Slashdot Mirror

There are definitely tons of other places where the income-to-housing cost ratio is not nearly so bad, like the NC research triangle.

. However, I still submit that the middle half or third of the population cannot really afford a 2000 square foot home, almost anywhere. Sure, there a lots of high-paying jobs in Chapel Hill / Raleigh /Durham. There are also lots and lots of low-paying jobs. Look at these figures for median income:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/bapcpa/bci_data/median_in come_table.htm

Even assuming a family of four, you've got median income of less than 60k, with all the expenses associated with two dependents...

I had better look into some of these areas, though, since obviously I'm barking up the wrong tree here in NJ.

But possibly running on incomplete data. While crime in the US has been decreasing for decades, the incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980. A lot of the increase is due to violent crime, too: even after taking victimless crimes out of the equation, it looks like the "criminality rate" has been skyrocketing. And for a discussion of changing American culture, I think the percentage of criminals is more important than the rate at which they're successful. How many of our people can we lock up? How many should we?

Of course, getting back the current discussion, trying to blame this on video games is ridiculous. The rise in criminality predates Pong, and the current era of ultra-realistic games doesn't see to have affected the trends at all.

So, banning and restricting access is supposed to protect our children? Great, except that like alcohol and drugs, kids will get a hold of what they want to, especially without parental guidance. Yet another law will not protect children from irresponsible or careless parents. It's like banning sex education in the hopes that the teen pregancy rate goes down - all it does is increase the incidence of STDs.

Incidentally, video games have become more violent, and pornography is easier to access than ever. Perhaps this is a release of the violent or preverted urges, and as a result violent crime is at its lowest rate ever. Sure it's become more sensational, but the statistics don't lie. In terms of sexual crimes, the reporting rate is better than what it was, and the numbers across most western nations are still lower than ever. (Source: DOJ )

Apparently violent crime has done nothing but drop Since the release of the original Doom in 1994. (source)

(note, first saw this on http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/ but true nonetheless)

Okay, this is reasonably neutral, although the "standing up to them" phrase is questionable. The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks. Again, CmdrTaco and company were supporting this idea back in 2000.

Since when is computer trespass or intrusion legal? Quite to the contrary I think it has been made illegal to gain access to other's computers without their permission, as in this case, Expert charged in computer hacking. Better tell the US Department of Justice computer trespass and intrusion isn't illegal.

Can you explain how what you're describing doesn't fit the DOJ definition of price fixing?

Forms of Collusion

Most criminal antitrust prosecutions involve price fixing, bid rigging, or market division or allocation schemes. Each of these forms of collusion may be prosecuted criminally if they occurred, at least in part, within the past five years. Proving such a crime does not require us to show that the conspirators entered into a formal written or express agreement. Price fixing, bid rigging, and other collusive agreements can be established either by direct evidence, such as the testimony of a participant, or by circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious bid patterns, travel and expense reports, telephone records, and business diary entries.

Under the law, price-fixing and bid-rigging schemes are per se violations of the Sherman Act. This means that where such a collusive scheme has been established, it cannot be justified under the law by arguments or evidence that, for example, the agreed-upon prices were reasonable, the agreement was necessary to prevent or eliminate price cutting or ruinous competition, or the conspirators were merely trying to make sure that each got a fair share of the market.

Price Fixing

Price fixing is an agreement among competitors to raise, fix, or otherwise maintain the price at which their goods or services are sold. It is not necessary that the competitors agree to charge exactly the same price, or that every competitor in a given industry join the conspiracy. Price fixing can take many forms, and any agreement that restricts price competition violates the law. Other examples of price-fixing agreements include those to:

Establish or adhere to price discounts.

Hold prices firm.

Eliminate or reduce discounts.

Adopt a standard formula for computing prices.

Maintain certain price differentials between different types, sizes, or quantities of products.

Adhere to a minimum fee or price schedule.

Fix credit terms.

Not advertise prices.

In many cases, participants in a price-fixing conspiracy also establish some type of policing mechanism to make sure that everyone adheres to the agreement.

[ . . . ]

Market Division

Market division or allocation schemes are agreements in which competitors divide markets among themselves. In such schemes, competing firms allocate specific customers or types of customers, products, or territories among themselves. For example, one competitor will be allowed to sell to, or bid on contracts let by, certain customers or types of customers. In return, he or she will not sell to, or bid on contracts let by, customers allocated to the other competitors. In other schemes, competitors agree to sell only to customers in certain geographic areas and refuse to sell to, or quote intentionally high prices to, customers in geographic areas allocated to conspirator companies.

