Slashdot Mirror

benrothke writes "In the 4th edition of A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology, author Sara Baase takes a broad look at the social, legal and ethical issues around technology and their implications. Baase notes that her primary goal in writing the book is for computer professionals to understand the implications of what they create and how it fits into society. The book is an interesting analysis of a broad set of topics. Combined with Baase's superb writing skills, the book is both an excellent reference and a fascinating read." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology (4th Edition) author Sara Baase pages 496 publisher Prentice Hall rating 9/10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-0132492676 summary Superb reference on social and other issues in computing The books gets it title from the mythical tale of Prometheus, who stole heavenly fire and gave it to the human race, which then used it to empower civilization. Someone commented to the author that perhaps Pandora's Boxmay be a better metaphor to use, as Pandora's Box held all of the ills of mankind.

While Baase wrote the book to be used in her computer science course, the book is not an indigestible academic tome; rather a very topical reference. Its 9 densely packed chapters covering nearly 450 pages provide a comprehensive locus.

While legal themes are pervasive throughout the book, Baase writes that she is a computer scientist and not a lawyer and that appropriate legal counsel should be obtained before drawing any legal conclusions.

Chapter 1 opens with an overview of how change and unexpected developments effect IT projects and information technology. And that is the overall theme of the book, of how new things often have unexpected problems and results. Anyone familiar with the Risks Digestedited by Peter Neumann will be at home with these topics.

The chapter details the notion of a kill switchand details some of the potential uses and risks involved, and how that more often than not, theses kill switches are improperly designed and deployed.

The chapter concludes with the important thought that there are no simple answers (contrary to popular media belief) and that we can't solve ethical problems by simply applying a formula, algorithm or deploying a piece of software. This is due to the complexity of human nature and that ethical theories don't always provide clear and incontrovertible positions on all issues.

The chapter closes, like all of the chapters in the book with a series of review exercises, general exercises, assignments (remember this is a textbook), a list of books and articles for further reading, and an extremely detailed set of endnotes. Each chapter has a long set of endnotes due to Baase's attention to details and excellent research. This assignments and exercises for the class the book is used for can be downloaded here. Baase also has a web site with other supplementary information and resources.

Chapter 2 details various issues around data and personal privacy. An interesting fact detailed is that Maricopa Country in Arizona was one of the first municipalities to put complete public records on the web. Little did county official know that such an action would eventually lead the county to have the highest rate of identity theft in the USA.

The chapter also compares US privacy regulations with that of the European Union (EU). Baase notes that the perception is that US privacy policy is far behind that of the EU. But what many people don't realize is that the US and EU have very different cultures and traditions, which manifest itself in how each regulates privacy.

Baase writes that the EU tends to put more emphasis on regulation and centralization; whereas the US puts more emphasis on contracts, consumer pressure, flexibility and freedom of the market. The US also has higher penalties for abuse of personal information via deceptive and unfair business practices.

Chapter 7 deals with how to evaluate and control technology and is the most insightful chapter in the book. Baase writes of the inherent conflict between a democracy and open Internet, while dealing with the plethora of incorrect, foolish and biased information. She makes note of some totalitarian regimes that prohibit anti-government use of social media. She illustrates cases where these countries (China and Syria are just two of them) that create bogus dissident sites, find out which people are sympathetic to the cause, and then arrests these people.

Baase details and defends against many neo-Luddite views of computers, technology and quality of life. Baase provides numerous anecdotes of environmental and other anti-technology groups that rail against technology, but use computers and the web. She writes of the editor who considers himself a neo-Luddite, a person who sees technology as inherently evil; yet disseminates his views via email, computers and laser printers. Compare this with members of various anti-vaccination movements, who are obvious to the millions of lives saved by vaccinations.

The chapter also details some of the duplicitous views of Kirkpatrick Sale, another neo-Luddite who rages against the computer machine, while simultaneously benefiting significantly from it, and using it.

Baase defends technology in writing that those who are critical of modern technology point out their weaknesses, but often ignore the weakness of the alternatives. An example she gives is the millions of acres once needs to grow feed for horses and the hundreds of tons of horse manure dropped on the streets of cities, as recent as a century ago. Candles, gas lamps and kerosene filled homes with fumes and soot; doesn't that make electricity a valuable commodity?

