Slashdot Mirror

That's a guess based on adult rape statistics, where most attackers know their victim.

Good guess: Based on the US Dept of Justice figures, roughly one out of seven cases involves a stranger. Whereas this frequency is greater than I would have expected, bear in mind that many (most?) crimes are crimes of opportunity.

Aside: I'm raising a little girl. I've perused the list of 'registered offenders' in my area. These lists are nigh useless; they don't indicate who is a threat to strangers and who is a threat to his children. I've decided that I have more important things to worry about than my family being attacked by a stranger.

The settlement happened on Clinton's watch (the very last months of it).

It doesn't matter if you were shot or stabbed, dead is dead. I didn't ask for the total gun related deaths, the total homocides per capita.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.as p?More=Y

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Cri me/State/statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=52

in short:
England ~13 per 100,000
U.S.A. ~6 per 100,000

"A) Microsoft is a convicted monopolist."

I have to assume you're talking about US v. Microsoft, the IE/Netscape thing.

If you'd bothered to read the judgement, they settled without finding fault. In other words, no they were not convicted.

"FINAL JUDGMENT
(November 12, 2002)

WHEREAS, plaintiffs United States of America ("United States") and the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin and defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment;

AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law"

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm

Then why does the final settlement say this

"FINAL JUDGMENT
(November 12, 2002)

WHEREAS, plaintiffs United States of America ("United States") and the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin and defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment;

AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law; "

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm

Read, be enlightened, then stop spreading your opinion as though it were fact.

Bundling Outlook with Office may be slightly closer to anti-competitive behavior, but I still think it's a BS complaint.

Seems like history repeating. Microsoft wasn't sued by 20 states' attornies general for nothing. Take a look at the findings of fact from the 1998 case. Though MS was found guilty of violating the Sherman and Clayton anti trust acts, not much really happened to them. Perhaps they were just too big and influential to punish.

Bill Gates likes to tout MS as innovative but it's really a company that bought or borrowed almost everything it ever produced. History will probably reflect on MS as a popular and ubiquitous OS. But the real innovators will be those who developed the PC, PDA, Digital Camera, Ipod, etc., not Microsoft.

The FOIA specifically applies only to federal agencies. -> http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/p age2.htm

The more they regulate and litigate the worse things get here.

Then why have violent crime rates dropped drastically since the 60s? I suggest you do actual research before making open-ended statements. A quick look at crime statistics shows this.

It seems to me, that we've only gotten freer and safer over time. Care to prove otherwise?

Absolutely correct, especially the non-zero-sum bit.

Here's another point to ponder, on the "rising tide lifts all boats" theory:

If fuel were agriculturally produced rather than mined/drilled, the US could remove some of the incredibly market-distorting Farm Parity payouts - essentially, we could stop using taxpayer money to bribe farmers not to grow crops.

We pay off the farming mafias to keep food prices artifically high, so that there is an economic incentive to continue to produce food. If our ever-increasing appetite for fuels was redirected to compete with food production, these subsidies could be reduced or even eliminated.

I hope I don't end up with a horse's head in my bed for pointing this out...

The CD sale is covered by the Principle of First Sale. The RIAA appears to be attempting to rewrite the law by one-sided argument.

I never said MS was a client of Hype Council. Care to point out where I said they were? I just used them as an example of companies that shill for pay. As for PA being an expose, I only linked to them because thats where I recently saw someone talking about it. If you don't like PA then find the information your self, it exists.

The proof MS did this is, for one example, the "grass roots" letters to the editors at major papers (back when the DOJ trial was still going on) and these were traced back not to concerned citizens calling attention to a injustice being visited on a company that make a product they use, but to a marketing company that was paid by Microsoft to create the appearance of that. Letters to state reps supposedly from concerned citizens were also paid for by MS, all these were urging the states to drop any case against MS as they were being unfairly persecuted by the man.

Check out the DOJ website and what it has to say about it. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00030610d.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

something to think about.

Holy crap!!! According to http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f214500/214518.htm MS has 235 new bugs since 1/1/06 and a total of 617 unresolved bugs!

install DOJ's Anti-Trust© to remove the offending product. Of course, it has been a little buggy since the Jan 2001 release.

install DOJ's Anti-Trust© to remove the offending product. Of course, it has been a little buggy since the Jan 2001 release.

