Slashdot Mirror

Man, you really are a piece of work, aren't you. Why don't you read the act yourself. Take note of 17USC506 wherein you will find a list of Criminal Offenses as defined by this act. Note that nothing therein defines any sort of "theft". "Criminal infringement", yes, but not "theft". Theft has a specific legal definition-- essentially, depriving another of property-- and copyright infringement ain't theft.

THIEF!!!

Dumbass.

And as for "not forcing" - where have you been these past few years? Microsoft trial? A little thing about them forcing outlets to sign contracts? Or maybe you'd like to read up on Oracle? Or how about First Data? And what they have been up to.

No company is pristine. But some are worse than others.

And as for "not forcing" - where have you been these past few years? Microsoft trial? A little thing about them forcing outlets to sign contracts? Or maybe you'd like to read up on Oracle? Or how about First Data? And what they have been up to.

No company is pristine. But some are worse than others.

And as for "not forcing" - where have you been these past few years? Microsoft trial? A little thing about them forcing outlets to sign contracts? Or maybe you'd like to read up on Oracle? Or how about First Data? And what they have been up to.

No company is pristine. But some are worse than others.

It's wrong to think prison as a place of punishment - it should be a place of rehabilitation.

Seen on a anti-guncrime billboard: [if you get caught with a gun] '...Five Years Hard Federal Time!'

Get caught counterfeiting US money and they throw the book at you? 'Twenty Years Hard Federal Time!'

In this topsy-turvy capitalist society that is the USA, guncrime, which can be an has been proven fatal, is treated less harshly by the Federal government than counterfeiting which is, essentially, a nonfatal form of fraud.

It is this misplaced set of priorites along with 'zero tolerance' and 'three strikes' that has led to an explosion in the levels of prison incarceration here in the USA. It is a known fact that more people are in jail in the USA as a whole than anywhere else in the world.

Because of the large influx of prisoners to the penal system and penal staffing stretched to the limits, this has led prisons to be little more than human warehouses where society dumps their undesireables for the duration of their sentence. Treated as such, isn't it any wonder that there is an alarming rate of recidivism in the USA penal system?

Since there is little or no attempt at real rehabilitation, prisons become little more than crime dens where the incarcerated learn to become better criminals upon their release.

For the ones who do their time and are released, who decide never again to go back to prison, are faced with wholesale ostracization by society as a whole.

Case in point: Job applications that ask: 'Are you a convicted felon?'

Past experience does not predict future performance--but alas, is a strong indicator of it.

If 'crime doesn't pay', why are people who leave the penal system, 'having paid their debt to society in full', still being treated like criminals?

Until there is a radical, fundamental shift in the operation of the US penal system toward real, genuine, lasting rehabilitation of the prisoners in its care, it will continue to be 'just business as usual'.

I'm an American and speak from that perspective...

Okay, I'm a Canadian, and I'll speak from that perspective ...

would say that if VoIP were to ever be adopted as a full replacement for POTS then yes wire-tap laws should be updated to encompass that to maintain law enforcement's ability to conduct investigation. I would not extend such a update to include internal or privately held VoIP systems, but if it used like any other public utility it should be regulated in some manner

I personally think the internet has brought about signficant enhancements to free speech in the last decade, and I would respectfully submit that to the extent possible the internet should not be regulated. What do you think couldn't be accomplished with keyloggers and search warrants issued by judges? The only issue, is an issue of convenience for law enforcement, and the only convenience I believe in, is a judge issued search warrant. Frankly, I've had enough stupid US imposed law. We've had many such laws over the years.

I don't launder money or smoke up, but these are prime issues of stupidity, right up there with the war on drugs.

More to the point I'm all for , where justified.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

A large part of the world is anti-U.S. government, not anti-American. Most Americans don't know this, but the U.S. government supports the killing of Arabs by supporting a scheme of embezzlement: U.S. weapons makers and other largely secret influences have arranged that Israel be given about $5 billion each year as "foreign aid". (The figure varies somewhat each year, and may not be accurate for this year.) But the money can be used only to buy U.S.-made weapons, like the "AH-64 Apache helicopters" mentioned in today's story: Hamas Leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin Killed in Gaza.

