Slashdot Mirror
US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn
skrysakj writes "CNN/Money has a new article describing the close eye the Feds have on Longhorn and its compliance with the anti-trust settlement. I wonder how discerning their eye will be considering past decisions and lax enforcement. Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?" The longer Washington Post piece has more information.
Why this is kinda bad for the operating system:
:-)
1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"
This means it will be difficult for people to mod their Longhorn OS and reap rewards from having a custom system, beyond what the OS offers by default (like the ability to hide certain MS apps in favour of your own fare). Microsoft is being forced to be inflexible to some extent, and that means bad news for customers of the software giant. Bugs will be harder to fix, updates will be slower, response to threats even slower. This will be the repeated excuse while many suffer the wrath of virus programmers abound.
2. Justice Department lawyers would visit Microsoft's headquarters next week to discuss a variety of antitrust compliance issues
Okay, they're going to spend a week at Microsoft. How is that going to solve anything or be effective at all? They'll have a bunch of meetings over Shrimp and Wine coolers, get liquored up and talk about golf.
3. When the government is involved in any project, it's subject to major setbacks, not to mention built in spyware.
These three reasons will force many to the Linux model of computing. Yay!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
They should put the Department of Homeland Security on it too. You know, for securities sake.
It'll be the same old story. MS releases EU sues, proceedings take 5 years. MS makes masses of profit.Smaller companies wilt.
Meh, they won't do anything. never have, never will. Microsoft just has to many intercorrelations with govmnt.. hopefully, the eu will stand up.
The settlement specifically uses "Microsoft's Windows" and not, for example, "Microsoft's Operating System." I thought the purpose of that specific language was to make Longhorn exempt from the settlement. It's nice to know I'm wrong in this instance.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I wonder how discerning their eye will be considering past decisions and lax enforcement.
Well, if the Republicans win the house/senate/whitehouse again, you can bet this won't go anywhere.
However if the Democrats win at least some of those (esp. the Whitehous) you might see at least a bit more attention from the Justice dept.
You'll recall that after the Bush admin took over the settlement between the govmt and M$ was pretty much turned into a slap on the wrist.
Microsoft, which has delayed Longhorn's rollout, has not said when it will be released as the successor to Windows XP, the current version of the personal-computer operating system. Several industry analysts have predicted introduction of Longhorn in 2006 or possibly 2007, which is when the antitrust settlement is scheduled to expire. - Washington Post Since Longhorn will be distributed after the terms of the antitrust agreement expire they can do whatever the hell they want. They can show one thing when in reality they mean to implement another. I am not saying thats what they are going to do, its just a possibility.
This means it will be harder for me to make my apps work on this OS, and to make it work for my locked down corp use.
leave it to the Feds to mess things up..
You can sore with the eagles, but weasels do not get sucked into jet engines.
Maybe I'm too old and cynical, but this just seems like political hijinx, which the "news" organizations will pick up and report, will keep the people happy who have neither the time nor the inclination to dig deeper into the details of this enforcement, but will ultimately hurt us all in the long run. I can't see the government caring beyond it making a nice sound-bite in tonight's news.
I'm just waiting for the revolution.
Longhorn will be expected to deliver phenomenally in terms of 1. Security 2. UI 3. "Seamless" integration of internet/multimedia tool. It is, however, this precise policy of "integration", or rather, forcing users to go with MS software, which is the bee in Microsoft's bonnet. Recent technology previews of mozilla firefox and thunderbird, along with other web content software (shareware as well as open source) are much better in terms of performance than the existing stuff from the MS stable. LongHorn will have to outperform in more ways than one to battle Linux as well as opensource
Probably because it'll come bundled with a complete government, so you won't need the on in Washington DC, state capitol, etc.
Those guys up in Redmond are so thoughtful, but what happens when the first security hole is found?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?
I just hope the EU inspectors don't spontaneously combust when they do peek at the code.
It's to meet the daily bash-Microsoft quota. Along with the pointless Shared Source article earlier intended to generate endless OSS vs. Shared Source comparisons, the entire point of this article is to have endless antitrust discussion that has already been had countless times before, mixed in with the occasional vaporware jokes and basless government insults (like yours...they'd get liquored up and discuss golf? Get real).
But hey, this is Slashdot. I've already gotten modded down just for making a joke in the Doom 3 article. Facts, objectivity, and a real sense of humor have no place here.
Makes me wonder if Apple has any regrets over the Longhorn-themed ads... ;)
No wonder it's taking MS so long to release Longhorn.
From the MSNBC article:
"Several industry analysts have predicted introduction of Longhorn in 2006 or possibly 2007, which is when the antitrust settlement is scheduled to expire."
Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?
:-D
Not using it?
Is it just me or does anyone else find it interesting that Longhorn is delayed until just about the time the M$ Antitrust settlement encumbrances ( such as they are) go away.
