Slashdot Mirror
Is Microsoft Paying To Influence UN Standards?
PizzaFace writes "Microsoft is reported to be spending strategically to influence the United Nations' standards for business data exchange. A UN standards-setting body, UN/CEFACT, and an industry-standards group, OASIS, had developed an open standard format for data interchange, called ebXML. Microsoft hired two people from UN/CEFACT, and a few months later the body decided to stop working on ebXML and instead to work on a Business Collaboration Framework for web services, promoted by Microsoft and IBM. Microsoft then paid for three UN committee members to travel to six countries to promote the BCF."
I hardly think that this particular article rates as a big deal.
:)
All technical issues aside, if a damn UN standards-setting body is influenced in their decision by a couple of hotel stays and some plane tickets (which, they would have gotten anyway), then there is no hope for any of us - we might as well accept our clippy enhanced future now.
Hmmmm... or maybe there is - hell, if could raise $10 grand maybe I could get a new standard which lets me get master control over something.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Yes. They pay to influence the USA standards; don't you think they pay them too?
No way, I am flabbergasted that someone would even suggest that Microsoft would do something as underhand as this.
I for one will stand up and defend...err.....hold on....
Did they do anything besides present their technology? What financial incentives did the UN gain from ebXML?
I have been pwned because my
Then don't you think the real heart of the problem is that the standards boards consist of people of such negotiable ethics and opinions?
They actually do stuff besides sit politicans around a large table and disappear for the next 5 years?
Yea right!
This is not especially surprising, considering the number of large businesses that lobby and otherwise bride their way through government.
At least Microsoft is not getting their buddies elected or, say, preventing security standards from cutting their operation costs at the detriment of their employees and customers' safety.
Swinging one way or the other on a data exchange standard seems pretty harmless to me. But I guess this is the 'excuse du jour' for some quality MS-bashing...
Microsoft bad... IBM good... so... confused....
Money Can buy!
Mr. Softy would be an idiot not to pay it off. In fact, it's a know fact, it's the only way to get anything done.
Take for instance The U.N. Oil For Food Program. Saddam called it: I'll scratch your back... You Save My Butt!
My wife worked for the U.N. in Africa for 5 years and saw first hand the corruption. TO the point of it being such a joke, that she doesn't even list the experience on her resume. Instead she talks about the odd jobs she performed such as international currier after her UN stint, but while still in Africa.
It's $1 billon. So yes I think this may be true.
"Is Microsoft Paying To Influence UN Standards?"
/. story headline:
Uh... Yes it does?
How is this surprising?
Next
"microsoft's business malpractices."
come on...
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
WIPO Pressured to Kill Meeting on Open Source
The article mentions that the work on the Open XML standard was complete and their website shows that this standard will be used in the 'Business Colloboration Model'....so where is the problem?
The site doesn't mention Windows or Windows-based systems anywhere, nor does it mention Microsoft. With IBM so heavily supporting *nix based systems, I doubt MS can wriggle their way into making the standards supported only on their platform, otherwise it's not really a standard....
Bored? http://www.dodgybloke.co.uk
It used to be "Bribing"
Then it was "lobbying"
Now it's "Spending Strategically"
bs
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Shocker! Big business spends money to try and make more money! And some of the spending is a little grey, ethically and morally speaking!
Isn't this supposed to be a news site?
--
This is not flamebait or trolling (and these are not the droids you seek). This is commentary, done in a sarcastic tone. Posting tiny examples of the prevalence of corporate influence in our world is a waste of time.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Microsoft and senior UN officials reply that the accusation is false, saying that the company's contributions were relatively modest, complied with UN guidelines and did not unduly influence decision-making within the body. .
Like they ever would say something like "yes we are behaving like corrupt colombian Mobsters". Standars are always a wrestling match between companies trying to impose their technology, who doesnt want everyone to need what you created and know best how to do!.
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
... but the "stop working on ebXML" link seems to suggest that the work was deemed complete, rather than being shitcanned. Also, as the summary says, the BCF stuff is being promoted by both MS and IBM - both of whom are OASIS members.
