Slashdot Mirror

Tell it to the judge:

" In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

Microsoft apologists need more than whipping out a dictionary to argue law and economics. Maybe you think the world starts and ends with Encarta, but that's because you're just Microsoft's favorite kind of victim.

I don't recieve any spam to my gmail, because really I don't register to anything with it. Prevention is better than cure I say. My hotmail on the other hand, no I do not want pills, or university courses, or free prizes, or trips to the moon, or Al-Qaeda training manuals...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/ statutoryrape/handbook/issu.html Exclusions for rape: Under current laws, depending upon the State, the age differential may be set at from 2 to 6 years older than the minor. Most often, however, it is set at 3 or 4 years. In the survey, the age differentials reflected these variations.

Although "negro" is considered offensive (maybe parent doesn't know that), bringing up facts does not make parent racist.

Blacks are seven times more likely to commit homicide than whites.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Chicago really is a dangerous city. I didn't even apply to the University of Chicago (even though I had a reasonable chance of being admitted) due to the fact that the neighborhood around the college is so dangerous that students can't even leave!

> And if Microsoft started adding in patches for software that isn't theirs you would be screaming "MONOPOLY" at the top of your lungs.

Wrong.

I scream "monopoly" because, if an ISP were to bundle various applications with their PCs, along with Windows, and were to offer an update service for all those applications, along with Windows, then Microsoft would punish that ISP (with higher prices or worse) unless they _removed_ support for any applications that Microsoft did not approve.

Microsoft is not a monopoly because of what they _include_.

Microsoft is a monopoly because of what they _exclude_.

To learn more about what makes Microsoft a monopoly, read the DOJ's Findings of Facts.

For example, there is this passage where Bill Gates threatens Apple to force them to drop support for Netscape:

> Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

Or these passages where Microsoft threatens Intel to get them to stop helping Sun to improve Java performance on Intel hardware:

> To hinder Sun and Netscape from improving the quality of the Windows JVM shipped with Navigator, Microsoft pressured Intel, which was developing a high-performance Windows-compatible JVM, to not share its work with either Sun or Netscape, much less allow Netscape to bundle the Intel JVM with Navigator. Gates was himself involved in this effort. During the August 2, 1995 meeting at which he urged Intel to halt IAL's development of platform-level software, Gates also announced that Intel's cooperation with Sun and Netscape to develop a Java runtime environment for systems running on Intel's microprocessors was one of the issues threatening to undermine cooperation between Intel and Microsoft. By the spring of 1996, Intel had developed a JVM designed to run well on Intel-based systems while complying with Sun's cross-platform standards. Microsoft executives approached Intel in April of that year and urged that Intel not take any steps toward allowing Netscape to ship this JVM with Navigator.

> In one instance of this effort to stunt the growth of the Java class libraries, Microsoft used threats to withhold Windows operating-system support from Intel's microprocessors and offers to include Intel technology in Windows in order to induce Intel to stop aiding Sun in the development of Java classes that would support innovative multimedia functionality.

> 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.

As to your suggestion that Microsoft offer an update service, experience has taught us to expect the following:

The updates for Microsoft's own software would work fine.

But the updates for competing products, like Firefox, or Java, would periodically cause those products to break.

It's in Microsoft's nature to cheat. They can't be trusted.

to the black underclass of Cuba. This would probably piss off (and weaken) Castro more than the sanctions.

I think, you got the country wrong. Its the US you must be talking about. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/d_jailrair.htm on how more are more blacks are being sent to prison. And obviously, for every 2.5 blacks in college, there is one in jail/parole http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/002309.ht ml . Its about time somebody "liberated" them. Sorry, it won't be China or India and definitely not the US which has screwed them for centuries.

I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that x percent (maybe it's .5 percent, maybe not) of the people we jail are innocent. I certainly don't think that means we should stop putting people in jail, or that the other 99.5% don't belong there.

