Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Flouting DOJ Settlement?

An anonymous reader writes "According to the Washington Post, Microsoft is not adhering to the terms of its deal with the DOJ. Specifically, there are allegations that it is "trying to license key pieces of its technology at inflated rates" and "thwarting its antitrust settlement with the federal government". They're charging $100,000 just to see technical info about their communication protocols, and you only get $50,000 back if you decide you don't want to license them. Whoda thunk?"

391 of 580 comments (clear)

  1. That's ok.... by Got-Tea-Rolls · · Score: 5, Funny

    because I don't abide by their EULAs either, so it all settles out.

  2. ObFightClub by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am Jack's utter lack of surprise.

    1. Re:ObFightClub by sunya · · Score: 1

      that would be "I am Jack's _complete_ lack of surprise" :)

      --
      MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
    2. Re:ObFightClub by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 1

      Somebody has to mod that one up one more!

  3. gosh by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 5, Funny

    oh shock horror, never saw that one coming.....

    i mean really, what did you think they were going to do.

    S

    --
    Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    1. Re:gosh by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Funny
      Oh I'm crushed that Microsoft is not living up to the agreement.

      Next you will be telling me there is no Santa Claus.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:gosh by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      love that sig...

      but i laught at it

      http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp ?s t=1&c=223

      128k, you were priveliged, now wait until this ends up as a "my computer was crapper than yours" thread

      whats the lowest oldest 'puter any programmed BASIC on...

      --
      Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    3. Re:gosh by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 4, Funny

      now wait until this ends up as a "my computer was crapper than yours" thread

      that is a fine computer.. for me to poop on!

    4. Re:gosh by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not how crappy the computer you had to work with, it's how much you learned while overcoming its iniquities.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:gosh by hendridm · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Next you will be telling me there is no Santa Claus.

      Give me about a year or so and I'll be telling you there is no Santa Cruz (Operation).

    6. Re:gosh by FroMan · · Score: 1

      No, there is a Santa Claus, and he seems pretty evil.

      Check out this documentary here.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    7. Re:gosh by CharlieG · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Punchcards - pencil fill in ones at that. The reader was hooked to a HP1000e, but we were seriously timeshared. You would submit your deck, and get it back the next day. But it was cool, because you actually got to run a COMPUTER program. I have a nice circuit board at home that is a 8 bit memory. Replace price was in the hundreds of dollars. All descrete components

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    8. Re:gosh by hplasm · · Score: 1
      ...and then finding out that the tape dump wouldn't load the next day ;+)..

      ah! 16k ram pack luxury..

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    9. Re:gosh by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Or in my case how to re-write C64 and Apple ][ BASIC programs to run on the IBM PC.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    10. Re:gosh by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      SCO can't be Santa. Santa may not exist, but you still get your packages. SCO does exist, and they are trying to take your packages back.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    11. Re:gosh by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny
      I still think IBM will stomp on SCO like the roach that they are.

      I don't think IBM would think that dignified. They would probably have a constractor of a subsidiary do the crushing.

      Say anyone else have the idea of a Santa Cruz Missle stuck in their head?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    12. Re:gosh by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Oldest computer I 'programmed' BASIC on?

      DEC PDP-11/60.used? Some Honeywell Mainframe with Mag-Core memory. Less than 4K - bigger than a 'Fridge!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    13. Re:gosh by miniver · · Score: 1, Redundant
      whats the lowest oldest 'puter any programmed BASIC on...

      I've got several possible contenders for this one:

      • 1978-81: TRS-80 Model 1, Level II (16KB RAM)
      • 1982: Commodore VIC 20
      • 1983: Texas Instruments 99/4A

      I'll let you decide which was the oldest/slowest.

      --
      We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
    14. Re:gosh by malfunct · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a number of computers with 1mhz processors and 4k ram. I love looking at my old Kilobyte magazines and seeing advertisements for 4k memory boards for $600 and more :)

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    15. Re:gosh by linuxghoul · · Score: 1

      ah...ZX Spectrum...i learnt assembly/machine code on that one...

      stupid stupid nostalgia :)

      --
      Sigura Non Grata
    16. Re:gosh by Spamhead · · Score: 1

      Next you will be telling me there is no Santa Claus.

      Wow. I read that as "Next you will be telling me there is no Santa Cruz"

      Aieeeee! Another SCO reference!

      --
      Everybody Wang-Chung tonight!
    17. Re:gosh by jhines0042 · · Score: 1

      Timex Sinclair 1000

      Here is a link to one man's page about the computer

      My brother and I wrote a book store program on it that would keep track of inventory and allow you to ring up "sales". I think I was about 9 or 10 at the time.

      --
      42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
    18. Re:gosh by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My first computer was a COSMAC ELF, had a RCA 1802 processor and 254 bits of 500mS static ram, input was by flipping toggle switches for each bit of machine code and pushing the single step buttom to load the byte. It was built by wire-wrapping each pin to the next, unfortunately I never got it running.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    19. Re:gosh by jbohumil · · Score: 1
      whats the lowest oldest 'puter any programmed BASIC on...

      In sixth or seventh grade (1970 or so) we learned basic. We used a teletype kind of contraption and typed up our programs onto paper tape. Then we dialed up a computer somewhere with an acustic coupler and fed the tape in through the paper tape reader. Everyone hated it except a couple of us who stayed late to get our programs to actually work. Me and the other kid I remember are still programmers to this day :)

    20. Re:gosh by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "It's not how crappy the computer you had to work with, it's how much you learned while overcoming its iniquities."

      Figures. That little blast of insight gets modded as 'off-topic'. Wonderful.

      It's a strong point. Limitations are where innovations thrive. That's why we should appreciate what we had in the past.

      Oh well, I guess I'll get off-topic too.

    21. Re:gosh by OTR+Dave · · Score: 1

      128k, you were priveliged, now wait until this ends up as a "my computer was crapper than yours" thread Computer???? You had a COMPUTER??

      --
      Operating Systems fall into 2 catagories:
      1) *nix
      2) The rest
    22. Re:gosh by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, well... I've got a ballpoint pen! So THERE.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    23. Re:gosh by Grayputer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK. 16K RAM Trash 80 model I using cassette as main (disk) storage. Wrote a business App in basic back in '79 that was used by a multi-site business to calculate profitability by site and provide input to manager bonuses.

      Commerical Library circulation app written in basic in '80 on a CBM 8032 (32K RAM). We did cheat and use a DTL basic compiler to get it to fit.

      Lowest memory, original Sinclair, 1K RAM programmed in basic. Used it to play around and write stuff for the kids. Also used it for Z80 asm learning but that is out of scope of this thread.

      Also several cash NCR registers were programmed in basic (2950, 215x, and one I forget). I forget the memory size. I used them for programming '80 for accepting credit cards at the gas pump for fleet management software. Kind of an interesting Basic, had async I/O.

      Then there was the DEC 10 and DEC 20, oh, yeah and PDPs and ...

    24. Re:gosh by ChadN · · Score: 1

      I started out on a TRS-80 Model 1, Level I. It had 4k of RAM, and a manual that taught BASIC. I would type in my BASIC programs until I couldn't add more characters on a single line, due to all the memory being used. Then I'd delete comments, or remove spaces to get a few more bytes. I had no storage (I later bought a cassette tape "storage" device for like $90), so every night I'd turn it off, erasing all my work for the day. The back of the machine got so hot, I feared leaving it on without being around it in case it caught fire.

      Eventually, I got my parents to pay hundreds of bucks to get it upgraded to Level II (required taking it in to a special Radio Shack, where a technician soldered in new memory chips, and replaced some ROMs).

      Ah, the good old days. Wish I'd gotten an Atari 800, though. :)

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    25. Re:gosh by thefroatgt · · Score: 1
      Back in my day I had to write games in BASIC, on a 4.7Mhz computer with no hard disk and 128K of RAM. And I was grateful
      I actualy programmed on something almost exactly twice that good about last year. My calculator. (TI-92+) The worst one I have programmed on is a ti-102 ish (plug into the TV, cartridges). Then went to an apple ][, then calculators, then my nice shiny 2.2GHz P4. (bit odd progression for a Sophomore in College, I belive)
    26. Re:gosh by CrazyFool · · Score: 1

      Oldest Computer?

      BASIC on a IBM OS/360 using punched cards. I think the interpreter was written in FORTRAN.

      Then I 'graduated' to PL/C (same punched cards) and then FORTRAN H. Then on to PL/1.

      Then I went 'high tech' with a BASIC on a Interdata 7/32 on an actual ascii terminal (1200 Baud).

      Anyone remember the 'Western Terminal System' at Western Washington University back in the 70s? A locally written
      OS used to teach programming and a whole bunch of
      CAI courses.

    27. Re:gosh by dp101270 · · Score: 1

      I remember my mom bringing those cards home from the college in the evening. When she was finished with a particular set she used to let me play with them...which in hindsight was not such a great idea with a six year old. Because after all, how is a six year old supposed to know the difference between the "old" ones and the ones mom was waiting to have processed? I'm happy to report that most of the fractures have healed cleanly and I walk with only a SLIGHT limp. DP

      --
      DP
  4. Okay.. by jagilbertvt · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, we pay $100k to find out they have no communication protocols, and only get $50k back? I'll charge half that if anyone's interested in seeing my communication protocols.

    1. Re:Okay.. by yatest5 · · Score: 5, Funny
      So, we pay $100k to find out they have no communication protocols, and only get $50k back? I'll charge half that if anyone's interested in seeing my communication protocols.

      Yeah, don't wait up - not too much interest in "uh, huh-huh, you're a girl, aren't you, uh-huh-huh-huh".

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    2. Re:Okay.. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmm... $50,000 for a printout of all the RFCs--the very keys to the Internet--in a handsome binder? Sounds like a great deal! Where do I send my check?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Okay.. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Besides, that show got Drudge's foot in the door to do more high-class series like King of the Hill.

      Not that I watch TV at all.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    4. Re:Okay.. by Mr_Matt · · Score: 1

      Besides, that show got Drudge's foot in the door to do more high-class series like King of the Hill.

      Judge. Mike Judge created "Beavis and Butthead", "King of the Hill", and "Office Space."

      Don't worry - I just read the Drudge report too. :)

      --


      But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
    5. Re:Okay.. by Rick.C · · Score: 1
      Back in my day I had to write games in BASIC, on a 4.7Mhz computer with no hard disk and 128K of RAM. And I was grateful

      Back in my day I had to watch Beavis and Butthead, on a 19-inch TV with no Cable and a leaky microwave on the other side of the wall.
      And I laughed.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  5. supose... by uhhhhhhh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's their perogative to charge what they want for information. Supply and Demand may change it eventually but they can start the prices where ever they want.

    1. Re:supose... by julesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except of course that part of their settlement for abusing their monopoly position was a court order that they open all the information on their protocols to the general public.

    2. Re:supose... by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a market with actual competition that would work. Unfortunately Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which puts it out of the supply/demand argument as they supply what they want, to whom they want, under whatever terms they want, to the detriment of an open market.

    3. Re:supose... by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft couldn't care less about the law. They just do whatever they like, and if they get a settlement, they implement THAT however they like. Just plain arrogance.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    4. Re:supose... by danheskett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      open all the information on their protocols to the general public.
      Are you sure about that statement? 'General Public'?

      I thought it was more like they could offer it to different people for different rates. Can you backup the 'general public' claim?

    5. Re:supose... by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. And what's anybody gonna go about it? Ooooh, Microsoft broke the law again, now in three or four years the DOJ might bring legal action against 'em and in another eight or ten years they might get slapped with another settlement to ignore. Ooooooooohhh. Like, they're really scared.

    6. Re:supose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no, it's still a supply and demand argument. Microsoft supplies the product and demands whatever they want for it.

    7. Re:supose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      it's their perogative to charge what they want for information. Supply and Demand may change it eventually but they can start the prices where ever they want.

      Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. The whole point of copyright is that the author controls supply. In this case, Microsoft doesn't want to supply the market at all. The only reason they do, is because their DOJ settlement requires it.

    8. Re:supose... by Kilted_Ghost · · Score: 4, Informative

      "But Microsoft was allowed to charge for the protocols because servers were not part of the antitrust case. " Even thought this is Slashdot, at least try and read the article. That goes for whoever modded this up as well.

      --
      Black holes are where God divided by zero.
    9. Re:supose... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      What this really needs is for some Senator or Congressman to stand up in Senate or Congress and publically issue a challenge to DOJ to either piss or get off the pot. Enforce the damn law, or admit they're a bunch of pansies who can be pushed around by anyone with over $1Bn in the bank.

      No, I don't for one moment imagine that will happen, but I can dream, can't I?

    10. Re:supose... by Sajarak · · Score: 1
      "But Microsoft was allowed to charge for the protocols because servers were not part of the antitrust case."

      The article then goes on to quote a Novell spokesperson, who says "There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring Novell to pay large sums of money to access information that the court determined Microsoft illegally withheld."

      I'm confused. Can someone please enlighten us?

    11. Re:supose... by TheDredd · · Score: 1

      And if they can't do what they want. Bill will just pay a visit to his old friend The President of the United States of America

    12. Re:supose... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and just leave it there, to see what'll happen.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    13. Re:supose... by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That arrogance will be their undoing. Politicians are real big on the revenge business. Past a certain point, nobody's too big to do the perp walk.

    14. Re:supose... by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) licensing means that you can't turn down any licensee and they have to be charged no more than any other licensee. That means the general public can have access to them if the general public pays the reasonable fee.

      The real problem is the reasonable part. Some judge is going to have to work out a definition of reasonable with Microsoft. That's got to be as bad as working out a definition of is with Bill Clinton.

    15. Re:supose... by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have two words of reassurance for you. Arthur Anderson.

      Past a certain point, corporate flouting of the law visibly erodes respect for the rule of law. The politicians can't tolerate that and retain their own power. MS will be squashed like a bug if they cross that line and they're getting awfully close.

    16. Re:supose... by tshak · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is a convicted monopolist

      For the 200th time, no, they are not. They were convicted, in very specific instances, of abusing a legitimately obtained monopoly.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    17. Re:supose... by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait until MS gets their first ICBM, then we'll see who's da boss...

    18. Re:supose... by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      I can't believe this gat marked up to 5 Insightful. A significant portion of Microsoft's user base feels trapped by MS because either MS either offers unique functionality that doesn't exist in OSS or the cost of transitioning exceeds the benefit.

      MS *can* jack up prices high enough that those cost/benefit analyses lead to a dump MS option. Even for projects that don't exist or aren't functional, at a certain point its cheaper to hire your own programmers in an industry pool with your competition and make it yourselves than it would be to continue with MS and its predatory pricing and onerous EULA terms. For practical examples, see Netscape, Bullsoft, France Telecom, Apple, and IBM all contribute paid engineers to OSS project work.

      Even if MS *doesn't* raise its prices that high, they're still in trouble because more and more programmers are contributing code and filling in the OSS gaps as they run into problems. As this code matures, MS will still lose customers at the margins and they will lose their dominant position in computing.

    19. Re:supose... by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Apple's tech documentation is available for the cost of filling out a web registration form. This doesn't mean that Apple is without flaw or major room for improvement but it would be nice if you actually picked a valid failing of theirs.

      Microsoft is a major supplier in part because they've put out good software that was better than their competitors and in part because they have engaged in illegal business practices and that's whether you count the anti-trust violations or not. When you have Bill Gates stating that $3k gets you access to the Win95 API, you expect access to the Win95 API, not just 90% with an extra 10% held back for the exclusive use of MS app programmers to kick your tail in the market.

    20. Re:supose... by jafac · · Score: 1

      Yup.
      There's our "tough on crime" Republican president.

      I do hope you stupid m*f*ckers out there are planning on voting in 2004. This is getting ridiculous.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    21. Re:supose... by aolsheepdog · · Score: 1

      Just look at ImClone founder Sam Waksal. He got 7 years. Enron pushed the public over the brink. The public has finally had enough of corporate greed and immorality.

      I think that we are going to see a lot more of these types of prosecutorial actions in the future. Bill Gates just may get a nice shiny pair of nickel-plated bracelets one day

    22. Re:supose... by teeters · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you call me a convicted motorist if I obtained my drivers license legally but got caught for committing a hit and run?

    23. Re:supose... by Keeper · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly. It's some of the ways you can use a monopoly that are wrong.

      For example, using your monopoly in one area to get on in another. Or, for example, forcing a company to use your product instead of a competitors by threatening not to sell them your product.

      Just because they've got a monopoly doesn't mean they have to give everything away for free (or for the price YOU want it to sell for).

    24. Re:supose... by m0rphm0nkey · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft requires companies that license the protocols to be audited -- at their own expense, by a third-party auditor selected by Microsoft --"

      yup...and do you suppose the BSA could get involved?

    25. Re:supose... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

      Maybe Microsoft wouldn't be so arrogant if their CEO had to spend a few quality evenings with Bubba the Butt Fucker in the local jail.

      Oh, but I forgot this was only a civil action. To bad...

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    26. Re:supose... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      And saying they were convicted of abusing a monopoly disputes a statement saying they are convicted monopolists how exactly?

  6. Surely you jest? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


    How can you suggest such a thing? There's absolutely no evidence that Microsoft isn't just as well behaved as every other American corporation, such as Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, etc.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Surely you jest? by smagruder · · Score: 1

      I was looking for the terms corn-fed and apple pie in there, and discovered them sarcastically between the lines. :)

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  7. Reasonable and non-discriminatory by jkrise · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're charging just $ 100,000 to inspect - just consider! MS spends $5 bn in R&D, yet the fruits of the R&D can be inspected for just .001% of their investment!

    If that ain't reasonable, what is? You thought you could see the MS code for free? You got to be a non-American govt. threatening to use Open Source, for that sort of privilege.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Usually, I'm an anti-MS zealot, but this time I agree with you. It's not a fee, it's a deterrent. I would love to get a copy of MS's protocols so I could write a proper exchange connector for unix. But I don't have a hundred grand to pony up, so it ain't gonna happen.

      This isn't unfair competitive practices, this is competitive practices designed to protect their trade secrets. They are essentially showing the holy grail of linux computing, so why shouldn't they charge an admission fee?

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    2. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah stuff it, you whiny bastard. They are a *convicted* monopolist. The opening of the protocols is part of the *verdict*. Ponder this quote:

      "There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring Novell to pay large sums of money to access information that the court determined Microsoft illegally withheld," said Ryan Richards, a Novell vice president and deputy general counsel. "Microsoft breaks the law and Novell pays for the remedy."

      So no, $100.000 is not reasonable, it's extortion.

    3. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so why shouldn't they charge an admission fee?
      Because they are a convicted monopoly?

    4. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Alranor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      so why shouldn't they charge an admission fee?

      Oh I dunno, maybe because the DOJ settlement said they had to? Or is that not a good enough reason for you?

    5. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by cybaea · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They're charging just $ 100,000 to inspect - just onsider! MS spends $5 bn in R&D

      And your source for this information is?...

      I mean, really, how on earth can MS spend $5 *billion* on R&D

      Oh, they manage. They financial statements show that they spend just over $1.1bn per quarter on R&D.

      And if they spend $5 billion on R&D, why does so much of their stuff suck?

      Because people will buy it regardless? The effort is not primarily to make their "stuff" better, but to develop new stuff - think X-box, DRM, etc.

      --
      Hi!
    6. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Lord+Kholdan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the article.
      ...One unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license some of the code -- known as communication protocols -- to outside companies on "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms.

      So no, they're not breaking the DOJ settlement unless you consider 100k fee unreasonable and discriminatory.

      Unreasonable? Hardly, in a business world that money is peanuts.

      Discriminatory? Nope. As far as we know, they're asking the same price from everyone. And before someone claims that price that high is discriminatory I have few things to ask from you.

      Is Ferrari discriminating against me because I'm too poor?

      If Discriminatory clause refers to price everyone should be able to get it, why would the reasonable price clause exist?

    7. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by spagma · · Score: 1

      No no no, they spent that much because "the average cisco and microsoft certified system engineer makes $70,000 per year" at least that what the radio tells me.

      --
      If it won't boot, Fsck it!
    8. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the bulk of the R&D effort that MS spent is writing the code. The companies that want to license it only want to look at the code to discover how the protocol works. It's not like that they will be able to use the code as is becuase they are developing for a non-MS platform, they're probably going to have to re-write it from scratch. In my opinion the specification of protocols should be free.

    9. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by JamesOfTheDesert · · Score: 1
      They are a *convicted* monopolist. The opening of the protocols is part of the *verdict*. Ponder this quote

      [snip/]

      Wow, a quote from a rival company expressing dismay. I'm shocked. How about this quote:

      Asked by The Washington Post to review the license terms, several software licensing experts said that although the terms often are within the realm of general industry practice, they are aggressive and should be approached with caution.