Hmmm, read Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, then come back with your findings. Here is one interesting section:

[It shall be unlawful] to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

So, does that mean that all of the "looking for a nice Christan male" advertisements are illegal because they are discriminating against non-Chritstans and females? I see those advertisements all the time.

Disclaimer/Warning: I am a black poster, who is also libertarian. Be prepared for libertarianism and discrimination issues.

Hmmm, shouldn't the owner of the property have a say in what roommates they should pick? After all, no anti-discrimination law will stop racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, ageism, xenophobia, and other social ills. It does no good to live in the same space as a bigot, or to accept services and goods from people who wouldn't serve me (what's better, a sign at a restaurant telling me that I'm not allowed, or shoddy service because of my background; they have to let me in, but they can give me terrible service and remain within the law as long as they don't utter a slur. And if I notice that, then I'm accused of "thoughtcrime" and paranoia.).

Don't get me wrong. I am a vehemoth opponent of Jim Crow laws (that is when a city or state uses government power to restrict freedoms of certain people), and I do not support the types of discrimination enumerated in the various anti-discrimination laws. However, I am a supporter of private property rights, too. I believe that homeowners should be free to decide which types of roomates that they want.

I wonder what other minority libertarians and minority people of other similar beliefs (such as classical liberals, small-government conservatives of the Goldwater mold, and anarchocapitalists) have to say?

> They are saying that putting *copyrighted* materials in a shared folder is illegal.

they said "copyright violation" your the one who equated that with "illegal", it is not a criminal offense to allow the files to be shared, it may be a "copyright violation" but RIAA never said "illegal."

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/CFAleghis t.htm

The requirement of a mens rea for criminal copyright infringement serves the important purpose of drawing a sharp distinction with civil copyright infringement. Under civil copyright infringement, an intent to infringe is not required, since copyright is a strict liability tort. [FN13] For an infringement to be deemed a criminal violation, however, a specific mens rea must be proved. Even if civil liability has been established, without the requisite mens rea it does not matter how many unauthorized copies or phonorecords have been made or distributed: No criminal violation has occurred.

Do you have any links to research that indicates that prison time causes crime? I've heard various opinions on the subject, some of which are logical and support your position, but I don't know of any actual research done on the matter.

This isn't quite what you're looking for - so the short answer is no - but I find the following interesting: Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Offenders Statistics on Recidivism (and other info.)

The best part: "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."

So no, I don't have a link, but the statistics are pretty telling, at least in telling us that our prison system isn't working to reduce crime. Oh sure, they'll tell you that crime drops when you increase sentences and all that shit - but as soon as they get out, they get sent back again... well, once they get caught.

And instead of just telling you the name of the song:

This time the bullet cold rocked ya
A yellow ribbon instead of a swastika
Nothing proper about ya propaganda
Fools follow rules when the set commands ya

The title of the song (more or less) is about two lines later.

So far as we have been able to determine, Presidential signing statements that purported to create legislative history for the use of the courts was uncommon -- if indeed it existed at all -- before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies. However, earlier Presidents did use signing statements to raise and address the legal or constitutional questions they believed were presented by the legislation they were signing. Examples of signing statements of this kind can be found as early as the Jackson and Tyler Administrations, and later Presidents, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, also engaged in the practice.

Today's Washington Post has one more item of interest, an article about Samuel Alito's role in sketching, in 1986, the Reagan administration's strategy of issuing presidential "interpretive signing statements" declaring the executive branch's understanding of the bills the president signed into law. If Congress's committee reports and published debates were going to be routinely used by courts in interpreting the meaning of statutes, Alito reasoned, then the president too should be able to influence such interpretation by formally stating his view of a law's relationship to the Constitution. This would be particularly important, of course, in cases where a law might impinge on the executive power under the Constitution as the president understood it.

. ...

The Post story notes that "courts have yet to give [presidential signing statements] much weight" since Alito proposed this strategy 20 years ago. That's too bad. Justice Scalia makes a compelling case that the "legislative record" behind a statute is worse than useless, arguing that it is only the statute itself that can recommend itself to a court's attention as a guide to its meaning. But if courts don't follow Scalia's view here -- and they generally don't -- then they should give as much weight to the executive's understanding as to the legislature's.

