and shredded at the reqest of the Bush campaign. Hatfield himself turned up dead a few months later. I had a helluva time finding any information on that. The book is still available here but it's not on the newsstands or in bookstores.) Dick Cheney's energy task force - the court has ordered him to turn over the list of the attendees (not even the notes) and the administration is still fighting it. Not a document has been produced yet. Just the list of attendees eems sort of innocuous, doesn't it? Jose Padilla, the 'dirty bomber'? (See more below on this.)

Cut embarrassing players loose and pretend they're exceptions. Harvey Pitt resigning on the eve of the election. Trent Lott stepping down as Senate majority leader after failing to get the backing of the White House.

And as an example of the biggest threat to our hard-fought constitutional rights, does anyone remember the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla? He had been in custody for some time before Ashcroft announced his alleged activities and his arrest. Ashcroft made the announcement on the day that FBI agent Coleen Rowley was scheduled to give a press conference to discuss her observation of failures in intelligence analysis that might have helped the FBI uncover the 9/11 hijacking plan. Without question, this was timed to steal the media attention from her press conference.

On the same day, the administration labeled Padilla an "enemy combatant" and had him moved from the civillian justice system (a New Jersey jail) to a military brig in North Carolina where he remains to this day with no contact from his attorney. His attorney has attempted to file a writ of habeus corpus on his behalf, but has been prevented from doing so because the writ must be signed by the defendent who she can't get in to see! (Sorry, it's realaudio but worth the listen) In effect, the administration has suspended habeus corpus, a 700 year legal tradition and one of the foundations (some say *the foundation*) of modern jurisprudence.

Many noble and honorable people have died to protect the freedoms that this administration is removing wholesale. The oft repeated Ben Franklin quote is right on the mark: The examples of Israel and Ireland have long proved that you can not "win a war on terrorism." And removing the very freedoms that the administration claims are the reason that the terrorists "hate us so much" results in a win for the terrorists. How about removing instead the real reasons that many in the Islamic world are opposed to the United States; forced exportation of our culture, religion and business interests to other countries through globalization and our interference in their affairs. The path we are on can only reduce our freedoms and turn more people of this Islamic world against us.

We need PATRIOT II like we need a damn hole in the head. I'm really concerned about the state of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in this country and I'm not sure who I should be more afraid of, George Bush, John Ashcroft or Karl Rove. I'm certainly more afraid of them than I am of terrorists.

Ok, I've got my Nomex undies on, flame away. But if you must, don't just label me a liberal, commie, pinko hippie, counter my logic or refute my facts. I'm not trying to be a troll, just covering my ass. :)

I have been thinking for a while about what would constitute a significant Nelson "haha" moment for the OSS crowd with regards to Microsoft.

We've been saying for years that OSS will hurt Microsoft. And it's begining to - it is making it very difficult for Microsoft to conquer and dominate the server space. But it hasn't done any real damage yet. I think that a good moment for the OSS crowd to celebrate is when Microsoft's revenue goes into negative in comparison with the previous year for three consecutive quarters, i.e. they stop growing. (I'm not an economist - if there's one reading they may be able to suggest a more suitable moment) That would be a real significant moment - moneymen hate no growth, even if profits are still silly. (Microsoft's revenues per quarter can be seen here.

So, guesses on when this will be? My personal prediction is that the Nelson "Haha" moment will occur Q3 2005. It could be sooner - I remember IBMs problems back in 94(?) took everyone by surprise.

• We all know Slashdotters are far more intelligent than any of these suits...

I don't think the SAW is a result of /.ers believing they are more intelligent, but rather motivated differently. While most of us here want a good technical job on a platform that doesn't Suck (ref. slashdot definition of Suck), the ability to tweak with our toys, and bitch about the things that piss us off; the goal of *really* large corporations is to make a lot of money. If you're a suit at the head of said large corporation and you don't make more money, then you get canned and possible taken to court by the investers.

• Is their composite track record on DRM really long enough for us to make any sort of valid assumptions about what this consortium will do?

These particular companies? Maybe not on DRM, but American business practices have been fairly steady over the last 20 years - make more money no matter how you do it. It's been true of the entertainment industry since the player piano.

• While conspiracy theories are well and good on the X-Files and Fox News Specials, I'm inclined to give the technology companies the benefit of the doubt until their actions indicate their true intentions.

Microsoft's intentions are rather well defined - put everyone else out of business. Although IBM is taking the linux road now, they've been the shark and the bully for most of the computer industry's history. As for the rest, they generally come from the same MBA programs.

Although there's most definitely a ton of paranoia around here; I don't think it's such a bad thing. Closing your eyes can kill you on the road of life

Anybody who thinks Nintendo is going somewhere apparently has no idea what is going on in the gaming industry.