What it does mean is that we can't just think, "it doesn't matter what rights we take away from prisoners--they're criminals who gave up their rights and deserve whatever they get." Perhaps .5% of them are innocent people who are getting what they don't deserve. With 2,131,180 people in state, federal, or local jails as of June 2004 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm), that .5% translates to 10,655 people--no big deal, a vanishing statistic. Unless you're one of them. Granted, RFID is probably not high on the list of issues that worry them.

I agree with you about blacks getting harsher sentances, however the difference was "only" 25% between 1994-96, which in no way accounts for the fact that Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002 (although it should be noted these are different dates). The War on drugs should not affect these figures as they are based on homicide, not drug related offences - in fact the War on Drugs could in theory bring down drug related murders.

O was looking at these figures which are concerned with homicide. Blacks also commit disproportionate amounts of crime in other countries (warning: PDF), although their drug-dealing homicide promoting culture could be a cause of this, it is very worrying still.

When Al Qaeda members are caught, they'll claim anything to discredit the US. Thanks for playing their game.

Yet recently declassified court documents allege that, as far back as 2002, some of Guantanamo's staff cursed Allah, threw Korans into toilets, mocked prisoners during prayers and deliberately took away prisoners' pants knowing that Muslims can't pray unless covered.

Quick! Call a WAAAAMBULANCE! It's so HORRIBLE!!! Someone may have cursed their god!!!

Seriously, you also seem to have a problem understanding the word "allege". Please note that the article you quote doesn't mention at all who's doing the "alleging", now does it?

I'd "allege" you're an idiot, but you've already demonstrated that "beyond a reasonable doubt". You dumbass dhimmi-wanna-be.

From an Al Qaeda training manual:

IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

3. Make arrangements for the brother's defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother's family or court-appointed.

4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]

5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case,they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.

6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.

It took me a while to figure out that you were referring to:

Meanwhile, the APS/AAI statements cite other federal policies and regulations the NIH proposal seemingly violates, including the Freedom of Information Act and an Office of Management and Budget circular that says the NIH must perform a "cost comparison study."

To address your question, I think at least one site lost information in paraphrasing. APS states "While this outcome arguably could be defeated by reliance on FOIA Exemption Four, 5 U.S.C. [section] 552(b)(4)...". And the FOIA shows that this exemption is "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential". However, this does not mean that this information cannot be published (as far as I can tell - IANAL), merely that it doesn't have to be published. However, I think that the previously mentioned link has misrepresented the APS position on this. (I'm not saying I agree with the APS, merely that I don't believe they are using the FOIA to justify blocking the information, merely saying that the FOIA does not forbid blocking the information.)

Don't you mean 8,000-198,000 dead Iraqis? The only study that covers your 50,000-100,000 dead range is the Lancet study, which has a margin of error of around 92%. The next highest would be the UN, which is somewhere in the range of 18,000-32,000.

Meanwhile your "multiple sources" was the original unnamed source who brought the allegation to Newsweeks attention (the man who has since retracted) and two Pentagon spokesmen who simply didn't contradict those claims. And it's nice that court documents allege that. Of course, all that that means is that someone once tried to take the US government to court over the matter, not that there was ever any truth to it.

As for you detainees' allegations, you might want to read the Al Qaeda Training Manual before giving them creedence.

I mean if you consider that recently Jeb Bush legalized the use of firearm in public as long as one feel his live is endangered, the spam capital of the world, a primary entry point for most of the drug in the US...

And it's governor another Bush, what a great american family...

Look at it this way, guns can be used to hunt for food. But the truth is, 99% of gun use is against people. You can argue about their legitmate use and bad rap 'till you're blue in the face, but the legitmate uses are statistically outweighed by bad ones.

So any use of a gun against a person is bad? What about disabling criminals? And are you counting non-hunting sports shooting in your made up statistic?

And what about the bigger picture? The reason we have the second ammendment in our Bill or Rights is to ensure that those rights can be protected. Have your read the Declaration of Independence lately? Do you remember this part?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Just how do you suppose the founding fathers expected us to abolish said destructive government? With pitchforks?

