Slashdot Mirror

The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (4536691) has been logged in your e-dossier.

The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many, many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no?

Actually it's much more than that: You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. .

But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

Unfortunately, I don't personally know any software professional who can work and live 100% M$-free.

Do you know any GNU-Linux user or software developer who can get rid of all M$ products - no M$Windows, no M$Office, nothing even remotely installed on their PC, nothing ever paid to M$? Unfortunately, I don't personally know anyone in this situation.

So here's the problem: can you work 100% Apple-free in the software industry? Yes. 100% GNU-free? Yes. 100% M$-free? very difficult.

Therefore, fight Micro$oft!

You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many, many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no?

Actually it's much more than that: You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. .

But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

Unfortunately, I don't personally know any software professional who can work and live 100% M$-free.

Do you know any GNU-Linux user or software developer who can get rid of all M$ products - no M$Windows, no M$Office, nothing even remotely installed on their PC, nothing ever paid to M$? Unfortunately, I don't personally know anyone in this situation.

So here's the problem: can you work 100% Apple-free in the software industry? Yes. 100% GNU-free? Yes. 100% M$-free? very difficult.

Therefore, fight Micro$oft!

You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many, many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no?

Actually it's much more than that: You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. .

But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

Unfortunately, I don't personally know any software professional who can work and live 100% M$-free.

Do you know any GNU-Linux user or software developer who can get rid of all M$ products - no M$Windows, no M$Office, nothing even remotely installed on their PC, nothing ever paid to M$? Unfortunately, I don't personally know anyone in this situation.

So here's the problem: can you work 100% Apple-free in the software industry? Yes. 100% GNU-free? Yes. 100% M$-free? very difficult.

Therefore, fight Micro$oft!

But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.

If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.

If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.

Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.

Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.

The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.

It's clear that, to use your own words, 'it's YOU that's the "fucking idiot".'

False. Here's the Australian statistics for calendar year 2000 and the US Fiscal year 2001 data Note in particular that the US accepted 349,776 legal immigrants from Asia that year, to Australia's 63,515 total legal immigrants from all countries in 2000 (only about half of whom were from asia).

Dont you come on here and tell me what I must do with my web access: Ill share the information I want in the way I want, and if I choose not to share any information at all, then I shall be respected for that decision.

Go ahead, do what you want. But if at your brick-and-mortar store you want to offer special low prices for caucasian people and higher charges for chinese people, then yeah do it if you want, but know that you're in violation of the law. It's only a matter of time before similar legislation is passed to apply to web transactions.

I agree with this post. If you're handicapped, that's your own problem, and it's obvious that people with no hands are gonna have trouble typing on a keyboard, or that blind people are going to have problems using a vision-centric service, such as a commercial web site. The answer is to make a reasonable effort to offer equal opportunity to procure the services. In this case, the guy could probably have made a phone call, spoken to a manager about how he'd like the Web discount but he can't get to it cause he's blind, and the manager would authorize it. I'm glad the judge didn't make a hastey decision or try to establish such a far reaching extension of the ADA specs.

PS. Why does everyone pick on SW airlines all the time? They're the nicest, friendliest airline there is (except for that rules that really fat people have to pay for 2 seats).

The United States Code defines Sedition with some precision:

18 USC Sec. 2384. - Seditious conspiracy

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof..."

... or US Dept of Justice

To my knowledge, the only gov't that has removed sedition from its' laws is Canada.

Please understand that nothing I say is meant to demean or insult you. I enjoy a quality discussion with someone of an opposing vie.

I am concerned about the similarity (you chose not to quote that part), but guns are actually used in crimes quite a lot (let's not get into whether a gun owner is more or less likely to commit a crime)

About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.

Individuals use guns as often as 2.5 million times per year to protect themselves. 90% of the time only brandishing the gun to deter the crime.

- Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law (Fall 1995), vol. 1, pp. 173, 185. (Specific issue is not online.)

The second ammendment clearly points to the need to regulate guns

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I assume you are refering to the "regulated" in regulated Militia. Your interrpritation is wrong. Madison makes it clear in the Federalist Papers that a well regulated militia is refering to a chain of command that the state would set up to manage the militia for the common defense. But he also makes it clear that the people will have the right to keep their own arms and that maintaining the militia under state control indefinatly is impossible and should not be attempted.

fingerprinting doesn't mean you would always know who currently has the gun or their address, just someplace to start.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fingerprinting you or your firearm is a violation of the 4th amendment. Its as simple as that.

