Slashdot Mirror

Complain to antitrust@ftc.gov and newcase.atr@usdoj.gov (see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm ). They do listen sometimes!

--Neal

I certainly give the man his due respect. He absolutely belongs in the Technologist Pantheon. But I must disagree with those lamenting his having taken a government job.

Unfortunately, Farber is NOT ill-suited for the job. He's a perfect fit, for all the wrong reasons. Specifically his testimony in the MS trial presents a puritanical visage that is probably a prerequisite for working in a bureaucracy as gargantuan and entrenched as the FCC.

A quote from the testimony:

"But only the availability of an unbundled version of Windows 98 will cure the difficulties which arise for many OEMs, application developers and retail end users who may find too burdensome the problems arising from their inability to substitute different functions and applications (such as the Web browser) for use with only parts of what is now sold as Windows 98."

Clearly Farber is implying that the government should be allowed to design (or impose design requirements on) Microsoft's software products. Of course some will argue that Farber is only providing a rebuttal to Micrsoft's contention that the browser is an integral (and necessary) part of the evolution of the PC operating system. In fact, he presents an effective counterpoint on this subject. But the additional facts that he 1. worked on the side of the government's obviously specious and authoritarian "case" and 2. concluded his testimony with the above statement clearly indicate that his is yet another in the endless parade of narrow, bureaucratic minds produced by late 20th century academia.

To paraphrase some bimbo: Don't hate me because I'm honest!

If she is a qualified employee, you should build the ramp or make other accomodations that don't require her to go into that room. If it is too expensive to build the ramp, you can get assistance. If it is still too expensive you don't have to. You can get free technical assistance from the DOJ.

--

As the maintainer of a government web site, I can only say how much I agree. Those repeatedly posting that the web is a visual medium are just flat wrong. The web (and to a greater extent and more importantly the internet) ain't about pretty pictures or fonts only the designer of them can read. It's about ideas. It's a mechanism for communicating those ideas. And anyone who says "They're blind! Let 'em eat cake!" is not only heartless but ignorant. It is simply unacceptable for society to take a group of people who "see" the world in a different way and shut them out. Isn't that what all the Hellmouth uproar has been about? Saying "Blind people? Fuck 'em!" is the moral equivalent of saying "Plays Doom? Put 'em in isolation!" Neither condition is a good reason to cut people off from the rest of the world. And folks, I believe that the 'net has reached a level of importance, of validity, and of ubiquity that cutting people off from the online world is nearly the equivalent of shutting them out of the physical world.

I know my blind users appreciate the fact that I'm not trying to win any design contests. I'm just trying to communicate. Just like any other Any Browser proponent. :-)

As for the nuts and bolts, it's not all that hard to make sites useful to everyone. Check out the IRS web site for a look at a huge site that works in text only mode. And if you're open to making the sites you design more useful, try the basic information available from the Department of Justice page on this topic. There's even a fine page on the topic from the General Services Administration. Just because they're government sites doesn't mean they're bad.

On the flip side, of course, I think the folks filing this suit could have chosen a better place to try to make available for the blind than AOL. Suppose they get everything they ask for and AOL becomes totally accessible? What then? A whole new group of folks gets to look at the service and decide that it's crap?

:-)

Sorry. I couldn't resist the cheap shot.

• And, finally, I have to say that I am utterly fucking disgusted with the ./ people who are whining about Political Correctness. We're not talking about some pointless argument over semantics. We're talking about locking out a portion of our community, a portion of the community that is already excluded from so much in our society, from the explosive growth in our economy and society taking place on the Internet. For a group of people who whine so much about being excluded, about being ostracized because they are different, this attitude is utter hypocrisy!

I couldn't agree more.

I'm generally pretty conservative, but I just don't see the ADA as being a burden on society. The intent is that society will benefit by allowing handicapped people to function as productive members of society. Anybody have a problem with this?

Now, there are people who try to abuse it. Like the policeman who was fired because he couldn't make a comprehensible report and claimed to have "Disability of Written Expression" or the people who tried to claim that they were discriminated against because they couldn't perform certain jobs, like being a pilot, that required a certain standard of uncorrected vision.

The geeks whining about special accomodations or comparing this to something we might see in a "Harrison Bergeron" world are pretty clueless. I've known productive blind computer programmers. As others have mentioned, there are OCR devices that will read a computer screen.

I, for one, am disappointed that the Web is as much a visual medium as it's become. I like to think that the Web is best when it's a information, primarily written language, medium. I'm not looking forward to the day when high speed access turns it the Web into just Interactive TV.

