Slashdot Mirror

I think you need to go educate yourself before you make these claims. Microsoft was found to not only be a monopoly, but to use that power to manipulate the market, creating high barriers to entry, etc. etc. If you are doing business with microsoft, you are doing business with a criminal organization.

"Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is, from Oxford Dictionary, a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. Microsoft does not have exclusive control at all. They have very significant control, but anyone can and many have come out with a competing product. Not all that many people are looking for one, but they can and do exist."

The US government does not use the Oxford Dictionary as a basis for law (I presume you mean the concise, the OED contains all the flavours of the word) and the US government says Microsoft is a monopoly. Why they even got a judge to agree with them: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

I refer you to paragraph 33. "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

Sure, IE may have been better than Netscape at some point, but Microsoft's dealings had a lot to deal with that. In U.S. v. Microsoft, Judge Jackson's Court's Findings of Fact document many instances of Microsoft deliberately using their power and influence to gain marketshare (e.g., withholding APIs, tying IE to the OS, etc.).

The document can be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Microsoft is not a monopoly.
The DOJ's Findings of Fact in its Anti-Trust case against Microsoft at the turn of the century says otherwise:

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Some people don't know you are supposed to print your own boarding passes, I would venture that number of people to be a sizable amount. Here is is the relevant statutes pertaining to counterfeiting. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/ usam/title9/68mcrm.htm/ My point to the OP was that use of the logos and such on the boarding pass would constitute trademark infringement and may be in fact criminal counterfeiting.

In all these years one can count the number of terrorist convictions racked up by the DOJ on one hand.

How is it that people keep getting this so wrong ? Mind you, that link is only some of the cases. Good grief.

My question is, if W knows al queda's phone number, why doesn't he go and bust them?

One end of those calls is overseas. Some are mobile phones. Some will end in countries that don't cooperate with the US. In some cases they just might want to watch to see who they keep talking to. They might be periodic calls to / from a pay phone. I have no doubt there are many other reasons.

Who the heck are they listening to...?

Al Qaeda members, associates, and their affilates.

It isn't hard, but it does take a tiny amount of effort.

(c) Other rights, etc., not affected.--
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title [17 U.S.C.A. S 1 et seq.].

wrong. an officer (not undercover) must show his badge when requested. or else anyone could dress in blue and just say they were an officer. written in plain english on the badge is the badge number. so asking for the badge number is only equivalent to asking to see the officer's badge. an officer that refuses this request does not have the benefit of claiming any extra powers we grant officers. its why they show their badge or display it openly when dressed up.

the relevant point about an undercover cop is that if you hit a cop and he doesn't identify himself or have some form of id present(wearing your badge is making it available to see), then you aren't assaulting a police officer. here's a bit of further reading, since I doubt you will believe me:

google search: police officer will provide his or her name and badge number upon request

three of the first 10 or so results:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/buffalo_p olice_agreement.htm

http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/police/Public_Info/If_S topped/if_stopped.html

www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/html/news.html

but you do make a good point. I didn't search long, but a law wasn't forthcoming. so maybe it is locality by locality and it just happens to be in every locality I've ever been to, its the law. so while you are wrong about being required to give a badge number, so was I. both of us made blanket statements without proof of such. at best, I can only show you that several major districts have exactly that law on the books. as I am unable to access the florida government website, I can't give a straight forward state law example. but maybe you can do some research into it as well.

In the federal system only 2% of tort cases end in a trial. Additional Federal Civil Justice Facts at a Glance The plaintiff tends to win, but the odds are little better than a coin toss.

No, it's abuse of monopoly if Apple told the car manufacturers that they will use the iPod interface and only the iPod interface, otherwise they can't use the iPod interface at all.

If company A has a monopoly on something and colludes with or threatens company B with dire consequences should they not do what they say, that is anticompetitive - the are not competing with competitors on the strength of the quality of their product. If company B decides to use company A's product (even to the exclusion of others) then that's their call.

