go.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Shoddy journalists by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:25 · Score: 1, Interesting · on Can Science Journalism Be Entertaining and Responsible?

What's worse than journalists who don't know science, is journalists who don't know how to communicate, period.

There's one incident that I still remember. A few years ago, I wrote a complaint to a science journalist for ABCnews.com, Kenneth H. Chang, who had written an article on CP violation, involving one species of kaon particle turning into another. (Actually, I complained about it online, and somebody else forwarded it to him in email.)

It was vaguely irritating when he removed all the names of the particles and such (kaons) -- as if people would run screaming if they were told what the particles involved were called.

However, the worst part was his idiotic analogies. He likened parity reversal to turning Democrats into Republicans and vice versa, while
charge conjugation is like giving everyone a sex change operation. Decay products like when politicians retire. Then he constructed some elaborate analogy involving politicians changing parties, getting sex change operations, retiring early, and passing various kinds of legislation.

He obviously had no clue what the point of an analogy is: to compare some unfamiliar process to a familiar process with which the reader has more intuition. But it doesn't do any good to just call the kinds of kaons "Democrats" and "Republicans", because there is no familiar process of "Democrats turning into Republicans" that is in any way similar to one kind of kaon turning into another.

I mean, if I say, "there is a legislative process that turns Democrats into Republicans", how does that help the reader understand the physics any better than if I'd just said, "there is a nuclear process which turns one kind of kaon into another"??

Then he had to add all sorts of ad-hoc modifications to his analogy to make it come out better, bringing in "early-quitting Democrats" and "long-lasting Republicans", as an analogy for kaon ages. In this case, you could equally well write "early-quitting Republicans" and "long-lasting Democrats". An analogy that consists of the arbitrary replacement of one word with another isn't a good analogy --- it would work just as well, or poorly, to speak of "early-quitting mangoes" and "long-lasting bicycles". The analogy would only be worthwhile if, in real life, Republicans do tend to last longer in Congress than Democrats, and the reader has an intuition for that. If they don't, then recasting the discussion in more "familiar" terms doesn't work, because the reader isn't any more familiar with the analogy than he is with the original situation.

So, what response did I get from the guy? He laughed at me, condescendingly told me that I knew nothing of science writing, and ignored me. (I was trying to be reasonable too, at the time...)

Re:Society loves violence by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-08 10:32 · Score: 0 · on Grand Theft Auto Released For Free

Are you kidding? Have you not heard anything about Afghanistan since they stopped being the 'evil enemy' who you morally 'saved'?

You obviously haven't paying close attention to the good that the United States has done in Afghanistan. Refer to the February 19, 2003, article from abcnews.com entitled

A Sense of Fun: Music Returns to Afghanistan

Let me give you a taste:

Chest thrust out, a 6-foot tall Hazara on tiptoe struts across the floor, his arms stretched out like wings and forefingers pointed skyward. His expression is pure bliss.
That such an act can be committed -- dancing on the three-day Islamic festival of Eid-ul Adha -- speaks volumes about how much Afghanistan has changed over the past 14 months since the hard-line Islamist Taliban government fell from power. Strict rules, which the Taliban claimed were rooted in the Koran, forbade all music that wasn't strictly religious because it tended to distract one's thoughts from God.

Nothing in the Koran specifically encourages lavish feasts or dancing during Eid, a festival that marks the height of the hajj pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. And in his personal life, the prophet Muhammad seemed to frown on music and dance.

Yet across the country, all the old banned traditions are returning. In Mazar-e Sharif this week, thousands of Afghans filled the streets for celebrations of Nauroz, which marks the first day of spring and the Afghan new year.

Go the link I provided above, and read the whole article. Meditate on it for one hour. Then come back and post your thoughts.

Eugenics vs. Genetic Engineering by Selanit · 2003-03-07 23:59 · Score: 5, Informative · on Speeding up Evolution

Genetic engineering != eugenics. They're two completely different ideas.

That may need a little elaboration, as the two touch on related areas.

Eugenics is a theory which holds that certain individuals are innately superior to others, and that the superior few are vastly outnumbered by the inferior many. If you accept these two premises, then it follows that the inferior many are sure to reproduce faster than the superior few, with the result that the characteristics of the superior individuals will be lost. Basically, a eugenicist sees the world in terms of a conflict between those with big brains and those with big dicks. In order to improve the species, therefore, a eugenicist will attempt to discourage the inferior from procreating, and encourage the superior.