No cops aren't required to protect you, but most of them are good people who are very interested in serving their community. There just aren't (nor do I want there to be) enough of them to be everywhere. Most of them would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to stop this guy, and they are well trained not to endanger the rest of us while they are doing it.

"There are approximately 654,600 officers employed to provide law enforcement services to approximately 265 million of the nation's inhabitants, an average of only 2.5 officers for every 1,000 individuals. This statistic, of course, does not reflect the average number of officers actively deployed or on duty during a particular shift. So face it -- self-defense is your job!" - Quoted from The Armerican Liberty Foundation - Statistics from :

Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States (1998)," p. 291.

Your comment suggests a lack of respect for those who do this very difficult job.

Thats simply not true I have quite a large respect for police officers and infact have many friends who are employed as such. I simply do not fool myself into believing that they will be there when I need them. And instead realize that this is the land of the free and home of the brave. You can not have one without the other.

You make it sound like making a 'citizens arrest' is an easy thing.

I never said it would be easy. I stated that using a firearm was easy. Any police officer who has drawn his weapon in the line of duty will tell you its the most stressful situation imaginable. But defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN its about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. You state that you would, given the choice, use your car to stop this sniper instead of a gun. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stoping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone elses loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ablity to shop at Micky Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.

A libertarian public-interest think tank and law firm in Washington, D.C., the Institute for Justice has put itself in the forefront of the battle against racial preferences, desegregation orders, and affirmative action.

The Institute for Justice received substantial funding from
the Bradley Foundation.>
Which is also a backer of other far to the right organizations like the Heritage Foundation & the CATO Institute think tank.

It is also financed by the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch, a founder of the John Birch Society. David, a Libertarian, provides a significant amount of funding for the Cato Institute's $4 million annual budget. Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion. Forbes ranks David and Charles Koch among the 50 richest people in the country. Koch Industries has frequently been indicted for Environmental Crimes.

They also received substantial funding from the John M Olin Foundation . Ammunitions Manufacturer Olin gave considerable money to the Heritage Foundation and other far right causes.

The main activities of the Institute for Justice seem to be around school vouchers, the rights of companies to bust up unions, ending affirmative action, repeal of any laws regarding union contractors or minority contractors, fighting environmental legislation, and taking on eminent domain statues through the courts.

The collective agendas of those affiliated with them and their published works show their goal to be the complete privatization of all current government services.

Who's Who in the Institute

William H. Mellor
President and General Counsel. Mellor served as Deputy General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations in the Department of Energy during the Reagan Administration, a period that saw the steady erosion of government restrictions on Big Energy. From 1986 to 1991, he was President of the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a right-wing think tank located in San Francisco that challenges environmental regulations, and was former Governor Pete Wilson's favored source of information regarding privatization and water rights. [From 1989 through 1998, the PRI received 8 grants totaling $337,500 from the Bradley Foundation.]

Clint Bolick

Vice President and Director of Litigation. Clint Bolick worked as an assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was EEOC chairman. While working for the Landmark Legal Foundation, Bolick led the defense for the first Wisconsin school voucher program. [Between 1988 and 1992, the Kansas City, MO-based Landmark Legal Foundation received 10 grants from the Bradley Foundation totaling $592,700.]

When Wisconsin expanded its voucher program to include religious schools - the first state in the country to do so - Bolick defended the plan in court. While the State of Wisconsin officially defended the program, it was the Bradley Foundation that provided funding for the attorneys, who besides Bolick included the "independent" counsel Kenneth Starr. Starr, who made his living defending big auto and tobacco companies from consumer litigation, had also previously done work for Bradley.

Until Bolick began presenting himself as a defender of low-income African American schoolchildren, he had been most closely associated with attacks on affirmative action. He is the author of "The Affirmative Action Fraud: Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision?" published by the Cato Institute. It was Bolick who drafted a bill that would end all affirmative action programs on the federal level. And he had high praise for the landmark Hopwood vs. Texas decision, calling it "clearly another nail in the coffin of racial preferences."