      Basically, all the article says is that some of MSFT's competitors are unhappy with the licensing terms. Big surprise. However, the terms may in fact be permissable under the law.

      One unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license some of the code -- known as communication protocols -- to outside companies on "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms.

      Note that it doesn't say "for free", or "at a price a competitor happens to prefer."

      BTW, if Microsoft really could, as some here suggest, charge *anything* they wanted (because, you know, they are a *convicted* monopolist), then they are fools for charging $100,000 instead of $1,000,000 or more.

      --

      Java is the blue pill
      Choose the red pill
    10. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The DOJ settlement does allow for this. The problem does not lie in the fact that they are charging for the protocol inspection, but there are further terms which could be considered discriminatory. For instance, the independant audit at the licensee's expense with no assurance that the inspector is not reporting back extra information to Microsoft, or the severely crippling NDA which prompted one executive to say that "Basically, I'd have to shoot the engineers when they came back,". Now those are what the DOJ has to center in on, not some admission ticket price.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    11. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they're not breaking the DOJ settlement unless you consider 100k fee unreasonable and discriminatory.

      It is both unreasonable and discriminatory.

      Unreasonable? Hardly, in a business world that money is peanuts.

      That is irrelevant. They are supposed to disclose the protocols to competitors. The purpose is to level the playing field to competition. Anyone who is a competitor, such as an open source project, should be able to get the protocols.

      It is unreasonable because the cost of providing this information is practically zero. They could put it on their web site if they were truly interested in complying with the DOJ settlement.

      Discriminatory? Nope. As far as we know, they're asking the same price from everyone.

      It is discriminatory. It is intended to discriminate against the biggest possible competitor that MS has ever faced. This is directly against the spirit of the settlement.

      If asking the same price for everyone were all that mattered, then why not just ask for $1 Trillion? They would not be discriminating against anyone after all. In your world, this would not be unreasonable.

      Is Ferrari discriminating against me because I'm too poor?

      Irrelevant. Ferrari has not been ordered to provide you with transportation. Furthermore, the MS communication protocols are not a product you are buying. This is information that a court of law has ordered MS to provide to all competitors. I wouldn't have a problem if MS charged for the cost of media, or some minor cost tied to the production of the information. But again, producing this information, even in a very raw form, would cost very little. It could be widely circulated.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    12. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't unfair competitive practices, this is competitive practices designed to protect their trade secrets.

      This is unfair competitive practices. The whole reason they are to disclose the protocols are the remedy the damage done to the competitive landscape caused by their past wrongdoing that they have been convicted of.

      The communication protocols are not to be a trade secret. That is the whole point of disclosing them. Because Microsoft has unfairly leveraged a monopoly to create new monopolies they now have to open the landscape to competition.

      I would love to get a copy of MS's protocols so I could write a proper exchange connector for unix. But I don't have a hundred grand to pony up, so it ain't gonna happen.

      That is exactly why it is unfair. Don't you get it? Competitors are entitled to the protocols. Microsoft is free to compete on the merits of their product, not on the secrecy of their protocols.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    13. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft is free to compete on the merits of their product, not on the secrecy of their protocols.

      Ahhh, I wish you were the DOJ. Your rational reasoning goes against what all the large comapnies have fought so hard for.
      In an ideal world, your statement would be accurate. Unfortunately we no longer live in a world, we live in a giant department store.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    14. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      My reading of the article indicates that you have to pay the $100k just to find out what it is you can license and learn what the licensing terms are.

      To me the real key is whether the underlying licensing terms are reasonable. Any guesses as to whether they are or not? We all know external audits are used primarily as weapons....

    15. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      well, if that was the cost of ONE product R&D then yes I could agree...but it is not.

      if the price were .001% of the R&D costs of the tech is question then that would be more managable.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    16. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that some of the protocols are public domain anyway... Wonder if they'd have the nerve to demand payment if those were the only ones someone wanted to see?

    17. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by hetairoi · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with two things you are saying:

      1.They are supposed to disclose the protocols to competitors.

      well, they are. they charge for it, but they are making it available. show me where the doj said you have to freely give these protocols over to anyone who asks. it just says they have to be available to competitors at a reasonable price. now 'a reasonable price' could be debated, but as has already been said in the business world $100k is not really that much. M$ considers these protocols (and i'm not even sure what they are) to be trade secrets and therefore very valuable, but they make them available because the doj said they have to. my question would be, did M$ make these protocols available to anyone before at any cost?

      and

      2. the cost of providing this information is practically zero

      not really, M$ considers them valuable trade secrets and although i agree that protocols such as these should be open and freely available, M$ has created a business around them and has the right to charge for them. again, show me where the doj said they have to make all protocols freely available. you seem to think that since open source is a competitor to M$ the open source community should be allowed to see the protocols, but M$ probably has a good arguement that the open source community is not a competitor because it's not a business entity. now if RedHat wanted to cough up the $100k, fine, have at it, but you still have to sign the NDA and not give them over to the entire community.

      look, i understand where you are coming from and i agree that M$ is evil and i would love to see all there protocols and os code to be opened to the public. but they are not and the doj backed off and let M$ get away with a slap on the wrist. in my eyes the doj is at fault here for not cracking down on M$ and laying out a clearly defined set of rules for them. basically all they did was say 'ok bill, now quite beig mean and try to play nice with the other kids.' and that just ain't gonna happen until the doj smacks them around and says here is how you will play our you will not play at all.

      --
      you're all figments of my deranged imagination
    18. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by zachdms · · Score: 1

      Ah, but "Open Source" isn't a competitor in the traditional sense of the word - it's an anti-competitor that over the long run attempts to devalue software production. Every other Competitor expects itself to make money over time, and thus the notion of paying for value makes sense. Just because one of a thousand competitors is attempting to shoot everyone in the software industry in the foot doesn't mean that the RaND licensing has to kowtow to that foolish group.

    19. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      The established competitors to MS have been beaten time after time by MS over two decades. These are the competitors that MS is not really worried about because they have a track record of busines/technical/PR incompetence that is likely to continue. What *is* worrisome is the competitor they don't know and might be just as good as they are at competing, the future MS that is a 7 person software shop just like they were in the late '70s. Is that 7 person software shop able to pay $100,000 to just take a look at the protocols to see what they would get if they licensed? I don't think so.

      That's the discriminatory portion, pricing it too high for the small shops that might be innovative and sneak under MS' radar to become serious competition means their most dangerous competition is out of the way.

      The licensing terms are classic MS, just shy of being outside industry practice for non-monopolists, that same industry analyst said that the rules are different for monopolists and that these license terms should be approached with caution.

    20. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Nah, they're entitled to a dime a page for copying expenses, an extra $20 if they bind it.

      I think it's not a foregone conclusion that the code would be useless or competitors would be exclusively on alternative platforms. Think of a MAPI enabled version of Sendmail combined with a free 100% MS compatible groupware component competing with Exchange. People would be able to keep their clients and change the server and for new clients would be able to go for a free one.

      That's the kind of competition that would give MS nightmares, software that ran on windows and *nix and would make replacing MS in a component by component fashion simple and easy. They would lose 40% of their marketshare overnight if they were in that situation today and they know it.

      A world with MS at 50% marketshare is a very different place than a world with MS at 90%. They would lose massive amounts of leverage and they know it.

    21. Re:Reasonable and non-discriminatory by tantrum · · Score: 1
      And if they spend $5 billion on R&D, why does so much of their stuff suck?

      Because people will buy it regardless? The effort is not primarily to make their "stuff" better, but to develop new stuff - think X-box, DRM, etc.


      I'm pretty sure that most of MS R&D department is involved in drawing new user-interfaces. Is it good enough for etch-a-sketch - it is good enough for everybody.
  8. Yep. Microsoft is fuckin' EVIL by RLiegh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Next on slashdot: The sun is fuckin' HOT

    1. Re:Yep. Microsoft is fuckin' EVIL by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      You think Sun is hot? You should check out SCO!

      ;-)

    2. Re:Yep. Microsoft is fuckin' EVIL by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Next on slashdot: The sun is fuckin' HOT

      Solar lawyers and the DOJ worked out a settlement that states "The sun is moderately warm".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Yep. Microsoft is fuckin' EVIL by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Actually, the next story on Slashdot was that Sun's (allegedly) trailbazing path is getting cold. :-D

    4. Re:Yep. Microsoft is fuckin' EVIL by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      Follow up: it's 2004 and the sun is still...Hot; we will keep you notified on the latest developments as they occur.

  9. What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thats a scandalous acussation! Microsoft are kind and gentle, and they certainly learnt their lesson after the nasty talking to the DOJ gave them after that whole "monopoly abusing" thing. Balmer and Gates are such nice men and they wear such nice suits, how could you even think of making such a slanderous comment?

    No, I'm sure they're just misunderstood.

  10. No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft is being accused of doing something illegal on slashdot?

    What's next? More SCO villification?

  11. But they PROMISED... by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Interesting


    They even had to set up a committee internally to make sure they didn't break the rules. Surely the DoJ wouldn't have given them such a limp-wristed settlement if it didn't believe they were honest people.

    Oh hang on its only George Bush who lives in a 1950s "Wonderful Life" style world.

    Is ANYONE suprised by this move ? M$ have also just bought some AV software, umm will they bundle theirs into the OS to drive other people away, its a shot in the dark, and against the DoJ settlement but it might just be true.

    M$ know that with the massively pro-business pro-monopoly president there is right now that they have AT LEAST 5 more years before a President who might go after them. Add 5-10 years of DoJ cases and they might get the next numbskull to let them off.

    The only hope for the US Software industry is if the EU crackdown.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:But they PROMISED... by REBloomfield · · Score: 1
      erm.. they used to bundle AntiVirus, but removed it when they released Windows 95.

      So what? I refuse to believe why bundling useful tools with an O/S is bad practice...

    2. Re:But they PROMISED... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
      Is ANYONE suprised by this move ? M$ have also just bought some AV software, umm will they bundle theirs into the OS to drive other people away, its a shot in the dark, and against the DoJ settlement but it might just be true.

      I also found their purchase of an AV interesting. They would need a pretty major incentive to enter that business given possible liability issues. What might that incentive be? Well, AV products need low level hooks in Windows that MS may want to restrict (starting with Longhorn) to themselves or other (heavily paying) partners. This would allow them to block development of future products to weaken customer reliance on MS. Even MS cannot block other vendor's AV products without creating one themselves. Paranoid? I do not think so.

      What about the larger question of why they are being allowed to ignore the terms of the DOJ settlement? I think all the evidence suggests that there was a secret agreement behind the real settlement. Who was involved in negotiating that agreement? Will future administrations honour it?

    3. Re:But they PROMISED... by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      In 1991 Saddam made some promises also.

      We should judge Saddam on his promises. Not on a pattern of his past behavior.

      Similarly for Microsoft. Read the latest press release. Judge Microsoft based on that. Not their past behavior.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    4. Re:But they PROMISED... by pyrotic · · Score: 1

      Describing Bush as pro-business is like describing Bill Clinton as pro-women. Sure Monica may have done OK out of Bill in the end. But there are more women out there than Monica, just as there are more businesses out there than Enron.

    5. Re:But they PROMISED... by Danse · · Score: 1

      The DOJ should have listened to me and a lot of the other people that wrote letters during the request for comments period. We said that their settlement wouldn't work. We told them that there were big glaring loopholes in it. We even told them what the loopholes were. Now, I either have to believe that the lawyers at the DOJ are completely incompetent gibbering idiots, or someone has been pulling strings to get Microsoft off the hook. Which do you think is more likely? Now, who do you think is behind it?


      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    6. Re:But they PROMISED... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it looks almost exactly like Norton's dos AV client.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  12. All together, with a vaguely French accent: by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    The low number of licensees concerns the Justice Department, which says it is devoting extensive resources to evaluating the program.

    "I'm Shocked! Shocked!"

    1. Re:All together, with a vaguely French accent: by GuyMannDude · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean a "vaguely Freedom accent?" What kind of commie, american-hating, french-loving hippie are you? :)

      GMD

  13. Windows Update by PFactor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet DOJ used Windows Update. Now, none of their computers work. That would explain their lack of follow-through in this case.

    --
    Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
  14. Drugs are bad by haydenth · · Score: 3, Redundant

    If any of you thought for a second that Microsoft would actually abide by the settlement with the DOJ you are on crack. What incentive do they have to abide by it? What is the worst that will happen if they don't abide by it? They'll get taken back to court the DOJ, and I'm sure they'll settle again and continue doing what they are doing. I personally have no problem with Microsoft, but If the DOJ is going to settle with them, they better be prepared to enforce the settlement.

    --
    - tom -
    1. Re: Drugs are bad by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > If any of you thought for a second that Microsoft would actually abide by the settlement with the DOJ you are on crack.

      Don't be so dogmatic. After my lombotomy I gave up crack for LSD, and I still thought the same thing for a second.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Drugs are bad by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 1
      If any of you thought for a second that Microsoft would actually abide by the settlement with the DOJ you are on crack. What incentive do they have to abide by it? What is the worst that will happen if they don't abide by it?

      Wasn't there something about being hit on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper?

      --
      Sigs are bad for your health.
  15. Wristslap Pain is a Memory by 4of12 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, this is not a big surprise to the very large crowd of people who think MS got off lightly for what they have done.

    The significance, though, is that there are still a couple of states (WV, MA, I think) holding out on the DOJ settlement.

    Their case could be made stronger if they can show the settlement is not working properly.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Wristslap Pain is a Memory by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Well now that Microsoft has violated the settlement we can institute the predefined penaly for violating the settement. The settlement extends for an extra two years!

      That'll teach Microsoft not to violate the settlement!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  16. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea by bpland · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Basically, I'd have to shoot the engineers when they came back," said one irate company executive.

    So this is what happens to our best and brightest programmers.....

    1. Re:Maybe this wasn't such a good idea by pcwhalen · · Score: 1

      Ellison to employee: "Hey Bob, we'd like you to go over to Microsoft to look at some code. Did you want to be buried or creamated? Just asking, man. Don't look so nervous."

      --
      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
  17. Thunking by julesh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whoda thunk?

    I would. Thunking is fun, and a wonderful way of ensuring you keep compatible. Try thunking to another operating system running in a virtual machine, that's cool :-)

  18. Well... by Lord+Kholdan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What they're doing might be immoral, but illegal? Hardly. If they ask 100k from everyone wanting to use the protocol they're not discriminating against anyone.

  19. GWBush will clean up the corruption by BoomerSooner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Riiiiight.

    There are consequences to actions. Unfortunately the American people cannot seem to draw a line between point A and point B.

    1. Re:GWBush will clean up the corruption by arth1 · · Score: 3, Funny
      There are consequences to actions. Unfortunately the American people cannot seem to draw a line between point A and point B.


      The American way is to patent a device for drawing a line between A and B, and sell licenses to the highest bidder. Drawing the line is left to lesser countries, like Japan, Taiwan and Germany.

      Of course, with the Microsoft Ruler, you can get the source CAD code for a mere $100,000, which allows you to verify that the lines are indeed straight. Or not.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    2. Re:GWBush will clean up the corruption by AftanGustur · · Score: 1


      There are consequences to actions. Unfortunately the American people cannot seem to draw a line between point A and point B.

      It was funny when I first heard it, but as time passes It is starting to scare me a lot: "The average american atually belives everything his 'authority' tells him.".

      I don't think that GWB is a unusually bad leader, in France we know the Presient is a lying corrupt thief, (as opposed to religious extreemist corrupt sadistic alcoholic (and murderer ?)). Hmmm, well baybe he *is* unusually bad..

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    3. Re:GWBush will clean up the corruption by Thavius · · Score: 1

      Just remember, the easiest way for corporations to become compliant is to skirt the issue completely and pretend it doesn't exist. After all, if you stop talking about it, people will forget it even happened... Besides, if we actually held M$ to whatever was decided, it'd be Bad for Business (tm, Republican Party)

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Government Endorsed the Monopoly by !Squalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This should not come as a surprise Judge CK and Justice both bent over backwards to please Billy since Ashcroft and others could only recuse themselves from direct involvement because of the contributions they received. This does not mean they did not have a hand in giving Microsoft the power to act as though there was no settlement, it merely means that the settlement was thus: Microsoft is free to be a monopoly and self-enforcing monopolies never can do anything wrong (or at least they SEE no evil, HEAR no evil, and SPEAK of no evil that they are involved in).

    Really, who won the case? Not the people, well they did, but the newly elected administration had that overturned and gave Microsoft everything they ever wanted and then some.

    Crash, bang, pow! The sound of companies being crushed, jobs being lost, and consumers losing more and more to the power of a global monopoly that is in fact a de facto government taxing American citizens on a national basis every time our government (once elected - now paid) buys from the Nation of Microsoft.

    Do we really want more media consolidation - must be, someone in the government says its cool for one company to own everything and offer us the same crappy meals every day.

    To borrow a line we might have to get used to""You will work harder with a gun in your back for a bowl of rice a day."

    Thanks to Justice and Judge CK the animal is free to prowl and kill whatever it wants. Nice, real nice.

    --
    All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
    1. Re:Government Endorsed the Monopoly by JWW · · Score: 1

      I just wonder how long it will be before Microsoft starts sending its BSA cronies to goverment agencies demanding audits and billions in licensing fees.

      I will not be suprised when it happens, and I bet they'll even do it on Bush's watch.

      And even then the DOJ will probably do nothing.

      The only hope is the more they act like this the more people will convice themselves that it is just not good to deal with Microsoft anymore and move to OSS.

    2. Re:Government Endorsed the Monopoly by verloren · · Score: 1

      "Judge CK and Justice both bent over backwards to please Billy"

      Sadly their bending over backwards involves the rest of us bending over forwards.

      Cheers, Paul

    3. Re:Government Endorsed the Monopoly by chickenwing · · Score: 1

      It is interesting to note that during the trial and settlement that some majority of Americans supported Microsoft.

      I wonder how things would have turned out if the appeal happened in todays post-Enron environment. Americans don't think CEO's are the geniouses that they once did. They dont trust that companies are acting in the public's best interest.

    4. Re:Government Endorsed the Monopoly by !Squalus · · Score: 1

      Hi Chickenwing, I don't mean this as a slam, but a question instead. Why do you believe that a majority of Americans supported Microsoft during the trial and settlement?

      I don't know that to be the case. I think those that knew what was going on and what was at stake did not do so. I think Justice ignored a majority of Americans when it rejected what it called "form letters" which in fact were people who were making arguments against the monoploy called Microsoft. Microsoft also raised many people from the dead to sign petitions on their behalf, and generally had very little suuport in the settlement phase from anyone other than shills.

      I am not attacking your post or you, I just wonder why you believe that the public was behind Microsoft. I wasn't seeing that. I did see a lot of lack of knowledge - not a show of support.I believe the two can coexist.

      Cheers!

      --
      All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  22. Price Inflation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    there are allegations that it is "trying to license key pieces of its technology at inflated rates" Doesn't the fact that they are trying to dump other pieces of technology balance this out, though? mmmmmm... $50 windows licenses.....

    1. Re:Price Inflation? by CWCarlson · · Score: 1

      Balance? It seems like it just exacerbates the problem.

      A $50 Windows license will accelerate the adoption of Windows, further entrenching their position as a de facto monopoly. A $100,000 license to use communication protocols will decelerate third-party adoption of those protocols, leaving Microsoft the only company able to make effective, profitable use of them.

  23. Interesting licensing details: by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Microsoft requires companies that license the protocols to be audited -- at their own expense, by a third-party auditor selected by Microsoft -- to ensure that they are only using them for appropriate purposes. This raises the possibility of the auditor learning about the company's new product and its source code, but companies say they have no information on how much the auditor could then pass on to Microsoft.

    Wow! Paying someone to steal your intellectual property. Thank you Microsoft. Now I understand all that innovation.

    At the urging of the Justice Department, Microsoft will now allow engineers from potential licensees to visit its headquarters to examine more technical data. But the rivals say the company is requiring the engineers to sign such strict confidentiality agreements that their ability to work on related products for their employers would be hampered.

    "Basically, I'd have to shoot the engineers when they came back," said one irate company executive.

    Wow! Paying Microsoft to make your employees unuseable. Thank you Microsoft. Useful employees were a burden anyway.

  24. Shoot the engineers?!? by dereklam · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Basically, I'd have to shoot the engineers when they came back," said one irate company executive.

    Yeah, I'd do the same thing if I were forced to send my engineers to visit Redmond...

    1. Re:Shoot the engineers?!? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Somewhere Old Yeller's master feels justified.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    2. Re:Shoot the engineers?!? by aliens · · Score: 2, Funny

      They'd at the very least need to undergo some sort of decontamination treatment.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
  25. Justice systems fails again by NeB_Zero · · Score: 1

    Once again, our justice system has failed the consumers. "Sure, Microsoft is acting in restriction of trade. Let's warn them that they should probably let ppl know how to code for their OS."