The biggest problem with this theory is figuring out how to tell who's superior and who's inferior. The answer depends on how you ask the question, and on what your beliefs are about what would constitute a "superior" human being. The Nazis believed that a certain physical type was superior -- blond hair, blue eyes, extremely fair skin, what they called "Aryan". They conducted experiments attempting to further these characteristics; for example they would take a pair of brown-eyed twins, and inject chemicals into their eyes in an attempt to change the eye-color to blue. This particular study was carried out at Auschwitz by Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death.

If, on the other hand, you are an American eugenicist, what you do to separate the inferior and the superior is come up with the Intellectual Quotient Test and administer it to all schoolchildren. Those who do well are deemed fit, and allowed to do things like take college prep courses in high school. Those who are deemed unfit are only allowed to take classes in, say, technical arts, thereby preparing them for a lifetime working as drones in a factory. Also, you get laws passed in many states requiring the forced sterilization of any person below a certain IQ level who attempts to reproduce. You might also conduct studies such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments which were begun with the understanding that the subjects would be black because black men are naturally more lascivious than white men, and therefore more likely to have syphilis. These experiments were funded by Congress, continued for four decades, involved hideously painful procedures like spinal fluid taps, and worst of all the subjects were never told that they had syphilis. By the time they found out, it was far too late for any of them to seek treatment.

Eugenics is no longer an accepted theory. It depends on an arbitrary vision of what constitutes "superiority", and led to some truly barbaric practices, both in Germany and in the United States. I do not know how well the theory was received in other countries. I am, however, truly grateful that it is no longer accepted.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, is a technique for the modification of living creatures by altering their genetic structure. It could very easily be used for eugenics, but has other more benign purposes as well.

There are two kinds of genetic engineering. One involves the modification of an existing organism. For example, take a child afflicted with cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease which causes the lungs to fill with mucus, thereby making it extremely difficult to breathe. That child might be treated by inhaling a vapor of specially created viruses that insert themselves into the affected lung cells and alter their genetic code in such a way that they stop producing the mucus. This is also known as gene therapy.

The other form of genetic engineering involves modifying an organism before it starts growing. Thus you might take a fertilized egg and modify its DNA prior to its implantation in the wall of the mother's womb. Since all cells in the body ultimately derive from that egg, your modification would change the fundamental nature of the adult organism. Genetic modifications have been carried out on plants, for example to make them resistant to a particular disease, or to increase the per-acre yield of a food crop. You yourself have probably eaten such genetically modified food. It is quite common in America; less so in Europe, where there are a great many people who protest against it.

Genetic engineering is a field which has enormous potential for good -- the elimination of genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis. If two people are aware that their child might suffer from CF, they could perform an artificial insemination of an egg which had been "fixed", or avoid the disease simply by choosing an egg that wasn't affected in the first place. On the other hand, genetic engineering also has a staggering potential for abuse. A genetic engineer could not only cure diseases, but also create entirely new ones. The new disease might be used in biological warfare. It is conceivable (though currently not possible) that genetic engineering might be able to create a contagious mutagen -- a virus that would spread throughout the population, and make a particular modification within the bodies of the victims. Imagine if the Nazis had been able to create a virus that would alter the eggs and testicles of those who contracted it. They could have ensured that the next generation would be blond and blue-eyed, against the will of the parents.

Then, of course, there is the danger that we might screw up. We know a lot about genetics now, but there's even more that's not well understood. Sequencing out a full human gene doesn't mean that we understand how all the parts interact with another. There are large portions of the genome that don't seem to do anything (introns) . . . but then again maybe they do, and we just haven't figured it out quite yet. Then there's the fact that one sequence of DNA might control or contribute to three or four different finished structures. If you alter it to give a child green eyes, you might also cause the child to be bald. (That's just an example, I have no idea if the sequences controlling hair production and eye color are at all related.)

Basically, we don't know enough at this point to engage in wholesale manipulation of human genetics. We should not outlaw it -- the genie is out of the bottle, and if we tried outlawing it, the research would merely be undertaken by unethical scientists with little or no oversight. On the other hand, we should NOT perform modifications of human beings without a clear idea of what we're doing and a damn good reason to do it. Giving your kid a particular eye color is NOT a good reason for genetic engineering. Avoiding cystic fibrosis is acceptable. Engineering for more abstract qualities -- musical talent, mathematical skill, linquistic ability -- should be avoided at all costs until we have some idea what the hell we're doing. We don't even know if those qualities are controlled by genes; in the process of trying it out we might very well screw up and make some truly horrible mistakes. Note that many autistic people are also extremely good at math.

