Slashdot Mirror

and if you think that emacs, and all those vi variants for that matter, aren't usable and productive just because _you_ can't work them, that sounds quite ignorant to me. Several of us here find emacs (and vi*) highly productive. IMNSHO emacs, gcc and Perl are the "killer apps" of *nix (even if they are ported to the monopoly platform - they lose something in the move).

If you think that the software monopolist is morally acceptable, I suggest you go read this, and this, and this. And then go develop yer Micro$oft apps on V$ (if you can still stomach them). See if I care.

The application I'm presently working on is actually targeted for Winbloze XP (against _my_ will). That doesn't keep me from writing it in Perl/Tk with emacs. When it's done, I expect it to run equally well in any environment (that supports Perl & Tk, which is A LOT). Try that with Visual Studio. I bet you can't, because V$ was deliberately engineered to make it as difficult as possible to develop for any non-Imperial target.

When I abandoned the Evil Empire, V$, VC++, MFC, and all of that rot in favor of Free software, I was overjoyed not only by the ideology but by the quality of the tools. I've never looked back.

And since when did astroturfers get mod points?

Finding of facts III.35:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the world- wide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty percent.

So the relevant market is Intel-compatible PC operating systems, not including valid alternative operating systems.

In that case, I suppose the obvious retort will be that the patents were not available "on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms"

Or maybe they just pay up :)

Imagine if that were all you ever got, though. Imagine if almost all the men you saw in ads and on TV were portrayed as stupid frat boys sitting on a couch drinking beer and watching sports, and the few who don't are made to take up those hobbies by the end of the show. I would certainly be insulted by the implication that my role in life was totally determined by my gender. When it comes to women, this sort of thing is very pervasive in media (consider the archetype of The Chick, for example).

Think about the "jocks are cool, nerds are losers" stereotype. Nowadays it's (mostly) a joke to us, but there was a time when geeky high school students were regularly assaulted because of this thinking. And actually, men are affected by cultural factors too. In the US, men are six times more likely to go to prison than women.

Their EULA can't supercede law, even if you knowingly agree to it.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html

(8) the term 'damage' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;

BY LAW THEY CANNOT DO IT AS PER THAT DEFINITION. They shouldn't even be allowed to design it like that.

What part of "Without Permission" do you not understand. I tell it when to turn my computer off. It does not arbitrarily decide to do without *MY EXPLICIT PERMISSION*

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html

Read the thing in it's entirety. Let's go to terms, here, just the specific ones that would apply in my case.

(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications. impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information; Key word IMPAIRMENT.

(11) the term 'loss' includes any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service; and

(12) the term 'person' means any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial institution, governmental entity, or legal or other entity.

There are the parts that absolutely apply.

If you decide against, let Magacorp know immediately. Then get back to work, pronto. Looking back, second thoughts and re-negotiations are distractions, too. Let Megacorp know that your decision is final.

And get working on market share fast. If megacorp is Microsoft , they have a history of taking what they don't buy.

There. Fixed that for you.

Other than those typos, you're spot on. The offer to buy is often more a threat for extortion. See Sendo and a long list of corpses. Over the years, MS has taken what was a diverse and thriving industry and killed it through secret APIs and undocumented formats and protocols, price dumping and giveaways, and predatory marketing.

If you decide against, let Magacorp know immediately. Then get back to work, pronto. Looking back, second thoughts and re-negotiations are distractions, too. Let Megacorp know that your decision is final.

And get working on market share fast. If megacorp is Microsoft , they have a history of taking what they don't buy.

There. Fixed that for you.

Other than those typos, you're spot on. The offer to buy is often more a threat for extortion. See Sendo and a long list of corpses. Over the years, MS has taken what was a diverse and thriving industry and killed it through secret APIs and undocumented formats and protocols, price dumping and giveaways, and predatory marketing.

It's also critical data for detecting patterns in drug interactions. And the government already has the other personal information. But I guess we won't let facts get in the way of an insane conspiracy theory.

But you aren't presenting facts - you're telling a lie. I'd assume you're a DEA agent trying to spread disinformation, but the DEA is very up-front about what the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program is used for, so that just makes you flamebait.

Something tells me that if I was to go and setup a domain to receive information stolen from home computers which I did not originally infect that it would still be a crime.