/shrug
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
There is _no_ one ring in the real world.
"...influence the USA standards..."
The UN isn't just USA but the United Nations made up of well over 100 countries. Much bigger field to influence.
Evolution or ID?
This may prove to show an even bigger problem with the UN. That it can be bought. M$ has the money to do it too.
I wonder if there are any provisions or controls over the UN to prevent this.
Evolution or ID?
"Is Microsoft Paying To Influence UN Standards?"
In case you haven't noticed, the UN is everybodies bitch lately.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Yeah, they do bugger all
Please enlighten me as to why this is news? This happens every day! It's called lobbying. Is it because it's the mother of all evil megacorps that's doing the lobbying?
Here's wikipedia's definition of lobyism.
With Microsoft basically failing trying to influence independent countries to not use OSS, it seems that have gone further down to the root of the tree. I imagine their planning is to try to infect from the bottom up, they figure that maybe someday in the future more and more countries will look to the UN for technology advice/guidance and wouldn't it be just peachy for the UN to push MS's products and services?
Looks like they now have the UN as technology peons as well. surprise surprise
Those who trade in their freedom for security, deserve neither.
when national governments develop "standards for business exchange." After all, they have a legal obligation to do so. However, it's pretty scarry when the UN starts to do it and even worse when a corporation can purchase the votes to make their stuff the standard.
what really gets to me is that the un would even be dabbling in this sort of thing. next thing they may be off for taxing and that, my friends is the end of the world as we know it and the change is not going to be desireable, believe me you.
Reading the article (yes, I did :-), it didn't seem so clear-cut to me. In the article, ebxml and bcf are placed in front of eachother as direct competitors.
:-)
From an ebXML Business Process Specification Schema announcement and a BCF faq I figured that ebxml provides a number of services (like repositories) and a number of high-level xml specifications.
The first item, services, seems to do some of the same things as soap, uddl, etc, the webservices stuff (1). This seems to be the major area where IBM and MS try to convince people to use their (webservices) solutions instead of the ebxml solutions.
The second item , the high-level xml specifications, seems to lack a few things that weren't included in ebxml proper, like the "UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology -- Meta Model". These (or solutions based on it) are now developed separately by the UN under the name of BCF. But this is more of a layer building upon the existing ebxml work.
So: ebxml's services see some flak from webservices (ibm+ms) and the UN acknowledges that this is a possible alternative implementation. On the other hand, the UN builds upon ebxml by adding the BCF layer, making it more useful.
At least, that's my guess from the info!
Reinout
p.s. 1): for REST-proponents: I like the REST approach more than the SOAP one
Reinout van Rees
I'm known for my rather critical attitude towards the US but if there was a general opinion that MS was buying favour with US politicians then I think it will be a lot worse in the international sphere as the price of a third world ignoramus sitting in some UN committe panel is certainly not higher than that of a corrupt US politician.
A lot of money from Microsoft does indeed go into the political arena. However, Microsoft, being such a large company with rather large revenues and a controversial business stategy, is not unlike any other company. And why should they. If they don't put money into the PAC's pockets and other various outlets, they will be broken up.
Never does the "Borg Gates" image seem so appropriate as when I read about Microsoft influencing international political bodies.
As an American, obviously you wouldn't know.
As your president only wants involvement with the UN when it suits him, and your attitude to international politics is a joke.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but these kind of things happen ALL the time. Sadly it is called "Capitalism" and your new found anger at MS is a bit misplaced here. Start with being angry at politicains for introducing this kind of behavior and accepting money to drive the whims of big cooperations.
yeah, but it's true. it's also concise, well known, and keeps lazy people from needed to read the rest of the page.
The world is in open moral collapse - not to mention denial.
Same as it always was, really, but with scantier drapes.
And no-one seems interested in ( i.e.: scared into ) checks and balances of any sort.
The even minimally ethical, with hope or intent for an even minimally decent future for humanity, or the world, have less places to gather in (on, around) - or hide.