This arrangement allows U.S. weapons makers to "sell" more weapons than they would otherwise, and at pre-arranged prices. The Israelis are not careful about the price they pay, because the money is free, and because not discussing the price is part of the arrangement. Of course, everyone tries to keep all of this secret, and there is considerable pretense.

In recent interviews on U.S. TV, the King of Jordan and the foreign minister of Iran both say that the biggest factor encouraging al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S. is the U.S. government's long-standing support for killing Arabs in Palestine. A Jewish leader said that U.S. government money for weapons was like gasoline on the fire of Israeli-Arab conflicts.

There are only 14 million Jews in the entire world, and less than 5 million Jews in Israel. The $5 billion donation from the U.S. government is about $1,000 for every Jewish Israeli man, woman, and child.

I believe that no violence is justified. So, I am not justifying violence when I mention this: It is interesting to note that, throughout recorded history, beginning 3,200 years ago with an Egyptian pharoah, the decendants of Abraham (who became those we call the Jews) have had periodic conflicts with the people around them. The Jews move into an area and, within perhaps 200 years everyone else wants them killed. No other culture that I've been able to find provokes such hostile reactions. Mostly Jews blame everyone else. The only time I have ever known a Jewish person to take responsibility is a quote from former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: "Any group that has been persecuted for 2,000 years must be doing something wrong." (But it is 3,200 years.)

If you would like more facts about the purposes of al-Qaeda, you can download and read the al-Qaeda Training Manual from the U.S. government's Department of Justice web site: al-Qaeda Training Manual. Note that some of it is missing, presumably because the U.S. government does not want us to read it. Note that the conflict with Israel is mentioned. It has been plausibly suggested that much of the inspiration for the manual came from training given by the U.S. CIA to Arabs fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the early 1980s.

Osama bin Laden predicted that the U.S. would invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab state. The U.S. government under the present president Bush planned an attack on Iraq well before 9/11/2001. (If you watched yesterday's 60 Minutes TV news show on CBS, you saw this discussed intensely.) Those plans apparently encouraged al-Quaeda volunteers. The actual occupation of Iraq by the U.S. military encourages more to volunteer.

So, Americans live in fear and have their treasury drained by war so that weapons makers can make a higher profit.

There are other factors, of course, in this story of stupidity and illegality and ignorance. There is craziness. This is difficult to believe, but true, and has been widely reported: Christian fundamentalists in the U.S., who almost all support George Bush, have a plan to arrange the conversion or death of all the Jews, which they believe is predicted in their bible. There are numerous rationalizations and quotes from the Bible, but act

The Judicial Branch which is composed of "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In pratice, the inferior Courts are District Courts, Courts of Appeals and other courts. Yes, federal justices serve life-time appointments or more accurately they "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" (they don't get into trouble which might be grounds for removal)

The Department of Justice is a department of the Executive Branch and therefore subject to the priorities of the President. Some of the more famous DOJ agencies include the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Agency. They basically prosecute cases by bringing those cases before courts. Prosecutors have tremendous latitude to prioritize which cases are more important. Under Bush/Ashcroft, Microsoft anti-trust was not seen as important as it was under Clinton/Reno.

The Technical Committee is responsible for enforcing the Final Judgement from the MS anti-trust case. You can submit complaints about MS possibly violating the Final Judgement to them. However when I emailed them, they sent me back the following reply:

The Technical Committee has received your email dated March 9th, 2004, regarding SCO Group and Microsoft Corp. The issues you raise in your communication are not within the scope of the Technical Committee's mandate to assist the United States and the Settling States in the enforcement of the consent decree with Microsoft.

For more information regarding the Governments' antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft or the settlement in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the following websites may be helpful:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-2001.html - District Court site
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm - Department of Justice site
http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov - Joint States site
http://www.microsoft.com/legal/settlementprogram - Microsoft

Thank you for your interest in the Microsoft antitrust litigation and the Technical Committee. Any future correspondence may be addressed to complaints@thetc.org.

I do not agree with their assessment as they are charged with enforcing the Final Judgement, which states the following:

Section III. Prohibited Conduct
F. Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV [Independent Software Vendor] or IHV [Independent Hardware Vendor] because of that ISV's or IHV's:
1. developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
2. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment.