Faris admitted that upon returning to the United States from Pakistan in April 2002, he researched "gas cutters" - the equipment for severing bridge suspension cables


I have a hard time believing a bunch of guys with blowtorches could cut enough cables on the bridge to make it fall. I'm going to go out on a limb and say someone would stop them well before they even got close.

Please make an effort to see past the talking heads and the spin. Commit some time to researching events, you'll be better informed and the world might be a better place for it.

Some commentators have read the constitutional text differently. They argue that the vesting of the power to declare war gives Congress the sole authority to decide whether to make war. (6) This view misreads the constitutional text and misunderstands the nature of a declaration of war. Declaring war is not tantamount to making war - indeed, the Constitutional Convention specifically amended the working draft of the Constitution that had given Congress the power to make war. An earlier draft of the Constitution had given to Congress the power to "make" war. When it took up this clause on August 17, 1787, the Convention voted to change the clause from "make" to "declare." 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966) (1911). A supporter of the change argued that it would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Id. at 318. Further, other elements of the Constitution describe "engaging" in war, which demonstrates that the Framers understood making and engaging in war to be broader than simply "declaring" war. See U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 3 ("No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."). A State constitution at the time of the ratification included provisions that prohibited the governor from "making" war without legislative approval, S.C. Const. art. XXVI (1776), reprinted in 6 The Federal and State Constitutions 3247 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909). (7) If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of military hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions.

Finally, the Framing generation well understood that declarations of war were obsolete. Not all forms of hostilities rose to the level of a declared war: during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Great Britain and colonial America waged numerous conflicts against other states without an official declaration of war. (8) As Alexander Hamilton observed during the ratification, "the ceremony of a formal denunciation of war has of late fallen into disuse." The Federalist No. 25, at 133 (Alexander Hamilton). Instead of serving as an authorization to begin hostilities, a declaration of war was only necessary to "perfect" a conflict under international law. A declaration served to fully transform the international legal relationship between two states from one of peace to one of war. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *249-50. Given this context, it is clear that Congress's power to declare war does not constrain the President's independent and plenary constitutional authority over the use of military force.

I'd question whether "ill-defined fingerprints" is a disability, as would the courts.

Besides..

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q%26aeng02.htm

"In addition, an employer is not required to make an accommodation if it would impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of the employer's business."

Such as compromising security, having to redo their entire security system, etc.

"Q. Can an employer consider health and safety when deciding whether to hire an applicant or retain an employee with a disability?

A. Yes. The ADA permits employers to establish qualification standards that will exclude individuals who pose a direct threat -- i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm -- to the health or safety of the individual or of others, if that risk cannot be eliminated or reduced below the level of a oedirect threatî by reasonable accommodation."

This article doesn't even mention the Computer Security Institute (CSI), the organization which conducts and publishes these surveys. The FBI allows them use of crime databases and is just presented the end result. On top of that, they present you with one graph and label it as referenced from the "Computer Crime Survey" when, in fact, this survey also had to do with security and is entitled 2005 Computer Crime and Security Survey. I believe you'll find a wealth of information in that PDF as it contains many graphs that break down respondents of crimes, average security expenditures, types of attacks, etc. If you're interested in what constitutes a "computer crime," check out the policy and sample cases (some amusing) as we all know that what is and isn't illegal with computers can get very fuzzy very fast.

I think this is a case of CSI running a survey and doing a damn fine job on the support but the media (and Slashdot) feel that FBI is better news than CSI.

This article doesn't even mention the Computer Security Institute (CSI), the organization which conducts and publishes these surveys. The FBI allows them use of crime databases and is just presented the end result. On top of that, they present you with one graph and label it as referenced from the "Computer Crime Survey" when, in fact, this survey also had to do with security and is entitled 2005 Computer Crime and Security Survey. I believe you'll find a wealth of information in that PDF as it contains many graphs that break down respondents of crimes, average security expenditures, types of attacks, etc. If you're interested in what constitutes a "computer crime," check out the policy and sample cases (some amusing) as we all know that what is and isn't illegal with computers can get very fuzzy very fast.