I strongly disagree. Again, this was entirely passive, and you could do this too, within the law. The researchers took a domain name and analyzed the information they received. As previous posters pointed out, they did not manipulate the servers in any way, which gets them into hot water under the Federal Wire and Cybercrime laws.

The closest penalty or issue I can conceive is a minor privacy issue, as we've seen before the dangers of sending sensitive email to the wrong recipient. However given the nature of the info, I doubt there's much of a claim. Courts don't grant criminal activity major privacy protection.

The DOJ has a website dedicated to computer/internet laws, which may give you a clearer picture on what's actually a crime and what's not: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cclaws.html . I think a much richer issue here is whether a "bot" can be considered stolen, and if the original owner loses any legal rights over it as a result.

most likely they pushed developers to focus first on microsoft based search engines, but really, I also find it hard to believe not a single person would have tried google first

Actually there is a high probability that the Microsoft employees used google until they were given their top down directions.

Utilizing a monopoly position to crush competition has worked for Microsoft in the past, why would anyone expect tactics to change now.

Right?

Oh, whoops, violent crime rates have been falling like a rock the entire time video games have been getting more realistic.

You can claim that video games are directly tied to aggressive behavior, but *real world* evidence flatly contradicts that assertion.

It may sound harsh but being raped is one of the bad things that can happen to you in prison. Not to mention being beaten up or stabbed or killed. Prisons are bad places full of bad people, some who don't play well with others and some who happen to like hurting other people.

Actually: prisons are full of non-violent drug users, and a minority population of violent offenders.

The latter routinely abuses the former.

Our society does not get better with harsher penalties for victimless crimes. (Any penalty for a victimless "crime" is too much.)

There is also the issue of making copies of any copyrighted material. Unless you have obtained permission to do so from the copyright holder (usually for a fee) you could find yourself in a whole lot of, very expensive, trouble for copyright infringement.

Actually, the [citation needed] was to the claim that the prosecutors on this case were holdovers from the Clinton administration. Even if Bush didn't completely clean house, he certainly had like-minded people to argue on his behalf in the DOJ. From the indictment and press release, you can see the prosecutors in the case were "Principal Deputy Chief Brenda K. Morris, Trial Attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska". At least Brenda Morris is a holdover from Bush I. Since you love Google, I'll let you do the rest of the research yourself.

Bush didn't clear house in the DoJ like previous Presidents had in an attempt for both sides to get along. Most of the prosecutors on this case were leftovers from Clinton.

Then what's up with this press release from the DoJ under Bush saying that a third had submitted their resignations by March 14th and the remaining lawyers were set to be "transitioned" by June? Why did Gonzalez's Chief of Staff claim they fired all the Clinton appointees, with most gone by April 2001?

The Department of Justice isn't supposed to be full of partisan hacks, and most of them aren't. Just because the case was against a prominent Republican Senator doesn't mean Democratic lawyers were on the case. That's why there was such a big hullaboo about the firings of DoJ lawyers for political reasons. Those lawyers were Bush appointees, and they were allegedly fired because they weren't going after enough Democrats.

17 USC 506

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain:

18 USC 2319 (b)

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both... [copies with a retail value of over $2,500]

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense

(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.

17 USC 506

(B) [retail value more than $1000:]

18 USC 2319 (c)

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense

17 USC 506

(C) distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

18 USC 2319 (d)

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain

(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense

(4) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (2)

17 USC 506. 18 USC 2319

It's perhaps worth a reminder:

When a federal judge says "three years," you serve three years, with no significant time off. The repeat offender gets hammered.

Petty crimes, crimes of violence, almost always come under state jurisdiction.

Interstate crime, economic crimes, high-tech crime, has a very, very, good chance of bringing the geek into the federal system.

Where he is not likely to do particularly well.

Nice picture.
What's the difference between "Collection Year" and "Data Year" mentioned here http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm ?

Look, the whole world culture is becoming more violent when compared to - say - the 1950s.

Not really, at least not in the US. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

Look when the drop started. Just about the time violent video games became available.

Social conservatives keep demanding laws to regulate everyone because their usual tools of ostracism and shame are only effective within their own communities.

Re-reading this, it seems somewhat harsh.
But it isn't. And let me tell you why.
Two out of the three prongs the Supreme Court uses to determine obscenity begins with the phrase: "Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards,"

FTFA by Cheryl B. Preston: "I propose a statute that prohibits knowingly publishing content that is child pornography, obscene, or harmful to minors on Community Ports"

child pornography - illegal and well defined by case law
obscene* - illegal and well defined by case law
harmful to minors - WTF!?