-------------
It's always important to know who you get in bed with before you cut them a check. I'm not fully happy with any of these organizations. The ACLU fails to aggressively support a lot of things it claims to champion (such as ending the War On Drugs, or defending the rights of Gun Owners)and has taken some things too far to the left my taste. Even with the money coming in from Olin, Institute for Justice doesn't seem to be interested in those either.

Microsoft must not be allowed to pretend that these interface descriptions are trade secrets, as it tried to do with its extension to Kerberos. Because OSS packages include the full source code they inevitabley reveal the full details of their operation to any programmer who downloads them. If Microsoft can claim trade secret status on an interface it can effectively block any OSS package from using that interface, since to do so would reveal the "secret" of its operation. This appears to have been the objective of the click-through license on the Kerberos extensions (see above). The "Samba" project (www.samba.org) has reverse-engineered the Microsoft file and printer sharing protocols, allowing non-Microsoft systems to gain access to resources on Microsoft systems. An updated version of Samba for Windows 2000 is being prepared which will need to inter-operate with the Windows 2000 Kerberos extensions. If these extensions are considered trade secrets then it would be impossible for the Samba project to work with these extensions, and a key component in any mix of Microsoft and non-Microsoft computers would be crippled.

I also tackled the issues of cost (e.g. subscription fees) and protocol patents.

Hmmm. It seems that I was right to be worried.

Paul.

Microsoft must not be allowed to pretend that these interface descriptions are trade secrets, as it tried to do with its extension to Kerberos. Because OSS packages include the full source code they inevitabley reveal the full details of their operation to any programmer who downloads them. If Microsoft can claim trade secret status on an interface it can effectively block any OSS package from using that interface, since to do so would reveal the "secret" of its operation. This appears to have been the objective of the click-through license on the Kerberos extensions (see above). The "Samba" project (www.samba.org) has reverse-engineered the Microsoft file and printer sharing protocols, allowing non-Microsoft systems to gain access to resources on Microsoft systems. An updated version of Samba for Windows 2000 is being prepared which will need to inter-operate with the Windows 2000 Kerberos extensions. If these extensions are considered trade secrets then it would be impossible for the Samba project to work with these extensions, and a key component in any mix of Microsoft and non-Microsoft computers would be crippled.

I also tackled the issues of cost (e.g. subscription fees) and protocol patents.

Hmmm. It seems that I was right to be worried.

Paul.

I had to show proof that I had $15,000 x 4 years (bachelors degree) = $60,000 in cash or in a bank account or whatever... I NEVER heard of such a rule.

• Geographic Profiling: talk by Dr. Kim Rossmo
• cached copy of the APBNews article
• Discussion at NIJ (PDF file)

If someone is blind AND deaf, will they insist that every movie theater provide someone to do that Helen Keller style ... [snip]

According to ADA Title III, Commercial facilities are subject to provide "reasonable accomodations" to their primary place of business. According to the Southwest website, Southwest reported that approximately 46 percent, or over $500 million, of its passenger revenue for first quarter 2002 was generated by online bookings via southwest.com. Therefore, the WWW MAY COUNT AS THEIR PRIMARY SOURCE OF REVENUE, AND BECOME SUBJECT TO ADA Title III.

And this isn't flamebait

By even having to resort to that statement, it already is

The ADA always annoyed me

We'll see how much it annoys you if you or your children ever have the misfortune of becoming blind, deaf, physically disabled.

Full text of the act -- now if only the DOJ would actually learn HTML and/or writing skills.

"Heh, we're so web-savvy, we just dumped 160Kb of unformatted crap on our website"

(2) Disability.--The term "disability" means, with respect to an
individual--
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more of the major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

There's a lot more to accessability then alt attributes. Tables also have to be properly marked up (including a summary attribute in the tag, id attribute in tag, and a header attribute in tag).

A plain ASCII or <pre> formatted table won't work for the blind. PostScript is out and only acrobat 5 supports proper tagging of PDFs. I don't believe ps2pdf does the Right Thing (correct me if I'm wrong).