When the fox gaurds the henhouse, there isn't much need to count the chickens. Whatever happened to anti-trust with balls? A paper tiger is meaningless, and there is nothing that microsoft and company could possibly do that would actually result in real action. Once there was at least enough of a threat to have them work hard at keep Apple afloat, but now with Linux they can act with impunity. If my government won't stop Microsoft, who will?
I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't be able to mod an article as flamebait. :\
:(
It's a legit read, no doubt, but...okay, so the govt is going to be keeping an eye on the OS. Cue the arguement of "yay!" and "aw crap, here comes big brother".
Listen. Right now on a daily basis I interact primarily with 3 OS's:
MacOS X 10.3
FreeBSD 5.2.1
Some outdated version of Red Hat Linux (7.2?)
I wouldn't mind just going around loading any one of the above on every workstation I come across, except for the irony that I work for a Micrsoft Certified Solutions Provider. Heck, we just acheived Gold status last week.
I run the ISP, which has very little interaction with the above. Anymore, I get called in only if it's a bonified networking problem (one your MCSE can't solve. Wait, that's all of them, isn't it?) or to clean off viruses/virii (choose your term) and spyware.
I carry a cd around with me at all times. It has Firefox + adblock + flashblock, Thunderbird, Spybot, PuTTY, and Clamwin. With that combination, at times I spend up to 6 hours cleaning up a single workstation, between installing the above apps, cleaning off the yuckies, and running Windows update.
It's enough to make one's nerves crack. Seriously. Pick your most braindead install of Linux. I couldn't tell you which it is these days. Red Hat used to be it. I want sooooooo badly to just wipe each system, install that, Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, and Wine anything that doesn't have an OSS equivalent. But I can't, because Uncle Bill (tm) wouldn't approve.
Someone shoot me.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I keep an eye on the court/DOJ/MS interaction for my web site (yes, shameless plug). The federal court requests a periodic (usually quarterly) update on Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. It covers a variety of ground, but usually no specific products. For example, it explains how many more customers (yeah! one!) have signed up for licensing their newly "open" protocols. Basically, the court checks on stuff covered directly (explicitly) in the settlement.
So it's not unusual to see them checking in and meeting with Microsoft. The real problem is the leniency and broad interpretation of the settlement itself. I'm not too surprised to see Longhorn getting a better look, but I would be very surprised if Microsoft's plans are forced to change much.
Developers: We can use your help.
That's what the headline should read.
Of government officials standing over poor little MS Coders' shoulders and seeing a bad API Call
Govt honcho: "Hey that API you're calling through Internet explorer is a proprietary interface to windows, delete line of code immediately and find another way...
MS Geek: Sorry sir..
*scenario 2: as government official is checking poor MS Coder for "code compliance for Longhorn"
"Hmmmm....a PDF of his 2003 tax return, and he deducted quite a bit for child care...we'll see what the IRS says about that..."
While MS is evil and all, I would feel sorry for MS Coders who are subject to oversight not only for themselves and their management, but from govt officials, figure the turnover rate at Microsoft will be going up fast...
...in bed
So they're keeping a close eye on Longhorn, eh? The problem with any of these "enforcement" deals is that usually they're reactive. The product will come out, people will cry foul, then Microsoft spends a few years dancing with the justice department all the while the product has already done its corporate damage.
The only real way to keep an eye on them is to have someone actually be involved from the groundwork. Will such and such feature be anti-competition? If so, scrap it before anyone works on it. Otherwise it'll just be IE'ed into the OS and a teary-eyed Ballmer will have to explain to us that taking it out will kill Windows.
Things to watch out for: DRM and the integration of Media Player, the bundled firewall, an MS Anti-virus, and the Dancing Ballmer doing the "Welcome To Windows" tour.
It's not anti-American, and it's definitely not Goatse.
It's an article talking mainly about what Roosevelt's vice-President said about fascism, but it's worth thinking about even today.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
Microsoft will just invent more layers of "Set program access and defaults" interfaces to "accomodate" the government.
The end result to sysadmins and programmers will be more landmines in the code, more virus entry points, and more failure points in general.
Between these and the new security provisions that will break some(?) current software, Longhorn will be a very "interesting" software release.
I think Microsoft is really betting the farm on this one, in more ways than one.
Either that or they will finally find OS utopia and we will all be happy (pause bursts of laughter).
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
I read the shorter article (many words = enemy), and I can't help but wonder how the gov't actually intends on enforcing this issue. Are they really hiring programmers of thier own to look at the code? If not, would the average gov't employee know what he/she is looking at? Even if they were given some sort of a design document (hehhe) would they even be able to determine the true intent or implementation?
I for one welcome our new [insert main topic] overlords.
The great eye in Minas Morgul is fixated on Longhorn!
Input:
US Government Keeping Close Eye on Longhorn
Output:
Bush Administration Seeking Campaign Contributions from Microsoft
*Dies*
1. Feds want Longhorn to be "difficult to change"
Well actually:
" Renata Hesse, the Justice Department lawyer in charge of monitoring Microsoft's compliance with the agreement, told a federal judge yesterday that the government wants to look at the software, code-named Longhorn, early enough in its development so that it is not presented as a "fait accompli" that would be difficult to change."
