Slashdot Mirror

Some are good. Some are bad. Some are terrible. Terrible being worse than pardoning someone like Scooter Libby who was nothing more than the dems scapegoat because they had no balls.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm

for sake of comparion... Clinton's Pardons: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm Pardons of Cocaine Trafficers, extortionists, tax evasion, counterfeiting, mail fraud, theft, embezzlement, smuggling contraband into prison, illegal firearms silencers, gambling, moonshining, bank robbery, grand theft auto, military court-martials, traffic-ing in PCP, bribery, blackmail, false statements on official documents, mutiny, distribution of LSD, theft of mail, draft evasion, distribution of hashish, distribution of crystal meth, possession of a destructive device, transportation of an illegal alien, larceny, racketeering, money laundering, check fraud, odometer falsification, vote fraud, securities violations, perjury, illegal campaign contributions, trafficing in valium, drunk driving, prison escapees

If it hasn't been posted I'd say Clinton's list is interesting to say the least. http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm

I posted this above, but here you go: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm

that's bushie's dear old dad. it's actually pretty common, as far as I can tell, for all presidents to pardon a bunch of people on their way out of office. someone else posted clinton's final pardon list.

But to do this to someone who was basically covering YOUR OWN ASS, right off the bat, without even PRETENDING to allow justice to run its natural course... well... that's a good one, for sure. You can't even make a good arguement for it; he just protected his flunky from the law, which he broke serving his or dick's interests.

At least if he had done it on the way out, the man would have served SOME jail time.

Here are all the pardons GW senior did: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm

if you want to "put it in perspective", wait until january of '09 for Bush junior's massive pardon sweep, which is traditional for any sitting president on the way out.

For now, let's just agree to be pissed that the president has decided that lying to the grand jury... about something actually IMPORTANT this time... is not worth jail time. ok?

The DOJ says, at http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/commutation_instructio ns.htm, :

4. Completion of court challenges

Requests for commutation of a prison sentence generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. In addition, commutation requests are generally not accepted from a person who is currently challenging his or her conviction or sentence through appeal or other court proceeding. Accordingly, you should not complete and submit this petition until you have concluded all judicial challenges to your conviction and sentence and you have begun serving your sentence. You should also be aware that, in evaluating the merits of a commutation petition, clemency authorities take into consideration the amount of time the petitioner has already served and the availability of other remedies to secure the relief sought (such as parole or judicial action).

It also says, in section 10 (Exclusive Presidential authority) ... As a matter of well-established policy, the specific reasons for the President's decision to grant or deny a petition are generally not disclosed by either the White House or the Department of Justice.

Note that not only has the President gone against tradition and explained his reasoning, but also that Mr. Scooter hasn't finished his appeals and hasn't served any time.

To put things in perspective here's the list of the people President Clinton pardoned. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm Apparently Bill agreed with you on the possession (and dealing) of drugs

The President's pardon power is established under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Uh, Presidents use this pardon all the time for good, bad, and no reason. This power is in the constitution. Ford, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Bush, Clinton, Bush_I have all used it. Almost every other President has used it too.

President Clinton pardoned a number of convicted drug dealers http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm. I don't have a problem with this, it is a power given.

I do have a problem when someone else selectively complains because they don't like how something that has always been used, is used, just by the "other team."
Pardons since 1945: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration .htm

Yeah perhaps you should look at your god(maybe not you personally, but he is for most reading this) did - http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

As for illegal immigration, the major problem is that citizens of our poor neighbors to the south have great incentives to come up here: gov't benefits (e.g., schooling for children) and readily available jobs. The first can be solved, by giving gov't benefits only to green card holders; the latter, not so easily.

Not true. The way to dry up the jobs for illegals is to fine and imprison the folks that hire illegals. These laws already exist on the books. All they have to do is enforce it. Enforcement was never all that strong under Clinton, but it completely disappeared under Bush.

Here's the law:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/ref/8usc1324a.htm

I know, Google is big and scary now as well, but I am pretty happy to see a new 300 pound gorilla in the room standing up to Microsoft.

The world is better with the dominant operating system open for competition. A court understood this once ( http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm ), but clearly the DOJ is not going to enforce it without Google (and others with the wherewithal to do so) being vocal about it.

No, they did not.
California decriminalized pot, it it still illegal. Cannabis is still a Federal schedule I controlled substance.

" Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation." - www.norml.org

People should just not buy it!

Isn't that similar to the illegal per-processor licensing scheme that Microsoft was doing over a decade ago?

