Slashdot Mirror

Lieberman has been a prominent critic of the entertainment industry, pushing legislation for the so-called v-chip for television sets that allows parents to block objectionable programming from their children.

He also joined with conservative William Bennett to target "gangsta rap" music and has been similarly harsh in his criticism of the creators of violent video games.

Great!!! Just what WE want, right CT?

Lieberman has been a prominent critic of the entertainment industry, pushing legislation for the so-called v-chip for television sets that allows parents to block objectionable programming from their children.

He also joined with conservative William Bennett to target "gangsta rap" music and has been similarly harsh in his criticism of the creators of violent video games.

Great!!! Just what you want, right CT?

I'm not saying that walking about with your chest out is the goal, etc, but have you ever had to deal with a tool/bully in school?? (usually they're just posturing for /their/ crowd)- Through personal experience, I've found this out: if they think they can get away with pushing you/your friends around, the more likely they're to do it.

If they think they're gonna get their asses kicked, the less likely they are to start shit.

The leader of a country, upon exhausting dimplomacy, has to be ready to fight, period.

is he "DANGEROUS" as you say? I don't think so... ie: he's not unstable, irrational, shifty, nor has he accepted bribes from other contries, nor has he conveniently "LOST" his email records that would aide in an investigation, etc.

Can he >>>>"PUSH THE BUTTON", i really hope it doesn't come to it, but if it does; i hope our leader can do what it takes. If you can help it: don't fight- if you have to fight, fight to win.

>>>>>>"China/Russia will be pissed off"
TOO F*CKING BAD, wouldn't you be "upset" if your 'adversary' were to put in a security gaurd that wasn't asleep at the wheel, accepting political bribes from you, and afraid to use force because of the court of public opinion [ie: tanks should have been used on this mission, but because 'they didn't play well on TV' the administration and his Sec. of Defense- ordered them to stand down... did you know that the Rangers all got killed and the Secretary got canned???]

No, you wouldn't because 'news sources' like to hide the fact that sometimes, you need the tanks, its shitty, but sometimes you do.

Finally, if you want to see hipocracy in action, check out the article at the usually liberal Washington Post, here's an excerpt:

While Gore sought to portray himself as a populist who would protect the environment and fight big corporations, Rogers said the Gore family's connections to Hammer made Al a special-interests candidate who came into the campaign with a tangle of conflicts that he tried to hide. ...He pointed out that Island Creek Coal was one of the three major suppliers of coal to the huge, government-run Tennessee Valley Authority. And he demanded that Gore acknowledge that he received quarterly royalty payments for zinc mining rights on his land in a deal with another Hammer subsidiary, Occidental Minerals Corp. Gore tried to finesse the issue. While his disclosure statement listed his assets in general terms, it did not name the company from which he received royalties. And because Occidental Minerals had recently sold its mining rights to another corporation, Freeport Zinc, Gore was able to argue that Rogers had his facts wrong, which was technically true.

This showcases my biggest pet peeves with politicians, hypocrisy. At least GWB is more honest on where he stands.

>>>>"Having such a trigger-happy moron at the head of a very powerful country is suicide"

i've yet to see anything in him that makes him either, you're such a troll.

Hypothetically speaking, it doesn't make it "suicide", but rather makes life a bit more stressful for folks beyond our borders... least you could have done is been honest

--an American with a UK email address--

Don't forget that ALGORE is also the son of his father, Al Gore Sr., a prominent senator from Tennessee ( link)

Besides, the Kennedy's have been a political dynasty for decades. The only thing that seemed to have stopped it was the unlikely plane crash that killed JFK Jr., who would have probably run for office eventually.

Unfortunately, I'm not a American history expert... but I would be willing to bet that there are many more out there! And you'll notice the trend continuing... it will be tougher and tougher for non "name-brand" politicians to break into the fold. So you'll see more actors, and "son-of"'s, and sports figures...

-rt-

If you think that the technologically knowledgable are not interested in real issues, then how do you think that the current movement is coming together?