MS was crucified (line on the left, one cross each...) because:
In contrast to other operating system vendors, Microsoft both refused to license its operating system without a browser and imposed restrictions -- at first contractual and later technical -- on OEMs' and end users' ability to remove its browser from its operating system. As its internal contemporaneous documents and licensing practices reveal, Microsoft decided to bind Internet Explorer to Windows in order to prevent Navigator from weakening the applications barrier to entry, rather than for any pro-competitive purpose.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

MS used it's dominance in one area (OS) as leverage to threaten OEMs about another area (browsers). Being a monopoly isn't against the law. Abusing the power that goes with it is.

I'm not saying they need evidence, I'm saying they need to clearly and succintly explain what the alleged tort is. Instead they claim that they have a belief. I've seen a bunch of complaints and they aren't usually worded like this.

You seem to have forgotten a few things:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ils/press/2006/Feb/02062 006_EllisLewissentencing.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_ele ction,_1960

http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/washington.htm l

Never seen a worse analogy. Most people who call ADA bad don't have an understanding of ADA at all.

ADA is not absolute accommodation, but reasonable accommodation. A large company needs to have ramps, physical notions of floor in an elevator, etc. But does mom and pop gas station need to have grab bars in their bathroom? no. The cost in cases like this put undue stress on the business. Does every shop aisle need to be wheelchair accessible? Another no. But if someone wants something down that aisle, an associate needs to take a few and go get it.

Every aspect of ADA has exceptions.

So, hopefully all the so called experts here will actually go out and understand the subject at hand before saying anything. You can start here http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm

Depends on how much you infringe.
If you pirate more than $1000 worth of copyrighted works during any $180 day period, then it's criminal. Otherwise it's civil.
See
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc506. htm
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

This is not, of course, to suggest that there is anything edifying about
what LaMacchia is alleged to have done. If the indictment is to be
believed, one might at best describe his actions as heedlessly
irresponsible. and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking
in any fundamental sense of values. Criminal as well as civil penalties
should probably attach to willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted
software even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer.
One can envision ways that the copyright law could be modified to permit
such prosecution. But, "'[i]t is the legislature, not the Court which is
to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.'" Dowling, supra at 214
(quoting United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820)).

Umm, there is precious little at all in the judgments. I wonder why? But I was not referring to the court proceedings, simply what is mandated in the Sherman anti-trust act as applied to the situation.

Can you show me where the act says anything about Microsoft having to pay Firefox developers? All Microsoft need to do to make competition fair is to make it as difficult for users to install IE as Firefox/Opera etc. It seems to me that customers would be adversely affected by not having any web browser provided with Windows - how then to get a browser at all? So what I would suggest is that the Windows disc should contain all browsers with over, say, 5% market share when each version goes to the presses. Equal access is ridiculous - there are hundreds of browsers out there - but fair choice is a necessity for the market system to work.

"Are crime rates not getting steadily worse every year?"

Er, no? At least not violent crime. Drug crime? Yes.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#serious

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, just the crime part.

If I had to make a guess I would say that the news has gotten worse at a rate that far outstrips crime. When the big story was church burnings the number of church burnings was down. The rash of stories about violence in schools after Columbine? Yep, statistics said school violence was down (mind you the magnitude of violent actions, different story).

Our news sources are biased toward whatever makes people watch and read the news. If you ran a news network you would do everything you could to shove terrorism and pedophilia in the public's face too.
What is on the rise? The lack of critical thinking. The inability to make decisions on complex issues. Maybe for the reasons you list.

"Are crime rates not getting steadily worse every year?"

Er, no? At least not violent crime. Drug crime? Yes.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#serious

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, just the crime part.

If I had to make a guess I would say that the news has gotten worse at a rate that far outstrips crime. When the big story was church burnings the number of church burnings was down. The rash of stories about violence in schools after Columbine? Yep, statistics said school violence was down (mind you the magnitude of violent actions, different story).