Raw, naked, ruthless, mindless, hell-bent power seems to the order of the day. Klingons with corny western accents, eh ? Well, well. Who'd a thunk it ? And everyone's welcoming them like there was no tomorry, too. >:-|
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, won praise in January when he trumpeted a company agreement to give $1 billion in software and cash to the United Nations as part of a job-training program for the developing world.
.NET srvices?
So as a humanitarian, he contributed a very generous sum towards education, but the question now remains, what will the job-training program be pertaining to, MCSE or
The people get jobs, that helps, but it's only temporary and helps our good friend Mr. Gates strengthen his monopoly.
I don't know, you be the judge.
I think a discussion about paying to influence the UN would be a little shallow without bringing this up for perspective.
shouldn't get involved in the definition of XML standards at all. After all, we already have several excellent international, neutral standards bodies that worry about this sort of thing.
The UN should work on foster better relations between countries. They should work on eliminating all WMDs (even those in the first world) They should cure hunger and famine and disesase and educate the world. They should work toward universal human rights. And when they have accomlished that, disband.
We don't need a world body to help business, they can do that perfectly well on their own. And to do so, only opens up the possibility of corruption with no concievable gain. Why is even as single penny of UN money or a single second of UN time going to this effort when much more pressing needs exist?
obvious, expected, business as usual, not worhty of a headline, etc... But I think it's worthwhile to point this stuff out, software companies influencing political bodies are bad for everyone, equally bad are political bodies controlling software, think of it as a desperately needed techno-geek seperation of church and state. Maybe if people would take this more serioulsy instead of accepting that this is "the way it is" things might change.
Achieving consensus is hard. Really hard. It is what good leaders do well.
Why do we need a standard set by the UN anyway?
Except now we know what (2) is.
Remember - The U.N. does not answer to any voter in the world. Instead, the U.N. answers to... politicians!
6 w0dDykJ: 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1074281/posts+Saddam%2 7s+Global+Payroll&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
That's why the U.N. is such a thoroughly corrupted entity. The U.N. enjoys a multi-billion dollar budget that is in theory controlled by the governments of a few large country... but in reality, the politicians from those country come and go, and in the end, the U.N. does not really answer to any one.
Lack of oversight over a multibillion dollar budget... yeah! That's the ticket!
Look a this Wall Street Journal article about Kofi Annan deep-sixing the corruption investigation of his best-buddy at the U.N. (Annan's Assistant Secretary General & friend Benon Sevan pocketed millions from Irak).
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Yxb3
Whats new. Microsoft buy of people all the time. Its not just Microsoft either. Most American business engage in dubious practices to sell their products. IBM got burned for bribing officials in Asia lately - just because other companies haven't had their dodgy dealings uncovered doesn't mean it doesn't go on.
It's not that it's surprising that Microsoft would be buying influence at the UN; most of the member states are headed by kleptocratic governments whose first question is "How much for me?" Even when the governments aren't fatally corrupt, payoffs are the way to get things done in most places the UN represents.
That MS is playing by those rules isn't surprising at all, and I'm sure the Bush adminstration is rooting for standards tied to corporate interests and IP as well.
"Finally my plan to take over the world is coming to light!! MUHAHAHAHAHA"
You didn't see the word Microsoft, and disengage your brain and immediately assume they were doing something underhanded.
But facts have no place here, frankly I'm suprised IBM got left in the summary at all, it must be such a dichotomy for the Slashdot herd, trying to reconcile Microsoft underhandedness with IBM's "pure as the driven snow" image.
Slashdot needs to create another category for some of their stories. The "No shit Sherlock!" category.
So, when do the public lashings of Microsoft CEOs and UN heads start? What? There's to be no real punishment for the wrongdoers? And you call yourself a civilized society?
Microsoft don't really need to do the dirty work themselves. The US state department really goes out of it's way to make sure US corporate interests are well taken care of in these forums.
Point taken. They're even buying Office-branded ads on the New York Times article discussing this issue... (at least, it's what I saw on the NYT site a few minutes ago)
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Who on earth modded this down? +1, Funny!
Regardless of who it is, any big buiness that has the funds will try to manipulate things in order to assist their growth and locking out competition..
Normal operating procedure.. why act suprised?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Seems to me that's an utter lack of standards.