    Microsoft funds their campaigns, so they stand there with their thumbs up their asses acting as if they have done all they can. They are the government, dammit!!!!

    I'm moving to Canada, at least if my tech job goes under up there I can still get healthcare.

  26. Which protocols? by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone have a list of the protocols under discussion? The article refers to there being 133 protocols in the package, and there are claims (refuted by MS) that some of them are in the public domain (by which I suspect they mistakenly include open source solutions like Samba).

    So, what protocols are they? I'm certain that a large number haven't been externally engineered, but I'd be willing to bet that quite a few have, or that they originate from public protocols that MS has since modified.

    1. Re:Which protocols? by dpilot · · Score: 1

      If we told you, we'd have to kill you.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Which protocols? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      and there are claims (refuted by MS) that some of them are in the public domain (by which I suspect they mistakenly include open source solutions like Samba).

      It could very well be that many of those protocols are in fact public domain, but they were included because MS "extended" (read: broke) them in its implementation (see HTML).

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  27. DOJ ph34rs MS by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    '"We have made progress with Microsoft," one official said, adding that the department is following up on complaints from other firms. "We have gotten them to make changes."'

    This just shows how scared the DOJ is of MS. I mean if I got taken to court for not paying back a loan and the court ordered me to pay £x back per month and I only paid a fraction of it back per month do you think they would say "We have made progress with graspee. We have gotten him to pay back some of the money he owes." ???

    graspee

    1. Re:DOJ ph34rs MS by Danse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and my credit would be shot and I'd never be able to buy anything on credit for at least 10 years and probably more. Microsoft has seen no negative impact from this settlement. Hell, it actually benefits them in a lot of ways. The people were supposed to be represented by the DOJ. We got screwed by our own damn lawyers.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  28. What a shock by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

    After the last time Microsoft was found guilty the chaiman of Enron was playing golf with the chairman of Worldcom, so goes the story...

    "So Bob, should we stop doing business with these criminals?"
    "Hell no, Joe, I just got a $2bn kickback! Ye hah for corporate America! Anything goes."
    "Good thinking Bob, oh, and I love your new caddy by the way - a Senator is just so much better than my Congressman."

    --
    Beep beep.
  29. Yes, he will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The Enron scandal flourished under Clinton, but ended under the Bush administration.

    1. Re:Yes, he will. by re-geeked · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right after he appointed all their corporate officers to his cabinet.

      --
      "You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
    2. Re:Yes, he will. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      My favorite was Limbaugh and other gasbags (also a couple of congressmen, if I recall correctly) liked to blame Enron, et al., on Clinton, and not because if any lack of government oversight. With a straight face (which I could never muster) they said that all the dirty CEOs acted that way because of Clinton's social behavior. Those poor innocent CEOs (and staunch conservatives) apparently (they claim) were using Clinton as a role model and if Clinton could act bad, then so could they.

      I don't know what it worse, being such a bald-faced liar to say those things, or to be the complete intellectual moron to believe those statements.

    3. Re:Yes, he will. by radish · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about we just all agree that both Bush and Clinton are tossers. And for that matter, so was ol'Bush. And Reagan. Hmm...trend appearing...

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:Yes, he will. by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton is no danger anymore - he's had his time in power, and now he's out. Bush, on the other hand, has the balance of his first term still to run, and some chance at a second term, depending on how well the ballots are rigged.

      I don't necessarily agree with Clinton handing out pardons but hey, if those individuals really are dyed-in-the-wool crooks, it won't take them long to get in trouble again, will it?

    5. Re:Yes, he will. by Malcontent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton is no danger anymore"

      The difference is that clinton lied about his who stuck his cock into, bush lied about why he took us to war and killed tens of thousands of people.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    6. Re:Yes, he will. by finallyHasANickname · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Enron scandal flourished under Clinton, but ended under the Bush administration.

      Once upon a time, President Clinton had to deal with a problem. That problem was that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, which is pronounced "the ferk") had someone up and quit. Aw shucks. Who to get? Well, our fair President, against his better judgment, got a right wing fanatic from down south to sit in the FERC. Bummer. The poor guy was right in the middle of a good job with a kewl company--trying to get rid of all that public sector crap that carries high voltage power from place to place in Dixieland. Oh well. Duty calls.

      Fast forward to May 1999. The California agency for dealing with the physical consequences of the absurd right wing fantasy of "AB 1280", circa 1998 had to route the willy-nilly purchased and sold electric power in California. However, just as forecast an uncharacteristic heat wave swept northern California. It was beyond miserable. Oh my. Why were so many power plants down for maintenance? Why all at once? Why was the schedule for downtime changed? (Psssst. Hindsight informs us that the weather forecast was "beamed in" to the decision making headquarters at Enron down there where the heavenly Governor Bush promised always to look the other way.) The price of a megawatt-hour suddenly went to $400 with no ceiling in sight, and I suppose Ken Lay came in his $700 pants that day. Immediately, the California government commissioned a study. Strangely, a thorough report came through raht quick. There was a murmer about someone gaming the system. With a few more highest level power crises short term, everyone survived in California in 1999. In 2000, the evil science was refined. By 2001, the racket was licensed extortion as is common knowledge. The President of the California Public Utilities Commission (Loretta Lynch) told her top lawyer to dig in and sue the lazy bastards at the FERC, whose notions of laissez-faire included sleeping at the switch while your best friends down south print money through electric wires, choke natural gas lines, game the market, gouge customers, and bankrupt decently managed retail power companies without recourse. Why? Because Bill Clinton wanted to be "nice" to those on his right. The FERC was perverted. Yes. It happened while Clinton held ultimate responsibility. Yes. You can hang this on Clinton. However, when Bush's friends on the FERC kept assisting the milking of the California electric rate payers, after a while the conscience got a little stronger (along with the public outcry that leaked beyond the "lost-to-the-Republicans-anyway" i.e., negligible-to-W.-anyway state of California). When that racket stopped screwing California on schedule, the bets placed at the Enron power/futures/weather casinos in Houston started to lose money for their customers--typically the house itself. Just then there was a Frontline piece on public TV. I watched it. Why was it that all Ken Lay would do was laugh?

      Then came August of 2001, when Ken Lay was kind enough to free up the CEO chair for Jeffry Skilling. What a guy!

      You know the rest of the story, but now you know the part that we should blame on Clinton. Let the egg drip slowly down your right wing face now. You asked for it.

    7. Re:Yes, he will. by velociraptor · · Score: 1

      Um, try the esteemed Thomas White.

      And the "Energy Task Force" didn't get any input from Enron ?
      (Well, Dick Cheney's not letting anyone know who they talked to, so we don't know).

      And FERC's slow reaction to Enron gouging of democratic California was, um, co-incidental ?

      Disclaimer: I pay US taxes but cannot vote, so corrupt government bugs me.

    8. Re:Yes, he will. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If it makes you feel any better, voting doesn't help. If you make little enough money to still have to pay tax, you obviously can't afford to buy enough votes to get anything useful done.

      So you're more or less in the same boat as the rest of us. Welcome aboard, serf!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Yes, he will. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yup, he claimed that he was sending troops into Iraq to find some WMD's that might be used to kill someone. Instead he just kicked out a dictator who was responsible for the murder and execution of thousands of his own people. Yup, Bush sure is evil.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Yes, he will. by smagruder · · Score: 1

      And people don't talk any longer about the pardons Bush Sr. gave to pretty shady individuals either. (I am an Independent -- that is, one who does his own thinking)

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    11. Re:Yes, he will. by smagruder · · Score: 1

      You're right. If Bush is impeached for lying, the American people will get two a**holes brought down for the price of one.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    12. Re:Yes, he will. by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1
      Who from Enron did Bush appoint to his cabinet? I was not aware he appointed anyone from Enron to his cabinet, and I am not aware of the Bush Administration influencing anything w/regards the Enron case.

      Thomas White, Secretary of the Army, is a former Enron executive. However "Kenny Boy" had a lot more influence than just that.

      Clinton gave pardons to some pretty shady individuals. Do you take issue with Clinton for that? I hope so, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

      Yes, I'd much rather that Clinton only pardoned people who weren't convicted criminals! Maybe he could have pardoned little girls and cute puppy dogs instead. ( I think we have new 2003 nomination for "Unclear on the Concept". )

    13. Re:Yes, he will. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Clinton threw cruise missiles around when his legal problems over lying threatened him politically. If that doesn't turn your blood cold, I don't know what would.

    14. Re:Yes, he will. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      1. The secretary of the Army is not a cabinet post.
      2. The Energy Task Force getting input from Enron (at the time the largest energy company in the US) would be normal. Who should they talk to, Ronald McDonald?
      3. Republicans are allergic to price controls period and have been since Nixon so publicly proved that they're a really bad idea. You don't need to bribe a politician to do what he would already do without bribing.

      Finally, corrupt government bugs me too but you need to differentiate between corruption and influence.

    15. Re:Yes, he will. by jimsum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bush is evil because he chose the most expensive and damaging possible solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein. He justified taking this step rather than looking for a better solution because he claimed Iraq was a clear and immediate danger, about the only legal justification for an unprovoked attack. It turns out, as most critics claimed, that Iraq was not an immediate danger; and the latest news is that it is likely that Bush knew it at the time. Bush didn't qualify his statements then, didnâ(TM)t allow anyone independent to see his evidence and make an independent judgment (supposedly for national security reasons), and even now he is claiming the WMD are sure to be found. He asked us to believe his unsupported accusations, and months later, the evidence that was so clear then is not good enough to help find the WMD now.

      Clinton supposedly got impeached for lying, not for what he did. Why shouldn't Bush pay the same price for lying, even if you approve of the outcome? I'd certainly say the stakes were higher in Bush's case.

      --
      -- Pot is safer than Beer
    16. Re:Yes, he will. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      What alternative universe are you posting from? Bush didn't have legal troubles that were affecting him politically. He was riding high in the polls and continues to do so.

    17. Re:Yes, he will. by velociraptor · · Score: 1

      1. Oops. I was forgetting the subtle differences in the rankings of high ranking government officials.

      2. Um...was Enron at the time a larger energy company than Exxon Mobil ? And anyway, I don't know if they talked to Ronald McDonald - Dickey C won't tell us.

      3. Interesting. Define price controls. Politicians of all spectrums fix prices...it's just as far as I can see the term "price control" is a political no-no in the USA. E.g. the minimum wage and steel and farm tarriffs are effectively price controls, but are not called that.

      Sorry...from my point of view, if money influences politics it's corruption. Decisions should be made on their merits, not on who pays for the best access to politicians.

    18. Re:Yes, he will. by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      What solution? Please tell me what other solution would have rid Iraq of Saddam, because that is what was needed in Iraq to stop the murdering/torture/oppression of the Iraqi people.

      Why didn't the U.N. step in? Why did the U.N. let Iraq kick the weapons inspectors out several years ago? Why were France and Russia illegally doing business with Saddam?

      Look, if Bush was being dishonest about the reasons for war, that pisses me right off. It's not a sure thing that he was, as some would have you believe, but it's very possible. But the fact of the matter is that Saddam was a murderer and the Iraqi people are better off without him. Just ask any Iraqi refugee anywhere what they think. Or for that matter, ask any Iraqi period that isn't connected to the Baath party.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    19. Re:Yes, he will. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Nobody who plays an active role in international trade disputes (like the US or most other 1st world nations) is wholly clean. Yes, the steel tariffs suck and are a violation of principle. They are, however, not quite the same as the wage and price controls enacted by Richard "everyone's a Keynesian now" Nixon. The steel tariffs, specifically were meant more as an act of economic punishment for local subsidies in other countries' steel industry rather than some sort of philosophically consistent idea that controlling prices is a good thing.

      One other thing, I think Thomas White got fired recently. Rumsfeld had long clashes with White and other Army leadership over a host of issues, most openly over the Crusader artillery system. You may have to pick a new whipping boy.

    20. Re:Yes, he will. by JJahn · · Score: 1

      Wow, by that logic, lets release ALL of the criminals in the prisons today. Since their all criminals, it won't take them long to get arrested again, right?

    21. Re:Yes, he will. by jimsum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that you may be right that war was the only solution to get rid of Saddam, I just don't agree that the time to do it was necessarily now. Saddam was bad, but while the world is distracted by Iraq, there are worse disasters going on in Zimbabwe and Congo. Was it really necessary to go after Saddam right now? Wasn't he being contained by sanctions and weapons inspectors? It looks like the inspectors did just as good a job as the military is now, and there are absolutely no restrictions on the current inspections.

      That is the crux of the matter for me, and you can judge for yourself whether it matters. I think Bush had his priorities screwed up by going after Saddam first. His justification for going after Saddam appears to be much less compelling than he claimed. I think he was lying to influence opinion about the decision of when to go to war; and also exaggerated the necessity.

      And incidentally, Iraqi refugees are going to be a lot less concerned about the destruction of Iraq than its inhabitants, and might just judge the costs of the war differently than someone who had to live through it.

      --
      -- Pot is safer than Beer
    22. Re:Yes, he will. by tantrum · · Score: 1

      I thought that Bush has worked pretty hard his entire time as president.

      Have you forgotten that some of his shady business from before he entered politics? Or the fact that some of the big companies that went bankrupt (f.i Enron) was both his main contributors and were actually hired as his economic advisors?

      I'm not from the US, but it seems like Bush is extremely well protected by his marketing team, constantly sending out propaghanda.

      War on Terrorism... like the war on drugs worked out just fine...

      However what on earth has this to do with microsoft, again? Oh. I don't think this Bushman will do very much about microsoft. I guess he'll do anything to help "hard working americans" like BG.

      It is actually rather amusing sitting in Europe and reading about all the strange stuff that goes on in the US, seems like your personal freedom is shrinking fast. Echelon, DMCA, extreme view of intellectual property etc.

      Tor Erik (not trying to troll)

    23. Re:Yes, he will. by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1

      "How about we just all agree that both Bush and Clinton are tossers."

      Clinton wasn't a tosser, he had a female aid to take care of that.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    24. Re:Yes, he will. by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      Ah. So it's all George Bush's fault, isn't it? Because George Bush was the one who deregulated California's electric power industry, and got Bill Clinton to appoint his right wing buddies to the FERC.

      Trying to blame this one on the Republicans is silly. The deregulation bill passed the California legislature by an overwhelming majority of both parties. Both the right and the left fell asleep at the switch, and to say that Enron is a bunch of Bush cronies completely ignores the very close ties that Enron had with the Clinton administration and the millions that Enron gave to Democratic Party candidates and to the Democratic National Committee.

      This was a completely non-partisan screw-over and a complete failure of government. If you want to learn how to prevent this from happening again, you have to take off your liberal/conservative blinders and examine the truth, rather than just casting blame in the direction of those you oppose.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    25. Re:Yes, he will. by kubrick · · Score: 1

      If we're going for the human rights argument, I'm really looking forward to US-enforced regime change in Burma, North Korea, China, Zimbabwe and Indonesia, to pick just a few.

      Maybe while they're at it they could also meet their obligations under the Geneva Convention to the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    26. Re:Yes, he will. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Um, war on drugs has been a constant of US policy on a bipartisan basis for decades. It's foolish to describe lont-term bipartisan policy as a political distraction to legal troubles. It just doesn't fit.

      As for the War on Terror being a distraction, I was on the observation deck of the WTC a few days before they collapsed. I'll always regret passing on those cheesy tourist photos. A few days slippage on my family vacation schedule or a speedup on Al Queda's and I would have been dead, along with my wife, two kids, and a cousin. That's no distraction, that was an act of war as clear as the Barbary pirates.

      Unless you've got some grotesque view that Al Queda is a Republican plot (proof please) STFU.

      As for Bush/Republicans, the people fighting against Microsoft decided to hype the anti-trust angle (Democrat friendly) and play down the fraud angle. In retrospect, I think that was a mistake. Compare Arthur Anderson to MS. Who is in a better position today, the company that got nailed on Republican friendly grounds (corporate fraud, Anderson) or Democrat friendly grounds (anti-trust, Microsoft)?

    27. Re:Yes, he will. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Let's say you're right. Bill Clinton didn't start flailing about with cruise missiles until strategically placed moments when they would do some good in distracting attention, ie on testimony days. Whatever the legal status of the Bush cabinet there's been no major investigation and no need for a distraction because you're either full of it or people just don't care. Thus the idea falls upon the problem of practicality. There was no investigation, there was no need to distract, firing off the military option too early ruins it for later when you might need it more.

      This idea is just idiotic.

    28. Re:Yes, he will. by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "Instead he just kicked out a dictator who was responsible for the murder and execution of thousands of his own people."

      Saddam has been killing people for years now. Reagan gave him chemical weapons. Buch could have taken him down at any time if that was his reason. How come you, reagan, bush sr, dick chener, donald rumsfeld and all the rest of the republican dunderheads never said anything about saddam killing people while it was actually happening. Did you just yesterday hear from god that killing people was wrong?

      Go read some history. After saddam gassed teh kurds the UN drafted a resolution to condemn him. DO you know what happened? Reagan, rumsfeld, cheney blocked it.

      Go get a conscience mutherfucker. You should have been joining the "liberal" human rights advocates who were constantly harping about saddams mass murders when that shit was going on.

      "Yup, Bush sure is evil."

      I don't think anybody would argue with that.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    29. Re:Yes, he will. by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "Why didn't the U.N. step in?"

      They tried to. UN is a useless organization and that was made obvious when it could not stop a stronger country from invading and occupying a weaker one.

      "Why did the U.N. let Iraq kick the weapons inspectors out several years ago?"

      See above. Without an enforcement arm it could do nothing. At the time US was an ally of iraq.

      " Why were France and Russia illegally doing business with Saddam?"

      Because the sanctions themselves were illegal and immoral. The sanctions were starving millions of people and causing them untold suffering. In fact a combination of the sanctions and depleted uranium weapons used by the US killed more people then saddam did.

      "Look, if Bush was being dishonest about the reasons for war, that pisses me right off."

      No it does not. You are lying. He was lying and you now know it. It does not piss you off because you are defending him and not calling for his impeachment. Bill Clinton lied about his cock and got impeached why the double standard?

      "It's not a sure thing that he was, as some would have you believe"

      How much more prrof do you need? He is now backtracking. Denying things he said and talking about "programs" rather then the weapons themselves. He was very specific, he claimed imminent danger to the US, he talked about locations and amounts and they were all lies.

      " But the fact of the matter is that Saddam was a murderer and the Iraqi people are better off without him."

      Besides the point. GW never said his reason for invading iraq was because saddam is a bad guy. GW never complained about saddam when saddam was gassing the kurds, slaugtering iraqis, killing the shiites. Now that I think about it you were not either, neither was cheney, rumsfeld or colin powell. This shit has been going on for decades and not a peep from the likes of you. All of a sudden you wake up with a conscience? All of a sudden you are concerned about the iraqi people? What did you say about all those human rights organizations that were condeming saddam for decades? Did you call them names? did you give them money?

      People like you make me sick. You have no morals or conscience. You would sit idly by for decades while mass murders and torture are going on but when it suits your needs all of a sudden you are bleeding heart liberal.

      Hey since you now have a conscience and are concerned about dark skinned people all of a sudden how about we start invading half of africa, north korea, china, tibet, palestine and all the other countries where people are starving and being tortured and killed.

      Did you know that over two thirds of the people in occupied terratories are living below poverty? That's over two million people living on less then $2.15 per day. When is the US army going to invade and free them by kicking out the israeli army?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    30. Re:Yes, he will. by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Could you please tell me which speech of hitlers you were paraphrasing? I want to read it in the original german.

      Thanks.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    31. Re:Yes, he will. by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      Fuck you, you are so fucking deluded it is simply unbelievable. You are making so many false assumptions about ME that I refuse to entertain you with a rebuttal. You think I don't care about suffering people? You think I'm lying? You're totally wrong. Go fuck yourself.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    32. Re:Yes, he will. by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      My favorite was Limbaugh and other gasbags (also a couple of congressmen, if I recall correctly) liked to blame Enron, et al., on Clinton, and not because if any lack of government oversight. With a straight face (which I could never muster) they said that all the dirty CEOs acted that way because of Clinton's social behavior. Those poor innocent CEOs (and staunch conservatives) apparently (they claim) were using Clinton as a role model and if Clinton could act bad, then so could they.

      lol I haven't ever actually heard that argument from then... but rather than being disappointed in that kind of convoluted twisting of logic, I'd be more disappointed at anyone not realizing they've got a sound theory and are still so obsessed with Clinton that they're automatically drawn to using him as an example... I'd be really interested in any links you could point me to.