If that's the case, why go through a third party anonymously

in re: the anonymous part, a little something called the Sherman Act is more than a little relevant.

in re: the use of a third party, there's the issue of standing (as in MS would not be able to do what SCO is doing in the courts because they have not been harmed).

My question is, does the $86-106M include the "licenses" that MSFT purchased from SCO or is that accounted for separately?

Would the DOJ be interested? If you think so, here is how to contact them.

How to Report a Possible Violation

Information from the public is vital to the work of the Antitrust Division. Your phone calls, letters, and e-mail messages are often the first indication of an antitrust violation and may provide the initial evidence to begin an investigation.

If you have information about a possible antitrust violation or potential anticompetitive activity, whether civil or criminal, please contact the Division:

E-Mail
newcase.atr@usdoj.gov
Phone
1-888-647-3258 (toll-free in the U.S. and Canada)
or 1-202-307-2040
Mail
Antitrust Division - New Case Unit
601 D Street NW, Suite 10011
Washington, DC 20530

We will review your complaint and refer it to one of our offices for investigation, if appropriate.

Turns out they didn't check for ID either. I hope I feel safer in November.

is this a troll?

*KGB VOICE* Comrade, where are your papers? */KGB VOICE*

NOBODY checks ID when you go to vote. See, back in the day, like 40 or 50 years ago, we didn't like them minorities to have a say in their own futures. So what we did was come up with these "literacy tests," on the theory that you had to be able to read to be able to understand a ballot. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and character vouchers were used to disenfranchise voters throughout the US, but especially to deny the vote to blacks in the south, where the Klan still claimed much of the white elite (who end up working the polls on election day) as members.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a reaction to a heinous act of police violence against black voters engaged in a march for civil rights in Selma, Alabama. The Act says that states may require a citizen to present reasonable identification upon registering to vote in that voter's first federal election, but that no state can make additional demands on citizens to prove eligibility to vote. Most of the time this is interpreted to mean that when you show up to vote, if the name you give is on the list of registered voters, it's against the law for them to ask you for your ID, or for any other proof that you are who you say you are.

Take off your tinfoil hat for a minute, and try on the shoes of Fannie Lou Hamer-- this is a Good Thing.

well, crime index rate is down 25% since 1993, despite the continued growth of 'violence in the media' during that time. (crime stats).

additionally, violence amongst children is down dramatically from 1994, in many cases to lower-than-1980 levels. (violent crime by age,property crime by age)

I think we can all agree now that enough kids since 1980 have had their hands on violent games and movies to have created a statistical trend.

So if 'violence in the media' actually had an effect on crime, it would've been borne out by now. But that sort of effect isn't seen.

So unless we can determine a way in which Vin Diesel's violence is different than Sly Stallone's violence, or Rockstar's violence is different than Carmack's violence -- we have no choice but to accept that the numbers don't support any claims of an erosion of values or explosion of violence.

Or, we could classify violence to mean something other than actual reported violence. I'm sure that by choosing subjective definitions of what 'violence' is between children, and reporting selectively, we could come up with satisfactory results. We could probably even do well-received 'expose' on the evening news during sweeps.

But 'violence' as defined in those studies covers every recent behavioral 'trend' that the sensationalist media has blamed on 'violent movies/tv/videogames'.(nonnegligent homicide, aggravated assault, forcible rape, robbery, larceny-theft, arson, and motor vehicle theft)

So perhaps there is no actual weight to this 'outcry' over violent media. Perhaps it is motivated by something other than legitimate concern for society?

No joke! I'm still angry about Henry Ford putting all those carriage makers out of business.

Oh, you are being serious. A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.

It makes a difference, legally. It remains to be seen whether MS uses its windows monopoly in an anticompetitive manner with regard to antivirus software, but it's something to consider. If they strongarm their OEMs into not bundling McAfee or Norton so as not to compete with their version, then they will likely run afoul of anti-trust laws. If they don't, they will be OK. I think what people on this site are saying is that MS has never passed over a chance to exploit their monopoly, which is why they've been in court so much.

Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.