MS and standards are a bit of a contradiction. MS will tembrace any standard and then extend it as they seem fit.
In this case they were afraid that ebXML was gathering too much momentum so they just tried throwing a few sticks in the wheels of ebXML.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Is there such a thing as a UN Watchdog organization? If not then there should be - Slashdot has too many irons in the fire to fit the job description. (We should, however, continue in our current capacity as a computer industry watchdog. :)
Anyway, this is not news; merely more of the same. I *expect* Microsoft to do these types of things. News would be Microsoft getting busted for it. This is not news.
Codifex Maximus posting as AC
Why MS is paying for something they will not follow after voted?
I worked for an insurance company when it was in the process of merging with a bank in the largest merger in history in the US. The merged company became Citigroup. The only problem with the merger was that there were laws preventing insurance companies from merging with banks.
As the merger went along, the attitude was that 'were waiting to get the appropriate legislation passed'. It was very matter of fact, that they knew the laws were going to change to allow them to merge... because they changed them!
Big companies have influence!
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
For one I agree with Mr. Bush, The United Nations should be abolished...
Time to pull the plug...
Anyone here really think the French were about to forgive the odious debts they had put on the Iraqi people because of their loans to Saddam?
(Hint: go find a picture of the groundbreaking ceremony at the Osirik nuclear reactor and tell me who's standing next to Saddam....)
but the UN is a group of courup jerks.
first, elements of the french government (elements does not mean the government) were in bed with Saddam in order to enrich themselves at the price of the Iraqi people.
now the UN is selling out to Microsoft.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Such is the same with any politician. Pols are ALWAYS paid more than they are worth, and always make far more than the people they represent.
Dunno where you live but here in the UK the vast majority of poilticians are most definitely upaid and are part of the voluntary sector. (Only the few hundred members of parliament and a few others get paid - the many thousands of councillors don't.)
In return for funding a significant portion of the UN bureaucracy, Bill Gates has agreed to overlook rampant UN corruption as long as the UN supports Gate's right to maintain his monopoly in desktop operating systems.
Hey, why not. The UN wound up working for 10 years to protect Saddam.
IBM has had some experience with trying to impose a proprietary standard when there a good, open one. Anybody remember IBM's token rings?
"This would lead to a "big crunch" where the universe ultimately implodes. "This looks like the least likely scenario at present," says Riess."
This can't be, coz' even Red Dwarf had an episode about that!
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Good leaders also realize when a situation needs to be remedied even if those he's leading do not.
Just regular lobbying like it is happening every day in every country. Why should Microsoft be a bit different than thousands of other industry leaders out there...?
You never mentioned how many countries have actually ratified Kyoto, nor did you comment on the UN's utter failures in Kosovo, Clinton's "unilateral" intervention there, Rwanda's genocide, nor the failure of the "UN community" to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.
And yet you now agree that the original post was an anti-US rant, but now you're reduced to calling it "justified", despite an utter inability to actually justify it.
I'll leave you with one question, one that hopefully will make you actually think. Although my hopes aren't too high, here's my one question:
Did you ever stop to consider why you have such an anti-US predisposition? (And I mean really think about your predisposition - like what are the hard, firsthand evidence for your beliefs - not something someone told you!)
Next question, please.
They want to be recognized as their own country.
Once Gates gets you hooked on his crack, you're on the Wonderful, Endless, Anything-but-Free, Microsoft Upgrade Merry-Go-Round, for life!
Despotic leaders occasionally use your true statement in defense of their otherwise unjustifiable actions.
Did anyone stop to think that the BCF perhaps is a better standard than ebXML? Oh, that's right, since Microsoft is behind it - and we all know how much you like them - it must be proprietary. I suppose you all missed that IBM is pushing this, too? And from what I've read some time back, others are too. So far as I can tell, OASIS is only backing ebXML.
Do you people even know what these two standards are for? I doubt it. You just see the word "Microsoft" and start raving like uninformed idiots.
So what it Microsoft paid the salaries and a few meal tickets to sway opinion. If you quit working on open-source free-ware and joined the real working world, you'd see this is a common practice. I work for a small start-up and even we do that. Get a clue.