      There's truth to the statement that if bad behavior isn't punished or corrected it can then be seen as "acceptable behavior"... if a law (or rule) isn't enforced, it loses it's meaning. IE, if you aren't punished for lying in a courtroom, there's no real reason for a lot of people to tell the truth and the effectiveness of the courts goes lower than it already is. If you aren't punished for Enron's behavior (and massively) it eventually becomes accepted...

      The tragedy of the Clinton case is three fold: he was asked questions that were none of the courts' business, the investigation became a chase on Clinton instead of the principles of the courts, and he decided to lie (or mislead) the questions instead of just not answering.

      IE, I'm not a Clinton fan, but for both his sake and the countries I wish he had bucked up and just chosen not to answer. At the worst he could have been held in contempt, and somehow I think him being held in contempt, right? And somehow I think that would have played out a hell of a lot better in public opinion in the long run versus what came after.

    33. Re:Yes, he will. by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      Wasn't he being contained by sanctions

      No. As you may have noticed, Iraq was full of illegally imported weapons and assorted military gear from France/Russia/Germany/whatnot, in direct violation of the UN sanctions.

      and weapons inspectors?

      Good job they did finding those mobile chemical labs and those long-range missiles that were fired at Kuwait City. Oh wait...

      People keep yelling that no WMDs were found in Iraq. I have three problems with this.

      1. Those mobile chemical labs are not WMDs, but they are a smoking gun.
      2. Saddam Hussein's regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds. As I recall, entire villages were wiped out. Unless I am mistaken, those qualify as WMDs.
      3. Those long-range missiles they fired at Kuwait City are not necessarily WMDs, but they are still illegal and very dangerous. Imagine if Saddam suddenly fired a few of those missiles tipped with the aforementioned chemicals at Kuwait City? Without our Patriot Missiles covering their asses they'd all be dead and Kuwait would be a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of Baath, Inc.
      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    34. Re:Yes, he will. by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      depleted uranium weapons used by the US killed more people then saddam did.

      The actual danger posed by depleted uranium rounds is very much subject to debate. Anyway, the US is using explosive-tipped tungsten rounds now, if I recall correctly. These are more expensive than depleted uranium, but they also don't have the not-fully-understood ecological impact of depleted uranium, which is probably why they were chosen.

      When is the US army going to invade and free them by kicking out the israeli army?

      #include <disclaimers/ianai.h> /* I Am Not An Israeli */
      #include <disclaimers/ianar.h> /* I Am Not A Republican */

      The Palestinians sit by and happily tolerate terrorist groups like Hamas in their midst, and then yell when the Israeli military tries to protect its citizens. Maybe if they stopped being filthy hypocrites and served up justice to these filthy terrorist scum bags, Israel wouldn't try to do it for them.

      Were it not for your blatantly selective amnesia, you would recall that Israel made a gesture of good faith by removing its army from Palestinian territory (IIRC). Their reward for this action? A suicide bomber (from Hamas, IIRC) killing a bunch of innocent Israeli civilians. That's Palestinian good faith for you.

      The Palestinians do not desire peace or freedom. They desire the complete annihilation of the country of Israel and every last one of its citizens, and they are willing to suffer their own complete annihilation in the process if that's what it takes.

      They do not deserve US intervention. What they deserve is a few tactical nukes dropped on them, Hiroshima style. Then there won't be enough of the bastards left alive to carry out more suicide attacks.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

    35. Re:Yes, he will. by alexo · · Score: 1

      > Bush didn't qualify his statements then, didnâ(TM)t allow anyone independent to see his evidence and make an independent judgment (supposedly for national security reasons), and even now he is claiming the WMD are sure to be found. He asked us to believe his unsupported accusations, and months later, the evidence that was so clear then is not good enough to help find the WMD now.

      Now where did I hear that before?

  30. Samba by barcodez · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How does this effect reverse engineering projects such as Samba (smb) and Gaim (MSN)? Is it free if you can figure it out using a packet sniffer?

    --

    ----
    1. Re:Samba by Vip · · Score: 1

      Won't reverse engineering like this be outlawed by the DMCA?

      Use a packet sniffer, go to jail. Sounds like a
      pretty good protection scheme to me.

      Vip

    2. Re:Samba by gmkeegan · · Score: 1

      Except that they learned their lesson on those protocols. Going forward, everything will be encrypted to make packet sniffing for reverse-engineering nigh impossible. Nevermind that decrypting the packets to reverse-engineer the protocol would violate the DMCA and get whoever was involved litigated into oblivion.

      However... What M$ didn't learn is that the internet grew as much as it did because of robust, efficient and OPEN protocols like TCP/IP. There were other protocols, to be sure, but most of them have fallen by the wayside. The best thing that the open source community can do is provide equal or better functionality and performance using open protocols and make implementations available on the widest possible variety of platforms (yes, including Windows.)

      "There once was a man from Poughkipsie..."

  31. Pro-monopoly president? No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "M$ know that with the massively pro-business pro-monopoly president "

    We don't have one. Perhaps you are thinking of the very misleading hype about "media concentration"?

    Did you know that if Clear Channel doubled the number of stations it now holds, it would have less than 20% of radio stations.

    "Oh hang on its only George Bush who lives in a 1950s "Wonderful Life" style world."

    Erm, he's moving us away from eras like the 50s when taxes were extremely high.

    1. Re:Pro-monopoly president? No by bludstone · · Score: 1

      Did you know that if Clear Channel doubled the number of stations it now holds, it would have less than 20% of radio stations. ...And about 90% of the listening public. Clear Channel pretty much ignores small towns, they focus on big cities where the money and population is concentrated.

      --

      no .sig
    2. Re:Pro-monopoly president? No by MosesJones · · Score: 1


      In the 1950s the population contributed less taxes than business. Today businesses contribute massively less in comparison with the people.

      If you think taxes are really lower you are missing a clue.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    3. Re:Pro-monopoly president? No by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That's why I reget make Senators popularly elected, originaly they were appointed by each states governor's to represent the state's governament who was popularly elected; more akin to being an ambassitor to the UN now.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:Pro-monopoly president? No by paitre · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIRC, Senators were elected by the legislatures of each state.
      But yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it, the Senate was to counter the ability of the populace to fuck everyone over and vice versa. It was, in and of itself, a check on legislative power.

      Now, there really isn't a check at all :\

  32. To the sarcasm challenged... by jkrise · · Score: 1

    "$100.000 is not reasonable, it's extortion"

    I was just quoting the MS party line there. Would you actually pay a 100 grand to read a billion lines of junk?

    Likewise on non-discriminatory.

    You can never go broke underestimating American intelligence.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  33. DOJ Scared? by SamBC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is mentioned in the article, and in some comments before mine, that the DOJ seems to be scared of Microsoft. Indeed, the behaviour even seems to suggest it - they are behaving very trepidatiously, despite their obvious power within the US.

    My question is, why are they scared? What have they to be scared of?

    1. Re:DOJ Scared? by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Politics.

      The current administraton has little interest in pursuing MS. The DOJ is headed by the Attourney General, who is a political appointee of the president. You do something that pisses off the administration -- such as being overly aggressive toward a large employer in a down economy -- you're going to find yourself being one of the people looking for work. And whatever casework you did will be quietly filed until such a time as it can be shredded.

      Not that this would be much different under a Democrat administration (what, you don't remember people complaining about the DOJ pursuing MS under Clinton/Reno because they are such a big employer? Go read some older news coverage...) -- the fact is, prosecuting large employers (corporations) when there's relatively high unemployment, particularly in the sector the company is involved in, is a bad political move. The company will complain to the media, and your political opponents, regardless of color or stripe, will jump on it and harp about how you're destroying the economy.

    2. Re:DOJ Scared? by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1

      More likely, they're not interested in enforcing the agreement, and doing the bare minimum to make it look like they give a fig.

      Peace be with you,
      -jimbo

    3. Re:DOJ Scared? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      They're not scared. It's just that the Bush administration has a policy of leaving MS continue their business practises as they wish, hoping that this will somehow help the economy.

    4. Re:DOJ Scared? by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at it this way... The DOJ consists mostly of working people just trying to do their jobs. Every 4 or 8 years or so, their entire upper management structure changes, and so does the focus of the organization. The workers generally survive the administration, but they have to adapt.

      Now apply that to the antitrust division. Under the current administration, they basically don't have a job, except to put up the appearances of doing a job. They have to draw the fine line between sufficient appearance with no effective action. Furthermore, the job they can't do now will come back to haunt them the next time the political winds blow the other direction.

      No wonder they're scared. Their job is to not do their job, but make it look like they are. They can't win, merely hold out.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:DOJ Scared? by praedor · · Score: 1

      They're not scared. The reason they are weak and ineffective can be summed up in one word: Bush. The Bushies don't believe it is possible for a monopoly to be bad. They, in fact, believe that ANYTHING a company does, regardless, is A-OK so long as it makes money for CEOs and other rich folk. Anything that threatens money, no matter how ill-begotten that money is, is to be viewed as bad.


      The DOJ can't and wont do squat because it is unthinkable to the Bush Admin to do ANYTHING against ANY company if it can, in any possible way, avoid doing anything. It's almost genetic and beyond the control of Bush and the Republicans.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    6. Re:DOJ Scared? by clambake · · Score: 1

      My question is, why are they scared? What have they to be scared of?

      Easy answer:

      New Microsoft Headquarters Grand Opening -- Vorlatik, Estonia.

      In other words, they could pick up and leave and drag thier $100 billion dollar enterprise with them.

  34. He will have to invade Syria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    He will have to invade and liberate Syria in order to find a few of these.

  35. Re:Algo. for a big corporation by NeB_Zero · · Score: 1

    More like...

    [1] Do what you like, flout all laws, profit. Laws are for others.

    [2] If they sue you, get a friendly government.

    [3] If you are likely to lose, settle, the settlement being "Agree to obey laws in future".

    [4] Profit! (Repeat if desired.)

  36. Blech - yet another legal tech story (YALTS) by zptdooda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ⦠or rather same old legal-tech story (SOLTS)

    How come so many of the tech stories nowadays include the words:
    court, settlement, legal .

    Getting tired of the misbehaviour and squabbling frankly.

    All right letâ(TM)s see:

    Loophole alert: âoeOne unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license some of the code â¦â

    So thereâ(TM)s a disagreement on interpreting the scope of a term of the settlement. Just great.

    ⦠and now the second page of the storyâ(TM)s Slashdotted - prolly donâ(TM)t want to see it anyways â" ah, here it isâ¦

    âMicrosoft requires companies that license the protocols to be audited -- at their own expense, by a third-party auditor selected by Microsoftâ

    Then it isnâ(TM)t strictly third party, is it? Sort of more 1.3rd party than third party.

    ⦠and then theyâ(TM)re using a reverse version of SCOâ(TM)s NDA tactic, allowing them to potentially receive more information than they need in spirit. Did they learn this play from the same coach?

    Howâ(TM)s the tail of this disagreement ever going to be chopped for good?

    --
    Esteem isn't a zero sum game
  37. Why are so many people bitching about this?... by alchemist68 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the enemy in a war (legal or otherwise) is not defeated on every front, it will come back to fight again in the future. This is an ingrained law in our survival instincts. It's all about obtain resources to ensure survival. It's also a component or the very seat of primate social dynamics and POLITICS. The Borg undefeated, will regroup and launch another attack in a DIFFERENT area. Has Star Trek taught us nothing? Defeating the Borg requires implanting a fractal virus in their neural net, like this hasn't been tried before and would not be difficult to do again with its rampant security holes. People, seriously, to beat M$ is going to require a coordinated strategy on multiple fronts from negative advertising, publishing the truth about its business tactics, translating legalese of the EULA into common laymen's terms, word of mouth, and absolute bias towards other alternatives (Linux, Lindows, Mac OS X, etc...). This requires pushing hard the alternatives showing clear examples (demos) that are more cost efficient than M$ bugware.

    1. Re:Why are so many people bitching about this?... by pubjames · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the enemy in a war (legal or otherwise) is not defeated on every front, it will come back to fight again in the future. This is an ingrained law in our survival instincts. It's all about obtain resources to ensure survival. It's also a component or the very seat of primate social dynamics and POLITICS. The Borg undefeated, will regroup and launch another attack in a DIFFERENT area. Has Star Trek taught us nothing?

      You are so right!!! Why can't people understand that??!? It's seems like it's only you and me that get it!! I hate having to hide all the time! And the corpses under the floor and in the garden are really starting to smell!! If only people understood that I had to kill them!! Tehy were my enemies!!! They had to be defeated completely!! I'm glad you seem to understand..!

    2. Re:Why are so many people bitching about this?... by blancolioni · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slashdot must be the only place in the world where proof by Star Trek gets rated "Insightful."

    3. Re:Why are so many people bitching about this?... by bubbha · · Score: 1

      People, seriously, to beat M$ is going to require ....

      I think to beat MS all you have to do is to have efficient distribution channels and be "cheaper."

      Being "free" we have 1/2 of the problem licked. And every time MS tries to claim they are cheaper, IS management... that just spent $25 million "upgrading"... HAS to think to themselves...yea...right...cheaper.

      Why MOZ, Open Office, latest JRE, et. al. are not part of the oem standard image is the question I would like to see answered.

      It's takes a powerful monopoly that can keep equivalent free software off of a new PC.

      --
      I want to be alone with the sandwich
  38. communication protocols? by bilbobuggins · · Score: 5, Funny

    why the hell would i pay $100,000 to look at freebsd code?

    1. Re:communication protocols? by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      well, I'm sure it re-commented.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    2. Re:communication protocols? by jdew · · Score: 1

      you mean openbsd's tcpip stack :o

  39. Appropriate purposes? by pubjames · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article:

    Microsoft requires companies that license the protocols to be audited -- at their own expense, by a third-party auditor selected by Microsoft -- to ensure that they are only using them for appropriate purposes.

    What are "appropriate purposes" when it comes to protocols?

    Auditor [pointing, exasperated] And what the hell are you using that one for?

    Company rep Oh, we keep donuts in that one.

    Auditor And that one?

    Company rep Oh, that one is forced into the green button on the air-conditioner, otherwise it keeps switching itself off.

    Auditor That one?

    Company rep Oh. Erm. Sorry. We ran out of cat litter.

    Auditor I am truly shocked at your inappropriate use of MS protocols! You'll be hearing from Bill Gates about this!

  40. No surprise... by Mipsalawishus · · Score: 1

    that the DOJ is intimidated by microshaft. What the DOJ needs someone with the scruples of a modern day Elliott Ness who will play hard ball with these people. They are obviously above the law in my opinion. When is it enough from the greedy bastards in Redmond(New Berlin) ? It's time to drag their asses back into court and really give them a good goatse treatment that's long overdue.

    1. Re:No surprise... by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      I like that

      really give them a good goatse treatment

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  41. WHAT did you expect it to WORK !!! by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1


    did anyone really , given Microsoftâ(TM)s history , really expect them to abide by any anti-trust suit. The only reason they weren't broken up is because we have a republican president who believe in free enterprise at all costs and wasn't really interested in attacking one of America's most successful corporations because of the conservative political backlash. They deserve to be broken up for there tactics just as much as standard oil , or any of the companies that the anti-trust laws were written to prevent from strangling the market. I think this is the kind of thing that the pendulum swings back and forth on. We have slowly allowed anti-trust laws to be abused and weakened by all kinds of unfair business practices. That's why corporations like Disney have so much power. One concept that has been completely ignored for years in the corporate law is the idea of a company charter. The statement about what is your company given the right to do by the government. ( it's part of your incorporation papers i believe.) they are never enforced. If they were 3M would not have been allowed to leave the Mining and Manufacture market sector and it's owners would have had to sell there assets and create a new corporation. What it should prevent is over diversification of a business. corporations should not be allowed to do everything and anything they want. If you make an operating system you should not be allowed to also make a word processor and a cell phone because they are different products and should require a different corporation to make them. I wish they would go back to this kind of law. Then again there all kinds of abuse of IP law as well , both copywriter and patent by people who are happy to entirely pervert the intent of the original laws to make more money and we have corrupt legislators and administrators who are happy to see it happen because after all if it is "good for big business" it must also be "good for the economy". The REAL problem is this. When laws become unjust the citizens stop obeying them. When the average citizen does not obey the law then the law itself is weakened and must be re-enforced by police action. The police action eventually leads to rebellion. I worry about what kind of a revelation can be had in a day and age when everything we do and say even in our homes can be monitored, but one way or another it will probably eventually come. All societies live, die and morph into another. It will happen with this one too and in the long run all this is part of that happening. Still a person likes to stay healthy as long as possible and breaking Microsoft up would help keep the U.S. a healthy society. One day some president will have the guts to do it, I hope.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:WHAT did you expect it to WORK !!! by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you don't get elected unless u are taking up the arse/ass from the corporations. Where's the money coming from.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  42. I'm shocked! by john82 · · Score: 1

    Shocked that they're violating what little they had to do under the DOJ capitula... er, agreement. Really, MS not obeying antitrust or the terms of their agreement? Remarkable. Who could have predicted this?

    Next stunner please. Anyone suing somebody new over UN*X today?

  43. Re:Wrong Story Came Up by moehoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact is that I can browse a few news sources and come up with significantly more fascinating, interesting, and topical stories than this. It is also news that Peoplesoft rejected Oracle's bid. It is actually BIGGER news than this MS junk.

    There are a good one hundred technology/business stories a day. Singling out this one is not just politically motivated, it is childish. That is my point. If you really think slashdotters are into business related technology stories, then you need to report on the big stories, not the ones that make your "competition" look bad. This is fundamental editorial ethics.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
  44. Talk About Onerous. . . by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1
    "Basically, I'd have to shoot the engineers when they came back," said one irate company executive.

    Did anything in the DOJ settlement say anything about forcing potential licensees to perform human sacrifice? You'd think with Ashcroft as Attorney General, they'd crack down on stuff like that.

    Seriously, the most galling thing about this is the intransigence of the feds. But it's not surprising: the U.S. federal government is run by a bunch of right-wing ideologues who believe the unfettered market is the answer for everything.

  45. Has Microsoft realised that... by chendo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has Microsoft realised that most people just want an OS, without all the bundled software that comes with it. The majority of Windows users probably use Winamp over WMP, use Office/OO/SO over Wordpad, Photoshop/PSP over Paint, and more importantly, Mozilla/etc over IE.

    If Microsoft removed all these obselete packages from Windows' default installation, maybe we can buy an OS cause it's an OS, not for the stuff that's in it, and maybe cut the costs, not to mention the bugs.

    --
    Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
    1. Re:Has Microsoft realised that... by KefkaFloyd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The majority of Windows users probably use Winamp over WMP, use Office/OO/SO over Wordpad, Photoshop/PSP over Paint, and more importantly, Mozilla/etc over IE.

      LOL. No. The majority of Windows users do not use Mozilla over IE. Many of them have never even heard of Mozilla. Paint is useless, and nobody uses it. I'm not even sure how many Windows users know about Wordpad. WMP is also a very popular media player - The only computers I see with Winamp these days are ones that I use, and that's not a lot.

      While I agree with your general concept, this is a nerd thing. Modern OSes need this sort of stuff just because we expect more of them.

      --

      Conglom-O: We Own You (TM).
    2. Re:Has Microsoft realised that... by Lord+Kholdan · · Score: 1

      They use Mozilla over IE?

      http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

      That little link disagrees with out. Mozilla MIGHT have 5-10% usage... IF you include people using it on a non-windows platform.

      I'd like to see you prove that IE is not the most used browser. Or that it doesn't have over 50% marketshare.

    3. Re:Has Microsoft realised that... by PeterGraves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think they will ever realize that.. mostly because for the most part I am pretty sure it's not true.
      And just look to the Linux distros for proof.. I don't see a lot of them that come as just an OS.. It's OS, X, gcc and friends, web browsers, pims, media players, etc etc etc. And all wrapped up in one nice little bundle that can be installed all at once.

      I am guessing most normal (non-geek) users of windows do use IE, why spend the time to download when you have a browser already there.. And I think a lot of geek type may as well, since soo many web sites are designed to work with IE and look like crap in Moz.
      Why go out looking for a media player if you have one that works? People new to pcs would not know about winamp unless someone told them it rocked, so why would they go looking in the first place, not to mention winamp doesn't do video..

      The long and short is, if they just sold windows without IE, Outlook Express, WMP, etc etc it would be harder to justify the cost, make microsoft apps less obvious, and make it so people had to CHOOSE to get their software instead of someone elses. Why would they want to do that??

    4. Re:Has Microsoft realised that... by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      So that's why all the Linux distros are barebones, without any of those "obsolete packages", right?

  46. There is no corporatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Open a magazine or newspaper - it's there. It's on TV. It stains the logos and smears the nerve centers of the world's biggest corporations."

    Sounds like vandalism. No one supports your view, so you force it with destructive crimes.

