Slashdot Mirror
Gore: White House May Get Involved in MS Settlement Talks
Amigan writes " C|Net news.com is reporting on VP Al Gore's
visit to Microsoft's campus
today includes a statement from the Vice President that "...he expected that the White House would get involved in any settlement talks between the company and the Justice Department when antitrust remedies get discussed. Why would the White House need to be involved?"
Why would any politican get involved? Political brownie points and to garner votes.
...as well as all the other significant advances of modern computing, it's only logical that they should stick up for each other!
come on.. the white house is getting involved with microsoft? isnt this like a violation of judicial proceedings? they should stay the heck out of it and somebody should hack microsoft into seperate companies and enjoy the prosperity that comes from that.. my 2 cents
Gore needs public exposure. Everyone thinks he has no brain, and from the things he says it certainly seems like it sometimes.
In any case, for him to be SEEN as doing something (whether he actually does is another matter) will make him look good, taking a tough line on the "evil Microsoft empire" will rake at least some votes for him. He *needs* it cause he needs all the support he can get.
This is meaningless tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear bullshit. Gore won't want to be anywhere near the settlement talks (if there are any settlement talks), because there's no way to gain political advantage from it. He can't very well back his own administration's prosecution of Microsoft AND go to bat for them in settlement talks without the press shredding him for it. Gore's not so hard up for money that he needs Microsoft's support. He just wanted to be seen hanging out with high tech types to show how in tune he is with the new millennium.
Of course, all he said was that the White House would be involved. He didn't say which way. Nice, bland, noncommittal, non-responsive response. Perfect candidate.
The mistake the Valley firms have made is inviting the federal government to regulate their industry. Now there is legal precedent for the government to come in at any point in the future and limit the competitive practices of the market participants. The Valley firms, Sun in particular, have now agreed to play a game whereby they will bid for the political favor of various powerful politicians, instead of spending their time and money on creating better products and marketing strategies. This can only lead to the weakening of many a great firm.
Stuart Eichert
U. of PENN student/FreeBSD hacker
Stuart Eichert
I wonder how much Bill Gates gave him? This could get bad for other OS's if politians get envolved.
It will be interesting to see which Willy is slicker.
However, Bill Gates' wallet makes him/M$ a "viable force" in American politics; adjusted for some technicalities in language, American politicians ARE for sale. It isn't that far fetched to think that the Microsoft antitrust trial could become "an issue" in the upcoming election...
Well, Gore is, as we all know, the father of the internet. How could y2k be a problem, in a country that has both MicroSoft and Intel ..
ohwell, no wonder. Gore probably [try] to make sure that MicroSoft stays in one piece.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Al Gore needs to get involved because this is all his fault. I think he feels bad.
Microsoft didn't have as many chances to abuse their monopoly power ten years ago. But then Al, in his infinite wisdom, invented the internet.
Microsoft would have never done those things to try to help the internet work better had Al never inventeted it. So it's really his fault.
I'm sure tomorrow he will tell the judge that it isn't really Bill G's fault and how he will do better next time.
Then again I bet big brother baby George B, is already trying to help. So big brother Bill G may not bother big brother Al G.
*I know the story dosen't read like that, but I don't trust Al. How many any rockers remeber his wife's censorship trip at the head of the PMRC? Could you picture Tipper Gore as president^D^D^D^D^D^D^D^D^D err I mean first lady?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
That VP Gore should wish to be involved is no surprise at all. He can play either add his bat to those wielded by the government enforcers or (if Microsoft can meet his price) he can call them off and instruct them to agree to a lesser punishment more agreeable to Microsoft. Sounds like an example of good cop/bad cop to me.
What more does the average voter expect from a Demopublican with no principles?
Maybe next time voters will vote Libertarian and endorse a society where people's right to buy (or not to buy) software of their choice is respected.
First cigarettes, now software, what next?
Devout follower of The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
I don't pretend to understand US government properly, but the WH is head of the executive isn't it? So I can imagine two possible reasons for WH involvement:
1. As the DoJ's bosses -- this is a big issue, so
is dealt with at the highest level
2. Because many possible remedies would involve some part of the executive supervising M$'s future behaviour and there needs to be input on what would be feasible and who would be the right people to do it.
In the UK I would certainly expect something like this to go up to cabinet level, which is the nearest equivalent.
Steve
We all know that in today's disgusting political system what counts isn't your so-called "vote," but the amount of money you are willing to use to grease the palms of today's politicians. MS is just doing what's natural for a company in their position- attempt to use any resources at it's disposal (money- they got plenty of it...) to get their asses out of this mess. And we have a walking piece of filth like Al Gore taking them up on the offer. Gross. It doesn't have to be like this, folks. Politicians don't _have_ to be liars and cheats, but our couch-potato ball-game watching society doesn't care at this point... truly sad...
To refuse to even appear if press was not allowed I applaud.
He is right to not comment on the case, however his statements about antitrust law make me think he is on the DOJ side.
Microsoft has money but its not like the 17,000 votes from MS employees can equal the hundreds of thousands from all the other hi-tech companies.
In other words, so what if we piss off Microsoft and its employees?
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
M$, as well as many other silicon valley companies, have moved to buying republican politicians as they are often more sensitive *cough* CORRUPT *cough* to the needs of big businesses that want to exploit employees, the public, etc.. M$ has donated a good sum of money to the campaign of George Jr., and perhaps Al feels that if he convinces the DOJ to take it easy on M$, he will be able to win back some support in silicon valley for the democrats, and himself. -supabeast! who can't get his login to work from work.
Microsoft may try to stall and appeal until after the next president comes into office.
This would mean that the many political appointments that are made could be beneficial to Microsoft.
The current administration want to have a solution so that they aren't seen as being weak.
They may also want to have something that will cause the next adminstration as much havoc as possible.
.. then why can't they take bribes from Bill G? It's patently clear what Gore's purpose is. "Hey bill, this can all go away for 20 million bucks!" I think it's extremely inappropriate for a presidential candidate to go sucking up to defendant in a major antitrust case. Gore can go to hell. -jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Adam Smith's unseen hand can take care of software buyers far better (and a darn sight cheaper) than paying for the new age gestapo agents at antitrust.
Microsoft and its tactics are all competing organizations need. BeOS, FreeBSD and Linux don't need the help of the USG to sell their product
Devout follower of The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
My experience in Italy says that 90% of PC users think that MS is a sort of "only one existing choice". The fact that big machines and servers cannot even run Windows is often unknown, mostly as it is unclear to people that things very different from PCs exist -the existence of something unusual is probably due to that strange thing called Apple!
If the White House plays a role in the game, the MS brand will be strenghtened among the IT-unaware ones, because those will see it as a necessary move. To them, to hit MS means to endanger the world of computing!
I would understand such need if only Windows could do what it does, but we have alternatives!
I seem to remember pictures of Bill G and Bill C playing golf together before the 1995 DOJ anti-trust slap on the wrist. You know, the decree that MS basically got to author themselves saying that they were sorry for smacking DR-Dos and some other software developers around. This time around, the Clinton administration didn't get the ball rolling even after some congressional hearings and a lot of proding from Republicans.
The DOJ didn't get involved until 20 states had already joined together to file suit. The DOJ was starting to look like they were more interested in protecting a Clinton friend and then had to take action to save face.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
And don't forget the recent EU/USA "banana incident". I guess that shows quite clearly that US politicians are "in the pocket" of the banana industry (the name Chiquita doesn't come to mind now does it?) --- The $$$ Man.
how M$ pressured him for his views on the antitrust laws, then M$ changes the subject to hate laws???
..I have no influence on US elections,
Judging from the transcript Al Gore was sitting on the fence and refused to come down [publicly] on either the side of Microsoft or the DOJ. A bit disappointing for a possible future leader of the country IMHO, especially when the MS case is probably going to have a huge effect one way or the other on the US economy.
The fact that MS is such a large company explains why the White House is tempted to stick its nose in - of course, it may regret being associated with any decision come a few years down the line.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The suit is being prosecuted by the DoJ and 19 states. It would require a pretty complete change at the next election for all 19 attorneys general to change their mind about penalties, expecially in light of Judge Jackson's ruling. IIRC, some of the states are out for even more blood than the DoJ...
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
How many votes condoning violence upon Microsoft does it take to make it right?
Devout follower of The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
A couple of quotes from The Wealth of Mations, showing what Smith actually thought about the Invisible Hand in this type of case:
You are entirely entitled to your views on Microsoft and the government, but please don't try to claim that Smith shared them (I would also suggest that in supporting Microsoft, you are not perhaps as consistent a libertarian as you think you are).
jsm
Perhaps Mr. Gore realizes that Microsoft, through the Gates Foundation, controls a large amount of money distributed to some of the more vocal groups in US society. The fact that the Gates Foundation has received a sizeable amount of their wealth in stock already ties them to MS's well-being and makes their self-interest somewhat the same as MS's. Perhaps Mr. Gore knows that if he can broker an agreement with MS, with MS's support may come some or all of the people now attached to the MS teat. Or maybe I've just read too many bad spy novels...
Let's not forget it was one month after Janet Reno's appointed Anne Bingaman was in office that she had the DOJ take the Microsoft case from the FTC, where they had been sitting on the evidence for years; undecided if they shoud do anything. The first attempt by the DOJ was not too sucessful, but the DOJ continued on.
Keep in mind that Haley Barbour, former head of the RNC,is a paid lobbyist for Microsoft is also a campaign advisor for George W Bush
Recently:
Ny York Post Online ran an article titled "Microsoft waits for GOP to bail them out!" In it they suggest that George W will win, replace janet Reno and the others with more Microsoft friendly department heads!
Just what do you expect Al Gore to say to a group of influencial Microsoft employees? Can he really
afford to tell them they are screwed if he gets elected? No, the only thing he can do is say things that are not too definite, he didn't say the White house would let Micorsoft go, just that they would be involved.
As I posted before, time is running out, the DOJ could be replaced by a more Microsoft friendly group after the next election. Don't be misled
by a few, investigate all the facts before you vote next election. The Microsoft FUD machine is hard at work in Washington, has been for the last two years, they are there protecting their own interest, not the conusmer. Just because this is politics, don't get stupid.. it's still the same Microsoft using the same type of FUD, just trying to get everyone to support their candidates.
PS, I'm running late, can't do much proof reading, please excuse any typos
>>>please remove "nospam" from email address
The White House has no place in talks, this is a matter for the court system, not the white house, they are just trying to stick their nose into an area where The Constitution grants them No Power.
In other Words, The white house has no right to get invloved with any talks with MS. I wouldn't mind seeing MS broaken up, but the only reason the goverment is even going after MS, is because the Billions and Billions of dollors they have, because the goverment has realised, that they cannot continue to raise taxes. Perhaps if the Federal staff were reduced, and all the freebie programs started by this administration were taken away, they would not need to tax people so hevely.
They are doing the same thing with other industries, Ciggeret Industry, Guns (under the title that we need to protect the children). The people of the United States needs to wake up, and see what their elected polotitions are doing. will somebody please take the razor blade away from the wrists of the country, IE, elect new people, who are for freedom, and lower taxes, and their party name starts with a R.
Fresh off of their war on poverty, war on healthcare and war on big business, the administration is ready to take on control of the software industry. Doesn't this scare anyone besides me? Direct Whitehouse involvement should make everyone in the country shake their head in amazement that the government has taken on this role.
This is about power and it's obscene. I don't want Washington to decide how a private company might be split up. Is anyone stupid enough to think that this hasn't become a completely political action in the continual pattern of demonizing anyone who's worked hard and earned great wealth. Say what you want about Billy Boy but he has done more for America (creating jobs, preeminence of the US in office automation and OS software market etc.) than any of those idiots in Washington put together.
The private sector builds businesses and wealth. Government consumes it. They've screwed up public education with "feel good" but do nothing policies and centralized Washington control.
Sorry about the rant. Flame away.
Bogus News reports that Bill Gates visited the White House today, and stated that ".. he expected Microsoft to be involved in any decisions concerning national politics."
Comments on Slashdot say that "..Gates need public exposure. Everyone thinks he has no brain.", and "Linux Rulez!".
Watch out for Microsoft USA 2000, coming to a fishingboat near you.
Cut off from Chinese contribution funds, Bore is confronted with an opportunity to encourage spendthrift (in a political sense) tech firms to increase their bribes to public officials^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ H^H^H^H^H^H campain contributions. After all, look at what constant hounding got for charity!
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. [H.S.T.]
politics is such a thinly veiled influence peddling racket - with W's war chest bulging at the seams Big Al has to snuggle up to some real loud free speech. Whether he fires up the bullhorn and shouts, "We must leave business alone to innovate and create jobs!" or "We must protect consumer rights!" all depends on how many zero's are on the soft money check.
How's that for cynicism?
Reporting from the Gerrymandered Bob Scott district, this is
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Rather than mealy-mouthed exulpation, some of us might prefer accurate terms like "theft."
--
I moderate at +3, Highest Scores, and I always mod down.
If you don't like it, vote me off the island.
Qucik & dirty translation:
AL Gore to Microsoft:
If Microsoft continues to support Goerge W 100% and he wins, you are free, however, if you continue to support George W exclusively, and he loses, look out! It's far better to hedge your bets, because, as you know the White House will be involved in the final decision.
This is a wake up call to Microsoft, if you want to play hard ball in politics, you better be ready
to take a few good hits.
In the age of the Constitutional Aristocracy, (George Mason was right, Hamilton Madison and Jay appear to have evuntally been wrong. :P) you must have money to have a place in government, if you do not have money you must have some medium that everyone listens to and respects, unfortunately to have that you must have money. In this brave new age, if you don't donate money to political campaigns you are 'shaken down' so to speak, and if you do then the people tend to be shaken down.
A New York Post story said Bill Gates donated to GWB's campaign to help him win the election then be able to have him get him off the hook. Sadly it appears GWB might be the lesser of the evils simply because hes accepted money from so many people that if he does one thing for one contributor he'll betray another.
Therefore it is a sad fact of american politics that the most effective elected officals are the ones who do nothing at all, after all you can't get them to do anything meaningful for the people except lamer laws that look like they do something but are really quite trivial. This is why we want John McCain to win, who claims he'll reform all of this, but unfortunately he'll probaly lose to GWB because he has more money and the vast majority of americans who vote don't think, and instead preform block voting techniques and vote for everyone with their political affiliation by their name, the winner of the elections is always the person who can harness the 'ethnic votes' like how Al Gore and GWB are both trying to speak in spanish every so often so they can get the Mexicans to go out and vote for them, and if you can't harness the ethnic votes your next best bet is to just unleash a huge ad campaign and create a rockstar-type fasade, (or in Bill Clintons case, hes accused of alpha male.)