I think this is a case of CSI running a survey and doing a damn fine job on the support but the media (and Slashdot) feel that FBI is better news than CSI.

This article doesn't even mention the Computer Security Institute (CSI), the organization which conducts and publishes these surveys. The FBI allows them use of crime databases and is just presented the end result. On top of that, they present you with one graph and label it as referenced from the "Computer Crime Survey" when, in fact, this survey also had to do with security and is entitled 2005 Computer Crime and Security Survey. I believe you'll find a wealth of information in that PDF as it contains many graphs that break down respondents of crimes, average security expenditures, types of attacks, etc. If you're interested in what constitutes a "computer crime," check out the policy and sample cases (some amusing) as we all know that what is and isn't illegal with computers can get very fuzzy very fast.

I think this is a case of CSI running a survey and doing a damn fine job on the support but the media (and Slashdot) feel that FBI is better news than CSI.

I'm talking about the REAL christians. The ones who picket bookstores and send money to oral roberts.

You are assuming what you set out to prove. This is a logical fallacy: You define Christians the way you want to define them, and your definition includes the awful qualities that you are trying to prove all Christians possess.

Let's also not forget that thanks to christianity, we now have a much higher sexual repression, leading to more rapes and violent behavior.
You are under the impression that Christianity has been around for only 20 years. Are you trying to say that the rise in rape (which actually is in decline in the US) over the past "few years" just was a latent characteristic of Christianity until a few years ago? That's horseshit, as anyone with a brain can see. I might as well say that rape is caused by the rise in atheism, since that is the religion that has risen dramatically in popularity over the last few years!

For example, pretty much every serial killer has been a christian white male. Most child molesters, too.

Sources, please. Charles Manson? Scientologist. Gacy? Not Christian.

Using your same logic, I could state that being male makes you a rapist. We should get rid of all males. Or being white makes you a rapist. After all, as you said, pretty much every serial killer has been a [...] white male.

when your religion actively encourages the poking of young boys by their priests

I'm sorry, but Christianity doesn't actively encourage that. One sect, entirely unrelated to mine, might. But mine does not. All Christians are not the same, just like all Caucasians are not the same.

Take the crucifixes that are visible from the street down

Yes, because Heaven forbid people are allowed to exercise their free speech from the sanctity of their own homes!

Get rid of anything even close to religious ceremony from ALL government operations (such as having the 10 commandments on display in the courthouses).

What do you know? Something you and I and most Christians I know agree on!

The ones who are all for removing a woman's right to choose to have an abortion (not everyone believes in their god, but everyone should follow his tenets, huh?)

This is not a Christian thing; if you believe life starts before exiting the mother, then you are supporting murder (which I believe most humans oppose). If you don't believe a baby is alive until it has passed through the birth canal, I guess you don't have a problem with abortion, then, do you? I will say this though: I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here: I am merely responding to the parent's ridiculous assertion that opposing abortion is one of God's tenants. Instead, it is an exercise in the opinion of when life begins. You don't have to be a Christian (or even religious!) to believe life exists before you exit your mother.

I don't want my kids exposed to such violent and ignorant images [regarding Christian crosses]
Ah. You seem to equate Catholics with Christians. For example, Lutherans' cross is merely two sticks forming a lowercase 't'. That is all. What is violent about that? Absolutely nothing.

The ones perpetuating "the war on drugs" despite the evidence of their last failed prohibition showing such a tactic is futile.
Those aren't Christians, dumbass. Those are concerned (yet potentially misguided) parents. Huge difference.

Over and over and over again in your previous post, you have defined Christians narrowly, basically saying "Christian. Noun. One who is evil." and then sought to prove that they were evil. Wow! What a surprise. Let me try it: "The Spoonman. Noun. Moron." Now I will seek to prove The Spoonman is a moron: He is one by definition. QED, bitch. Do you see how piss-poor that logic is?

I'd also like to point out that not on

"This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it."

--
From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4900/4909.htm (Microsoft Conclusions of Law and Final Order, May 98)

"The Court having entered judgment in accordance with the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law on April 3, 2000, that Microsoft has violated 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C., as well ... "

--
From http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/us c_sup_01_15_10_1.html (USC, TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1, aka 'Sherman Act')

  1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

  2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

--

So under what set of FUD is it that you beleive MS is *not* a convicted monopolist? Pay close attention to #2 there of the Sherman Act.