Many have the "opinion" that nintendo could and should get out of the console business. Yes, the GB/GBA obviously rake it in. It has been rumored that Sega may be pulling their sports titles from the gamecube. However, they certainly are commited to the Cube, as there are a great number of exclusive titles going to this system. Still, if they were to stop all of the "NFL" and "NBA" titles across platforms, they'd be in trouble.

People buy Nintendo systems for Nintendo titles. I know I'm looking forward to playing Zelda and Metroid, but these titles alone aren't enough for me to "get one now". I'll borrow a friends system, or pick one up in a few years.

Let's imagine for a second if they did become software only. Could you imagine the $ they could rake in if they launched an re-port of the Mario classics on the PS2? Or if Zelda were a PS2 title? Sales would increase many-fold. How profitable can it be to be a hardware vendor? (Apple, this goes for you too!)

Oh, and the Gamecube is ahead of the XBox in sales worldwide, even if it is only closely "tied" or a bit behind in the US. Globally, Nintendo is kicking Microsoft square in the jimmy

Actually, this is pretty far off.

Here is a link quoting "Nintendo president Satoru Iwata reported that his company would likely not meet their GameCube userbase goal of 8 million before the end of 2002, a goal that was already reduced from 10 million last October. As of September, Nintendo had sold 6.7 million GameCubes worldwide".

Here is another with xbox info. "Of the total sold to date, 5.4 million units were sold in North America, 1.8 million were sold in Europe and about 850,000 were sold in the Asia-Pacific region, with just less than half of those in Japan". (this adds up to just over 8 million, for the lazy).

They appear to be neck and neck, hardly "kicking in the jimmy", as you put it.

I'm not knocking the XBox, because I like the platform just fine. But Microsoft fanboys that think the XBox is going to dominate need to give up waiting for the exodus to happen. It isn't going to.

No one expects this Xbox to "dominate" anything. The best they could hope for is a good foot in the door for the next generation of consoles. The 3rd party support of the consoles at that time should be the deciding factor of who "dominates" who. It's unlikely that many will fall for Sony's marketing techno-babble hype.

If Microsoft turns into another Shit-Game-Spewing company like Electronic Arts, then I just won't buy their shit.

Indeed, if a game is shitty, it shouldn't be purchased. It seems that MS has a decent track record of releasing decent PC games, as well as Xbox titles. Admit it, you're going home to play Age of Mythology tonight, aren't you! :)

--falz

Arizona (USA) made this claim almost three years ago.

Today on CNN - Military robots well trained for war

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is offering a $1 million cash prize to the winner of a planned robot vehicle race between Los Angeles and Las Vegas known as DARPA Grand Challange. The course will feature both on-road and off-road portions and will include extremely rugged, challenging terrain and obstacles. The purpose of the race is to stimulate interest in and encourage the accelerated development of autonomous ground vehicle technologies that could be used by the US military. See the DARPA website for Grand Challange Rules and details... For more news, refer to articles on these websites - Forbes, ABC, TOI

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is offering a $1 million cash prize to the winner of a planned robot vehicle race between Los Angeles and Las Vegas known as DARPA Grand Challange. The course will feature both on-road and off-road portions and will include extremely rugged, challenging terrain and obstacles. The purpose of the race is to stimulate interest in and encourage the accelerated development of autonomous ground vehicle technologies that could be used by the US military. See the DARPA website for Grand Challange Rules and details... For more news, refer to articles on these websites - Forbes, ABC, TOI

Here is the story submitted to /. but was ignored:

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is offering a $1 million cash prize to the winner of a planned robot vehicle race between Los Angeles and Las Vegas known as DARPA Grand Challange. The course will feature both on-road and off-road portions and will include extremely rugged, challenging terrain and obstacles. The purpose of the race is to stimulate interest in and encourage the accelerated development of autonomous ground vehicle technologies that could be used by the US military. See the DARPA website for Grand Challange Rules and details... For more news, refer to articles on these websites - Forbes, ABC, TOI

Here are some links:

http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2003/01/10 /rtr844270.html

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s761479.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/co mp/articleshow?artid=34101659

Since /. won't accept this submission, I am putting it in here [this is about information, right ? If modded (-1, offtopic), some people might lose the chance to read it]. Here it goes -

US offers $1m prize to boost robot warfare

REUTERS[ SUNDAY, JANUARY 12, 2003 12:12:08 AM ]

WASHINGTON: The US Defence Department says it is offering a $1 million cash prize to the winner of a planned robot vehicle race between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
The "Grand Challenge," scheduled to take place on February 28, 2004, is intended to spur development of technologies that could be used by the US military.
The contest was the brainchild of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the Pentagon's cradle for revolutionary technologies.
"The race is intended to spur the accelerated development of autonomous robotic vehicle technologies for military applications," said Jan Walker, a DARPA spokeswoman, on Friday. It offered a unique chance to help shape "this promising new dimension of our national defence," she added.
Robots are already playing a growing role in the US arsenal, including devices that scout enemy positions, sniff for chemical and biological warfare agents and slither down sewers or under doors to collect intelligence.
In a separate category are remotely piloted aircraft such as the RQ-1 Predator, being used for surveillance and as armed attack drones in the US-declared war on terror.
Among those encouraged to attend were futurists, inventors, robotic engineers, software designers, technology companies, universities and "trail-blazers," the Pentagon agency said.