In so far as the Web is written language based, simple accomodations, like ALT tags, and command-based systems so that people can navigate without the need for visual cues, are all that's needed. It wouldn't be hard to do and everyone could benefit. If more sites were Lynx accessible, we'd have a Web that was more useful to people with slow connections and simple character based systems, too.

There's a lot of hyperbole about all of this. From the link in this story about the guidelines the Federal Government is adopting, you can find this document that really explains what the Fed is doing. A particularly interesting extract is:

• 9) Are there any exemptions to the technology accessibility standards?

  A Federal agency does not have to comply with the accessibility standards if it would impose an undue burden to do so. This is consistent with language used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other civil rights legislation, where the term 'undue burden' has been defined as "significant difficulty or expense." However, the agency must explain why meeting the standards would pose an undue burden for a given procurement action, and must still provide people with disabilities access to the information or data that is affected.

Is this too much to ask? That we make some effort to give people with disabilities access to information?

Someday, someday soon perhaps, the Internet will be a necessity. You may need it to apply for Government services or licenses. You might need it to access the future version of Libraries. Do we really want to make decisions now that closes the Internet off to people with disabilities?

• And, finally, I have to say that I am utterly fucking disgusted with the ./ people who are whining about Political Correctness. We're not talking about some pointless argument over semantics. We're talking about locking out a portion of our community, a portion of the community that is already excluded from so much in our society, from the explosive growth in our economy and society taking place on the Internet. For a group of people who whine so much about being excluded, about being ostracized because they are different, this attitude is utter hypocrisy!

I couldn't agree more.

I'm generally pretty conservative, but I just don't see the ADA as being a burden on society. The intent is that society will benefit by allowing handicapped people to function as productive members of society. Anybody have a problem with this?

Now, there are people who try to abuse it. Like the policeman who was fired because he couldn't make a comprehensible report and claimed to have "Disability of Written Expression" or the people who tried to claim that they were discriminated against because they couldn't perform certain jobs, like being a pilot, that required a certain standard of uncorrected vision.

The geeks whining about special accomodations or comparing this to something we might see in a "Harrison Bergeron" world are pretty clueless. I've known productive blind computer programmers. As others have mentioned, there are OCR devices that will read a computer screen.

I, for one, am disappointed that the Web is as much a visual medium as it's become. I like to think that the Web is best when it's a information, primarily written language, medium. I'm not looking forward to the day when high speed access turns it the Web into just Interactive TV.

In so far as the Web is written language based, simple accomodations, like ALT tags, and command-based systems so that people can navigate without the need for visual cues, are all that's needed. It wouldn't be hard to do and everyone could benefit. If more sites were Lynx accessible, we'd have a Web that was more useful to people with slow connections and simple character based systems, too.

There's a lot of hyperbole about all of this. From the link in this story about the guidelines the Federal Government is adopting, you can find this document that really explains what the Fed is doing. A particularly interesting extract is:

• 9) Are there any exemptions to the technology accessibility standards?

  A Federal agency does not have to comply with the accessibility standards if it would impose an undue burden to do so. This is consistent with language used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other civil rights legislation, where the term 'undue burden' has been defined as "significant difficulty or expense." However, the agency must explain why meeting the standards would pose an undue burden for a given procurement action, and must still provide people with disabilities access to the information or data that is affected.

Is this too much to ask? That we make some effort to give people with disabilities access to information?

Someday, someday soon perhaps, the Internet will be a necessity. You may need it to apply for Government services or licenses. You might need it to access the future version of Libraries. Do we really want to make decisions now that closes the Internet off to people with disabilities?

If a blind doesn't get a truck driving job because they are blind, then do they have the right to sue the employer?

No. The ADA prevents discrimination in employment against qualified disabled people who could do the job with reasonable accomodation. A ramp, elevator, or modified working hours could all be reasonable accomodations. A blind person would not be qualified for a truck driving position since they could not get a drivers license. If you're interested they're examples of court cases and a DOJ Q&A on the ADA.

The part of the ADA that is being applied to AOL is that commercial property must be accessible by disabled people. If you consider AOL's online real estate to be commercial property, and there is a reasonable accomodation that can be made (through use of ALT tags, etc) to make the property accessible to the blind, then I don't think it's unreasonable in the context of the law. You may well argue that the law is unreasonably vague or unnecessary, or even unconstitutional, but be that as it may, it has been sucessful at achieving it's main goal of making the US a more decent place to live and work for disabled people (and skateboarders).