How is it that the Seattle WTO protests were the largest in history when a year ago nobody even knew what the WTO was? Could it be because of the rapid spread of information over the net? And also becaus of the ability to organize and meet up with people from all over the world instantly?

Nah...

You should be aware of discrediting the growing movement. The damage you do could worsen your own situation. You're just adding to the mainstream media's din and ignoring the reality of america today. Here's something a little more hopeful from Howard Zinn a famous _historian_:

I think that the public in the United States is ready to listen to ideas about a new way of ordering society. I say ready because I think there's a general dissatisfaction with the american political system. There's an understanding among americans that the political system doesn't work. That's why fifty percent of the electorate does not go to the polls. And of those that do go to the polls, there's a distinct lack of enthusiasm. There's an understanding that the domination of the political process by the two major parties in the United States doesn't allow for different kinds of opinions, different kinds of voices, different kinds of political alternatives. Understanding of that. If you look at public opinion surveys in the United States over the last five or ten years, you'll find an interesting thing, and that is that public opinion surveys show that the american people as a whole are far more progressive than either of the major parties. You'll find again and again that the american public wants the goverment to intervene in the economy on behalf of people who are in need. You'll find that they want the goverment to tax the rich more heavily, that they're opposed to reducing the taxes on capital gains which benefit the wealthiest portion of the country. Again and again, the public has said , in these polls, that they would like to see a new independent political force other than the Democrats and the Republicans enter the contest for political office. So the system on the one hand, which goes along concentrating more and more wealth at the top and more and more power at the top and then on the other hand, there's this reservoir of opposition in the country which has not yet organized itself into a political force. And I think that i will take a lot more education and a lot more connections made among the millions of people in this country who want to change before something important and dramatic happens....

I think what sustains me is that I'm in contact with a lot of people around the country. I go around the country, do a lot of speaking, I go to all sorts of places all over the United States and wherever I go, I see people who are trying to do something about justice. Wherever I go I see people struggling: women struggling for equal rights, people working against racial discrimination, I see gay and lesbian people organizing for their rights, I see people protesting against foreign policy. Wherever i go I see this. And wherever I go I meet wonderful people and however small is the town that I'm going into, there's always a cluster of really good people who've devoted themselves to social change. Now this encourages me, this keeps me going. And this is in the immediate sense. But I think what also keeps me going is the kind of sense of history. There's a recognition that although cynicism and pessimism are sort of natural feelings when you look around at any given moment and see that things don't seem to be changing in the direction. That feeling of cynicism and pessimism has existed all through american history, in every period. And yet, at certain moments in history when people begin to speak up, when people begin to get together at certain moments of history, suddenly, there's a breakthrough and something happens. It happened in the thirties with the rise of the labor movement, it happened in the sixties with the civil rights and the anti-war movement and women's movement. And I think a little historical perspective would dispel some of the pessimism. People would realize that in the years before the rise of any of these movements, everything looked gloomy and then suddenly, things began to happen. Things can happen very fast when the indignation of the people overflows and when they begin to get together. I'll say just one more thing. And that is, one of the things that makes me continue to sort of speak out and to try to be active and involved is simply that it makes life more interesting and life more enjoyable, life more worthwhile. I think of Tolstoy and his story of the death of Ivan Illich about this very successful man on his deathbed who asked the question: "Have I done all the right things? I've become prosperous and successful and respected by the society. Why am I dissatisfied?" Because he hadn't really done anything important to change the world. And I think people who are involved lead more fruitful and more fulfilling lives. So that's what sustains me."

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

WHAT? You think that corporations created popular culture? Thanks what Nike, Coke & the rest want you to think.

"Popular culture" originally was an academic term used to describe the art, music, and traditions of "the masses" in contrast to "high culture," the arts, music and traditions of the aristocracy.

Eventually, corporations realized that there was plenty of profit in exploiting and creating popular culture, so they learned how to become part of it. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Music is a great example of this. Even though the major labels essentially own the airwaves, no one holds a patent on the blues. Or rock music. Or any other genre you care to name. Not yet anyways. But Napster threatened to return us back to the old days when pop culture wasn't mediated by corporate culture.