That is to say, they don't want to be told that its already done, and this is it, and it is too late to make the changes that would allow us to be legally in compliance.
That doesn't mean that it can't be configured or customized. Rather, it means that it shouldn't be designed so that it can't be customized.
Remember how this all got started:
Eventually, federal courts determined that several of Microsoft's business practices broke antitrust laws and were designed to protect its operating-system monopoly. Although the courts found that commingling of the browser code with the operating system was anti-competitive, the deal with the Justice Department stopped short of forcing the company to decouple the programs. Instead, the settlement gives computer makers and users the ability to mask the presence of certain Microsoft applications if they want to use or showcase competing programs. The Justice Department is particularly concerned that this mandate be followed in Longhorn."
Really shouldn't talk about yourself like that man! It's not good for the ol' self esteem!
MSCE's seem to have more trainging in the licensing of Windows than anything. The operation of a Windows server seems to be a convaluded excercise in hiding the real functionality from the end user, and using the embrace and extend method of renaming everything.
Grrr.
Seriously man, I get called in to fix problems that MCSE's can't figure out by using *nix based tools.
Mail problem? Bring in Numbski's powerbook, use sendmail to figure it out. Open ports? nmap. Duplicate IP? ifconfig, iftop, nmap, ping, arp.
Granted, some of the tools exist on windows, but all of them. When it comes right down to it, troubleshooting a Windows network almost REQUIRES unix. It's insane really.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Maybe the Federales can uncover what's causing this little bugger...
Here at work (:-P) I happen to have MS Access running on Windows. MS Access has registered the file extension MAF. There's a Moz extension called MAF that archives web pages, kinda-like-mht-but-supposedly-better, and it saves with extension MAF.
So I save the archives. WhaddyIget? A file, whose extension doesn't show along with the name in explorer (despite that I have it set to show file extensions) with the icon of a shortcut.
Go into folder options->file types, set these files to open in Mozilla. Click apply, ok, close, refresh window, reopen window, reboot Windows, nothing changes. Files still open in Access upon double-click.
Also, this prompts the question, what is the EU doing to examine Longhorn?"
Thank you for not abusing the phrase "begging the question".
You might want to check out some of Kerry's Top Donors.
Also, if you're a fan of the DMCA you'll be pleased to see how high up Time Warner is on the list! But then the kowtowing Democrats do to Hollywood is legendary.
Bush is only slightly better in terms of dollars accepted by Microsoft (at least he's mostly free of media companies). Basically you're going to have to vode Nader - or Perot!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
on April 15 2004, Sun's James Gosling, in response to this article and some "slashdot flamage" from the same author, blogged in More on Sun & Microsoft
This ablity to selectively pick and choose and other "flexabilities" was a detail left out of Sun's press release, and more interestingly, the recent joint status report on Microsoft's complicance with the US DOJ final antitrust judgement.Sorry if you missed my joke, but Dogbert states that if you want something to be a certain way, be sure to enforce the opposite. Therefore by the DOJ enforcing Longhorn to be quick for MS to change, they will get, in result, a system that is impossible to change. It's the law.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
How about you stop waiting and do something about it?
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Even if a programmer was given the code it's not hard to hide things in code, and when there's as much code to look through as will constitute Windows Future Edition very little of it can be put through much scrutiny... investigating the code would take even longer than writing it, and that's seeming to take quite a while...
Ah, but the real question is whether they'll be keeping an eye on our lower horn.
The owls are not what they seem
Is that the only thing democrats know how to do....point fingers..give me a break. Look at your boy Kerry...he was for the war before he was against it. Medals...ribbons they are interchangeable you know.
At least Bush stands behind what he says. Yea, he is a coraparte man on a lot fronts I agree. But give me a break, the president did not sway the decison one way or the other...There are two other branches to our government.
"A little attention.." what does that mean? Quit spreading fud and think logically when you vote?What is the next president going to do to stop MS? Not sure, I think the market will sort everything out...patents, corrupt greed in DC, and a lot other stuff is more messed up.
Are you going to vote for kerry before you vote against him?(Sorry that is just a funny pun, no flame intended)
Deserving got nothing to do with it.....shuffle
But hey, this is Slashdot. Looks like you got your mod points back, surprisingly.
Anyway, I feel that you picked the wrong article to bash Slashdot on. While I agree that Slashdot occasionally posts articles on unimportant, redundant, or just plain stupid material, this time the article referenced actually has some interesting information.
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
That a trick question, isn't it? 11SEP2001 falls into that range. I suspect some folks would answer "no" regardless of who was in office.
I believe the Iraq War was ill-advised. But I also believe that if Bush were not in office, the Taliban would still own Afganistan.