I chalk it up to a need to replace old revenue streams before they dry up, or before security and anti-trust penalties take it down for the count, before the company gets a proper audit...
'Course all that's moot if Joe Sixpack figures out that Windows is not ready for the Internet, but that Linux, BSD and OS X are, plus cost effective and easy to use.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Correction, the name should have been Andy Bowers, not Bob Garfield. Apologies.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The bulk of any large organization's workforce are paper pushers
...
What you call "paper pushers", and what they call (according to your good link) "Administration" etc. is indeed the main role of the UN. "Peace keeping" after wars and such is a lot of administration, management, logistics, police,
I was in Cambodia when they were organizing the first real elections after Pol Pot. Nobody was starving, and there was no need for emergency aid like food distribution (there was and still is need for medical care though). The job was to set up fair elections, and that certainly wasn't easy.
I don't know how the food situation is in East Timor, but I suspect that there also, food is not the main problem. The difficulty is helping to set up a decent civilian administration to run the country after decades of war.
etc. in other places.
What I want to say is that you cannot dismiss the work the UN does on the ground that it is "paper pushers" work. That's the work they are supposed to be doing. Now I'm sure there are many examples where it is badly done, or in an inefficient way, but from what I've seen they also definitely do manage to get good work done.
And even more direct emergency help like for refugees requires a lot of administrative office work.
Problems like these aren't resolved by preventing payoffs by "big business" or even by "a rich individual." Problems such as these are resolved by limiting the power of the elected official.
The UN has too much power. When you offer a person or a group of people, aka "elected officials" too much power, they'll be corrupted easily.
In the US, we used to have a really limited federal/central government. You could throw all the money you wanted at a Congressman or a President, but the Constitution limited them from doing anything to help you. Our great tyrant, Abe Lincoln, changed all that.
Just as the power of the US federals has spiraled out of control, so has the power of the UN. The more power we offer them, the more money will pay for the whims of the wealthy.
Greens, Democrats, Republicans, they all love the UN. They may say they don't, but while the UN swallows up more and more responsibility, do you really ever see even one of our elected officials tell us to get out of the UN?
There is one. Ron Paul.
Now that the interests of those five powers is no longer even semi-convergent, the UN is reduced to babbling about business process standards.
Probably the most effective way to reform the UN would be to remove France from its permanent Security Council seat and replace it with India or Japan, both of which are much more consequential on the world stage
The only reason France is consequential at the UN is only because of that permanent seat on the Security Council, whereas Japan and India are world powers in their own right, and much more so than France will ever be again. Think about it - if India had weighed in against an Iraqi invasion half as hard as the French did, what would have happened? The only reason France mattered was that veto, and the only reason they have that veto is that Truman, Churchill, and Stalin didn't want to see deGaulle cry.
we might as well accept our clippy enhanced future now
I, for one, welcome our clippy overlords.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
The UN has always been "guided" by the most powerful and richest.
Likewise, users, especially governments and NGOs may walk en masse to other solutions to avoid Palladium encumbered file formats, BIOS, CPUs, OS, and apps.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
In order for something like this to matter, the UN would have to have some sort of power. It'd be like giving tanks to the French military. Sure ... now thed have more tanks ... but it's not like they'd know what to do with them.
Many posts here have been modded up, and rightly so I suppose, for pointing out that this is business as useal.
However, unless people like us are in the know about things like this we there is nothing to stop large business groups from railroading whatever they see fit though standardizing boards.
Yes this is a news site. Yes, guys and gals this IS news. Yeah, the editors have a anti-MS bias but that does not mean that it's not newsworthy.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
"Big companies have influence!"
What companies have is transitory. Influence is having your own moon orbiting. Or ripping apart a sun with your gravity.
"In related events, Microsoft has offered to buy the entirety of the UN in a cash offer extended early Monday. The news sent the software makers stock into a slight tailspin dropping by nearly a full point, while the UN rose 2/10ths. While there is no official comment from either party, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was overheard recently remarking that domination of the world's software market has always been a springboard to bigger things. Analysts are scambling to determine how exactly the two corporate structures and cultures would mesh. Rumors that the UN's trademark blue helmets would be replaced by pocket protectors are, so far just that, rumors."