    "This is the mark of the people who don't approve of Bush's plan to control the world,"

    He doesn't have one.

    "who don't want countries "liberated" without UN backing"

    This is the same UN that issued antisemitic proclamations in the 1970s and presided over the massacre at Srbenica.

    "This is the mark of the people who want the Kyoto Protocol for the environment"

    Kyoto has nothing to do with the environment. It is all political.

    "who want the International Criminal Court for greater justice"

    No justice in that kangaroo court.

    "Because my country has sold its soul to corporate power,"

    It hasn't. Corporations are still overtaxed and over-regulated.

    "And because patriotism now means agreeing with the president,

    Well, that is true most of the time, since those who are anti-Bush are typically so because they hate the country and its people.

    "I pledge to do my duty . . . and take my country back."

    It is a democracy now. Do you want to take it back to being a British colony or something????

    1. Re:There is no corporatism by Cackmobile · · Score: 1, Informative

      Typical conservative view point. Making arguments that have no founding. How is the International Criminal court a Kangaroo COurt. what buckup do you have for that. (And as an Aussie I take offense that Kangaroo is used in the negative) People who hate bush are not anti-american. As an Aussie i hate the government here in Oz, spleen venting, bile spewing hatred, but I love my country more than anything and thats even mopre why I am rising up against the current system.

      I love how anything anti-Israel is anti-semetic. The UN resolutions were that Zionism (which is the official idealogy of israel) is rascist. WHich it is. One country for one people with the exclusion of others is rascist.

      How can you say Kyoto has nothing to do with the environment. Reducing emissions is all about the environment. Another one of those unbackable statements.

      No doubt you will pick up on my typos/grammar errors to slap me down and prove u are right.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    2. Re:There is no corporatism by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you are an American, a USian, you are (it appearts anyway) woefully uneducated about our own history. A prime example, probably everyone has heard of it, the boston tea party. That was a significant active protest in the middle of a boycott against the monopoly corporation called the british east indies company, that used the "government" at the time as it's muscle. Of course nowadays the regimists and the apologists would call that "terrorism", even though they claim to be proud of it, if the exact same tactics are used today they somehow become magically wrong, no matter the issue, or the importance of an issue, or the ramifictions of ignoring an issue. Well, yes, yes it was, that's why the entire deal was called the "revolutionary + war", when it finally became necessary to remove ourselves from from being FIRST warred upon "legally" by that feudal/corporate/governmental melded structure known as great britain, an imperial power known for it's blackmail and extortion rackets, simply because they thought they were big enough to always do it by force. And the reason why that happened was because the corporations back then subverted that government, and (re)created what we know call corportism, or fascism. Enough people who were being abused and extorted against finally saw it, and in nation after nation,using various techniques of protest, from extreme pacifism to extreme violence the british got kicked out, and rightly so. Took awhile but it happened, and it took all those techniques to accomplish.

      Flash forward a few centuries, it's the same deal all over again, just this time the global corporate extortioners and their mercenary muscle are more sophisticated, have a lot more technology, and use more psychological manipulative efforts to keep people literally brainwashed into being perpetual victims. It's a forced "stockholme syndrome" propaganda effort that is amazingly successful, that I will give them, they suceeded.

    3. Re:There is no corporatism by Tony · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It hasn't. Corporations are still overtaxed and over-regulated.

      By what standard?

      In 2000, the United States payed US corporations over $250 billion in corporate subsidies (or "welfare," as it is known if provided to individuals). Meanwhile, neither GE nor Microsoft payed *any* taxes in 1999, and very little in subsequent years.

      Yes, I know that 10% of the US population payed 30% of the taxes collected; but that 10% accounted for over 40% of the income! Now, with Bush's new tax breaks, the rich pay even *less* in taxes. By casting the deciding vote, Cheney earned $80k in reduced taxes this year. That's more than 90% of the population makes in regular income! ...since those who are anti-Bush are typically so because they hate the country and its people.

      Huh? What kind of rhetorical idiocy is this? I am definitely anti-Bush, as his imperialistic agenda has made the United States look like a lieing bully to the rest of the world. He has lied to the world, he has lied to the citizens of his own country, and he is quite likely leading the US into the worst recession since the great depression. His only redeeming quality is that he seems hell-bent on destroying the rest of the world, too.

      The harm he is causing the country and the world will take years to repair. The lies he has propogated for his agenda have already destroyed US credibility. (Which lies, you ask? Most of the documents presented as "proof" of Iraq's guilt have been shown to be crude forgeries, or misrepresentation of the facts.)

      Dude, face it: GW Bush is raping his own country with a large-bore artillery cleaning brush, and almost half the country is saying, "Give me more! It's not big enough!"

      I love the US. We are truly a great country, with all our flaws. And I consider it my patriotic duty to question every action of the president (and the other representatives); otherwise, how can we be sure he is not squandering that greatness on evil?

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  47. It's a "Wonderful Life" by laetus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, It's a Wonderful Life came out in 1946 directly after WWII and though had a happy ending, pretty much dealt with the shaddy side of the business world and one man's despair (and near suicide) because of it.

    It is a great movie and stands as one of the classics.

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    1. Re:It's a "Wonderful Life" by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're tellin' me there is a movie site other than IMDB?

  48. Re:Wrong Story Came Up by chendo · · Score: 1

    I'd do anything to make Microsoft look bad. :p

    Hold on, does Microsoft count as 'competition' or a monopoly? :P

    --
    Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
  49. Another Ten Years by tacocat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Iraq played with the rules for over 10 years before they got their hands slapped

    My guess is, it will be another 10 years before the US Government gets around to making a decapitating strike of "Shock and Awe" against Redmond

    Seriously though, I think it's rather obvious that the current Administration and Microsoft have come to some understanding to look the other way regarding Microsoft activities. No one will admit that, but that's what PACs are for

  50. I'm sure a lot of geeks would pay... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...particularly if the protocol provided an interface for communicating with hosts running a different OS (closed source, with totally incomprehensinle internals), and allowed for better integration than just a handshake. Particular one that would facilitate the transfer of data encoded as deoxyribose nucleic acid.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:I'm sure a lot of geeks would pay... by tuba_dude · · Score: 1

      Hold on a sec...If you can find that sort of information in an encyclopedia and all over the internet, how can those 'incomprehensible internals' be closed-source? Er...unless you actually *were* talking about computers...

      --
      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
  51. the best part... by thoolihan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is that while MS is flagrantly ignoring the DOJ settlement with our Gov't our tax dollars are also being used to promote MS in global markets. Why wasn't the removal of that support a part of the DOJ settlement?

    -t

    --
    http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
  52. My main worry by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My biggest worry isn't the "Nyah - so we'll show you our stuff as required by law but charge so much for it - nyah", but the way they've gone back to buying/threatening anybody who might compete with them.

    Take the whole Virtual PC thing. I switch from Linux to OS X on the desktop, and get all excited about Virtual PC - now for those few Windows Apps I *need* to run (like Sharkport for my PS2, Ultima VII in DOS mode - you know, the important stuff), I can have that.

    Then - Microsoft buys Connectix. OK, I say. Then RealPC announces "We're comin' back - and better!" I see light at the end of the tunnel. If RealPC can do its "direct hardware technology" right, I could even play Half-Life I (and hope that HL2 gets ported to OS X) in a Virtual Window (yes, I'm sure I'd have to grab more RAM, but it's the *potential* of the idea).

    Nope - MS is sueing them now too.

    That's the part that worries me - the buyiing/sueing of companies who even *look* like they might do something that MS wants (remember how they tried to buy Quicken, and at least that one was nixed?). At least during the DOJ trial they *tried* to act nice - but now that it's over, it back to the Bad Old Days of either buying somebody out, locking them out, or sueing them into oblivion.

    Patience, I tell myself. Someday, maybe 50 years from now when MS is just another fair player in the market, this will all be looked backed upon and laughed, like Standard Oil and AT&T. Patience.

    1. Re:My main worry by gperciva · · Score: 1

      On the subject of Ultima VII, you don't need virtualPC -- Exult supports OSX.

      http://exult.sourceforge.net/faq.php#what_platfo rm s

      Cheers,
      - Graham

    2. Re:My main worry by archen · · Score: 1

      That's the part that worries me - the buyiing/sueing of companies who even *look* like they might do something that MS wants (remember how they tried to buy Quicken, and at least that one was nixed?).

      Microsft can't stand Quicken, and if I were Quicken - I'd be more than a little worried. Microsoft bought up pretty much everyone else in that market already (Great Plains, etc) and now Quicken pretty much stands alone along with one European company (who's name escapes me at the moment). The difference with what MS has now is that the stuff is made for larger scale companies, but as they have purchased a few rudndant companies in this market, it's only a matter of taking one of their products and scaling it back. Who knows if that's even neccesary since MS is doing stuff like offering SQL server for $49 and stuff now to compete with Linux.

    3. Re:My main worry by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      Take the whole Virtual PC thing. I switch from Linux to OS X on the desktop, and get all excited about Virtual PC - now for those few Windows Apps I *need* to run (like Sharkport for my PS2, Ultima VII in DOS mode - you know, the important stuff), I can have that. Then - Microsoft buys Connectix. OK, I say. Then RealPC announces "We're comin' back - and better!" I see light at the end of the tunnel.

      I hate MS as much as the next guy, but I don't think VirtualPC is the posterchild for your argument. More than anything, the VPC situation is just, well, a bummer... but not anything clandestine. All you have to do is look at it from the companies angles:

      Connectix:

      The bottom has fallen out of their market as PC's have continued diving into commmodity pricing at jaw-dropping levels. They make awesome software, just breathtaking stuff, and have incredibly bright people there. But at one time the average low-end PC was $1.5k+, and Macs spanked PC's in speed... which meant for 1/3 to half the price you could just pickup VPC and get about 1/3 to half the speed that you'd get by simply buying a PC.

      Now Macs are pretty far behind, with the low end configs not even having caches, and for about half the price of a PC or the exact same price you get 1/3 to 1/4 of the speed you'll get from a real box. This narrows their market dramatically, as a lot of people go from having a mac with VPC to just having a mac and a pc... which means you're after the convenience users... IE, guys using it on their laptop, etc. Still a valid market, just much smaller.

      So what's connectix been doing? Using the underlying technology for VPC to go into one of the major growth markets right now... resource consolidation. Instead of having 5 older servers running 3 operating systems, have one "currently spec'd" server emulating them. The problem of course is that it's a very dynamic market, and just like Bungie, it takes money to make money. They (I don't know this for sure) were probably running low on the resources they'd need to really succeed... that or they have enough tech that they want to sell out or get an investment.

      Microsoft: ...is having real problems due getting clients to upgrade their older MS-bought tech to MS's newer stuff. There are a lot of reasons, due to price, compatibility, what have you. Same sort of situation with a lot of their client software (windows, office).

      So MS wants to move a lot of people to their new server offerings, but one of the things holding them back is that there are is a lot of entrenched stuff out there that won't run correctly on their newer system. Fine, with server speeds going up sell them a solution that will run both OS's... and even better, if they happen to have a bunch of older unix or linux stuff lying around, emulate that too. Score.

      So they're faced with a decision that any MBA knows... the cost of developing it yourself in time to market and actual $$$, and buying/licensing the tech. Connectix had great tech, and all of its core products that are worth anything are all built on the same tech... which means it probably wasn't realistic just to pick up their tech portfolio for emulation-related stuff. At the same time, Connectix wasn't big enough or diverse enough to buy one part and leave the rest...

      Nothing too clandestine there, just basic good business (and I hate some of what MS does)... VPC just isn't a big enough deal to be on their radar, which is where the bummer is. And trust me, while I don't use VPC much at all anymore (since I just bought a PC) I've been where you are, and it sucks. Most notably when Quark bought mtropolis for it's tech, and killed the project shortly thereafter... $12k in licenses down the drain after I'd been counting on having the software available and improving.

      If RealPC can do its "direct hardware technology" right, I could even play Half-Life I (and hope that HL2 gets ported to OS X) in a Virtual Window (yes, I'm sure I'd have to grab more RAM, but it'

  53. The art of war by pcwhalen · · Score: 1

    MS tactics here: do what you can to kill the competition and wait to get sued. Engage in painfully long motion practice u

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
    1. Re:The art of war by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sun Tzu would not have approved. To him the best battles were the ones not fought:

      Generally, in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this. To capture the enemy's entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.

      Microsoft's tactics of decimation and delay benefit no one. They are needlessly beligerent, and have managed to make an enemy of almost everyone. In the process they have also earned, EARNED, a reputation for shoddy product at expensive prices.

      This is no "brilliant" plan. It is the work of a thug who thinks that he can bully the entire world. News flash: the world at some point gets tired of this shit.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  54. Enron flourishes under Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    " Enron was caught on Bush's watch, dimwit. Under Bush, to date no punishment, none likely."

    So, Enron is now stronger than ever, just like Arthur Anderson. Nothing bad has happened to either of them, right?

    [FYI: you might think this is true. However, both companies have been greatly damaged. As for Ken Lay, the problem is that what he did was legal during the Clinton Administration. He could not get away with doing it now, however, thanks to reform bills that Bush signed.]

    1. Re:Enron flourishes under Bush? by li99sh79 · · Score: 1

      Reform bills Bush signed because Enron imploded, natch. Besides, in what state was Enron headquatered? Which governer was Ken Lay's best buddy? Wait for it... -sam

      --
      I was just here, where did I go?
    2. Re:Enron flourishes under Bush? by peaworth · · Score: 1

      So, Enron is now stronger than ever, just like Arthur Anderson. Nothing bad has happened to either of them, right?

      No, you are absolutely correct. Enron is demolished. But who got hurt? The rank and file took it the ass by losing their jobs and being locked out of moving their 401k's out of Enron stock. The upper management, many of whom caused the whole mess, were getting retention bonuses and golden parachutes.

      Kenneth Lay's wife was on TV saying tearfully that they were "struggling for liquidity" because all of their $35 million is assets were tied up ($8 million in stock in other companies, vacation homes in Colorado, etc.). Yeah, I really feel sorry for her.

      But just go on believing that your Shimmering White Knight that is GW Shrub personally brought them down and personally hunted down all those responsible in order to punish them.

    3. Re:Enron flourishes under Bush? by ldspartan · · Score: 1
      No, you are absolutely correct. Enron is demolished. But who got hurt? The rank and file took it the ass by losing their jobs and being locked out of moving their 401k's out of Enron stock. The upper management, many of whom caused the whole mess, were getting retention bonuses and golden parachutes.


      Okay, not defending Enron in any way here, but this whining about 401ks is bullshit. Here's what actually happened:

      - Employees had control over what was held in their personal 401k accounts, be it stocks, mutual funds, whatever.
      - Employees contribute to their 401ks on a yearly basis.
      - Enron matched the employees contribution with Enron stock, giving employees a gift of company stock. This was not required of them, it was a nice way of giving employees more money and giving them a vested interest in the performance of the company.
      - Many many many Enron employees chose to have the rest of their 401k invested in Enron stock, since until the very end it was doing amazingly well. This is a Bad Thing, because it makes the employees 401k entirely not diversified, and opens them up to tremendous risk.

      So, Enron tanks, and all these employees find their 401ks valueless. Enron's fault? Maybe, but doubtable. Stupid employees greediness' fault? Probably.

      Now, the possibly illegal thing that actually started the media coverage that blew this issue our of proportion is thus:
      Before the Enron stock tanked, Enron switched managers on their 401k. During this process, no one could modify the holdings of their 401ks, since the whole fund is in an undefined state. The problem was that this process, which usually takes a day or two, took something like 8 days which included the day Enron stock tanked. I am not a financial advisor, but to the best of my knowledge this isn't considered an illegal act.

      So yeah, the Enron thing overall was bad, but the people who lost the value of their retirement accounts made poor investment decisions, they didn't get hosed or anything.

      Again, I'm not a CFA, but in my humble opinion, being dumb / greedy / not paying attention is not something you get to complain about.
  55. Here's another questionable MS practice by zigzag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.lindows.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_arc hives.php?id=66

    "Microsoft routinely offers financial inducements to computer companies to not carry LindowsOS computers. With $40 billion in the bank, it's an easy decision for them to use a few million dollars to block Lindows.com from major retailers."

  56. Circa 2004 by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Announces New Windows System
    Key Features Include Improved Browsing Capability, World Domination


    "An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man."

    With that, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates announced the next line of popular Windows and Office software products. Called 'Forbin', it is designed to counteract effects of antitrust issues brought by the Department of Justice by engaging into extralegal activities and taking over the world.

    "We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me, is not as bad for human pride as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple. It can be a peace of plenty and content, or a peace of unburied dead: the choice is yours. Plus, it will make the World Wide Web seem faster and easier to the user."

    Justice Department officials had no immediate comment.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  57. Re:yeah... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, the invasion was to *ELIMINATE* WMD. Seems to have worked...

  58. I say *let them do it* (oooh, controversy) by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    MS has proven itself untrustworthy in word and in practice. Antitrust settlements aren't worth the paper they're printed on. No surprise. I guess this sounds like flamebait, but what is stopping an enterprising OSS from creating a better protocol?

    We all know that MS is good at copying, but poor at actually 'innovating'.

    Ironically, the reverse is usually true for OSS.

    Yes, I know that better tech doesn't always win (Beta vs VHS), but if an OSS solution is found to this problem, MS can follow or get out of the way.

    The key is to put the shoe on the other foot - force MS's compatabillity with OSS protocols, rather than the other way around. A tough road indeed, but one that we'd better get used to.

    Look at Flash (not too long;), there was tech that was released by one company and went on to become a web standard. Everyone has the flash plugin, and if they don't, they can get it easily.

    This was a tough story to write a comment to - it was like pointing up and saying, "The sky is blue! What can we do?"

    1. Re:I say *let them do it* (oooh, controversy) by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know that better tech doesn't always win (Beta vs VHS),

      I would say that being unable to record a 2 hour movie makes a recorder not better, wouldn't you?

      We need to stop these charades....
      - Beta was not better than VHS
      - McDonalds was wrong to serve coffee it knew was dangerous and had caused injuries before

      There, I have said my peace.

    2. Re:I say *let them do it* (oooh, controversy) by tshak · · Score: 1

      We all know that MS is good at copying, but poor at actually 'innovating'.

      Ironically, the reverse is usually true for OSS.



      No, OSS tries to copy, but doesn't always copy well (Read: still working on a good unix desktop. See Also: Apple for innovation in this area). I've also never seen OSS innovate beyond simple improvements to what OSS copied.

      Microsoft, on the other hand, takes an idea and figures out how to make it work for a mass market. It may not be drastic innovation but rather subtle but important improvements (eg: .NET sans cross-platform support), but in others (like DirectX) they are best-of-breed.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  59. In other news... by jmv · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mafia just won't stop their illegal activities.

  60. Re:Libertarian attitude is the most mature by doinky · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ah, that could have been written by a five-year-old.

    Those of us who worked in companies which competed with Microsoft understand that monopolies are suboptimal for capitalism. Eventually, it would get sorted out by the market; but for those of us who would rather not wait a hundred years, the government is the only available tool for the job.

  61. Republican Party Animals by pcwhalen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like oil and water, Republicans and antitrust don't mix.

    I worked in the state AG's office in the antitrust division during 3 AG's tenures. When we went from a Democrat to a Republican, we were told there were certain types of cases we were just not going to bring. Ever.

    Now I am all for the American Way and for business making a buck. It ain't Romper Room out there. The Fed is supposed to level the playing field for fair competition. I guess "fair" can be defined several diferent ways, depending on who contributes to your campaign.

    Write to those Congressmen, people. They are working on your dime.

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
    1. Re:Republican Party Animals by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Like oil and water, Republicans and antitrust don't mix.

      How can everyone forget Teddy Roosevelt so quickly? Oh yeah, that was back in the day before Republicans became Democrats.

    2. Re:Republican Party Animals by dameron · · Score: 1

      Great post. Well thought out.

      Too bad the Republicans reading it never got past:

      "Like oil......."

      They seem to get stuck on that word for some reason...

      -dameron

    3. Re:Republican Party Animals by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      You can make a pretty good case against MS strictly on fraud statutes and conspiracy charges. At massive levels over so many years, you could even get RICO involved, perhaps criminal RICO.

      Anti-trust is just the weapon that Democrats chose *because they like anti-trust*, they felt that there was a growing intellectual threat to anti-trust law sprouting in academia, and they controlled the Federal government at the time.

      If Republicans had run the government at the time, the charges would likely have bee a criminal fraud case with a vast conspiracy by a major Democrat contributing corporation (MS before the anti-trust stick was used against them) they might have actually come to a better conclusion, MS legally unfettered but with a new top echelon because the previous group was in club Fed doing 5-10. Wanna bet which route would result in greater change in MS corporate business practices?