Besides, if Kerry is elected, what will change (as far as Iraq is concerned)? Kerry only has two choices:
(a) continue the war until Iraqi internal forces can handle the country, or
(b) order immediate troop withdrawal (either total or partial, makes no difference in the long run)
If Kerry chooses (a), then he's just doing what Bush will do if re-elected. If Kerry chooses (b), then Iraq really will become the Official Terrorist Homeland. And while the Democrats will point out that it's Bush's fault, that won't comfort many people when the next round of 9/11 style attacks occur.
Kerry is playing both sides. Last week on NPR, there was some clip with an 8-year-old asking Kerry what he would do about the war in Iraq. What struck me about the exchange was that after Kerry insulted Bush, he refused to answer the question. He spent all the time asking the kid what he would do!
Why should I vote for Kerry if he doesn't even have a plan?
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
... what happens when the first security hole is found?
Well, I bet that that hole (at least one of them) is what Microsoft gives the gov in exchange for the right to maintain their monopoly!
There are other ways to give money then straight up donations. Check out Ralph Reed, MS in 2000 paid him a million dollars to basicly do nothing but try and lobby Bush, while he was working for Bush's campaign.
Hilarious. What will those diligent Longhorn watchers do if they find one a violation? Give Microsoft a slap on the other wrist?
The only result of the entire Microsoft antitrust case was to show just how insignificant the antitrust laws really are.
Mandrakesoft and SuSe (to name two) are European, ergo EU Operating Systems. I'm running one of them right now - smiling to myself and clasping my monocle while USians just like yourself ponder the future of MicroSoft Inc., your government and your countries fiscal future.
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
...because somebody without a plan may eventually make the right choice and someone dead-set on the worst plan possible will not?
Ask a harder one next time, like: even though it's painfully clear Kerry is the better choice, wouldn't you rather not have to choose Kerry?
Also--what on earth makes you think Gore would have let the Taliban off the hook? If anything, he'd have gone into Afghanistan EARLIER. It's not a trick question. Since 9/11, we've taken Afghanistan away from Al Qaeda and we've handed them Iraq instead. They traded up. We're less safe.
Huh?
The headline for the story was:
"US Government Keeping a Close eye on Longhorn"
At first I read it as:
"US Government keeping a closed eye on Longhorn"
I thought it was funny.
Get a sense of humor moderators! You'd think you were a bunch of M$ employees or something.
I should finish what I started to say, which is this: the EU doesnt need MicroSoft, whatsoever. They brought them to court because it needed doing. No-one can compete when theres a monopolist in town. The more MS pushes the more you can be sure the EU will trip them up (triping is all it needs to do). And the EU Linux distributors, and software vendors will find themselves on a level playing field (here in the EU), and the US can decide if it wants to play with us or or stay across the ocean all by itself. BY all means feel free to join us, but please put a stop to your monopolist capitalist regimes masquerading as software companies pretending they're helping us out.
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Here is a referrer-free link, so that you can see what it's about without the parent AC getting paid for spamming /.
Govt. regulators telling us how to write software. If you think this is a good idea, you are insane. If you don't like MS, use linux. Don't take away Bill Gate's freedom, unless you don't mind the govt. doing the same to Linus Torvalds.
Regardless of the motivations or personalities of the people involved, IMO if people can't get a job done while they're in office, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
And I don't think anyone could say Bush has been successful by any stretch of the imagination. Remember Afghanistan? Where have you seen news about peaceful Iraq with citizenry strewing flowers in the path of our soldiers (who are still there, long overdue for return....)
True, if you look at Kerry personally, he's not much better than Bush. But I don't give a shit about him personally. I want him to do a good job.
To some degree, I am against someone without a plan. Kerry can wave hands and claim his undefined choice will be better, but I can't really make that judgment until I see some particulars.
I won't argue that the Iraq War was a good or bad idea. That's wasted oxygen. As I said before, I was not in favor of it -- but it's a big ugly fact and we are in the middle of it. Do we deal with the current situation by folding and letting the terrorists own Iraq? Or do we deal with this ugly situation by sticking with it until Iraq has a stable government that has a reasonable chance of not turning into a terrorist homeland? You already know my choice.
You're making assumptions when you say it's "painfully clear" that Kerry is the better choice. He may be the better choice, but it's not painfully clear.
I'm amazed that you would think Gore would have taken any action. Given the Clinton/Gore track record on Al Queda, I believe it wouldn't have gone beyond harsh words.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
Am i the only person in the world who thinks that a modern os SHOULD include a web browser/media player/etc?
Whats next.. MS can't ship notepad? Can't ship calculator? Can't ship solitaire?
Microsoft are being watched because Longhorn has its browser and media player starting out of the box. And should sell a version without I.E. and Media player pre installed so users can get I.E. and media player off the net, or take their pick of browsers. With i.e. not pre-installed and magazine publisher(in the UK) banned from putting MS software on coverdiscs then most people would use Mozilla and QuickTime/Real Player.
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
how much do you think MS can sway the eyes of those doing the look over?
And Hey, When Longhorn comes out MS can say its "government approved".....
Don't we all know MS got off to easy?