Achieving consensus is hard. Really hard. It is what good leaders do well.
That's one school of thought. Another school is that it's important to stick up for what you believe in, and not give in to a consensus view that doesn't accomplish what it needs to do. There are some good leaders who do this too.
By your school of thought, if there are two senators, and one wants $1M additional for a project, and the other wants to cut $1M from the budget. They can come to a consensus at leaving the budget alone. In which case neither side is happy, and nothing has changed, nothing has improved, nothing has been hurt.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
ha. I never said paper pushers are bad. or unneccesary!
I just found the parent poster going for the drama points, by creating a vision of a huge army of people handing out rice.
I knew that for every person out in the field, there had to be 10 or 20 back in the office. I did not state that this was out of the norm, and in fact stated that "any large organization".
it's just in the nature of large organiztions.
the U.N. does a fine job.
moving right along...
what a shock.
fuck the UN. the day the US submits to this piece of shit organization will be a very bad fucking day.
In now is absolutely transparent what Microsoft's motives are, EMBRACE, EXTEND, and EXTINQUISH the Open ebXML standards.
The disappointing aspect of this story is IBM's envolvement. What are they thinking? They've gotten their clocks cleaned serveral times working with Microsoft. Won't they ever learn?
Meanwhile, it begs the question of IBM's motives in supporting Linux. If they are in league with Microsoft's efforst to undermine an international XML standard that creates and maintains a LEVEL playing field for everyone, what other anti-competitive practices are on their agenda that we don't yet know about?
I wasn't trolling but what the fuck do you mods know?
Jonathanjk.com
UN/CEFACT had important role in the standardization of EDI but the rules have changed since then. I doubt Microsoft would be stupid enough to pay much for influencing the work of UN/CEFACT.
Standards for business-to-business data exchange are not useful unless fairly popular. Network effect is very strong in this area. ebXML has been around for sometime and it also had the contributions of OASIS behind it. Yet there are few (none?) implementations of ebXML in production use. Why would BCF be any more succesful? The successor of EDI will most likely be RosettaNet. Microsoft is also a member of RosettaNet, but I doubt it has much to say in the development of that standard. The cost and significance of software is irrelevant in the total implementation costs of business-to-business data exchange.
Is it Microsoft who is evil for spending money or the UN for being influenced by it?
I know people who are working for the UN as translators and they're forced to use Internet Explorer to upload their work (doesn't work on Mozilla nor Opera), Microsoft Office for documents, spreadsheets,...) and guess what... their servers are running Windows 2000. As I design/maintain Websites using open source software (FreeBSD, Mozilla, Konqueror, GIMP, etc), I wouldn't like being forced to use Microsoft products by my employer. Any thoughts on this?
Normal operating procedure.. why act suprised?
Most of us aren't surprised. But, why sit still? The fact that it is normal operating procedure scares me even more.
Yeah, I'm not some naive hick. I know that money buys policy. That doesn't mean we have to bend over and take it up the ass just because business has a woody for our pocket change. Like the guy said, I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The site's menus go funky under Mozilla 1.6 on Windows, yet views JUST FINE under IE 6...
So yes, Microsoft has bought this thing, completely.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The site is sponsored by a group called Public Citzen, a 30 year old organization established with Ralph Nader that among other tracks the funding of all canidates, regardless of party:
Microsoft is on the list of contributors to the Bush reelection campaign.
Steve
If what they are doing is not illegal, it is certianly immoral.
It what way do they not deserve to be "bashed"?
If they have / are doing what is being alleged, then that is wrong.
Why do you feel it so needful to defend wrong? Oh, because it is MS? Troll?
emt 377 emt 4
Hmmm, corporations at least are trying
to make a buck for their shareholders (40%
of American people these days, not just
Scrooge McDuck swimming in his basement).
They do need to influence policy decisions,
since Gov policy these days severely
affects business. If gov policy had no effect
on business, there would be no attempt to
influence decisions.