The last time "harmful to minors" and "the internet" were in the same sentence was 1998 when COPA was passed into law. Guess what happened to COPA... You get +1 poince if you guessed "ruled as unconstitutional multiple times by multiple courts"

Speaking of COPA...

FTFA: "...expensive and imperfect computer-installed filters, which users can hack past, circumvent, or disable, and which must be regularly updated and monitored."

SCOTUS: "filtering's superiority to COPA is confirmed by the explicit findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, which Congress created to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors' ability to gain access to harmful materials on the internet."

Once again, Ideology meets Reality... and loses.

*AFAIK, during the Bush Administration, at most 5~10 people/companies were charged with obscenity w/re to distributing (non-child) pornography through the mail &/or internet. A few were convicted and a few cases are still pending. And most of those convictions were won because the federal prosecutors went forum shopping in socially conservative jurisdictions in order to take advantage of 'community standards'.

why couldn't someone write an update telling conficker to cease operation and uninstall itself?

Because that would be illegal.

Because it's not like we have enough people in prison now.

Our corporate run detention facilities will start losing money is we don't find new reasons to fill them up with relatively minor offenses.

Half of people in prison are there for violent offenses. That half stays. The other half we need to take a good hard look at just why we're so gung ho remove people from their ability to make a living and pay to warehouse them.

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

        (1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

Bold added by me.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiastat.htm

These may seem far fetched to you, but they are possibilities that become unpossibilities one you start switching devices to non-ubiquitous filesystem. So, here's the bigger question: why close those doors?

Its best to avoid making assumptions as to what someone else may find far fetched, I in no way disagree with the value of interoperabilty. The only reason linux and TomTom use FAT is for interoperability not because Microsoft has some amazing "IP" and everyone wants FAT. However, you do bring up an important point, the bigger question, why close those doors? Considering the threat to all the hardware manufacturers affected by the interoperability issues you highlight it seems its time to dump the dead weight baggage of Microsoft's FAT patent lunacy and bring an open format to ubiquity.

April 16, 2008 ELC: Trends in embedded Linux

Usage of Linux in embedded development projects crossed a threshold this year, with more than 50% of the 812 respondents saying that they are currently using it. Usage of Linux has been growing year over year, but didn't cross the halfway mark until 2008. More than 61% believed their company would be using Linux within the next two years.

December 04 2003 Microsoft to Charge for FAT File System

January 11, 2006 Microsoft's FAT Patent Upheld

January 13, 2006 FAT Patent Means Hardware Dollars For Microsoft

February 20, 2007 Ballmer repeats threats against Linux

February 25, 2009 Microsoft sues TomTom over Linux and other patent claims

Hardware manufacturers are caught in a catch 22, decouple from the Microsoft monopoly and risk losing market as I assume you are suggesting or remain fully engaged in the Microsoft monopoly and have your margins, market, and product plans somewhat dictated by Microsoft.

As someone who has worked in the brutally competitive hardware industry for many years I can see that its time for hardware manufacturers to show some back bone and beat down the fat and lazy leech that Microsoft has become.

Court Findings of FACT
Guilty as charged. Note that Microsoft appealed, wtf would they appeal if they were not found to be guilty, they wanted to be found guilty? lol

I'd just like to add that to settle global bribery and corruption charges, Siemens recently agreed to pay $1.6 billion in fines - ~$900m to the US, and the rest to the EU. Now that's what I call "staggering".

In 2005, Samsung paid $300m for price fixing. Hynix paid $185m. Infineon paid $160m, and four of its execs went to prison and paid $250,000 each.

In 2008, LG paid $400m in fines for price fixing. Sharp paid $120m. Chunghwa paid $65m.

So... $35m. In this context, not very "staggering".

In 2005, Samsung paid $300m for price fixing. Hynix paid $185m. Infineon paid $160m, and four of its execs went to prison and paid $250,000 each.

In 2008, LG paid $400m in fines for price fixing. Sharp paid $120m. Chunghwa paid $65m.

So... $35m. In this context, not very "staggering".

Yes.. or are you trying to say the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US?

While a lower violent crime rate in the UK is not an argument saying that outlawing guns lowers violent crime, I think it is a fairly strong argument that allowing everyone to own guns doesn't necessarily lower it either.