Let's get this straight. M$ is coercive monopoly. People do not want Vista because it's expensive and restrictive. People are not buying it. The only thing they want less than Vista is a new Office design, complete with a format no one can open that forces them to buy the OS they don't want.

The real question is how long hardware vendors can hold their breath before deserting M$ entirely. They have waited six years for Vista and it's a dud. Retailer have been squeezed into buying 20,000,000 coppies of Vista that no one is buying, which adds insult to the poor hardware sales injury. The complex and anti-competitive standards M$ has pushed on hardware makers has made hardware purchases a real crapshot, solved only by purchasing systems as a unit or meticulous research. How long are they going to back that kind of inefficiency when the result is a stab in the back like Plays for Sure?

Their "crown jewels" are third rate and increasingly irrelevant. Digital restrictions are an obvious dissaster which must be removed if they want any media market share. After six years of development, mostly wasted on digital restrictions, we get Vista. I've never, ever, heard anyone say they like a new Office format that causes them to go spend a bunch of money. M$ can't fix these problems on their own and no one is going to ride to their aid unless the result is really free.

M$ has a choice to make: go free or die. I have not had any of their stuff in my house for six years and I could care less. Either way they are a diminishing threat to hardware and file formats.

Are you actually praising the upgrade train and trying to tell me that people like it? That's the impression I get when I read:

Microsoft's got a tight-knit set of products out there - businesses want to run Office because everybody else does, so they buy Windows to run it on, and buy upgrades to Office when it comes out, and buy upgrades to Windows when Office needs them.

Let's get this straight. M$ is coercive monopoly. People do not want Vista because it's expensive and restrictive. People are not buying it. The only thing they want less than Vista is a new Office design, complete with a format no one can open that forces them to buy the OS they don't want.

The real question is how long hardware vendors can hold their breath before deserting M$ entirely. They have waited six years for Vista and it's a dud. Retailer have been squeezed into buying 20,000,000 coppies of Vista that no one is buying, which adds insult to the poor hardware sales injury. The complex and anti-competitive standards M$ has pushed on hardware makers has made hardware purchases a real crapshot, solved only by purchasing systems as a unit or meticulous research. How long are they going to back that kind of inefficiency when the result is a stab in the back like Plays for Sure?

Their "crown jewels" are third rate and increasingly irrelevant. Digital restrictions are an obvious dissaster which must be removed if they want any media market share. After six years of development, mostly wasted on digital restrictions, we get Vista. I've never, ever, heard anyone say they like a new Office format that causes them to go spend a bunch of money. M$ can't fix these problems on their own and no one is going to ride to their aid unless the result is really free.

M$ has a choice to make: go free or die. I have not had any of their stuff in my house for six years and I could care less. Either way they are a diminishing threat to hardware and file formats.

I hate spam as much as the next guy, but 11 years in prison is too much, that's a murder's sentence..

No its not. Its more like "I sold pot to a consenting adult."

The average sentence for a state crime is 4.5 years. 11 is the max here, he'll get less than half and get out in less than 2 years.

Copyright infringement can be - and is being - prosecuted as a felony under U.S. federal law. Cybercrime.gov

The threshold for federal prosecution for copyright infringement is $2500. It is well within anyone's rights to ask the police to close down a million-dollar market in counterfeit goods. USDOJ Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section

HOW does anyone get from that to "The President Cannot Be Prosecuted While In Office?"

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

By virtue of the necessity of the defendant's appearance, the institution of criminal proceedings against a sitting President "would interfere with the President's unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else." Id. at 28. Moreover, "[d]uring the past century the duties of the Presidency . . . have become so onerous that a President may not be able fully to discharge the powers and duties of his office if he had to defend a criminal prosecution." Id. Finally, "under our constitutional plan as outlined in Article I, sec. 3, only the Congress by the formal process of impeachment, and not a court by any process should be accorded the power to interrupt the Presidency or oust an incumbent." Id.

In all likelihood, buckets of money. Compare MS' or Sony's ADVERTISING budget to the ENTIRE budget allocated to the DOJ's antitrust division:

• MS: $945M (reportedly)
• DOJ: (2003) $140M

My google-fu on financial info breakdowns for publicly traded companies is obviously weak, but Nintendo said they were going to spend $200M on marketing the Wii *alone*, so it's likely that Sony's advertising budget for the PS3 ALONE is on the order of the entire allocation for the DOJ's antitrust division.