Our news sources are biased toward whatever makes people watch and read the news. If you ran a news network you would do everything you could to shove terrorism and pedophilia in the public's face too.
What is on the rise? The lack of critical thinking. The inability to make decisions on complex issues. Maybe for the reasons you list.

At its prime, the Elite Torrents network attracted more than 133,000 members and facilitated the illegal distribution of more than 2 million copies of movies, software, music, and games.

Which is exactly why the "war on drugs" is bullshit.

Or not...

The number of crimes has decreased - but jails are fuller than ever. Over 2,000,000 people are in jail right now. Fifteen percent of black males will end up in jail. So I'm not exactly sure that the actual number of criminals has decreased. My main point though was the amount of explicity violent material has grown and it isn't the Lone Ranger anymore LOL.

Prostitutes are rarely the "avant gard" self-employed we imagine. It's pure exploitation in most cases. Usually young women are forced into work to support habits, feed themselves or their family, or other desperate measures. I don't know if you have children - but would you advocate that your daughter or son work as a prostitute? Honestly? Most of them risk their lifes with AIDS and violent, drunk customers on an hourly basis. Some/many of them were sexually abused as children.

More food for thought: "92% of women engaged in prostitution said they wanted to leave prostitution, but couldn't because they lack basic human services such as a home, job training, health care, counseling and treatment for drug or alcohol addiction."

I am not the big moralist you imagine me to be. It's just common sense, a good knowledge of history, and personal experience that tells me that a society doesn't survive on empty rhetoric. It was a long held thesis that moral decay led to the death of a culture - perhaps there is merit there?

I'm not against religious, athiests, nor moral relativists. I'm against the immoral, pure animals that have no reason or education. Most people don't understand that these activities and lifestyles put you at greater risks than normal.

In the end it's a statistical numbers game, play all you like. Just know than if your the looser - it'll be more than a game.

Say hello to the "No Electronic Theft" act

captcha: apathy.. meh

Our culture is a lifestyle of violence? The Department of Justice begs to differ. Crime is, as I said, declining steadily. Whoring? I assume you mean sexual prostitution. Provided those offering the service and those purchasing the service are consensual adults and their activities render no harm upon others, there is no problem. I agree that sex can be misused. For example, it is clearly immoral for a married man to use the services of a prostitute without the knowledge (and consent) of his wife, but because he is engaging in deception not because he is having sex. Drugs are immoral? Why? If a person chooses to use drugs, as long as they do so responsibly, there is no problem. As an aside, alcohol and nicotine are drugs, both of which may be abused with deleterious effects on the user and those around the user, and it is that harm caused which is immoral. When used properly—in moderation—they present no threat and the moral issue moot.

Now if all of this amounts to an empty lifestyle, that is entirely up to the individual. We live in a free country where each person may choose to lead a trite existence or one replete with accomplishment. I suppose we could ask ourselves: is it immoral to lead a meaningless existence? I expect it is not, but that is a discussion for another time.

Again, I would appreciate some concrete evidence or objective analysis. And I think there is a lot we could all learn about the nature of morality. You might come to the conclusion that I am a moral relativist (perhaps intended in a derogatory fashion). I assure you I am not. Just as science and mathematics present us with absolutes, morality provides a rigid framework that may be used to draw useful conclusions about proper behavior. Morality is easily modeled objectively, and it is logical how we do so, utilizing our sense of empathy and desire to maximize happiness. As such, we should evaluate human activities objectively and determine their quantifiable impacts when we go about identifying those actions as moral or immoral.

Ansari: I think where he really crossed the line where the domestic audience is concerned is when he said a green aura was coming out of his head during his speech to the United Nations. This conversation got filmed, and people can watch it on DVD. Ahmadinejad came home from his speech and told an ayatollah that everyone at the General Assembly -- all these world leaders -- didn't even blink for thirty minutes (out of awe). Lots of people have seen this in Iran, and it makes him seem a bit too superstitious.