I believe the Iraq War was ill-advised. But I also believe that if Bush were not in office, the Taliban would still own Afganistan.
I find it hard to believe that Al Gore wouldn't have authorized the military to invade and destroy the terrorists in Afghanistan--after all, Clinton's parting words to Bush were "The terrorists are your #1 problem."
Oh, and it's not a question if Kerry will or won't stay the course in Iraq. Of course he will; if Vietnam went half as well as Iraq is going Kerry never would have even gone.
The question is "what do we do after Iraq." And, given Bush's ability to piss off a significant portion of the world (our closest allies had a significant portion of their peoples protesting), a change in leadership is not alltogether undesired.
Why should I vote for Kerry if he doesn't even have a plan?
Because a President is a person, not a plan.
If you had asked Bush in 1999 what his plan was about Al Quaeda, he probably would have said "I plan to focus on America first" or some other such vauge commentary, while Al Gore would have said someting more definitive and less vauge--what with being in office and all.
Today, in 2004, there aren't any extant foriegn problems that require a dramatic new plan. The plan Bush set forth, with Powell's and Rhumsfield's help, is actually a rather good one, provided we can get the rest of the world to help.
I'm more concerned, oddly enough, about having a President who is capable enough to know when the line has been crossed, in losses or in dollars spent--and who can politically raise taxes to pay for this massive war effort, instead of giving me the rest of my life to help pay off the debt incurred from the largest deficits in the history of this country.
They should also check for privacy issues....
> Let the real MSCEs take care of it for you
This is the funniest thing I've read this week, thanks!!!
- sigs are for wimps.
I find it hard to believe that Al Gore wouldn't have authorized the military to invade...
We'll just have to disagree on this one, seeing as it would take a crystal ball to definitively answer.
Oh, and it's not a question if Kerry will or won't stay the course in Iraq. Of course he will;
I'm waiting for Mr. Kerry to tell me that's what he'll do. I've seen enough people screaming for immediate withdrawal without considering the consequences for this to not be an "of course he will" answer.
Because a President is a person, not a plan.
You raise a valid point. But I believe that the President needs a plan.
If you had asked Bush in 1999 what his plan was...
Again, maybe. we'll never know. And again, I didn't see the Clinton administration dealing with the terrorists.
I hope you're right about the Bush/Powell/Rumsfield plan being good.
As far as deficit goes, we recovered from the Cold War deficits of the '80s, so I'm not worried so much about that ... yet. We've already crossed a no-return point. Iraq has to be stabilized before the US pulls out.
I still believe that Bush will be the better President to wrap up Iraq. But if Kerry wins it in November, I pray that he'll have the sense and courage to do the right thing.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
Security Rollup Package, 2007
Fixes security issues Q1075635 and Q1156037, resolves several incompatibilities with NGCSB and legacy apps, deletes all non-Microsoft software on system, enhances firewall.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
"Basically you're going to have to vode Nader - or Perot!"
Of course the problem with that is they aren't viable candidates. They will not be elected, so most people will consider them spoilers and eliminate them as a choice.
But in most states, the popular vote will be overwhelmingly in favor of one of the major candidates and that candidate will receive all the electoral votes.
So, lots of people could vote Nader and it wouldn't change the outcome of the election. But it *would* help to make the candidate and his party viable in subsequent elections.
I'm from Massachusetts. My pseudo-vote is certain to go to the douchebag Kerry. With nothing to lose, I'm free to vote my conscience.
January 1st 2006
MS Ships Longhorn with IE and Media Player as part of the OS.
January 2nd 2006
Slashdot posts links to 100 different articles talking about how the "Feds are looking at MS" and may file another Anti-Trust lawsuit.
January 3rd 2006
Feds file lawsuit.
January 4th 2006
MS Laughs and says "Oh no! lets go to court...AGAIN".
January 1st 2011
5 years later the government wins the case, but by this time Longhorn2K and LonghornXP have already been released - MS now has 328397834972392345 Billion in the bank and continues to ignore the antitrust settlement... again.
January 2nd 2011
Slashdot posts about how the Fed are keeping an eye on MS Windows 20011 or rather OSXI, readers post about how Apple should file a lawsuit...
Ave Molech Setting
I'm waiting for Mr. Kerry to tell me that's what he'll do. I've seen enough people screaming for immediate withdrawal without considering the consequences for this to not be an "of course he will" answer.
I seem to recall Kerry saying that he would stay the course and finish in Iraq. If I remembered where, I'd let you know.
Again, maybe. we'll never know. And again, I didn't see the Clinton administration dealing with the terrorists
The Clinton administration didn't have nearly the political capital that 9-11 gave Bush. Clinton did a fair bit to fight terrorists--but his hands were bound as much as Bush's hands were bound about Iraq until 9/11 and Afghanistan was over.
If waging a war was a simple matter of the executive saying so, Bush would have--quite legally and righteously--invaded Iraq early in 2000. (And, very likely, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.)