As Philip Kennicott has said in this great Washington Post article on Napster and popular culture:

A century ago, music that was shared by millions of listeners, that seemed an inseparable part of daily life, that could be used to immediately establish a bond of familiarity between strangers, would have been called folk music. Music of the people, its origins dim or forgotten. The very notion of possessing it, of controlling who could hear it and exchange it, of making a profit from it, would have been ridiculous.

The demise of Napster--if that's the effect of Wednesday's preliminary injunction shutting down access to the Internet music-exchange site as of midnight tonight--has arrested the evolution of popular music into a new kind of folk music. Temporarily, that is.

But with Gnutella, OpenNap, & FreeNet, we can return control of popular music to the people. And since labels are still selling millions of CDs, I don't think they'll be hurt--unless the RIAA boycott hits them hard. Here's hoping....
--
"Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare,

On the odd chance anyone is still reading this, check out this Washington Post article on just how lousy a business Napster is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A425 31-2000Jul25.html

How do you make a company without a business model? And how do you dupe investors into giving you venture capital? My favorite line being

"...Berry is awed by the sheer size of Napster's fan base and figures there has to be some way to reap money from the site"

The photo is a station at least highly suspected of being part of the Echelon system. The Washington Post used the picture and it was described in this story

There wouldn't be any huge parent companies anymore (at least temporarily). We would all get our news from smaller, independent outlets.

We would all get our news from smaller, independent outlets. We would, of course, have to decide for ourselves on the credibility of said news outlets. That in and of itself is a scary thought, we would have to make an important decision with information that we would have to go out and gather ourselves.

The foundation of today's news media is organizations like United Press International, BBC News, National Public Radio News, the Associated Press, the New York Times. These are all outstanding news organizations.

The Washington Post (a pretty good paper) owns Newsweek, an alright magazine, though its website is now hosted by MSNBC.

US News and World Report is also pretty good.

Skipping the rest of the good newspapers and the plethora of great magazines around the country (as well as the really bad ones) we get to Corporate Media. Time isn't really bad per se, but knowing what we know about Time Warner (I am an employee of the company) I personally stay away.

I stay away from all U.S. television news sources for reliable information, except for the excellent Newshour with Jim Lehrer and C-SPAN, both independent media. The former rocks, and I live in the neighborhood where Lehrer grew up; the latter isn't really news but has very informative content on current issues.

Okay! I hope I have convinced everyone that you don't have to worry about your news source if you know where to go. Even if Time Warner bought up half of these news souces somehow, it could never get them all. Also remember that if good journalists realize they are working for a company with a deteriorating reputation, they jump ship.

Surprise surprise the republicans now got to be on the receiving end of the shaft (so be careful what you ask for boys). So they challenged the law and the supreme court bailed them out by declaring the thing unconstitutional (not surprising how many republicans on the court).

Try this one on for size. The Line Item Veto was sponsored by two Republicans: Dan Coats of Indiana, and John McCain of Arizona (Yes, that John McCain!).

Guess who cheered, whooped, and hollered when it was struck down? Robert "I have ever single thing I brought to W. Virgina named after me" Byrd and Carl Levin. Both Democrats.

(Backing up my statement...)

They were the ones who first challenged the law soon after it was enacted but the Supreme Court said come back later when it is actually used.

They, along with NYC and another group did come back and successfully killed it.

SP

But the cost of distribution has little to do with media costs nowdays. A lot of a CD's $18.99 list price is pure profit.

Today, I read a Washington Post article on the adult movie business and was struck by the following set of statements:

"Adult movie suppliers such as the Hot Network and New Frontier Media also make their products available to satellite and cable TV companies on a generous basis. When it comes to a typical Hollywood movie, a cable or satellite company usually keeps only 45 percent of the $3 to $4 fee paid by a subscriber. In the case of adult movies, however, cable and satellite companies keep up to 80 percent of a subscriber's pay-per-view fee. Those lopsided deals are possible in part because it costs relatively little to produce an adult film--$30,000 to $40,000--compared with $75 million for the average mainstream film.