Corruption? Unlikely. If you want to see
some corruption, take a look at Saddam
and his "oil for protection" business:
http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000708.htm
Now, THAT is corruption by vicious killers
to protect themselves from the bad old USA.
How much more money does ms feel that it needs? Is bg happy with being the richest man on the planet?
How does this happen? The opportunity that presents itself doesn't seem like a bribe. It seems like an opportunity that would otherwise go to waste.
Let me give an example. About a dozen years ago I was the (volunteer) treasurer of a non-profit organization. As such I chaired the Finance committee (also volunteers). We banked at the Metro Credit Union, an institution like a bank, except you become a (voting) member, not a client, when you open your account. The Credit Union offered a "member appreciation dinner" to all members who attended the Annual General Meeting. And my organization was allowed to send one member.
As Treasurer I could have attended without any paperwork. But I was already a member of the Credit Union, in my personal capacity. To delegate someone else required the signature of two members of my organization's Board of Directors.
Well, the Finance Committee could have discussed who could attend, and the Board could have discussed who could attend. But they only met once a month, so the President and I had a brief informal meeting, and she agreed to sign the document, allowing a buddy of mine, who sat on the Finance Committee to go.
Small potatoes, but that is how corruption starts. You are not behaving corruptly, you are making sure something doesn't go to waste.
So, those in positions where they can be tempted need written standards, that spell out what is allowed and what isn't.
I believe, in America, public office holders are not allowed to accept gifts worth more than $50. It clearly hasn't stopped them from having some very corrupt politicians. Starting with George Washington. Although Kitman's two books, George Washington's Expense Account and The Making of the President, 1789 are written in a humourous tone they do expose some very nasty corruption.
The story completely misses the fact that it's all about standards for TRUSTED COMPUTING DRM information formats. Just Google ebXML "Trusted Computing". These information exchange formats only work on top of a "security system" - they only work if your computer contains a "TCPA Chip". Without the chip you get locked out.
The fact that Micorsoft is promoting one Trusted Computing document format over another is insignifigant. The fact that the UN is promoting Trusted Computing AT ALL is what we should be horrified about.
They are tring to ram through Trusted Computing adoption under the UN authority because the rest of the world would rebell against a US or US/EU effort to impose such a system. Any country that does not adopt Trusted Computing (and create laws protecting that crippled hardware) will be entirely locked out. It would be a monumental Trade barrier. Such countries would be increasingly locked out of the internet itself.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Let's see if IBM will leave MS high 'n dry now that the coyote is outta bag. Other IBM-related thoughts would be: "...and keep your enemies even closer" and "MS-Office dependency syndrome".
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
I wonder if the guy with the knife on Santa Monica Blvd. will be Clippy enhanced? Or the band
of teenagers who assault/kill another homeless
youth? Or how about the people forced into
prostitution to survive?
And your solution is? I suppose Senator A could declare the Senate irrelevant and just get on with his project. You would see plenty of action - no checks, no balances, but the job would get done. Does this scenario sound "un-American" to you?
Now, that would be news.
How about standing up for what you believe in, instead of just coming to a consensus where everybody loses. Convince people, engage in debate. Consensus making is a lose-lose. If you can promote thinking and action, it can turn into a win-win.
Want a case in point? Look at the philosophy's of the late Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Wellstone felt that it is extremely important to be the one vote in a 99-1 decision, as long as you are voting your conscience. Whereas Coleman is more of a "do whatever required to get 51 votes" kind of guy.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Hey if it helps the U.N. do its job better, what do I care? The mean side of me can see the next MS advert where the U.N. is used as a backdrop to sell product.
And besides, the lowley UN grunt doesnt sit in committee in the UN building collecting checks from multinationals... the lowley UN grunt is on the ground in Kenya, or Bosnia, or Iraq, or somewhere like that, handing out rice, giving innoculations to children and other such things. Often for months at a time, in some of the worst imaginable conditions.