GW is all about "Big business". This is just a ploy to make it seem like the government is doing something. The DOJ will do squat. MS has already "integrated" IE, and in Longhorn they are "integrating" Media Player. In addition, they are planning some major non-standards compliant additions to IE that will lock you in to Longhorn. As long as MS continues to be the larget software donator of bribes, I don't see much effort from the government to stop them.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
This post as a whole is not quite off-topic.
<OffTopic>
Maybe you have some inside knowledge that the rest of us are deprived of. you state:
"I believe the Iraq War was ill-advised. But I also believe that if Bush were not in office, the Taliban would still own Afganistan."
Believe me, the only way that this would have happened would be if the same shadow war which had gone on since the late 1970's in Afghanistan had continued at the same rate. If that happened the American Reichstag^W^WWTC would still be standing. In other words, if the attack still happened, we would be at war regardless of who was in the White House.
</OffTopic>
OTOH, what I find absolutely amazing about Bush is how he can preside over such a decline in relations with our traditional allies of France and Germany as well as our neighbors such as Canada and Mexico. And how could I forget to mention Columbia there too after we threatened to withhold foreign aid due to a little disputer over whether they shoudl ratify the ICC treaty? Of course the case of Columbia is backwards because eventually it was the US who gave in because Pres. Alverro Uribe (sp?) holds all the cards and the US knows it (if we stop the foreign aid, there is concern the FARC will take over, so he knows we don't have a choice).
Regarding the war in Iraq. Personally, I think that on the ballance it might be good for internationalism and hence global stability. After all, I think that we have the development of an EU standing army (as a direct albeit hidden competitor to NATO) which might not have happened had Blair not had to make these concessions in order to regain so much lost political capital.
In the end, the war in Iraq may have put additional pressure on the EU to strengthen their international intracontinental structures so as not be be merely a lapdog of the only remaining superpower.
To sort of return to topic, these issues do not exist in a vacuum and may very well come back to haunt US companies such as Microsoft. I remember when MS was trying to enforce antipiracy laws in China, and how this was scuttled by an errant bomb falling from a US bomber onto the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. This sort of behavior by Bush is NOT helpful for export-driven businesses, as it breeds popular resentment on the part of target markets, and this does impact many aspects of judicial proceedings.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
According to your cite, Kerry got $127,163 from MS, while Bush got $184,040 from MS. I don't care to make the quick calculations as to the percentages of the total contributions, so I'll draw no conlusions.
(Make a point? Why would I want to make one of those?)
I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
There's some vets I'd like to invite to come over to your pro bush pro war site, but unfortunately they are dead from agent orange, so they can't come and tell you what a suckered-in used and abused naieve doofus you are. The ones I know still alive from that war are THE most anti-war, anti-lying government people I knownow. Back when they were young guys and got drafted and told a bunch of BS about things from uncle sugar, they initially sucked it all in. It took a few years down the road after the war before they finally completely understood what really happened to them.
BTW, I hope you enjoy the DU, they are lying just as much about that as they did about agent orange. You probably aren't old enough to remember all the lies on TV and in the print media about that, and you probably haven't grasped the fact that government will reluctantly admit they are wrong about most things... 3-4 decades later that is.
Oh ya, go visit some vets who are waiting up to a year for alleged VA "care" to get told it's all in their head from gulf war 1 syndrome, the ones that are left that is, some of them lying around at 80 lbs weight. "All in their head, here have some tranqs.." that's what they get told. 1/4 of them are sick or dead now, and that was just over a decade and change ago it happened.
Again, good luck, rest assurred the nation is in safer hands with the ones who can look at reality in real time and see they are being conned. We've proven it's a pretty bad idea to wait for many years before noticing a conjob, but hey, have fun "following orders", enjoy all the huge millions of tearful waving civilians throwing flowers at your feet for the wonderful service you did for them. Oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?
Some people just absolutely need to be told what to do,where to do it, when to do it, how to do it, and never mind the "why" of doing it, that part doesn't matter to them, it's the getting ordered part they really like, makes them feel "complete" or something.
With other people, the "why" comes first and it's never left out, and the "why" must be proven in advance before they take of blindly follow any orders or get to the what,where,when and how parts.
Anbd no, this reply isn'tcoming from a liberal. In fact, your hero georgia, is almost completely a liberal, he just calls himself a conservative. Check some of them, he's said he would sign an extension to the assault weapons act. He hasn't reduced any aspect of the federal government, he's increased it and added agencies. He hasn't reduced the budget, he's added to it. We continue to hemorrhage jobs, 3-1 over new ones created, and the new ones don't pay as well on average. He's ignored our own borders, a few million a year undocumented who's knows who just walk right in, no checks, no security. He calls h9mself a Christian, yet he's a past partipcant at bohemian grove which is definetly a text book example of idol worshipping. He has failed twice in public to repudiate skull and bones, which by all accounts is a quasi devil worshiping power and control cult. Sorry, but any real Christian would have no problems repudiating bohemian grove attendance or skull and bones membership, especially anyone who claims to have been born again.
