Slashdot Mirror

As the excite.com article said, this is the same as not getting your newspaper or cable TV -- if a customer pays for a service they did not get, they deserve a refund. Unfortunately the outcome in this case will be less than optimal, because it won't result in USQwest leaving Washington State for good!

As the excite.com article said, this is the same as not getting your newspaper or cable TV -- if a customer pays for a service they did not get, they deserve a refund. Unfortunately the outcome in this case will be less than optimal, because it won't result in USQwest leaving Washington State for good!

As the excite.com article said, this is the same as not getting your newspaper or cable TV -- if a customer pays for a service they did not get, they deserve a refund. Unfortunately the outcome in this case will be less than optimal, because it won't result in USQwest leaving Washington State for good!

Didn't MS get a black eye over this before? What has changed to make them think they can get away with it this time?

I don't know. Maybe Microsoft is banking on the fact that Joe Schmoe has no memory. But it's a ballsy move, considering how eerily similar today's story is to this one about Microsoft fake grassroots campaigns, also exposed by the L.A. Times three years ago:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/business/h tm l98/pr_041098.html

Bull gave a keynote speech at the AI meeting in
Seattle last week here .
MicroSoft has a big interest too.

How many hits do you think Slashdot gets a month that are redirected to slashdot.org from slashdot.com?

Uh, none. Try it. Hits to slashdot.com are directed to slashdot.com. Same content as slashdot.org, but it's still slashdot.com. Once there, try to log in. That's when you'll find yourself redirected to slashdot.org, where you must log in again. You may have to erase your cookies to make this happen, because if you already have a slashdot.org cookie then you don't have to log in there and you miss the fact that your slashdot.com login cookie is ignored by slashdot.org.

Your suggestion to make them use osdn.com/slashdot, osdn.com/sourceforge, etc. would just make the Internet harder to use.

Gee, you're right. It's so much harder to click on this than it is to click on this.

Actually, your posted article is just a commentary which mentions the actual events in passing. Here's two better links:

First, a Seattle Times story from 1998 about how Microsoft tried to fake a grass roots campaign to lobby against the DOJ action.

(Ahhh... blatant media manipulation. Kinda makes you feel warm and fuzzy now that Microsoft is invested in news agencies like MSNBC and working on partnerships with Rupert Murdoch and Fox.)

Second, an AP story from last year about how former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed was lobbying citizens to write to Bush on behalf of Microsoft. Not a media effort, per se, but it does show a pattern of drumming up fake support and not changing its company policies.

"Robo-cup" (audio, requires player) by Lee Gutkind, National Public Radio, Weekend All Things Considered, 28 July 2001

"RoboCup 2001 Marks SGI's Second Year of RoboCup Federation Sponsorship" (press release), PR Newswire, 1 August 2001

"Robot Competitors Meet on a Soccer Field of Dreams" (free registration required) by Jeffrey Selingo, New York Times, 2 August 2001

"RoboCup: Where Bots Kick Butt" by Jason Spingarn-Koff, Lycos News, 2 August 2001

"Rush is on for 'HAL'-like computer to perfect A.I." by Winda Benedetti, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3 August 2001

"Robot world cup kicks off", BBC, 3 August 2001

"RoboCup 2001 boots up" by Helen Pearson, Nature Science Update, 3 August 2001

"Blutgrätschen ohne Blut und Beine", stern.de, 3 August 2001

"Roboter aus 23 Ländern tragen Fußballweltmeisterschaft aus", Net-Business Online, 3 August 2001

"RoboCup 2001, il calcio visto dai robot", Punto Informatico, 3 August 2001

"Building a better goalie (buzz, whir)" by Gregory Roberts, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 August 2001

"Man and machine take the field" by David Olsen, Seattle Times, 4 August 2001

"Robots Storm the Soccer Field" by Maria Godoy, TechTV/Tech Live, 6 August 2001

Information about live Webcast of Botball finals (an event distinct from Robocup) on 7-8 August

"Robo-cup" (audio, requires player) by Lee Gutkind, National Public Radio, Weekend All Things Considered, 28 July 2001