Baase gives many other examples of the problems and controversial issues surrounding technology. But more importantly, notes, and celebrates the enormous benefits that computer technology and the Internet has brought us.

The only significant negative of the book is its price tag. While it is officially a textbook, it is manifest in its suggested retail price of $102.00. Note though the book is available on Amazon for much cheaper, in addition to used copies which are even less.

Social media, computers and other aspect of technology have brought massive changes to society. Many of these changes are highly beneficial, others not. There are myriad questions that need to be asked, and ideas that need to be understood, and the books covers and answers those in details.

For those looking for an across-the-board superb reference on social and other issues in computing, A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology is a terrific resource and an invaluable reference guide.

Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.

You can purchase A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology (4th Edition) from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

benrothke writes "In the 4th edition of A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology, author Sara Baase takes a broad look at the social, legal and ethical issues around technology and their implications. Baase notes that her primary goal in writing the book is for computer professionals to understand the implications of what they create and how it fits into society. The book is an interesting analysis of a broad set of topics. Combined with Baase's superb writing skills, the book is both an excellent reference and a fascinating read." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology (4th Edition) author Sara Baase pages 496 publisher Prentice Hall rating 9/10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-0132492676 summary Superb reference on social and other issues in computing The books gets it title from the mythical tale of Prometheus, who stole heavenly fire and gave it to the human race, which then used it to empower civilization. Someone commented to the author that perhaps Pandora's Boxmay be a better metaphor to use, as Pandora's Box held all of the ills of mankind.

While Baase wrote the book to be used in her computer science course, the book is not an indigestible academic tome; rather a very topical reference. Its 9 densely packed chapters covering nearly 450 pages provide a comprehensive locus.

While legal themes are pervasive throughout the book, Baase writes that she is a computer scientist and not a lawyer and that appropriate legal counsel should be obtained before drawing any legal conclusions.

Chapter 1 opens with an overview of how change and unexpected developments effect IT projects and information technology. And that is the overall theme of the book, of how new things often have unexpected problems and results. Anyone familiar with the Risks Digestedited by Peter Neumann will be at home with these topics.

The chapter details the notion of a kill switchand details some of the potential uses and risks involved, and how that more often than not, theses kill switches are improperly designed and deployed.

The chapter concludes with the important thought that there are no simple answers (contrary to popular media belief) and that we can't solve ethical problems by simply applying a formula, algorithm or deploying a piece of software. This is due to the complexity of human nature and that ethical theories don't always provide clear and incontrovertible positions on all issues.

The chapter closes, like all of the chapters in the book with a series of review exercises, general exercises, assignments (remember this is a textbook), a list of books and articles for further reading, and an extremely detailed set of endnotes. Each chapter has a long set of endnotes due to Baase's attention to details and excellent research. This assignments and exercises for the class the book is used for can be downloaded here. Baase also has a web site with other supplementary information and resources.

Chapter 2 details various issues around data and personal privacy. An interesting fact detailed is that Maricopa Country in Arizona was one of the first municipalities to put complete public records on the web. Little did county official know that such an action would eventually lead the county to have the highest rate of identity theft in the USA.

The chapter also compares US privacy regulations with that of the European Union (EU). Baase notes that the perception is that US privacy policy is far behind that of the EU. But what many people don't realize is that the US and EU have very different cultures and traditions, which manifest itself in how each regulates privacy.

Baase writes that the EU tends to put more emphasis on regulation and centralization; whereas the US puts more emphasis on contracts, consumer pressure, flexibility and freedom of the market. The US also has higher penalties for abuse of personal information via deceptive and unfair business practices.

Chapter 7 deals with how to evaluate and control technology and is the most insightful chapter in the book. Baase writes of the inherent conflict between a democracy and open Internet, while dealing with the plethora of incorrect, foolish and biased information. She makes note of some totalitarian regimes that prohibit anti-government use of social media. She illustrates cases where these countries (China and Syria are just two of them) that create bogus dissident sites, find out which people are sympathetic to the cause, and then arrests these people.

Baase details and defends against many neo-Luddite views of computers, technology and quality of life. Baase provides numerous anecdotes of environmental and other anti-technology groups that rail against technology, but use computers and the web. She writes of the editor who considers himself a neo-Luddite, a person who sees technology as inherently evil; yet disseminates his views via email, computers and laser printers. Compare this with members of various anti-vaccination movements, who are obvious to the millions of lives saved by vaccinations.