Then there are the social issues. Genetic engineering is expensive. If we're not careful, it could become a way for the wealthy to reinforce their dominance over world affairs. It is natural to want to give your child every advantage in life that you can; but doing so can simultaneously disadvantage other people's children.

In short, genetic engineering of humans is problematic. It could provide some unparalleled benefits to the human species . . . but it is also an ethical minefield, and could easily be turned to selfish or downright evil purposes.

Re:World Ends {Score -1, Troll} by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 13:38 · Score: 0 · on World of Ends

Oh God I missed the "of" at first.

Don't worry, George Bush will see that you were right the first time! He'll get rid of those nasty Iraqis, hoarding all that sweet, sweet oil for your SUV. While he's busy destabilizing the Middle East, more terrorist attacks may be prompted here in the US, and North Korea (you know, that crazy guy who threatened war?) will go forgotten while he builds an arsenal of long-range nuclear weapons.

Here's a helpful score card:

Iraq: Tiny dictator that hasn't attacked anyone since Bush's daddy while trying to steal Kuwait over 10 years ago. Has short range missiles that don't fly too straight. Leader enjoys gassing rebels (especially when Reagan was paying for it), torture, killing family members, and long walks along the perimeter. Problem to nearest neighbors that claim to be "friends" of America (you know, those guys that fund and house terrorists, pay blood money to families of "martyrs", spew hatred of America in their schools, etc.)

North Korea: Tiny dictator that has nuclear weapons or is very close. Has medium range missiles and will have long range missiles capable of hitting American targets. The leader also enjoys starving and torturing his subjects, and saber rattling with an eye toward actual global war

Moderators: this is NOT flamebait. It is a troll. Learn the difference!

How does the Segway hold up? by kevinvee · 2003-03-07 02:24 · Score: 2, Funny · on Seven Rules For Spotting Bogus Science

It fails on the first two counts, and probably a couple others too. (These were just the easiest to find examples of.)

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. (Good Morning, America)

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. (beware of elderly)

Re:The bigger breach . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-06 09:29 · Score: 0 · on UT Austin Hit By Massive Security Breach

Dude, your great granddad should have said something back in 1883. You're about 120 years too late to start up with this kind of whining. UT now has quite a few more students and a much better reputation than the University of Tennessee. In short, Tennesse lost the name UT a long time ago.

Oh yeah, and just for grins, here's a neat little quote from the front page of the espn's college football section:

No Sure Thing
Five years ago, Tennessee landed the nation's top recruiting class. So, the Vols should have won the national title last season, right? Wrong. The Vols finished 8-5 and unranked.

Check your facts by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 10:47 · Score: 0 · on Europe Heads for the Moon in July

Funny, since the White Man was in America long before any of the so-called 'native americans' were. I assume you've heard of the Kennewick man, but there are other discoveries as well.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medica l/story.jsp?story=358001
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/s keleton_ohio001127.html
http://heritageanddestiny.com/LostWhiteAmerica.htm (a good overview)

Re:seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-05 08:58 · Score: 0 · on Toshiba To Show Laptop Fuel Cells at CeBit

Events like this would be more dangerous!

so much for.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-27 07:45 · Score: 0 · on Baby Bells Promise Broadband Stagnation

so much for Earthlink's new phone services that'll get them into the DSL market again.

Re:Canadian Security by cassady_ · 2003-02-25 07:45 · Score: 1 · on Los Alamos Security Infiltrated By Reporter

In an even better incident of canadian security, Prime Minister Jean Chetien receives a cream pie in the face from the "PEI Pie Brigade".

See pictures here at ABC news.

Talk about weapons of mass humiliation.

Re:Question about spindle speed by Rolo+Tomasi · 2003-02-21 07:52 · Score: 1 · on Enterprise-class ATA Drives

Well, there are different groups with different goals. I'd say Saddam supports groups that further his own interest, just like the U.S. did with the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan or the Contras in South America. But the groups that Iraq supports are working agains the Israelis and Iranians, who I believe can cope with them by themselves.

What people don't seem to notice, Saudi Arabia sponsors attacks against the U.S. Doesn't it bother anyone that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Wouldn't it be logical to attack Saudi Arabia then?

Re:XBox games in 480p+ by ctyner · 2003-02-19 09:01 · Score: 1 · on Whether (And When) To Buy HDTV?