I work for the Federal Government and we have to follow Section 508 guidelines. We have an entire unit devoted to this stuff at my agency and they have to thoroughly test everything. The days of just popping up a PDF are over.

I have a lot of historical data that I'd like to publish on my site. In some cases, I'd like to just scan in tables and post them. However, the scan would not be readable by screen reading software, so it'd have to go through OCR and proof read, then put into a compliant table format. Do I have that in my budget? Fugitaboutit. So it doesn't get posted.

Consider for a second your state's major university

Not to severely nitpick, but ADA actually has much more stringent regulations for public universities and colleges. I go to Ohio State (which lo and behold is my state's largest university) and the things they have done to make everything accessible is pretty subtantial. (Though the feds do give funding for this purpose.)

Small and large businesses are held to different criteria.

"While it is not possible for many businesses, especially small businesses, to make their facilities fully accessible, there is much that can be done without much difficulty or expense to improve accessibility. Therefore, the ADA requires that accessibility be improved without taking on excessive expenses that could harm the business." (more text here)

Large businesses are expected under ADA to do more.

One thing I may add is that airlines are in some way a unique situation. There is of course the property they own, however their travel lanes are public, and they are uniquely licensed to take advantage of public airspace. The licensing, in some way, does put a bit of an obligation on air carriers to act in the best interest of the population. (You may not buy that concept, but sometimes the licensing is used that way.)

I found this aspect of the case interesting, and so performed a Google search for other articles. One of which spelled it out in more detail: the suspects were indeed arrested at the end of the fake job interview, before they returned home; the passwords and other information that they supplied during the course of the interview were later used to gather more evidence. Therefore, no extradition from foreign soil was required; therefore, no Russian court had to grant approval.

Side note: does the fact that these (successful) computer criminals were looking for salaried work mean that crime really doesn't pay?

"The best overall measure of the potential cost to a criminal of committing crimes is 'expected punishment.' Roughly speaking, expected punishment is the number of days in prison a typical criminal can expect to serve per crime, as determined by the probabilities of being apprehended, prosecuted, convicted and going to prison, and the median months served for each crime.

As for the unweighted numbers? Here's some data from a US DoJ report, which combines first- and second-degree rape:

The average sentence for criminals convicted of rape in the United States (and released in 1992) is 117 months. The average time served is 65 months, which equates to 56 percent of the actual sentence served.

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has a system called INSPASS for speeding up immigration processing at airports. It is used for frequent business travellers. This isn't exactly the same security problem, since the people are coming off the airplane, not getting on, but it is similar enough that I thought I would post it.

From the INS site How Do I Apply For INSPASS:

How Does INSPASS Work?
Arriving at a Port-of-Entry, the traveler proceeds to an INSPASS inspection queue. There, the person inserts a card issued to them at enrollment to an INSPASS kiosk, similar to an automated bank teller machine. Automated inspection kiosks are not staffed, and INSPASS is only available at airports. Responding to messages on the kiosk's touch-screen display, the traveler is prompted to enter their flight number (certain persons only) and to place their hand in a hand geometry reader. Screen prompts are used to achieve correct alignment of the hand with the hand reader. The kiosk software automatically compares the live scan of the traveler's hand geometry biometric to the image captured at enrollment.

If the traveler's identity is validated by this comparison, an I-94/receipt of his inspection is printed by the kiosk that directs the traveler to proceed to U.S. Customs inspection. If this check is not successful, a screen message refers the traveler to an Immigration Inspector in a nearby inspection booth. Processing times of 15-20 seconds are typical, and times as low as 11 seconds have been observed at existing INSPASS kiosks.

Things have changed a lot since the early 1900's when most immigrants came from Europe, in case you haven't noticed.

Check your stats. Of the temp workers coming to the US, over 10% were from the UK, 7.5% Canada, and 7.5% from Germany. These are the number 1, 2, and 4 countries (Japan is 3, France 7, and Russia 9). For straight immigration, Mexico swamps all others and the top 10 are all third world. That doesn't tell you that Europeans are not still emmigrating. In fact, 10 years ago, Europeans gov'ts were panicing over the brain drain of European professors seeking higher salaries at US universities.