"RoboCup 2001 Marks SGI's Second Year of RoboCup Federation Sponsorship" (press release), PR Newswire, 1 August 2001

"Robot Competitors Meet on a Soccer Field of Dreams" (free registration required) by Jeffrey Selingo, New York Times, 2 August 2001

"RoboCup: Where Bots Kick Butt" by Jason Spingarn-Koff, Lycos News, 2 August 2001

"Rush is on for 'HAL'-like computer to perfect A.I." by Winda Benedetti, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3 August 2001

"Robot world cup kicks off", BBC, 3 August 2001

"RoboCup 2001 boots up" by Helen Pearson, Nature Science Update, 3 August 2001

"Blutgrätschen ohne Blut und Beine", stern.de, 3 August 2001

"Roboter aus 23 Ländern tragen Fußballweltmeisterschaft aus", Net-Business Online, 3 August 2001

"RoboCup 2001, il calcio visto dai robot", Punto Informatico, 3 August 2001

"Building a better goalie (buzz, whir)" by Gregory Roberts, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 August 2001

"Man and machine take the field" by David Olsen, Seattle Times, 4 August 2001

"Robots Storm the Soccer Field" by Maria Godoy, TechTV/Tech Live, 6 August 2001

Information about live Webcast of Botball finals (an event distinct from Robocup) on 7-8 August

"Robo-cup" (audio, requires player) by Lee Gutkind, National Public Radio, Weekend All Things Considered, 28 July 2001

"RoboCup 2001 Marks SGI's Second Year of RoboCup Federation Sponsorship" (press release), PR Newswire, 1 August 2001

"Robot Competitors Meet on a Soccer Field of Dreams" (free registration required) by Jeffrey Selingo, New York Times, 2 August 2001

"RoboCup: Where Bots Kick Butt" by Jason Spingarn-Koff, Lycos News, 2 August 2001

"Rush is on for 'HAL'-like computer to perfect A.I." by Winda Benedetti, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3 August 2001

"Robot world cup kicks off", BBC, 3 August 2001

"RoboCup 2001 boots up" by Helen Pearson, Nature Science Update, 3 August 2001

"Blutgrätschen ohne Blut und Beine", stern.de, 3 August 2001

"Roboter aus 23 Ländern tragen Fußballweltmeisterschaft aus", Net-Business Online, 3 August 2001

"RoboCup 2001, il calcio visto dai robot", Punto Informatico, 3 August 2001

"Building a better goalie (buzz, whir)" by Gregory Roberts, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4 August 2001

"Man and machine take the field" by David Olsen, Seattle Times, 4 August 2001

"Robots Storm the Soccer Field" by Maria Godoy, TechTV/Tech Live, 6 August 2001

Information about live Webcast of Botball finals (an event distinct from Robocup) on 7-8 August

You are right...its not strictly about patents but the fact that people have been using "stuff" from *other people* for "fun and profit" even though it might not be intended that way.

That is a big ethical question in my mind that directly effects gene patents and that is what the article is about. Does US law really want parts of people to exist in perpatuity? Right now once something leaves your body who ever stores can "own" it forever.

As for other information take a look at
this article. Its the old story of John Moore who underwent treatment for cancer at UCLA. The doctors there found something unusual in his spleen that fought off the cancer. They took samples, made a patent, and basically made money. Moore's cells are worth a lot of money, probably worth more than any life insurance policy that Moore could get for himself. Besides he hasn't gotten much credit beyond just living.

This article shows some anicetoded stuff. Stuff from companies rediculously overcharging just to test for a gene that causes life threatening problems(just the test...not even close to a cure) to limitations on the number of tests per year in the hopes they can get a profitable business deal out of it.

Lets say you are a university researcher(you claim to be) and you want to do a study genes and breast cancer. Oops! You can't do that because according to Myriad Genetics, which holds a bunch of patents on genes responsible for breast cancer, they control that stuff. Heck even with express permission from Myriad a reasearch must run the test the way Myriad Genetics perscribes otherwise you risk going to court(ie. discovering a better test on their patented genes is a big no-no). How many mutations are possible on the same set of genes that may or may not cause cancer? Millions and yet Myriad Genetics controls every facet of anything to do with "genes" and "breast cancer".