Answering my own question. From ABC's site:

I have heard that there are two HDTV formats -- 720p and 1080i. Is there a difference between these formats and can my television receive both these formats? Regardless of the HDTV format being broadcast, all new HDTV receivers can receive both formats. New HDTV televisions will convert any received signal to a format that is compatible with your new display. The 720p format uses progressive scanning, which is just like your computer monitor. Progressive scan offers crystal clear images that virtually eliminates those scanning lines that are visible on most large screen televisions. ABC broadcasts all of its programming using the 720p format except in Dallas, where the ABC station broadcasts in 1080i. Many new flat panel displays use progressive scan.

The 1080i format uses interlace scanning just like today's analog televisions. Scanning lines are less visible on big screens due to the number of lines. Most currently available projection HDTV's use 1080i.

"it's more important than the Internet" - Metcalf by Captain+Morgan · 2003-02-19 03:34 · Score: 1 · on Buy a Segway... Please

Hahahahahahah ABCNews story

Re:This is a troll, but I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-17 04:32 · Score: 0 · on Genetic Mutations Allowed Humans To Be Artistic

An interesting article.

Re:Congress doesn't care about you by kalidasa · 2003-02-14 10:29 · Score: 1 · on House and Senate Reject E-mail Surveillance

Senators and Congresspersons are just as vulnerable to these insane surveillance proposals as anyone else.

Oh, come on. The president would never do that ...

Re:Is this the real deal? FTC+FCC=dynamic duo by MacAndrew · 2003-02-13 04:49 · Score: 1 · on U.S. National Do-Not-Call Registry On the Way?

According to this article (in "Ad Age" -- and pretty good, what do you know), the FCC is planing to follow FTC's lead. And FTC sounds quite eager, after getting 50,000 complaint letters (that beats 50,000 calls). There is a jurisdictional distinction between the two agencies, but if they act in union they will be able to cover a spectrum of industries from banking to satellite TV to your local used car salesperson and so on.

Does anyone have any details on the likely legal challenges? I know the industry filed in anticipation of the legislation, arguing First Amendment and loss of jobs. I'm willing to listen to the first; but the second? C'mon guys, you had your chance on that one with Congress. Anyway, I'd like to see the actual complaint or motion for injunction, now that the issue is coming to a head. At the very least I would expect litigation to delay implementation of the DNC list.

What the fsck is my man Shrub Jr a-waitin' for? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-12 15:41 · Score: -1, Offtopic · on Mozilla, Gecko, Netscape, And Their Future At AOL

Ah DO NOT get it!! What the fuck is my man Shrub Jr a-waitin' for? Let's try to see his reasons:

1. For Saddam to begin developin' them nukear weapons of mass distraction?? After all, all that talk about scary Saddam and his weapons of mass distractions is sure distracting ME from thinkin' 'bout that bad US economy that's already slippin' back into recession. No wait, Ah GOT it! For so he can rake in da profits?!! Mebbe he is a-waitin' for them gas stations to raise their prices to 2 dollars a gallon? Uh, mebbe not. Ok, let's try another reason then.

2. Mebbe he be awaitin' for them wimpy countries in UN such as them wine drinkin' an' cheese eatin' French and grumpy Germans to tell him, NO, You CANNOT attack Iraq by passin' a second resolution for UN inspectors to continue "inspectin'"? We all know them inspections are a sham. Iraqis are lyin' and everyone knows it! How do Ah know this? well, reason

3. Powell told us so! He even used drawings to prove it to us, and Ah for one am 110% convinced US gotto attack Iraq 'cuz Ah'm SO scared them Iraqis and that crazy Saddam are thinkin' of killin' me. It doesn't really matter when western journalists went to visit the site of the alleged "camp" where al Queda are making "poisonous gas" it turns out there is NOTHING there but Kurds?. It doesn't really matter the British report turned out to be a
plagiarizing job from the essays of some 29 years old student! After all, Powell cannot lie, can he????
Or mebbe Shrub Jr is a-waitin'

4. for the hundreds of thousand people around the world to come out on Feb 15 and tell him and that lap dog Blair "NO WAR IN OUR NAME!" so he can laugh at them? Hmm...Ah think ahm finally gettin' warm! After all,

5. Shrub Jr is obviously refusing to listen to Blix when The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell made. Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived. gee, now I am SO confused! Who to believe, who to believe?? Mr Powell, who obviously says what he is told to say or Mr Hans Blix?? In fact, Mr Blix contradicted just about EVERY evidence Mr Powell presented-from the drawings of the "mobile chemical labs" to the claims the Iraqis knew in advance which sites the UN would inspectors would visit. In short, Mr Blix blew a hole through ALL of Mr Powell evidence, reducing it to smithereens. Ah doant think ah like Mr. Blix no more...;-(