Those savings are not passed on the customer, however. Instead, AT&T and Starpower charge as much as $7.95 for each adult movie, about double the price of a Hollywood blockbuster on a pay-per-view channel."

Media companies rarely "pass the savings on to you."

Au contraire. See this article from the Washington Post where doctors are already applying genetic tests to determine whether a leukemia-fighting drug is likely to be effective or highly toxic in children.

It's also worth noting that genetic engineering is not the only application of the Human Genome Project. Another one--and one likely to find widespread practical application much sooner than genetic engineering--is pharmacogenomics. There's a good article in Saturday's Washington Post on the topic.

I hate to respond to a troll, but it's worth pointing out that genetic engineering is not the only application of the HGP. Saturday's Washington Post had an excellent article on another potential application of HGP: pharmacogenomics. Essentially, pharmacogenomics is using the genetic identity of an individual to determine what drugs the person is likely to respond favorably to. Tody, we have only a limited understanding of why some people respond well to treatment X, while others have severe side effects.

You seem to think that the NY Times is both legally liable and under an obligation to the government to report information on what their sources are. Neither is true.

Perhaps another basic civic lesson is needed. Do you know who Deep Throat was? He brought down the Nixon government. He changed the face of US politics. Nobody knows who he was.

The press has an obligation for full disclosure to the public and privacy for their sources. Beyond the need to reveal enough to let people check what they have to say, they have zero obligation to indicate who gave them the tip.

Regards,
Ben

The Post also covered it here.
qu ote {
"You could say it's a 'bet the company' thing," [said Gates]..."Our entire strategy is defined around this platform."
}
Sure it is, Bill.
===
-J

The Post also covered it here.
qu ote {
"You could say it's a 'bet the company' thing," [said Gates]..."Our entire strategy is defined around this platform."
}
Sure it is, Bill.
===
-J

The Post ran a HUGE story on Napster today, Chuck D, etc.

It can be found here.

This Washi ngton Post article reports that Los Alamos employees are concerned about their image, because most everybody thinks they're running a really sloppy ship. I think they should be less concerned with their image and more concerned with the massively confidential and top-secret U.S. and Russian nuclear data they're missing.

The Reuters story at excite is pretty thorough; basically it's unclear whether the two hard drives were destroyed, lost, or stolen. Funny thing is, they were discovered lost May 7 - but the Energy Department wasn't notified until June 1. Employees are to take lie detector tests, and it seems they whole search setup is becoming a big mess.

The Washington Post story also has a good wrap-up. According to most sources, the drives were last seen in a suitcase in a vault in a Los Alamos lab. I think the confusion of the evacuation due to the recent fires might have something to do with this...

And here's the Los Angeles Times article.

By morning I guess most major newspapers will have it in print and on their websites, but in the case of something like this I've always thought earlier is better. Let's just hope the drives are recovered...

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36124 -2000Jun10.html

- Robin

http://www.washin gtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36124-2000Jun10.html

it stars an Operating Thetan, level III, with powers to control space, time, matter, energy and consciousness beyond that acheived by 'clears', and who has also recieved the L10 course (at $1000/hr) which releases powers that have not been unleashed in this part of the galaxy in a long, long time! Critics of this deeply meaningful and realistically allogorical flick are certainly under the alien mind control influence of psychiatrists or on prozac. This movie will prove to be a milestone in the cleansing of earth from the evil implanted eons ago, leading us toward a time of no pain, no suffering, crime, war, disease or pestilence, a period of universal brotherly love and understanding, and no software bugs.

(all the above gleaned from this)

Here's an article from Yesterday's Washington Post mentioning a deal the RIAA is pushing for. They are talking about $15-20 million in settlements to each of the 5 companies involved in this mess. Even if this wasn't completely nuts (which it is), where would mp3.com come up with $100 million. They aren't Ted Turner.