--

If a blind doesn't get a truck driving job because they are blind, then do they have the right to sue the employer?

No. The ADA prevents discrimination in employment against qualified disabled people who could do the job with reasonable accomodation. A ramp, elevator, or modified working hours could all be reasonable accomodations. A blind person would not be qualified for a truck driving position since they could not get a drivers license. If you're interested they're examples of court cases and a DOJ Q&A on the ADA.

The part of the ADA that is being applied to AOL is that commercial property must be accessible by disabled people. If you consider AOL's online real estate to be commercial property, and there is a reasonable accomodation that can be made (through use of ALT tags, etc) to make the property accessible to the blind, then I don't think it's unreasonable in the context of the law. You may well argue that the law is unreasonably vague or unnecessary, or even unconstitutional, but be that as it may, it has been sucessful at achieving it's main goal of making the US a more decent place to live and work for disabled people (and skateboarders).

--

As I read it the ADA probably applies to computers/websites (Section 401). The ADA seems to require technology services (such as AOL or, say the New York Times) not to be available directly to the blind, but to be available to a "telecommunications relay service". Such a service might be a computer voice system but it need not be. A toll reader service would qualify and if IIRC, such services exist. Even the existence of braille displays should qualify. In conclusion, I don't think AOL is in violation of the ADA any more than a roadside billboard or a television nature show is.

At least one of the ex-Soviet states attempted to set itself up in this way. Naturally, there are also the Caribbean islands with confidential banking laws and low (no?) taxes. I believe it's a reasonably common method of building revenue.

Unfortunately, one problem when attempting this is the confidence issue. People are very confident that Switzerland will remain, with no major changes to its banking policies. It's much harder to predict the actions of a small nation that has just initiated this sort of policy. The stability and reliance on tradition hasn't been demonstrated. You really don't want the state to start revealing information (or nationalizing assets!).

Naturally, this won't keep all money out. It's also likely (as Neal said) that a higher portion of early adopters will be doing something shady. This gives these small states an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to their policies, especially if larger states fail to pressure the state for information or other violations of policy.

This page tells you what happens when you tell a girl her password's not secure. Apparently :-)

(Sarcasm) geez! It's sure bad reading other peoples' e-mail!(/Sarcasm) ...Except at my high school we were taught "U.S. Mail is legally gauranteed private. E-mail isn't" and that there will be "regular e-mail checks" of our mailboxes. I think there should be a slight note at the bottom: "Note: The government can do whatever they want. Rules don't apply to them, because they're special." Personally, though, I wouldn't be too worried about all this. When I started "surfing the Net" (man, I hate overused phrases) six years ago, I didn't give a damn about being a good "Netizen," and I did not look at ANY page like this. I doubt a kid would, either. I could seriously make a better page than that in half an hour. (Sarcasm) But I think that the DOJ should get back to more important things to spend your tax dollars on, like registering offense domain names. (/Sarcasm)

I found this a couple links away from link in the story.

It's the "Official Word on Drugs."

Anyway, remember when a couple senators tried to pass a law that would make it illegal to have or link to pages that have information on illegal substances? Take a look at the above link.

I wonder if there are any other government web sites or institutions that break laws. Either potential, obscure, or existing laws? Anybody know of some?

"Lots of kids know enough about computers to hack into big networks, but so what? It doesn't mean you're smart, it just means you don't mind hurting other people--because it does hurt them. People are not going to want to hire you to protect computers if you've been a hacker. It's a question of trust, not skill."

Quentin is a badass. Breakin' into computers, wasting the school's money, depriving the football team of uniforms. Sounds like my kind of guy. Man, I wish I had the *opportunity* to make those kinds of choices when I was growing up. I could use Quentin to change my grades, and his l33t friend Joey to snag me free warez.

and it seems as if watching a girl type her password will get you laid. or maybe I'm reading too much into that.

If you go to the DoJ page, you'll find out that the DoJ thinks highly of New Sports Equipment in your school. It seems that unless you rat out your friend, the school can't buy any New Sports Equipment. That would be a terrible thing if the jocks didn't get their New Sports Equipemnt.