6. Mebbe Shrub Jr still feels he hasn't made his case and hasn't been able to prove to the world Saddam is a manace? Well, y'all know what ah say to that? Screw the fucken world! Shrub Jr is in da house is he be takin' charge! So what if the majority of da fucken world still thinks Shrub Jr just a-wants the oo'l? Let them stop him if they can! Bwa-hahahha ah say! Y'all think this is the end? Hey, this be only the beggining! After Iraq, Arafat is a-gonna be eliminated. Them noddles eatin' North Koreans better stop be a-jumpin' up and daon, 'cuz they be next on da list! After them is Iran! After Iran is Saudi Arabia and so on!

Damn, ah STILL havent figured out WHY Shrib Jr is a-waitin'...But he be a smart an' educated man, so he must have a good reason, right? RIGHT!! Ah fooly trust him, for he shuree knows what he be doin'!

http://www.ebmb.org/mbs/mbs.php4?num=1044870015& th read=1044870015

Re:If the Israelies Have it.... by frovingslosh · 2003-02-10 22:15 · Score: 1, Interesting · on Israeli Firm Claims Unbreakable Encryption

You can bet the US has it too. Israel is essentially our 51st state.

Sure, these people are our best friends. That's why when we declaired war on terrorists we didn't condem the biggest terrorists of them all. Heck that they knew about the WTC attack in advance and even filmed and cheered about it. Or that they sent instant messages about it hours befor it happened or that despite their high presense in the financial center, they almostly completely avoided any loss of life

OK, the above is from a UK newspaper published in Israle as well as the International Herald Tribune. Wish I could find a link to the original Washington Post article; it seems to have vanished. But I did see the story about the text messages on the Washington Post site myself, and so did millions of other people And, of course, if you want a local respected U.S. source you can still find the article on ABC News' site about the Jews who filmed and celebrated the destruction, although you really had to see the show to get a full appreciation of how smug and happy that were about it.

Yea, these people are our good friends, our 51st state. Heck, they haven't openly attacked and killed us since they got the U.S. Liberty over 30 years ago.

Our good honest decent friends the Isrealis would share their spy stuff with us, why they even believe in sharing so much they had Jonathan Pollard spy on us to make sure that we shared with them.

Boycott EgovOS for pushed Shared Sorce Lies by MrBrklyn · 2003-02-10 10:39 · Score: 1 · on Shared Source vs. Open Source

Looking further at the troubles with the e-gov-os conference and after reviewing the opinions of Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, David Sugar, Jay Sulzburger, David Wheeler, Stanley Klein, Chalu Kim, Claus Srensen, Jason Faulkner, Russell McOrmond, Louis Suarez-Potts, David A. Hammond and others, comments which have expanded over 10 mailing lists, and which have generated a few hundred private emails to me in my private email box, I'm forced to draw several conclusions.

First, as President of NYLXS and President of New Yorkers for Fair Use, my primary concern is two fold:

First, in my role as President of NYLXS, my primary goal is to cater to the needs of the membership, and the extended constituency of the organization, the Free Software development community and users in the New York City area. In truth, all organizations have a primary responsibility to their constituencies. It is time for others to look at their constituency and see how they are serving them. An organization which doesn't serve a constituency is an organization in name only.

Secondly, as an individual citizen and active member of the Free Software movement, I'm concerned with broad policy decisions of others in regards to individual rights with in our digitalized communications network. I'm focused on practical activities which protect the freedom of individuals and empower individuals and communities in education, government and business.

These are the only two prisms in which I can view the planned events of EgovOS conference.

I tend to be very thorough and deliberate in my conclusions. When I work through the process of developing activities and actions, or when I write in regard to issues of importance in a proper fashion for publication, or when I give a formal opinion piece representing any of our organizations journals, radio shows, public speeches, or other formalized media outlets, I bring to bear on that presentation, not only thorough research of the issue and much consultation, but also my 30 years of political and practical experience in affecting positive political and social outcomes.

I bring this same effort to this current letter, which I am opening up to the public and which will be published on http://fairuse.nylxs.com and which will be included in the coming NYLXS Journal.

First, let's look at the stated goals of the sponsored event. As listed on htttp://www.egovos.org/, the goals of this conference is:

Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU

Goals:

the presentation of best practices
raising awareness
sharing of experiences among policy makers, donors, users/consumers, universities, and industry specialists in Open Source, e-Government and related fields.