Well things like quality of public education, health care, employment laws, and civil liberties are high on my list since they directly affect my quality of life. Last time I checked, the US was ranked along with 3rd-world countries in public education, the health care system is a mess (especially if you're not rich), employment laws clearly favor companies and corporations (except this new ruling in Calif), and Americans arn't even allowed to read certain source code.

Most health care systems in most countries are a mess. There is a lengthy waiting list for many surgeries in Canada and the UK for example. Public ed in the US is a local responsibility and quality varies greatly from juristiction to juristiction. Go check the OECD website. Overall US expenditure per capita on public education surpasses most Western European countries as well as Japan. There are differences between math/sci attainment at the 8th grade level, but these are not statistically meaningful. Employment laws? What good does a pro worker law do if you can't get a job? Have you checked the Western European unemployment rates lately? (9.2% Finland, 8.5% France, 8% overall in Europe). Most states in the US have right-to-work laws that are like CAs. And it was Norway that arrested the guy who wrote the DeCSS code.

"Specifically, RICO is violated if an organization carries on a pattern of illegal activities. A business entity can meet the legal definition of an organization, which usually is defined simply as a group comprised of two or more individuals. A pattern of illegal activities exists if a party repeats the illegal activity as little as two different times. Further, the illegal activities do not have to be criminal in nature, but instead can be in the nature of unfair or fraudulent business practices that may or may not result in a monetary loss to another party."

What, you mean like when Windows NT took out the U.S.S. Yorktown?

Or perhaps the endless backdoors that no one can actually audit because the EULA doesn't allow for it? So even the most paranoid of the paranoid get owned as a result?

Or perhaps you should instead rephrase your question into "Why Linux?" and then go read what Peruvian Congressman Dr. Edgar David Villaneuca Nunez has to say about the matter?

Dare I mention Microsoft's well-known anti-competitive ways?

Sometimes--even if a commercial tool is "better" for the task (and I really don't think it is), blind application of pure personal utilitarianism means you have to set aside any morals about supporting a corporation that's as blatantly ruthless as Microsoft is.

But hey--if you don't mind contributing to Microsoft's current inhumanity, then by all means, go ahead and pay their outrageous licensing fees and the more power to ya.

No, really: you just go ahead and knock down your straw man--in this case perhaps named the "One True Operating System" zealot--and the rest of us sane individuals will keep on doing real work with tools we know we can trust.

The settlement was just to "hide" the bundled software? There was no part indicating that the services offered to IE, Outlook, Media Player, etc by the OS have to be available to competitors, so that they can integrate and interoperate as seamlessly? No wonder 9 states dissented.


The proposed settlement has quite a few other things besides just this, but Windows doesn't need service packs to address contractual terms with vendors, API releases, and other such terms in the proposal. There was a release of documentation for a few APIs a couple weeks ago, which I believe was also covered here, and all of the contracts have been changing as they come up for renewal. There are also some other points, but you could just read the proposed settlement for yourself. US DoJ US vs Microsoft site

Legal Bits
Stall Beg I
Gab Sell It
Beats Gill
A Bill Gets

And finally...

All Bis Get

Did I post this twice? You Decide!

Legal Bits
Stall Beg I
Gab Sell It
Beats Gill
A Bill Gets

And finally...

All Bis Get

This is utter hogwash. You'd better check your facts. Try looking through some of the statistics and reports at The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The opposite of your statement is demonstrated again and again.

Furthermore, many argue that not only economic minorities but, also racial minorities (so often the same) are unjustly labeled as the largest source of criminals. Again the statistics say otherwise.

The fact is that economic and racial minorities produce a disproportionately high volume of criminals. Additionally, and interestingly to me, the minorities are statistically the largest group of victims of crime. That means that most criminal activity is perpetrated by minorities against other minorities. This has been case throughout history and is still true today.

This is utter hogwash. You'd better check your facts. Try looking through some of the statistics and reports at The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The opposite of your statement is demonstrated again and again.

Furthermore, many argue that not only economic minorities but, also racial minorities (so often the same) are unjustly labeled as the largest source of criminals. Again the statistics say otherwise.

The fact is that economic and racial minorities produce a disproportionately high volume of criminals. Additionally, and interestingly to me, the minorities are statistically the largest group of victims of crime. That means that most criminal activity is perpetrated by minorities against other minorities. This has been case throughout history and is still true today.