There is reason to believe that there are 1000 million PCs in the world and 200 million new ones are being produced each year. Even if folks were willing to switch to Vista, it would take five years and nearly a trillion dollars would be spent on this Vista foolishness. That might make sense if there were a real benefit to Vista. Consider the alternative scenario. Instead of junking 200 million PCs each year, migrate them to GNU/Linux and they keep running. This migration will either quickly double the number of PCs running in the world or slow down the migration to Vista as being unnecessary. This is not like going from a Pentium I to a Pentium III or some such upgrade. Current PCs are mostly Pentium III and better, working very well. It makes more sense to migrate working PCs to Linux than to chuck them and go to Vista with unnecessary hardware.

People know their PCs are good enough because of what they can do with XP. They will not be fooled. When XP is no longer supported in 18 months, the world will be overrun with malware as the XP machines stay on-line. Folks will have to migrate to GNU/Linux.

M$ itself admitted that Pentium III or so was good enough for clicking and gawking. See http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/365.pdf

He is the CEO of a company that is constantly involved in lawsuits

He is the CEO of a company that is constantly involved in lawsuits

Yes, if you want to establish proof beyond any reasonable burden of proof, you can't prove anything except that you exist. We seem to be talking about establishing a problem large enough to justify taking away first ammendment rights from game developers, so you'd better goddamned well have a significant, demonstratable problem with video games causing violence among the massive generation who has grown up with them.

Now, here's the kicker which destroys your faulty arguement. DESPITE an entire generation born and bred playing video games, According to the United States Government Department of Justice, violent crime has been cut by half since 1991, when Doom first debued. Folks are chasing paper tigers here.

Wow! We're a generation of sociopaths! Killing and making the country unsafe! Look at that!

I frequently see this claim as a justification for demonizing sex offenders, but I've never seen any hard data to back it up. And the U.S. Department of Justice seems to disagree.

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.

But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.

Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.

Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.

According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_2522.htm or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_ 2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public; 2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi

I've never really been behind the anti-Microsoft movement that has in the past insisted that they're abusing their monopoly.

They were found, in court, to have abused their monopoly pretty badly. If you ever have some free time, I suggest you sit down and read the judge's "Findings of Fact" in that case. It pretty readable in spite of being a formal legal document, and once you'll read it you'll have a much better understanding of why a judge thought they were abusing their monopoly.

until the feds got it:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=23+Marshal l+Street,+North+Reading+MA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068& sspn=33.02306,59.765625&ie=UTF8&ll=42.56141,-71.07 6071&spn=0.014983,0.029182&t=h&z=15&om=1

address from doj press release:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/Press%20Office%20-%20 Press%20Release%20Files/Feb2007/Bucci-Sean-convict ion.html

I'm not sure about this. Do you have any numbers to back up that recidivism is higher for sex offenders than for other crimes? I know that you don't say it exactly, but it's a common thread to state that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend than other criminals.

After some quick research, it appears that this is FUD spread by the law-and-order types. This article, by the USDOJ suggests that "sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders".

The article also states that sex offenders are more likely to commit sex crimes in the future than non-sex offenders. However, people need to be careful about the unsubstantiated "facts" that we throw out. We would like to believe that all of the people who we throw in jail are predators and always will be. This isn't always the case. Thinking like this might make us feel better, but feeling better doesn't solve any problems. That kind of thinking leads to laws which will (in some municipalities) lead to ex-cons living under bridges. This isn't justice, and it seems that this will put people in a hopeless situation which may make them feel a need to break another law just to survive. This could create a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy, where we make sex offenders re-offend just so we can say that there's an unstoppable recidivism problem among sex offenders and create more unreasonable laws.

I've also gotta ask, if they're not going to commit these crimes again, but still have dirty thoughts about children; do they still belong in jail...for their thoughts? Does this create a slippery slope, or is it OK because we're saving the children?

Not only are you a rat (ratting out rats) but it appears you are a drug dealer and tax evader as well...

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/Press%20Office%20-%20 Press%20Release%20Files/Feb2007/Bucci-Sean-convict ion.html

BOSTON, MA - A North Reading man was convicted late yesterday in federal court of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, money laundering, structuring financial transactions, and tax evasion.