I think your idea shows a common misconception about violent crime. For example, a lot of violent crime occurs between gang members; the fact that the gang members they commit violence against also have weapons does not seem to deter them from committing the violence against each other. Secondly, most other forms of violent crime is not against strangers (check out http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/), but against people who know each other (family especially)... you would be hard pressed to argue that this violence would be prevented if everyone owned weapons. The biggest argument against your reasoning, however, is your implied assumption that criminals use game theory to decide if it is rationally beneficial to commit their crime.. I think it is a stretch to suggest everyday law abiding people apply this sort of rationality to their actions, let alone violent criminals who clearly demonstrate they do not act rationally.

One of many violent crime trends

The UK's slightly different trend

Note the fact that violent crime was MUCH MORE prevalent (in the US) before first person shooters became popular (Wolfenstein 3D in '92, Doom in '93, Quake in '96, etc.). Based on real data, there is a clear INVERSE correlation between the number of violent video games readily available and the number of violent crimes taking place for any given year.

If I were to use garbage statistics to come up with stupid taxes, I would tax men between the ages of 16 and 24. Simply being a young adult male, across all cultures and for as long as humans have existed, is the biggest risk factor for committing violent crime. Vote Man Tax!

Please do tell us how you come to this conclusion with regard to Swedish copyright law. Nothing you described is a legal analysis, let alone a legal analysis that takes into account Swedish copyright law.

Okay here is how it breaks down.

1. They are indeed subject to U.S. copyright law and here is how:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ccmanual/04ccma.html#A.1.

Several of the statutes discussed in this manual require an interstate or foreign jurisdictional hook. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. Â 1029(a) (prohibiting access device fraud "if the offense affects interstate or foreign commerce"); 18 U.S.C. Â 2510(12) (defining "electronic communication" to mean any "transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence ... that affects interstate or foreign commerce").

Failure to establish the "interstate" basis for federal jurisdiction can lead to dismissal or acquittal.

Copyright charges are Federal and subsequently interstate can be shown with any country outside of Sweeden and also within the U.S. as well being allowed access to the same file links. Now typically this is about access fraud, but since it also includes disrupting commerce it still is applicable. (this would be the toughest stretch. If a US judge says yes this is applicable game over for TPB)

  Section 1030(a)(2)(C) requires a more particular nexusâ"the unlawful conduct itself must involve an interstate or foreign communication. See 18 U.S.C. Â 1030(a)(2)(C).

Prosecutors should be prepared to offer evidence that the conduct in fact traversed state lines.

Easy to prove there

Useful evidence might include testimony as to the geographic location of computer servers. Bear in mind that even a "local" provider may utilize communication facilities in another state.

# 2. Extraterritoriality

Absent evidence of a contrary intent, the laws of the United States are presumed not to have extraterritorial application. See United States v. Cotten, 471 F.2d 744, 750 (9th Cir. 1973).
 
This presumption against extraterritoriality may be overcome by showing "clear evidence of congressional intent to apply a statute beyond our borders."

Pretty clear here with the "Oh I am in Sweeden your laws don't matter to me way over here"

  United States v. Gatlin, 216 F.3d 207, 211 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted).

"Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States.

Aha so they are indeed liable and can be charged under U.S. law

Now here is where it get's really good... what if there was a precedent for extradition from U.S. to Sweeden. This in effect would show that the U.S. has complied with Sweeden's requests, and similar pretense.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/670/670.F2d.722.81-1785.html

Tada! Precedent! So in fact under terms of international extradition agreements Sweeden should comply with the request.

And that's how the Pirate Bay could be brought under U.S. Federal Copyright law.

It is indeed possible.. While they can cry "Oh we are in Sweeden your laws do not apply to us"

True... UNLESS you disrupt foreign commerce and by being an accessory to piracy they are indeed interfering with foreign commerce as an enabling accessory.

It looks to me like someone has been busy trying to hide Microsoft's patent escapades. I have recently noticed that the Kerberos FAQ and the Wikipedia entry for Kerberos no longer reference the patents Microsoft added to Kerberos, as still found here

So go into the history and roll it back. And report the IP/username of whoever edited it out.

Problem solved

It looks to me like someone has been busy trying to hide Microsoft's patent escapades. I have recently noticed that the Kerberos FAQ and the Wikipedia entry for Kerberos no longer reference the patents Microsoft added to Kerberos, as still found here:

17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.