The chapter also details some of the duplicitous views of Kirkpatrick Sale, another neo-Luddite who rages against the computer machine, while simultaneously benefiting significantly from it, and using it.

Baase defends technology in writing that those who are critical of modern technology point out their weaknesses, but often ignore the weakness of the alternatives. An example she gives is the millions of acres once needs to grow feed for horses and the hundreds of tons of horse manure dropped on the streets of cities, as recent as a century ago. Candles, gas lamps and kerosene filled homes with fumes and soot; doesn't that make electricity a valuable commodity?

Baase gives many other examples of the problems and controversial issues surrounding technology. But more importantly, notes, and celebrates the enormous benefits that computer technology and the Internet has brought us.

The only significant negative of the book is its price tag. While it is officially a textbook, it is manifest in its suggested retail price of $102.00. Note though the book is available on Amazon for much cheaper, in addition to used copies which are even less.

Social media, computers and other aspect of technology have brought massive changes to society. Many of these changes are highly beneficial, others not. There are myriad questions that need to be asked, and ideas that need to be understood, and the books covers and answers those in details.

For those looking for an across-the-board superb reference on social and other issues in computing, A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology is a terrific resource and an invaluable reference guide.

Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.

You can purchase A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology (4th Edition) from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Etcetera writes: "The Drudge Report had an interesting link to a Scientific American article on Television Addiction. Talks about some of the quantifiable effects TV watching can have on the body. Very interesting read. There's also a paragraph or two at the end about game/computer use and why that might be a *little* bit different. But, similar to Jon Katz's essay Browsing Alone, they conclude that when a habit interferes with a growing, active life, it should be taken seriously."

Fans of Vernor Vinge know that he's a computer scientist, now retired, and science fiction writer. An interview we linked to a few months ago does a good job of discussing some of his ideas about the Singularity, the point in time when humans create a machine intelligence that is smarter than we are. Vinge's novella True Names was written in 1981, and forecast many aspects of the internet of today. True Names and The Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier is an anthology of the True Names novella and several shorter articles by other technically-inclined folk. If you haven't read the original True Names, this book is worth it for that story alone. True Names and The Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier author Vernor Vinge; ed. by James Frenkel pages 352 publisher Tor rating 8/10 reviewer michael ISBN 0-312-86207-5 summary collection of articles by computer scientists predicting the future of the network

The history of this book is a little odd. It was supposed to be published several years ago, and was delayed for some reason, unknown to me. As a result, only the introduction to the book has been written recently - even the pieces that were intended to be extremely current are now rather painfully dated.

There's an old interview with Vinge where the interviewer draws out a number of Vinge's ideas about the modern internet and the Singularity. Vinge seems to have had it in hand when writing his introduction to True Names, and you can probably got a good idea of what he tried to convey in the anthology by reading the interview. If it sounds at all interesting, read on.

Vinge's central point is that cyberspace is extremely controllable, if and only if everyone's true names are known. That's the point brought out in the essay True Names, and it's a point that the other writers featured in the anthology agree upon. It's an incredibly insightful idea, one well worth spending some time pondering.

Let's look at some of the larger pieces included in the book. Timothy May, who is perhaps best known for his ranting posts about crypto anarchy, has a lengthy and astonishingly well-written essay titled "True Nyms and Crypto Anarchy". The essay reads as if an editor with a firm hand extracted most of May's characteristic wild-eyed prose and yet kept the insightful ideas behind it - if only all of his writing was like this essay. It's a great introduction to what May means by "crypto anarchy". May is one of the most optimistic writers in the book, and he, as well as the other writers, believe that we are at a fork: either we'll move toward a surveillance state, or toward what May calls an anarcho-capitalist state, but the middle ground is unstable - we'll end up at one extreme or the other. May believes we're already firmly on the road toward anarcho-crypto-utopia.

John M. Ford, who you may recognize as a science fiction writer, has a short story wondering what the machines will think of us.

Alex Wexelblat, computer scientist, has a powerful essay looking at the internet as a tool for surveillance and control. Written only a few years ago, many of his predictions are now fact.

Richard Stallman has his essay The Right to Read. Hopefully it will reach a larger audience on dead trees than in electronic form.