Likewise, just because you understand economics doesn't mean you understand anti-trust law.

Please enlighten me as to why this is news? This happens every day! It's called lobbying. Is it because it's the mother of all evil megacorps that's doing the lobbying?

Actually, no. Lobbying as an activity implies personal contact by representatives seeking legal or economic favors from a governmental body. Lobbying implies legality--we allow groups, companies and even individuals to lobby the government in accordance with rules designed to reduce abuses.

Offering financial benefits in return for those favors isn't lobbying, it is bribery which is an entirely different matter. Since 1977, the U.S. has had a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits corrupt payments to obtain, direct, or retain business, and the language of the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass the kind of activity described in the article. The FCPA even provides for a private cause of action. The U.S. is also a signatory of the CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS which is certainly broad enough for this, and is administered by the OECD, and there is of course the EU's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption which probably has some application as well.

I acknowledge that you probably meant your comment sarcastically, or perhaps cynically, but this activity is not lobbying, which is an aspect of free speech. It is corruption, and it is a crime. You have the right, and indeed the duty, to demand that Microsoft be investigated and, should it appear that Microsoft's actions were motivated by a corrupt purpose within the meaning of the laws and conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory, that they be prosecuted. Bear in mind that these laws penetrate the corporate identity and go after the individuals directly involved, so the potential bite of these laws is quite serious.

Please enlighten me as to why this is news? This happens every day! It's called lobbying. Is it because it's the mother of all evil megacorps that's doing the lobbying?

Actually, no. Lobbying as an activity implies personal contact by representatives seeking legal or economic favors from a governmental body. Lobbying implies legality--we allow groups, companies and even individuals to lobby the government in accordance with rules designed to reduce abuses.

Offering financial benefits in return for those favors isn't lobbying, it is bribery which is an entirely different matter. Since 1977, the U.S. has had a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits corrupt payments to obtain, direct, or retain business, and the language of the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass the kind of activity described in the article. The FCPA even provides for a private cause of action. The U.S. is also a signatory of the CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS which is certainly broad enough for this, and is administered by the OECD, and there is of course the EU's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption which probably has some application as well.

I acknowledge that you probably meant your comment sarcastically, or perhaps cynically, but this activity is not lobbying, which is an aspect of free speech. It is corruption, and it is a crime. You have the right, and indeed the duty, to demand that Microsoft be investigated and, should it appear that Microsoft's actions were motivated by a corrupt purpose within the meaning of the laws and conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory, that they be prosecuted. Bear in mind that these laws penetrate the corporate identity and go after the individuals directly involved, so the potential bite of these laws is quite serious.

Please enlighten me as to why this is news? This happens every day! It's called lobbying. Is it because it's the mother of all evil megacorps that's doing the lobbying?

Actually, no. Lobbying as an activity implies personal contact by representatives seeking legal or economic favors from a governmental body. Lobbying implies legality--we allow groups, companies and even individuals to lobby the government in accordance with rules designed to reduce abuses.

Offering financial benefits in return for those favors isn't lobbying, it is bribery which is an entirely different matter. Since 1977, the U.S. has had a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits corrupt payments to obtain, direct, or retain business, and the language of the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass the kind of activity described in the article. The FCPA even provides for a private cause of action. The U.S. is also a signatory of the CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS which is certainly broad enough for this, and is administered by the OECD, and there is of course the EU's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption which probably has some application as well.

I acknowledge that you probably meant your comment sarcastically, or perhaps cynically, but this activity is not lobbying, which is an aspect of free speech. It is corruption, and it is a crime. You have the right, and indeed the duty, to demand that Microsoft be investigated and, should it appear that Microsoft's actions were motivated by a corrupt purpose within the meaning of the laws and conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory, that they be prosecuted. Bear in mind that these laws penetrate the corporate identity and go after the individuals directly involved, so the potential bite of these laws is quite serious.

I hope this douesn't turn out like something I was personally victimized by.

Sure glad for the Privacy Act of 1974.

'(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local
government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or
privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to
disclose his social security account number.