The wiretaps are taking place for your protection.

need to lie to the courts. The courts want the Bad Guys caught, don't they?

i think it was a terrible idea.

I mean, imagine, when the aliens get here, and they show us copies of the pictures from the disk...

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/sceneeart h. html

Well, if they've given those pictures to the others from their home - and presumably have sent those pictures digitally - they're in for a rude awakening when they get here...as they will have to be arrested for copyright infringement.

From the NASA website.

Voyager Record Photograph Index
The following is a listing of pictures electronically placed on the phonograph records which are carried onboard the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft.
Please note that these images are copyright protected. Reproduction without permission of the copyright holder is prohibited.

good Lord, we suck...

Okay, so downloading music from your preferred P2P service isn't theft. But unless you've purchased the same songs you're downloading, it's copyright infringement, and if you've actually read the text of the NET Act (same link as posted in the article), it deals with infringement rather than theft. The congresscritters behind the law just called it that because it's a much better name than the "NECI Act" would be...

Has Microsoft decided that the 1995 consent decree they executed with the Department of Justice no longer applies?

See http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm, in particular the per-processor clause.

Microsoft can't really be attempting to force Dell to pay them for every PC shipped, can it?

Going back to the final judgement of the original US v. MS:

(iv) All OEMs with existing Per System Licenses, or Per Processor Licenses treated by Microsoft under Section IV (J) as Per System Licenses, will be sent within 30 days following entry of this Final Judgment in a separately mailed notice printed in bold, boxed type which shall begin with the sentence "You are operating under a Microsoft Per System License," and shall continue ...

"Under Microsoft's License Agreement, there is no charge or penalty if a Customer chooses at any time to create a New System incorporating a non-Microsoft operating system. If the Customer intends to include a Microsoft operating system product with the New System, the Customer must so notify Microsoft, after which the parties may enter into arm's length negotiation with respect to a license to apply to the New System."

It seems that MS has is getting around the terms of this judgement because it only addresses anti-competetive practices specifically directed against non-MS operating systems. This provides them with a loophole to use against systems sold without any OS.

Still, this new twist violates the spirit of the judgement and I hope someone in the DOJ will bitch slap them for this fresh display of arrogance.

If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, PC Manufacturer and Microsoft are unwilling to license the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and you should promptly contact PC Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused products(s) for a refund.

They didn't even get a slap on the wrist for this behavior.

Read the court's findings of fact. The court decided this behavior was an "anti-piracy" measure--not the anti-competition measure it really was.

It is hard to find the original article that outlined the specific numbers... but in searching Google I came up with this link which is pretty much what I read before, minus a few numbers. The article is a DOJ (US Department of Justice) article - and it is VERY VERY VERY good at pointing out just how corrupt and just how much control Microsoft asserts on Washington and Washington policies. I think it will at least get my point across that this is a very very corrupt company who stops at nothing to try to control other corporations and even governments.

This article about the DOJ's response to the Tunney Act comments gives some useful background info.

This reponse from the DOJ is especially damning because it contradicts the requirement of having a DUNS number to submit the NDA.

from here:

" 74. Other commentors express concern that individuals, particularly individual developers writing and trading code within the "open source" community, might not qualify as "entities" and so might not qualify as "ISVs" under Definition VI.I.(80) The RPFJ, however, sets no minimum size or organizational standard for an "entity." Any individual or group of individuals, whether incorporated or not, that otherwise meets the definition of "ISV" is considered to be an ISV within the meaning of the RPFJ."

and here:

" 464. Several commentors express concern that Microsoft somehow may claim that an open source developer, or a network of open source developers, or a marketer of open source software, should not be considered to meet Section VI.I's definition of an "ISV" and so should not receive the benefits and protections given to ISVs by the RPFJ.(437) The United States believes this concern is groundless. See the discussion in Section III(A), above."

Gee I wonder how many more of the commentators' concerns turn out to be groundless just like the DOJ says...

This article about the DOJ's response to the Tunney Act comments gives some useful background info.