I dunno about the OP, but I would prefer to have free and open competition for OS. Unfortunately, we havent had that for at least a decade now - MS has and continues to see to that by its use of monopolistic lock-in strategies that prevent potential customers from objectively evaluating multiple options - since their data is in secret-proprietary MS format, and/or their business partners are only willing/able to communicate using secret proprietary MS formats, they have no choice but to use MS, even if it is a royal suck-ass POS. Add in that MS has and continues to force OEM PC vendors to choose between offering only MS on most systems, paying probably ten times what they are now per machine to only offer it on some, or offering it on none, and you get a recipe for a market as far away from 'free and open competition' as is possible.

Well... how about checking some official and non-propaganda sites? I was really wondering (as a european feeling possibly overly safe at home?) wether these statistics might actually be true. Go check for yourself:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm which is from the US department of justice and claims the murder rate in the us for 2002 is 6.1 cases per 100.000.

A little more difficult to understand might be the official german site (as its in german...), but easy enough: the word "mord" means "murder", and the number of cases for 2002 in the table is cited as 873. As we have 80 Million people in Germany that amounts to a rate of 1.1 per 100.000. So the US has nearly 6 times the murder rate of that in germany. Here is the link to the official german statistics (the BKA is the german version of the FBI): http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2002/p_3_01.pdf

Btw. the table on the top of the page includes the number of attempted homicides in red, the number of sucessul ones in blue. Without so many guns available, obviously (and luckily) most murder attempts are doomed to fail.

Phew. So I can still feel safe here ;-)

Roll your eyes all you want but not all of us forget the past and curent practices of MS.
MS restrictions did not cover every piece of software and every licensee but it was a common practice and still would be today if it had not have been specifically restricted by the DOJ. Do you really think MS would have had a change of heart on their own?

Here is a clip from Computerworld

Microsoft today said that it built a clause into the recent licensing changes that forces PC makers to include the MSN icon alongside any third-party ones. Varma said that requirement was just an extension of a 6-year-old contract Microsoft's hardware partners are required to sign.

Another link here

The MSN icon issue referenced above was one that recieved the most attention but the licenses restricted the changes and software third parties could add.
The plans of preventing unwanted third party apps and icons was going full speed ahead until this:

Here is the actual ruling sent down from the district court regarding this issue, search or go to "C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:" in that page if you do not want to read the whole thing.

I guess you have not followed the issues in Europe with the bundling of MS Media Player and lack of choice by vendors either have you? Here are some links.

There's a corporate fraud task force the government that was started in 2002 for this very purpose; considering what the government was letting people get away with during the nineties, it was long overdue:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/August/05_opa_434 .htm

Read it:

J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:

1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.

2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, XDocumentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.

Oh, come on now. I'm sure the Bush administration would never, ever ask a Federal agency to do something explicitly forbidden by law. Nor would they ever use secrets for political gain. To suggest otherwise would be blatantly partisan!

Oh - and as far as the FBI fast-tracking new hires to deal with sensitive information? Two words: Robert Hanssen.

Were there even 10?

When will the FTC/DOJ/FBI/DEA ever get their collective acts together and start jailing people for criminal fraud? Why aren't there RICO prosecutions against the individuals and institutions backing spam enterprises? Can it really be that hard to follow the money trail?

Or is the answer one or more of the following:

1) Too busy trying to find Osama
2) Too busy busting bong makers
3) Too busy watching, er, catching porn makers
4) Spammers are *entreprenuers*, not con men, and this administration is pro-business..
5) Laura Bush approves of prez's new-found stamina, can't cut off his supply of enhancements..

With all the chatter back and forth, has anyone stopped and asked what the two cookies contained and what they were used for? If NSA's use of cookies is truly an issue, one would think that learning the purpose of the cookie would be an obvious question.

A quick visit to the website (with my browser set to reject all cookies of course) shows that there are several things the cookie might track. Saved-state information for those who submitted an application or posted their resume for consideration, saved history on a request for information using a FOIA request, a small business registering with NSA to be considered for new/upcoming contract bids, a download flag for the latest version of SELinux, or maybe even some cookie set by the flash software in the kid's entertainment section.