Guns aren't the problem, people are the problem. Of the roughly eighty million gun owners in America, how many have used a gun to commit a crime? A quick search tells me we have a prison population of approximately two million. Let's make up a statistic (like you did!) and say that every single one of those criminals used a gun to commit a crime and came from that pool of eighty million gun owners. Our made-up statistic tells us that 2.5% of gun owners use them to commit crimes. Is this an accurate statistic? No, but it puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Do the deeds of a very few outweigh the rights of everyone else? Does taking guns away from law-abiding citizens keep them out of criminals' hands? No and no.

If you're interesting in real statistics, the Bureau of Justice has some very interesting ones relating to the use of guns to commit violent crimes.

How about we not waste law enforcement efforts on pointless enforcement efforts that will get nowhere and instead focus those efforts on internet-based crimes, such as the fraud/theft rings behind spam, phishing and other activities?

Here's what the Department of Justice has to say. It's an interesting read.

Good point, you should have done it rather than posting about it.

Here are some statistics for your hungry little minds.

From the Illinois Council against Handgun Violence

In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Digging a little deeper, from the Department of Justice

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline. Homicides committed with a firearm fell from 18,300 in 1993 to 13,300 in 1997, a 27% decline.

And from the Burlington Free Press

Vermont's loss of hunters is part of a national trend. The number of hunters declined from 14.06 million to 13.03 million, or 7.3 percent, from 1991 to 2001, according to the Census Bureau and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The drop was greater in the West -- 9.6 percent, from 2.46 million to 2.22 million.

Not a direct comparison, but it's hard to find numbers detailing the number of times a gun was discharged at a person versus discharged at an animal or target. Nevertheless, it's pretty apparent the original poster was incorrect. The vast majority of shooting in the US is not at people, but at animals and targets.

So, back on topic. The analogy was not a good one. A closer analogy could be made for handguns (handguns are not designed for hunting, but a lot of people do use them for target practice), but it still wouldn't be a good one.

Sorry here's the link: Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property by the US Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission An interesting read.

Because the rate of recidivism for violent sex offenders is nearly 100%

Do you have a cite for that statistic? I could only find this:

Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release. [USDOJ]

but that only gives data for up to three years after. It doesn't say anything about recidivism after 3 years which may or may not be significant.

I don't know how well it works, but there is always: spam@uce.gov It is the FTC's official phishing reporting address. http://www.usdoj.gov/spam.htm

"Three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

"Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products.

"The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."

Actually, in a lot of places, he's only protected from discrimination against age, race, sex, religion, and national origin. A lot of states have laws against discrimination due to handicap, but I doubt that would apply everywhere (no one would be surprised to find you can discriminate against people in wheelchairs applying for lifeguard positions).

Since being ugly, short, bald, and fat is NOT a handicap, you can easily discriminate on that basis. (I think that was a subject for a Dilbert cartoon)

(P.S.-Disclaimer: I'm not a USian, but that's what I understand from 42 USC 708)

>Or what about when mommy wants to get some crystal off of ebay?
>
If mom is buying hard drugs from eBay, the kids have bigger issues then their poor GamerTag stats...

Most states have been cracking down on rape for years. In California, the minimum sentence is three years, with six and eight years possible. (California Penal Code, Section 264) It's rare that other charges are not also added on, such as false imprisonment, assault, battery, and/or lewd acts.

Back in 1992, the average sentence in the US was almost ten years, with more than half of that served on average. (Source) As of 2002, the average sentence in state prisons was 104 months (a little under nine years) and 154 months (almost 13 years) in federal prison. Average actual stay in state prison is 90 months (a little over seven years); no numbers were available for average federal stays, but those are almost certainly longer. (Source)

Most states have been cracking down on rape for years. In California, the minimum sentence is three years, with six and eight years possible. (California Penal Code, Section 264) It's rare that other charges are not also added on, such as false imprisonment, assault, battery, and/or lewd acts.