Say, what the HECK were you brits thinking when you got rid of the house of lords one redeeming factor? Oh well, welcome to the world of constitutional aristocracy!
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Who else do you want involved with this thing? I mean, come on, the guy made the internet! And on top of that he invented algorithms, too. Get it? Al-Gore-Ithms? AHAHAHAHhhhh... *sigh*
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am.
You're saying it's not just about right or wrong in this case. There's also Anti-Microsoft and Pro-Microsoft. The current administration is Anti-Microsoft so they want to punish MS, but the next administration might be Pro-Microsoft and take it easy on them.
Wow...and all this time I thought it was about coming to a decision based solely on the facts, not on any bias one may have for or against Microsoft or on the hopes that the "right" result might further one's political career. I mean, every time someone disagrees with the DOJ's arguments, everyone here on Slashdot just says, "Did you even read the FoF, it's full of facts after all!"
Oh my God!! Is it possible the Joel Klein and the 19 State Attorneys General have motivations beyond helping the poor American consumer? Could they possibly be using this case as a means to further their own political career? Do you mean to tell me if Microsoft has just spread a few dollars around before this all got started it could have been avoided? Say it ain't so - aren't courts of law are set up in such a way that emotional arguments and personal biases don't matter one bit. It's all about facts and nothing else, right?
What's next...will we find O.J. is guilty after all? Well, no, I guess not. The courts did decide he wasn't guilty and if I can't question the courts on the MS antitrust issue, then it stands to reason I can't question the courts on O.J. either. After all...facts is facts.
Now if only the US had regulated the level of bribes... er... political contributions, then perhaps this could be a way to bankrupt Microsoft...
If there is anyone who has a shot at fixing this mess it is him, unfortunately I don't think he can campaign against forbes and GWB for the nomination, although if GWB is the man he might get the nod for Veep, and get in from there, since GWB and John McCain are friends. Of course that strategy isn't working for Gore, heh.
Still, vote John McCain.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
This seems a perfect opportunity to let the Vice President know just how welcome it would be for the White House to intervene. Oh, and put ABC News in as a 'cc' on your email. I won't both giving this group the email addresses; I'm sure you can find them.
Instead of chewing on this with each other, why not strike a blow for effective Internet feedback?
Unfortunately they never really did get anywhere with the IBM trial, since IBM didn't have a monopoly. And they definately did not get to this point, so there was no real reason for IBM to bribe anyone. I'm going to go looking over for some prescidents like this but I doubt i'll find any, this is like the first time anything like this has ever happened, isn't it? (And by 'this' I am speaking of the operating system monopoly and the company being told that it cannot sell it's products at whatever price it chooses, kinda silly but intresting at the same time.)
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
What do you mean if politicians get involved? They are already involved. They have been. It's all fun and games until it's not in your favor. I'm not the biggest Microsoft-lover out there, but I dont' hate them by any means. I have one of their certifications. I also don't like some of the things they do. But when the political mess was all AGAINST Microsoft (and it still is I might add), all the *nix camps sat back and laughed about it and said it was great -- about time. But when Microsoft figures out that this whole case was caused because they forgot to grease some palms along the way, everyone gets upset. Politics works both ways. This whole charade was made because someone wasn't happy that MS had all that money and they weren't giving any of it to "compaign contribution" or lobbying as they like to call it. OK. So this may be flamebait of sorts, but it's neccessary flamebait. You can't have a discussion about this without stepping on someone's toes.
My point in this whole jumbled rant is that the politicians always try to get involved. Sometimes you like what they are "restricting". Sometimes you are NOT. You cheer for the governement when you like what they are doing and you complain when you don't. My contention is that you should complain all the time. Government regulation will bite you in the ass in the end. Whether it's an agreement between the Gov't and the NAACP to remove GOOD literature from the school system, a fight to take the right to freedom OF religion away from people (notice it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion), or whatever your cause. If you support the governement in taking away those rights because you don't agree with them, I promise you it will come back to haunt you later. This is no different. If you don't want the governement stepping in when Linux or BSD or whatever OS makes it's way to the top, then I highly suggest you support Microsoft in this struggle to free themselves from Government regulation. It will only restrict YOUR freedom by siding with the government.
Nuff said - kill my karma and flame me for whatever reason you feel neccessary.
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
Why wouldn't he want to get involved. He did, after all, invent the Internet. Microsoft now wants to be a leader of the Internet revolution. It just makes sense that he would want to be a part of it, its like father and son. No, really, the White House should have nothing to do with this issue. They need to just step back and let the DOJ take care of it.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
Surely it's time to change that stupid, stupid Borg icon on MS stories? There's been so many of them in the past couple of weeks, it's getting old...
It's like 'Windoze' or 'Micro$oft' - OK, it was mildly amusing the first time, but after a few YEARS it starts to wear a little thin, no?
Al Gore needed exposure and money for elections. He scheduled the meeting with what perceived as the most "advanced" company in the area that he is supposed to support, expecting to get positive PR from it to himself, declare his support for everything Microsoft does and look good overall. However before he arrives things turn ugly, and Microsoft suddently has a lot of dirt that Al Gore doesn't want to associate himself with. Microsoft sees any public event with Al "Is there some embarrassing statement about technology I haven't made yet?" Gore as possible PR disaster if anything antitrust-related is mentioned, so they are trying to keep press away.
Al Gore realizes that considering his past praise of Microsoft, meeting behind closed doors will arise suspicions that he is either trying to help Microsoft using his current position, or promise support in the future if he will be elected, so to avoid being perceived as corrupt politician he demands to allow press at the meeting, and tries to avoid the whole issue of Microsoft troubles to be mentioned. Microsofties are trying to play along, however not being politicians they fail to realize that any mentioning of lawsuit will force Al Gore to either declare his support of Microsoft and be at risk of losing points in political battles, or declare the support of government in attempt to keep the image of "supporter of technology". So few dumbasses ask him about antitrust lawsuit, and Al Gore tries to play safe. Yet, not being smart enough to understand where he should switch into "I have no comment and no promises" mode, he gives in, and makes vague, stupid-looking promise to "do something about that" despite being in no position to do that.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Of course George W. would bail them out. He's proven nothing about himself other than he's a good crony for business. (And, well, he's really proven nothing else about himself, because he's so damn inarticulate. Let the money do the talking!) It just amazes me that there are still people in our country that 1) feel that businesses can do no wrong, 2) that businesses need no regulation because they can do no wrong and 3) business has our best interests at heart. Once Bush is coronated, we'll get exactly what we all seem to want. Greater loss of personal freedom coupled with the greater expansion of freedoms for business. By the time I'm sixty, I expect that every child in our country will be incorporated at birth, so that they can have some semblance of rights as a citizen.
AP Newswire - 11/16/1999 - Microsoft purchases the rights to Pokemon
In what can only be described as a bizarre transaction today Microsoft announced they have purchased the rights to Pokemon, which will be renamed to microsoft-e-mon.
A very happy Bill Gates had this to say about the announcement: "We are thrilled to own the rights to Pokemon. We have been looking for a way to help children to learn about Microsoft at a very early age and we feel this will be a terrific avenue for them. At Microsoft we have always focused on our customers and innovated to meet there needs, this acquisition fits well with our strategy. God Bless America !"
An official spokesperson for Microsoft talked further about Microsoft's strategy for microsoft-e-mon. "All microsoft-e-mon toy figures will now be bundled with the state of the art browser IE5. We have always felt that children of all ages could benefit from our internet innovations, we look forward to being an integral part of the formative years of all children." The spokesman continued, "In an effort to teach children to be responsible and innovative we will also be charging a $5 per month licensing fee for all microsoft-e-mon toys. This nominal fee will help kids to learn about part time jobs and making monthly payments, skills which will benefit them as they become adults. At Microsoft we love children and are thrilled to finally be able to help them. God Bless America"
Of course AlGore wants to get involved. First he will figure out which way the popular wind blows, then he'll adopt that as his platform. He doesn't care about "the right to innovate" any more than the right to operate in a balanced, free market, without getting squished like a bug. He just wants to be president.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
buzzz - wrong answer. the doj is a tool of the executive.
thank you for playing.
Secondly, I do not think it should come as any suprise that the Whitehouse would want to keep an finger/be involved with this settlement. Our government has a history of being involved with *major* corportate events, particularly when such events involve the judical branch. I wager Congress will also get in the act.
With all due respect, it is the beauty or bane of a political system based on checks and balances. I would be considerably more concerned if the other branches of the government simply ignored what was happening in the judiciary.
Whether you are for or against the Court's action, you must admit that it is going to have far-reaching implications for the corporate, economic and political arenas. The Whitehouse would be derelict in its responsibilities if it did not have some form of involvement.
That said, the nature of the involvement is...er...dangerous. One one hand, they should be involved in some form. On the other, they have no business interferring with the function of the judiciary branch. So they walk a thin line in which they lose no matter which side they "step over" on. This is to say, if they get "involved" they will be derided for interferring with another branch of the government. If they stay too remote, they will be accused of, literally, not being involved enough in the process. I really do see this as a loose-loose situation for virtually everyone *except* MicroSith.
rootrot
Gore, on the other hand, is running on a slightly specialized 6502 processor
Nonono, that chip is reserved for Especially surly robots from the year 3000 like Bender (it was in the last episode just on)
Lowmag.net
He is sending a clear signal to Microsoft to pass over the loot^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions to insure 'favorable' treatment at DOJ. There is precedent, Bush had DOJ back off in 1994.
If Al Gore becomes involved in a settlement of the MS case during his presidential campaign, it's good for him as free PR, but is good for everyone else?
First, how much do we want politicians interfering with the judicial process?
Second, MS told Gore, a few years ago, that if the antitrust trial was too severe, they would "pack their bags and move to India". Isn't Gore making himself vulnerable now--he has to find a "good" solution, or he won't become prez?
Last, let's just remember how Gore championed the Telecom Act of 1996 as a great source of competition; then we saw the largest stream of anticompetitive telecom mergers in the history of the US. Is this the person we want settling the MS case?
Had it been made by an Anonynmous Coward, it wouldn't have been Score:2, probably -1 or less. But since it was non-anonymous...
Ditto yourself of course. People who complain about people who complain etc.
Fact is, the moderation/karma thing is looking a little broken at the moment. But as the good Cmdr says: "don't worry about it. There are glitches but they aren't what you think they are."
Whatever.
Regards, Ralph.
I'd think he'd get a lot more support by asking the DOJ to tear Microsoft to shreds, which, if you've read the article, he seems to be hinting at.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Interestingly, an Anonynmous Coward post would get scored 1 (or 2 if /. loves you) as it is not an Anonymous Coward post (Score:0).
You really have to be Anonymous to be Anonymous.
Regards, Ralph.
On my way to work this morning, they covered this on NPR. It was much more interesting to hear what he had to say then to just read it. The MS employees really tried to hit him with these questions. One, being in the position that he's in (VP), he can't comment on the trial. But to say that the case is "sound" with confidence was actually shocking for me to hear. He didn't seem to "around the bush" talk. To me it stood out how he felt about the case, and that he's telling these people what they don't want to hear. I haven't seen a politician do that in a long time. Al didn't back down on any of these questions. Although they all started no comment, he continued to have sayings about how he felt.
After one person said "I'll try not to repeat the question, but I work for Microsoft..." and Al just interupted by saying "How many of these are we going to have?" and the audience all laughed. Another question that hits him with government stopping MS from joining the Internet, Al said that "For a company that has a large market share in one area, for them to use that to keep others out of another area, is not the American way."
All in all, I was impressed at how he stood up the best he could. Answering without answering. I think he just got my vote.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
.. I really don't have much influence either.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
As a Canadian I may be a little off here, but this is an outsiders take:
Bubba, after the impeachment, is now a lame-duck president with 14 months to go. He is a student of history, and knows well that his place in presidential annals will not be profound. He has tried to make sweeping domestic policies but has been stymied by a Republican Congress, e.g. Health Care reform. He has then turned to Foreign policy e.g. N. Ireland, Middle East, etc. But Billy (Clinton) knows that no one in the US really remembers foreign policy and so he sees his one last chance for an effective domestic policy: breaking up the largest company in the world (Microsoft). It is lasting, powerful, and a worthy legacy. Of course their is another powerful Billy who may just have other ideas...
-ShieldWolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
I'm not so sure. Gore was at Microsoft yesterday, and spent most of his question-and-answer session saying "no comment" whenever questions about the trial came up. However, the comments about values that he did make in that context sounded like he was on the side of the judge. There was an extensive NPR story on it this morning. Check the NPR web site - they should have a Real-Audio recording of it in a couple of hours.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
I really believe there is the possiblility of Gore attempting to get garner some techie votes.... which is the only reason I can see the White hooouse getting involved in this. Afterall, it's difficult to miss the collective distatste for M$, and it would make sense to make friends of the techies, especially after "inventing the internet" the way Gore did, and proving his idiocy to us all.
Obviously Gore is defending the Internet that he and Gates have been working so hard to create. (Please don't confuse this with the Internet everyone else has worked so hard to create.)
numb
Boo hoo hoo -- let's all feel sorry for the poor oppressed billionaire, being persecuted by the Big Evil Gub'mint.
Bill's company is not in court for being sucessfull, but for breaking the law. Repeat that over and over until it sinks in -- "it's not about success, it's about crime." (Of course, anti-trust law is funny in that you have to be successful in order to have the means to break these laws -- but if Bill & Co. are so smart, and have so many lawyers on their payroll, you'd think they'd have heard of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act before now ...)
I do not subscribe to the theory that "what's good for Bill Gates is good for America."
All of these points (net job creation, American business dominance) are ... arguable. There's certainly some folks at Netscape who would claim that Bill didn't help build jobs at their company ...
Regardless, we must come back to the basic point: Microsoft broke the law. The DOJ action is not an example of government out of control -- it is an example of the goverment doing its job to enforce the (democratically enacted) law.