You can't do research into why there are different shades of blue eyes or why men go bald even why some people sunburn badly. Hurm...I didn't realize that we needed to defend information on why some eyes are sky blue and others are more blue green. I really do believe this approach and this insane race to patent genes will cripple research. How many projects had to be scrapped because they by accident stumbled into a gene someone patented and couldn't get or afford permission to continue work?

I did get off topic but the core ethical questions is the same: the right of anyone to control their own biology. Does discovering the cure to everything that makes you ill really have to involve stomping on privacy?

Remember, Micro-Soft was started by Gates and Allen in Albuquerque, NM : the state *had* to pull off the suit to preserve historical decency.

How about Joseph Hazelwood?
I sure hope noone forgot him!

http://www.environmentprobe.org/enviroprobe/pubs/e v633.htm

quoted from the article...

"A 1980 study of typical Ontario beaches found that 69 of every 1,000 swimmers had become ill within 10 days of swimming, compared with 29 of every 1,000 nonswimmers. Even relatively clean beaches sicken swimmers. The Natural Resources Defense Council warns that Great Lakes waters that meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards will cause eight illnesses per 1,000 swimmers."

more...

http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/sewa18.shtml
http://www.sierralegal.org/
and the 1.6MB PDF finale...
http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/Sewage.pdf

Basing traffic fines on a driver's income has already been done in Finland. A "dot com" millionaire, driving dangerously in his Ferrari, was fined the equivilant of $44,100US.

Check out the story.

Microsoft Breakup Decision Overturned by the Court of Appeals

Judge Jackson had compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers".

by Michael Jennings

(Thursday, June 28, 2001) Today the Court of Appeals handling the Microsoft anti-trust case overturned the lower court's decision to split Microsoft into two or more companies. The breakup would have placed the Microsoft Windows operating system in one company and created a second business for everything else.

This decision of the Court of Appeals has been widely recognized as fair because of the behaviour of the judge of the lower court, in which he had not given the required appearance of impartiality. Judge Jackson had, for example, compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers", and Bill Gates to Napoleon. (See page 111 of the Court's decision [PDF format]).

The Court of Appeals found that Judge Jackson's 206-page Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal conduct, was entirely acceptable. It was his conduct outside the courtroom that was a violation of the code of conduct for United States judges. (For more about this, see pages 111 to 115 of the decision.)

Earlier, many people had praised Judge Jackson's skill in handling the case inside the courtroom. Technically oriented observers considered the Findings of Fact to be very well informed.

However, the penalty that Judge Jackson recommended for Microsoft was voided because of his public misconduct. The Court of Appeals directed that a new district judge examine the case, using the Findings of Fact as a starting point.

The story is very widely reported. For examples, see: ABC, AP, BBC, Washington Post, Seattle Times, CNet, The Industry Standard, Reuters, Guardian, Motley Fool, and MSNBC. The NY Times article requires that you register. Registration is free.

Silicon Valley.com said "[Microsoft] can continue its brutal practices for a while longer..."

There were two parts to the anti-trust case, 1) the Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal activity, and 2) the remedy, which is what would happen as a result of the court finding illegal activity. Judge Jackson had ordered that Microsoft be broken into two companies. It is only this second part, the remedy, that has been voided (vacated) by the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals wrote, "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte [outside the court] contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality."

The Court of Appeals added, "Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process."

The ruling of the Court of Appeals was unanimous, by a 7-0 vote.

More links:

Open Secrets.org report on Microsoft soft money donations

Common Cause report on Microsoft political contributions

Antitrust Law and Economics Review

Older Articles:

Microsoft Unfazed by Threat of New Antitrust Suits (Thursday, June 21, 2001)

What, me worry? Microsoft's Ballmer stays cool, confident, composed. (PC World, June 17, 1998)

Michael Jennings
Futurepower®
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

Tel: (503) 233-7820
Fax: (419) 781-4606
E-Mail: jennings_michael @ hotmail.com (remove spaces)

Futurepower is a registered trademark.
Copyright 2001

Gates bickered with government antitrust prosecutors who grilled the Microsoft chairman over his own e-mail correspondence. Gates, co-founder of the world's largest software company, frequently forgot or disavowed meetings and correspondence to his top executives.