Crime rates have been falling since 1993 (see FBI crime stats for details)-- so it's possible that mandatory sentencing is a factor in that. But I never said anything about mandatory sentencing. I advocated harsher penalties. There is a big difference.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

The 1997 NET Act doesn't cover the specific case in your post (casual infringement of a single music CD). But it does criminalize copyright infringement under specific terms that do not require a terribly massive scale ($1,000.01 is enough), so there is a kind of copyright infringment that is definitely in the same "criminal" category as e.g. grand theft.

I do understand your objection to the term "theft" on legal grounds. I also deplore the disingenuous tactics used by some attempting to enforce copyrights. I merely find the implication in your posts that copyright infringement is not (ever) a criminal offense to be either disingenuous or misinformed.

She may be able to get a criminal act by a violation of the Sherman Antitrust act:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.htm

Section 1959 (18 USC 1959, on the first link) spells out that just racketeering won't do it, you need a criminal act in support of this. Now, a successful argument that the RIAA is an illegal monopoly, would be the criminal act that brings massive awards and possible injunctions, but that is a big hump.

I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice

She may be able to get a criminal act by a violation of the Sherman Antitrust act:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/div_stats/1638.htm

Section 1959 (18 USC 1959, on the first link) spells out that just racketeering won't do it, you need a criminal act in support of this. Now, a successful argument that the RIAA is an illegal monopoly, would be the criminal act that brings massive awards and possible injunctions, but that is a big hump.

I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice

I didn't realize that Missouri and Indiana were in New England.

Now, none of your posts have acknowledged that the Patriot Act is being abused to prosecute other kinds of crime than terrorism, despite your assertion that one has.

You did mention the "Bank Secrets Act", but so what? What are you driving at here? When you troll, you're "just kidding"?

I've answered your specious question in all candor -

I've answered your specious question in all candor - so come clean: why are you satisfied with these criminal investigations being undermined by easily challengable Patriot Act overreaching for inadmissible evidence? Or are you so deeply perverse that you're laundering money, and can't help cackling as these keystone kops work overtime to keep you in business?

I believe the average sentence for murder in America is about eight years.

It would have to be a belief, since it's not based in fact.

I couldn't find the actual time served, but Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that the "sentence imposed" was slightly over 20 years. The average time servered is less, due to the death penalty, prison murders and parole. I wonder how the account for Life sentences in this stat. Possibly factored as 40 or 50 years?

Ruger

For those of you who were intrigued by the idea that the homicide rate is comparable now to what it was in the 50's, here's a link.

DOJ's Homicide Trends

Explore the site, lots of data.

I grew up in a pretty conservative family that tends to respond to this type of hysteria, so I understand what's necessary to make these people to reconsider their ironclad position.

I've gotten a lot of milage out of the following teenage homicide graph (other violent crime trends are similar).

DOJ Homicide Trends by Age

I would like you to note the trend from 1993 to today. Please note that it wasn't until around 1993 that the most violent 1st person genre took off.

In fact, if you continue to reseach the DOJ's site, you'll find that our crime rates are comparable to the more "innocent" times (50's, 60's) of the last century, where our war on drugs in the late 80's and early 90's reflect similar crime rates to that of the prohibition.

I wonder if it has anything with this January 16th document...

> Illegally? How so?

Microsoft added a message to Windows that gave a warning about incompatibility with DR-DOS. But Microsoft's own testing had shown DR-DOS's compatibility to be essentially perfect. The message was a lie, intended to defraud the public.

Microsoft also added intentional (and encrypted) incompatibilities to Windows 95, while keeping DR-DOS out of the Windows 95 test program. It was a deliberate act of sabotage.

But there are more recent examples of Microsoft's criminal activity:

Sabotage:

> "Strategic Objective [is to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market" -- Microsoft Pricing Proposal for VJ++ 6.0

Fraud:

> "As i [sic] told charlesf [Fitzgerald] on the phone, at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps." -- Armstrong Decl., Ex. 23.

Extortion:

> Gates wrote, "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...."

> In Waldman's words: Sounds like we give them the HTML control for nothing except making IE the "standard browser for Apple?" I think they should be doing this anyway. Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using it everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club.

Almost every one of Microsoft's "victories" has involved similar illegal behavior.