Some posts have hinted at how future employers, insurance companies or angry neighbors could do you harm based on your medical records. Insurance companies already look at your medical record, especially for pre-existing conditions. I would surmise that they are already adjusting your premium based on your health history. In regards to employers, the United States has an American with Disabilities Act that "prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, programs and services provided by state and local governments, goods and services provided by private companies, and in commercial facilities." (taken from the Department of Justice Web site on the ADA, found here.) The question is what counts as a "disability," but in my department at a previous job (a law firm) disabilities included both physical and mental conditions, such as access disabilities, bipolar disorder, and fatal reactions to peanut oil. In the case of the peanut oil, the person used the ADA as a cudgel to curtail the use of peanut oil in the cafeteria, which got into the air system and into her lungs, etc. While the ADA is focused primarily @ people with access challenges, it has been used to cover other cases as well.

As far as neighbors getting the information and using it for e-vil, any misuse of medical information is just begging for a civil liability suit and possibly jail time. Just like someone using your social security number to get information about you, the use of your "identity" to access medical records under false pretense would probably be punishible by fine, imprisonment, or both.

My hangup with the whole system is, as someone has already said, the implementation of the whole thing -- the technical details more so than the social ones. While the medical system would (hopefully) be more secure than other online systems (read today's story about AOL, etc), it would be a high profile target for meddlers. The deletion or alteration of records by people posing as doctors would be disasterous. Beyond the "hacker" bugaboo, the potential for social engineering is pretty high. Most of the patients who will use this system to access their records are probably not going to be too computer savvy or (flashback to ISP tech support days) are going to forget that their password is their name spelled backwards with all the digits of their kids' birthdays tacked on @ the end. In order to make the system usable by the general populace, the methods for password and username retrieval are going to have to be pretty lax, ala your favorite Web-based email system. Blech.

Granted, no statistic is really reliable, it would be nice to see some sort of numbers comparing crime in the US to crime in a place such as the UK...but more specifically a certain city in the UK that scales well to a city in the US. Anybody have any data, or know a good source for solid statistical data?


Okaaaaay..

From the Home Office Statistical Publications website, I can get the 1998 British Crime Survey, which tells me that in the UK in 1997 there were 714,000 wounding assaults (more than trivial injury). Only 25% of violent crime is committed by people previously unknown to the victim. The Statistics of Deaths Reported to Coroners: England and Wales 1998 tells us that 142 deaths were given a verdict of `unlawful homicide` in 1997 (note this doesn`t include Scotland); this works out as 2.4 murders per 1,000,000 head of population (see below).

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has a summary of firearm-related crimes, wherein we are told that: "Victimizations involving a firearm represented 23% of the 2.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault" and that it is "estimated that 68% of the 18,209 murders in 1997 were committed with firearms." This works out as 67.9 murders per 1,000,000 people, or 46.2 murders with firearms per 1,000,000 people.

The population of the US is 268 million, with 29 people per square kilometre. The population of the UK is 59 million, with 243 people per square kilometre. (Source: World Bank country data.)

I`m afraid I don`t have time to go looking up specific cities though.

Granted, no statistic is really reliable, it would be nice to see some sort of numbers comparing crime in the US to crime in a place such as the UK...but more specifically a certain city in the UK that scales well to a city in the US. Anybody have any data, or know a good source for solid statistical data?


Okaaaaay..

From the Home Office Statistical Publications website, I can get the 1998 British Crime Survey, which tells me that in the UK in 1997 there were 714,000 wounding assaults (more than trivial injury). Only 25% of violent crime is committed by people previously unknown to the victim. The Statistics of Deaths Reported to Coroners: England and Wales 1998 tells us that 142 deaths were given a verdict of `unlawful homicide` in 1997 (note this doesn`t include Scotland); this works out as 2.4 murders per 1,000,000 head of population (see below).

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has a summary of firearm-related crimes, wherein we are told that: "Victimizations involving a firearm represented 23% of the 2.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault" and that it is "estimated that 68% of the 18,209 murders in 1997 were committed with firearms." This works out as 67.9 murders per 1,000,000 people, or 46.2 murders with firearms per 1,000,000 people.

The population of the US is 268 million, with 29 people per square kilometre. The population of the UK is 59 million, with 243 people per square kilometre. (Source: World Bank country data.)

I`m afraid I don`t have time to go looking up specific cities though.

harl> Anyone know where I can get transcripts, on the web?

See http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_depos .htm

Another /. reader posted a link to the DOJ website here. I think the DOJ is handling the Linux issue nicely.

To recap; MS is arguing that Linux poses a serious threat to Windows, due to RedHat and others.

The DOJ says this doesn't hold water. They quote a number of MS witnesses that all said that Linux isn't currently a threat, but may become one in the future. The DOJ argues that future predictions never have and don't currently make any difference in a trial. The DOJ goes on to say that MS's change of heart contradicts many past sayings by MS, and that their contention is less than honest.