      Anti-trust doesn't seem to be working out all that well in reality. Perhaps the corporate fraud angle would yield better results.

    4. Re:Republican Party Animals by druske · · Score: 1
      Write to those Congressmen, people. They are working on your dime.
      Hey, Mister Senator, yoohoo, ignore Microsoft's huge pile of money and I'll give you... a dime!
    5. Re:Republican Party Animals by namespan · · Score: 1

      How can everyone forget Teddy Roosevelt so quickly? Oh yeah, that was back in the day before Republicans became Democrats.

      TR, in addition to being wary of corporate power and corruption and using the big anti-trust stick, was also a noted conservationist (I'd say "environmentalist", but that word has been co-opted in the same way that "liberal" has by the right and "homophobe" has by the left). If anything, Republicans have moved farther "right" with regard to these value.

      Of course, you might mean the democratic party of another time... and how the democratic party has changed over the years is an interesting subject as well...

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  62. Bush will fix the problem! by MongooseCN · · Score: 1

    The bush administration should do something about breaking up monopolies, but I think they are too busy falling off Segways at the moment.

  63. Re: yeah... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


    > No, the invasion was to *ELIMINATE* WMD. Seems to have worked...

    Yes, and they also got rid of all the aliens, bigfoots, and unicorns in Iraq.

    Now they're going to install democracy and ensure everyone an education, a job, and good healthcare, just like here at home.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  64. Has Star Trek taught us nothing? by burgburgburg · · Score: 1
    I am KIROK!!!!!!!!!!

    He's dead, Jim.

    The engines can't take it.

    KHANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

    What does ...God ...need with a...starship?

    (And for you TNG'ers) Make it so.

  65. Is this REALLY so wrong? by realmolo · · Score: 1

    Their licensing terms, according to the article, while agressive, are pretty much in-line with standard industry practice. So...who cares? If these companies don't want to pay the licensing fees, or agree to the licensing terms, then fuck them. They can reverse-engineer the shit. Isn't this the whole POINT of licensing agreements? To make a bunch of money off of companies that for whatever reason, don't want to be bothered with figuring out their own solution to the problem?

  66. Reminds me of a scene in "Casablanca" by k98sven · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rick Blaine: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

    Police Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

    [A croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

    Police Captain Renault: [sotto voice] Oh, thank you very much.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a scene in "Casablanca" by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  67. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I agree it does look a little like the government isn't into really sorting Microsoft out. But then again, the priorities are rather different. You and I may care about these libertarian issues of control of information, patents, open source or whatever. I'd assume government primarily cares about the economy. Big business always gets a let call until their bending of the rules really start to hurt the economy more than it benefits it(thats the difference with say, Enron). Capitalism seems to work but its never going to be fair.

  68. they aren't by zogger · · Score: 1

    No, enron and whatnot are not being "cleaned up" in the bush crime cabal family, all they are doing is recovering from exposure and learning how to keep crimes more covered up. Public servant cheney won't even release the details of his bribery and blackmail sessions with energy industry insiders to congress. Now all that is happening is that anything remotely embarassing gets slapped with a national security sticker, and anyone asking about them is labeled a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser. They've raised the ante even above the clinton cartels efforts. They won't even "allow" any sort of *credible* investigations into their piece de resistance, the 9-11 attacks. They are hiding a lot of involvement and foreknowledge there. It was a reichstagg fire event, and millions of us out here can see that, and aren't faked out by political "party" partisan rhetoric or their phony dumbed down press releases or their controlled script infomercials being passed off as press conferences.

    Sorry friend, but this is a junta, a dictatorship, and they are global monopolist-leaning corporatists, merging international industry completely with governmental dictatorial powers as fast as they can. As were warned against-in detail, and specifically- by previous rather intelligent and connected personalities, like george washing and dwight eisenhower. Those gents saw the dangers clearly, we were warned to not let it happen, but we did unfortunately, and the bush family crime cartel and his group of gangster semi underlings are exact examples of what we were warned against.

    To say they are merely chronic serial liars is an understatement. The clintonistas were clueless and incompetent hedonists,sub section crooks, the bushbots are dangerous gangsters, sub section completely insane megalomaniacs. The only things they are "cleaning up" are bloody footprints and fingerprints, and scurrying around picking up pieces of stolen loot they dropped.

    --zogger

    1. Re:they aren't by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I think you need to start taking your meds again.

    2. Re:they aren't by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      The funniest claim is the one about the energy papers - if they had the government "Lock , stock, and barrel" then why did they fold?

      LOL - Sometimes the ignorance of folks astounds me. Not referring to you specifically - but to the folks that are passionate that something was done wrong.

      If something had been done "Wrong" the company wouldn't of had to fold.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  69. Typical conservative view point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    " Typical conservative view point"

    Yes, in defense of rights for people, not governments.

    "Making arguments that have no founding."

    They all are founded in fact.

    "How is the International Criminal court a Kangaroo COurt"

    Because it has sloppy standards, and is easily used for show trials. There are a bunch of Vichy's in France who want to use it in an antisemitic fashion agaisnt Ariel Sharon.

    "(And as an Aussie I take offense that Kangaroo is used in the negative)"

    Why don't you go put another prawn on the Barbie.

    "I love how anything anti-Israel is anti-semetic"

    Why do you love it? It is a fact, and it is disappointing. The common denominator of hatred of Israelis is hatred of Jewish people.

    "The UN resolutions were that Zionism (which is the official idealogy of israel) is rascist."

    If anything is racist, it is this resolution. It was put in place when the UN was led by an actual card-carrying Nazi. It was pushed by a number of nations that had laws to punish people for being Jewish (Arab states, USSR, etc). Zionism was a necessary reaction to prevalent policies.

    "How can you say Kyoto has nothing to do with the environment. Reducing emissions is all about the environment."

    There is no evidence that these emissions affect climate one way or another. The Kyoto accords are all political: notice how they let China get away with increased "greenhouse emissions". If it had anything to do with the environment (making that assumption), it would reduce the emissions for everyone.

    "No doubt you will pick up on my typos/grammar errors to slap me down and prove u are right."

    No, I deal in meaningful facts. I almost corrected the typos in the "quotations", but was typing too fast to bother.

    1. Re: Typical conservative view point by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      Firstly developing countries are exempt from Kyoto as it would be unfair for us to restrict them.
      Ariel Sharon IS a war criminal. It has nothing todo with anti-semetics. but to balance the debate there are criminals on the other side too.

      I don't know how u can say there is no evidence that emissions affect climate change. There are is so much evidence. Unless u listen to corporate sponsored scientists (remember the 'Sceptical Environmentalist' all the conservatives were championing-a fraud) Besides don't you at least want to get rid of the smog cloud that hangs over most modern cities.

      USSR punished people of all religions. THey were anti-religious.

      The criminal court is based on the war crimes tribunal now in the Hague. Bugger it,, I am not even going to bother.

      At least you called it a prawn not a shrimp!

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  70. I got some! by siskbc · · Score: 4, Funny
    Let's see here....I have some wood and a blanket for smoke signals. I have a mirror, that might work when it's sunny. I also have a big steel barrel I can bang Morse code on real loud. Oh, and none of them are standards compliant - the wood is wet, the blanket is moth-eaten, the mirror is broken, and I don't actually know Morse code.

    I think that's all. Want your $50k back?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  71. Re:Wrong Story Came Up by swillden · · Score: 1

    If you really think slashdotters are into business related technology stories, then you need to report on the big stories, not the ones that make your "competition" look bad. This is fundamental editorial ethics.

    You're new here, aren't you?

    Repeat to yourself, 1000 times: "Slashdot is not a news site, it's a nerd chatboard".

    Now are you enlightened?

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  72. Ew by mobileskimo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The closest I got to punch cards was fortran. I can only imagine. Remembering to put characters on the 7th column was annoying enough.

    I think the earliest recollection I have is some form of BASIC on an Atari800 which predated my programming (out of order) experience on a PET.

    --
    "Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
  73. Because of the Benjamins by pcwhalen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.microsoft.com/careers/search/details.as px?JobID=b0e72d5b-89f2-41ed-bb86-36928c903514

    MS hires bigtime for its legal department. It has a budget bigger than the DOJ and more experienced lawyers. Look at http://www.idg.net/english/crd_gates_888634.html

    Bill "Nuke 'Em" Neukom built a 600 lawyer in-house team for MS. There are 9,000 lawyers in the DOJ. According to the 2003 Budget at http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2003summary/html/atr.htm

    The DOJ spent 100,000,000 on ALL cartel activity, not just MS.

    The DOJ is outgunned.

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
  74. Uhh, what's that beeping? by gosand · · Score: 1
    Ah stuff it, you whiny bastard. They are a *convicted* monopolist. The opening of the protocols is part of the *verdict*.

    That incessant beeping you hear is your sarcasm meter. You should have checked it before posting.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  75. Re:Wrong Story Came Up by chibiyoukai · · Score: 1

    Obligatory response: You must be new here.

  76. Phu-lease! by RoLi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Can't you get it in your head?

    Just the facts:

    • Microsoft doesn't care about the law.
    • The DOJ won't help us.

    All the monopoly-whining in the world won't help. On the contrary, it will help Microsoft by portraing them as invulnerable, always winning and not worth resisting.

    What will make a difference is use products and open standards.

    For example in southern Germany the tiny town of SchwÃbisch Hall has moved to Linux a few months ago, a few weeks ago Munich was inspired by that and (just a few kilometers away) has decided to do the same and a week later Stuttgart und Oldenburg, 2 other south-German cities are evaluating to join in, others will follow.

    The dominos are falling. With all the relevant software being ported to Linux, expect a lot of other european cities to move to KDE/Linux as well within 3 years.

    So please:

    Stop whining, start doing. Whining will not achieve anything.

    Tell your coworkers and your boss about Mozilla and OpenOffice, explain to your boss that Microsoft will give anybody huge discounts who is able to move away from Microsoft, etc.

    1. Re:Phu-lease! by RoLi · · Score: 1
      So far everybody I've shown Mozilla to was quite impressed by either tabs, popup blocking or both.

      Anyway, of course it all depends on how much power you have, a janitor won't be able to influence a companie's IT decisions, but the head-admin will.

    2. Re:Phu-lease! by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      And when that head-admin finds out that a complex word document doesn't look the same when printed from an OpenOffice writer...

      I try to use OpenOffice in the office but everytime I have to open a password protected Excell sheet or a document with images at headers&footers and heavy formatting, I really hate Microsoft.

    3. Re:Phu-lease! by theFool · · Score: 1

      Look up the definition of a monopoly. It's not 100% of the market (or all that close to it) I seem to remember the number 3/4 but I haven't actually thought about it since my last (only) economics class three years ago.

      --
      LINK : LNK6004: Sig not found or not built by the last incremental link; performing full link
    4. Re:Phu-lease! by theFool · · Score: 1
      I try to use OpenOffice in the office but everytime I have to open a password protected Excell sheet or a document with images at headers&footers and heavy formatting, I really hate Microsoft.


      You hate Microsoft? Why? Because they write to and read from a format they created and they support it well? If OpenOffice doesn't open/save/print it correctly, it's not Microsoft's fault!
      --
      LINK : LNK6004: Sig not found or not built by the last incremental link; performing full link
    5. Re:Phu-lease! by runderwo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No, because they refuse to interoperate with the rest of the industry. For example, they pulled out of the OASIS working group that would have created an industry standard document format.

      Even though they are in an industry leading position, they refuse to lead; they would rather be an annoyance and a barrier to everyone who isn't in bed with them. Quite sad.

    6. Re:Phu-lease! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, for creating the proprietary format in the first place.

  77. Re:Algo. for a big corporation by Raumkraut · · Score: 1

    Surely you mean:
    [2] If they sue you, buy a friendly government.

  78. Re:Wrong Story Came Up by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    You are right, actually. But be sympathetic. It is true that MS's shenanigans (aided and abetted by the US authorities) are too well understood to be news, but many (most?) of us are a bit emotional about it and need to let off steam.

  79. Shhhhhh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " Which Enron corporate officers hold a cabinet post?"

    Shhhh. Don't dare to say things like this. You never know, when you put out a few facts, the left-wing FUD might crumble. They get really mad when you point out that Bush won the actual counts in Florida too.

    Sit down, shut up, and believe that Kenneth Lay is our Secretary of State.

    1. Re:Shhhhhh. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Funny, when 2002 rolled around the exact same counties were the only ones with problems in voting. These are all Democrat controlled counties. They all got the same funds to improve voting procedures and equipment yet only they failed to deliver.

      It must be a vast right-wing conspiracy! Yeah, that's the ticket.

  80. 133 Protocols by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Companies must put up $100,000 just to see the technical information about the 133 protocols, which helps a potential licensee determine if it wants or needs any of them. But if the company chooses not to license, it gets back only $50,000.

    Somebody send a correction to the Washington Post. When making fun of an underskilled and overarrogant programmer or group of programmers, the correct derogatory spelling would be, "l33t protocols".

  81. funny money there, horse. M$ is a parasite. by Erris · · Score: 1
    Oh, they manage. They financial statements show that they spend just over $1.1bn per quarter on R&D.

    Those Yahoo expense numbers are devided into two catagories, R+D and adverts. There are no operating or other expenses. No mention is made of aquisitions of property or software. If their research budget contains operating expenses as well as aquisitions as well as the salary of the guy who flies around China picking out the next X-box case, well, it's easy to see how that might all add up to a billion bucks a quarter. It's not, however, the kind or research most of us think of as innovative, creative or useful.

    Parasitic is what you would expect from a company that admits it only enters a market when there's a substantial amount of money to be made. They don't really develop anything until the "loss leaders" have drummed up interest in their inventions. They then offer to buy the victim out for $500,000 or to treat them like Netscape by purchasing a competitor for $500,000. In either case, M$ is not going to spend much more than $500,000 to own anything.

    It shows in their product line. They are only innovative if you call sticking your label on a cheap DRM'd PC innovative, and inventive if you consider a phone application for your embeded system that someone else made inventive. Really, the only thing Microsoft has invented lately is the "Digital Rights Management Operating System", a simple dongle in BIOS, they obtained an absurd patent on. Name one useful thing Microsoft has made, ever. You can't because they have levered and expoited other people's ideas since Bill Gates dumpster dived someone else's BASIC and then complained when it was "stolen" through unauthorized copy.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  82. what's funny is by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Earlier Republicans were supporters of anti-trust laws. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to name two.

    Their reasoning was they didn't want corporations to become more powerful than the government, and hence, have influence over it.

    BTW, if you think corruption is bad today, read all about Teddy, he started his political career fighting corruption that was taking place basically out in the open.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:what's funny is by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Earlier Republicans were supporters of anti-trust laws.

      Trouble is, early Republicans weren't Republicans by today's definition. Today's Republican Party barely tolerates equal rights for minorities. Contrast that with Abraham Lincoln, who was a "Republican".

      Politics change; only the name stays the same.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    2. Re: what's funny is by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Earlier Republicans were supporters of anti-trust laws.

      Was it a sudden change or a gradual change?

      There was a major shift in the ethos of the Republican Party between 1976 and 1980, as witnessed by the switch from laughing at Jimmy Carter's "born again" platform to jumping in bed with religious conservatives themselves.

      I wonder whether the two changes are reflexes of a broader change-of-guard phenomenon, or whether they're independent happenstance.

      Of course, our government is^w seems to be run by lobbyists to an unprecedented and growing degree, so that might be what's up with the anti-trust stance.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:what's funny is by bubbasixpack · · Score: 1

      Lincoln didn't really want equal rights for minorities in the current sense of the term... unless you're going to argue that segregation could actually make a "separate but equal" system work. Of course being anti-slavery was a bit better than the Democratic Party of the day... (Buchanan was probably the most ineffective president ever, even compared with the current and past few presidents...) But this is typical of the left - bash the right, don't say anything about yourself. Call them polluters, but vote to keep fuel efficiency standards low, which is probably OK, as long as we keep those Alaskans safe from themselves. FWIW, the right is fine with equal rights... it's things like affirmative action that ruffle feathers. Sure there are arguments to be made in favor of it, but there are many decent reasons to oppose it too...

    4. Re:what's funny is by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      Today's Republican Party barely tolerates equal rights for minorities.

      Oh please. That is nonsensical flaimbait. Republicans today don't want to give special rights to minorities(of race or any other distinctive trait).

      Special Rights != Equal Rights.

      You can argue that special rights are necessary(I would disagree), but portraying the Republican party as racist is just stupid.

      Again, I am NOT a Republican, but the opposition(you?) is embarrassing themselves by continually grasping at straws... I feel embarrassed for them...

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    5. Re:what's funny is by operagost · · Score: 1

      Bullcrap. One word for you- "Dixiecrat".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:what's funny is by Pig+Bodine · · Score: 1
      Bullcrap. One word for you- "Dixiecrat".

      Since Trent Lott just lost his job for expressing Dixiecrat sympathy, this has become current events rather than history. The Dixiecrats was another name for the States Rights party, under the banner of which Strom Thurmond, of whom you seem not to have heard, ran for president in 1948. The party splintered from the Democrats in opposition to civil rights measures added to the Democratic party platform. Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican party in 1964 and went on to become really old while serving in the senate. At Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration Trent Lott said that if the Dixiecrats had won in 1948, the country would be better off. He then lost his job. Most other conservative southern Democrats eventually followed Thurmond's 1964 example and became Republicans. Thus, while I don't want to argue that Republicans are generally racist, mention of the Dixiecrats tends to support the claim that at least some Republicans might not be sympathetic to equal rights for minorities.

    7. Re:what's funny is by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      I'm firmly opposed to affirmative action. I support equal rights.

      Re-evaluate your argument accordingly.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  83. Re:It's a "Wonderful Life" [way offtopic] by mattsucks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is way offtopic, but the history of this movie fascinates me. "It's a Wonderful Life" was released in '46, received mixed reviews, nominated for some awards, but sank into obscurity. It fell out of copyright and into the public domain in 1974. And because of THAT, TV stations, starting mainly with PBS, picked it up for FREE and started broadcasting it at Christmas. It became one of the most loved, most aired Christmas movies ever. All because it went into the public domain.

    Well, until 1993, when some copyright sleight-of-hand pulled it out of PD.

    RIAA? MPAA? DMCA? hello? is this thing on?

    references:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/1004242/
    http://movie-r eviews.colossus.net/movies/i/its_won derful.html
    http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmo vies/wonderfu l_life.html

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=U TF -8&q=%22It%27s+a+wonderful+life%22+public+domain&b tnG=Google+Search

  84. DoJ Concerns? by ennerseed · · Score: 1

    "The low number of licensees concerns the Justice Department" -what exactly is Mr. Ashcroft's cut of the $100,000?

    --
    "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
  85. Exchange protocol by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    Guess you should read Linux Journal then, because they ran an artical about a project to replace an exchange server, detailing their efforts to reverse engineer the protocol. It's all there. I think it is the Feb 03 issue, but it is at work and I'm at home and their webpage doesn't index content that recent for the general public.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Exchange protocol by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      If it's the same article that I'm thinking of, then it's the exact opposite of what I want to do. I think that they were using open standards to replace the exchange functionality, whereas I want to use the exchange functionality to let non-exchange clients work with an exchange server, without the use of the OWA.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    2. Re:Exchange protocol by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      Then your only real choice is Evolution + the Exchange connector. Bummer.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  86. Re:Unfair to restrict greenhouse emissions from Ch by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    Its unfair to force it on developing countries as we have already developed and it won't restrict us. Sure in a perfect world we could make it apply to everyone. It would hinder there development too much. BEsides some ridculous amount of polution 80% or something comes from the developed world.

    Even if emissions were causing the world to cool, thats bad to. You almost admitted it doing something and something isn't good.

    They had a state religion: atheism. Jews, however, were especially hated (going back to the Tsars). Stalin even had a plan to exterminate all of them, but then he died.

    And the US used to have slaves. How long do you want to hold something against somebody.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  87. Enron is insightful, but Halliburton is OffTopic? by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    Embarrassing current scandals, ongoing corruption, that's offtopic. I see. I see.

  88. It's not a settlement, it's a Seattlement by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsofts Seattlement is a farce.
    The way I understand it: the pay penalties
    in the form of donating WinPCs to poor schools?
    This increases the monopoly, not lessen it.

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
  89. It didn't end because of Bush by zapp · · Score: 1

    It ended because someone inside Enron ratted everyone else out.

    --
    no comment
  90. Frivolous Lawsuit - McDonalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "McDonalds was wrong to serve coffee it knew was dangerous and had caused injuries before"

    The coffee was labelled as "hot", and any child knows that you be careful around hot liquids. The only thing wrong here was that a clumsy lady spilled coffee on her own lap and was able, through a crooked attorney, to get someone else to pay for her own action.