Leonard Foner has an essay covering the basics of the cryptography debate. It's geared to get newcomers up to speed and should do that adequately.

Chip Morningstar and F. Randall Farmer have a couple of essays about Habitat, a very early MUD sponsored by Lucasfilm. The essays have been published online; here's one of them and there's been plenty written about Habitat if you look. Excellent reading, brings out the challenges faced by any online community and simultaneously reminds you of the "good" old days (who here is paying by the hour for internet access today?).

And finally we come to True Names itself. Should be required reading in high school, IMHO. I won't discuss it much, either you've read it or you haven't, and if you haven't I'd rather you learn about it by reading it. If you don't want to buy the book, there are unauthorized electronic versions of the text floating around, but one way or another, read it, it's worth your time.

I'm going to go back now to Vinge's introduction. It bears quoting:

"It seems to me that it's still an open question whether computers and networks will help or hurt freedom--but this is one place where the most extreme scenarios are also the most plausible. I think we could easily go in the direction Tim May indicates, perhaps ending up with a world very like the one in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age. On the other hand, there are the "Four Horsemen" that Tim, Alan, and Lenny remark upon. All four Horsemen are good excuses for the incremental tightening of regulation and enforcement (some being more effective with one constituency than another), but I think the "Terrorist Horseman" is the one that could shift our whole society toward strict controls. Just a few really ghastly terrorist incidents would be enough to cause a sea change in public opinion. It's not hard to imagine the entire country run the way airports were run in the late twentieth century. But there are worse nightmares: Imagine a government that mandated control of some part of each communicating microchip. In that case, the computing power of the Internet could be used for much tighter control than George Orwell described." -- Vernor Vinge, August 1999

Today the "Terrorist Horseman" is in full charge, whipping us toward ever-tighter controls. And Vinge's prediction is embodied in the countless initiatives to install Digital Rights Management and government surveillance in every computing device. And that is why, in the end, I gave the anthology less than a 10/10 rating. Although I know it was written before the most recent events which proved it so accurate, it feels dated, as if we've already run at top speed down the road to a Net filled with surveillance, where the government and the MPAA know everyone's True Name, and yet Vinge is behind the times in predicting it now.

You can purchase True Names at Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Read the review guidelines first, then use Slashdot's webform.

I get a steady trickle of e-mail from Microsoft employees who dislike many of their employer's actions, and I know many good, concerned reporters who work at ZDNet, the Washington Post, USA Today, and other media outlets who do not follow any secret "editorial agenda." There are plenty of real conspiracies out there. We shouldn't waste our time making up fake ones, and we should never assume that all employees or associates of a company or government agency are part of a faceless, marching mass that always does exactly what its leaders want.

Let's start with Microsoft. Remember when they asked us to pull some reader posts? That was the work of a few people in an obscure legal department, not a case of a leering, drooling Bill Gates calling a cowering subordinate and screaming, "Slashdot sucks! Kill Slashdot, kill, kill, kill!" And obviously not everyone at Microsoft agreed that it was a good idea to keep the matter alive, because it has since been allowed to die quietly. (We haven't written anything further on the subject because there has been nothing to say. No news is good news.)

There is no giant, singleminded conspiracy at Microsoft, just thousands of people trying to get through the day. This is how things really work at any large company. Good decisions get made and so do bad ones. Projects get started. Some of them work out and some of them don't. Orders issued from the top sometimes get carried out effectively and efficiently, and sometimes they don't. I often suspect that some of the worst software (and the worst Web sites) I see are so crappy because the workers actually putting them together are unenthusiastic about management's plans and are either consciously or subconsciously dragging their feet -- or, in this case, their coding fingers. I'm not implying any employee conspiracy, either; these tend to be individual decisions that, collectively, may look like a consipracy to an outsider (or a boss) when there really isn't one.

Now let's take a look at one of Slashdot readers' favorits media whipping boys: ZDNet, which is now part of CNET. If you look closely, you'll see that ZD is no more organized than rush hour traffic in Paris. There are dozens of publications listed on the ZD main page. Some of them deal with Linux all day long, some are pure Windows, others concern themselves with consumer electronics and are only interested in things like camcorders or stereo gear. Jesse Berst is often treated as if he is the boss of this whole thing. He's not. He is the front man for one little piece of it called AnchorDesk . Berst has nothing to do with PC Magazine or Yahoo! Internet Life or GameSpot , all of which are also part of ZDNet.