NYLXS has, for a couple of years, worked to sell Free Software on both the local, New York City Level and in the Federal Government. We'll had a variety of experiences in this regard, many of them very negative. As such, this conference seems to be important to the economic and political health of the NYLXS membership, including The Free Software Chamber of Commerce, our Public Educational initiative in New York City Public Schools, and New Yorkers for Fair Use. Our direct prosperity as a community is tied to the stated goals of the conference, and in fact, members of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce had prepared to make presentations at the conference. It was the concerns of members of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce which brought the problems which have enveloped the conference to my attention.

The main problem is the participation of Microsoft as a speaker and presenter at the conference. In a previous email, I have already listed the problems that Microsoft presents. But for the sake of making this a complete document, I will reiterate them and expand upon the Microsoft issue.

First of all, Microsoft is a reckless company which operates above the law. It has recently been convicted twice for antitrust activities, and has been guilty of numerous other illegal competitive practices which have gone without prosecution. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm is a rundown of the current conviction of Microsoft for antitrust actions which is still going through the courts. Microsoft was not only determined have acted illegally in regard to browser technology, but they have also had their CEO, Bill Gates, lie under oath. The testimony can be searched here:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/video/gates/

http://www.broadcast.com/news/billgates/

investigation of his perjury is here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24990.html

http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=A rticle&cid=FT3MLEDHF0D&live=true&useoverridetempla te=ZZZUGORQ00C&tagid=ZZZNSJCX70C&subheading=global

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/msdo j991107.html

They even doctored their prepared testimony which got much press:

http://www.idg.net/crd_microsoft_67162.html and to quote:

Chase's testimony last week struck a note similar to the previous week's fiasco over a Microsoft videotaped demonstration. Government attorney David Boies had scored by pointing out inconsistent details in a videotape, submitted by Microsoft as evidence, that showed that Microsoft had used multiple PCs to film a demo the company first implied was a seamless segment filmed on one computer. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said he did not believe that the Microsoft witness who had testified to the truthfulness of the tape lied about it, but trial observers said the incident undermined the defense's credibility.

Further discussion of the Gate's Perjury includes http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Bill+Gates+testi mony+Perjury&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=nobody-060200 2327560001%40adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell .net&rnum=5

In fact, this reprint of the original Ziff Davis Net article with a John Hall interview is in my private archive of resources. The article quotes Mad Dog Hall as properly urging the government to jail Bill Gates for his illegal activities:

http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources/johnhall-ms.h tml

Microsoft has competed unfairly with Borland, FoxPro, Netscape, Sun, Apple among others. They have actively pursued a business plan designed to strip individuals and organization from the fruits of their efforts by tweaking the desktop making others products function worse than Microsoft's products. They have repeatedly hindered the empowerment of people and prevented the empowerment of individuals, especially negatively impacting disenfranchised communities, such as those that NYLXS represents in Brooklyn, and the City of New York. 60 minutes even broadcast a show which showed to fear that developers have of Microsoft and the expectations of these developers to be damaged by their 'Partner'

Of the many corporations in the global economy, Microsoft alone has distinguished itself as a proactive opponent to Free Software.

Things began to heat up with the Halloween Papers.

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/

Microsoft then made a frontal attack on the Free Software Foundations GPL, the most potent tool which protects the community from hostile activities by businesses and individuals who wish to destroy our ability to collaborate.

This article by The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25891.html

looks at how DRM (trusted computing) attacks the GPL.

This certification scheme will rip the guts out of the GPL. That is, the minute I begin tinkering with my software, my ability to interface with the Great PKI in the Sky will be broken. I'll have a Linux box with a GPL, all right; but if I exercise the license in any meaningful way I'll render my system 'unauthorized for Palladium' and lose business. So instead, I imagine I'll be turning to my vendor for support, updates, modifications and patches. And I'll be dependent on them for support services at whatever price they can wheedle out of me because I dare not lose my Palladium authorization. I wonder if the cost of ownership of an open-source system will actually be lower than the cost of a proprietary system under such circumstances.

Prior to this, Microsoft's Craig Mundie made several false statements against the GPL at New York University.

Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it. It also fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.

Microsoft had mailed to every IT director in the US brochures which vilified the GPL, the Free Software movement, and by extension, the Open Source advocates. These mailings contained blatant lies about the contribution of Free Software to the economy and threatened IT directors and developers with unfounded negative consequences if they deploy or use Free Software. The recent GPL FAQ, for example, has the following excerpt:

Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.