The sabotage of Java alone has delayed the introduction of e-commerce by years, resulting in a loss of as much as $100 billion per year for the U.S. economy. And when you take that much wealth out of the world, people die.

Bill Gates doesn't deserve a Knighthood. He deserves to be in jail.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/reporting .htm

Why are we all so focused on cloning something we all agree is awful?

I actually belive that that is an excellent question, and I'll be happy to provide the answer:

Because 90% of all computer users are used to Windows

(The rest of the following rant is essentially a repost, so I apologize if you have already read it.)

You can feel that it shouldn't be like that, and you can make hundreds of snide and clever remarks to the effect that Windows users are too stupid to recognize their own best interests, but you can't change the facts: at least 90% of the people who are using a computer today are using Windows.

It is not every day that a court of law makes an official market survey and releases it freely on the net, in line with the finest traditions of the Open Source movement. Yet it seems that the very people who really believe the most in the benefits of free and open information, are remarkably reluctant to use it when it's available. Think what you will in private, but please please listen to judge Jackson: if Linux is going to have any impact at all in the desktop market, it is Windows users that will have to be converted.

There are a number of good reasons to make the switch to Open Source --- open file formats, control over future license costs, etc., etc. --- but if it means that you have to spend six months cursing all the little things that are different, so that you can't focus on what you're supposed to be doing because you have to relearn all your automatic reflexes, how many people will decide that it's worth the effort?

A lawyer might perhaps consider switching from MS Word to StarOffice simply to make sure that all the files that he creates today can be opened and read on another computer ten years from now, when the case has finally reached the Supreme Court or whatever. But how may chargeable hours is he prepared to let it cost him in the first six months?

It somehow seems that a lot of the people who develop Open Source applications take a special pride in inventing amusing little pitfalls for the Windows user who might be prepared to switch camps. In StarOffice, the keyboard combination to insert a non-breaking space is "Ctrl-Space", rather than Word's "Ctrl-Shift-Space". Please, somebody, why? Of course this is something that one can relearn if one has to, but what's the point of it? The first time a would-be convert, who has been using non-breaking spaces in Word, tries to insert one in a text in StarOffice, it won't work. Whether he decides that non-breaking spaces are not available and that the product does not fulfill his needs, or interrupts what he was originally trying to achieve and starts exploring the help system to find out what it is that he has to do, he will not feel more favorably disposed towards Open Source programs for having tried one. And so unnecessarily.

I could recite any number of examples: if you type "Ctrl-A Ctrl-Return" to mark all posts in a newsgroup as read, Mozilla will instead choose to open a couple of hundred windows (one for each post in the newsgroup), which will cause the system to freeze, so that it has to be rebooted. Excellent marketing ploy.

To change some settings in Mozilla you should of course look under "Edit" in the menu system, and not under "Tools" like in all other programs in the Windows world. Brilliant. How could you possibly fail when you make it so convenient for the user?

And please, don't come and say "RTFM" now. Why the **** should someone who has been using a computer for years have to consult the FM (provided there actually is one, of course, but that's a separate issue in its own right) to perform a so completely trivial standard task as the ones mentioned here?

And please don't come and say "but you can change that if you spend a couple of days learning how to reconfigure the program from the bottom up" either. Pe

if you make ANYTHING that was once illegal, legal it will cut down on crime.

Okay, how's this: legalize pot and most other drugs, decriminalize the rest. The soft stuff is available at the drug store, same as tobacco, and the hard stuff is available at a drug clinic, where you use it in a controlled environment. This cuts down on crimes such as posession of marijuana (of course), but also frees space in prisons for violent offenders, and cuts down on the crime rate by eliminating the reason Heroin and cocaine cost up to $500/day. The $1.8B that the DEA uses (cite) can be cut substantially, as all we need to di is extend the FDa to regulate pot, cocaine and other drugs, local cops spend less money on the property crimes that funded peoples' drug habits.

As a nice side effect, watch the murder rate drop, as drug dealers no longer have as much to fight over. Sure, some people never change, but we can probably retrain some of the dealers to work at the DMV or something.