"I don't remember sending it," Gates said after handed a piece of his own correspondence. He added, "It appears to be an e-mail I sent."

The first story is here, from the Seattle Times.

The second story is here, from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The first story is here, from the Seattle Times.

The second story is here, from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

An organization the size of Apple or Microsoft might want to ban credits because although Apple is an organizational model of small teams, it's got so many of them that contribute in some way, that it would be impractical to figure out who's in or out. So although it seems at first somewhat hive-like to sign the inside of a Mac with only "love, Apple", it is unfortunately a very practical and "necessary evil".

Some speculated that it had to do with outside recruiting, and that may be a coincidence with Apple's extremely private and occasionally secretive internal culture.

But that is way different than blacking out the faces of known contributors in a photo! :)

===

Well, we have to admit that software as service revolution is inevitable. This change will really revolutionize our world. The work *has* already begun since P2P "discovery" by Napster and such. It was then intensified by the invention of Java as "universal" programming language and XML as the "universal" data format. Naturally, if we have world-wide connections, universal programming language and universal data, we'd like to unify the framework, right?

Recall in the OSI network layer we have "presentation layer". You can see that this layer has never emerge as a solid standard eventhough there were some attempts. Thus, this becomes the biggest stumbling block in the unification. However, after *the* invention, this should not be problem any longer.

But, there is another problem: Control. With software as service, the service-provider company will exercise control over your data. Basically, your data is belong to us. Eventhough the provider does respect privacy, it won't let you get away without signing ToS which is basically make you agree to for a "responsible disclosure" from it. Even worse, the company seems to take the privacy pretty lightly

Now, this has a serious implication: Government agents can pin down those service providers and possibly giving them monopoly access to ease them "keeping track of malicious citizens". Is this an indication? If so, then your privacy agreement is "useless" basically. Unless...

If we agree on universal programming language, data, and protocols and decentralized P2P connection like Freenet does. This case, our privacy will remain and we can defend it to our best. Just my 2 cents, though.

the murder rate in US where guns are allowed are higher than (for example) Europe where they aren't?

Actually, it isn't. What you just said is a lie. It's an often repeated lie, but still a lie. The plain truth is that the per capita murder rate in the US is actualy lower than that of many European countries. This becomes obvious when you realize that the US considers suicides to also be homicides (murder) while European countries make a distinction between the two. If you compare the per capita rate of actual murders (not suicides) between the US and Europe, you'll find the US has a much lower murder rate. You'll also find that while there is a higher per capita rate of "firearms incidents" in the US, the actual per capita rate of violent crime is significantly lower in the United States than in Europe. That is because the per capita rate of firearms ownership is higher in the US, but not all "firearms incidents" are violent crimes (many times they prevent violent crimes). It is still possible to commit a violent crime in Europe using a knife (or club or hammer or whatever), and is in fact much easier to do so given the legally enforced helplessness of the average European citizen.

Where would you be safer? London, England, where they've gone beyond ineffective gun control to equally ineffective knife control and have put Big Brother style cameras on every corner? Or Portland, Oregon, where many many citizens own and legally carry concealed firearms every day(and where the Dalai Llama himself recently advocated firearms posession and use in self defense)? I know where you'd probably feel safer, but the plain truth is that you'd actually be safer in Portland, Oregon (where you also wouldn't be photographed by the police every time you scratch yourself in public).

Microsoft demands the source code for every piece of software supplied by outside companies for use in its own operations, said James Van Dyke, formerly an executive at one such company.

Van Dyke, now a senior analyst for Jupiter Research, said two years ago he was employed as director of product management for Harbinger Corp., a company producing encryption software and selling it to Microsoft, among other companies.

"They demanded a copy of our source code if they were to continue to use it," Van Dyke said. "If you're a vendor to Microsoft, you have to give them your source code. There's no question this policy was in place. If someone says it never was, I can tell you firsthand that's not true."