    1. Re:Frivolous Lawsuit - McDonalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
      one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
      important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
      the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
      scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
      and muscle. Here's the whole story.

      Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
      her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
      February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
      in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

      After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
      stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
      coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
      charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
      motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
      the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
      the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
      into her lap.

      The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
      to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
      thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
      including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
      areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
      underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
      treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
      refused.

      During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
      claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
      involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
      history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
      this hazard.

      McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
      advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
      maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
      safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
      coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
      generally 135 to 140 degrees.

      Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
      actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
      degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
      hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
      and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
      into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
      the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
      would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
      the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

      Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
      burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
      thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
      showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
      of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
      if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
      have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

      McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
      home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
      showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
      driving.

      McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
      customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
      unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
      that a statement on the

  91. Re:Wrong Story Came Up by gwappo · · Score: 1
    If you really think slashdotters are into business related technology stories, then you need to report on the big stories, not the ones that make your "competition" look bad. This is fundamental editorial ethics.

    Man what are you smoking! Since when is slashdot competition to Microsoft? And "fundamental editorial ethics" are doing pretty good given that slashdot is a pro-Linux site.

    Jesus man, bugger off to MSN and eat what Microsoft serves you but don't complain here.

  92. Re:Zionism by pyrotic · · Score: 1

    Yes, this is offtopic.

    Israel is only a racist state if there is such a thing as "the Jewish race". Hitler thought there was a Jewish race. Most geneticis don't go for that. Nor do I, and nor do immigration at Ben Gurion airport. If Judaism is a religion consisting of Russians, Moroccans, Ethipoians etc then the state's discrimination is not on the grounds of race but of religion. The state's actions are questionable on the grounds of religous favouritism, breach of international law etc. but you can't quite call it racism.

  93. Re: yeah... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    You know, the funny thing is, nobody, not even the french, were disputing the existence of WMD in Iraq before the war.

    They were pushing awful hard for more inspections. Iraq is a big pretty barren country. It is going to take time to find the damn stuff.

  94. The Wonderful Live of 1984 by Erris · · Score: 1
    "Tragedy, he perceived, belonged to the ancient time, to a time when there was still privacy, love, and friendship, and when the members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason."

    Remeber now, sharing is stealing, never share your password, never try to understand how things work against the will of you masters and be grateful, very greatful all day long. Your letters will be read to eliminate the enemies of the United States. Your location will be known from the devices your carry and all of us will be much safer when we get the house of the future from Microsoft.

    Anyone want to join me at the bridge? I'll be smashing my car and throwing my old M$ software into the cold waters. The hope for US software is the hope for all software, freedom. If the software in my cell phone and car were free, I might feel like I owned them.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  95. Re:Oh yeah, I left out Al Sharpton by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    That would be a hoot, but I don't think it will happen. They will let Jr. speak during prime and asshole Al will get the 7:00AM slot (if you don't know who Jr. is, you must not be from Memphis).

  96. Where can I download it? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    1946... Me thinks it's copyright may have expired.

    who is sony?

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Where can I download it? by Danse · · Score: 1

      But you'd be wrong. Or more specifically, the movie expired, but the soundtrack and story did not, so it's still copyright for all intents and purposes.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:Where can I download it? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      and my point was?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  97. Not to go against the flow or anything. by flaming-opus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But $100,000 to get access to 133 communications protocols doesn't sound all that expensive. What does an intel P4 bus license cost? How much would you expect to pay to get access to someone else's engineering work.
    Any company that's going to try to make a MS compatible network product of some sort is going to spend many multiples of this number on the engineering effort for even a trivial product. M$ has some pretty aweful marketing practices and gross business practices, but this is far from the worst. This doesn't seem out of line with the costs to license other proprietary technology in the marketplace.

  98. WTF? by ed.han · · Score: 1

    how is this a troll? this should be modded up as insightful.

    ed

  99. shake hands with the devil, by Erris · · Score: 1
    get burnt. You don't think you will ever do well dealing with Microsoft, do you?

    Let the non free software companies continue to screw each other. The solution is to reject them all.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  100. Why obey the law? by Peaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you have enough money to discard any fine?
    When you have enough power to force any business entity to do almost anything you need?
    When the authorities of the law are so weak and limited in their power?

    The only way to get Microsoft, as well as many other unethical, illegal and otherwise misbehaving companies to obey the law is to gradually increase the punishments given when they are found guilty.

    The "corporate death penalty" (the destruction of a corporation and the auctioning of all of its assets) was and still is a possible punishment that can threaten those corporations who show contempt for the law and repeatedly defy it.

    The "corporate death penalty" brought, and could bring today - respect of the law.

    Call to restore the "corporate death penalty" today!

  101. Re: yeah... by sunya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    this being the same "time" that would not be given to the inspectors to complete the inspections to find the damn stuff...

    --
    MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
  102. Re:John F Ketchup? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    Congressman Harold Ford Jr., AKA King Harold the Second.

    Actually, looking at the Ford family as a whole (swindlers, fraud, bank fraud, wife beating, assault, weapons violations, extortion and that's just the individuals elected to office), Jr. is not too bad...

  103. New Icon by mcconk · · Score: 1

    I'm no GIMP guru, but perhapes it's time for a new Microsoft icon on /. A blend of Gates and a Feregi.

  104. That's gotta take some creativity by glwtta · · Score: 1

    From what I remember of the seattlement, MS would really have to go out of their way to not comply with the terms - I mean, it's hard enough just finding something they are required to do, in there.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  105. Ashcroft won't say a thing about it by alfredo · · Score: 1

    As long as Bush/Asscleft are in office, MS is above the law. they are both against the anti trust laws. Might makes right, is not just their foreign policy.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
    1. Re:Ashcroft won't say a thing about it by operagost · · Score: 1

      I don't recall Clinton or Reno doing much about MS's anti-competitive practices during Clinton's term from 1992-2000. I don't think that's the problem.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Ashcroft won't say a thing about it by orcrist · · Score: 1

      Uh, you mean besides the huge court case they won against MS? The one Bush's DOJ settled after it was won?

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  106. Thomas White, Sec. of Army: Enron Energy by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    More info can be found here.

  107. Re:Did you expect them to play by the rules by taphu · · Score: 1

    Flamebait??? ok, let's analize this message to see if it's really flaimbait.

    We have seen this before.
    umm.. TRUE.

    The only way this is ever going to change is if we shut Microsoft down.
    Well, this is debatable, but it's certainly within the realm of reason, especially since the DOJ couldn't seem to do anything about it.

    Go help a Open Source project anything else is just noise.
    Ok, here he is implying that if you don't like something, and you wan't it changed, then it's UP TO YOU TO DO IT. In my humble opinion, this is a sound philosophical standpoint. At least that's what my parrents taught me when they said that wining wouldn't get me anything.

    True, "anythingthing else is just noise" may not be entirely accurate. For instance simply boycotting microsoft could be a solution, or purchasing controling sock in Microsoft could be another solution, if you have 100 million gazillion dollars laying around.

    flaimbait?? That's just retarded.

  108. WinAMP... by Scorpiana · · Score: 1

    Actually, WinAMP does do video. I don't know about older releases, but at least in WinAMP 3.0 you can play video (mpeg, avi, ...).

    1. Re:WinAMP... by BitHive · · Score: 1

      Sorry, even winamp.com spells it "Winamp" not "WinAMP". Get with the times.

  109. Re: yeah... by rking · · Score: 1

    They were pushing awful hard for more inspections. Iraq is a big pretty barren country. It is going to take time to find the damn stuff.

    That's right. It's obvious that Saddam didn't use his best weapons when under attack purely because he wanted to make the US look foolish for a brief time before they are discovered.

    Do you honestly believe this?

  110. Microsoft Knows by jefu · · Score: 1
    I think MS knows very well that most people do not "just want an OS". Most users don't even really know that there is an OS under there (they know that its running "windows something" - but have no real idea of what an OS really does).

    People now expect to get a browser, word processor, drawing program and so on with their computer, just as they expect to get a paint program with their digital camera and so on. (More, they expect to get IE specfically - installed along with Flash, media handlers and so on.)

    They don't want to have to actually look for, evaluate and obtain this stuff for themselves. Let's face it, they're not usually capable of doing all that - in particular, evaluating software can be hard enough for someone who knows the field.

    If there's any doubt about this, look at the reviews of linux installs for consumers and what people find troublesome. Invariably its not "the scheduler" or anything like that, its the lack of a good media player, or open office problems, or problems with sound cards or the like.

  111. MS Protocol standards are a PITA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work for a company that develops a product that uses the http protocol to move data between the client and the server. The app is written in Java and works well on Mac, Windows, Linux, and Solaris.
    We have to take firewalls into consideration of our customers' demands. Currently, we use the internal Java support for firewalls, which is http proxy, SOCKS4, and SOCKS5.
    Some of our customers have been requesting support for Microsoft's proxy server, and feel that it's unreasonable of us to not support their environment. This results in lost sales, plain and simple. The fact that Microsoft wants to charge us $100k for this information is not relevant to these people. They just want it to work with their network.
    Telling IT managers that they have to change to accomodate a piece of software is unreasonable, no matter what the underlying reasons are. THEY are the CUSTOMER. It's their money and they get to choose how to spend it.
    The $100k plus r&d time to implement a new java class would have a crippling effect on our price point, and would cause a number of our customers to turn from us.
    This decision has a serious trickle down effect that can't be ignored. It is not only stifling competition, but stifling development of new software and the marketplace.

  112. Re: Corruption in the open by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > Like sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom and pardons-for-cash?

    Clue for the clueless: not everyone who criticises the Bush Administration thinks of Clinton or the Democrats in general as paragons of moral excellence.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  113. MS becoming Saddam? by smagruder · · Score: 1

    It would seem that MS is playing its cards the same way Saddam did. Eventually, this "law and order" regime (if it is to retain that title) will have no political choice but to eventually slam MS down, and good.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    1. Re:MS becoming Saddam? by smagruder · · Score: 1

      But voting won't do anything either. What's left? {I shudder to think}

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  114. Yawn by TheDredd · · Score: 1

    That was a big suprise wasn't it

    Good thing the future for Microsoft doesn't look to bright otherwise I would be really woried

    The problem with Microsoft is that it is just another company, it has to make money. The good thing about free software is it doesn't have to make money
    Microsoft knows this and they're losing (slowly) to linux

    It is just a matter of time before a small group of geniuses write the next easy to use, lightweight window manager for linux (hint, hint, hint!!!), and people will start moving to linux more rapidly, and there will be nothing Microsoft can do about it!
    Sure they can start offer windows XP 2006 for a nice bargain, but they cannot release it for free (not for ever anyway)
    Hooray the revolution has almost begun!!

  115. Removing the taint by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase - "It's the only way to be sure!"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  116. Not the first to turn a settlement into by crovira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a profit center.

    Some insurance companies did that years ago with a billion dollar settlement against them and they used the opportunity to charge off a lot of hardware and document scanning software and the people and procedure development against it.

    End result, they got lots of new toys which they used to develop in-house technology and processing and they had bugger all left to share between the poor fools who applied for their redress.

    Specially since most of the process was to make the poor schmucks provide information (that's why the scanning,) that was then checked against the companies' own records. If there was a discrepancy, they got squat. Like there was a chance an outsider has access to that data.

    End result, insurance companies win, their customers lose, again, and the law was flouted once again.

    No surprise there either.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  117. Re: Well, since you've started it... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > Howcomes nobody in the media is asking:
    > 1. Assuming Saddam really did have WMD
    > 2. We can't find them now, even with free run of the country
    > 3. So who has them?

    I think everybody - or rather, the few who care - are backing up and re-evaluating #1, since everything depends on that, and it was never established convincingly in the first place.

    Your #3 is worse than irrelevant if #1 is false.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  118. Disclosing interfaces in the AT&T and IBM case by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When AT&T was broken up, they had to disclose the phone system's interfaces, so that you could build everything from a compatible telephone handset to a compatible central office. And they did so. There was a "Catalog of Technical Information", which I have, from which you could order other documents, for prices like $18. Everything from the standards for telephone poles to the interfaces for a PBX was in there.

    This created a whole independent industry, where before, only Western Electric made most of that stuff. Today you can buy everything from a phone from a central office switch from multiple vendors, and they all interoperate properly.

    The same thing happened over a decade previously with IBM. At one time, you could only buy IBM peripherals from IBM. IBM lost an antitrust case, had to disclose their interfaces six months before they shipped a product that used them. The third-party disk drive industry was born. This forced price competition in disk drives, and started the fiercely competitive disk industry that we know today.

    That's what was supposed to happen with Microsoft. That's what antitrust law is supposed to do.

    One option at this point is for the Justice Department to go back to the court and say "well, disclosure didn't work, we're going to have to go back to breaking up Microsoft". That's an option, probably for the next post-Bush administration.

  119. Linux in German cities...don't get your hopes up by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 1
    For example in southern Germany the tiny town of SchwÃbisch Hall has moved to Linux a few months ago, a few weeks ago Munich was inspired by that and (just a few kilometers away) has decided to do the same and a week later Stuttgart und Oldenburg, 2 other south-German cities are evaluating to join in, others will follow.

    Don't get your hopes up. Munich is run by a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens; it was they that decided to choose Linux in spite of Ballmer's pressure.

    But the glorious Free State of Bavaria, where Munich is located, is run by the Christian Socialists (which, in spite of the name, is a rather far-right party -- think of them as the Redneck Party of Bavaria minus the gun racks). No way are they going to allow that long-hair hippy OS take hold...so the Bavarian government is trying to force a "review" of the Linux decision and has put it on hold.

    Source: Spiegel.de. (Sorry, you'll have to use the Fish.)

    Apparently Microsoft made the right donations in the right places. *sigh*

    'Course, I'm surprised no one has bothered mentioning to the neo-nationalist CSU idiots in Bavaria that Linux is about as German an operating system as it gets (SuSE, KDE, etc.). At least much more "native" than Microsoft.

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
  120. Re:Disclosing interfaces in the AT&T and IBM c by Sajarak · · Score: 1
    That's an option, probably for the next post-Bush administration.

    As opposed to the post-Bush administration that comes before it?
  121. Re:Well, since you've started it... by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    Actually the two front runners in that speculation are Iran and Syria. Iran is there because Saddam flew his entire airforce there during Gulf War I in order to save it from destruction and Syria because it's a brother Baathist regime. Neither regime would likely want to admit to having the stuff and both would likely keep it under wraps as a trump card for future negotiations.

    As for Iraq never trying to do anything against the US there's hosting terrorist organizations on Iraqi soil, running terrorist training camps on how to take over airplanes and other fun mayhem, and trying to assassinate the former president of the US. That's all he did if you don't count invading Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia in a bid to be able to economically blackmail the US (and the rest of the world) into doing whatever he wanted.

  122. Aargh by autechre · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, the DMCA allows reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability. I think it would be pretty easy to claim this for a file sharing protocol. After all, music/movies will be protected by their DRM separately.

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    1. Re:Aargh by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

      Tell that one to 2600. They lost the DeCSS case because of the DMCA, and the stated purpose of DeCSS was interoperability.

      Grandparent is correct. You are naive. Thank you, drive through.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  123. Non-Republicans stating Iraq had WMDs by angle_slam · · Score: 1
    Correct. Everybody thought there were weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. Check out this list of non-Republicans who stated that Iraq had WMDs. Excerpts:
    • "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability"--Sen. Robert Byrd in 2002
    • "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow"--President Clinton in 1998.
    • "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs"--Jacques Chirac in 2002.
    Therefore, if you think Bush was lying about WMDs, well, so were President Clinton and Jacques Chirac.
    1. Re:Non-Republicans stating Iraq had WMDs by platypus · · Score: 1

      First, the Bush administration stated that in _2003_ the iraq had WMD.
      Now let's look at your examples:

      Robert Byrd (2002): "...we are confident..."

      Well, this isn't the same as "...we know..."

      Clinton: (1998!)

      Simply the wrong time, the point of the states wanting longer inspections was that more pressure would clearly get iraq from staying away from/getting rid of WMDs.
      Look at it from Sadams perspective: He thinks he cannot really hide he's working on/has WMDs, so he gets rid of them. From 9/11 2001 at least it must have been clear to him that his regime was in great danger to be attacked from the US of A, so getting caught with chemical weapons in his foregarden was not what he wanted to happen.
      So maybe he decided they were not worth it, and got rid of them (or maybe hid them in a deep hole in a desert, who knows).

      Jacques Chirac (2002):
      Well, maybe you should take into account that from a rethoric point of view Jacques Chirac is the absolute antithesis to, say, Ronald Rumsfeld. With that in mind, reread the sentence if you really think he says he what you think he says. Hint, he doesn't say it.

    2. Re:Non-Republicans stating Iraq had WMDs by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      Clinton: (1998!)

      Simply the wrong time, the point of the states wanting longer inspections was that more pressure would clearly get iraq from staying away from/getting rid of WMDs.

      So its 1998. Iraq has WMDs (as Clinton says). Iraq wants to get rid of them. What do they do?

      A) Go to the UN inspectors, state they have gotten rid of all the WMD and show proof of this. Result: an end to sanctions.

      B) throw all the inspectors out of Iraq. Disarm themselves. Then refuse to tell the UN or the inspectors how they disarmed themselves. Continue this behavior while the US and UK mass 300,000 soldiers on your border.

      If you were the leader of a country, which choice would you make?

    3. Re:Non-Republicans stating Iraq had WMDs by platypus · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is just a thought experiment, and it will stay that if there are any significant quantities of WMDs in Iraq found.

      Ok, on to your question. I certainly would have choosen A), because I have no special interest in WMDs. But when you ask what I think Saddam would've done, I'd say B).
      But this is 1998 you talk about. I also think it's possible that Saddam reconsidered after 9/11.

    4. Re:Non-Republicans stating Iraq had WMDs by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      If Sen. Byrd and Pres. Clinton aren't convincing enough. How about Hans Blix from January 2003?
      • "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
      • "The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

      The point I am trying to make is not that Iraq had WMD. It's that everyone thought Iraq had WMD, not just Bush and Blair. The point of the inspections was not to find WMD. It was assumed (by everybody) that they had WMD. The inspections were to confirm disarmament.

  124. Re: yeah... by angle_slam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And also the same "time" not being given to Saddam to imprison and kill children, rape women, and terrorize his own people.

  125. Re:Slick Willie by stanmann · · Score: 1

    Personally, I am an independant, with libertarian and Republican leanings, and using Shrub(as in Jr Bush) IMO can be construed as bordering on affectionate. Dubya is in fact an approximate spelling of W so... I'm not offended... But I speak for me.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  126. Careful of those cruise missle jokes, terrorist! by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few years ago, a Scientology critic joked about hitting one of their compounds with a Tom Cruise Missle.

    I believe he's still trying to get political asylum in Canada. No joke. Haven't heard much lately about the poor bugger.

  127. Re: yeah... by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    Yes, doing that would be just as foolish as flying your entire airforce to a country you just concluded an almost decade long war with. Oh, Saddam did that already (Gulf War, 1991).

    It's early, way early, to come to final conclusions.

  128. Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit by jkabbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You used paragraph after paragraph of irrelevant detail in an attempt to get past the fact of the case: she spilled coffee on herself.

    Yeah because when a customer does something that shouldn't be dangerous and gets hurt they should be considered solely at fault. But when a corporation does something that they already know is dangerous they should never be held accountable.

    Why do so many people that spout about taking responsibility for your actions never want to apply that standard to corporations?

  129. some evidence to ponder by zogger · · Score: 1
    government prior knowledge to 9-11, ton of links to news stories, etc, detailing government prior knowledge,and embarassing un-answered questions



    vice fuehrer cheney dodges GAO investigations regarding his energy task force



    "WE ARE APT TO SHUT OUR EYES AGAINST A PAINFUL TRUTH...
    FOR MY PART, I AM WILLING TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH;
    TO KNOW THE WORST; AND TO PROVIDE FOR IT."
    -Patrick Henry

    Nice try, AC fed troll, but too many people are seeing through your lies, obfuscations and coverups now. It's not going away. The clintonistas were crooks and liars, so are the current bushbots, and we know that you criminals cooperate with each other more than you let on in public, and have so for a long, long time.

    Mena, Arkansas ring a bell for you?

    Tell that to your boss. Now go look up "the nuremberg trials". "Just folloing orders" don't cut it as an excuse any longer, you just wish it would. And all the guys who have quit, because they see saw what was going on, and got themselves out because they couldn't stand being around pukes like you? Guess what? They still have all their skills and contacts. All of them. And there's something else, they value true honesty and true patriotism and take their constitution and oath seriously, and they can see through the normal BS they were fed for years and years from career politician officers, let alone from the CEOs masquerading as "government".