Agreed, as stated in previous posts, the use of permanent cookies, intentional or otherwise, violates established policy. But before we spin out of control let's ask WTF they were doing with the cookies, THEN we can go storming the castle with torches held high in righteous indignation.

I believe the whitehouse guideline was a clarification on the privacy act of 1974, which is law. I doubt this guideling has been court tested, though.

The problem is that it's against the government's own guidelines. Specifically, OMB memo 00-13, which it's my understanding was to clarify 5 USC 552a, aka. The Privacy Act of 1974.

So, by the Privacy Act of 1974, setting cookies may be illegal for the government to do. (I'm not saying 'is illegal', as I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea if there is a legal precident for this)

IANAL but from the article here http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/November/01_at_56 9.htm


  The settlement reached today accomplishes this by:

        * creating the opportunity for independent software vendors to develop products that will be competitive with Microsoft's middleware products on a function-by-function basis;
        * giving computer manufacturers the flexibility to contract with competing software developers and place their middleware products on Microsoft's operating system;
        * preventing retaliation against computer manufacturers, software developers, and other industry participants who choose to develop or use competing middleware products; and
        * ensuring full compliance with the proposed Final Judgment and providing for swift resolution of technical disputes.


Microsoft seems to be in violation of resolution two. They are also prohibited from entering exclusive agreements.

Enjoy,

MS achieved dominance through the market, through consumer choices, by consumers choosing...

The free market created Microsoft's position, you are gratuitously ignoring this.

This is simply not true. THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED TWICE OF ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS.
Your statements here are provably false. Go read the findings of fact.
It is especially egregious that you believe consumers are responsible for their continued dominanace.


It's also worth pointing out that you have failed to address ANY argument against your position. You're simply stating what you believe and ignoring actual facts that show otherwise.

MS is not a monopoly like Standard Oil was (buys all the gas stations in a region).

Here's another example of you having no clue at all what you're talking about. Microsft has bought out TONS of competitiors. When that didn't work they created a competing product and bundled it with their operating system.

Microsoft has not created the problem, *consumers* have created the problem. Consumers chose DOS over Mac and OS/2 1.x. Consumers chose Windows over OS/2 2.x. Consumers have voted with their wallet

What you are saying is simply not true. I'm not sure whether you're just amazingly ignorant or distoring the issue deliberately. (I suspect it's the latter.)

Microsoft has been convicted on multiple occasions of illegal market manipulation.
They are NOT simply giving consumers what they want, they have used ILLEGAL tactics to gain the market share they currently have.

*This is not my personal opinion this is a finding of fact by a US district court.

To continue with the "consumers are doing it to themselves theme"

You state this as if it's self evident, but the above statement can is only so if no player in the market is big enough to manipulate the market. If I have significantly more resources and influnce that you, I can fuck both you and the consumer. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE LAWS THAT BUSINESSES MUST FOLLOW.

When you have a law-breaking monopolist, YOU DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. STOP INSINUATING THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS THE RESULT OF FREE MARKET EFFECTS WHEN IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FREE MARKET.

We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either.

Uh...

Homicide Stats
Underage Drinking Stats

The stats would seem to indicate that murder isn't nearly as prevelent as underage drinking--underage Drinking seems to be at some large percentage or as low as 1% for daily drinking while homicide seems to be at ~0.006%. So, I'd take issue with any claim about the rate of murder, which seems to be your prime point.

Having said that, I don't believe the laws have much to do with it. It's very hard to detect underage drinking, a good percentage of adults and kids don't think much of at least *some* underage drinking, and certainly the reprocussions of responsible drinking aren't nearly as severe as murder. Laws tend to be in place to punish people after the fact, not before the fact. When laws do apply, so often do social constraints. It's only the psychopaths that only have law as their restraint, and for them I'd imagine their only real limitation is the likelihood of being caught. For that, underage drinking would be the supreme crime since it's incredibly easy for an underage person to violate it daily if they're left unsupervised and have access to alcohol--think college.

Having said all that, I'm against any age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, etc not because I like the idea of kids using them but because it's not the position of government to prevent kids from using chemicals. It's the responsibility of parents, just as much as all sorts of cleaners are even more deadily and there's no laws to prevent sale of such to minors. You can easily extend this to all sorts of things.