[Here's my submission of the story that got rejected for some reason]

Ah, Spring! It brings birds, neighbors mowing their laws, and the newly-awaken actions from everyone's favorite monopoly!

That's right, Microsoft's at it again. This time, it's Windows XP, and Microsoft's idea to bundle tons of new stuff into it. The associated press reports that Microsoft is bundling plenty of stuff to keep the Department of Justice busy: MSN Instant Messenger now loads automatically every time you boot Windows XP. A firewall and DVD player are included as well. Of course the firewall will work as advertised, and will never work only to block messages to rivals' network connections while leaving Microsoft open to send anything they want back to Microsoft's servers. Microsoft has never done that, and it's horrible of you to think they would! Look, that issue with the greeting card company in 1999 was just a misunderstanding, not policy.

Microsoft is just trying to give the consumers what they want. As a Microsoft spokes person said, "If people don't find those features compelling enough to upgrade they can keep whatever the heck they want. They're not forced to upgrade."

Funny they should say that.

Microsoft's new upgrade policy basically says that if large companies to upgrade to Windows XP and Office XP by October 2001, they won't be eligible for upgrade pricing after that. ZD Net reports that Microsoft is raising fees from anywhere from 33 to 107%. Guernsey Research analyst Chris LeToq summarized these actions saying that Microsoft is forcing an upgrade.

Clearly Microsoft is no longer concerned about any actions from the DOJ. Lest we forget, according to an article from the Mercury Center in 1999 (sorry, no URL available), they hedged their bets by buying off the presidential candidates early ($18k for John McCain, and they helped finance Bush's gubernatorial inauguration). According to the New York Times, Microsoft hired Ralph Reed, one of Bush's top consultants, to help them during the DOJ trial.

Here is a better article from the Seattle Times.

This is useable and sensible. I can see this.

[inserting tongue in cheek]

But we might not need to worry because of all of the other disasters that are proposed to be happening between now then then, including the end of the Maya Epoch (get your Mayan Date TShirt here, and the destruction of civilization by asteroids in 2028 (orbit info here, Seattle Times disinfo here, commentary here)

And, with the crashomatic feature in MS OS software, the world will come to an end well before that when the MS .NET system gets hit with a succesful .NET virus that wipes out lots of data from the hard drives. Of course, it will be a MS email virus, that scans the network for vulnerable files.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

My DSL provider, Reflex, was a company that decided not to work through the phone company's lines or the cable company's lines like most broadband providers. Instead, it was setting up wireless links to apartment complexes, then running its own lines through the whole apartment block. Then, when it couldn't keep up with the wireless connections started using temporary land lines of some kind. But the temporary land lines for the most part never got converted to wireless. I'm not exactly sure why they went out of business, but they sure seemed to grow fast. My bandwidth was even faster than they guaranteed, mostly reliable (about what you'd expect with DSL), and I had my static IP without NAT which I just loved.
Anyway, a couple of weeks ago they let go 250 employees (most of the them) then just recently filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In other words the company is going away forever. Too bad for all those apartment complexes advertising DSL, all that dark (unused) wiring, and those 10,000 customers like me suddenly without our ISP.
I had to dig out my 56K (i.e. 40K) modem from my closet. I've been looking around for a good new DSL provider but I wonder if I'm better off just doing without the luxury. I think it would cost my at least $200 just to get hooked up and a ton of cash per month ($60 or more) if I want an ISP with a static ISP.
Unlike Northpoint, when you had Reflex for DSL you also had Reflex as an ISP as part of the regular price which was about $30 for the whole package (the lowest price package).

Article about Reflex going out of business here:
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/reflex30.s html

"Let's be serious. Let's be serious," Gates said, sparring with moderator Scott Shuster , a Business Week editor. "Do people have a clear view of what it means to live on $1 a day? ... There are things those people need at that level other than technology. ... About 99 percent of the benefits of having (a PC) come when you've provided reasonable health and literacy to the person who's going to sit down and use it."