Detecting Bid Rigging, Price Fixing, And Other Types Of Collusion

Bid rigging, price fixing, and other collusion can be very difficult to detect. Collusive agreements are usually reached in secret, with only the participants having knowledge of the scheme. However, suspicions may be aroused by unusual bidding or pricing patterns or something a vendor says or does.

[ . . . ]

Prices

Identical prices may indicate a price-fixing conspiracy, especially when:

Prices stay identical for long periods of time.

Prices previously were different.

Price increases do not appear to be supported by increased costs.

Discounts are eliminated, especially in a market where discounts historically were given.

Vendors are charging higher prices to local customers than to distant customers. This may indicate local prices are fixed.

Sounds like what you're doing, and sounds like what the music labels would be doing if they all of a sudden "just decided" to cut Apple out of the loop if Apple doesn't agree to raise prices.

You must have slept through the anti-trust trails. You know, where everyone and anyone in tech testified how M$ constantly fucked with them. As much as you would like to pretend otherwise, M$ is paranoid and breaks software on their platform all the time. They have been doing it since the days of DOS. Here's a short list of dead competitors:

• DRDOS
• OS2
• Netscape
• Word Perfect / Corel

This news has NO implications for FOSS on Windows. ... - this just standardizes it and provides centralized downloading and key storage.

You must also not know about Paladium/NGDRM or whatever they are calling "trusted computing" these days. They have already used "security" to break software. Having a central place where M$ decides if you can trust your software means M$ can stop any piece of software from running. That's what DRM is to M$, they are trying to put it in the BIOS, not that flaky BIOS as an anticompetitive trick is new. M$ is freaky and evil. They will use this against free software because they can.

"Those who contend that pornography increases the incidence of rape are going to have real problems explaining this chart. The years after 1991, when the rape incidence went into free fall, correspond to a period of massive increase in pornography consumption. Images that once could only be acquired by an expedition to a sleazy adult bookstore became available for free, in private, with a few mouse clicks. While porn was becoming mainstream, the incidence of rape dropped by over 75%, from 2.2 per thousand (1991) to 0.5 per thousand (2003"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.gif

More bent priorities!

I'm not even sure how something like this became TWO operations/taskforces, but it's a great example of truly ridiculous government priorities. I think they better learn to watch out for people buying strange small quantities of tubing and plumbing at Home Depot, too.

The local paper had an article about the new FBI porn project and said it was THE running joke of the FBI; nobody takes it seriously and people are legitimately challenging the FBI on this one in the wake of all the other concerns. It's seen as a Gonzalez attempt at currying favor with evangelicals for a Supreme Court seat.

According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is 'one of the top priorities' of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults

It's Attorney General Gonzalez and Director Robert Mueller .

I thought this was just the submitter's mistake, but it is actually that way in the article. I shouldn't be surprised; Ars Technica should stick to their stupid overclocking articles.

If you view Microsoft as a software company, they have always had mediocre products. If you think that Microsoft's main product is adversarial behavior, they are one of the most successful companies in the world!

Here's just a tiny, tiny sample: The U.S. District Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft antitrust case lists 207 pages of abuses.

"the Web as the next platform"

I have never known a business person who would allow confidential letters to be typed in such a manner that they travel outside the company while being prepared. The same applies to all company data.

It's possible to buy a laptop for $500, and a desktop computer for $200. There is no financial pressure to rent software. Open Office 2.0, out soon, is all that 98% of companies need.

I have never known a business manager who would allow an important letter to travel anywhere except on paper between his secretary and himself. Even typing letters over an Intranet would be an extremely unpopular idea.

The only network preparation of data typically allowed is over heavily guarded intranets, in cases where there must be a shared database, such as sales data entry.

The Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft antitrust case lists 207 pages of abuses. I'm finding that even computer users with no interest in technical things know that Microsoft is an abusive company, and more intense knowledge of that abusiveness is traveling fast.

The most important thing the CNET article indicates is that bored, underpaid business writers often write nonsense about computers.

The Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft antitrust case lists 207 pages of abuses.

The Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft antitrust case lists 207 pages of abuses.

According to computer simulation, this is a possible outcome.

It *probably* falls under good old 18 USC 1030 as well.

I just read that statute.