Why don't they start selling their own software. Why didn't they move into other product areas. What's stopping them

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/13/microsoft_ japan_trouble/
http://www.thechannelinsider.com/article/Tangent+S uit+Claims+Microsoft+Soaked+Partners/171923_1.aspx
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/04/27/231221.shtml
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f212700/212766.htm

re Re:Nice to see a competitive open environment

1. race
2. color
3. national origin
4. religion
5. sex
6. familial status
7. handicap

so you can't be denied housing because you're divorced, or because you have an annuity and don't work a job for a living.

The U.S. DOJ settlement against Microsoft did very little. I would argue it basically did nothing of any relevance, certainly nothing that fundamentally changed Microsoft's business practices. If anything, it probably emboldened them, since the end of the settlement made it harder for a new one to be brought against them in the future -- it demonstrated that the U.S. government didn't have the political cojones to actually do anything meaningful.

Here's the DOJ's lame info site on the settlement:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm

"I remember when Windows 95 came out, with its weak, obviously-an-afterthought "web browser" (IE 3.0)", ronkronk

It wasn't an afterthought it was a renamed Spyglass browser which they subsequently 'gave away' with Windows so as they wouldn't have to pay royaltees. After failing to buyout Netscape and get an exclusive deal from NCSA they settled with Spyglass.

"It took them some time to get it right, but eventually IE took over", ronkronk

IE took over by billg strong arming the OEMs to take Netscape off the desktop. Can't you remember what the MS AOL court case was all about.

"AOL's March 12 and October 28, 1996 agreements with Microsoft also guaranteed that, for all practical purposes, Internet Explorer would be AOL's browser of choice"

"Compaq was the only one to fully commit itself to Microsoft's terms for distributing and promoting Internet Explorer to the exclusion of Navigator"

"now it's becoming more and more obvious that they're taking security every bit as seriously as they once took the Internet", ronkronk

Like as an after thought.

"within a few years, we're going to see some really damn secure stuff coming out of Microsoft", ronkronk

I've heard exactly the same kind of thing when NT came out.

"In the meantime, Firefox exploits are cropping up at a seemingly greater pace. This worries me. It looks like a repeat of 1997, when Netscape lost huge amounts of ground to IE by producing a product that wasn't as good as the competition.", ronkronk

Netcape was never inferior to IE. As this test proves. The MS stratagy at the time was to make it a jolting experience for the enduser. Why are you trolling slashdot with patently false pro-MS propaganda.

"We will bind the (Windows) shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience" .

Firefox running on a more secure OS as standard user are not as serious as bugs in IE running on WinVista. You see as MS embedded the browser directly into the OS so as it couldn't be removed.

Secondly Netscape lost ground because of backroom shenagenans by billg an Co. After threatening to withold technical information, they offered to carve up the market between them or else they would cut off Netscapes oxygen supply.

`The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season.'

"Microsoft representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API immediately or in three months.'"

`After Netscape refused Microsoft's offer to divide the browser market, Microsoft embarked on a predatory campaign to eliminate the browser threat'

`In subsequent meetings in the Fall of 1995, Microsoft explained to Intel that its strategy would be to kill Netscape and control Internet standards'

`in exchange for steering clear of the Windows browser segment Netscape would be made a preferred Microsoft partner'

"I'll be telling clients to go with Microsoft products, because they're more secure than F/OSS. And I don't want to see that happen.", ronkronk

I'm really an Open Source advocate except for bla, bla, bla

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613-1.htm
http://www.theregister.co.u

the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of 2.

In essence, Microsoft mounted a deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, left to rise or fall on their own merits, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Id. 411. While the evidence does not prove that they would have succeeded absent Microsoft's actions, it does reveal that Microsoft placed an oppressive thumb on the scale of competitive fortune, thereby effectively guaranteeing its continued dominance in the relevant market. More broadly, Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers.

the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of 2.