Here's an article from Yesterday's Washington Post mentioning a deal the RIAA is pushing for. They are talking about $15-20 million in settlements to each of the 5 companies involved in this mess. Even if this wasn't completely nuts (which it is), where would mp3.com come up with $100 million. They aren't Ted Turner.

ZDNet has a big thing on it, as well as new words from Judge Jackson. The Financial Times site, FT.com, has news and a Ballmer interview. And here's something from the Washington Post, talking about the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. Enjoy.

And while I'm in Slashdot-critique mode, is it really necessary to provide a link to a common company name? For example:

Rob Roy, CEO of Adobe, wrote an article about the Internet.

C'mon, like none of us know how to point to adobe.com.

--

My favorite quote is in this washington post article where it says...when talking about one of the orders

"The company contends that [this will] harm the product's reputation when it breaks down."

Could M$ OSes break down more?

Microsoft also will seek an emergency hold on an order requiring that computer makers be given more flexibility in the way it configures the Windows operating system. The company contends that this would let computer makers damage their Windows product and hence create more cost in service calls and harm the product's reputation when it breaks down.

LOL!!

We really need to demonstrate to people like Nokia why our PDA will connect to Office in a better way than other PDAs even if that means changing how we do flexible schema in Outlook and how we tie some of our audio and video advanced work to run only on our PDAs.

The most troubling thing I see about these certifications, is that they feed young 3133t h4x0r's egos. It's bad enough that tons of people think you can be a good software developer without any education, but to add to that, I've met people who have an mcse, and are 19-21 and think they have an engineering degree.

I'm almost done with my computer science degree, and while it's true that I learned a huge amount working as a programmer, without the basis I got from my degree in math, problem solving, and a variety of programming languages and techniques, I would not be nearly as good a programmer. (or so I think) I mean, I'm sure working on open source projects at 13 helps you learn a lot, but there are design fundamentals and lots of underlying knowledge necessary about compilers, and assembly, and hardware, that you need to have to really understand what's going on. Hopefully, our economy will improve enough so that more people can get a quality education. Or, to be more acurate, hopefully our entire economic paradigm will shift enough to allow everyone to get a decent education.

I've never taken a certification class though, so maybe they're better than I imagine.
The review of this RH class just confirms what I've thought all along, that you can't learn anything in 8 hours. Or in 24 hours in 3 days. He states that he didn't really learn much from the class, just a few tidbits. It was his previous knowledge that allowed him to pass the exam.


___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

The Washington Post printed a fairly well-informed article today explaining how Gnutella is different from Napster and why it's got some people scared.

It's not the U.S. alone--the EU can't escape from responsibility and ridicule.

The Washington Post has a story from the conference. They point out:

1. A Council of Europe proposal from two weeks ago would require all computers to store all e-mail messages for 40 days "in case it is needed for a police investigation."
2. The same treaty proposal would prevent users of Symantec's software from defending against attacks by attempting to crack local passwords for security. Both these provisions were opposed by Ron Moritz, chief technical officer of Symantec, according to the report.

Hey, my computers don't want to be protected by Big Brother, they want protection from Big Brother.

At least one way is by providing services to commercial content providers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ for example.

More info is availabe at Google of course. Try this: http://www.google.com/websearch_progr ams.html

Essentially, people pay for the right to frame customized Google results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/

I read the Washington Post article a few minutes ago and e-mailed this letter to the editor:

I am writing this in response to your recent article Microsoft, Slashdot exchange volleys

As a very active Slashdot user I take offense to your calling Slashdot a "online clubhouse for Microsoft haters" I do think that the majority of Slashdot users dislike Microsoft however, I'd like to believe that most of Slashdot's user base don't go around spouting anti-Microsoft sentiment. There are a few users who do go around spreading Microsoft hatred, but most of those are moderated down because of flamebait. Most people take up a devil's advocate position on anything Microsoft related.

Even though I think Microsoft is a Monopoly and has set the computer industry back several years. I still believe they have the right to exist. We cannot deny them that right.

A quote that I see quite often in Slashdotter's posts is: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend you till death for your right to say it."

Slashdot is a diverse on-line community, made up of people from many different backgrounds. Every user has his or her own opinion on Microsoft or any number of subjects discussed on Slashdot.