Sheesh. Might as well feel sorry for those sucessful businessmen, the cocaine smugglers, when they tangle with government law enforcement. I suppose they ought to try using the defense that they are simply hard-working capitalist entrepeneurs, and that the goverment ought to leave private companies alone and not tell them how to run their business ...
There's an old AP wirephoto on the net, with AlGore in country in Viet Nam.
He's wearing a brand new boonie hat, a full pack stuffed with crumpled newspaper, looking like an LL Bean model. His gun is upright on the ground, and he's looking down the barrel of his gun. He didn't even go through basic, and sure as hell didn't know anything about gun safety. The pic is just hilarious. Must have been taken by one of his bodyguards.
I'll tell you why any Democrat interferes with a juducial proceeding. Can you sound out S-H-A-K-E-D-O-W-N? I knew you could.
If BillG wanted to quash this trial, he could have. He could have had Clinton hounded out of office, but chose not to.
Just after the House impeached him, but before it went to trial in the Senate, Clinton's rape of a campaign worker, Juanita Broderick, surfaced. ABC, NBC, and CBS buried and censored it.
MSNBC had the story. If they had aired it in a timely fashion, Clinton and the suckbutts in the DOJ would have been outa there. Gates had the story killed.
NBC finally aired a thoroughly sanitized interview with JB after the Senate acquitted Clinton. If MSNBC had gone ahead, this judgement never would have happened. Hard to feel sorry for BillG. The White House probably told him, go easy on us, we'll go easy on you. Tough luck.
Nice quotes... I will have to check out that text.
I was not, however, under the impression that idic was neccessarily in support of Microsoft or saying that Smith would have been either. Maybe he(/she?) was, I don't know. I guess idic should answer that.
My point is that there are those of us out there that do NOT agree with the tactics that Microsoft employed to get where they are, and would like nothing more than to see Redmond collapse under it's own weight.
I also do not want to see the "White House" stick their hands further in that pie. I don't doubt that the real players are mucking around in it plenty already. Then again, maybe getting John Q. Public interested (and writing messages to each other!) is really what it's all supposed to be about.
Wow... This is such an incredible expression of the spirit of our times that I would love to frame it! Our political system works... Yeah, right! It works for the politicians! Amphigory's Law here set forth: the ability of any group to operate effectively is inversely proportional to the size of the group.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Didn't Al Gore have a couple of hitsingles recently? Songs like 'Satisfaction', 'Angie', 'Sympathy for the devil' etc?
The Republicans are currently in charge of both houses of Congress and have much influence on the Supreme Court. They threw away their ideas of reduced government and decided to rather go for being morality police (after they got rid of the libertarian thorn in their side, Newt Gingrich.) A new presidential administration would mean Republicans, but new people accross the board will mean Democrats in most of these positions.
Of course as far as I'm concerned Republicans and Democrats are wings of the same party (I point out I was a loyal Republican voter until the post-Columbine assault on pop culture showed me what their real agenda was) so I'm a Libertarian now. The Republicans say they are for reduced government, but their actions are otherwise. Add film, tv, and gaming to the list of unconstitutionally targetted industries (again, the need to "protect our children"), and recognize that in this case it is big government Republicans holding the razor. How are they going to create these new enforcement bodies? By raising taxes of course, that's the only way government pays for new programs. If you value Liberty, don't vote for Republicans or Democrats.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
That tactic - of moving from a topic on which two people disagree to one the they agree on - is part of a very effective strategy for negotiating someone into your camp. It's intellectual momentum.
Let's say you and I disagree over, say, the value of the GNU Public License. I could try to rebut your objections one by one, but I doubt either of us would really move much, especially if we've become vested in one opinion or another. If, instead, I change the topic into one of the hundred or so things on which we agree - especially if it is a subject we are both emotional about, such as human rights in Latin America or urban sprawl in the US - then the earlier topic enjoys the "splash effect" of our agreement, and you will be much more inclined in the future to agree with me later, even to the point of thinking that you have always held an opinion much like mine.
When there are entire categories of opinion, it becomes even easier. If I declare myself of Libertarian, and you are a proponent of environmental regulation, I will, if I am wise, not try to discuss environmental regulation with you - instead, I will probably want to discuss the problems with the War on Drugs and a whole subset of stances that you agree with. Then I can roundly declare that you, too, are a Libertarian! Then I might incidentally note that Most Libertarians oppose environmental regulation. If you have begun to value your Libertarian affiliation, you will begin to migrate your views on environmental regulation in that direction.
I think it was Kurt Vonnegut who described people's ideas as little badges of affiliation that people used to demonstrate group identity.
I have a hard time following this argument. The society is YOU. If the 50% americans who share your opinion got their shit together and did vote the election scores would be:
Dem:25%
Rep:25%
Others:50%
By not voting and restricting your political action to this kind of whining about corrupted government you support this situation. Not voting is like giving half a vote to the GOP and half a vote to the Democrats.
---
Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
For those of you who don't know, you can send Mr. Gore an email telling him just how much you like/dislike his corporate smoozing. If he likes your email enough, he might just come to your birthday party and do the macarana once his political career is in shambles! (For a small fee I'm sure)
So start churning out those emails fellow slashdotters.
Don't vote Democrat or Republican; vote intelligently!
Bear something in mind--Al Gore is not the only presidential candidate to visit Microsoft so far this year. In fact, he is the sixth. Candidates this year are recognizing that this campaign--perhaps more than any other ever--will hinge on money. And it isn't just Microsoft (the corporation) that has money (although the Wall St. Journal points out that the corporation itself has $19 billion in cash on hand). Those 200 top managers of Microsoft are all worth at least 7 figures apiece--many of them worth 8 or 9 figures.
Al Gore has always had a reputation as a "money guy." He ran for Congress and subsequently for the Senate with an extensive list of supporters of his father (the former senator from Tennessee). Gore has always been particularly adept at raising funds, and political commentators frequently suggested that the reason Gore was chosen for the Vice Presidential nomination in 1992 was his vaunted ability to raise funds.
I think the real question about Gore's comment is how he emphasized it. Reportedly the questions got pointed, and there was clearly a hostile audience present. Did Gore say, "oh--I'm sure the White House will be involved in any settlement discussions" in a light, breezy fashion. Or did he get frustrated by a hostile crowd, and snap "...and I'm sure the White House," stop and glare, "will be involved in any settlement discussions."
Either way, Al was there to shake down the bigwigs at Microsoft. Pay up--or the government will decide what you can and cannot do.
Of course they will get involved half of America has some part of there retirement funds that are probably tied to MS. Not to mention the fact that it is a huge advantage to all Americans to have and keep the most dominant operating system in control of American's. If you look at the larger
long term picture of things I would rather have
MS be dominant as opposed to SuSe. Lets face it
RedHat will NEVER generate the type of revenue and ROI that MS has for Americans. You can say linux is better that MS all you want but we will see how many thousand employess plus many thousands of investors become millionaires from RedHat.
I am surprised by the general tone of the posts talking about the government and the politicians as if they were coming from outer space to rule you.
This is YOUR Government. You voted for them to be the ones taking decisions for the good of your nation.
(IANAL, so these are just vague informal opinions, not legal arguments)
Now this government is attacking Microsoft Corporation, because they think their behaviour is nocive for the good of the nation, because they are breaking a law that has been voted a century ago.
It is the judicial system's role to decide whether the government's claim is correct. I do not see why the VP is not supposed to give his opinion on that matter. Didn't you elect him to work for the good of the nation?
You will tell me he only does that as part of his fight for the next election. Maybe. But unless the people of the United States is stupid this should not work. You will tell me , even worse, that he does that to get corporate $$ for his campaign. But again, unless the people of the United States is stupid why should they vote for the richest candidate?.
OK..Now I will stop being naive. These fears may be justified. But commenting on the election as if it was a football game is not going to change anything. either you believe your country is a democracy and you enter the political debate, or you think it is a tyranny and then you should start thinking about guerilla tactics.
It is YOUR freedom...remember.
---
Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
Bill bought out the white house. Next step is for gates to run for president.. Oh the horror!!
(Scene: Somewhere in the DOJ - Janet's office.)
Secretary: Ms. Reno, the secure batphone is ringing. It's (salutes) Mr. President!!!.
Janet: (stands up and salutes) Oooo... I'll take it.
(Janet picks up the phone).
Janet: Yes, Bill, dear!?
Bill the Cat: Never mind that, Janet... I have something important to tell you. Al just got back from Redmond. Gates just contributed to his campaign. He rolled in a nice bonus for you and me if we lay off this Microsoft antitrust thing...
Janet: Ooooo... Meowww.. Mr. Bill!
Bill the Cat: Ok Janet, I've gotta run. Al will be telling me how he invented the CPU at 10:00. I tell you it is so riverting... So long...
Janet:: Ttfn, Mr. Bill...
What do you exactly mean by that?
---
Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
That is the stupidest thing I've heard as Silicon Valley is primarily Unix. SGI, Sun ring a bell?
Does this term mean anything to you? This country was founded in the wake of European tyranny. The government was divided into checks and balances of power in order to avoid some of the inevitable abuses of power. The White House has absolutley no business sticking its nose into this affair. I don't care if breaking up MS brings famine and disease to every individual on this planet - it's still no excuse for the White House abusing its power by trying to influence the outcome of a Judicial process. Any goverment official attempting to overstep their bounds should be put out of office immediately!!
Besides, Gates doesn't have enough to make Gore seem to have a personality. He's only worth $100 billion, after all.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Ever hear of checks and balances of power in this country? The White House is not part of the Judicial branch of government so Al Gore has no more business being there than I do. PERIOD!
Al's had a good teacher for the Ancient Art of the Waffle. Clinton's waffles were so stupendous that many of them were quite simply unbelievable. Maybe Al will follow in his footsteps. Mmm. Nice crispy golden-brown waffles for everyone!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You say this campaign 'will hinge on money'. I live in a country where it is illegal for a candidate to receive money from a corporation, since it makes the debate unfair.(France)
Are you saying the government of the united states is not democratically elected? If so what do you plan to do about it? Should the other countries help you gain your freedom like you are helping Irak?
---
Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
Because Bill and Al both think they invented the internet?
I am mystified at some of the comments so far.
Some of you are saying that Gore went to MS to imply that he supports them in the anti-trust case, presumably to get campaign donations. Excuse me, but can you read? He tried to avoid commenting on the subject, but the general remarks that he did make indicate that he is not on Microsoft's side. Here's another article at the Washington Post that makes this point more clearly.
The most I think you can criticize him for IMO is his unwillingness to speak out more clearly on the case, but the argument can be made that the Vice President should reserve his comments on a pending lawsuit. And it did take some nerve for him to show up there, seeing as how he is second in charge of an administration whose DoJ is their opponent. To be sure, Al Gore is about as exciting as watching paint dry, but this is one of the most gutsy things he's done since taking on Ross Perot. (Of course, that doesn't say much for his Vice Presidency so far.)
Here's the other thing I don't get: Some of you are all upset and surprised at the idea that the White House might have any role at all in this lawsuit. I'm embarassed to have to explain something that ought to be obvious, but the DoJ is a part of the executive branch and as such reports to the President. You can be certain that at some point while the DoJ was investigating MS and considering a lawsuit, Janet Reno briefed Bill Clinton on what was up. If he had insisted that they knock it off, it wouldn't have happened. At the very least, he didn't do that; and there may have been extensive discussions in the White House about the consequences of the trial. Indeed, Clinton probably asked Gore what he thought about it, particularly considering that it might affect Gore's presidential campaign.
If you don't think it should be that way, what in the world do you want as an alternative? Do you think that the Department of Justice shouldn't be under the ultimate control of an elected official? Sorry, but that's crazy.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I can understand peoples views of Gore and the message that the White House will be involved. And yes the politics of this settlement are going to be a big ol' buck of inhale.
It does seem like a conflict of interest see that the Justice Department answers to the President. But so does the Commerce Department, the Federal Reserve and economic development groups of other departments, and they will scream doom and gloom if MS' punishment is too severe. The fact is, the settlement, if handled poorly, could rock the industry as well as the economy. I also believe MS is counting on that point of view to temper part of the settlement issues in their favor. So, White House involvement will be a necessary evil to maintain balance in the economy. Remember politics drive the government but money (much to our disappointment) seems to drives politics. (These days even if you get caught with your pants down, opps sorry MR Pres).
I'm not sure what the long term projection are for an MS break-up, I leave that to the 4 panel group that is answering slashdot users questions on that. The short-term is upheaval that I don't think anyone from the financial and business world real wants. What I think you will see are a series of monetary and mutually acceptable industry restraints and/or concessions placed on MS. This will be negotiated by the White House and then paraded in front of America as a win for the Pres, the wannabe Pres and the Democratic party.
However, no matter what the economic ramifications , both near and long term, with the President being a "global thinker", will mean a stronger (and possibly vengeful) MS after all is said and done. So it would seem in this issue, there is no lesser of two Billy's.....errrr... evils.
"Uh, yeh, you dont actually need to split them up...
just give em a slap on the wrist, I'm sure they'll be nice"
You have passed go, collect $10,000,000
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
From what I hear, Gore is in dire straits. He's moved his campaign headquarters to Tennessee because he is quickly losing support in Washington. At first I thought this unconventional move was "insignificant," but I'm realizing now that this is indeed a pattern of panic. He's been dissed by Clinton's crew because they're all ambitious on Hillary being the first woman president in 2004, and they must follow her to New York in the meantime. Or so I hear.
Of course, what power does he have in the White House to add influence to the trial? Not much. But saying that he's going to is going to do for him what inventing the internet did--gain him exposure on all the important issues of the 21st century. After all, he's also the environmental candidate. He's got a book on it, fully explaining global warming.
Voting democrat never was so difficult. It may be too early to tell, but many would be democrats are leaning towards Bush Jr. He's got the money. He's got the support. He also doesn't have the history of gaffes that Gore is accruing.
Now that I've said all that, I think I can also justify implying that Microsoft is behind this one. Even if the facts aren't there to support this claim, the political third eye is.
By the way, the two party system is dead.
For those of you that don't remember, the USS Forrestall was a new aircraft carrier placed on station off the coast of Vietnam.
A fire broke out aboard the ship, killing many sailors. It was a pretty nasty event.
The fire started on McCain's aircraft. He failed to check his craft before boarding it and waiting on the flight line. This little oversight on his part resulted in the fire.
I hold him responsible for the deaths of dozens of men.
This is an example of stupid activism.