In essence, Microsoft mounted a deliberate assault upon entrepreneurial efforts that, left to rise or fall on their own merits, could well have enabled the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Id. 411. While the evidence does not prove that they would have succeeded absent Microsoft's actions, it does reveal that Microsoft placed an oppressive thumb on the scale of competitive fortune, thereby effectively guaranteeing its continued dominance in the relevant market. More broadly, Microsoft's anticompetitive actions trammeled the competitive process through which the computer software industry generally stimulates innovation and conduces to the optimum benefit of consumers.

'That evidence was one man talking about "discussions"'

And by itself perhaps there would be skepticism, on the other hand, considering the MO of the convicted criminal management at Microsoft this is business as usual. To take the edge off your own doubt perhaps you should read the US DOJ Finding of Facts from the antitrust case against Microsoft, then you will see how Goldfarb's description of the questionable activities fits Microsoft's methods and tactics.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Scum bags through and through. Reason enough to not do business with these clowns in any way.

burnin

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Are you afraid of google? ;)
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red. htm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

Yeah, right...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivis m
  Recidivism

        * Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
        * The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
        * Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
        * Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
        * Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison -- 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

That would be because the US courts say so

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm

The current administration constantly bitches about leaks and spends untold millions tracking down leakers instead of dealing with the problems the leak discloses.

This week, we have the spectacle of the cynical shits in the administration, faced with a leak, suddenly "partially declassifying" a NIE to counter the leak. Note that the tightlipped (and tightassed) bastards only declassified enough to make their case and still hold the rest classified.

This is the most closed administration in American history. I just hope that a future administtration will have the balls to reverse the current policies, most especially the one where the coward-in-chief retroactively closed off all public access to the contents of all the presidetial libraries.

First, you have to get to trial.

That will take about 18 months. On your dime.

In the federal system only 4% of all tort cases, ordinary civil actions, ever make it to trial.

90% will be the ordinary personal injury cases that clog every civil court. 30% of cases will be tried without a jury. 43% of plaintiffs will win at trial. 4,000 trials a year for a population of 50 states and 300 million people. Federal Tort Trails and Verdicts, 1994-95

Since the plaintiff is usually the guy who was sandwiched between a metro bus and an SUV and he loses 60% of the time, I'll not be taking any bets on the off chance that the copyright infringer wins as the defendant against the corporate plaintiff.

I know its not what your looking for but the Justice Dept. has a list of Principal FOIA contacts at Federal Agencies here. It is the most complete list of FOIA contacts I have seen and is where I go to start most FOIA requests.

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov is the e-mail address to the Department of Justice. Send all Complaints there but be warned, they already monitor you if you have an opinion:
  Excerpt from their "privacy Policy"
  A. Information Collected and Stored Automatically

If you visit our site to read or download information, we collect and store the following information about your visit:

- The name of the Internet domain (for example, "xcompany.com" if you use a private Internet access account, or "yourschool.edu" if you are connecting from a university's domain) and the IP address (a number that is automatically assigned to your computer when you are using the Internet) from which you access our site;

- The type of browser and operating system used to access our site;

- The date and time you access our site;

- The Internet address of the Web site from which you linked directly to our site; and

- The pages you visit and the information you request.

This information is primarily collected for statistical analysis and technical improvements to the site. This government computer system uses software programs to create summary statistics, which may be used for such purposes as assessing what information is of most and least interest, determining technical design specifications, and identifying system performance or problem areas. In certain circumstances, however, we may take additional steps to identify you based on this information and we may share this information, including your identity, with other government agencies.

Also here is a link http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline2.htm where you can report Civil Rights and Civil Liberty Violations, found on the same page. Kinda ironic huh?

By payphone try Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555
The sad thing is He wants to monitor us, yet I can't find his phone number or personal contact information.