It starts with a section protecting any computer data (sounds good), oh, wait, that the government, by law, or executive order, says must be kept secret for reasons of national defense, foreign relations, or atomic energy concerns ... IF that information would hurt the US, or help another nation.

Meanwhile, if it doesn't hurt the US, doesn't help another nation, then it's all right. It's OK to help an indidual this way.

So looking at the other sections.

Section (2) protects any department or agency of the federal government without any loopholes (nice, wish we had that protection), any financial institution, any credit reporting agency (equifax, etc), or "information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication". Note that neither of the first two parts of this section has the interstate or foreign communications restriction. (Yea, that picky article one of the constitution here.)

But notice that bold phrase: Protected Computer.

(3) protects against any unauthorized use of a federal computer.
(4) protects against some unauthorized use of a private computer, if you are trying to commit fraud, futher the intended fraud, and get anything of value beyond just the computer time itself. Hmm, why don't we get the same protection the feds get?

(5) protects a protected computer from being hacked to cause physical injury, modification of medical information, or loss of $5,000 per year. So you can destroy a computer (valued at $2000 or less) if the data on the hard drive is unchanged and can be recovered. (Go ahead and flash the bios.) Oh, and a section that sounds like the patriot act, (5) (b) (v) protecting "a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security" from any actual or potential damage. Gee, I'd like that to cover my computer at home.

(6) protects against some trafficing in passwords for the purpose of fraud, to the extend allowed by the constitution. But if you're not doing it for fraud, go right ahead.

(7) protects from extortion by threatening a protected computer

So, if you're not causing fraud, and you're not bothering a government computer, or a financial site, this has almost no effect on you.

And all those references to protected computer :

"Your honor, the prosecution's computer cannot be considered protected. They do not use basic security practices, they use administrator access for normal day to day operations, they have not disabled any questionable defaults of their operating system, they are connected to the internet, and they are running Microsoft Windows. Clearly, that is not a protected comptuer, and as such, gets no protection from this law."

This almost certainly falls under various US anti-spyware laws. It *probably* falls under good old 18 USC 1030 as well. The reason why spyware and other trojans don't is the nominal "authorization" of the EULA. If it installs even when you specifically decline that authorization, that should be a violation of law. Granted that the odds of any DA choosing to go after media companies for this is... poor.

That's why I didn't quote the original statistic, which says that guns are 22 times more likely to be used against family members than against an intruder.

I believe the stats actually are for acquaintances, which would include a dealer killing another dealer. In 2003, there were 16000 total murders.Handgun murders were some portion of that. Non-shooting uses aren't tracked quite as accurately, but I would expect them to be higher. It's also worth noting that handgun murders are generally done with illegal guns, so the net result of any ban is to disarm the populace.

Finally, I'll end with this point. If you truly need a handgun for protection, law enforcement notwithstanding, then something else is seriously wrong,

One example would be living in New Jersey. Guns won't solve the underlying problem, but they can help you avoid becoming a statistic.

Food for thought: Handgun crime has plummeted in the last decade.

Actually, my stats may have been a bit out of date. Here's another take on it :
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/llgsfp.htm

Now, the idea that recidivism is responsible for these insanely high numbers is not althogether true. Over the past few decades we've experienced record numbers of new convicts. Yes, recidivism is a problem with unbelievably high numbers, but it simply does not account for the massive increase in prison population. With longer sentances, and no real data to back this up I'm curious where you got that idea. If you have some info I'd love to see it. This kid should not serve as a shining example for anyone. He should face his community, realize there are real people with real issues with what he's done. Not the so-called 'Justice System', in which few have real faith anymore. Oh, wait, he probably has no community to speak of!
"doing things that put them there"
How about being poor or black? Does that count?
I just don't understand the mentality of people who support a system so blindly, when it is obviously so skewed towards those with money and power. Maybe I do understand it but I really don't want to accept that folks are so apathetic. Trying to tell me that convicts have opportunities to make positive change is beyond preposterous. The culture surrounding them simply does not allow for this, even if you want to believe it does. Never spent any time locked up, huh? These facilites do not encourage change, pal. They thrive on maintaining the status quo, keeping the numbers up. These institutions are nothing without control. Racism, sexism, hate, and personal power trips are some of the tools in which this is achieved. That's not to say it cannot happen, but please don't be so niave about life in a cell.
The idea that this guy should be disenfranchised from his family, friends, and life is simply old, tired and fear-induced thinking, IMO.
But then again, I think living a lifestyle like Hilton is criminal by it's very essence, so we obviously have a stand off.