In short, he's a chronic serial liar,an old coke head and an untreated alcoholic, who's scumbag daddy got him out of the nam war so he could fly dope shipments and act as one of his bagmen. That's what he was doing during the "lost" two years, working for his pappy. He's a pilot, remember? You think he was just AWOL sitting home playing canasta? You think his records really got "lost"? Can you spell "sheep dipped"? You know what that is right? the term is not unfamiliar with you?
Too bad you allowed yourself to get sucked in. Next time maybe skip a few football games and do some real research instead. You are working as an expendable cheap mercenary for a global one world government socialist, who could give a crap about you except that you stay brainwashed and follow any orders given, no matter what the orders are.
Nothing of course. Can't sue if there's nothing to sue about!
One thing Kerry's got going for him is that you aren't likely to hear the above chant, and if you do, it'll be by B-movie actors protesting exceptionally bad special effects.
As near as I can see, Kerry is another Israel-firster. Right now because he is the so called "opposition" he has to try and score points against bush,and those are only for TV talking points and sound bites, in reality he appears a lot closer in foreign policy than what the R & D demagogues seem to think or say out loud. My thoughts are, he will continue to use US forces as shock troops for israel as 50% of what is going down now, and the other 50% is obvious, it's the oil. The whole planet not only wants that oil, they need that oil, and there isn't enough for 6 to 8 billion people, there is roughly enough for 1 billion if they want to eek it out for 50 more years. 6-8 billion people getting the oil, no one gets much and it's still mostly gone within 10-15 years.
No matter who gets appointed as president, I expect the war to expand to iran and syria soon, with saudi arabia after that, and any other islamic country that raises a stink about anything. That is my best guess at this point, and I'll say that's all it is, a guess.
I run a tinfoil hat company, you're bad for business!
Windows sux. Am I cool now?
(a) do we know exactly who will be reviewing the software for noncompliance, or is that 'confidential?'
(b) what are their qualifications? Do they have any real experience in software development?
(c) if M$ is heading toward noncompliance with Longhorn, could the govt stop them before they've released the software? Wouldn't that be like getting a speeding ticket before you've gone over the limit?
Though you do present a good point, i rather elect someone who wont ignore memos about attacks against our country.
What's all this complaining about? A superior race of programmers? Listen to me you Linux and Unix zealots. Continue building up the network and work together with Microsoft to build the interface to that network. All this jealously leads nowhere. Stay in text mode, continue using emacs and vi and build the network. Forget about a linux desktop and build stable reliable server software for the next generation of internet technologies. Codecs are now standard, web services are now getting utilized and you are all still jealous of Microsoft's desktop dominance. GROW UP and make something of yourselves you fucking 15 year old geeks who have a tasting for POLITICS. We don't need politics or religion in this world. What we need are web standards and integration. Do you all want to continue using a imitation desktop forever? Get some brains and make the servers serve up the media. Make sure it doesn't go down. I will be paying hundreds of dollars a month for this shit (network) so it better be good.
I did get that lopsided, I was just paying attention to position in the list - but my real point was it hardly matters, is either of them really going to go full guns against Microsoft? No!
My secondary point is that the media industry is far more strongly represented in the Democratic camp. I consider a vote for Kerry a vote for a stronger DMCA.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Michael Moore?!
/.
I thought you'd be too busy freebasing twinkies to slum on
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
If all you ever do is vote for a shafting, then don't be surprised at the result.
A vote for a third party is not wasted. If everyone actually voted for who they wanted it might make a real difference. But since everyone is too afraid to do so, the status-quo remains.
There are people who would otherwise vote for Bush that vote for third-parties too, you know.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is just chicken feed for foolish journists and a bit of bartering. Take a look at where the real money is going.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's interesting that kerry has 20% nondisclosure on funds and bush has 8%. kerry has 20 mil that he wont say where he got it.
I hate the fucking government. Always mediling in peoples lives. Everyone in the government needs killed. And not a quick killing. A slow painful death is what they all deserve. Fucking bastards.
~So you're nerds and proud of it eh. I can't describe the pride I get from kicking a nerds ass.
I wonder if the gov will be placing any backdores in the encryption modules of Longhorn.
No I am not paranoid, but with the rising emphasis on national security this is not far fetched. This would be considered by many much less intrusive than the Patriot Act, fingerprinting all visitors, mandatory interviews etc...
Going to both the DNC and RNC - as I said. More is flowing to the people with power now, just as it will shift if needed to whoever occupies the white house.
It's weird to me it seems to have no 2004 results, where there were some for top donors.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've really got to wonder why universities are giving money.
So how many students is that who's loans are going straight to politics ?
From 2x03 - A Head in the Polls:
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
I wonder when people will realize that with two parties, they're both going to be dead in the center. And a third party would only serve to replace one of the current two. Try looking at how democracy works everywhere but the US, and you'll see a lot more dynamics in the politics.