I personally believe we are foolish not to go after this technology. After all, most of what we do with gasoline is burn hydrogen, and then spit out what doesn't burn as dangerous byproducts(of course, CO2 isn't a pollutant, and catsup is a vegatable, if you follow a certain way of thinking). Besides, as I'm sure many previous posts mention, it's just about as dangerous to use gasoline as it is to use hydrogen in terms of unexpected combustion. As any welder will tell you, a fuel gas cannot burn until it's mixed with oxygen. A far more salient concern would be explosive decompression of the fuel container under heat or a good hard knock, but, although I can't remember who it was, there was a company recently experimenting with using a metallic matrix for hydrogen fuel storate, with the idea that even if the tank were cut in two, the gas as it escapes rapidly cools (as gases do) and would freeze over the opening, thereby sealing it. I dunno, but the BMW engineers don't seem the least bit concerned, as they say the liquid H just dissapates, which you may or may not choose to believe. Besides, I see natural gas-powered vehicles all over the place today, and where's the outcry? And what's the difference between powering a vehicle with natural gas or powering a vehicle with hydrogen? The natural gas is, of course, supplied by the oil companies, where just about anyone with the gumption can produce hydrogen with nothing but electricity and water! Which may explain the somewhat hysterical opinions circulated against hydrogen-powered vehicles.

As far as the autopump thingy goes, didn't the nozzle on that thing look sort of like the torture machine Darth Vader used on Princess Leah in Star Wars? Around here, we probably wouldn't use one, though, as it would put people out of work.

Amazon.com had a scheme where they provided employees with greater compensation to do this but backed off on it.

"The company is laying off, our stock is in the toilet, and we have mandatory overtime?" (Mad dash to the fax machine to send out resumes)

Even more interesting is this version in the Seattle Times. It looks like someone decided to change "5:45" to "6:45" and "6pm" to "7pm". Given that change, it makes me wonder how much else of the letter was changed (as Barnicle claims).

--

Definitely in the running for the best practical joke of the year. It just nudges out my previous favorite, the Monolith in Seattle.....Judging from the number of /. readers, this stunt might actually cause more registered voters to mull over what it is the WTO is actually up to. Moreso than the "protestors in Nike tennis shoes." ever did.

For anyone not bored by this story already, the Seattle Times has this update. The monolith will get an official home at Magnuson Park, at least until 'kite season' begins in March. It's good (as a Seattle resident) to see the Parks Dept being reasonable about it and legitimizing the work rather than just getting rid of it because it wasn't commisioned.

And, for inquiring minds, here's a local Seattle P-I columnist's article on the Monolith.

Here's the story in the P-I with a better pic of the Monolith.

Well, in the collection of intelligent wildlife, we now have in the picture of a heron next on the evolutionary list...

story. DOH!

The monolith vanished. Oh well. Then again, the original vanished, too, so maybe, just maybe ... :)

I'm suing the aliens for gross negligence. As restitution, I get their flying saucer.

Really. Now that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has settled it's strike, the Seattle Times (which is still on strike) needed to do something to raise it's circulation and page hits, since most of us are only getting the Seattle P-I now.

You'll see Frank out at the Monolith with his shotgun, trying to shoot it, just like he did his neighbors dogs when they wandered onto his property.

Just lift up the Monolith and look for the union label.

Really. Now that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has settled it's strike, the Seattle Times (which is still on strike) needed to do something to raise it's circulation and page hits, since most of us are only getting the Seattle P-I now.

You'll see Frank out at the Monolith with his shotgun, trying to shoot it, just like he did his neighbors dogs when they wandered onto his property.

Just lift up the Monolith and look for the union label.

I didn't bother to look around to see if anyone else had posted one, but there's a pic of it on one of the local news sites. Here.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20010102/us/mono lith_mystery.html
ANOTHER

ENJOY!!

Seattle Times gives dimesions as: "roughly nine feet tall and several feet wide" However a crude estimate of the image suggests that indeed the dimesions are 1x4x9 feet.

Not as impressive as I had hoped.

The link again. Click that for the picture.

Actual Picture

Here's a picture of the monolith in the Seattle Times.