1. Sold control of Atari to Jack Tramiel, in exchange for promissory notes, just when Atari had a lot of potential for success. Tramiel then proceeded to carry out an insane price war that destroyed both Atari and Commodore.
2. Merged with AOL, then made a series of decisions that destroyed the value of the merger for AOL, and otherwise harmed AOL's business.
3. Settled the AOL case with Microsoft for only $1 billion, when they could have hung on for $10 billion.
4. Is considering selling AOL to Microsoft.

And I suspect that's why he drew a sentence of eleven months for what he did, instead of, say, twenty one months. Or thirty six months. Or 108 months.

Maybe I'll accept such penalties for children committing non-violent "hacking" crimes when we treat drunk drivers and wife-beaters and child-abusers and rapists with the same ferocity.

It doesn't have to be an either-or thing, really. If you feel that society doesn't give enough weight to the punishments in those crimes, you're far more likely to have success arguing that the penalties there should be stiffened. I'll not argue.

Using the FBI's own statistics for unbiased analysis:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/arrests.wk1

If you take a look at the FBI's statistics, violent crime (and, separately, property crime), in teenagers, has dropped every single year since the release of the original PlayStation - the point where graphics (and hence violence) started to become lifelike.

Arrest Rate For Violent Crimes/100,000 by age

1995 - PSX Released
14 and under: 77.2
15-17: 947.1
18-20: 982.7

1998 - GTA1 Released
14 and under: 59.3
15-17: 661.9
18-20: 811.5

2000 - PS2 Released
14 and under: 55.0
15-17: 549.5
18-20: 709.9

2002 - GTA3 Released
14 and under: 49.1
15-17: 511.7
18-20: 669.2

2003 - Most Recent Year Recorded
14 and under: 50.1
15-17: 504.6
18-20: 645.9

Or, in terms of DEcrease:
14 and under: 35.1%
15-17: 46.7%
18-20: 34.3%

So, since the arrival of the PSX and healthier outlets for violence, there's been a 34.3-46.7% DEcrease in violent crime amongst children and teens?

At what point will those campaigning against them will admit to either deliberately lying or, at best, being woefully ill informed of the actual truth?

Perhaps a question, along with those statistics, worth asking of your congressmen and senators. As they're only politicians, perhaps you could draw them a nice graph.

Using the FBI's own statistics for unbiased analysis:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/violarr.wk1

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/arrests.wk1

If you take a look at the FBI's statistics, violent crime (and, separately, property crime), in teenagers, has dropped every single year since the release of the original PlayStation - the point where graphics (and hence violence) started to become lifelike.

Arrest Rate For Violent Crimes/100,000 by age

1995 - PSX Released
14 and under: 77.2
15-17: 947.1
18-20: 982.7

1998 - GTA1 Released
14 and under: 59.3
15-17: 661.9
18-20: 811.5

2000 - PS2 Released
14 and under: 55.0
15-17: 549.5
18-20: 709.9

2002 - GTA3 Released
14 and under: 49.1
15-17: 511.7
18-20: 669.2

2003 - Most Recent Year Recorded
14 and under: 50.1
15-17: 504.6
18-20: 645.9

Or, in terms of DEcrease:
14 and under: 35.1%
15-17: 46.7%
18-20: 34.3%

So, since the arrival of the PSX and healthier outlets for violence, there's been a 34.3-46.7% DEcrease in violent crime amongst children and teens?

At what point will those campaigning against them will admit to either deliberately lying or, at best, being woefully ill informed of the actual truth?

Perhaps a question, along with those statistics, worth asking of your congressmen and senators. As they're only politicians, perhaps you could draw them a nice graph.

how else are we going to intimidate the governments and populations that would whole-heartedly jump into the terrorism game?

Oh i dunno maybe try too make some friends on this earth that don't require $$ or guns pointed at them?

When you're the lone ranger trying to impose your will, of course you need to bring out the big guns. However, the world I think would respect us more if we showed up to the fight with some real friends -- you know to kind of validate what we are doing.

terrorism is about slaughtering women and children.

Come on think it through. You have to put yourself in their position to understand what motivates them to fight. Then you can use it against them.

Maybe you didn't notice but right now your attitude and our countries actions are only pouring gasoline on the fire. We are playing right into their hands. Damn, we might as well be mailing them al-qaeda training manuals... oh wait -- we are

They fight fearlessly, by that I mean they are willing to die, because they feel they have the moral high ground. Have you ever asked your self why?