You pick your battles. You leave out the ones not worth annoying people about. You pick the ones that really matter, and those you can make a difference in. But the ones with no basis, or the stupid, you avoid.
If you listen to the talking heads, Microsoft has an impact on the market (if not economy), almost just by being there. It is certainly an issue where the VP can be involved. Al Gore has been good for internet funding. I mean, the reasons are many; this is a stupid fight to pick.
Camels do fine if you don't pet them. They spit when they're annoyed.
"There is a fine line between genius and insanity--I have erased this line."
I used to be a huge Al Gore fan. But this further lowers my opinion of him. What the hell does he need to get involved for? This is between the DOJ and M$. Gee, I wonder who wants to win Washington in the primaries... Hmmm... Who could it be....?
I should really get to work on my new site http://www.politicians-suck.com. I'm not kidding.
Remember Al Gore invented the internet, and thanks to his visionary mind, we are all now enjoying e-mail and web pages, that of course were also invented by Al Gore. (Oh! I almost forget it!!, Al Gore also invented ALGORithms)
Also remember that Microsoft invented GUI, and the windows concept, thanks to the innovation that Microsoft has brought to our lives, we live in a better world. We can actually write letters in our computers!! Thanks Microsoft!
So why we worry, Al Gore is just teaming up with people like him, because I'm sure that, when his political life is over, he will join Microsoft to make our world even better!
I'm confident about Al! He's my life model!!
Thanks Al!!
I just can't stop voting for you!!!
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but you know that the President could step in and with a wave of the hand (actually, probably a signature, but a wave of the hand has more flair) could pardon Bill and Microsoft any wrongdoing.
Aren't presidential pardons wonderful? I wonder what it would take (if anything) for such a situation to come pass.
Share data. Share code. Share ideas. Share the wealth.
http://stockfilter.org
Actually, you are very wrong. When M$ decided they needed some political clout, they DID start with mostly the Elephant party. However, if you look at the records, the split the contributions roughly 50/50 this year. They tried to buy help wherever they could.
The term "lame duck" is used by talking heads, who've had little clue about what is really going on. They report the gossip, they peddle their own little hypocrisies about like it were God's own word.
Bill Clinton has taken steps in internal policy that were never contemplated before. He took on the health care conglomerates, the extreme nutcase (read Republican) right (as in abortion, gay-rights, welfare), and trade in North America. He won a few of those battles, and would have won the rest if not for a Republican party, that is still bitter about a nobody beating them in '92.
Bill Clinton's been blundering about in foreign countries since very early in his administration. Not recently, and certainly not since the impeachment.
You have a very good network up there. It's called the CBC. Listen to it, instead of getting your news from Limbaugh.com.
I don't think either of 'em is really interested in the public.
So, who're the third and fourth candidates? This campaign is already getting boring.
The fact of the matter is, the Clinton Justice Department is exceedingly corrupt, and this whole case has been nothing but a shakedown from the get-go. The fact that some of the chief thugs are getting their fingers into the cookie jar is no surprise.
Don't be surprised if Micros~1 walks away with a slap on the wrist in a couple months and the Democratic Party Campaign chest gets a sizeable injection of M$ capitol.
If you don't beleive me, what about the Intel settlement? Have they changed any of their practices? Noooooo. They are still up to their dirty tricks, all they had to do was lay some cash on Janet Reno, and *pooof* no more investigation. M$ should have done this from the start, and it would have gone easier for them. How could they expect to get justice from a corrupt political system, hmmmmm?
I won't even mention all the Miami Cocaine king pins who walked after droping 100 million on DOJ after drug busts....
God, can't politicians just stay out where they are not wanted. The justice department wants to break em up, and here come the fat cats looking for screen time. God I hate Gore, and will never vote for him, even though I am a democrat.
I love nothing more than politicians snuggling up to Big business. Makes me feel all warm and gooey inside.
Gosh, I love this countries political process! I just hope Gore meets with his other "children" i.e. aol, etc. Being the 'father of the internet' is a hard and thankless job.
I've seen it before on other threads, and I'm seeing it here. /. posters must be the most ignorant ones when it comes to anything but computers (or specifically, Linux advocacy). In general of course, there are always the considered postings in each thread, or Jon Katz weighing in with thesaurus-benders.
/.?
/. did not file the case against Microsoft, the government did. Now they want to follow through; just let them do their job.
In general though, we see a naive libertarianism, almost an attitude of taking on every world problem with the same ease writing a Perl script. I mean "sex with Gates' wife"??? "Violation of judicial proceedings"??? What do these terms mean? Where is this garbage coming from.
Do you people listen to NPR at all? Or PBS? Or, at least, ABC, CBS, or NBC? The news parts, that is? How does the most blatant ignorance about world affairs or politics get to
As for as the White House getting involved - they've been called into issues that involve the economy before. The GM strike, for example. Certainly the people on the business programs seem to think what happens to Microsoft is going to impact the market (if not economy) significantly. We know it's going to change a few things in software.
The people up there are being paid to be involved. Remember, all of
Microsoft is now heavily lobying and supporting REPULICAN canidates. To the toon of $800,000. There was an interesting article on how all the repulican congressmen/senators now seem to be making statments on microsofts behalf. Gores looking for a little revenge. Also the justice dept is appointed by the white house..
*insert pithy sig here*
It's just part of the dance, or rather the soap opera "Bill Gates vs. Justice." Will Bill Gates manage to use his vast fortune and influence in American society to defeat his enemies? Since Al Gore isn't likely to come out and say, "Mr. Gates, I'll do everything in my power to make sure that Microsoft regains its pre-eminance as America's premier software monopoly", or its opposite in front of cameras and mikes, it's what's going on in back rooms and behind closed doors that matters. Is George Bush or Al Gore cutting a secret deal with Bill Gates that will allow a harsh ruling to be no more that a slap on the rist penalty? That's something we may never know, but I'd bet Gates is trying to cut such a deal. Bill Gates went into this trial as someone who didn't expect to lose, hence his open contempt for the legal proceedings (i.e. statements such as "Microsoft shouldn't be judged by people who didn't pass High School physics," etc.). So, it's possible there has been some influence peddling going on, but chances are, we'll never know about it. In fact, Gates reminds me of John Gotti in this one way, they were both men who seemed to think they were invulnerable to court proceedings. Gotti thought he could buy off any court, maybe Gates believes the same thing.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I agree entirely with your post - this site has become an idiot's forum.
You know that anything involving the computer industry would bring attention from the White House. They are loosing an up hill campaign against the republicans for the next presidential election. Gore wants to be responsible for meadiating this arrangement so he can get votes from the computer industry.
Humor:>
"LOOK I CARE ABOUT YOUR NEEDS. If elected I vow to help nurture every company in the same way I did the Internet. For I am God and I shall tend to you like a sheperd to his flock."
BAH, BAH, BAH. Sorry AL but that whole sheep thing will only apeal to the computer students at TEXAS A&M.
1999 TEXAS vs. TEXAS A&M
Score Prediction 68 to 3 "Texas running and throwing all over the recking crew."
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Did he have that "just got fucked for cash" glow about him?
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Kudos to a well read /.'r. I'd read the book a while back, and am still surprised by how well and how often it hits the nail smack on the head.
As to the accuracy of the quotes, I can't vouch 100%, but IIRC, the concepts are exactly what Smith warned about in relation to monopolist companies. Plus a number of other thoughts which connected those same companies to the manipulation of government processes to their own ends such as is so common in the US Congress right now.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
No, no, no... THANK YOU FOR PLAY!!!!
Hmmm... I seem to remember this from Jr. High School.
Why does it seem that every time Mr. Gore does anything tech related, it rubs me wrong?
I can't help but think of Mr. Gore everytime I get SPAM, everytime I ask to be removed from a SPAM list and everytime these e-mails bounce from false addresses.
I do not believe that Mr. Gore really takes the time to understand the issues behind technology. I still cannot figure out how he got the reputation of being the techie politician. This image must have been cultivated by big business interests rather than public interest.
I'm sure Gore is regretting visiting there. I wonder what Bush Jr said while there. If he's actually in favor of derailing the DoJ, I'd have to have words with him. I doubt Bush Jr is that stupid, tho.
US gov is increasingly run as a protection racket -- legislation and legal actions are primarily ways of increasing revenue to political parties, revenue and power of gov depts, etc. (Helps that our current President and associates are all serious criminals.)
I don't like Gates and think MS software sucks.
But we are all going to hate the future built on these actions by the inJustice Dept.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Yes but when was the last time the White house was called in to moderate an Anti Trust settlement. Throw out a an anit-trust suit yes, moderate a settlement, no. Although you are right about the White House stepping in to solve some economic matters I still see this as a politcal opertunity and not a purely selfless act of leadership.
I think there is just too much water under the bridge between alot of people and the current administration. Any time they do something good someone is going to question there motives due to the lack trust surrounding their persona.
"Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
Linux has enjoyed free advertising and publicity courtesy M$ and the DoJ, why not Gore? He's banking on Microsoft's aledged good reputation and the media frenzy around the verdict to boost his own image and push him to the forefront of news. It's a big gamble, however - he could VERY easily characterize himself as a boob for the whole world to see and his actions could backfire and do his political perspirations harm rather than good. Linux was lucky and has gained favor inspite of Mindcraft. Chances are, Gore won't be so lucky...
During the debate I heard numerous commentators discussing how Darwinistic evolution is "one of the pillars of Western Scientific thought" etc. and how a person couldn't be truly grounded in scientific principles without it.
Which is a load of crap. Very few of the sciences actually have any direct relation to do with Darwin's theory, e.g., the airplane flies because of aerodynamic principles, not because of a useless debate over whether man descended from monkeys or was created (okay, you may now start the obligatory "creation vs. evolution flamewars").
But to call a group of individuals "dolts" because they chose to return the power to decide how things will be taught to a local level? Hmmm. Sounds like you might be the type of person to vote for Gore after all under the theory that Washington D.C. knows best.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Actually, you ninnies, it is because the Justice Department is a manifestation of the Executive Branch of the US Government. The White House has had somewhat of an involvement in almost all anti-trust suits and settlements, and Gore is probably just going to MS to see what they may need from the White House - namely, an Executive Order to help facilitate any breakup (such as, waiving certain penalties) or possible tax exemptions that would give MS more of a reason to free up source code.
Honestly, people, if you don't know anything about a subject, please please PLEASE refrain from posting about it.
--
Matt Singerman
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
The Chinese government contributed heavily to Clinton & Gore's campaign...
Linux is the official operating system of China... so Gore will be...
The Linux President!
After all, Gore invented the Internet, and he probably invented Linux too!
If I were Microsoft I'd watch out I think Gore is one of those longhairs in it with the commies.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
I agree completely, that the Executive branch has no business being involved in this case.
All those clowns from the executive branche on the prosecuting team (you know, the ones leading the prosecution- the Attorney General and her underlings) should be yanked off the case and sent off to do something productive.
Don't assume libertarians are naive because we think hammers are better than rifles for pounding nails. Some problems may require drastic solutions, but this isn't one of them. I find it ironic that on a site dominated by Linux enthusiasts, people constantly post in favor of industry regulation; justifying it by claiming Microsoft as an example of a market failure! Talk about pulling wool over your own eyes to make your hands invisible...
To be honest, I don't care what Microsoft wants. I expect that they want to make money; so do I. So do you. If they pursue this interest in a way that harms us, such as by destroying companies we admire, they anger and alienate us and shatter what fragile loyalty remains. They can only do this so long before the reaction reaches critical mass.
The best way to handle Microsoft is to write better code. The rest will fall into place. The worst thing that could happen right now would be for the DOJ to go AT&T on M$; it could paralyze the most vital industry we have left in this country.
To get more on-topic: Vote against Al Gore. Vote against George Bush. Vote for the parties who care more about seeing their ideals in action than about getting into office. Keep America free.
Scudder
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Great posting. I am glad someone else on this site knows something about the government instead of the usual "I hate this party/politician" nonsence. Maybe if the rest of you out there stayed awake in your high school history and government classes, you would not make an ass out of yourself.
Gore made that statement to step on as few toes as possible. He didn't say that Microsoft deserves to be split, or anything to that effect. Gore made a general statement about anti-trust law, which will allow him to backout when it is politically expedient. (e.g.: MS did not use its dominance, therefore I now support MS...) While I don't think Gore is as ethically challenged as Clinton, I suspect he'll do the most expedient thing. When and if public opinion shifts, he'll follow it in proportion with the amount of harm that MS can do him (e.g.: by supporting him or his competition). You just watch...
Just because someone thinks differently than you about a subject which YOU CANNOT prove does not make one a "dolt".
Agreed. And I'm not about to say that I can prove that evolution is a fact. But neither am I going to give any credence to anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence that is all around us.
I really don't want to start an offtopic flame war, but I'd be interested to hear from any creationists in the audience who can explain why it is that fruit flies, dogs and pretty much all domesticated animals can have traits bred into and out of them if not for the process of evolution.
If you don't want the governement stepping in when Linux or BSD or whatever OS makes it's way to the top, then I highly suggest you support Microsoft in this struggle to free themselves from Government regulation.
I think not. Let me rephrase that and you'll see what I mean:
If you like companies breaking the law to increase their profits, stifle competition, and give consumers sub-optimal products, support Microsoft in this struggle to be free from Government regulation. That's the same kind of government regulation that says your car company can't make airbags that shoot metal spikes into your skull instead of nice, fluffy pillows.
Yeah, government sucks sometimes. However, that doesn't mean that it's not right once in a while. Anarchy ain't fun for long.
--
QDMerge 0.4!
how to invest, a novice's guide
Okay, what if, immediately after you give it to your friend, you erase all your own copies, if any?
- Friend uses the gift instead of buying a new copy
- One less copy sold
- Money out of the developer's pocket
Therefore, by analogy, it's still theft... Um, I don't think so. Not even Microsoft thinks so.You need a better analogy to prove your case, because the analogy can also be applied to "prove" that giving away is theft, which is nonsense.
Female Prison Rape in NY
"or in what form the theory of evolution would be taught."
/theory/ as if it didn't hold much weight. In fact, the only thing keeping evolution a /theory/ is people like you bandying around the term. Evolution is for all intents and purposes NOT a theory. It is proven fact. It happens. Go to the Galapagos for a few months for undeniable proof with your own eyes. Call it "change over time" or whatever euphamism makes you feel ok, but it is certainly NOT controversial and is FACTUAL.