Furthermore, the DOJ points out that MS increased the price of Windows 95, despite the preceived competition, after Windows 98 was released. This points directly to monopoly power.

The full text of the DOJ filing can be seen here, the Microsoft filing can be seen here.
At first glance the DOJ filing is a well-constructed set of arguments based on the evidence presented during the trial, the Microsoft one is full of anti-government rhetoric and outright contradictions. YMMV though.

JavaRing was an implementation of JavaCard API for smart cards. The rings were manufactured by Dallas Semiconductor

Dallas Semicondutor puts JavaTM technology power in the iButton, a portable computer chip armored in stainless steel and wearable as jewelry or other personal accessory. In fact, the iButton in the JavaTM Ring gained attention as the first successful application of the Java CardTM 2.0 specification. A Java technology-enabled iButton conforms to the Java Card 2.0 specs and adds enhancements for a superior Java programming environment -- such as 32-bit Java technology integers, automatic garbage collection, and a true-time clock. Each iButton has a unique ROM registration number to which a PIN number can be attached for the same level of security banks use. Moreover, the ROM number is Java technology-accessible and supplements IP addresses, making all mobile iButtons globally addressable. Besides being physically tough and tamper-resistant, the Java technology-enabled iButton carries 800,000 transistors for cryptographic processing. A high-speed processor with a math accelerator performs the encryption to generate a digital signature in less than one second. One iButton's high-capacity NV SRAM can support multiple applications, thus maximizing the possibilities for a variety of secure Java Card technology transactions.

Smart cards are quite popular in Europe, where magnetic credit cards never got to the same level of popularity as in the US. Smart cards haven't taken off in the US because VISA and MasterCard are restraining competition.

Well you want facts so here what I've found

• http://www.geocities.com/~falconbbs/leg_hack.htm Mitnick apparently never met a computer program he couldn't bust into. As early as the mid-1980s, the high school dropout used his computer to infiltrate corporate computers. Mitnick was arrested four times for hacking during the 1980s and served a one-year prison term. He was on probation in 1992 when he began hacking again, prosecutors said. He fled on Christmas Eve 1992 and remained a fugitive until his 1995 capture in North Carolina. He's accounts been behind bars since 1995 without bail. At the time of his arrest, Mitnick was the only hacker to make the FBI's most-wanted list.
• http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr/c ac70627.1.html: The 14-month sentence that will run consecutively to the sentence imposed in the North Carolina case arose from Mitnick ignoring conditions of his supervised release in 1992. Painter said Mitnick disobeyed court orders not to engage in further computer hacking or associate with other known hackers. Mitnick violated these orders by breaking into Pacific Bell voice mail computers and listening to confidential messages of security personnel. He also associated with Lewis DePayne, an individual with whom he had previously engaged in computer hacking.
• http://members.raincity.com/bucca neer/mitnick.html Now at age 25, Mitnick was sentenced to one year in a minimum security facility by judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the U. S. District Court in Los Angeles Ca. DiCicco had turned witness against him... the year was 1989. Judge Pfaelzer also ordered Mitnick to regularly attend rehabilitation sessions, relating his addiction to computer break-ins to that of a substance abuser. Federal prosecutors also obtained a court order restricting Mitnick's phone privileges while in jail, for fear that he might get access to an outside computer. Harriet Rosetto, the director of the rehabilitation facility said "hacking gives Kevin a sense of self-esteem that he doesn't get in the real world, there was no greed or sabotage involved... He's like a big kid playing Dungeons and Dragons".
• But the best page is probably http://www.things.org/takedown/bio /mitnick1.html His next arrest was in 1983 by campus police at the University of Southern California, where he had gotten into minor trouble a few years earlier, when he was caught using a university computer to gain illegal access to the ARPAnet. This time he was discovered sitting at a computer in a campus terminal room, breaking into a Pentagon computer over the ARPAnet, and was sentenced to six months at the California Youth Authority's Karl Holton Training School, a juvenile prison in Stockton, California. After he was released, he obtained the license plate "X HACKER" for his Nissan, but he was still very much in the computer break-in business. Several years later he went underground for more than a year after being accused of tampering with a TRW credit reference computer; an arrest warrant was issued, but it later vanished from police records without explanation.

  [...]