Listening to some freetards trot out the "convicted monopolist" line is like me calling Redhat a bunch of "convicted patent infringers". I don't, however, because I am not a douchebag.

Using the term "freetard" pretty much denotes that you are in fact a douchebag. I won't hold that against you though. Regarding the remainder of that sentence however; Microsoft (fairly or unfairly in your opinion does not matter) has been convicted of monopolistic practices in several courts.

1). http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
2). http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39119500,00.htm
2). http://law.jrank.org/pages/12388/Sherman-Antitrust-Act-Microsoft-Settlement-Twenty-First-Century-s-First-Major-Antitrust-Settlement.html
4). Google for yourself

Now.. can you provide links to any article that shows that Redhat has indeed violated patents; as proven in a court of law or similar venue? I found a single instance of Redhat (co-defending with Novell as it happens) being sued for patent infringement. Coincidentally, the company behind this suit appears to be a patent troll headed up by former Microsoft GM of IP licensing. Regardless, there has yet to be a conviction, if there is even one forthcoming.

Yes, it is. But the DMCA still needs to go away.

The abusive parts certainly do, but there are a few gems of common sense in it, such as 17 USC 117. Per the USDoJ's gloss in the manual on prosecuting IP crime, chapter 2, pages 68-69, "... this allows the lawful owner of a piece of software to install it on his machine, even if doing so requires copying the program from a CD-ROM to the hard drive or loading it from the hard drive into RAM, both of which are considered reproduction under copyright law.", and cite some case law supporting this view.

Both you and GP post are assuming that the remaining 95% of cases either result in guilty please or the charges being dropped. You actually need to correlate arrest figures with charges filed/dropped to conclude either way, and neither of you mentions having done so. You can find such records here, I think: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.htm

Abuses certainly happen, and are terrifying. I recently saw a wrongly convicted man speak; he'd been on death row for 19 years before being freed. His situation was traced to a notorious forensic examiner in Oklahoma. Still, I don't think a general conclusion on either side is appropriate before determining the actual figures.

I certainly don't think that having good faith that at least the criminal justice system is SUPPOSED to keep innocent people out of jail goes as far as cognitive dissonance. If you believe that there should in fact be justice, you certainly stand a better chance of doing something to improve the imperfect, and often horrifying errors of injustice.

It's true. U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations

For references, from wikipedia: The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000 (as of 2005).[16] A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison.[9] The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population.[6]

Sure, over a tied in internet browser

Please, before telling Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.

The real problem is the pressure MS puts on OEMs, and the inability for other software to compete due to OEM deals, closed APIs, etc.

We've already been through this.

Still no cite for the 98%. But the link provided by ya really was quite edifying.

First of all, it says 90%, not 98%. But, as noted by other posters, there are some caveats on that:

Out of 86,680 cases, there were 78,042 convictions, which is 90%.

95% of those (74,226) were guilty or no contest pleads.

That means, there were 12,454 trials. Of those, 8,638 were not found guilty, which is 69.3%.

So... only 9.96% of the cases ended in acquittal, but almost 70% of trials did, which is a really low conviction rate, I think.

Furthermore... under Appeals, apparently the lower court decisions were affirmed, at least in part, in 70% of cases... which means they were completely overturned in 30% of cases. So take your 3,816 convictions, and subtract another 1,145 or so that will get overturned on appeal... now you're up to 9,783 acquittals, which is more than 3/4ths of the people who actually went to trial.

Link apparently didnt get in my last reply:
stats on conviction rates

Need to keep pumping that taxpayer money into law enforcement so they can keep us safe from "obscene porn" http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/ and try to win the drug war.

There fixed that for ya.

$100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

$100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Need to keep pumping that taxpayer money into law enforcement so they can keep us safe from "obscene porn" http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/ and continue to win the drug war.

It's not necessarily what is bundled or not. It's their #!@$@ business practices and closed APIs. I really don't give a crap if an alternate browser is on the system or not. What they should care about is that it is easy to put it on, remove the one you don't like, etc. You should be able to mix and match as you see fit.

This focus on 'bundling' has always annoyed me. Why should we force microsoft to bundle anything that they themselves didn't create? that's stupid. We definitely should look into their dealings with OEMs though! That whole forcing OS/2 out of the market with their exclusive contracts were not cool. Educate yourself on the real criminal behavior: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

To test for antitrust, they need simply test how easy it is to mix and match different components. If the OS is getting in the way of that, fine the hell out of them.