Fourteen little girls burned to death in the Saudi fire.[1] I couldn't find a reference for the past year, but for the year July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000, there were sixteen homicides in schools where the victims were children.[2]

So while more kids died in school shootings in the US for the years sampled than little girls burned to death in Saudi Arabia, you have to keep some other factors in mind:
1: Saudi Arabia has a population of roughly 24 million. The US has a population of roughly 290 million. So for the two statistics to be equilivant, there would've had to have been 193 school shootings in one year. As is, the ratio of deaths is much lower in the US.
2: People in the US recognize that school shootings are a problem. We take active steps to counter them, and from all indications those steps are working. The Saudis didn't seem to care that little girls burned to death, there haven't been any major sweeping changes of the Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue.
3: When school kids kill each other with guns, it is a criminal act not sanctioned by the government. When Saudi authorities lock little girls in their school and make them burn to death, it is a criminal act sanctioned by the government.

This is different how?

Apple is not a convicted monopolist.

This makes sense since the US feels like China in the 1950s.

Schedule II (look at Methylphenidate and Coacaine)

Wellness resources.

Problems with ritalin

Along with the HTML renderers, the API which enabled applications to be written as Netscape applications, very similar to the threat from Sun in its Java API. Both offer the developer an abstraction layer which enables those developers to reach multiple platforms by developing applications using a portable framework instead of Microsofts own API, and threatens its monopoly. IE remained inferior to Netscape up until its demise. The idea that this attack on Netscape wasn't related to the threat of a portable API, toolkit or whatever you want to call it that already had a huge customer following is rediculous. Microsoft did what it had to do to make those things go away. Thats how the judge saw it, and thats the way the industry viewed it. To argue that Microsoft did those things to maintain quality standards or anything of the like is laughable.

And I'll maintain that Microsoft viewed Netscape and its API as a competitor for those reasons, and had little to nothing to do with Netscape giving up control of its HTML renderer. The entire episode was a big don't f*^k with us or we'll make life difficult for you and there is very strong evidence that they did. So much so, that judge convicted them of it.

To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft never said they wanted Netscape to limit themselves to Win32

I've never heard anybody make that claim ever. Quite the contrary, Microsoft was quite happy to give up the rest (including Unix, MacOS, and 16bit Windows) if Netscape stayed out of Win32 all together. I don't believe Microsoft ever had any other reason to develop a Mac port of IE other than to cut Netscape's last thread so to speak.

Back to the issue at hand though, I do not mean to argue that Microsoft bribed in the literal sense, just that the things they did had the very same effect as if they had, and the two aren't all that different. The goal was to shut down the competitor, not by making a superior product, or increasing efficiency, but by throwing its weight around and dangling carrots in front of the competition to make them retreat from Microsofts turf.

What I mean to say about the ObviousGuy post is that I read him as saying that maybe Microsoft had a hand in using these very same tactics for its Instant Messenger, and WinCE platform, that it was convicted of doing back then to Netscape and Java. I'm not saying they are, my reply GP post was meant as a I wouldn't put it past them.

If you mean to argue that Microsoft did these things to improve its own products and not to stifle competition, then you're just wrong. The courts said they did, and doing that is the basis of antitrust legislation. I'll quote another source:

Our case against Microsoft, decided last year, provides almost a laundry list of exclusionary conduct. These included: license restrictions on OEMs that thwarted distribution of competing browsers; integrating IE into Windows in a manner that deliberately made it more difficult for consumers to use another browser; agreements with IAPs, ISVs, and Apple that closed off enough significant channels of distribution to keep usage of Navigator below the critical level necessary for it to become a rival software development platform; deceiving developers into believing that MS Java would operate cross-platform; and pressuring Intel not to support cross-platform Java. In each case, court found that the conduct served to maintain Microsoft's market power in operating systems by preventing Netscape from gaining sufficient sales to become a competing platform and that Microsoft failed to show any legitimate business justifications for its actions.
- William J. Kolasky

It's been a while, but I have Mr. AC. There's some really good quotes in there:

It is clear, however, that Microsoft has retarded, and perhaps altogether extinguished, the process by which these two middleware technologies could have facilitated the introduction of competition into an important market.

Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, 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.