Back in 1992, the average sentence in the US was almost ten years, with more than half of that served on average. (Source) As of 2002, the average sentence in state prisons was 104 months (a little under nine years) and 154 months (almost 13 years) in federal prison. Average actual stay in state prison is 90 months (a little over seven years); no numbers were available for average federal stays, but those are almost certainly longer. (Source)

I guess this would extend to beta releases as well. Possession of a copy of Tiger would now carry a similar penalty as possession of a schedule IV drug.

W

Speaking of niggling details, I don't see anything here that says anything about Office file formats.

In fact, as another interesting AC post linked to, in 1996 at least, most people were in jail for less severe crimes than selling drugs, if you gauge by severity of punishment imposed on those committing the crime. Trafficking in drugs is 9.2% of total incarcerations, all violent offences are only 23.3% of total. The total of more minor stuff like robbery, traffic offences, drug possession, etc (all of which (and along with some of the violent offences!) are generally less severely punished than selling drugs...) easily exceeds 9.2%...

Fine.

Here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pji96.htm, a reference backing up that 15% figure: Note how 11% of american felons are incarcerated for mere drug possession and a few percent for various "public order" offences (page 4) including "obstruction of justice" (i.e. not cooperating with the police state goons), it's safe to say I would probably regard about 15% of the lawful incarcerations in america as unjust because the laws themselves are wrong. Since felons lose voting rights in america, your corporate-socialist government just uses that to make sure those who would vote them the hell out can't vote.

Also, I suspect you're white and upper middle class, if your peers you mention only got probation - relative severity of judgements in drug-related cases in america are notoriously racist. I don't think you have any idea of how evil america has become, so get a clue or go fuck yourself, you protofascist pig.

In the interest of promoting more enlightened discussion, the news release from the DOJ regarding this case can be found here.

I'd personally like to thank the people who made sure the keyboard loses USB focus (or whatever it is) every few seconds and drops keystrokes.

Piracy is a market-speak term that has no meaning in law. Just like terms such as "Intellectual Property" the term "piracy" is intended to loosely capture a whole set of specific ideas, but in fact it fails to capture the ideas for which it is intended as being synonymous. So let's get to it, shall we?

TITLE 18 USC, PART I, CHAPTER 113, Section 2318
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2318.html

Section 2318. Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit computer program documentation or packaging

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in a counterfeit label affixed or designed to be affixed to a phonorecord, or a copy of a computer program or documentation or packaging for a computer program, or a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, and whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in counterfeit documentation or packaging for a computer program, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term "counterfeit label" means an identifying label or container that appears to be genuine, but is not;
(2) the term "traffic" means to transport, transfer or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value or to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer or dispose of; and
(3) the terms "copy", "phonorecord", "motion picture", "computer program", and "audiovisual work" have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 101 (relating to definitions) of title 17.
(c) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) of this section are--
(1) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in section 46501 of title 49);
(2) the mail or a facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used or intended to be used in the commission of the offense;
(3) the counterfeit label is affixed to or encloses, or is designed to be affixed to or enclose, a copy of a copyrighted computer program or copyrighted documentation or packaging for a computer program, a copyrighted motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a phonorecord of a copyrighted sound recording; or
(4) the counterfeited documentation or packaging for a computer program is copyrighted.
(d) When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all counterfeit labels and all articles to which counterfeit labels have been affixed or which were intended to have had such labels affixed.
(e) Except to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of this title, all provisions of section 509, title 17, United States Code, are applicable to violations of subsection (a).

As a point of interest for myself, I note that this law actually makes a point of the fact that the crime must occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. - which kind of raises a huge question about that whole Australian national being brought over to the states a few weeks back.

The part you want to remember is this bit: "(2) the term "traffic" means to transport, transfer or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value."

As in: not free - for something of value. Bartered, sold, traded - not just given away.