United States Attorney Michael J. Sullivan; Douglas A. Bricker, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation in Boston; and June W. Stansbury, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in New England, announced that SEAN P. BUCCI, age 34, of 23 Marshall Street, North Reading, Massachusetts, was convicted by a jury sitting before Senior U.S. District Judge Morris E. Lasker on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, two substantive counts of money laundering, seven substantive counts of structuring currency transactions, and four counts of tax evasion.

name and address correspond with the whois data

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/Press%20Office%20-%20 Press%20Release%20Files/Feb2007/Bucci-Sean-convict ion.html

Yet another myth I see being perpetuated too often - recidivisms rates for sex offenders are actually lower than the rates for non-sex offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivis m

Uhm, dipshit, domestic terrorists have succesfully attacked power lines in the U.S. usdoj.gov Do your research fucknut. Similarly, when Clinton was terrorizing Belgrade, the power grid was his first target. http://www.beograd.org.yu/cms/view.php?id=201271

the recidivism rates for many sex offenders are incredibly high.

From the Bureau of Justice:

• Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
• Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
• Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

To me, these statistics do not indicate an "incredibly high" recidivism rate. Sure, sex offenders are more likely than non-sex offenders to commit a sex offense, but if 2.5% recidivism is high enough to justify lifetime tracking, then 1.2% (for murder!) is as well.

I'd say that even in 1998, Microsoft was arguably not a monopoly. A monopoly means they have the only product on the market, in this case x86 operating systems.

You are making up your own definition of what is/is not a monopoly. Please educate yourself.

Not necessarily. According to the Federal statute, if he is living in a dwelling with 4 or fewer units, then he is considered "living with" his tenants, and therefore can discriminate on any basis.

Furthermore, if he owns 3 or less separate rental units, he can also disciminate on any basis he wants. So if he owns 3 houses and rents two of them out, he can use any basis he wants for renting.

Check out section 803(b) from the statute.

Hey nigger,

Blacks "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.tx t

28% of black males go to jail, vs. 4.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19. pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69 .htm

Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 13% of the population.
See page 28:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments.
Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ass...96/descript. htm

JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
http://www.jbhe.com/
But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:
Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

Hey nigger,

Blacks "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.tx t

28% of black males go to jail, vs. 4.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19. pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69 .htm

Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 13% of the population.
See page 28:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments.
Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ass...96/descript. htm

JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
http://www.jbhe.com/
But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:
Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

Hey nigger,

Blacks "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.tx t

28% of black males go to jail, vs. 4.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19. pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69 .htm

Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 13% of the population.
See page 28:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments.
Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ass...96/descript. htm

JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
http://www.jbhe.com/
But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:
Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

Hey nigger,

Blacks "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.tx t

28% of black males go to jail, vs. 4.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19. pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69 .htm

Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 13% of the population.
See page 28:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments.
Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ass...96/descript. htm

JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
http://www.jbhe.com/
But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:
Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

Hey nigger,

Blacks "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Blacks are four times more likely than Whites to kill their children
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.tx t

28% of black males go to jail, vs. 4.4% of White males
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

68.7% of blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19. pdf

62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69 .htm

Blacks are responsible for 40.8% of all domestic violence cases, despite being only 13% of the population.
See page 28:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments.
Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vi.pdf

Though only 12% of the population, blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ass...96/descript. htm

JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
http://www.jbhe.com/
But income alone does not explain the racial scoring gap. Consider these facts:
Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 980. This is 123 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families at the same income level.

We all know violent crime is on the increase, so what's causing it?

Oh, wait, violent crime isn't on the increase. That's just a false assumption based off people believing what a sensationalist media feeds them. Violent crime has actually experienced a MASSIVE downturn since Doom, Mortal Combat and Grand Theft Auto all came out.

Take one look at the DOJ's serious violent crime figures.

From a peak at the end of the last Republican government (Clinton took power in early 93), violent crime dropped from aout 4,000,000 cases per year down to well under 2,000,000 cases per year when he left power (in early '01). Since then, the drop off has ceased but the fluctuation has still stayed relatively level.

It's remarkably convenient to talk about how violent computer games are training the hundreds of violent criminals on our streets and certainly gets your columns attention... yet it ignores the simple fact the numbers of violent criminals on our streets have actually had a massive downturn since videogames became available as a healthier focus for people's frustrations.

Now, I won't claim videogames deserve all of the credit. A period of relative prosperity and the greater social equality of a more centerist government, along with plenty of other factors, may have had much more to do with it...

Still, it is utterly falacious to look at what causes the terrible violent crime wave we're under when, in fact, we're experiencing vastly less of it than any time in the 35 years the records go back.

For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this is unobjectionable.

Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages, those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread usage.(17)

16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.

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.

Upon consideration of the Court's Findings of Fact ("Findings"), filed herein on November 5, 1999, as amended on December 21, 1999, the proposed conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the briefs of amici curiae, and the argument of counsel thereon, the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of 2. Microsoft also violated 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system.