By refusing to offer those OEMs who requested it a version of Windows without Web browsing software, and by preventing OEMs from removing Internet Explorer -- or even the most obvious means of invoking it -- prior to shipment, Microsoft forced OEMs to ignore consumer demand for a browserless version of Windows.

To the detriment of consumers, however, Microsoft has done much more than develop innovative browsing software of commendable quality and offer it bundled with Windows at no additional charge. As has been shown, Microsoft also engaged in a concerted series of actions designed to protect the applications barrier to entry, and hence its monopoly power, from a variety of middleware threats, including Netscape's Web browser and Sun's implementation of Java.

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

I could continue, but you can just read yourself I think.

While we're at it, there's a smaller speech titled WHAT IS COMPETITION? by William J. Kolasky, Deputy Assistant Attorney General - Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice.


look up the definition of monopoly
This one? "The legal definition of 'monopoly power' is the ability to control prices and the ability to restrict output"

au contraire... maybe you're not familiar with the statistics...

in the US of 1998, 100,000 people were shot, a third of these (>30,000) died from their wounds. a youth of 15-24 is 3 times more likely to be shot than the population at large. a household gun is 22 times more likely to shoot someone other than a burglar.

here in australia, where only the police (more or less) may have guns, we have on average, 4 gun-related deaths per year. the US has around 13 times our population, but has more than 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. some US schools have metal detectors for christ's sake...

yes i believe the US has a huge problem with its love of guns. why every person needs a gun in a modern, largely risk-free society is beyond me. statistics prove that guns only lead to more people getting shot, without decreasing violent crime.

no, i don't think the movies are indicative of modern-day america (i've been there!), although the typical hollywood depiction of US foreign policy is pretty much spot on.... can't wait to see Iraq, the movie... although i'm sure they'll actually have WMDs and have proven links to al quaeda in the movie version.

cheers.

That's not to defend the RIAA's stormtrooper approach, which is entirely despicable.

No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be--

(1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;

(2) required under section 552 of this title;

(3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;

(4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13;

(5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;

(6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;

(7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;

(8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;

(9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;

(10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the General Accounting Office;

(11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or

(12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of Title 31.

we like Jail
no wonder USA has the highest incarceration rate on earth with 3.2% of the population in Jail (2002)

The total Federal, State, and local adult correctional
population -- incarcerated or in the community --
grew by 150,700 during 2002 to reach a new high of
more than 6.7 million. About 3.1% of the U.S. adult
population, or 1 in every 32 adults, were
incarcerated or on probation or parole at yearend
2002.

A total of 3,995,165 adult men and women were on
probation at yearend 2002, representing a growth of
1.6% during the year. The adult parole population
grew 2.8%, rising to a total of 753,141 by December
31, 2002. Since 1995 the parole population has
been the slowest growing correctional population,
increasing 1.5% annually, compared to jails (4.0%
annually), prisons (3.5%), and probation (3.1%).

Over 4.7 million adult men and women on
probation or parole


so yeah throw those pirates in Jail !! (private profit making prisons of course)

Source please.

If anyone feels the need to contact R. Hewitt Pate over this, here's the division's contact page.
And for your convenience, Mr. Pate's phone number.
202-514-2401

If anyone feels the need to contact R. Hewitt Pate over this, here's the division's contact page.
And for your convenience, Mr. Pate's phone number.
202-514-2401

The US DOJ has recorded a substantial number of FELONY copyright prosecutions.

It looks like all offenses described have to involve transmitting to "Protected Computers."
The writers of this didn't even put the definition of a "Protected Computer" into the document itself, so I looked it up.

the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -

(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or

(B)
which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

In searching for the definition I found this bill.
Looks to me like it already offers the same protections.

So as far as I can tell, since this only protects government and financial computers as destinations, all this new bill does is remove the protections for indeviduals at the state level.
Is it me, or is there a pattern of putting buisness welfare ahead of personal welfare, ignoring cost, constitution or decency, in our current administration?

• WMP allows Microsoft to individually track what DVD movies are watched
• Supercookies bypass all of the new privacy and P3P protections
• EULA (End User License Agreement) for a security defect fix gives Microsoft complete control over your computer
• Users have no choice but to send Microsoft information about their computer configuration