Now, you might say "but kids will buy porn", except they do it already. And it's not the threat of cops that keeps porn mags behind the counter or keeps the shop owner quiet about selling them to minors (usually kids steal/borrow mags from others); it's the threat of shoppers boycotting the store which keeps the shop owner in check. Even Wal-Mart is under such pressures, and they're a behemoth. Without shoppers Wal-Mart would go under. The only place I could imagine would stay open is adult shops, but they'd still probably not want to piss off the zoning board.

Democrat poster children doing exactly the same thing and rightfully so in my opinion.
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

And under this program
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/October/03_crm_58 9.htm
From the nytimes original article
Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.

it's against the law in the USA to discriminate based on disabilities.

The ADA requires certain accomodations for "public accomodations." Guess what, MMORPGs aren't listed. (But things like doctors offices, zoos, parks, and hospitals are listed.)

You can go here for a quick summary of disability rights laws passed in the US. Most of the laws merely require providing a way to access buildings, or against employment discrimination. While many groups publish documentation on ways to help provide access to your products for those with disabilities, there is no law requiring them to.

Do car manufacturers get sued when they don't ship the car with modifications so you can drive with no legs? Do they have to provide them for free?

The difference between your analogy and this situation is your analogy involves public restrooms.

You don't get to dictate their licensing terms any more than they can force you to purchace something. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Of course, the argument could be made that since Microsoft is a convicted monopoly you don't really have a choice, but enforcing anti-trust law is part of captialism too.

http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf

http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hivpj99.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/women/#TopOfPage

http://www.spr.org/en/factsheetattitudes.html

Now where's the Mea Culpa AC? Or are you just going to run your idiot mouth and fade into the background hoping no one will notice you made a fool of yourself?

The DOJ's budget was $23.4 billion dollars last year, as opposed to $21 billion in 2000. By the DOJ's AntiTrust division's own reports, its budget has gone up, even with respect to inflation: DOJ Budget Trend Data, Antitrust Division.

my 2 yen ... excuse me, but Microsoft wasn't convicted for "monopoly". monopoly could be legal. they were convicted for defending their monopolistic position with illegal means. you can read more here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm and i thought everyone knew that ...

Ok, before I get railed with comments; I do NOT know much about internation trade law, so feel free to enlighten me.

Let's look at IE as an example. IE has been part of Windows since Win95 whether we like it or not. I'm assuming that Windows made it to S. Korea by 1996ish, possibly 1997 at the latest. Obviously, these laws were created in Korea some time after 1996, but it takes them until 2005 to make a stand on it? US versus Microsoft started in 2000, which means that it was already being investigated in the late 1990s. Seems like a big gap IMHO

But here's the real kicker to me... Windows is a product made in the US. The 2000 antitrust case was one where a US company broke a US law. This situation is a US company being fined on a foreign law. How is that possible? Do they have jurisdiction to do such things? My feeling is that if the Korean Fair Trade Commission found a US product to be out of compliance with their rules *AFTER* they've already permitted the sale of it, they should just ban it, and inform Microsoft of why they've been banned. If Microsoft chooses then to create a Windows version that is compliant, then so be it. Otherwise; sorry Bill. Where do they inherit the jurisdiction to impose a fine?

To me, that's like the Korean government saying that they're going to impose a fine on GM for all Chevys that have seatbelts after the Korean Trade Commission cleard GM cars for sale in Korea. Regardless on how I feel about Microsuck Winblows, seems like a bad slippery slope to be travelling.

Info from the DoJ

Info from the DoD

It has become quite apparent that you are more interested in winning an argument than you are on educating yourself with the facts. You have provided nothing but claims of what you have heard. I no longer have the time to waste on this.

I'm not seeing this. A quick look at the DOJ's statistics doesn't seem to show any such trend. This seems to me like the "feelings" people get that society is going downhill morally. It's almost never justified by anything more than a hunch and longing for the good old days. History is littered with these claims (going back at least to ancient Greek society), and yet modern society hasn't fallen apart yet. Everybody longs for the good old days when there was no crime, no promiscuity, and when everybody was polite and wore suits to work. Nobody seems to remember that in general, there were just as many problems back then.