/implementing/ it aren't. The reason this was done was not for the false pretense of broadening options or liberating teachers. This decision was made only to remove evolution from the classroom. I'd like to see how many teachers /CHOOSE/ to teach evolution after this supposedly liberating decision. If all teachers choose to teach evolution then my argument is moot. If they don't, well, it will be directly BECAUSE of this verdict.
/science/ was founded on the very principle of rational deduction, peer review, scrutiny and skepticism. So while I may not vote for a career politician because he/she "would know best", I /would/ listen to a scientist because by definition scientists know science.
You bold
"Very few of the sciences actually have any direct relation to do with Darwin's theory, e.g.,"
Hmm...well, I'd say the whole field of biology is predicated on it. Any biologists worth their weight want to quibble on that?
"the airplane flies because of aerodynamic principles,"
Yes, and creatures change over time according to evolutionary principles. Saying aerodynamic principles are "controversial" and that somebody's god made it that way instead, is not only ridiculous, but unproductive.
"not because of a useless debate over whether man
descended from monkeys or was created (okay, you may now start the obligatory "creation vs. evolution flamewars").""
I find the debate useless also, because it is typically one-sided: people who don't like the "idea" of it attempting to discredit its fact.
"But to call a group of individuals "dolts" because they chose to return the power to decide how things will be taught to a local level?"
Superficially this sounds logical. Unfortunately the people
"Sounds like you might be the type of person to vote for Gore after all under the theory that Washington D.C. knows best."
Well, unlike free-for-all politics,
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The DoJ is directly controlled by the Executive branch. Who do you think initiated this whole mess?
When you're crushing a man's windpipe with your knee, you can be sure he will attempt to bite you.
I don't see in that quote a call for government intervention, although it does make clear that Smith considered collusion a bad thing. I'll go grep Wealth of Nations, but maybe you could quote some remedy that Smith offers for this ill?
Oh, it might also be interesting to consider the GE conspiracy case in this regard. IIRC, GE could have lowered prices so far as to eliminate its competitors, but its competitors had asked it to conspire to raise prices. GE faced a dilemma: if it lowered prices it was using monopoly power against its competitors, if it conspired it was guilty of that. GE decided that the cost of a conspiracy case was less than the cost of an anti-competion case, etc.
In the natural world humans are the largest pool of food so that is the best place for viri and bacteria to feed. Likewise in the political-eccon. world Bill Gates is the biggest pool of money (food) so that is the best place for a politician to feed.
The suit against Microsoft is being pursued in US Federal Court, which makes the federal apellate courts (which are federal apppointees) the forum where the penalties will be finally decided.
The preference of the state and federal attorneys-general is immaterial at this stage *unless* Microsoft seeks an extrajudicial settlement; I'm sure that Microsoft is equally dissatisfied by the findings of fact (which, thank god, are more or less irreversible), but the reality of the situation is that it's an exercise for the judiciary from here on in.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Bill Gates has lots of money Al Gore needs lots of money to continue campaigning for the presedency.
If Al Gore can not get the support he needs soon his run for the office is doomed.
Microsoft is in danger of being broken up.
Will Bill Gates coff up to keep Microsoft from being broken up?
Will Al Gore accually do anything if he dose?
Rember Bill Gates is known for backstabbing and Al Gore is a fast learner.
I don't actually exist.
M$ has more millionaires working for it than any other company on the planet. Al Gore is struggling to keep his head above water in his own party.
He's hoping to get some soft money for the DNC and boost his populatiry within his party. This can help him edge out Bill Bradley if he can bring in a few million in soft money.
He's also trying ot make himself appealing to all of the "fiscal" conservatives out there, (a fiscal conservative is a liberal in a $500 suit) this is pandering pure and simple.
I hope that the people of the US can see through it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Unfortunately, there is a greater issue at hand of which most americans are unaware (it ends up on page 21 of the paper). Unfortunately, it may already be too late to do anything about it.
Why is it that one of the most important trade routes in the world, the Panama Canal, will be run jointly by the Panamanians and the Chinese come 01 JAN 2000?
Why the sudden shift toward making the Chinese "upstanding" members in the WTO or even the EU? Why are we basically overlooking the sale of AWAC technology by the Isrealis to the Chinese or the supposedly "stolen" nuclear technology? It is this type of technology that can give a nation a significant offensive capability rather than the defensive one. Already, the Chinese are starting readying production of the F-10, an aircraft with similar capabilities to our F-16.
Presently, the Chinese ICMB capability is unable to reach the continental United States (except for, perhaps, the West Coast. With the alleged help of our own aerospace industry, they have allegedly made significant advances in rocket propulsion and guidance. Now, they may get bases in Panama. If they place their medium range missiles down there, they will have a capability of striking just about anywhere in the USA.
I'd love to know how THIS one slipped through the cracks.
All this, while Bill and Al have been in office. Did you ever really wonder where all that soft campaign money went?
Yeah, like I'll sleep better knowing that AL and BillG are working together in ANY fashion. Isn't the anti-christ supposed to enlist the aid of a powerful, charismatic individual who pushes technology to unify the world (I think that was in one of Nostradameous' quatrains)?
Before dismissing my allegations and calling me a conspiracy nut or whatever, review the facts of the matter. It may frighten you to realize just what the New World Order is all about.
The ONLY time I'm in agreement with Gates and Gore is on software Piracy.
Software pirates wouldn't have ever paid for commertal titles. Instead they chouse to steal.
They are potental open source users. When they steal they still show up in using statictis and that hurts us.
There are enough pirates that if they'd use free software instead of stealing commertal titles the busness community wouldn't risk alinating us.
As it is software pirates act like they have no choice and if they keep it up it may soon be true.
Anyway the image of pirates commiting murder on the high seas is a bit of a farce.. piracy is not murder it's theft and high seas pirates kill about as often as theafs in urban america.
Other terms don't fit quite as well. Some make it seem ok such as "illegal copying" whats that? Or "IP imbeslment" I'm shure Microsoft would LOVE that terminology.
Piracy was a term picked by legal experts having more to do with the act than any other term available.
The romantic imagry dosn't even carry over.
Or when it dose it's more of a joke.. costummed fakes.. Like the printed "tux" t shirts. Not to be taken sereously
Sorry for going off topic with this but I do feel strongly about IP theft. It just underminds the whole free software movement....
I don't actually exist.
Is enforcing the law "violence"?
Gee, this MS case is really making the kooks come out of their cracks.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
No, I doubt if they could ring a bell. They would try, but since nobody uses an old ASR-33 teletype any longer, and the Unices are STILL , in 1999 centered on a TTY-based I/O model, they would probably send a control-G to "ring the bell" and not a lot would happen.
All so-called scientific facts are in fact theory. No theory is ever considered proven beyond a doubt. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt perhaps, but one thing science always allows, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, is the notion that a theory can be supplanted should new evidence be brought forward. This flexibility in no way undermines the potency or relevance of theories which have proven themselves over time and are supported by overwhelming evidence.
Even the so-called Law of Gravity is a theory, first put forth by Newton, later refined by such great thinkgers as Einstein. Evolution is a theory which has roughly the same weight of overwhelming evidence as the theory of gravity.
Say, why don't we give local school boards the option to teach the theory of magic, rather than the various and sundry (and much drier) theories of physics. After all, they are theories, and we should be tolerant of those supersititous ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H individuals who don't buy into mainstream science. After all, they're people too, so their opinions should count for just as much as some aging physiscist in a white smock, right? After all, to do otherwise would be to buy into "the theory that Washintgton D.C. knows best."
The idiots in Kansas who gutted their childrens scientific education in the area of biology are dolts. So are people who defend this idiocy by making trite pleas for tolerance. The scientific method is orthogonal to tolerance, as should be the standards for scientific education. Science is about forming theories and then backing them up with emperical evidence. The more emperical evidence supports a particular theory, the more credibility that theory has. Gravitation, and evolution, have a tremendous degree of credibility because they are supported by truly overwhelming amounts of emperical evidence. Science is not about tolerance, indeed tolerance of absurdities is not, nor should it become, a part of the scientific method, or the scientific curriculum.
Oddly enough, current emperical evidence does appear to support "the theory that Washington D.C. knows best", at least when compared to Kansas. Pulling that off really took talent -- one must truly appluad the Kansas Board of Education on that remarkable achievment.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Please try again
Screws cap back on bottle, unscrews...
Please try again
Screws cap back on bottle, unscrews...
Please try again
Screws cap back on bottle, unscrews...
Please try again
Screws cap back on bottle, unscrews...
Please try again
Screws cap back on bottle, unscrews...
Please try again
Screws cap back on bottle, unscrews...
You have a very good network up there. It's called the CBC.
Not if the Liberal Party has their way.
It'll be just another shell network running Pokemon and Care Bears commercials, er, cartoons.
At least they make great shows like This Hour has 22 Minutes and Made In Canada.
(If you've never seen 22 Minutes, it's a satire on a weekly news show, and they get prominent Canadian politicians involved on camera!)
One week Rick Mercer and PM Jean Chretien went to Harveys (a burger chain) for lunch and talked politics!
Man, you'll NEVER see anything like that ANYWHERE else.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Arguably, you could say that the non-geocentric model of the universe is one of the pillars of western thought, but that's almost totally irrevelant to modern biology. Face it; if you want to teach biology, evolution is necessary. Of course, most schools aren't for teaching at all...
That said, this is obviously political grandstanding. I'd also like to point out that even though the Executive Branch may have valuable input which is consistent with the US Constitution, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the involvement were to end up violating Constitutional bounds in some manner. The Democratic and Republican parties seem more than willing to treat the Constitution as if it were toilet paper.
-- $SIGNATURE
I am not xenophobic, as I said 'we' I was speaking as the intelligent voting class of the United States of America, which happens to be a minority. :P
Xenophobia is a fear of outsiders, are you aware of this? I liked the United Kingdoms House of Lords, but they have to elect people to it now which lets the bribary in.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Article can be found at http://www.zdnet.com
Regardless, if this is true or not. The timing was wrong and as you see it gives the impression of politics are involvled. If they (Whitehouse/Gore)wanted to facilitate a settlement process, they should at least wait until serious talks on settlement have started and/or final judgement has been issued. All this visit does is give the appearance now, is that Gore is trying to look important, looking desperate, and looking for money form M$.
Al is just keeping with his track record. Since taking the initiative to create the internet he is now taking the initiative to restore competition to the PC operating system market, not that someone from finland already has. If we are lucky he will also take the initiative to lift crypto export restrictions.
--Shemnon
The story goes that while Bill Gates was on the campaign trail in Arkansas (a long time ago essentially), he raped her.
She kept silent about it for years and years until all the new cases sprang up and she felt she should make her story known as well.
The Wall Street Journal (obviously no Clinton fan) was actually the news source that came first with the most details, and how the story was buried. The article was huge, and Broaddrick's story is very believable (in addition to others who back her story).
Flameboy:
;P
I said he is NOW a lame-duck president: the Republican Congress that impeached him (did you forget that) will just crap out any bill he tries.
BTW I get my news from CNN like every other Canadian
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
You say this campaign 'will hinge on money'. I live in a country where it is illegal for a candidate to receive money from a corporation, since it makes the debate unfair.(France) Are you saying the government of the united states is not democratically elected? If so what do you plan to do about it? Should the other countries help you gain your freedom like you are helping Irak?
I'm sure you're not suggesting that major corporations in France don't influence elections. The largest corporations in France are either owned entirely by the French government or else the government has a large equity stake. To suggest that corporate interests do not play a role in French (or other European) politics brings to mind the French word naievete.
One of the foundational principles of American government is the right to free speech, and the right of a free press. If you want to spend ten million dollars to print up posters and distribute them, that's your right. It has been assumed all along that this inevitably means that a rich person can have more influence. To curb this, various limits have been placed on the amount of money that you can give to any one specific candidate. But there are no limits--either for a person or for a corporation--on how much money they can give to a political party. This is commonly called "soft money." Political parties, especially the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996, pushed the legal limits of "soft money" very, very hard. It was on this issue, when cornered by the press, that Al Gore made his infamous "no controlling legal authority" statement (rejecting the idea that the president and vice president are subject to federal campaign contribution laws).
What Al Gore was doing at Microsoft was shaking them down for soft money contributions. As other high-tech companies realize that Judge Jackson has just given the Justice Department carte blanche to regulate all of them (remember: by Judge Jackson's definitions Apple is a de facto monopoly, too--and Apple has been much more proprietary, and predatory, toward small competitors than Microsoft). He's trying to amass a huge war chest through soft money contributions.
The solution is easy: permit contributions (they are an expression of free speech). But, as George W. Bush's campaign is doing, post all contributions on the Web within 10 days. That way anybody can download the data and sort it, and determine just where a candidate's funds are coming from. Current rules require disclosure--but weeks and weeks after the contribution was made. A lot of contributions aren't made until right before the election, so the donor isn't known until final reports are filed well after the election is over. We do better by permitting any contribution--but requiring all contributions to be disclosed immediately.
Oh, and by the way...the government of the United States is not democratically elected. And it never has been. Any literate high school student in the U.S. knows that each state votes for electors--delegates to the Electoral College. The electors are typically pledged to a particular candidate--but it is the electors who select the president and the vice president.
This is very strange. Maybe Billy Bob is helping Al run for President? This does remind me of a quote:
"How could this [Y2K Bug] be a problem in a country where we have Intel and Microsoft?" -- Al Gore
I love that quote!
LONG LIVE ALPHA!!!
Can anyone hear spell campaign contribution? Probably not.
Well, gee, I guess you just need to listen to the news harder, BillC just made the Repubs his bitch with the budget deal.
Is this more like the language you understand?
There is no way Hillary Clinton is going to be elected president. She is WAY too leftist for this country. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If the vast right-wing conspiracy was against Clinton, they'll really go into full gear against her. In fact, I'm quite certain that her run in New York will be unsuccessful. You can't polish a turd.