To find out details and more news about it, search http://news.google.com/ Some of the links are:
http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2003/01/10 /rtr844270.html
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s761479.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/co mp/articleshow?artid=34101659

Since /. won't accept this submission, I am putting it in here [this is about information, right ? If modded (-1, offtopic), some people might lose the chance to read it]. Here it goes -

US offers $1m prize to boost robot warfare

REUTERS[ SUNDAY, JANUARY 12, 2003 12:12:08 AM ]

WASHINGTON: The US Defence Department says it is offering a $1 million cash prize to the winner of a planned robot vehicle race between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
The "Grand Challenge," scheduled to take place on February 28, 2004, is intended to spur development of technologies that could be used by the US military.
The contest was the brainchild of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the Pentagon's cradle for revolutionary technologies.
"The race is intended to spur the accelerated development of autonomous robotic vehicle technologies for military applications," said Jan Walker, a DARPA spokeswoman, on Friday. It offered a unique chance to help shape "this promising new dimension of our national defence," she added.
Robots are already playing a growing role in the US arsenal, including devices that scout enemy positions, sniff for chemical and biological warfare agents and slither down sewers or under doors to collect intelligence.
In a separate category are remotely piloted aircraft such as the RQ-1 Predator, being used for surveillance and as armed attack drones in the US-declared war on terror.
Among those encouraged to attend were futurists, inventors, robotic engineers, software designers, technology companies, universities and "trail-blazers," the Pentagon agency said.

To find out details and more news about it, search http://news.google.com/ Some of the links are:
http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2003/01/10 /rtr844270.html
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s761479.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/co mp/articleshow?artid=34101659

This is a well-known practice. Here is what Forbes has to say about it:

Second, there is the fact that analysts almost never say "sell." According to Thomson Financial/First Call, fewer than 2% of all analyst recommendations are "sell" or "strong sell." This problem can be partly solved through translation: Even minimally savvy investors sense that "strong buy" means "buy" and "buy" means "maybe you should buy" and "hold" means "sell." When an analyst does say "sell," he means something like "You idiot, you should have sold that stock six months ago."

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Ok, but why should I believe Mr. Sullivan any more than I believe Michael Moore? Mr. Sullivan does nothing more than assert his own "facts" and gives no useable references to back up his views that Michael Moore had lied.

For example, the issue that the Columbine kids were *not* bowling that morning as tossed out by Sullivan in his article in opposition to Moore's view that they were:

From the "Bowling for Columbine" FAQ page:

The title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were supposed to be in bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders. At least five witnesses, including their teacher, told the police that they saw one or both boys that morning at the bowling alley for their first hour class. Some school and law enforcement officials later maintained that the two boys skipped that class that morning yet no other witness has come forward to say they saw Eric and Dylan anywhere else that morning.

One reason the film is called "Bowling For Columbine" is that, after the massacre, all the pundits and experts started blaming all the usual suspects that are wheeled out for blame whenever a school shooting occurs--evil rock music (in this case Marilyn Manson), violent video games, and bad parenting.

My point is that those scapegoats make about as much sense as blaming bowling. After all, Eric and Dylan were bowlers, they took bowling class at Columbine--was bowling responsible for their evil deeds? If they bowled that morning, did the bowling trigger their desire to commit mass murder? Or, if they skipped their bowling class that morning, did that bring on the massacre? Had they bowled, that may have altered their mood and prevented them from picking up their guns. As you can see, this is all nonsense, just as it is nonsense to blame Marilyn Manson.

From Sullivan's "source" Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine:

TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

I'm sorry, but while I don't have links to the actual witness statements and police reports, I'd say that Michael Moore's explanation is better than Mr. Sullivan's "proof" from Dan Lyons' two sentence statements.