Businesses every day uses Microsoft Software and the software of others which contain intrusive and abusive licensing which is directly in conflict with logical business practices. They would never be accepted by legal teams if the process was open to genuine contract negotiation. The contracts with Microsoft foists on businesses through its abusive monopoly powers constrains segments which allow the disabling of the software and intrudes on the private ownership of data and systems by businesses which purchase Microsoft products today. This is in addition to the clauses which waves them from any responsibility for damages done to business through security violations or the failure of products to perform according to their expectations. And then they sponsored UCITA to make sure that downloaded software from Free Software vendors can not get the same level of protection in a blatant effort to damage efforts of distributors of Free Software to comply with the GPL.

Microsoft has been such an aggressive enemy of Free Software, and the general public that they have used the BSA to do witch hunts against users and business.

They have threatened lawsuits against those who have reversed engineered their document formats They moved their free font access because users downloaded them for Free Software systems. They have proposed a DRM system designed to circumvent the freedom of Free Software development. They have fixed benchmarking studies versus Free Software systems. They have obstructed the legally required refund for operating systems which are forced on consumers with preinstalled systems. They built spyware into their multimedia players, twisted the Java programming language to be incompatible with the implementation on other platforms, refused to release products on Free Software platforms, which includes Microsoft Internet Explorer, introduced in NT4 service pack 3 changes to the SMB protocols to make it break with the Free Software SAMBA product, built back doors into in it's CryptoAPI, deliberately broke the Opera Web Browser when used with the MSN network, have brought down the internet through viruses TWICE in the last year, supported DRM in concert with Record Labels

( http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-983017.html?type=pt&p art=rss&tag=feed&subj=news ),

broke basic TCP/IP protocols with IE5 and IIS

( http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658 ), advertised recently for advanced Free Software administrators to work for Microsoft in order to create a strategy to force businesses off of Free Software, and more.

Overall, Microsoft alone as a corporation has distinguished itself as an entity which, as a core business policy, is set to enslave Free Software and the general population. Their mission is to dehumanize and embarrass our membership, and to impoverish our community.

This body of evidence would be enough to reject out of hand the entry of Microsoft to the conference. But NYLXS and NY Fair Use has a growing new concern which is pushing it to action. In the face of the growing threat by the Microsoft Corporation to the well-being of Free Software developers, a threat that can be seen by Microsoft hiring GNU/Linux experts in the effort to undermine the business efforts of our community through lies and falsehoods, as well as technically breaking the beneficial integration of mixed environments, and which can be further seen by the 'shared source' media campaign which lies about the foundation of a free society and the stake of businesses in the promotion of both Open Sourced and Free Software legal foundation, there is an increasing knee jerk reaction by organizations supposedly representing the communities interests to give Microsoft a platform and a business advantage at conferences and shows which are designed to promote the community's effort in establishing digital rights and economic development. This started at 'Linux World Expo' in San Fransico and has moved into the New York 'Linux World Expo', where it directly damaged the well being of my membership through the winning of an award which rewarded them for creating a program only could properly write if you have the Windows code base, and it is now making its way to the egov-os conference.

The inclusion of Microsoft at this event directly threatens the health of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce in New York City. There are places for an academic style debate for Free Software versus Sun's community license and Microsoft's Share Source' . A conference whose stated goals is to raise awareness of Free Software and Open Software benefits, to present the best practices for government, and to share experiences about the benefits of using Free Software in government, is not such a venue. This venue is about selling Free Software and the community's efforts to the government. It is hoped to and create a much needed stable economic pipeline for free software vendors with government, based on its technical and political merits. Microsoft's goals are in direct conflict with the stated agenda of the conferences. Allowing them to participate, based on the sole attribute that they are Microsoft and feel that they have something to say, is not enough reason to allow them a platform which will be used to hurt members of the community.

Microsoft has never contributed any code to the community.
Microsoft has never advocated any benefits of the use of Free Software or Open Source Software
Microsoft has never financially contributed to any Free Software development or promoted the education of people about Free Software
Microsoft has not, in any way, befriended the community.
Microsoft has positioned itself as an enemy of the community and has threatened it on numerous occasions. In fact, Microsoft has singled out the Free Software and Open Source community for abuse.

Because of the growing misconduct of those who are presenting Free Software and Open Sourced Software to the public, first IDG and now egovos, NYLXS and New Yorkers for Fair Use is now contemplating action, not so much directed against Microsoft, but those wolves in sheep closing who are more directly hurting my membership and the community at large.