Bush has plenty of Gaffes. He's got too much money, too many unanswered questions about his past, his ethics, his stand on issues. He has stumbled numerous times in public speeches and press conferences. I don't think Bush will be elected, in fact, I don't think he'll even be nominated. He's too centrist for his own good, like his father before him. God help him if he chooses a goofball for VP like his dad did. (which is exactly the ONLY reason Bush lost his second term - we were all terrified of Quayle, and had had enough) I think McCain will come from behind and suprise everyone and get the Republican nomination. And I'm also pretty sure that even though Bradley is catching up to Gore, and even has lots more money than Gore, he won't be taken seriously by the Democratic party. Clinton may not have any more strings to pull on Gore's behalf, and Clinton's record may even prevent Gore from winning the election, but there is such a high barrier against Bradley getting the Democratic nomination, I don't think it's possible. I'm sure he's as qualified as Gore, and I also think he's a bit further to the left than Gore, and that's what's going to kill him.
So basically, I think McCain will end up being the next president. I don't think he'll even make that bad of a president, but he is pretty much pro business, and I think MS will get off the hook because of him. I think it would be great if McCains ideas about campaign finance reform would be enacted. But they won't.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
'Gates', or did you mean, 'Clinton'?
People have got to get their names right. Misrepresenting facts like this opens everyone to the possibility of libel suits and other such nastiness.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Please stop this nonsense. Gore never claimed to have "invented the internet". You can read what Gore actually said in the latest issue of Wired.
One is always on dangerous grounds when deciding to flaunt a law because "it's unConstitutional anyway." You need to be willing to run the risk that the Supreme Court will not agree with your legal analysis.
Besides, I think it's pretty clear that Bill and MSFT flaunted the anti-trust laws out of their own "greed, envy, and will-to-power," rather than out of some selfless, Constitution-upholding principle.
Your Red-baiting aside, whatever you think of the politics of supporters of anti-trust legislation, the reality today is that anti-trust laws were passed, by popular demand, by the democratically-elected Legislature, and have been upheld by the Executive-appointed Judiciary. All three branches of our "checks and balances" involved.
True, and the GSA ought to do just this, but irrelevant to the questions of whether MSFT has broken the law and should suffer the consequences.
I agree that it would have been better if the GSA had been serious about "open systems" in procurement. Perhaps there would have been no need for an antitrust trial by this point.
But "most successful entrepeneur"? Give me a break. Check out How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates. Bill was never without an economic safety net, his product was not an innovation in any sense, and he had family connections in getting that fateful first IBM contract. I have much more respect for the thousands of mom-and-pop entrepeneurs who actually take some risks and whose livelihoods depend on customer satisfaction than for Bill's (admittedly masterful) skill in predatory business tactics and monopoly creation/exploitation.
Unlike you, I have no ability to peer into the soul of Janet Reno and discern her true motivation for having her department do its job.
"World's greatest wealth creator"? Bah humbug. BillG is the world's greatest (private) wealth concentrator. But he and his company have become so wealthy through the exercise of monopoly power (as Judge Jackson's FoF testify), not through building better software mousetraps. Denying one's competitors entry into the marketplace to protect the profit margin of your product can hardly qualify as "wealth creation." Extortion, perhaps, but not creation.
'Gates', or did you mean, 'Clinton'?
Go ahead and read it again... now, do you think I was talking about Clinton or Gates?
Sorry to jar your world so badly. But thanks for the warning... I am consulting my lawyers as we speak as to the impending litigation over my erred and absent-minded statement.
Just because this mechanism, evolution, can be observed happening in speckled moths and Galapagos tortoises, doesn't make it a global fact, and doesn't prove a lot of the things that the whole evolution theory implies, and especially some of the things that are said about evolution (such as, it proves that God does not exist). That's just crap. It's not Science as a system of rational thought, it's Science masquarading as a religion. It's Science claiming to have all the answers mankind needs and will ever need.
Look around you at the utopia mankind has created. That should be enough for anyone.
I know there are creationist whackos out there who dispute evolution, foist distorted facts, use sneaky tactics to try to push their opinion, or their belief system, onto the public at large, in place of rational Scientific methods and teaching, and I totally disagree with that.
I agree with science, and the principles of rational deduction, peer review, scrutiny and skepticism, but I also feel that there is a lot of hubris out there on the part of Scientists, that just does not belong. It borders on non-rational faith in Science, and preaches that we can replace God with our own ingenuity. Now, I'm not saying that ALL people should have Christianity rammed down their throat either. But there are some principals that I believe strongly in, that some scientists seem to want to quash; the concept of a free will, the concept that religion is an important and necessary part of some people's life. When people try to force this evolution agenda on the masses, it's just as bad as forcing Christianity, because it's just as much the mixing of religion and government as the Holy Roman Empire.
Science is a system of rational deduction and observation of the world around us. It should never become more than that. The system, and it's theories should be taught in school, but the phenomenological implications should be left to individuals and philosphers to think about, and should never be offered as the SOLE and ultimate answers that religion is designed to address. If someone wants to believe that fundamentally, the universe just formed as an accident, and the physical laws of the universe are all that are in play, and we're just smart apes, that's okay. But DON'T force your views on everyone else.
I personally DO believe in evolutionary theory, and I personally DO reconcile that mechanism with my religious faith. That's my philosophy. Due to the nature of science, that theories follow from observation, the limitation is, that since we are NOT omnicient beings, we will never be able to observe everything, and thus we will never be able to come up with a theory for Everything, (not to say that we will never nail Grand Unification - by everything, I mean, capital-E everything) every detail in the universe that has happened, or will happened. It's simply not possible. We are not divine beings, and we should not pretend that we are. It's only a tool folks. Not a religion.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
There's some excerpts of the discussion in this morning's Morning Edition report. He seemed fairly noncommital but expressed concerned that competition be preserved.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
The White House becoming involved in the Microsoft case would be a clear violation of the Constitution, specifically, Article III.
The powers of the President are clearly stated in Article II. Nowhere does it state the president "shall have the power to interfere with the judical branch in the quest for justice."
Elected officials ignorant of the Supreme Law of the Land? This can't be true!
-- Will program for bandwidth
That makes it sound so elegant, don't you think? They decided to screw the customer ("customer means "you") instead of screwing their competitors.
A much better, and more eloquent, way to put it, IMO.
Don't ever reply to spammers. I know they all claim to be maintaining opt-out addresses according to some vague US law, but they still lie: if the address bounces it's because somebody killed their account first (I've killed seven personally, which is not a lot) and you're lucky it bounced.
You're lucky it bounced because if it does _not_ bounce, rather than being removed, you are being put on a special list entitled 'Victims who are live human beings who read their email', which is sold to other spammers for a higher price. Been getting more spam since you've been doing this have you? Take heart in the idea that the email bounces you _have_ been getting are dead spammer accounts.
-postmaster@airwindows.com
Is this why he insisted on publicness- because he had to choose between a thousand Microsofties with a billion dollars, or a million consumers with a million VOTES? It certainly looked in the Post story as if he was not playing to the Microsofties- his remarks were straight from the judge, in a way, especially given the context, where he could have just _hedged_ a lot and got away with it. It's interesting that he chose to get some jibes in that _had_ to alienate the Microsofties. So is this the meeting that he insisted on being public- and was it an artful pitch to consumers everywhere to side with Gore, 'the guy ready to call Microsoft on their abuses'? If so, does this have to equate to actually being ready to _do_ it, or is Gore capable of doing this and then turning around, taking a lot of money from MS and letting them go? Is he that treacherous, or is he not?
All those clowns from the executive branche on the prosecuting team (you know, the ones leading the prosecution- the Attorney General and her underlings) should be yanked off the case and sent off to do something productive.
The executive branch exists, in part, to enforce the law (i.e. prosecuting). That's why they are able to bring this case against Microsoft. The judicial branch interprets the law. That's why a judge is hearing the case and making the decisions.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
*ahem* but I _do_ want the government stepping in when Linux makes its way to the top: defined as 90 percent of the desktops, no room for anything else in the stores, venture capitalists have to go talk to Linus or maybe Tux to find out what air supply they are planning to cut off today, and everything that isn't Linux begins to dry up and starve.
You see, you are apparently a young kid who's never seen a non-MS-controlled computer industry, and you don't understand that it's not normal, healthy, or right for a single player to get that powerful. Most of all, it's not _normal_. Linux world domination would be about 60% maybe: that's enough! It's enough to always be taken seriously and be widely supported in hardware and software. There is NO REASON to believe that a normal competitor would even get to the 90% and up point: in order to do that you have to basically wage total war on letting your customers have a choice. If Linux started getting that arrogant, I would certainly want the DoJ to do something about it. If Apple (I run MacOS a lot) got 70% I would _expect_ them to run amok and go for the 90% and up, and I would want _them_ acted against by the government.
If I, a mac user, can say that I would want Apple stopped if they started approaching 90% lockout of all other computer platforms, and you, obviously the loser in that situation, would agree with this protection of your choices, why in God's name do you expect me to consider supporting you in your shortsighted and uneducated defense of monopolies just because at the moment _you_ supposedly benefit from the current one? Note the supposedly: you don't actually benefit, because you yourself are starved of choices without being willing to admit it.
Think about it... If you had a chance to get access to a few billion dollars, would you let your underlings do the negotiating for you?!?!
Contrary to the arguements coming from the prosecutors and Judge in this case, there are plenty of options available when a consumer is choosing an OS.
Unfortunately, the business community and home users already have a ton of money sunk into the Microsoft option. It's difficult to change to something that isn't really compatible unless you can get everyone else to do it as well. The barriers to entry for other OSes are very real. If the applications that your company depends on don't exist on another OS, you aren't likely to switch to that one until the cost of doing so is lower than the cost of sticking with what you have. Hence the statements about Microsoft's price not being maxed out, but being well above what it should be. They know that if it's too high, then it might be cheaper for many to switch. Since no other OS exists that is Windows compatible, they can be assured that customers who run their business on Windows will stay with Windows and be milked because it isn't quite expensive enough to make switching to something else a real option. This, combined with their active efforts to prevent anything from breaking their monopoly power (i.e. OS-independent platforms such as Java or browsers) allows them to gouge customers indefinitely while supressing new innovation. This cannot be tolerated.
If you want to disagree with this, maybe you should just come out and say Linux Sucks, BeOS sucks, OS/2 sucks, *BSD sucks, etc. and get on with life.
They don't suck. They just aren't compatible and/or don't have the massive application support that Windows has. This is due, in large part to natural barriers, but also artificially enforced by Microsoft's dirty tactics.
You're on the record if you say these things, however, and we don't wanna hear your Open Source blathering anymore.
Strong words from an AC. Sheesh.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Really?
Really.
Microsoft is most certainly not a true monopoly (operating systems are software programs, which are about as far from a true monopoly as anything in this world).
It would seem that Judge Jackson disagrees with you. :^)
While I will admit to not having read through the Findings of Fact myself yet, it seems clear that a major point was that Microsoft does meet the legal definition of a "monopoly."
Blame the consumers who bought PCs (and proprietary software) when what they ran was MS-DOS (or PC-DOS) for that dominance; it has nothing to do with M$'s recent marketing practices.
I disagree -- while consumer inertia due to backwards compatibility is certainly a factor in MSFT dominance, their attempts to lock in that dominance by (a) intentionally misfeaturing their software, but more importantly (b) bullying the sales channel to lock out competitive entries seems a clear abuse of a real monopoly position to me.
I think the true history of M$ "market dominance" is far more nuanced than that which you suggest.
I agree that there are a lot of nuances to the MSFT story; but I still think the upshot is that Microsoft broke the law.
The timing was wrong
m l?tag=st.ne.1003.thed.1003-200-1441827
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1441827.ht
Paragraph 6.
"Gore's visit to Microsoft's suburban Seattle corporate campus was scheduled months ago but became politically sensitive following a federal judge's ruling November 5 in the government antitrust suit against the company."
Scheduled months ago. It is unlikely that either Gore, Bush, or Gates knew that this was "bad timing"
_______________________________
Gore is running for president.
Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit is High Profile.
Gore Needs two Things:
1) Money
2) Publicity for a 'good thing(tm)'
Either way his involvement goes he gets one or both of those....
In a single word summary: Politics
- AMW
Heh. Yes, I realize that may have been overextending an over-used metaphor, but it was based on something that happened to someone I worked with a few years back... let me explain.
.22 rifle blanks for power; this one used 7 mm 'mauser' rifle shells.
In the spring-summer of 1993, the Mississippi river flooded viciously in what was called at the time "The Flood of the Century". Much of the city was damaged, with many areas completely underwater. The national guard was called in for damage control, and huge sandbag levies were built to protect subdivisions from the relentless waves.
After the floods had receded, most of the southern part of the city was without water; what few stations survived had to work at 100+%capacity(1) to meet demand. The reason for this was that a number of pumping stations on the Mississippi had been flooded out, the equipment destroyed, when the water rose.
I worked at the time for a small (5-15 person) construction company who fixed water and wastewater treatment plants. We basically went in and yanked out the old equipment and brought the new equipment in by crane or helicopter, installing it as quickly as possible.
The new equipment we were installing consisted of (gross generalization) huge stainless steel tanks; usually the steel was 3/8" to 1/2" thick. We used a sort of industrial nailgun(2) to drive giant rivets into these tanks, then attached a pair of 4 foot rivet pliars to fasten them tight. Anyway one day a grunt (3) got careless with the rivet gun, and put a 3 inch blue steel rivet through the fleshy part of his left hand...
We found him almost a half hour later, because there were only 4 of us there that day and we were working in a different part of the station. The station was generally so loud we had to wear earplugs constantly. He was lying passed out in a pool of blood, with his hand pinned to the tank, his whole body suspended a foot from the ground. EMS had to drill through the rivet with a huge makita drill to get his hand free... i guess the good part of it was that by drilling the rivet away, they cauterized the wound. heh.
The moral of this story is, be careful what kind of tool you use to perform tasks. They might backfire.
(1) Pumping stations normally operate at 25-50% of maximum capacity to extend parts life. They can usually go to 130% or so of rated capP. Some of the equipment we replaced had been in use since 1925
(2) Normal nailguns use
(3) Day laborer, hired from a temp agency
Scudder
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
He's still blundering about.
The situation in Northern Ireland, with his friend Mr. Mitchell, is tenuous at best; his first lady seriously botches a trip to Israel; his personally-driven mission in the Balkans has been marked by retribution from destruction of homes to outright murder and theft; he's mildly chided Russia, but refuses it to significantly condemn it for actions in Chechnya that are arguably far worse than anything that happened in Somalia...