Imagine a third party was growing, on a simple left-to-right index (pick your side):
Third party (30%) -- Democrats (30%) -- Republicans (40%)
What happens in the US? The republicans win bigtime. What happens everywhere else? Third party and democrats enter a coalition. Which represents the will of the people better?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The EU rapid reaction force (a form of EU standing army) has been in existence for about 8 years and steady moves have been made since then, along with further integration in other matters, to expand this. The events related to Iraq haven't changed things in either direction on this as far as I can tell.
AFAIK that was a missle, and happened under Clinton.
Sort it via amounts. All the real money is flowing to the republicans. Of course, it really could be who is in power.
Prior to 2000, it appears that MS did not really spend much money on politicians. Now, they throw money around.
No idea about the lack of 2004.
AFAIK, Perot isn't running. If I wasn't in a swing state, I'd probably vote for Badnarik (the Libertarian candidate), but I'd shoot myself if Kerry won my state by one vote and the election by that state.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Best. Trollbashing. Post. Ever.
AFAIK that was a missle, and happened under Clinton.
I never said the Belgrade incident happened under Bush. The major reason for bringing it up was just the way that foreign policy can affect the business of US-based corporations, especially those with the large profile of Microsoft who already had image problems in China due to the interview in Money Magazine with BillG in 1998.
It is also important to understand that the Belgrade incident was most probably an accident. Think of how much more damage can be done by deliberately snubbing the international community.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Are things really going to be so different if Bush or Kerry wins? I don't think so. Either one has a number of bad points that makes you pause to choose them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And how could I forget to mention Columbia there too after we threatened to withhold foreign aid due to a little disputer over whether they shoudl ratify the ICC treaty?
Honestly, I can't I understand why the USA is so much opposed to the ICC. It pays a high price for it, gaining nothing. If American army does something nasty enough to gain the attention of ICC, the USA will get bashed anyway. Just look at the Abu-Ghraib scandal.
After all, I think that we have the development of an EU standing army (as a direct albeit hidden competitor to NATO) which might not have happened had Blair not had to make these concessions in order to regain so much lost political capital. Why is the development of EU army a bad thing?
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
While I agree with some of your rant (particularly th bit about Bush being a serial liar), I'm unclear why you call the granparent post pro-Bush.
...
Unless you're discussing some post I missed for some reason
What a long, strange trip it's been.
The US is opposed to the ICC because they are afraid of politically motivated prosecutions. Of course, the truth will come out in court, and the US, like IBM in the SCO case, has very little to fear (especially since the ICC can only get involved if the country whose agents commit the crime refuses to). Again, no real problem for the US. Especially since anything that bad could also be played out in the International Court of Justice which is more like a civil suit.
The EU army is opposed because it is considered to be a move away from a NATO- (i.e. US-) centered Europe. The strategic implications here are profound in that France and Germany would possibly see more military independence from the US than they currently do. If the EU continues to expand into the former USSR, North Africa, and the Middle East, then the US becomes vulnerable regarding oil, etc. Note that the EC has already proposed a free trade zone encompassing these areas.
But you know, just because an idea is logical doesn't make it right. Many of the conservative think tanks in the US oppose Korean reunification because they are afraid of a resulting China-Japan standoff which would be a greater committment for US forces than the current standoff on the peninsula. To their credit, it is true that China is the primary trading partner with both North and South Korea. However, this is an example where ideology is blinded from the fact that reunification will happen anyway, and and when it does we are in a far better position if we have goodwill from the resulting country.
I personally think that the ICC, the EU army, etc. are things to support rather than oppose. So take this as simply being a summary of a position which I feel you have quite nicely refuted.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't think this opinion is correct. The US does not control North Africa (it never tried), and does not control Middle East. If it did, we wouldn't have terrorists' nests in Saudi Arabia up till 2001 and the Palestinian-Israel conflict would be quenched. In Central Asia the America's direct competitor is not EU but Russia, with which America appears to have cordial relations, despite Chechenya and all that (I wonder if the gain is worth the sacrifice). Summing it up, I think the idea that the EU going east into Asia and Africa steps on America's toes is wrong. The America's toes are simply not there. What's more, EU can succeed (in stabilising unstable regions) where America has failed, for various reasons:
- it does not have the US's "bully" image
- it spends more money (IMHO) on foreing aid than the US
- it is capable of multlilateral action.
(of course, EU must upgrade on the force side of the formula, so we don't have another Bosnia -- which is another reason why the EU army is not such a bad thing -- it can save some American GIs' lives). What is the reason behind democratic reforms in Turkey: military alliance with the US or the prospect of EU membership? And, what is better for the US: to buy oil from the country run by a corrupt dictator of from the country modernising itself to meet EU's standards?"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
I think I more or less explicitly disagreed with the viewpoint I was summarizing. I am just trying to summarize the logic involved.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
you NEVER attacked my intellegence?
Are you being deliberately ironic or do you always really spell intelligence that way?
[Came across this thread while M2'ing the flamebait above (that actually *is* flamebait in this M2'ers opinion)].