I read the Washington Post article a few minutes ago and e-mailed this letter to the editor:

I am writing this in response to your recent article Microsoft, Slashdot exchange volleys

As a very active Slashdot user I take offense to your calling Slashdot a "online clubhouse for Microsoft haters" I do think that the majority of Slashdot users dislike Microsoft however, I'd like to believe that most of Slashdot's user base don't go around spouting anti-Microsoft sentiment. There are a few users who do go around spreading Microsoft hatred, but most of those are moderated down because of flamebait. Most people take up a devil's advocate position on anything Microsoft related.

Even though I think Microsoft is a Monopoly and has set the computer industry back several years. I still believe they have the right to exist. We cannot deny them that right.

A quote that I see quite often in Slashdotter's posts is: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend you till death for your right to say it."

Slashdot is a diverse on-line community, made up of people from many different backgrounds. Every user has his or her own opinion on Microsoft or any number of subjects discussed on Slashdot.

Thanks for noting the root cause of the ILOVEYOU "virus":

For this we can blame Microsoft, but also ourselves. The company may have left the front door unlocked by placing features above security. But it's Microsoft's customers who actually opened the door to this thing by clicking on a strange attachment--the very thing that everybody says you shouldn't do.

Washington Post:

The site is, in no small part, an online clubhouse for Microsoft haters; news items about the firm are accompanied by a small picture of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates as a Borg, one of the human-machine chimeras from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" who say, "Resistance is futile -- you will be assimilated."

The Washington Post makes me sick with their pro-MS slant to everything, and their tech writers in their business section are -horrible-. Fast forward is *occasionally* worth reading, but that's it. Thank god they really only run tech stuff once a week..

That got me to thinking this morning as I bought my paper.. wouldn't it be cool to have a print version of what's going on/what had happened in the web the previous day? I would certainly plunk down a quarter to get some slashdot headlines, the register headlines, some article blurbs, security stuff, recent security holes, penny-arcade, sluggy, and friend bear on the comics page, some 20 page editorials by Jon Katz :)..

I find print format a lot more friendly to read for longer periods, and it's nice to have something to read on the metro (not all of us have laptops, and even if I did, the paper is a more efficent way of reading all this I think.)

To quote from yesterday's Washington Post article about the ./ gang: ****** quote starts here ********** the boys do have some adult supervision robin miller managing editor of all andover sites makes sure that slashdots articles are grammatical and libel-free and not spelled with the numeric-letter mixture (d00d!!! lets rip some warezzz!) that charac' ************end quote************ (ugly copy job...) So it seems some (sane) editing does occur; its the right of the site owners to do so. I cant wait for some TOP SECRET EYES ONLY stuff to come out on ./ !!

The boys [/. authors] do have some adult supervision: Robin Miller, managing editor of all Andover sites, makes sure that Slashdot's articles are grammatical and libel-free, and not spelled with the numeric-letter mixture ("D00D!!! LET'S RIP SOME WAREZZZ!") that characterizes much geek typing.

It's nice to hear that w/o Andover, /. would fast become a warez trading site if Rob had his way ;)
--

My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company. I'm happy (and very surprised) that those seem to be the two options that the court is seriously considering.

I've been generally impressed by the rulings of Judge Jackson in this case. I knew he knew what he was doing when during the course of the pretrial hearings he was told that it would be impossible to remove IE from Win95 without completely crippling the system, and he went home and did it himself, then returned to the court with harsh words for Microsoft. He was not also terribly impressed by the way they broke a consent decree arrived at in an earlier case. I don't think he's going to be bamboozled by their bafflegab.

My initial impression that Judge Jackson knew what he was doing was confirmed by the fin ding of fact and then the dec ision. The proposal to split up Microsoft into two companies is also well-considered.

While I generally am leery of government interference in business, this case clearly involves blatant antitrust violations and is precisely what the Sherman Act was drafted to prevent.