He's not a good foreign policy leader -- never was and never will be.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
This looks like Gore is courting the anti-MS vote. Consider that Bush has tipped his hand as favoring "innovation" over "legislation" - suggesting that he will help MS escape from their legal woes. Gore appears to be playing the opposite tactic - refusing to meet with MS unless the press can witness, and stating support for the antitrust laws.
Not that I would trust any of them (Bush, Gore, or Microsoft)...
(I would also suggest that in supporting Microsoft, you are not perhaps as consistent a libertarian as you think you are).
Perhaps an illustrative example would help...
Say the DoJ suit never happened. Microsoft continues to gain dominance. In the spirit of extending the Internet, Microsoft changes Windows to require a 'Net connection (with an offer of cheap MSN-sat hookups if you live in an unwired area). Every time Windows starts up (is rebooted, or whatnot), it checks the central registry of Micro$oft to see if this computer's license is still valid. If not, it refuses to activate. (And the technical support costs continue to escalate...)
An up-and-coming MS business manager is given responsibility for handling some license renewals. The latest upgrade to Windows includes reports on what software a machine has installed on it (and we've seen stuff like this happen already, from time to time). A number of businesses are using Medzilla, a popular doctor's aide program which happens to compete with MS Micromed. The manager, possibly in collusion with his bosses or possibly just following what he believes is standard practice, revokes the licenses of all these computers for "unlicensed use of Microsoft property".
It only takes a month for people to figure out why several large hospitals' computers simultaneously crashed (it would have taken a week, but everyone suspects some foreign cyberterrorist finally struck, diverting most investigators' attention towards tracing accesses). Public backlash eventually forces reinstatement of the licenses, but the funeral industry has already chalked up a record year by July...
Anyone with that kind of power governs the lives of people, and is thus a government, regardless of whether they call themselves "government" or "corporation", and regardless of whether there is another "government" which claims to rule the governed. Libertarianism, if I understand it correctly, thus calls for limiting corporate power too, when it threatens to reach these levels.
But perhaps its not that I don't care, its that I do not want any of the candidates in office. Jesse Ventura started out as a 'protest vote option' but now he (at least in a kinda-sorta way) is working for MN.
I would post more but I have to leave! Stupid school computer usage policies...
i thought ultima 2 already existed on a 6502. isn't there an NES version? maybe it's just bullshit, and i shold play god, and shoot you myself
Well yes, you do need to run that risk. The Supremes have been kowtowing to the Executive ever since that FDR fascist (takes one to fight one!) threatened to pack the court with his own cronies. Only one or two of the current crop have begun to depart from the Executive/Legislative line and apply the Constitution to legislation that has spun way out from under the chains of the Constitution.
Hmmmm... Did they ever force anyone to buy Microsoft products? No. Did they harm consumers by forcing them to buy Microsoft? No. Consumers have always had alternatives like Unix, MacOS, WordPerfect, NetWare, etc. etc. By their own fairly clear definition, Microsoft is not, and has never been, a violator of the unConstitutional anti-trust laws.
Must've found one here. :-)
Yes. They've all been involved in ignoring the clear Constitutional limits that were intended to keep the Federales out of the economy and keep legislators' meddling fingers from politicizing business. The business of business is to provide competitive products in an open market where price matters (but may not always be decisive). The business of government is to make sure that nobody forces me to buy or to give up or to do anything I do not wish to buy or give up or do of my own free will. If I buy Windows 98R2, it's because I want to easily share my IP address with my family and get rid of some pesky bugs. Nobody forces me to buy it, since Linux is an alternative for both these issues.
Well, if success can be measured in numeric terms (a big if), then BillyG and the Microsofties are arguably the most successful entrepreneurs around. If you measure success only by how much risk was taken, then perhaps Bill never risked much, but he sure got a good payback from the risks he did take. Who am I (or you) to judge how much more praise-or-blameworthy Bill's entrepreneurship is vs. Mom & Pop? Are you a mindreader too?
Then let's use Occam's razor and see if there are any other motivations she might have. Hmmmm... Perhaps a wish to defend the "little guy" consumer against the "greedy big rich guy" BillG. Well, I never saw any consumers picketing Redomond about bugs in Windows 95. I seem to recall some McNealy guy and some Andreeason guy (sp??) using political pressure and contributions to certain political hacks to get their big business agenda pushed through.
Perhaps Janet & Co. wanted to stop BillG from "forcing" Windoze users to use Internet Explorer. So far as I know, nobody has ever been forced to use IE to browse a single website. Perhaps IE was forced on Windoze users to browse their filesystems, but free alternatives to IE have always been available for Web browsing.
Perhaps the Reno Justice Corporation wanted to make sure Microsoft didn't buy up every competing software company in the world. Well, last time I checked, it was still possible to refuse a buyout offer.
Envy, greed, and will-to-power explain things far more clearly and consistently than any other explanation for what Janet has done to Bill. Sorry if you don't like that analysis, but it's my opinion, so get over it. :-)
What's so bad about enriching all of Microsoft's stockholders? What's so bad about making many Microsoft employees instant millionaires? What's so bad about making products that are at least usable enough so that plenty of people buy them and increase their personal and corporate productivity? What's so terrible about having Bill concentrate his wealth? He certainly can't use it all up to buy palatial houses and Ferraris, so some of that "obscene" (how is that possible?) wealth must be invested in companies outside Microsoft, thus creating more jobs, more millionaires, more economic activity and more wealth for more "ordinary Americans."
Surely you're not envious of Bill's "concentration of wealth," are you?
And speaking of "private" vs. "public" concentrations of wealth, how about having at least one person in this country whose own wits, sacrifice and hard work have made him worth as much as 1/1000th of the yearly budget of the Federal Government of These United States, not to mention 1/10000th of the National Debt.
I still have no evidence that BillG ever put a gun to anybody's back forcing them to buy Microsoft rather than Apple or AIX or Linux or WordPerfect or Novell. BillG used the persuasive force of his legally gotten gains to persuade some folks that it wasn't in their best interests to buy from Bill's competitors. If you see that as an illegal act, then I suspect you need to talk to those McNealy and Andreeson guys I mentioned, since that's exactly what they did, although they leveraged their investment with political force.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
According to this report, Gore tried to say as little as possible about the anti-trust suit. The C|Net article also stresses this, but throws an aside that "[Gore] expected that the White House would get involved..." Note, it doesn't include a quote or any analysis of what this involvement would be.
For some strange reason, Slashdot fixated on this aside and there have erupted a torrent of ignorant flames about it. Sheesh... if I want this level of distortion and disinformation, I can listen to Rush Limbaugh. Maybe people all these people who are clearly too lazy to read the original story will listen to the NPR version.
- Yes but when was the last time the White house was called in to moderate an Anti Trust settlement.
Ooo! Case in point!Ummm... has the White House been called in to moderate an Anti-Trust settlement? What, exactly, did Gore say? What did he mean? Do you know? Did you read the original article? Care to cite a fact?
You may not be a stupid person, but you are an ignorant person.
And your qualifications are?
W. Sandman III
For some reason I'm reminded of a Simpsons episode around the '96 elections where Clinton and Dole were replaced by aliens who wanted to enslave humanity. When this was revealed, they laughed because they knew it was a two-party system. And one of them got elected. ;) A far-fetched example to be sure, but today we are often faced with similar choices: an unappealing Democrat and an unappealing Republican. Yet people too often sigh and vote for whomever they consider to be the "lesser of two evils." Why? See above.
No, he's going to give them all free software that works well, and doesn't require license fees...
I hope the other heavies in the race don't bend to the pressure of dirty Microsoft money. I've already heard rumours floating that the people in Redding are hoping for a GWB Jr. victory because he's likely to end the investigation. It sounds a bit grim no matter which frontrunner you look at...
Drop the
"(such as, it proves that God does not exist). That's just crap. It's not Science as a system of rational thought, it's Science masquarading as a religion. It's Science claiming to have all the answers mankind needs and will ever need.
/What/ are we thinking with that? The point is, public education has the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy. This productivity requires some knowledge. This is what public education provides.
Look around you at the utopia mankind has created. That should be enough for anyone."
I can guage your ignorance by these statements. If you had hoped to escape looney bin reserved for militia and conspiricy theorists you have just lost it now. Evolution does not attempt to prove that [any] God does not exist. Science is agnostic of any God. Science explains observed phenomena. Science may not give use all the answers you claim we need, and neither is anybody proclaiming it has provided a utopia, or was "meant" to. Your defensiveness suggests you are a reactionary who is just looking for enemies.
"It borders on non-rational faith in Science, and preaches that we can replace God with our own ingenuity...But there are some principals that I believe strongly in, that some scientists seem to want to quash; the concept of a free will, the concept that religion is an important and necessary part of some people's life."
No, this is a fiction fabricated by scared and desperate theists who cannot concieve of a world in which both rational science and their spirituality can exist.
"When people try to force this evolution agenda on the masses, it's just as bad as forcing Christianity, because it's just as much the mixing of religion and government as the Holy Roman Empire. "
What you call "forcing" and "evolution agenda" other people call education. What about those wacky "physics", "mathematics", and "chemistry" agendas.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's the Republicans who are pro-Microsoft. Gore is quite definitely against it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Indeed I am caught out having not read TWON in full.
However, my position is that the Microsoft is in a competitive market where all participants have the ability to make decisions free of coercion.
While I imagine Microsoft does accept certain subsidies (property tax abatements and the like) I personally don't think that their competitors are under any disadvantage attibutable to any alleged "monopoly".
I don't think is is fruitful to debate my libertarianess but I will state my committment to the following statement...
"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market."
I probably have to state my philosophical definition of individual includes those joint endevors including corporations.
I do not per se support or oppose Microsoft. I do however oppose each and every effort of government to punish businesses who have been indicted of nothing except victimless crimes such as 'monopoloy practices'.
If they have committed an actual crime or fraud upon someone, let that person or business come forward and swear out an oath or affadivit against Microsoft.
Allowing government to create actions combined with extensive government business operations (such as the highways) to oppress individuals and businesses is a large problem in and of itself. It leads to organized highway robbery (speeding tickets), the subjugation of citizens to government and a host of other afflictions.
I fear no monopoly save that of government and I hold that no monopoly can exist save those perpetuated by the fist of government.
Devout follower of The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
Oh yeah, I'm sure if Al Gore wins, whether the White House pushes for harsher or more lenient penalties against M$ will have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of brib... uhh, I mean "contributions"... M$ gives to Gore's campaign.
I'm so glad the outcome of this trial (and, by extension, the future of computing and the internet) will hinge on really important things, like "which politicians did M$ buy off, and with how much money?" rather than unimportant non-issues like "did M$ do anything wrong, and if so what's the appropriate remedy?"
Thanks very much for that link!
While I imagine Microsoft does accept certain subsidies (property tax abatements and the like) I personally don't think that their competitors are under any disadvantage attibutable to any alleged "monopoly".
I'd say that they operate using a government enforced monopoly on Windows (which is what copyright is, pure and simple). If you reproduce copies of Windows, then men with guns will come round to your door, just as surely as if you didn't pay your taxes. I also might quibble over whether they really operate in a non-coercive marketplace, but that's of secondary importance.
I'd also disagree with you on whether corporations can be considered on the same legal footing as natural individuals. Limited liability corporations (as opposed to partnerships) are basically creations of the state, with all sorts of protections denied to the rest of us (most importantly, the right to walk away from their debts).
My comment about "not a consistent libertarian" was a jibe against those who believe in the concept of intellectual property, and it was wrong of me to personalise it -- sorry. I just think that points 2 and 3 of the LP platform are inconsistent unless you do not allow intellectual creations to be property. And copyright and patents do not fit in well with the Lockean rule of acquisition of property, in that "as much and as good" is not left for others.
cheers
jsm
so he's not going to get many voters from Redmond then :-)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Stealing comprises of two separate actions. One person must lose something, and another must gain.
Let me explain:
This only attains to physical property. Why? Because you cannot lose what is intangible!
If I probe your brain and get ideas from you, then case four applies. If I later cause you to forget it, then case one applies. They cannot be merged since they are separate actions.
If I copy software, the owner has lost nothing. The same bits that were there, are still there! It is case number four. You may say that I have caused loss to the owner in that I will not buy it later. Firstly, this is a moral argument. You cannot steal something that isn't here yet! And even if you do consider it stealing, that can only be if I will buy it in the future. If I will not, then even now there is no loss. If given to someone else causes him not to buy it, then at most I am an accomplice.Let me mention another point.
What if I come up with the same idea as you. Without ever hearing of you or your idea? I create this fantastic piece of software, and later find that you have been selling it for the past decade. In fact, they are identical down to the very last bit. Had I seen your software without creating it myself, I would have bought it. Now that I created it I will not buy it. Have I stolen or caused you a loss? Obviously not.
Patent and Copyright laws are not there to replace, or even expand, the meaning of stealing. They are there to help protect innovation. For without it, the prevalent thought is, that few people would ever spend time and money creating something that they will never see gains on. In fact, if it takes a great deal of time, they may have to work otherwise in order to survive.
There are three concerns that are presented here: stealing, morality, and laws. all of which are separate entities.
Have you read my journal today?
Which, incidentally, I agree with. For those not familiar with the issue, "macro" or "large" evolution would involve demonstrable fossil or other proof of one species changing into another. "Micro" evolution involves changes within a species which enhance the survival of a smaller subset within the overall group. For example, the Galapagos tortoise differs in it's neck construction than other tortoises which relates to the type of food it has available, and finches (Galapagos and other) seem to adapt in both coloration and beak construction based on local factors. But no one has ever found a finch that was could be stated as a halfway point in evolution to a parrot, or a tortoise that was halfway to whatever the next step down or up the evolutionary ladder would be.
"Hmm...well, I'd say the whole field of biology is predicated on it." I do not want to downplay Darwin's role in the development of the biological sciences, but it depends on what you call biology and what you call history. Let me offer another example. Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a. drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial).
"This decision was made only to remove evolution from the classroom." Actually no. It was to permit teachers the freedom to teach evolution as a more theoretical construct, as opposed to an exclusive, 100% factual construct. What it allows is a teacher to say in effect "Charles Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species was and continues to be an important scientific question. Without disregarding (and therefore dismissing) the fact that macro-evolution hasn't been proven, let's see what we can learn from the theory. Also, we can now discuss alternatives to the theory without being punished." Which frees a student to learn and make up his own mind, versus being forced to accept something not proven as fact. Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it.