In fact, the FAQ page goes on to debunk quite a few of the "facts" stated by Dan Lyons (what's Forbes magazine doing trying to debunk a documentary anyways? why don't they stick to money articles?):

Q. Is that bank that hands out guns for real?
A. Yes. North Country Bank (with branches throughout Northern Michigan) offers you a wide choice of guns when you open up a certificate of deposit account. In effect, they are giving you all of the interest the account will earn in advance in the form of a gun. The bank is also an authorized federal arms dealer so they can do the quick background check right there at the bank. I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, walked out with my new Weatherby--just as you see it in the film. (I did have a choice of getting a pair of golf clubs or a grandfather clock, but they didn't have either of those hanging on the wall like they did those three rifles). I learned about the bank's gun offer from an ad in the local paper that showed a gun across the top with the heading, " More Bang for Your Buck" from North Country Bank. I still have the account and the gun to this day (though I plan to legally "auction" off the gun for charity, and creatively have it destroyed--more on that later!)

and...

Q. How did you convince Lockheed to let you in their missile factory in Littleton?
A. Well, first of all, the Lockheed PR people would disagree with your use of the term, "missile." They now call their Titan and Atlas missiles on which nuclear warheads were once (and still are but in less numbers) attached, "rockets." That's because the Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them).

Lockheed Martin is the largest defense contractor in the United States. They gave us the MX missile and are now heavily involved in developing the nutty Star Wars missile defense shield. They have five facilities in and around the Littleton and Denver area and they are the #1 private employer in the school district that contains Columbine High School.

How did I get their permission to film there? I threatened them with bombing, of course.

and...

If you believe Mr. Sullivan's suppositions that all of the US money to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan went to "aid" not to the government, then you should check out this link on Moore's site. It is, unlike Sullivan's article, well-linked and referenced to the State Dept reports and other sources which explain how the money was sent to Afghanistan in order to support the Taliban (not the people).

When it comes to fact-checking a documentary on how our culture is skewed in some places, I'll trust Michael Moore, not Andrew Sullivan and Dan Lyons.

Rosen's article is interesting because it shows glaring inconsistencies with other things he's written on the subject of copyrights.

If you look at it from an anti-Microsoft slashdot position, they are perfectly consistent with one another... i.e. Microsoft=bad, GPL=good. :-)

As to the "unconscious" copyright infringement case... this is nothing new and you'll note the late Stephen Ambrose was also accused of this. Historians have long had to face this problem, because one of the only ways left to them to find about the past is to read others works. That's why they have to take extremely detailed notes, so that they can make sure as to not duplicate the wording but rather the idea.

Therefore I don't agree that just looking at code will curse you. It's a more complicated issue than that. In the case of Ambrose or Harrison the problem was using the exact same wording, or chords. Copyright is about the implementation of the idea, not the idea itself.

The point I am trying to make is not that education doesn't help you or isn't necessary, but rather bookish/college education is not the be all or end all in making a person a great individual or entrepreneur or leader.

Steve Forbes (probably the most visible supply-sider around these days) is always talking about the stupidity of the IMF, most recently:

The IMF, with its lethal prescriptions of devaluing currencies and raising taxes, continues to wreak havoc around the developing world. Turkey--critical because it is a pro-American, secular Muslim nation whose help we need in the war on terror--is writhing under the IMF's economic treatments. So is Brazil.

The IMF Has Lost Its Way by Stephen Hanke makes a solid case for killing the IMF.

Why the IMF and World Bank survive is beyond me. I'm not hopeful that anything will change in the near term, given that Bush picked a Goldman Sachs alum to be his economic advisor, against the wishes of supply-siders, likely in part to smooth things over with the opposition Democrats (Goldman Sachs is an overwhelmingly Democrat company, Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin came from there, as did current New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine). Hopefully I'm wrong about this.

Note that an American is never appointed to head the IMF. Usually a European gets the job, never mind that America puts up the largest share of funding. I don't know why we let them get away with this.

Steve Forbes (probably the most visible supply-sider around these days) is always talking about the stupidity of the IMF, most recently:

The IMF, with its lethal prescriptions of devaluing currencies and raising taxes, continues to wreak havoc around the developing world. Turkey--critical because it is a pro-American, secular Muslim nation whose help we need in the war on terror--is writhing under the IMF's economic treatments. So is Brazil.

The IMF Has Lost Its Way by Stephen Hanke makes a solid case for killing the IMF.

Why the IMF and World Bank survive is beyond me. I'm not hopeful that anything will change in the near term, given that Bush picked a Goldman Sachs alum to be his economic advisor, against the wishes of supply-siders, likely in part to smooth things over with the opposition Democrats (Goldman Sachs is an overwhelmingly Democrat company, Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin came from there, as did current New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine). Hopefully I'm wrong about this.

Note that an American is never appointed to head the IMF. Usually a European gets the job, never mind that America puts up the largest share of funding. I don't know why we let them get away with this.

Did anybody see the article referenced on the side about how
innovators die poor?

1. Have a great idea
2. ???
3. Die broke

BTW, I am glad that they included relational databases in their innovation list. I would have had a hissy fit if they did not. Is Codd still alive, BTW?