  In 1987 and 1988, Kevin and a friend, Lenny DiCicco, fought a pitched electronic battle against scientists at Digital Equipment's Palo Alto research laboratory. Mitnick had become obsessed with obtaining a copy of Digital's VMS minicomputer operating system, and was trying to do so by gaining entry to the company's corporate computer network, known as Easynet. The computers at Digital's Palo Alto laboratory looked easiest, so every night with remarkable persistence Mitnick and DiCicco would launch their modem attacks from a small Calabasas, California company where DiCicco had a computer support job.

  [...]

  It was the fifth time that Mitnick had been apprehended for a computer crime, and the case attracted nationwide attention because, in an unusual plea bargain, he agreed to one year in prison and six months in a counseling program for his computer "addiction." It was a strange defense tactic, but a federal judge, after initially balking, bought the idea that there was some sort of psychological parallel between the obsession Mitnick had for breaking in to computer systems and an addict's craving for drugs. After he finished his jail time and his halfway-house counseling sentence for the 1989 Digital Equipment conviction Mitnick moved to Las Vegas

So re-read the initial post, which was actually propaganda. Kevin Mitnick has started cracking computers and telephone systems 20 years ago. And he has done so with a astonishing repetition and stuborn obstination. Obsession is not a too strong word. Saying "Kevin Mitnick was an ordinary guy who was curious" and that the evil goverment decided to screw him without reason, is propaganda. Why? Because it only tells half of the truth and because it is repeated everywhere in the FreeKevin, and crackers sites.

The Administration generally, and law enforcement particularly, are not trying to ban encryption. Law enforcement supports the responsible spread of strong encryption. Use of strong encryption will help deter crime and promote a safe national information infrastructure.

But in the letter she says:

Much work remains to be done. In particular, I believe we must soon address the risks posed by electronic distribution of encryption software.

Very different.

I would bet that the latter more accuratly shows the policy of the DOJ.

Is not strong and trusted encryption software built by the open and free flow of ideas. How strong would the encryption be that is available to everyone but the governments if there was no electronic distribution?

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

Personally I believe in the Christian faith (note I didn't call myself a christian because that would make me as much as a hypocrite as the rest of em). But I hate groups like CAP who give a bad name to normal moderate christians, who can often have an open mind and see things for what they truly are. This movie had a message, on that slashdot has been commited (ok.. maby half-assed) to spreading ever since the columbine shootings, and before. That you simply can't go around blaming other people, especially the media for societies problems. Though sites like this would love us to believe that violent movies are to blame. What I find interesting though, is that while violence in movies are at almost an all time high, youth violence is the lowest for the decade. Don't believe me, check out DJJ's statistics yourself.. For a Chart
or for a slighly easier to read table

Personally I believe in the Christian faith (note I didn't call myself a christian because that would make me as much as a hypocrite as the rest of em). But I hate groups like CAP who give a bad name to normal moderate christians, who can often have an open mind and see things for what they truly are. This movie had a message, on that slashdot has been commited (ok.. maby half-assed) to spreading ever since the columbine shootings, and before. That you simply can't go around blaming other people, especially the media for societies problems. Though sites like this would love us to believe that violent movies are to blame. What I find interesting though, is that while violence in movies are at almost an all time high, youth violence is the lowest for the decade. Don't believe me, check out DJJ's statistics yourself.. For a Chart
or for a slighly easier to read table

It may be illegal. It seems antitrust laws allow collective bargaining of employees with their employer, but preclude a union of "independent economic actors" from unionizing to increase their leverage in the marketplace. At least, in the case of physicians' unions this is the DOJ's stated concern. Follow the link and see the sections labelled Physician Collaboration or Professional Trade Associations.

Imagine it's 2008 and everyone uses Linux, which is free (as in beer). Imagine some entrepreneur raising a case that this "predatory pricing" prevents him developing a new OS and narrows consumer choice.

(Disclaimer: Dammit Jim, I'm a geek, not a lawyer.)

This would actually be pretty difficult to argue. The reason the "predatory pricing" argument is used against Microsoft is because of the government's (perfectly reasonable) argument that pushing IE onto the desktop was a good way to enforce dependence on Microsoft and their retail products. If Microsoft had just ceded the browser market to Netscape, people might have started moving to other platforms which Netscape supported, which would have been disasterous for MS.

The interesting thing here is that the reverse of the argument doesn't apply to Linux. MS hopes that if you're using IE, you'll stick with Windows, and drop a bundle on the MS stable of products (including Windows). Linux distribution companies - Red Hat, Debian, etc. - can make money off their manuals, recoup the cost of distribution media, and sell tech support, but they can't actually charge for the OS. The ancillary costs for the consumer are all tech-support costs, something which just about every major software company charges for at some level.