The people who write for all these separate publications never meet. Most of them don't even know each other. They have no idea what ads are going to run where, so even if they wanted to pander to a particular advertiser they'd have trouble doing it effectively. The guiding rule at a big media mill like ZD or CNET is to have usable copy to fill all the pages every day, and they have a lot of pages to fill. Editors at these places are help-short and constantly looking for new freelance and staff writers. They don't have time to sit there and say, "Oh my, we need more stories today that make Microsoft look good and Linux look bad."

Offline media workers are similarly rushed. In many publishing companies (including Andover.net) close contact between editorial-side employees and and business-side employees is discouraged. There are journalistic organizations that act as watchdogs to help keep editorial content free from business or outside influence. These groups avidly publish instances of improper behavior. Now and then, their work gets direct results, but more often the influence is subtle; a media outlet that gains a reputation among journalists for altering stories or trying to taint them to satisfy advertisers has trouble recruiting and retaining high-end writers, and almost always sets itself on a downward quality spiral.

Remember, the shortage of competent writers and editors, especially in tech-oriented fields, is almost as acute as the shortage of competent programmers. This has not always been so, and may not always be so, but right now there is no excuse for a tech media writer to accept conspiracy-level censoring from a publisher.

Now we'll talk about the biggest and most perfidious influence I believe does exist throughout media everywhere, even though it is not a conspiracy per se: denial of access.

Imagine a celebrity besieged by reporters. Imagine that you're the press agent for that celebrity. Your client has one interview time slot open this week. You have a dozen writers begging for that interview, all of whom have audiences of approximately equal size. One of those writers has always been "nice" to your client, six of them have been (in your opinion) fair but not necessarily nice, and five of them have written primarily negative stories about him or her.

Which writer gets the interview?

Twenty years ago there were hardly any celebrities in the computer industry. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were thrilled to speak openly, off the cuff, to reporters from magazines that had only a few thousand or even a few hundred subscribers. Now the people at the top of the computer business tend to be as infected with celeb-itis as movie stars and top-end politicians, and as cautious about interviews as any other group of celebrities. It has gotten to the point where interviews with computer industry honchos are about as informative as Jay Leno's interviews with actors and acresses pushing their upcoming movies.

Worse, in many cases the hardware or software itself is the celebrity in question. A tech-news writer, like a political writer, is under a certain amount of pressure to break news ahead of his or her competitors. Getting pre-release access to new products can make or break careers in this field. And who gets the most "sneak peeks" at new stuff coming out of Redmond or Cupertino or wherever? Writers who are A) generally negative; B) generally fair and unbiased; C) usually full of "Golly! Gee Whiz!" praise for any new piece of hardware or software that falls into their hands?

Pretend, for a moment, that you're a PR person for Apple. You have only 20 demo/review units of the new G21, equipped with GNU/Hurd-based MacOS 40.2 and a 3.6 GHz Intelorola available. Of the 100+ reasonably well-known computer journalists who have requested pre-release units to review, which ones will you choose? If you don't select the Mac-boostingest people in that whole crowd, then you're not a good PR person.

Computer trade journalists know that this is how the game is played. I used Apple as an example, on purpose, because they have the worst reputation among computer journalists for playing the "If you want to see our latest stuff you'd better be nice to us" game. According to posts to some of the private online journalists' e-mail lists I'm on, Microsoft is evenhanded compared to Apple, and other companies vary widely in the level of journalistic favoritism they expect to have shown toward them in return for easy access to their latest products -- and easy interview access to their key people.

But none of this is a conspiracy. It's quite Randian, really, in that a whole lot of individuals are performing in ways they perceive to be in accordance with their own (or corporate) best interests. No one can plausibly argue that computer manufacturers or distributors have any legal obligation to hand out review products in an evenhanded manner. It's a fact of life that Tuxtops or Corel are going to send Slashdot editors their products before they throw demo units at Windows Magazine , just as Microsoft is going to display the exact opposite bias.