In considering actions to take, we are looking at a number of possibilities.

First, it is the opinion of Jay Sulzburger that we can use a hour of time to counter the arguments of Microsoft. My experience is that this will not work. On July 17th, I lead NY Fair Use to Washington to argue against the inclusion of DRM. Despite the fact that our presence was the most important part of the conference, to the point where we engaged productively from the audience both Jack Valenti and Philip Bond, we got no mainstream press. This was despite the presence of the New York Time's Amy Harmon and others. But our action was famous on Capital Hill. When we went back for the Peer to Peer/Berman Bill hearing two months later, several congressional staff members sought me out to ask what we did and to give us compliments. Simply, in regard to Jay's suggestion, nobody will attend such a session outside of the choir, and it will receive no press. On the other hand, Microsoft will get much press.

It has been suggested that egov-os is better to concede a place for Microsoft to allow an open debate. This will not be affective, and the alternative of being tongue whipped by Microsoft in the press is far better since they simply don't qualify for a placement at the conference, and it will allow us to present to the government administrators without interference. It is not NY Fairuse's policy to play 'whack the mole' with DRM issues. Instead, we focus on specific actions which will have broad affect and undermine the ability of our political foes to bring endless action again and again through the governments entire alphabet soup of bureaucracy and congressional committees. If Microsoft objects to being excluded, NY Fair Use (http://fairuse.nylxs.com) would be all to happy to provide a forum for both Microsoft and Richard Stallman, and others, for the benefit of academic debate. It would be a good fund raiser for the Free Software Institute in the coming months. My guess is that Bill Gates has no interest in such a real debate. His company is only interested in marketing and damaging the community. Therefore, participation by any Free Software advocates, or Open Source advocates, in this egov-os conference is highly damaging to the community if it includes Microsoft. And we are therefor calling on a boycott for this event.

It has been said that nobody is stupid enough to believe that Microsoft's 'shared source' promotes Open Source software. Unfortunately, this is very wrong. On the Open Office.org website, every day people ask if they can use and distribute the products. While I wouldn't say people are as dumb as rocks, I will say that they've been so conditioned to think out software as a super-restricted, crash inducing, virus ridden products, that they often have trouble thinking straight about what they should expect from business and software providers.

NY Fair Use is now looking to organize a protest of the event in Washington. A protest will at least give those genuinely from the community an uninhibited outlet. However, NY Fair Use, in general, dislikes protests as a vehicle of change, as we feel they mostly are ignored by a public besieged by 'the protest of the day'.

As a result, we are looking at a more organized campaign against this convention and those who would put events like this one together without considering the moral imperative of not harming the community by giving those who wish to destroy use a platform such as this. Egov-os supposedly advocates Free Software usage in business and government. It should do so without constraint and without apologies.

We are calling for an investigation of the egov-os organizers for misconduct. I've spoken with Tony Stanco many times and it's not possible that he doesn't grasp the basics of the issues outlined here, or how including Microsoft will negatively affect our community. Therefor, the invitation of Microsoft to this conference must be either a direct payoff, or self promotion. Since they are moral equivalents, they are both both equally condemnable.

We insist that Microsoft should not be given any platform at this event, because it is their purpose to undermine the community and its efforts. Since this is not being promoted as an academic debate, but instead is a marketing tool for Open Source and Free Software, we reject any arguments which are based on the concept that we should open the floor to them in order to dispel Microsoft corporate lies. This venue does not have the most basic format to handle this problem.

If, for contractual reasons, it is impossible to remove them from the conference, we ask the organizers to give NYLXS's subcommittee, New Yorkers for Fair Use, both the keynote and the Microsoft slot in the speaking arraignments. David Sugar will represent NYLXS, and I will represent NY Fair Use.

Finally, the website for the event needs to have on the front page a clear statement that it has determined that Microsoft's 'shared' code' program to be directly in opposition to both Free Software and the Open Source ideals, in that it does not promote the empowerment of the community through the freedom of innovation and digital systems ownership by individuals, the government or businesses.

I do not expect that these suggestions will be taken by Bruce Perens, or the other organizers of the egov-os events. So I expect that we will have to work to oppose the event.

Ruben Safir

President New Yorkers for Fair Use

http://fairuse.nylxs.com

egovos - BOYCOTT! by MrBrklyn · 2003-02-10 10:33 · Score: 1 · on Slashback: NWLink, Vivendi, Gatherings