The answer is to LET the Microsofts make their billions - let them become fat, stodgy and arrogant. Because this sows the seeds of their own destruction

In other words: when a company engages in anti-competitive practices, then violates a consent decree they signed to stop doing it, the answer is to let them make billions off of it, because sooner or later they'll get clumsy and not be able to do it anymore.

I'm not sure I buy that.

In a webbed world, top-down government is unnecessary, and relying on it to "solve" our problems just perpetuates this outmoded system known as politics.

As fashionable as it may be to declare the immanence of the dawn of a post-political era, it's worth keeping a couple basic things in mind. (Warning: strong personal bias follows)

• People live together in societies because it's easier than living alone.
• Societies have laws to keep their members from mistreating each other any more than necessary.
• Companies mistreat each other just like people do.

All the DOJ is doing is trying to uphold the laws we have, and the consent decree that Microsoft signed four years ago. You call it an example of top-down government. I call it the state reminding MS to follow the rules it agreed to.

Yea I heard these stats also (on cnn so probably not a lie.. but you'd never know..)
there are some interesting graphs of crime rates by age over at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they show that from 85-93 crime rates of juvinials skyrocketed but sense 93 there has been a steady decline. Interesting stuff really.

Yea I heard these stats also (on cnn so probably not a lie.. but you'd never know..)
there are some interesting graphs of crime rates by age over at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they show that from 85-93 crime rates of juvinials skyrocketed but sense 93 there has been a steady decline. Interesting stuff really.

The URL is http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newca se.htm

They do listen and respond. (I complained about the Escient (CDDB) monopoly.) But they won't necessarily do anything.

Excuse me? Least we forget that Paul Allen PORTED Basic from the mainframe to the Altair (and probably took this code verbatim and sold it to CBM). And DOS was QF86-DOS (or something like that) that Bill BOUGHT from someone else and hus gaggle of hacker friends developed. Windows has code which is LICENCED from Apple but one wonders why Bill worked on OS/2 before splitting all ties from IBM. Bill Gates is a shrewd buisness man and otherwise is an incompetitant MORON. Go read his responses in direct testimony at the USDOJ's site and see how dumb this moron is.

ACTION:

MS Product and Corporate Questions: Waggener Edstrom at (503) 245-0905
MS email contact info is at http://register.microsoft.com/regwiz/regwiz.asp

The USPTO phone number is 800.786.9199 (800.PTO.9199). They say they are "not yet equipped to handle general email correspondence". What a shock.

US Asst. Attorney General for Antitrust: Joel Klein.
* "If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov". Seems like this qualifies, eh?
* Other DOJ email contact info is at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm
* DOJ Antitrust phone contact info: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/phoneworks.htm

Vice President Al Gore (cheerleader for hi-tech and, um, less distracted than others at the White House)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_Vice_P resident.html
Or email direct at vice.president@whitehouse.gov

US Senate Commerce, Science, And Transportation Committee
John McCain, chairman: John_McCain@McCain.senate.gov
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/
508 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510-6125
(202) 224-5115
http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail. cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=419 -- lists all members, with links to their homepages.

The House Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2927
Commerce@mail.house.gov

House Committee on Science
2320 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6371

Bogus Patent petition:
http://ethepeople.com/affiliates/national/fullview .cfm?ETPID=0&PETID=98938 &ETPDIR=affiliates/national

INFO:

W3C copyright terms: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice

W3C software license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-softw are.html

"Microsoft Awarded Style Sheet Patent"
Reprinted from The Bulletin: Seybold News & Views on Electronic Publishing, Vol. 4, No. 19, February 4, 1999
http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index .html
This article apparently broke the story.

Wired News: "MS Wins Patent for Web Standard" by Chris Oakes
2:05 p.m. 4.Feb.99.PST
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17 741.html

WEB STANDARDS PROJECT CALLS FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER PATENT GIVES MICROSOFT CONTROL OVER TWO KEY WEB STANDARDS
(press release: Feb. 4, 1999)
http://www.webstandards.org/patent.txt
(Also discussed at http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index 2.html)

At this writing (11:30pm PST Feb. 5), nothing on this story has appeared in/on:
* C|Net
* ZD Net and all related publications/sites
* CNN
* NY Times, et al.
* Seattle Times (www.seattletimes.com)

ACTION:

MS Product and Corporate Questions: Waggener Edstrom at (503) 245-0905
MS email contact info is at http://register.microsoft.com/regwiz/regwiz.asp

The USPTO phone number is 800.786.9199 (800.PTO.9199). They say they are "not yet equipped to handle general email correspondence". What a shock.