I have questioned the whole idea of using free, manufacturer-supplied review units more than once, even those that are short-term loaners instead of "keepers." I believe there's temptation on the corporate side to make sure review units are just a little better-tested than those sold to the general public. But while reviewers who stick to buying products anonymously through normal channels may give slightly more honest reviews than those who rely on company-supplied units, they will never get anything to review before it is released, so an ethically pure reviewer will often be left far behind those who are a little more (shall we say) flexible. This is especially true of magazine writers whose deadlines may be weeks or months before publication date. I have come to accept the incestuous relationship between computer product reviewers and the people who supply those products as a fact of life. I don't necessarily like this way of doing business (even when *I* do it), but I don't think it's part of any grand conspiracy to dupe the public.

Bigger companies also have a tendency to enclose "reviewer guides" with demo products to make sure reporters know all of the product's good points so that they can (hopefully) cover them in their articles. Indeed, you can just about write a credible-looking, if uncritical, "review" from most of these guides without ever actually testing the product yourself. I regard this as the worst thing that can happen, the equivalent of writing a "news" story about a politician directly from his or her press kit. And stories that are nothing but rewritten PR pieces appear every day in all kinds of media, about all kinds of topics. The sad secret of PR-rewriting is that it can be a bonanza for a free-lancer. Take (for example) a press release about a potential new cure for [insert disease here] from researchers at [insert university here]. A hungry freelancer can easily reword the statements in that press release to produce at least three or four stories for different media, ranging from the medical trade press to regional general-interest publications. Even at low-end freelance rates, a rapid typist who does this can crank out $1000 worth of stories in a single morning. Do this six or eight days a month, and you have a nice little income to support you, and still have most of your time free to work on your (inevitable) novel, go sailing or whatever else strikes your fancy. Again, no conspiracy, just individual greed. Editors are supposed to detect and prevent this sort of thing, but they are generally overworked and have "news holes" to fill, so lazy journalism often slips by their eyes -- and not only from freelancers. In-house writers, especially on small and understaffed publications, face the same temptation to cut corners -- and often yield to it.

And now, on to the great (gasp!) Slashdot editorial conspiracy. Real life around here is that this site is run, day to day, by about six people, all of whom are independent to the point of uncontrollability. We share many common biases, and CmdrTaco sets the overall tone of the site, but that's it. One editor might post a story another wouldn't. Jon Katz writes what Jon Katz feels like writing. Hemos is ... Hemos, and also determines which books whould be reviewed, and by whom. Timothy picks stories and SlashBack material on his own, Cliff chooses "Ask Slashdot" material, and Emmett decides what stories he should cover, all by himself. Sure, we kick stuff around and ask each other for advice, and CmdrTaco will sometimes issue general directives about kinds of stories he'd like to see more often and other kinds he'd like to see less often, and these directives get followed to a certain extent, but when you come right down to it the ruling principle around here is "Chaos is Better Than Order."

No human-run organization operates with Borg-like singlemindedness. People are incapable of that kind of groupthink. Not even the old Soviet Union achieved it. This is why I am leery of so many of the conspiracy theories touted here and elsewhere. Face it: once you get behind their public masks, Microsoft, "the mainstream media," the U.S. Department of Justice, and many of our other favorite alleged conspirators are no more organized than Slashdot, and are no more capable than we are of sustaining any kind of secret agenda for any length of time -- at least not without getting caught.

Japheth Cleaver writes "In line with the User Interface site posted earlier, this is a pretty good site comparing the GUI's of UNIX, Mac OS, BeOS, and (of course) WinXX. Very informative...the examples can be a touch biased at times towards the Mac, but the arguments as a whole are dead-on."

John McBride writes "Gray Davis, Democratic Candidate for the State of Calfifornia, yesterday announced his support for the continued relaxation of immigration laws to allow overseas software professionals into the U.S. While companies such as IBM, Sun and Microsoft argue that this step is necessary for the U.S. to remain competitive in the software market, others view this as a ploy to flood the market with low wage employees More Information Even More Information. Recently, Senate Bill S.1723 passed by a wide margin, creating a new class of immigrants ("H1C") that allows over 90,000 Math, Computer Science and Engineering professionals to come into the U.S. as of this year. Both California Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, voted yea on this bill ( Search here by bill number S.1723.ES, or read who voted what on the bill). Have declining Math and Science scores placed America's high-tech firms in a position where they must look overseas for qualified engineers? Or are they trying to increase profitibility by reducing labor costs? There are never any guarantees in life, but is it proper to target a single profession for immigration? "