(I'll admit nitpicking on this next point, BTW) "If they don't, well, it will be directly BECAUSE of this verdict." It wasn't a verdict. It was a vote, which IIRC passed by a one vote margin. So in effect, the one vote margin ends up being a test of what will happen, because if the decision doesn't work well, ONE person on the State board can change their mind next time the issue is voted on, and the "test" will be over.
"I find the debate useless also, because it is typically one-sided: people who don't like the "idea" of it attempting to discredit its fact." Well hmmm. How about the fact that people who don't like the idea that macro-evolution has never been proven to occur conveniently ignore that point and trumpet the whole construct as FACT?? Tie score I'd say: and we are free to disagree, unlike in science where a firm verdict/end point can be reached. (It's been proven that airplanes fly because wings generate lift based on the Bernouilli principle.)
At some point, I will post my own thoughts on the whole issue on a website I am currently developing (CityOfDreams.Org -- not worth clicking on yet as I am still building the database back end.) In the meatime, BTW, I appreciate your cogent analysis and discussion of the "pro-evolution" side even if I am unconvinced by the arguments.
Finally, in re-reading my original post, I realize that I was out of line in my comment about you probably voting for Gore. I just don't like the mind set which says that the federal gov't is somehow wiser than local folks, and your original post hit that particular "pet peeve" button. So I responded with a poorly written, sarcastic slap at the end of my post, for which I apologize.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Yes, but in those wacky "physics", "mathematics",and "chemistry" agendas, we can do experiments and proofs which make it 99.9% sure that we understand what the truth is regarding the science underneath. So I as a student can gain an education into how the world works by observing the results of those experiments, etc. Unlike "macro" evolution, which has no such proof.
So I would ask you how a more scientific approach(analyze both sides of the argument [evolution or other]) diminishes the ability of public education to fulfill (as you put it) "...the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy."
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Okay, up to now I've been arguing that it isn't. But I'll sit back and offer you the opportunity to tell me why it's necesary, with the offered restriction that the history of the study of biology and the study of biology itself are in fact different topics.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
First off, thanks to the internet, there are quite enough conspiracy theorists out there to provide me with adequate cover.
Secondly, I'm sorry I came off as attacking Science, or even Science education. I'm not. I'm not even attacking the scientific community at large. I'm attacking those individuals, the vocal ones, who DO seem hell-bent on blaming all the wolrd's ills on religion, seem to think that only whackos are religious, and that only "desperate theists" cannot conceive of a world in which both rational science and spirituality can coexist. I'm attacking the "desperate humanists" who cannot conceive of a world in which spirituality can or should exist.
There are folks out there like this.
As I said, I have no problem with evolution as a THEORY, even a very well proven scientific theory supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. I know that among Christians who accept evolution, there are two schools of thought, either the Bible is flawed, or the Bible can be interperated in such a way to allow evolution to be true, AND the creation account in Genesis to be true. I'm one of the former, not the latter, because I know that eventually, science will come into conflict with the Bible in other areas (such as the value of Pi). There are other Christians who feel that if evolution is true, it threatens their absolutist view that the Bible is completely flawless and true. Well, that's just special.
But regardless of what mankind observes and rationalizes, you simply cannot disprove the existence of God. Furthermore, NO scientific theory, no matter how well supported by observational evidence, can be completely accepted as fact. It's a phenomenological question. What one perceives, and accepts, is likely the truth, but one can not always discount otherwise.
God COULD have created the world 50 years ago, complete with aged humans with memories of previous years of life, cities, animals, mountains, and dinosaur bones buried in the rock containing varied amounts of carbon-14. The point is, we can all agree on what we think is the most likely truth, and call it science, but we can't ever fully be sure. That's my point. And too many times, Science is used as a tool to espouse an absolute world-view -and that's what I disagree with.
As a thought exercise, it's just not constructive.
I'm not saying that this was the rationale used in Kansas. But it IS the rationale behind why I support what they did, with the language they used (although the intent was pretty brain dead in the opposite direction - absolutist spiritualism doesn't get us collectively anywhere either).
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No basis?
This country was founded for the people, by the people not for corporations, by their marketing staff. [Actually, one could draw some parallels there, but I'm not going to get into that one...]
On one hand, it does erk me when any politian goes groveling for $$$ from corporations who then "might" expect a few political favors, yadda, yadda, yadda.
On the other hand, the post was partially an attempt at some dry humor and partially an attempt to remind people that they can at least try to get in contact with our political leaders.
From what I can gather from your reply, you seem to have read way too much into my post. Also, just curious, if my post was so stupid and "not worth annoying people about", why did you post a reply?
The last remark about voting intelligently was a cut on those who blindly follow any given politcal party; a very stupid voting strategy indeed. Learn who your candidates are and what they claim to stand for. Ask questions. Get involved. Vote intelligently!
Cheers
p.s. please excuse any stooopid activist spelling errors ;)
Republicans are the scum of the earth!
Bill Clinton got a terribly bad wrap!
Long live the liberals [who are the only sane people left]!
That was sarcasm, for the humor impaired. Just curious, are you a die-hard liberal or do you consider issues for yourself, reguardless of their liberal/conservative "status"? Just wondering; not trying to start a flame war!
Have a good day!
My exception here is "useful predictions." I disagree. Rather, evolution can help explain an accurate historical record. Because there are no controlled experiments
that can be conducted to test evolution, there is no way to predict results.
By your thinking it would seem we would have to invalidate all of geology as well, since we can't replicate earthquakes or ice ages in the laboratory. But geology explains why the plates of the earth move at rates of centimeters a year and show how all the data fit nicely if you assume this movement has been happening forever.
Evolutionary theory predicts that natural genetic changes in populations are sufficient to explain all of the organisms in the fossil record and those of present time. It predicts that all animals are genetically related, with branches in lineage occuring at identifiable times. It predicts that adaptations are suboptimal, since they are gradual and make usually use of existing structures. It further predicts that these forces and changes continue to occur. There are experiments that can test evolution: genetic lineage studies, breeding, computer modeling, fossil record analysis, among others.
And vis versa, I hope. Science's place is to help explain and understand the inner workings of the physical reality. To step beyond that goes against everything that
science is about. Likewise, religion cannot hope to explain, in detail, the structure of the atom, and for it to attempt to do so is foolish.
I'm not quite sure if I know what you mean. We need some coherent theory of how change occurs on the planet if we are to make good plans for the future, surely you don't object to that. I agree that science tells us little about morality (although it says a great deal about how morality is learned) or purpose, or many of the most important things in life. I too, am scared with the prospect of someday understanding and being able to manipulate conciousness and thought, those things that are most important to our humanity.
I wouldn't worry too much about the encroachment of science on religious issues, the one thing science can never do is disprove the existence of God. That's the point, if faith were disprovable, it would be scientific. I am just glad that God chose to make a comphrehensible universe. By fumbling in the dark and seeking to light a small corner of it, are I not revealing parts of the true wonder of God's creation?
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
What about geology, or I suppose you dislike that as well. No one has observed /macro/ geology, yet the assumption that the forces at work in the present are the same forces that have been at work through all time has great explanatory and predictive powers.
The problem with creationism is not that it doesn't make sense, just that it is not science. Science must be able to be disproven. I can never disprove creationism, because I can't disprove God. In fact I challenge you to disprove the assertion that the universe was created in it's entirety a millisecond before you read this message. It is a defensible but ultimately useless claim, because it has no predictive power.
Evolutionary theory is science because it is disprovable, simple and makes useful predictions. I know of no competing theory that explains the diversity, similarity, and fossil evidence of life on Earth that holds to these tenets.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I want to explain to my students:
Why dinosaurs fossils are different in different layers of the earth.
Why there are fossils and of humanoids who are like us but not exactly like us.
Why we look so much like apes, and share so much genetic and behavioral similarities.
Why studies on mice have any applicability to humans.
Why we have many of the same or similar proteins as other animals.
Why pollinating insects and pollinating plants are so amazingly well suited for eachother.
Why human beings display distinct regional cosmetic and physical variation.
Why respiration is so similar in animals and plants.
Why male songbirds are so colorful.
Why there is such a diversity of life, but a relative paucity of structures.
Why is the Panda's thumb really a finger.
What will happen (short and long term) to the creatures of the rain forest if their habitat is destroyed. How is catastrophic change different than gradual change.
What does it mean for a species to be destroyed, will they ever come back?
Why are there bacteria resistant to antibiotic drugs that didn't exist 50 years ago.
etc.
You may be able to explain one or two with hand waving, complex theories and "we don't know why but we know that it is true, look at these experiments" but I can explain all of them and more with a single simple coherent theory that they can use to make predictions and make sense of other areas of biology as well as earth sciences.
The real question is, what do we want our students to learn from biology. A small set of facts and associations? Or do we want to tell them our best guess as to why things actually are and let them have some chance of organizing that vast complexity and making informed predictions. It would be as tragic and pointless as teaching children how to use a calculator but never teaching them how to add.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I do not want to downplay Darwin's role in the development of the biological sciences, but it
depends on what you call biology and what you call history. Let me offer another example. Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a.
drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the
efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on
the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the
theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial).
The results of the experiments don't require the use of evolutionary theory, but any generalization or reasonable explanation of those results do. Without evolutionary theory, all of biology would be disconnected facts with complex theories to explain why dissimilar creatures are similar in so many ways.
Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market
capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it.
We(including myself) commonly argue the reverse. If you want an example of a science with very weak theoretical footing, look no further than economics. When it comes time to take a class in theoretical micro-economics, you find that you can only prove the efficient market theory (the foundation of free market capitalism) if you assume a system with no time, perfect information, perfect competition, and perfectly rational consumers. That doesn't mean that the free market capitalism is worthless, but you'll never look at a demand curve with quite the same blissful acceptance again.
I don't mind a "wart's and all" approach to teaching evolution, as long as you explain that it is the best scientific explanation put forward that fits the facts. And by scientific I mean that it must be disprovable. Creationism has no place in a science class because it is not disprovable and therefore not science.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Well I don't know what "macro" evolution is, but why do you think evolution is less factual than any other of the sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.)? Scientific rigor is applied equally to all fields. A theory or fact in one field isn't more qualified to be a theory or fact than any one in any another field.
/doesn't/ diminish the ability of public education to fulfill its responsibility. It increases it. Religious dogma of any sort has no place in public schools (learning /about/ religions, yes, promoting any one of them, no). As long as the constitution holds that church and state must be separate, religious teachings have no place in public schools, and /shouldn't/ be an option. If you don't like that, your argument is with the constitution.
"So I would ask you how a more scientific approach(analyze both sides of the argument [evolution or other]) diminishes the ability of public education to fulfill (as you put it) "...the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy.""
A more scientific approach
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Thank you for informing me about "macro" evolution . I'll have to check with my biology/genetics geek for a further explaination ;)
/models/ of reality as theories. Theories are proposed and tested against over and over to see if they are consistent with measured reality. While it will take many tests over a long amount of time to "accept" a theory (or to even graduate from hypothesis to theory), any one measurement can break it. That is the business of science: proposing theories and trying to break them. Evolution has held up very well as a pretty good model. So far it hasn't been broken. While there may not be explicit evidence to support "macro" evolution, as you say, general evolution holds up pretty well, and nothing is flying in the face of it. As the "best-practice" it is entirely permissable and expectable to be taught in public schools. After all, public schools prepare children for the future, and all future biologists will be well prepared by learning evolution. What students need to know, as a prerequisite to any scientific teaching, is that science is the best approximation. Once that assertion is made, it is /unnecessary/ to then, also teach all alternative systems of belief. They can get their alternative systems of belief elsewhere so long as they get the science from school. Evolution and science does not explicitly refute any one person's personal beliefs. It is that individual's responsibility to seek alternatives if he/she chooses, not public schools to offer them (we can't teach /everybody's/ religion can we?). As long as children know that we are not trying to force them to belief this IS the ONE and ONLY correct way, we don't need to explicitly give them arbitrary alternatives.
/weren't/ really for the altruistic benefit of blacks, e.g. The pretense is to "liberate teachers", but the only /real/ reason it was passed is because people wanted to teach creationism and not evolution.
/better/ than any one person's beliefs. They just teach it. You don't have to accept or believe it, but you have to know it. In school they [should] teach /what/ communism is. They don't/shouldn't teach whether it is "bad" or "good".
"Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a. drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial)."
Science formulates
"Actually no. It was to permit teachers the freedom to teach evolution as a more theoretical construct, as opposed to an exclusive, 100% factual construct. What it allows is a teacher to say in effect "Charles Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species was and continues to be an important scientific question."
Teachers should be teaching science as it is. They should already be saying this. Allowing them to teach arbitrary alternative curricula does not promote this. And as we both know, regardless of the pretense, segregated schools, bathrooms and water fountains
"Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it."
Schools shouldn't (and aren't in my experience) saying science (or evolution) is
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"Well I don't know what "macro" evolution is, but why do you think evolution is less factual than any other of the sciences (physics, chemistry,
etc.)?"
You explained this in your other post so ignore this one.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"Thank you for informing me about "macro" evolution . I'll have to check with my biology/genetics geek for a further explaination ;)"
/existence/ of evolutionary biology. One line of thought made a qualitative distinction between "macro" evolution, or "speciation", and "micro" evolution, variations /within/ a species. Supposedly speciation was caused by some phenomenon other than cumulative "micro"-evolutions, e.g. mutations, or electromagnetic radiation. This line of thinking was eventually discredited. The other, persistent line of thought said that "macro" evolution was merely an accumulation of "micro"-evolutions - that there was in fact, no difference in cause between speciation and variations within a species. This is taught in advanced college biology courses...certainly it is founded enough to maintain the teaching of evolution in general. Just one piece of evidence for this is a certain species of fly which has, under observation, changed environments and evolved into a different species incapable of breeding with the former. Once this breeding barrier is passed the new species only breeds with itself and breaks off.
I did check, and it turns out there is substantial proof for macro evolution. According to Evolutionary Biology by Futuyma (sp?), there were two lines of thought. Both lines of thought acknowledged the
So I'd have to say that, while under the assumption that "macro" evolution was unproven your arguments seemed sound, I have to disagree with you now. There is no reason evolution should not be taught, and no reason arbitrary and possibly conflicting alternatives need be taught alongside it.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
/existence/ of evolutionary biology.
=
/existence/ of "macro" evolution
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?