You forgott to mention: forced abortions, intocicating unaware women so they can not have babyes etc. And that does not include what they do on theire sparetime: Rapeing, bying sex, etc. (an d for all you americans hwo value animals over humanbeings: they are killing innocent animals to)
I most prefer the one that votes with his conscience. And I'm OK with the one that will do what it takes to get 51 votes. But I won't tolerate the one that thinks the result of the vote doesn't matter.
No matter how much of this Monopoly$oft indulges in they will not prevail in the long run.
[Gentoo is hyped. Modded into the ground to suppress opinion]
... just happens to be in software instead of construction / oil.
Absolutely, build a consensus for what you believe in.
Ok, now I'm confused. In the last sentence you were touting the importance of convincing people that you are right, and now you are saying building a consensus for what you believe in is bad? I give up.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
It seems to me like we have industry groups like ISO, W3C and such that can work on technology standards.
This one kind of puzzled me, even moreso than the "Oh my god! Microsoft is evil and they bought plane tickets for UN people to go to a conference that they otherwise couldn't have afford to go to!" response from the slashbot drones.
It will be nice when, one of these days, Microsoft is finally reduced to a sniveling word processor company or gaming console vendor. They have a stranglehold on the market, innovation, politics, and the future of computing as a whole. Monopolies suck.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Doen't this just sound like a game of Civilization 3. Whoever is the first to build the United Nations Wonder controls it...
;)
The United Nations Building IS in New York.
Gotta love equating real life to computer games!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not the responsiblity of the user, as I probably stole them anyway
It sure comes accross as a scam. 8 pages of panic-mode pro-Windows tripe, not a mention about proactive security nor even a whisper about more secure applications -- dressed up as an official public service.
Shoot, the guide wasn't even logical. It opens with about how an unprotected [MS-Windows] home computer will be cracked within a minute or two of being connected to the Internet. Then it goes on to say that [MS-Windows victims] should connect download the latest patches, a process which can take hours over a phone line or even slow ADSL.
You can see the Finnish version of the M$ propaganda or, if you can't read Finnish, then there is also a translation. ;)
One of the consumer groups or FSF groups could come out with a neutral explanation of more secure options (Mozilla, Opera, Firfox, Eudora, OS X, Linux + KDE/Gnome, etc.)
Apple, especially, should get in on the act. They make a robust and secure OS, in effect immune to the types of exploits that pull M$ pants down every week. Yet the press ignores it. WTF?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Well Well, the fight between UN/CEFACT and OASIS was obvious a long time ago. Ever since OASIS started to work on UBL, they stepped on the foot of CEFACT, by working on message content definitions.
So it is no wonder, that CEFACT is reorienting themself. This is not only becuase of the personal changes. But of course those also have some meaning.
The UN work is not realy money driven, but highly dependend on individual work. I know that a lot of ppl ware working at CEFACT or OASIS TCs very enthusiastically, and it is not a cheap thing for a company to sponsor chairs, editors or contributors.
BTW: I was personally very impressed on the quick and quality work the ebXML open process had produced. The work realy slowed down, after it moved to OASIS TCs and to other CEFACT Working Groups. And I had the impression, that the CEFACT was the more modern and agile body to carry on the work. OASIS has pretty strict attendence rules for paying members - you have to torture yourself to be part of the community.
Greetings
Bernd
For those who might be interested, UN/CEFACT's Business Collaboration Framework has published on their website clarifications with respect to the New York Times article, "Microsoft Creates a Stir in Its Work With the UN." The URL is http://www.unbcf.org/news-20040224.html.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I pose this as a question, not a certainty, because I am not sure that I completely understand how slashdot moderation is supposed to work.
Some slashdot readers have complained that the slashdot staff have unlimited mod points -- and use them capriciously. Should they have unlimited mod points? If they have them, but it is for the purpose of dealing with software anomalies, like a bug giving someone a falsely high or falsely low Karma score, would using that power to promote opinion peices that agree with their personal views be corrupt? I believe it would be.
So, do the slashdot editors actually do this?
Some slashdot contributors say they have lost their privileges to moderate. I myself have not been invited to moderate in ages. It feels like it has been well over a year. I still get invited to meta-moderate though.