  130. Microsoft Owns the Government by Ridgelift · · Score: 1

    Gates: "All Your DOJ Are Belong To Us"

  131. Re:Bush truth, clinton lies by jimsum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Clinton situation was not as cut-and-dried as you make it out here. Clinton gave a clever answer to a question that may have been technically true, but gave a mistaken impression.

    Bush made all sorts of claims about a link between bin Laden and Iraq, about Iraqi development of nuclear weapons, and about how Iraq was an immediate danger to the United States. None of these claims has been proven, despite 2 months of unfettered access to Iraq, and all indications are that Bush knew his claims were doubtful at the time he was making them.

    I think both of these men have played fast and loose with the truth, whether or not they technically lied. Whether you approve or disapprove of the actions justified by the lies shouldn't matter; if you can't trust the word of the president, the country is in big trouble. Maybe the next action Bush justifies with lies will be something you disapprove of.

    --
    -- Pot is safer than Beer
  132. Re:Who is to blame? Not McDonalds by snowsalt · · Score: 1

    The coffee was not Hot-Coffee hot. It was ridiculously hot. How bout you actually read about what happened before you post. There was a pattern sufficient to establish that McDonald needed punitive damages. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

  133. Double Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

    You don't want to abide by Microsoft's EULAs. But you want people to abide by the GPL?

    1. Re:Double Standards? by NamShubCMX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The GPL is not an EULA. You dont have to abide by the GPL to use the software... (only to distribute it)

      It makes more sense to dictate how I should redistribute a software (in MS case, I usually cannot at all...) than how to USE it... don't you think?

      And if you read a MS EULA and then the GPL... you would probably notice that one grants you rights while one removes rights... Guess which does which...

      --
      We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    2. Re:Double Standards? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      HORRAY !! Everyone mod up the intelligent comment !

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  134. Re:Disclosing interfaces in the AT&T and IBM c by nagora · · Score: 1
    That's an option, probably for the next post-Bush administration.

    As opposed to the post-Bush administration that comes before it?

    Given that Bush might well be followed by Jeb Bush, then the next post-Bush administration might actually be a Bush administration, in which case the OP was right!

    This is assuming that they still bother with elections by that point, of course.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  135. Re: yeah... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The inspectors had 10 years. They *WERE NOT* going to find anything. They were crippled by having to play Saddams game.

    I would go into various conspiracy theories about the inspectors not wanting to find WMD, but they are theories only, with no real proof.

  136. Re: yeah... by Fascist+Christ · · Score: 1

    Now they're going to install democracy and ensure everyone an education, a job, and good healthcare, just like here at home

    I'm still waiting for that one. In this country you can get a high school diploma if you fail the basic skills test (it would cost too much to keep you in school until you passed), and minimum wage can't get you a 1-bedroom apartment most places (and still afford the basic necessities for our standard of living), and if you don't have money and your tooth hurts they yank it out rather than fix it. Yeah, I hope the next liberation is here in the USA.

    --
    TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
  137. Oldest Lowest `BASIC` Computer by Peredur · · Score: 1

    For me it'd have to be: http://oldcomputers.net/trs80pc1.html

    1.5K of RAM. Very tough to work with. Teachers still wouldn't let me use it in class though.

    --
    Peredur.

  138. Re: yeah... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    AC covered it pretty well.

    The french regime has never been concerned with finding WMD. Hell, they provided the materials for a lot of them. To be honest, so did the U.S.

    The french are concerned with making the U.S. look bad and the french look good. PERIOD.

  139. actually i hear oregon by waspleg · · Score: 1

    is big on star trek (especially with their klingon immigrants)

  140. The Authorities (read federal govt) is anything by waspleg · · Score: 1

    but weak

    my guess would be they can flaunt them becuase they're working together, everyone knows that the gov't needs and wants back door programs into all the gov'ts in the world

    and what OS do all of those govt's (with a handful of exceptions) use on all their desktops?

    yea they might need a translator to read Chirac's email but so what, they have everything they need

    see the gov't needs M$ so that they can leverage the M$ monopoly to their benefit, the anti-trust trial was a travesty designed to lull the unsuspecting public into complacence once again (oh the DoJ is dealing with them, everything must be okay)

    and of course people who don't believe that our gov't is capable or willing or has such things in place is exceedingly ignorant or naive or both.
    It's all about power; bottom-line.

  141. Re:yeah... by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    and look how many cluster bombs we managed to destroy

    --
    Think global, act loco
  142. DOJ might not chase this by jr87 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    with the current administration in place the DOJ might not go after M$.

  143. The Enron Connection by namespan · · Score: 1
    It's fairly well-established that Enron corporate officers were given quite a bit of access and input into the formation of energy policy by the current administration:



    It's one thing to politely disabuse someone of the notion that an Enron officer is actually a cabinet officer. It's another thing to extrapolate from that connection that the suspicion of a connection between the administration and Enron -- and indeed, the entire "left wing" mindset -- is mere FUD ready to crumble at the first touch.

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  144. challenge by zogger · · Score: 1

    Take this 9-11 link, from 9-11 victims survivors, THEIR questions. Now, here's the challenge, YOU answer their questions adequately, I'll be the first one to say I'm wrong on the conclusions I came up with based on the sum total of the unanswered questions and the government response to date.. All I need is data. Data. I can change my mind,I've done it in the past on various issues, it doesn't bother me at all, just show me the beef. These folks want answers, where are they? You think you can help them, then go for it. Remember, none of these are my questions, I'm just a messenger, they are THEIR questions.

    Now, look on the list, number 1 question,SEC section, start with the airline stocks puts, the ones from the brokerage run by a CIA manager. Answer that question first, who-names of the customers- put in those puts? Who profited from prior knowledge? That's a nice smoking gun place to start at. The government obviously has the data,or can get it quickly, kinda funny they won't release it, doncha think? Sorta suspicious such an aberration in the market, directly before the attacks. There's over 50 questions there, go for it, help those victimsms out, you have all the answers, right? And by the way, these aren't ALL the unanswered questions, I can easily find a lot more on some other sites, but this should be enough for you to start with, a lot of these are the easier ones. Should be a piece of cake for you, right? Not being on "meds" and all, you should be able to do it, probably within 5 minutes or so, tops. Let's see it.

    Now my favorite pet question,out of many, and I've listened to him twice live and read the transcripts twice, answer why someone with the credentials of a David Schippers, hardly a nobody or any sort of anti-bush liberal or conspiracy theorist, who had details and a warning of an imminent attack,and the ties way back to shrubs dad and when he let in a lot of republican guard from Iraq around OKC (surprise) which happened like he outlined, was refused any contact with Ashcroft, despite repeated tries? Why was he dodged? Answer that and those other questions, adequately,provide proof, or very good empirical evidence in support, and I'll copy & post your reply around the internet,I'll say case solved, give you all the attaboys I can,admit I was wrong, heck, I can probably get you on a few radio shows if you can do that. Probably at least 5 shows I can think of right off the bat, and from there, even more. The victims will put you in for the peace prize maybe, who knows, you might have book offers, you'll certainly be praised all around if you can do it. Give it your best shot. Put it up, let's see what ya got. Good luck.

  145. Re:Government = worst monopoly by Danse · · Score: 1

    For the moment, you're right. But corps are getting more powerful all the time. It won't be all that much longer before they're equivalent in power to most national governments. The US government and a few others might remain more powerful, but they are comprised of humans that can simply be purchased. How do you think it's gonna turn out?

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  146. Huh? by Tony · · Score: 1

    No, OSS tries to copy, but doesn't always copy well (Read: still working on a good unix desktop. See Also: Apple for innovation in this area). I've also never seen OSS innovate beyond simple improvements to what OSS copied.

    Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

    OSS innovations: the internet. The web. Email. Kerberos. The X Windows system.

    Don't hand me that "OSS never innovates" bullshit. That hasn't been true from the beginning, and is less true every day.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  147. DoJ problem, Linux counterbattery operations by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    MS' ability to goad and drive out Judges Sporkin and Jackson clearly shows systemic failure. DoJ's lack of effective enforcement even on the watered down settlement shows more systemic failure (corruption, good lawyering, whatever). So what do I/can you do about it? 1. Move to OpenOffice, even works on Win 9x 2. Move to Linux 3. Tell anyone that I see or hear considering MS Office about OpenOffice 1.03 / 1.1b2 at OpenOffice.org. (library, stores, conversations) I like to recount the faulty Office/Windows glitches that lost files or version incompatibilities that lost time, money and opportunity and why I'm happy with OO and the simple URL. Or maybe emailed 600k byte Word97 docs with dangerous macros that reduce to 13k in text or .sdw. That's all. "Selling" OpenOffice once a month, $100-400 has to hurt MS if multiplied or even better an exponentially increasing chain reaction... If MS seriously stumbles one quarter that gives lie to its projected growth by analysts, stock price volatility may signal even the PHBs and MSce that battleship MSFT can go down to nuclear attack subs, NS Linux and NS OpenOffice. If you advocate Linux, "sell" OpenOffice. It is an easier first step for newbies and still is a kick in MS' teeth and other sensitive parts. Be afraid Bill, then the deluge!

  148. Are you sure? by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    I'm beginning to suspect that Microsoft's intentions might not be entirely honorable. . .

  149. Basic ? by Salsaman · · Score: 1
    You were lucky ! I wrote my very first program on a Nascom 1. In COBOL. It was a bucket and ball game, and I still remember the syntax to make it beep:


    DISPLAY BELL

    And see my sig...

  150. Re:The Democrats by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    "Republicans control both houses. Republican president (Bush). Economy tanking. Democrats fault because...well, it's still their fault (I mean, just because you control both houses and the white house doesn't mean it is your fault)."

    I deal with these accusations on almost a daily basis because I also hang around a political forum. I can give you some of the reasons the republican sympathizers give.

    1. Clinton set up the dot.bomb which started the economy plumiting.

    2. Clinton stiffled the military and intelligence which helped cause the events of 9/11 that further soured the economy.

    3. And it is still the democrats fault because they resisted the GOP and Dubya's tax cut (which is somehow garrenteed to work) and only let a "crippled" amount pass (so if the economy doesn't recover, it is still the democrats fault).

    4. The economy is not in a recession because large corporations have not reported losses for 3 straight quarters yet. (Thanks to downsizing, corporate welfare, and creative accounting, I surmise.) So it must be the fault of the people who are not spending enough, in other words, the poor and the lower part of the middle class, who have a tendency to vote for democrats.

    For the record, I don't like either party. Almost all of them at the federal level and most of the ones at state level are a bunch of self serving scumbags. So the armchair patriots can properly stuff their "commie!" cries up their asses, where shit belongs.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  151. Troll? Moderators on crack? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Man the parent comment gets a +5 insightfull, and I make a perfectly valid comment, but it is seemingly Anti-apple so I am a troll?

    Man /. has gone gownhill th epast 5 years.

  152. Re:DUH!!! by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    No, actually most of us have figured out voting doesn't mean dick. Why do you think voter turn out is low?

    "Yeah, I want to vote for the rich criminal corporate lawyer scumbag over the rich corporate criminal scumbag with a law degree."

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  153. Re: yeah... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > And also the same "time" not being given to Saddam to imprison and kill children, rape women, and terrorize his own people.

    Ah, so we invaded as a humanitarian intervention? I wonder why that's not the case the Administration tried to make to the US public and to the United Nations?

    Moreover, if we're into humanitarian interventions I wonder why we intervened in Iraq rather than in the Congo, where 3,000,000 people have been killed over the past four years?

    Seems to me that the parsimonious explanation is that the Administration seized a convenient excuse because the real reason wouldn't fly before the public.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  154. Obligatory quote by cgenman · · Score: 1

    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
    Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, dear.
    Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Oh, how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
    [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
    [Lisa shrugs and takes his money]

  155. Re:Disclosing interfaces in the AT&T and IBM c by fini · · Score: 1

    That puts us in, let's seeeee, well, 2032AD. Don't forget Jenna Bush (2016-2024) and Barbara Bush (2024-2032). No worry, time flies...

    --
    SNS Not Sig
  156. Re:Bush truth, clinton lies by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
    3) Saddam had a ridiculous amount of warning time to hide his wmd even outside of Iraq. I would say that it is even likely that he did so.

    There's hundreds of square miles of open desert in Iraq, and a rather large border with Syria and more open desert. It wouldn't take all that much to bury some useful stuff under the sand. With the sandstorms that go through that region regularly, there'd be very little surface evidence.

    Actually, I'm fairly surprised that nobody popped up out of the sand in southern Iraq after the troops went past, to harrass them from the rear...

  157. Re:Bush truth, clinton lies by bluelan · · Score: 1
    Wow. Clinton didn't technically lie to the American public?

    "I did not have sexual relations with that women."

    I heard Clinton say that on national TV while staring soulfully into the camera. I mean, even if you like the guy and think he was persecuted beyond human endurance - even if you understand why he lied - it's hard to dispute the fact that he lied, straight out, on national television, in an address to the American people.

    Comparing Bush's statements about WMD in Iraq to that is pretty silly at this point. Your claim is that Blair, Bush, and Colin Powell all knowingly lied through their teeth about WMD so they could attack Iraq? Even if they just thought it was probably true, they were more honest than Clinton.

    There were other reasons for the war, obviously. Our presence in Saudi was inspiring terrorist actions. We had to be in Saudi to enforce UN sanctions on Iraq. Saddam justified civilian deaths by pointing to those sanctions, and that inspired more terrorists. And, Saddam directly funded Palestinian terrorist groups that scuttled the career of a promising dove in Israel. The continued conflict in Israel inspires more terrorists.

    The administration also presented some of this line, but it didn't catch the press. Do you claim they lied through their teeth about that as well?

    Just because the superficial reasons get the limelight doesn't mean a guy lied. It would be as accurate to say a scientist lied when he's reported as having found the "musician gene". We all know reporters present simplified claptrap.

    Of course, everyone lies, so Bush has too. But, find it hard to believe that he, Blair, and Powell were all willing to present a bald faced lie, as Clinton did, in order to get the US into a war with Iraq.

    This is your cue to haul out the double edged sword of commercial interest, if you want to point out that France, Russia and the U.S. all played their pocket book in this one.

    --

    I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. (wright)

  158. Re:Those reasons you give a true by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    "Democrats favor policies that enrich and empower the rulers and damage the economy," no argument there...

    "while the Republicans are a little more likely to let the productive members of society produce and boost the economy"

    I've got a problem with this. The rich and big industry (those "productive members of society") do not necessarily do what is productive for society as a whole or the economy. They do whatever gets them more money and power.

    "[your token dumb insult to the President]"

    Insult? I just use it so people don't get confused between father and son. If I wanted to insult him, I'd say something like "that dumbass in the Whitehouse."

    "However, as for the problems being the Democrats' fault, that is their intent: Tom Daschle wants the tax cuts reduced as much as possible in order to further his goals of preventing economic recovery. He thinks that if he wrecks things, people will blame Bush, and in 2004 he (Daschle) will be majority leader again, under President Hillary, Ketchup, or whoever."

    Something to note, is that some people are claiming that the republicans are intentionally trying to bankrupt the country in order to force a complete budget overhaul. And since they have majority countrol of all three federal branches, they would be able to fashion it as they wish.

    "This is not true, support for both partieis is fairly evenly split among the economic strata."

    Just because I reference ignorance does not mean I believe it. I know very well that the republican and democrat split is fairly even.

    Personally I don't want either side in the Whitehouse. Can I vote "Anyone but them!" on the ballot?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  159. Re:Voting doesnt mean dick if you know nothing by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    I am making a generalizeation based on the composition of the senior members of out little government. Most are white, male, rich, have law degrees, have close corporate or industry ties, mostly do whatever expands their money and/or power, do whatever the people that "donate" to them want, and/or have been convicted or have been let off on technacality of some kind of crime (felony types if I remember the statistic correctly).

    As for voting ignorantly voting, most people I have seen either a) vote based on what party they like, or b) vote based on what they glean off of comercial media. Very little research is done into donations, past affiliations and political actions, or anything else.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  160. Re:Original German? by Malcontent · · Score: 1

    You noticed I used the word "paraphrase". The ideas were all the same the subjects were flipped around.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  161. Re:Original German? by Malcontent · · Score: 1

    "The ideas weren't even the same, in fact they were as far from Hitler as you can get."

    What was so different?. Both were calling for genocide.

    BTW why post anonymously if you are so convinced you are right.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  162. Re:Refreshing difference by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    This provides very short hope for Democrat honesty.

    (quick duck and cover)

    B-)

  163. Re:Bush truth, clinton lies by andrewski · · Score: 1

    Shit, considering that there are a quarter million Iraqi Army regulars and probably twice that number of militiamen still UNACCOUNTED FOR, they are probably being smart and waiting for us to withdraw the rest of our troops, so they can retake it all the more easily. Then Saddam will come out of his cabin at Camp David, get flown back to Iraq in Air Force One, and we'll be told by Bush that we have to do it all again 'for the children.'

  164. Re:Hope for Democratic Honesty by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    You obviously missed the joke. Both Robert Reich and Donna Shalala are short people, unusually short for Cabinet secretaries.

  165. Re:We are badly overtaxed by Tony · · Score: 1

    That makes you very un-patriotic. You are so ignorant of political matters, and so blinded by hatred, it is dangerous when people like you get politically involved in anything. Become informed about things.

    Huh?

    If questioning our leaders is unpatriotic, I don't want to be a part of this country.

    The $250B figure is *money paid to* corporations, not tax breaks. Bush's lies are well-documented. The rich pay less taxes than the poor, as documented by the IRS.

    I may be politically naive, but I am certainly not blind.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  166. Re:Careful of those cruise missle jokes, terrorist by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

    And your life, if you criticize them sufficiently. Much like the mafia.

    --

    The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  167. Re: yeah... by Vulture_ · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that the parsimonious explanation is that the Administration seized a convenient excuse because the real reason wouldn't fly before the public.

    Humanitarian intervention wouldn't fly before the public because the American public is so complacent, impulsive, and apathetic that they don't honestly give a rat's flying ass about anyone else.

    --

    The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  168. Re:Zionism by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    Ok, true but it is discriminatory.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  169. Re:Bush truth, clinton lies by jimsum · · Score: 1

    Yes, Clinton lied about his sex life to the American public. So what. Clinton was not impeached for lying about cheating on his wife to the American public; if that were enough to impeach a politician, we'd have impeachments every week. Clinton was impeached for lying in court, and that particular charge was never proven.

    If you want to condemn Clinton for lying about a matter that really didn't concern anyone but the people directly involved, fine. Clinton certainly has some problems with self-control.

    I think there is a lot of room to argue about whether Bush "lied" about Iraq or Clinton "lied" in court (although there is no doubt Clinton lied in the quote you gave). Clinton answered the question in a way he thought was technically true, but would mislead. Bush presented his case for immediate war against Iraq without explaining the uncertainty about the evidence. I do not think that Bush, Blair, Powell and the rest presented bald-faced lies; but I do think they oversold their case and willfully ignored the uncertainty of the information. Marketing and spinning are a regrettable but normal part of politics, just as is lying about cheating on your wife.

    I think there was a case to be made that invading Iraq was the only possible solution to the problem of Iraq. I think that Bush should have been patient enough to present his case to the U.N. Security Council, so that there would have been no question about the motives for the invasion. But, Bush claimed that Iraq was an immediate threat and there was no time to waste trying to convince other countries (via the U.N. Security Council) that invasion is the only solution. Other members of the Security Council did not agree with Bush about the immediate necessity for invasion, and it turns out the skeptics on the Security Council may have been correct to doubt that an immediate invasion was necessary.

    I am sure that Bush truly believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I just don't approve of the fact that he was selective in which information he shared rather than trusting us to weigh same information he did; I suspect because he feared we would come to a different conclusion than he did.

    --
    -- Pot is safer than Beer
  170. Re:Unpatriotic by Tony · · Score: 1

    You can't document even one.

    "Weapons of Mass Destruction" ring a bell?

    Even Gen. Powell said of the "evidence" he was to present, "I can't read this. This is bullshit." Of course, he went on to read it.

    Several of the documents presented to "prove" Iraq's level of danger to the US were later shown to be forgeries. Another was cribbed mostly from outdated documents available on-line. And now intelligence officials are coming forward to state that the intelligence presented differed significantly to the intelligence gathered.

    It is not the questioning that is the problem.

    Yes, it is. There is not *enough* questioning. Our government should be under a microscope at all times.

    If you do it out of a hatred for the country and its people, then you certainly are unpatriotic. Looking forward to having you leave and go to Cuba or North Korea.

    Your thinking is deeply flawed. Why do you assume I hate my country or its people? I love my country, as I stated; I love our culture, our society, and our people. I just hate individuals, like Pres. G. W. Bush.

    I'm not too fond of blind loyalists like you, either.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.