As for Microsoft's whining about "innovation," and how this damages their right to "innovate," I hardly see how ripping off betas of your competitors' products, reverse-engineering them, then sending out goons to force computer manufacturers to use them constitutes "innovation." At most it is an "innovative" form of racketeering.

To be honest, I don't think the remedy goes far enough. I'd like to see Microsoft split up into about a dozen corporations. However, I'll readily confess that this is based more on blind hatred and animosity toward Microsoft than any valid legal reasoning.

After all, they are the enemy.

My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company. I'm happy (and very surprised) that those seem to be the two options that the court is seriously considering.

I've been generally impressed by the rulings of Judge Jackson in this case. I knew he knew what he was doing when during the course of the pretrial hearings he was told that it would be impossible to remove IE from Win95 without completely crippling the system, and he went home and did it himself, then returned to the court with harsh words for Microsoft. He was not also terribly impressed by the way they broke a consent decree arrived at in an earlier case. I don't think he's going to be bamboozled by their bafflegab.

My initial impression that Judge Jackson knew what he was doing was confirmed by the fin ding of fact and then the dec ision. The proposal to split up Microsoft into two companies is also well-considered.

While I generally am leery of government interference in business, this case clearly involves blatant antitrust violations and is precisely what the Sherman Act was drafted to prevent.

As for Microsoft's whining about "innovation," and how this damages their right to "innovate," I hardly see how ripping off betas of your competitors' products, reverse-engineering them, then sending out goons to force computer manufacturers to use them constitutes "innovation." At most it is an "innovative" form of racketeering.

To be honest, I don't think the remedy goes far enough. I'd like to see Microsoft split up into about a dozen corporations. However, I'll readily confess that this is based more on blind hatred and animosity toward Microsoft than any valid legal reasoning.

After all, they are the enemy.

My first choice would be splitting MS into a systems company and an applications company. I'm happy (and very surprised) that those seem to be the two options that the court is seriously considering.

I've been generally impressed by the rulings of Judge Jackson in this case. I knew he knew what he was doing when during the course of the pretrial hearings he was told that it would be impossible to remove IE from Win95 without completely crippling the system, and he went home and did it himself, then returned to the court with harsh words for Microsoft. He was not also terribly impressed by the way they broke a consent decree arrived at in an earlier case. I don't think he's going to be bamboozled by their bafflegab.

My initial impression that Judge Jackson knew what he was doing was confirmed by the fin ding of fact and then the dec ision. The proposal to split up Microsoft into two companies is also well-considered.

While I generally am leery of government interference in business, this case clearly involves blatant antitrust violations and is precisely what the Sherman Act was drafted to prevent.

As for Microsoft's whining about "innovation," and how this damages their right to "innovate," I hardly see how ripping off betas of your competitors' products, reverse-engineering them, then sending out goons to force computer manufacturers to use them constitutes "innovation." At most it is an "innovative" form of racketeering.

To be honest, I don't think the remedy goes far enough. I'd like to see Microsoft split up into about a dozen corporations. However, I'll readily confess that this is based more on blind hatred and animosity toward Microsoft than any valid legal reasoning.

After all, they are the enemy.

Yes on both counts...and as for the first one, the Post is already reporting the first one as damage being in the $5 billion range, estimated to head up to the $10 billions.

There is a company here in the DC area called Anthrotronix that does a lot of great work in this area. There was an article in The Post about them today. Check it out. The potentials for the future of handicapped access to technology are great.

There's a very good article in the Washington Post with lots of details. It also talks about the restrictions that will be placed on the Baby Bills - limits on bundling, uniform licensing, etc.

All of the dominant media and tech news sites are wording such references this way. Or in similar terms. This implies that the news media, at least, has accepted as fact that Microsoft is indeed an effective monopoly. (If not a monopoly in absolute terms.) It must be driving Gates and his collective literally nuts every time they see such references--knowing there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

After years of relentless (and in my opinion: usually undeserved) positive press coverage from the tech media, this must really grate.

Bummer, eh Billy Boy? :-)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washd c/ncssun12.htm

• USA Today coverage
• Washington Post coverage