Can you point me to a source where leaked internal Microsoft documents called for the web to be crippled? Thanks.

Sure. The most famous was the embrace, extend, extinguish memos from Maritz revealed during the first antitrust trial:

Findings of fact as a PDF

They talk more generally about it as well in the Halloween documents, with regard to technologies in Linux, rather than the Web specifically.

Sure, from a quick google search see:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218100/218164.htm#ic

"This Court's findings amply establish that Microsoft's agreements "significantly discourage[d]" consumers from actually adopting Navigator. "

and more... it was part of the original case that microsoft sought to prevent OEMs from providing netscape, either instead of or as well as ie, and there's plenty of information available from google...

Also see:

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/lsmonop.htm

Microsoftâ(TM)s campaign to foreclose Netscape from the OEM channel involved a âoemassive and multifarious investmentâ in a âoecomplementary set of tacticsâ: (1) contractual restrictions forcing OEMs to take IE with Windows 95 and 98 and for-bidding them from removing or obscuring it; (2) âoeadditional technical restrictions to increase the cost of promoting Navigatorâ; (3) exchanging valuable incentives for OEMsâ(TM) commitments to promote IE exclusively; and (4) threats to âoepenalize individual OEMs that insisted on pre-installing and promoting Navigator.â

Specifically the "penalize individual OEMs" - effectively threatening to harm them if they provide netscape...

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who helped create Al-Qaeda while under Zbigniew Brzezinski in Carter's Administration. He was very much involved in the Iran-Contra affair. This was enough to stop him from being DCI in 1991, but now it's perfectly fine.

Attorney General Eric holder wrote a brief to the SCOTUS on the DC gun ban and said that there is no individual right to own gun. He was apart of the Clinton Administrations Justice Department when Clinton pardoned all of his cocaine trafficking buddies.

Rahm Emanuel is crazy, a duel citizen of Israel and the U.S. and while in charge of who to give money to in the 2006 election cycle decided to acitvely shun anti-war candidates.

That's just a start.

According to the DOJ http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm, "a presidential pardon ... is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime".

President Gerald Ford granted "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States." (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740060.htm) which means that Nixon had to accept responsibility for his crime(s).

Impeachment proceedings (i.e. prosection) were started but various deal-making (including resigning the Presidency) delayed completion long enough for him to get pardoned for his crimes before any impeachment or prosection could complete.

When the criminal pleads out before the jury hands down a conviction it does not make the criminal not-guilty.

The DOJ's instructions for receiving a pardon may not be part of "a basic understanding", but its not very polite to insult someone when accusing them of a lapse you're busy committing yourself.

"Warning: Voting for me has been linked to high blood pressure and aggression."

By the way, these guys are idiots. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the violent crime rate in the US has dropped in half during the era of violent video games.

If you believe that proliferation of violent video games should cause a proportional increase in violent crime (the only justification for warnings like this), then the statistics should show increasing incidence of violent crime.

Since there is no obvious threat to public safety posed by video games, as shown by statistics, I think all these congressmen should shut their whore mouths and follow the constitution.

In 2007 there where:

301,621,157 people in the US
11,251,828 Total CRIMES
1,408,337 Violent (seperate from murders)
16,929 Murders (not included in violent)
855,856 Aggrivated Assault - a reckless attack with intent to injure seriously (as with a deadly weapon)
2,176,140 Burglaries - Lowest since 1991

This gives a .47%violent crime rate in America ((1,408,337+16,929)/301,621,157)

Source http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

In 2005 there were:
419,640 - Non fatal Gun crimes
8,478 - Handgun deaths
2,868 - other gun deaths
2,147 - Knife deaths
671 - Blunt object deaths
2,528 - Other object deaths

USDOJ Source.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

UK Crimes

In 2007 there were:
60,975,000 - Total Population (estimate)
1,045,369 Violence crimes
621,958 Burglaries
3,810,971 Total Crimes

This gives a 1.7% violent crime rate (1,045,369/60,975,000)

http://212.78.84.22/superweb/login.do?guest=guest

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6

So the UK has a crime rate roughly 3.61 times worse than the US in violent crime rates.

Does fear of being shot deter criminals in the U.S.? Are citizens of the U.K. better at reporting crimes?

Shamelessly copied from http://runryder.com/helicopter/t471261p1/