This reponse from the DOJ is especially damning because it contradicts the requirement of having a DUNS number to submit the NDA.

from here:

" 74. Other commentors express concern that individuals, particularly individual developers writing and trading code within the "open source" community, might not qualify as "entities" and so might not qualify as "ISVs" under Definition VI.I.(80) The RPFJ, however, sets no minimum size or organizational standard for an "entity." Any individual or group of individuals, whether incorporated or not, that otherwise meets the definition of "ISV" is considered to be an ISV within the meaning of the RPFJ."

and here:

" 464. Several commentors express concern that Microsoft somehow may claim that an open source developer, or a network of open source developers, or a marketer of open source software, should not be considered to meet Section VI.I's definition of an "ISV" and so should not receive the benefits and protections given to ISVs by the RPFJ.(437) The United States believes this concern is groundless. See the discussion in Section III(A), above."

Gee I wonder how many more of the commentators' concerns turn out to be groundless just like the DOJ says...

• A good excuse for corporate welfare for ADM.

You are grossly misinformed and should be embarassed to post such poorly-researched comments.

The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview.

Your recollection of history is blatently false. Windows and DOS were not bundled until many years after Desqview was dead and Windows had a monopoly of the "OS" market. The fact is that Desqview 2.0 was released in 1987 whereas Win95 (the bundling of DOS and Windows) didn't take place until 1995. Bundling the products was the only thing that made sense and was in a sense the means to discontinue DOS 6.

In fact, neither the DOJ nor the courts have ever found fault with Microsoft for "bundling" DOS and Windows, bundling didn't even become a factor until Netscape's demise. For example, the consent decree of 1994 makes no mention of bundling products and is completely devoted to licensing practises. While you're free to your own fiction, the facts, the DoJ, and the courts tend to disagree with you.

Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops

References, please! I hope you work differently in court because I certainly make no judgements without some sort of evidence.

You are grossly misinformed and should be embarassed to post such poorly-researched comments.

The Microsoft windows manager, "Windows" was bundled with DOS to foreclose such products as Deskview.

Your recollection of history is blatently false. Windows and DOS were not bundled until many years after Desqview was dead and Windows had a monopoly of the "OS" market. The fact is that Desqview 2.0 was released in 1987 whereas Win95 (the bundling of DOS and Windows) didn't take place until 1995. Bundling the products was the only thing that made sense and was in a sense the means to discontinue DOS 6.

In fact, neither the DOJ nor the courts have ever found fault with Microsoft for "bundling" DOS and Windows, bundling didn't even become a factor until Netscape's demise. For example, the consent decree of 1994 makes no mention of bundling products and is completely devoted to licensing practises. While you're free to your own fiction, the facts, the DoJ, and the courts tend to disagree with you.

Gates himself decided (at Ballmers suggestion) to get involved and stop DELL from promoting linux desktops

References, please! I hope you work differently in court because I certainly make no judgements without some sort of evidence.

That'll help, however it won't stop them from making it illegal for you to create and distribute your own music. Nor will it stop them from getting your money.

Everytime their sales slip (or everyone in the country doesn't buy the latest "pop sensation"), they insist it is because of piracy, not the economy or the public refusing to buy from RIAA companies. They may do a similar thing that Microsoft did. (section E) The feds didn't even try to prosecute MS for this, even though I think it is their worst anti-trust violation!

In fact, if you live in the US (and some other countries), you pay "royalties" to them on every CD writing drive you buy and every blank music CD you burn. It doesn't matter if it is your own music, or music you are legally allowed to copy--they still take it.

> Are they an actual evil company?

Of course they are. But don't take my word for it. You can see it in Microsoft's own words...

Microsoft sabotages new technologies:

> The "strategic objective" is to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html

Microsoft commits fraud against their customers:

> "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." (same link)

Microsoft uses extortion:

> "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO [Gil Amelio] to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office...."

> "Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using [IE] everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club." http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

In order to get what they want, Microsoft is even willing to destroy things that are of great value to the whole world, such as the openness and compatibility of the Internet:

> "OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market." http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.htm l

But those are only a few examples. Microsoft's entire history has been one of sabotage and fraud. Plus, Microsoft has never produced a new idea, preferring to copy others.

As a result of Microsoft's acts of destruction, PC technology is ten years behind where it should be.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.