Let's all remember that violent crime rates are still lower than they were in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. My theory is that violent video games have nothing to do with violent crime.

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

And read that carefully, everyone.

John Yoo, for those who don't know who that is, is one of the major architeches of the presidents 'Unified executive' gibberish. See here.

And he's not asserting the president has the right to crush terrorists or even suspected terrorists testicles. He's asserting the president has the right to crush the testicles of people we know are innocent if that will make other people reveal information.

People, like, oh, you. If a terrorist likes you, Bush has the right to torture and mutilate you to make him talk, even if you have absolutely no connection to said terrorist.

And people think I'm being partisan when I talk about this administration literally being insane. That's even past '24' ground, it's into 'Evil Overlord' ground, where the villian menaces the love interest to make the hero talk.

but the US must be thankful that they are not criminal cases just yet and remain civil (criminal=prison, civil=fines).

- A generation ago is NOT 1994. A generation ago would have been more like 1976, so...WRONG

Good to know you didn't even follow my link. If you looked at the graph, you would see:
1973: 47.7 crimes/1k pop
2005: 21.0 crimes/1k pop

I'd say that's an improvement. A cursory examination of that site would show all sorts of data going back to the 1970s. For some things such as murder, data back to 1900.

Firstly, they DIDN'T include crimes against children UNDER the age of 12, which makes their sources questionable at best with regards to the decline of violent crime against all children.

That's because it was based on interviews. If you would like to argue that the crime rates are independent for those under 12 versus those over 12, please support this with some a reference to a study. Again, if you went to the website, you can reach a crime table split up by age (in two clicks)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/vagetab .htm

The age groups 12-15, 16-19, and 20-24 are all fairly correlated, and show steep drops. If you want to argue that children in the 8-11 range are completely different, it is up to YOU to supply evidence. The null hypothesis says there is no difference unless you demonstrate otherwise (Occam's razor, and all that). Children under 8 should probably not be left unsupervised, so the current level of danger in the environment shouldn't affect choices by the parent on whether to let them go unsupervised.

Secondly, Ohhhhhhhhhh look at that....They interviewed a whole 134,000 people, out of the current population(according to another branch of Minitrue) of 298+ MILLION U.S. Comrades

That's far larger than most medical studies, including ones for treatments where people's lives are at stake. Please go tell the medical community how wrong they are. Also, your focus on the percentage demonstrates a lack of understanding of statistics -- 1% of 100 people is a very biased sample, whereas 1% of a million people can often be quite accurate. Now, it is true that the graph doesn't provide the estimations of accuracy in the study, but I didn't claim that the change was statistically significant either. I'd be suprised if it wasn't, given the sample size however.

Now let's take a look at the source of their "facts": ...
And who designed and owns the NCVS? The Bureau of Justice Statistics.
And what Minitrue arm is the BJS a part of...well looky here, the DOJ.

Yes, I know. It's a conspiracy across administrations, since 1972. I'm well aware of your position.

So, based on the inadvertant admissions of your Minitrue's sites, they summarize an ENTIRE NATION'S crime statistics based on interviews with less than 1% of that same population,

If you would like to claim that the streets are more dangerous, it is up to you to cite a better/bigger study (hint: this is the biggest one in the US). Go ahead and throw this study out. In the absence of proof that it is more dangerous, we default to the null hypothesis that it is the same. That still supports my argument that it is not more dangerous now than a generation ago.

using their own methodologies which cannot be verified by an outside independent source, and you take that at face value.

Actually, that study includes the methodology on the website in quite a bit of detail. You can download PDFs of it. As far as taking the study at face value, I'd rather say that I make decisions on the information available, weighted by my estimation of the accuracy of the source. It is true that the DOJ (or any other source) is not free from bias, but in the absence of other accurate, unbiased sources (the popular press has poor methodology in general), that's what I make my decisions on.