Now, of course, they have added in the DMCA and The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1

There are approximately 5.6 million Americans who have served time in State or Federal prison either presently or at some point in their life (2001), which is 2.7% of the general population. Based on these rates and the growth of the rate, ~6.6% of people will serve state or federal prison time in their life. Source.
This incarceration rate is shamefully the worlds highest, exceeding even brutal dictatorships and communist states like China. This is largely do to incarceration of non-violent drug offenders.

So MS has been given judicial powers to grant clemency now?

Yes. They first used it for this case.

There is also the Privacy Act of '74, but administrations since then have been chipping away at it.

You are correct about one thing, there is a difference between Video Games and movies. It is probably unknowable just how substantial that difference is. To say games have a much greater effect on behavior than movies is pure speculation. Just ask the DC sniper from a few summers ago, he believed he was living in The Matrix. Here are some facts: since 1993, the gun homicide rate by juveniles has declined substantially. I'm sure you'll agree that Video Games have become much more realistic and violent since that time. If anything, this would indicate violent games reduce violent activity by juveniles. Want proof? Try this Dept of Justice link : http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htus00.pdf Frankly, this information indicates just how "scientific" studies by sociologists just don't jibe with realitly.

These consolidated civil antitrust actions alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 1 and 2, and various state statutes by the defendant Microsoft Corporation, were tried to the Court, sitting without a jury, between October 19, 1998, and June 24, 1999. The Court has considered the record evidence submitted by the parties, made determinations as to its relevancy and materiality, assessed the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, both written and oral, and ascertained for its purposes the probative significance of the documentary and visual evidence presented. Upon the record before the Court as of July 28, 1999, at the close of the admission of evidence, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), the Court finds the following facts to have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court shall state the conclusions of law to be drawn therefrom in a separate Memorandum and Order to be filed in due course.

These consolidated civil antitrust actions alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 1 and 2, and various state statutes by the defendant Microsoft Corporation, were tried to the Court, sitting without a jury, between October 19, 1998, and June 24, 1999. The Court has considered the record evidence submitted by the parties, made determinations as to its relevancy and materiality, assessed the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, both written and oral, and ascertained for its purposes the probative significance of the documentary and visual evidence presented. Upon the record before the Court as of July 28, 1999, at the close of the admission of evidence, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), the Court finds the following facts to have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court shall state the conclusions of law to be drawn therefrom in a separate Memorandum and Order to be filed in due course.

If I'm not mistaken, you do not have to give out your SSN to any agency that will not use it for Social Security related stuff.

Well, I never said you have to give it.

That is, the only people who need to know your SSN is your employer (for payroll taxes) and the SS Dept (along with the IRS).

Those two aren't the same statement. You need someone's social security number for more than just employment. For instance, if you pay someone interest, gambling winnings, or nonemployee compensation, and don't withhold 20% backup withholding, you need their SSN.

Since your school does not need your SSN, you don't have to give it to them.

No, you don't, and they don't have to let you go to their school.

Perhaps this was the original idea, but isn't that way in practice. I was always under the impression that it was on the books in the way I described.

Well, see http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/1974ssnu.htm for the closest thing I can find. From my quick reading, it seems even if it's a public school it would be perfectly legal for them to not let you attend without giving your social security number. If it's a private school, it's definitely legal.

Look here

The best quotes :
"Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. "
"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."

The most amusing thing is Doom was released at the peak in 1993. Perhaps people are taking their frustations out in violent video games instead of real life?

KEY FINDINGS
Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes. The proportion
excluding air weapons was 0.18 per cent.
Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 9,974 recorded crimes in 2001/02.
This was a 35 per cent increase over the previous year.
Air weapons were used in 12,340 recorded crimes, a rise of 21 per cent compared to 2000/01. Threequarters
(77%) of recorded crimes involving air weapons were of criminal damage.
There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms (including air
weapons) in 2001/02.
Handguns were used in 5,871 recorded crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Seventy
per cent of robberies in which a firearm was present involved a handgun.
The number of firearm robberies increased by a third (34%) between 2000-01 and 2001/02. Currently,
the number of firearm robberies is the highest since 1993. However, the proportion of robberies involving
firearms (including air weapons) has remained between four and five per cent for the last five years.
Weapons were fired in only 24 per cent of firearm crimes (excluding those involving air weapons). In
most of the cases (84%) where a handgun was present, it was used as a threat and was not fired or used
as a blunt instrument.