US Asst. Attorney General for Antitrust: Joel Klein.
* "If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov". Seems like this qualifies, eh?
* Other DOJ email contact info is at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm
* DOJ Antitrust phone contact info: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/phoneworks.htm

Vice President Al Gore (cheerleader for hi-tech and, um, less distracted than others at the White House)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_Vice_P resident.html
Or email direct at vice.president@whitehouse.gov

US Senate Commerce, Science, And Transportation Committee
John McCain, chairman: John_McCain@McCain.senate.gov
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/
508 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510-6125
(202) 224-5115
http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail. cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=419 -- lists all members, with links to their homepages.

The House Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2927
Commerce@mail.house.gov

House Committee on Science
2320 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6371

Bogus Patent petition:
http://ethepeople.com/affiliates/national/fullview .cfm?ETPID=0&PETID=98938 &ETPDIR=affiliates/national

INFO:

W3C copyright terms: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice

W3C software license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-softw are.html

"Microsoft Awarded Style Sheet Patent"
Reprinted from The Bulletin: Seybold News & Views on Electronic Publishing, Vol. 4, No. 19, February 4, 1999
http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index .html
This article apparently broke the story.

Wired News: "MS Wins Patent for Web Standard" by Chris Oakes
2:05 p.m. 4.Feb.99.PST
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17 741.html

WEB STANDARDS PROJECT CALLS FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER PATENT GIVES MICROSOFT CONTROL OVER TWO KEY WEB STANDARDS
(press release: Feb. 4, 1999)
http://www.webstandards.org/patent.txt
(Also discussed at http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index 2.html)

At this writing (11:30pm PST Feb. 5), nothing on this story has appeared in/on:
* C|Net
* ZD Net and all related publications/sites
* CNN
* NY Times, et al.
* Seattle Times (www.seattletimes.com)

ACTION:

MS Product and Corporate Questions: Waggener Edstrom at (503) 245-0905
MS email contact info is at http://register.microsoft.com/regwiz/regwiz.asp

The USPTO phone number is 800.786.9199 (800.PTO.9199). They say they are "not yet equipped to handle general email correspondence". What a shock.

US Asst. Attorney General for Antitrust: Joel Klein.
* "If your comments relate specifically to the Antitrust Division's suit against Microsoft Corporation, please direct your correspondence to Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov". Seems like this qualifies, eh?
* Other DOJ email contact info is at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/emails.htm
* DOJ Antitrust phone contact info: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/phoneworks.htm

Vice President Al Gore (cheerleader for hi-tech and, um, less distracted than others at the White House)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_Vice_P resident.html
Or email direct at vice.president@whitehouse.gov

US Senate Commerce, Science, And Transportation Committee
John McCain, chairman: John_McCain@McCain.senate.gov
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/
508 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510-6125
(202) 224-5115
http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail. cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=419 -- lists all members, with links to their homepages.

The House Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2927
Commerce@mail.house.gov

House Committee on Science
2320 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6371

Bogus Patent petition:
http://ethepeople.com/affiliates/national/fullview .cfm?ETPID=0&PETID=98938 &ETPDIR=affiliates/national

INFO:

W3C copyright terms: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice

W3C software license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-softw are.html

"Microsoft Awarded Style Sheet Patent"
Reprinted from The Bulletin: Seybold News & Views on Electronic Publishing, Vol. 4, No. 19, February 4, 1999
http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index .html
This article apparently broke the story.

Wired News: "MS Wins Patent for Web Standard" by Chris Oakes
2:05 p.m. 4.Feb.99.PST
http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/17 741.html

WEB STANDARDS PROJECT CALLS FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER PATENT GIVES MICROSOFT CONTROL OVER TWO KEY WEB STANDARDS
(press release: Feb. 4, 1999)
http://www.webstandards.org/patent.txt
(Also discussed at http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/02/05/style/index 2.html)

At this writing (11:30pm PST Feb. 5), nothing on this story has appeared in/on:
* C|Net
* ZD Net and all related publications/sites
* CNN
* NY Times, et al.
* Seattle Times (www.seattletimes.com)

Maybe.

According to the http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm If model ip3xyz ships with 'free' windows 98 the OEM is charged for that license. OEM needs to ship model a computer with a different model number to escape the charge.