Bush may be able to stir up some moral rhetoric -- bringing the fight to them to protect our citizens. But, come on, that hardly trumps their reasons for fighting. And so they will continue to fight.

They are fighting us for the same reasons we all bitch about our own country. Look where our solidified Pro-corporate government took capitalism. That would be -- to a bad, bad place.

Bound by no moral code, our corporations are limited only by the constraints of law (of which they are now rewriting) and the desire for continuing growth (kind of like a cancer, no?).

The result of which is the wholesale exploitation of anything and everything they can get away with.

It has always been about exploitation. Reflecting back through world history, it seems that's what humanity will be remembered for.

So really, they are afraid that the US wont stop until there are stripmalls/casinos/paris hiltons on every corner in the world. They are afraid of erasing long-standing cultures in favor of the "Anywhere,USA" image. They are afraid of marketing their heritage back to them as cartoons on lunchboxes. Basically they are afraid of mirroring our sinful vapid throwaway pop culture.

Sure we know we are not as empty as our pop culture, government and corporations' presents us to be. But to an outsider, that has got to be a pretty scary picture. If the "For the people, by the people" lost control of its government, then what hope does the rest of the world have?

The great flaw of all governments is the politicians themselves. Our constitution recognized this and tried to distribute the power to govern. However, as we are now seeing, once the distribution of power organized under one leadership (republicans, specifically the neo-cons) our constitution has been relegated to the status of 'barrier to seize more power' instead that of a 'guide of intent, or the master blueprint'.

No, the only way terrorism will end is with a great social change in america to the realization that we are not beholden to our corporations -- corporations are our children by our creation not the other way around. Because of this I know things will change. At some point the people will come to a collective understanding which will push our government back in the right direction.

After the US reforms, if/when the terrorists do come.. feel free to make all the glass parking lots you want. Just give me something to fight for first -- the black list databases, intollerance towards different cultures/governments/ideologies, disrespect of the poor, Tax shelters for the rich and givaways to corps, DMCA's, disregard for the sick and elderly, cronyism, nationalist propaganda distributed by our government, supression of labor unions, life imprisonment without ever having a trial, dismissal of science when it enters the realm of politics, IP laws, copyrights until the cows come home and our questionable election practices just don't cut it for me.

\2008 can't come soon enough.

Below are some excerpts from a US Department of Justice report. Read them, and then decide if you want to face the facts or if you prefer continue to hide your head in the sand. The facts are: our government can be (and was, and is) bought and sold like a cheap whore. Just because you think the claims sound outrageous doesn't mean they aren't true.

Between 1995 and 2000, Microsoft donated more than $3.5 million to federal candidates and to the national parties, about two-thirds of which was contributed during the 2000 election cycle alone.6 Including company and employee donations to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft's giving (that of the company, its PAC and its employees) amounted to more than $6.1 million, far more than has been previously reported. 7 Nearly $1 million came in the 40 days immediately before the November 7th election. As most political operatives know, these late contributions often are made by donors who don't want their participation known until after the election, when financial reports for the final days of a campaign are due, and public and news media attention are no longer focused upon the election. The effect of delaying contributions until very near the election is to thwart efforts by the news media and the political opposition to make disclosures meaningful to voters before they vote.

Comprising the majority of Microsoft's campaign contributions was soft money.8 Like their overall presence in Washington, Microsoft's soft money donations grew substantially since the beginning of the antitrust trial. In fact, in the seven days preceding Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling against Microsoft, the company donated more in soft money to the national political parties than it gave to federal candidates and political parties between 1989 and 1996.

23. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Microsoft and its executives accounted for some $2,298,551 in "soft money" contributions, according to FEC records. For context, consider that this was two-thirds more than the $1,546,055 in soft money contributed by the now-bankrupt Enron and its executives during the same period.

As one business commentator put it: "there's something quite disturbing about watching the world's richest man trying to buy his way out of trouble with Uncle Sam Gates's actions undermine the legal system itself."

The Americans with Disabilities Act applies to the private sector, local and state authorities, and Section 508 applies to federal agencies.

(drug addicts etc)

Ok I'm just sick of stereotypes like this. Alcohol causes far more violent crime than drugs, even when comparing per capita to account for the discrepency in use. And,
"Twenty-one percent of violent felons in state prisons committed their crimes while under the influence of alcohol alone. Only 3% were high on crack or powder cocaine alone and only 1% were using heroin alone." Califano, Joseph, Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population, Forward by Joseph Califano, NCASA at Columbia University (1998).
And since 49% of inmates were violent offenders, that amounts to about 950,000 such offenders (BJS, 2001), and since only 4% of those were addicted to "hard" drugs (see above, no reason to doubt approximate validity over time given incarceration trends), that amounts to only 38,000 violent drug offenders in a population of the ~6 million current drug users of "hard" drugs (stimulants/narcotics) (NHSDA, 2003), it can be roughly estimated that only 0.6% of drug addicts commit violent crimes, which is likely a high estimate. Furthermore, with 950,000/295000000, the violent crime rate in the general population is 0.32%, drug addicts are only twice as likely to be violent criminals than the general population, and I say only because of things like African Americans, who respresent about 50% of all violent criminals (BJS), but only 12.8% of the population, so therefore are nearly 4 times more likely to be violent criminals.
12.9 million of the general population are current heavy drinkers (NHSDA, 2001), and alcohol related violent crime being at 21% (200000), that's 1.55% of heavy drinkers being violent criminals, or 258x more likely to be violent offenders than current users of hard drugs. Bottom line is, get a better grip on reality and stop perpetuating the myth that most drug addicts are violent psychopaths. They make up a tiny minority of violent criminals. The vast majority of the (tiny percentage) of crimes committed by drug users are non-violent property crimes.

BJS = Bureau Of Justice Statistics-Prisons, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
NHSDA = National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, http://oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/

Right you are. But the U.S. also shows fewer property crimes when victim surveys are used instead of official police-recorded statistics.

It tuns out that many crimes that are reported to the authorities in England are not officially recorded . The ineffectual British police are cooking the books to make themselves look better, and provide talking points to sneering, ill-informed, anti-American Eurotrash assholes.

I prefer something like number of fatalities due to violent crime.

WTF? Apples and oranges, dude. We were talking about property crimes, not murders.

By the way, if current trends continue, England's murder rate will surpass the USA sometime around 2012.

Right you are. But the U.S. also shows fewer property crimes when victim surveys are used instead of official police-recorded statistics.

It tuns out that many crimes that are reported to the authorities in England are not officially recorded . The ineffectual British police are cooking the books to make themselves look better, and provide talking points to sneering, ill-informed, anti-American Eurotrash assholes.

I prefer something like number of fatalities due to violent crime.

WTF? Apples and oranges, dude. We were talking about property crimes, not murders.

By the way, if current trends continue, England's murder rate will surpass the USA sometime around 2012.

As opposed to those compact, bustling European cities where nobody ever gets robbed.

-ccm

Ok, Bush, stop posting on Slashdot and get back to work.

I'm not a lawyer but it would seem that this should also be raised at the federal level under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/). Anything that might potentially be covered under FOIA should always be made available in an open format. While you might be able to get a paper copy in lieu of a closed file format, why should you have to incur the additional overhead (not to mention subjecting the taxpayers to further waste)? Seems like a reasonable argument for abolishing closed file formats across the board when tax payer funds are involved...

The NET Act (No Electronic Theft) of 1997 criminalized unlicensed, non-profit, re-distribution. WWW.CYBERCRIME.GOV The Robin Hood defense is dead.

The music was legally sold to a customer. That customer chose to share something which they bought ownership of. If the music industry wants to deal in rentals then they should make that clear at the point of sale.

You don't own the music, you own the disk. That has been the law in the U.S. since the piano roll days of Irving Berlin, Victor Herbert and John Philip Sousa. The Birth of ASCAP 1914

You want a license for broadcast, public performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it separately.

But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.

Americans have never been comfortable with natural law as a guiding principle in a court of law. They expect legal decisions and debate to have a solid anchorage in a written constitution, a treaty, a statute. You are unlikely to ever hear a natural law argument made in an American court.

The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution

Treaties have equal status with the Constitution, and can significantly expand federal power, something to think about when considering copyright law.

Current copyright law is the newer, kinder, gentler extortion... and nothing more

...and your solution is to subvert the right of every author to profit from the distribution of his own work? I think I'll take my stand with the pirate whose thievery is untainted by self-righteousness

"After that 80-year-old "child actor" in the MPAA was found to be the source of most bootleg DVDs (courtesy of Oscar), how come we didn't hear about the mob he fed getting frogmarched off some kind of plank?"

Because people are either reading too quickly, or have another reading comprehension issue. They're reading "organized crime" and must be thinking of the Italian mafia or something. The fellow to which you're referring is Carmine Caridi, and he was indeed busted by the FBI. He gave his screeners to one guy. That's a total of two guys, and that is the type of "organized crime" to which the article refers... not the Italian mafia. "Organized crime" is a very broad term, but this fact seems to have been lost on most people who've read the article.

Generally speaking, individual BT users are typically sued by the copyright holders. When it's the warez rings, then it's the job of the feds.

There are plentiful examples of the feds making busts of organized warez groups... Google is your friend.

"as stated elsewhere most BT users won't break your knees, crush your nuts in a vise or bust a cap in your ass if you go after them."

And neither will the warez groups and the Chinese DVD factory owners and the guys with the contacts at the studio who get the screeners. There's a HUGE reading comprehension issue here, folks -- you're reading "organized crime" and I guess you're thinking of the Italian-American mafia or something. You're smarter than that. You should understand that "organized crime" means just that: more than one person working in cooperation. RTFA if you'd like to learn more. I can't believe this post was modded "insightful."

Regardless of this, the feds bust warez groups, bootleg DVD operations and other organized piracy schemes

Here's an example, and another one, and another one, and another one.

It took me all of like two minutes with Google to find these.

Not according to the DEA. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/listby _sched/sched2.htm

"Providing copyrighted material for upload without explicit permission by the publisher is illegal." - no, actually, copyright infringment is a civil tort (notwithstanding the ludicrious new laws congress has been considering lately)

And before somebody says it, no, I don't think drug legalization is the answer.

Why?

Especially given all the evidence (failed prohibition in the 20s; current prohibition failing (I can get pot for $35/quarter, coke for $50 for a small bag but I don't buy it so I don't know exact amounts; mushrooms for $15 for 1.5 oz, and hits of acid for $5--and Greendale is a bodaciously small town, Lane!); huuuuuuuuuge amounts of tax dollars being thrown down the toilet in enforcement and prison-worship instead of humanely treating the abusers, and providing an environment for the mere users to enjoy the high; and conversely, absolutely no tax revenue from the billions (US government estimates $60-108 billion) of dollars of sales per year of these products and associated products and services (most pipes are sold by head shops, which pay taxes; however, fucking Tommy Chong went to jail (but good news: was released a year ago) just for selling pieces of plastic with pictures of himself on them!) trying to make an honest buck.

Sorry, didn't mean to go off on a rant, but how can you possibly defend that position? "I know better than you what you should put in your body?" Bullshit! We're all sovereign entities over our cells. "Your smoking pot might raise my health care bills" is not evidence to be used in defending prohibition; it's evidence to be used in eliminating the existing health-care system which has too many interdependencies! (Insurance would not be offered if it wasn't profitable; therefore, it would be most efficient if the user paid 100%, but that's not possible because prices are inflated because the insurers will pay them.)

What makes you think drug illegalization was the right answer for the time, back when the decisions were made, either? Most accounts show that the predominant reason for making a substance illegal is because "them nigger's been fuckin my daughters!" Or Chinks, Spics, whatever racial slur the racists who made those laws used to get the abominations passed. Are you, therefore, a racist?

Sounds like the same whining you'd expect after a little league team gets beat by the league champs.

Aggressive Innovation is NOT the same as dominating a market through unfair monopolistic practices.

Yes, you are right. Instead of directing their efforts to teach about parenting, perhaps it would be better to direct them to improving the public education system in this country.

I keep having to remind myself that the issue of violence in youths is incredibly exaggerated. As many people have pointed out, and can be found here, and here, crime rates among all age groups have actually be declining for the past decade.

Yes, you are right. Instead of directing their efforts to teach about parenting, perhaps it would be better to direct them to improving the public education system in this country.

I keep having to remind myself that the issue of violence in youths is incredibly exaggerated. As many people have pointed out, and can be found here, and here, crime rates among all age groups have actually be declining for the past decade.

Does the U.S. Department of Justice count? Because it appears that youth crime has been declining since 1993. But I suppose I'm an amateur without knowledge of statistics...

Not that those of us that refuse to use IE and/or Windows are 'handicapped' in some way... shouldn't access be universal? or as made as close as possible by following standards?

and why even bother coding all of that stuff when you'd eventually have to do it 'the right way'?

*sigh* then again, how can you expect common sense out of a government office that issues ridiculous patents all day long?

Britain and Australia top U.S. in violent crime (the U.S. wasn't even in the top 10!)

Crime is higher in the UK in every major category except rape and murder, which are declining in the U.S. and have for the past decade

Official crime rate facts

No matter how much some need to believe it, the U.S. is not some downtrodden, crime-ridden hellhole. Europeans and other foreigners need to stop watching Law & Order to get their idea of what the U.S. is like.

I'm not so sure about that. Nobody can argue that the United States has ridiculously high rates of homicide. But that's far from clear as to other violent crimes. For example: This report (warning: pdf) is dated, but since crime levels in the United States have trended down while crime rates in the UK/Wales have trended up, its conclusion is probably still valid.

Homicide rates are regarded as a key balanced metric for violent crime (ie, not heavily influenced by variants of law). US homicide rates vary widely by region, but their average of about 10 homicides per 100,000 people is high in the context of region and comparative wealth (Canada is 1.7/100,000, for example).
Washington DC's homicide rate of 45.8/100,000 is more than a hundred times that of the capital of the European Union, Brussels
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#world

You might want to look at http://reactor-core.org/in-microsoft-we-trust.html It's obviously constructed out of bias, but presents factual information.
Here's the per-processor announcement for the OS, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July94/94387.tx t.html as you can see it's 1994. This antitrust investigation was started by the FTC in 1990.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/ microsoft/state_suit.html section 11 details the case against Microsoft's bundling of Office.
NOTE: I never said Microsoft Office overtook Lotus and Wordperfect unfairly (although there has been comment on Microsoft using hidden APIs in their Office software to their advantage). Liebowitz's analysis is true in this respect. Microsoft just unfairly closed the market once they overtook the competition.

"unethical you bet... but if it was 'illegal' then bill gates would be in jail, and he's not."

The federal government collects statistics on crime. Police departments all over the nation have to report collective data to the feds. This information is used to shape public policy and to measure the success (or failure) of policy changes.

> If they want to take a stab at Linux (and they do/are), they wouldn't do it through OpenGL. It's not one of the major selling points for Linux. It's not easy to setup and get accelerated correctly, the drivers can be buggy, it's just not where Microsoft would focus their attention.

First, who says that this is Microsoft's only focus? This would be just one of a thousand things that Microsoft is currently working on to slow Linux down, to hurt Linux's reputation, to make it hard for Linux to use standard PC hardware, and so on.

Second, there is a reason why Microsoft is worried about Linux and accelerated graphics, and that reason is XGL. With XGL, the X Window Server would run on top of OpenGL accelerated graphics, giving the entire Linux desktop amazing speed, and eye-catching new features. Microsoft can't do anything to stop XGL (nor can they match it with Longhorn/Vista), so they are settling for the next best thing, which is to reduce the incentive for hardware manufacturers to support OpenGL. Better yet, for Microsoft, would be if all the video card makers followed in NVidia's footsteps, and ran OpenGL in emulation mode on top of DirectX, because that would give Microsoft control (and future leverage) over a protocol on which Linux depends.

Third, we have seen in the past that graphics support is an area that Microsoft considers to be important. For example, consider how hard Microsoft worked to prevent Java from having access to high-performance graphics on Windows, as shown by the following excerpt from the DOJ Findings of Fact:

> 406. In February 1997, one of Intel's competitors, called AMD, solicited support from Microsoft for its "3DX" technology, which provided sophisticated multimedia support for games. Microsoft's Allchin asked Gates whether Microsoft should support 3DX, despite the fact that Intel would oppose it. Gates responded: "If Intel has a real problem with us supporting this then they will have to stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are. I would gladly give up supporting this if they would back off from their work on JAVA which is terrible for Intel." Near the end of March, Allchin sent another message to Gates and Maritz. In it he wrote, "I am positive that we must do a direct attack on Sun (and probably Oracle). . . . Between ourselves and our partners, we can certainly hurt their (certainly Sun's) revenue base. . . . We need to get Intel to help us. Today, they are not." Two months later, Eric Engstrom, a Microsoft executive with responsibility for multimedia development, wrote to his superiors that one of Microsoft's goals was getting "Intel to stop helping Sun create Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well (ie native implementations) on Windows." Engstrom proposed achieving this goal by offering Intel the following deal: Microsoft would incorporate into the Windows API set any multimedia interfaces that Intel agreed to not help Sun incorporate into the Java class libraries. Engstrom's efforts apparently bore fruit, for he testified at trial that Intel's IAL subsequently stopped helping Sun to develop class libraries that offered cutting-edge multimedia support.