KEY FINDINGS
Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes. The proportion
excluding air weapons was 0.18 per cent.
Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 9,974 recorded crimes in 2001/02.
This was a 35 per cent increase over the previous year.
Air weapons were used in 12,340 recorded crimes, a rise of 21 per cent compared to 2000/01. Threequarters
(77%) of recorded crimes involving air weapons were of criminal damage.
There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms (including air
weapons) in 2001/02.
Handguns were used in 5,871 recorded crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Seventy
per cent of robberies in which a firearm was present involved a handgun.
The number of firearm robberies increased by a third (34%) between 2000-01 and 2001/02. Currently,
the number of firearm robberies is the highest since 1993. However, the proportion of robberies involving
firearms (including air weapons) has remained between four and five per cent for the last five years.
Weapons were fired in only 24 per cent of firearm crimes (excluding those involving air weapons). In
most of the cases (84%) where a handgun was present, it was used as a threat and was not fired or used
as a blunt instrument.

KEY FINDINGS
Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes. The proportion
excluding air weapons was 0.18 per cent.
Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 9,974 recorded crimes in 2001/02.
This was a 35 per cent increase over the previous year.
Air weapons were used in 12,340 recorded crimes, a rise of 21 per cent compared to 2000/01. Threequarters
(77%) of recorded crimes involving air weapons were of criminal damage.
There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms (including air
weapons) in 2001/02.
Handguns were used in 5,871 recorded crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Seventy
per cent of robberies in which a firearm was present involved a handgun.
The number of firearm robberies increased by a third (34%) between 2000-01 and 2001/02. Currently,
the number of firearm robberies is the highest since 1993. However, the proportion of robberies involving
firearms (including air weapons) has remained between four and five per cent for the last five years.
Weapons were fired in only 24 per cent of firearm crimes (excluding those involving air weapons). In
most of the cases (84%) where a handgun was present, it was used as a threat and was not fired or used
as a blunt instrument.

KEY FINDINGS
Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.4 per cent of all recorded crimes. The proportion
excluding air weapons was 0.18 per cent.
Firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used in 9,974 recorded crimes in 2001/02.
This was a 35 per cent increase over the previous year.
Air weapons were used in 12,340 recorded crimes, a rise of 21 per cent compared to 2000/01. Threequarters
(77%) of recorded crimes involving air weapons were of criminal damage.
There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms (including air
weapons) in 2001/02.
Handguns were used in 5,871 recorded crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Seventy
per cent of robberies in which a firearm was present involved a handgun.
The number of firearm robberies increased by a third (34%) between 2000-01 and 2001/02. Currently,
the number of firearm robberies is the highest since 1993. However, the proportion of robberies involving
firearms (including air weapons) has remained between four and five per cent for the last five years.
Weapons were fired in only 24 per cent of firearm crimes (excluding those involving air weapons). In
most of the cases (84%) where a handgun was present, it was used as a threat and was not fired or used
as a blunt instrument.

• In these and similar cases, courts have attempted to differentiate between passive and active providers. Passive providers generally facilitate transfers without human intervention and without looking at the content of files which users transfer. Active providers have taken some affirmative action, such as attempting to control content of user uploads, and are therefore considered more responsible for infringement than passive providers.

$NAMED_UNIVERSITY, you may now find yourself listed as a co-defendent in any copyright infringement cases involving Usenet, e-mail, FTP, IRC, http, and any of the plethora of other internet protocols at your students' disposal. Speaking for all Active providers, I would like to welcome you. It takes real set of brass ones to toss the ONE thing that protects you from countless lawsuits that last for years and will cost you millions of dollars in legal defense. Thank you for joining our ranks, you are now member number: 1.

PS: I'll bet they started policing the network on advice from their lawyer... He's a great guy to ask since he has so much to gain by seeing them tied up in court for eternity. =D

PPS: I wouldn't bother with the whole 'legitimate uses' crap. They don't give a flying fig. They are worried about lawsuits. Just point out, from a liability standpoint, this is the ABSOLUTE WORST possible course of action they could take. Frankly, the university staff should be ashamed of themselves for coming down on the side of Hollywood in 'Librarians v. Hollywood' but that's a whole other rant.

From http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/glossary. html
contract: An agreement between two or more persons that creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.

Likewise, files relating to another person regarding a matter the disclosure of which would invade that person's privacy ordinarily will not be disclosed. For example, if you seek information that would show that someone else (including even your spouse or another member of your immediate family) has ever been the subject of a criminal investigation -- or even was mentioned in a criminal file -- you will be requested to provide either: (1) a statement by that other person, authorizing the release of the information to you, that has been signed by that person and either was witnessed by a notary or includes a declaration made under penalty of perjury (using the language quoted in the preceding paragraph), or (2) evidence that the subject of your request is deceased, such as a death certificate, a newspaper obituary, or some comparable proof of death. Without proof of death or the subject's consent, in almost all cases the Justice Department will respond to a request made for information concerning another person's possible involvement in a law enforcement matter by advising that it will "neither confirm nor deny" the existence of responsive records. Such law enforcement information about a living person is released without that person's consent only when no privacy interest would be invaded by disclosing the information, when the information is already public or required to be made public, or when there is such a strong public interest in the disclosure that it overrides the individual's privacy interest.

Likewise, files relating to another person regarding a matter the disclosure of which would invade that person's privacy ordinarily will not be disclosed. For example, if you seek information that would show that someone else (including even your spouse or another member of your immediate family) has ever been the subject of a criminal investigation -- or even was mentioned in a criminal file -- you will be requested to provide either: (1) a statement by that other person, authorizing the release of the information to you, that has been signed by that person and either was witnessed by a notary or includes a declaration made under penalty of perjury (using the language quoted in the preceding paragraph), or (2) evidence that the subject of your request is deceased, such as a death certificate, a newspaper obituary, or some comparable proof of death. Without proof of death or the subject's consent, in almost all cases the Justice Department will respond to a request made for information concerning another person's possible involvement in a law enforcement matter by advising that it will "neither confirm nor deny" the existence of responsive records. Such law enforcement information about a living person is released without that person's consent only when no privacy interest would be invaded by disclosing the information, when the information is already public or required to be made public, or when there is such a strong public interest in the disclosure that it overrides the individual's privacy interest.

Orin Hatch is also chair of the Senate Jucidiary Committee - responsible for congress' oversight of the FBI. He stopped all investigation into misdeeds of 9-11 (not just incompetence).

Declassified version of Ashcroft's report into Sibel Edmonds (from the doj website - released on a friday at 5pm before a long weekend) (long, worth reading): http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0501/final.pdf Here is a letter that was retroactively classified by, and then finally unclassified: ""...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public's interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight."

U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in a Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft http://justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Leahy_G rassley_Letter_to_Ashcroft_7-9-04.pdf Republican member of the judiciary committee, Grassley, interviewed on 60 minutes believes Edmonds testimony is credible.

she didn't just alledge incompetence on transcribing the 9-11 tapes, she alleges espionage, and intentional blindness. To date this has still not been investigated according to Ashcroft's DOJ Report which noted that Edmonds was unfairly fired because of her whistleblowing.

Nothing dumb about it. Micrsoft has thumbed their nose at standards for the past 10 years, and the mess that is web standards is due mostly in part to the way IE (with > 90% marketshare) fails to adhere to those standards. Oh, and btw, if you haven't forgotten: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist in more than one continent. That means it's illegal for them to do shit like engineered lack of interoperability.
But some people keep apologizing for them (sigh).