It is pretty clear that your arguments are not based on any evidence, because you don't provide any. Stating that a large port

- A generation ago is NOT 1994. A generation ago would have been more like 1976, so...WRONG

- According to a 2001 article published by a Doctorate in Psychology on behalf of another branch of the government you so choose to blindly believe in(Außenministerium); and I quote, "There are more than 70 million children in the United States under the age of 18, comprising 26 percent of the population. Violent crime against children was relatively high in the 1980s and early 1990s -- " AGAIN, whether you choose to use the date of the article or the date of the statistical analysis, this is NOT a generation ago, THEREFORE your claim that we(in which you included, or at least implied in the inclusion, children) are safer now than we were a GENERATION ago is...WRONG.

- Here's another fun filled quote from our completely objective and accurate "trusted" Minitrue website: "Sources: Rape (excluding sexual assault), robbery, and assault data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Ongoing since 1972, this survey of households interviews about 134,000 persons age 12 and older in 77,200 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime."

Firstly, they DIDN'T include crimes against children UNDER the age of 12, which makes their sources questionable at best with regards to the decline of violent crime against all children.

Secondly, Ohhhhhhhhhh look at that....They interviewed a whole 134,000 people, out of the current population(according to another branch of Minitrue) of 298+ MILLION U.S. Comrades, a purported 26%, or 7,7595,496, of which they say are children. I'd hardly call it conclusive truth AT BEST.

Now let's take a look at the source of their "facts":

"BJS criminal victimization data collections
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.
Ongoing from 1973; Redesign 1992."

And who designed and owns the NCVS? The Bureau of Justice Statistics.

And what Minitrue arm is the BJS a part of...well looky here, the DOJ.

So, based on the inadvertant admissions of your Minitrue's sites, they summarize an ENTIRE NATION'S crime statistics based on interviews with less than 1% of that same population, using their own methodologies which cannot be verified by an outside independent source, and you take that at face value.

Way to lack critical thinking skills, comrade.

The media has made you paranoid. The reality is that we are much safer than we were a generation ago:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

That's right, because the Minitrue is your one-stop source for completely objective statistics.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The media has made you paranoid. The reality is that we are much safer than we were a generation ago:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

The minimum size is 15. However, that minimum applies the employment laws, not the accesibility part of the ADA. There is no minimum size for accessibility. There are tax credits for costs incurred by small businesses making things accessible though and the Act provides exceptions for taking on exceptions that could be overly expensive and harmful to the business.

prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards

I think the real contention is in the definition of 'places of public accommodation.' Does this include the internet? What about a customer service call center for ordering from a catalog? I'm not a lawyer, and I can't decipher the letter of the law, but I think the spirit of it is fairly evident:

A public accommodation shall not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability

Oh wait, its MS, so they can't do it because they are a monopoly, except that no one is forced to buy Windows. A monopoly is the old Ma Bell, where you really didn't have a choice. You have a choice

You are saying MS isn't a monopoly? Sounds to me the parent was making a legal argument, and as such the only relevant opinion here is the one of the judge who ruled MS a monopoly.

For approximately the last 15 years, the United States has been engaged in the largest imprisonment program ever attempted by a democratic society.

That was back in the early 90's when the US prison population was around 900,000. In the time since then, the prison population has more than doubled again to nearly 2.2 Million prisoners. To put that into perspective, there is currently only about 1.4 million people on active duty in the US military.

We condemn China for their practices involving prison slave labor, yet we conduct those same practices ourselves... Slavery is back in America, and it's mostly for the poor black people again. Meanwhile, every time we have an article discussing incarceration on Slashdot, we get a bazillion prison bitch jokes that fly in the face of the 8th amendment of the US Constitution. You people KNOW their rights are being violated and you don't care.

"Oh dear they're annoying me with spam. Fuck the 1st Amendment, send them to the salt mines!!" Land of the Free indeed...

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller