Where I think think the electoral college goes wrong is that it IS a winner take-all system for each state. That means that if the state votes 50%-49%-1% between three candidates, the entire state's electoral vote is cast toward the 50% winner. I like what Maine and Nebraska do -- split it up by region. This is ultimately fair because then the elector is voting in favor of the people in the region -- not simply agreeing with the rest of the electors.
I'm not going to say that I totally agree with the electoral college because it does have it's problems. However, where it does justice is in cases like these when a race is close. You may say that it's in these cases that it shows it shouldn't exist, but I think otherwise. It makes it so that no particular-party populated region can carry a close election. For instance, California is only one part of the country. So why should it's margins be the ones that carry the president to victory? The idea of the electoral college is not so that it can foul things up. It's to make a level playing field to make sure that the entire country get's representation. While THIS particular election is a problem because it's so close EVERYWHERE, in most cases, the electoral college is a good thing.
As a note to honesty in being biased: I voted Bush
As I stated in my other posts, I think the idea of these services is great, as long as we settle the issues of encryption and security BEFORE hand. Outsourcing storage of your own data is very dumb period. Outsourcing portions of your own web application to another is somewhat stupid as well because that means the reliabilty of your application depends on the reliability of your 3rd party application. Backup measures need to happen none-the less and bandwidth is definately one of those issues. The thing is, content providers had this same feeling some time ago. "Oh we can't get our content from someone else because if we loose our content stream, we look like idiots." Well, they worked around it and now I can pick up the same news stories on one of an infinite number of portals. The point is, all of these issues can be overcome as long as we sit back, analyze the situation and figure out what those issues are first.
Anyone who has stood at a large airport like SFO and just looked around has got to realize how many obsticles man has overcome. Can you imagine the Write brothers talking about the problems they would have to overcome and deciding not to move forward with aviation? We stand at the edge of a wonderful idea where information and applications can be shared for all people. Essentially FORCING the reality that all men are created equal by giving everyone access to the same applications. Instead of saying "look at all the problems" lets say, "look at all the opportunity".
Of course you preffer to use these protocols, but as you stated, that means that these protocols must be in place on all systems. Put together 20-30 different protocols and the advantages of XML becomes clear. Hell, if you wanted to, you could encapsulate non-routable network protocols in XML and with minimal effort, make that protocol "routable" over HTTP. This idea alone brings up many security issues as well which is why I say the main problem is not "can it be done" or "is it practical" but "SHOULD we be doing this yet".
BTW, an XML document could be as simple as
<!XML..blah blah>
<Packet Protocol=RPC>
<Data>
<![CDATA[
RPC Protocol data
]]>
</Data>
</Packet>
and that is IT! Now that protocol can be routed using XML parsers and a very simple enterpreter on each end (probably 10K at max).
And that wont happen because enough people will be upset about that idea that Microsoft will back off of it. This has been evidenced several times. Microsoft likes to keep an image. Why do you think they still had a FoxPro with VS6 and why they still support it? Because they are afraid that their developer community will panic and say "what if MS stops supporting MY language". MS goes where their developers let them and frankly, I don't see developers supporting these business methods. I do, however, see them supporting services because any developer can extend their application by partering with someone who offers a service rather than recoding the idea themselves. Take for instance, a company called Vastera. They do background checks on companies and verify that export laws permit companies to do business one another. Why on EARTH would anyone want to recode that situation for themselves? Instead, Vastera can support a web-based service in which your partnership agreement allows you to use THEIR expertise in the field with the simple include of an XML schema within your own and a few extra lines of code in your application.
It's not just a matter of being text readable. Of course they are wasteful -- that was my first thought until I started actually doing work with XML. XML messages, like any other, can be created dynamically, type checked, validated, and processed with the same code on any machine. Put XML and Java together and you have the most robust, platform independant, extensible application you could ever want. The messages can be sent from one type of server running whatever software to another type of server running completely contradictory software. To say that you need a better protocol is a misunderstanding of what XML can do. You can create your own protocols that are reduced in size by using the proper DTDs, Schemas, or other cross checks. I can create a protocol with instructions that contain encrypted, compressed or otherwise formatted data and send it. It wont matter who recieves it as long as they have the proper validation, processing tools on their end. It can be extended to the limits of the imagination and then some.
WARNING - This message may be biased as I am very Microsoft oriented.
I am looking VERY forward to web services. In general they make life easier. As a consultant at one of the largest XML integrators in the B2B markets, I learned the usefulness of Internet communication via XML early. Adopting web-based services along with WAP is a very exciting prospect. Imagine having your cell-phone/pda device accessing your personalized homepage that offer the services YOU subscribe to. This gives a hole new twist on web portals. Now, not only can I keep track of my doctors appointments, family functions, etc, I can actually make those appointments, schedule those functions etc just by using easy-to-implement web services that tie directly into the service suppliers system.
While it was a Microsoft biased example, MS Developer Days gave a good enactment of what the future of web-based services could provide. I'm hooked. Not just on the MS technologies, but on the whole concept of cross-internet communications.
With all that said, there is definately some danger in this. There is many a rumor and supporting documentation that shows the Government is planning on implementing services over the web also. This leaves the door wide open for espionage and general script-kiddie pranks. We've already proven time and time again that security is NOT where it needs to be for these services to be provided properly. However, technology is getting ahead of common sense and no one listens to reason. Until we can export encryption wherever we want and not have to worry about government intervention -- Until we can keep people from patenting business methods and simple-common-sense-ideas, web services are, IMHO, a disaster waiting to happen. Watch Dark Angel on Fox some time. That's where I see us heading if we don't deal with some of these issues before opening up systems across the country.
It all goes back to the same argument people have been using for guns. "If you take hacking away from people, then only bad people will know how to hack". This is just more red tape and another way for the government to "license" our freedom. I would guess that the Governments response to "how can I if I'm not a net admin" in which the answer would be "we can SELL you a 'registered' "license" so we can track what you are hacking and for what purposes. Has anyone else noticed that anytime the government doesn't have a clue on how to handle a situation they make a bunch of confusing laws around it (which discourages others from trying to forge through the government red-tape), then require you to register in some government database and obtain a license for it? It's a trend worth tracking.
For all the times that we sit back and complain about something the government is doing, we could get off of our butts and take control of this. This is OUR government, and although I know there are things that will never change, one thing is for certain -- If even a small minority of people complain and cause enough of a problem come election time, we will be catered to. We as Americans (and I could care less about your prefix to "American") need to stand up and say enough is enough. The government only has the power they are afforded by the people. Get off your arse and complain -- at a local level is my suggestion. Work your way up from there.
They are called replicator rations. Crew members are allowed to use the replicators to create whatever food items they want and depending on how hard the request, the more rations it takes. These ration credits are what is used when they make a request with a single command.
Actually, I specifically remember an episode that the crew was gambling credits in a "lottery" type scenario. Starfleet officers, crew and others were participating. Quark runs a bar in which he collects credits of officers as well as passers-by. It's not free, it just appears that way which is why this is a representation of what Amazon patented. Money may have been abolished, but for luxury items -- those are require credits and a transaction which is completely behind the scenes inside the ship's computer.
For years Star Trek has allowed clients to order whatever they want with a single command. Knowing the clients STORED voice print, it knows who's credits to charge for the item. (No, items are NOT free onboard the enterprise). Sounds dumb, but Star Trek replicators can "order" anything" with a single command based on stored information about the client/person requesting the item. The original series ran from 1966-1969. ST The Next Generation ran from 1987-1994. Deep space nine was from 1993-1999. ST Voyager has run from 1995 to now. All of these (I think with the exception of the first series) showed people making purchases in this way.
I personally think that GoCode has the better technology. The scanner reads 3-D bar codes that can hyperlink to anything you want --email, websites, applications, etc.Furthermore, the scanner looks better than that ugly "cat" design. You can fit 35 GoCodes in ONE CueCat code meaning that you can place a code in regular text and it will blend VERY nicely. Everything including the driver for this beast is written in Java so cross platform drivers can be easily made/ported to even small embedded devices. The software that comes with the scanner (for free) includes HyperPage which will take any webpage with hyperlinks and create a print-version with GoCode links in their place. It also includes a Code creator which will allow you to create codes that link to anything. Call me crazy, but it beats CueCat hands down. The ONLY reason CueCat exists is because someone had to create "Proof of Concept" to keep their "2-D barcode to Internet" patent. *ahem*
This has already been done on another scale... Anyone ever open up a perfectly good website in a Microsoft editor? Simply opening the page in the editor immediately kills your site. *grin*
Will breaking up MS not just make them a more powerful force? See AT&T/Lucent/Misc Bells. They were split up... and now they are merging again... hmmm. Aside from that. This means no anti-trust cases will stick in the future. Once they are split up, each company can monopolize on it's individual area and not be committing a crime. SL33ZE, MCSD em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
Most of us don't realize this, but the real reason we don't currently pay tax on items from out of state is because of the age-old complaint of "taxation without representation". Sales taxes go towards supporting the state and local government. If we don't reside in the state of purchase, we are not being represented. Even suggesting an ecommerce-tax begs the question, what representation will we receive for this additional tax? Will I now be able to vote in state elections where I have paid taxes? Will I be able to request help from a state which I don't reside simply because I bought something over the internet before? Or will the government tidy this whole mess up (as usual) by simply stating that the tax will go to the state in which you reside?
Be alert people, this is one of the REAL issues of ecommerce tax. It's time we start asking these questions before it's too late! SL33ZE, MCSD em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
I tell you, I was just like this as I child and look at me -- I turned out just fine! This makes me so mad I oughta go bomb a government building just to show them! *grin*
(Echelon note: this IS a joke, but feel free to check me out anyway. Email me for a social security number. *cackle*)
Yes. I understood that fact. But my position still remains. Perhaps we should evaluate what effect working for certain types of people can have on us. It may not have even had anything to do with work -- and it probably didn't. However, it's good to note facts and examine patters. Especially in comedy. Someone made a point that some people use humor to cover their pain -- and that is evident in the pattern. I'm saying, perhaps we should start looking to see where the pain comes from. I'm not downing your position at all. In fact I agree with you. Anyone that degrades this event into a "see I told you so" is ignorant. Someone who notes the facts of this and uses it to distinguish patterns -- whatever those patterns may be (like them or not) is indeed a wise man.
While some insist on finding what they "want" out of facts, others ignore them to the same end.
I'm really not trying to get into a huge argument, but I have to speak up. I saw many posts saying "I hope no one tries to use this as evidence for [blank]". Having somewhat of a diverse background, and trying to keep a level head about this, I have to ask, why not? Don't take me wrong. This is a TERRIBLE thing and I'm NOT saying, "Good, she's dead". I watch South Park. I have since soxmas so long ago (spirit of Christmas). I however, have to say that to neglect this incident as useful data would be not only unscientific, but stupid! Would you say, "Boy, I hope they don't use that crash dummy test as evidence that seat belts save lives!"
I'm not saying there is any correlation. I'm not putting together any pieces. I'm speaking in general that when things happen, we shouldn't tie up emotions into a one-sided view. As intelligent people, we should always evaluate situations and change position when we are given enough reason to do so (proof). We should always take facts into account.
Well that's my take. This was in no way meant to take away from the pain I'm sure this is causing the family. And this is in no way an attempt to start an argument. If you want to flame me, please feel free to email me.
The pure and simple fact that anyone wants government intervention is because they are too scared and too weak to do any real work themselves. You want to blame Microsoft for all these "wrongs" they supposedly did. Yet how did they get that way -- because they gave what people wanted and needed. I'm sorry that we have to disagree on this. I'm also sorry that your argument isn't strong enough on it's own merrit that you had to resort to attempts to belittle me. That's ok. I have done quite alright for myself inspite of your assumptions. If you want regulation, how about you gather a group and regulate yourself? We are capable of handling our own affairs without the government. Gov't has it's place, but this isn't one of them. I can see that my arguments are falling on deaf ears so I wont continue arguing with you. I will simply say that one day I sincerely hope that one day when America wakes up entrenched in pure socialism, it realizes it got that way on it's own. No one took their freedom from them. No one forced them to do anything -- they gave it away.
Yes they do. This was a wake-up call to the rest of Silicon Valley as much as anyone. The whole reason this case went as far as it did is because those in the government were tired of not getting anything from the industry. How dare we make money and not give them more than our 40%-60% in taxes? By attacking the big guy they are showing everyone that if you don't pet the cammel properly, it's bound to spit.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I think think the electoral college goes wrong is that it IS a winner take-all system for each state. That means that if the state votes 50%-49%-1% between three candidates, the entire state's electoral vote is cast toward the 50% winner. I like what Maine and Nebraska do -- split it up by region. This is ultimately fair because then the elector is voting in favor of the people in the region -- not simply agreeing with the rest of the electors.
I'm not going to say that I totally agree with the electoral college because it does have it's problems. However, where it does justice is in cases like these when a race is close. You may say that it's in these cases that it shows it shouldn't exist, but I think otherwise. It makes it so that no particular-party populated region can carry a close election. For instance, California is only one part of the country. So why should it's margins be the ones that carry the president to victory? The idea of the electoral college is not so that it can foul things up. It's to make a level playing field to make sure that the entire country get's representation. While THIS particular election is a problem because it's so close EVERYWHERE, in most cases, the electoral college is a good thing.
As a note to honesty in being biased: I voted Bush
...and when they patch MAME to do not only Laser games on the side of the wall, but live action versions of Donkey Kong and Popeye Atari games...
As I stated in my other posts, I think the idea of these services is great, as long as we settle the issues of encryption and security BEFORE hand. Outsourcing storage of your own data is very dumb period. Outsourcing portions of your own web application to another is somewhat stupid as well because that means the reliabilty of your application depends on the reliability of your 3rd party application. Backup measures need to happen none-the less and bandwidth is definately one of those issues. The thing is, content providers had this same feeling some time ago. "Oh we can't get our content from someone else because if we loose our content stream, we look like idiots." Well, they worked around it and now I can pick up the same news stories on one of an infinite number of portals. The point is, all of these issues can be overcome as long as we sit back, analyze the situation and figure out what those issues are first.
Anyone who has stood at a large airport like SFO and just looked around has got to realize how many obsticles man has overcome. Can you imagine the Write brothers talking about the problems they would have to overcome and deciding not to move forward with aviation? We stand at the edge of a wonderful idea where information and applications can be shared for all people. Essentially FORCING the reality that all men are created equal by giving everyone access to the same applications. Instead of saying "look at all the problems" lets say, "look at all the opportunity".
Oh wait, that wasn't colliding galaxies..someone smeared grape jelly on the lens!
Of course you preffer to use these protocols, but as you stated, that means that these protocols must be in place on all systems. Put together 20-30 different protocols and the advantages of XML becomes clear. Hell, if you wanted to, you could encapsulate non-routable network protocols in XML and with minimal effort, make that protocol "routable" over HTTP. This idea alone brings up many security issues as well which is why I say the main problem is not "can it be done" or "is it practical" but "SHOULD we be doing this yet".
..blah blah>
BTW, an XML document could be as simple as
<!XML
<Packet Protocol=RPC>
<Data>
<![CDATA[
RPC Protocol data
]]>
</Data>
</Packet>
and that is IT! Now that protocol can be routed using XML parsers and a very simple enterpreter on each end (probably 10K at max).
And that wont happen because enough people will be upset about that idea that Microsoft will back off of it. This has been evidenced several times. Microsoft likes to keep an image. Why do you think they still had a FoxPro with VS6 and why they still support it? Because they are afraid that their developer community will panic and say "what if MS stops supporting MY language". MS goes where their developers let them and frankly, I don't see developers supporting these business methods. I do, however, see them supporting services because any developer can extend their application by partering with someone who offers a service rather than recoding the idea themselves. Take for instance, a company called Vastera. They do background checks on companies and verify that export laws permit companies to do business one another. Why on EARTH would anyone want to recode that situation for themselves? Instead, Vastera can support a web-based service in which your partnership agreement allows you to use THEIR expertise in the field with the simple include of an XML schema within your own and a few extra lines of code in your application.
It's not just a matter of being text readable. Of course they are wasteful -- that was my first thought until I started actually doing work with XML. XML messages, like any other, can be created dynamically, type checked, validated, and processed with the same code on any machine. Put XML and Java together and you have the most robust, platform independant, extensible application you could ever want. The messages can be sent from one type of server running whatever software to another type of server running completely contradictory software. To say that you need a better protocol is a misunderstanding of what XML can do. You can create your own protocols that are reduced in size by using the proper DTDs, Schemas, or other cross checks. I can create a protocol with instructions that contain encrypted, compressed or otherwise formatted data and send it. It wont matter who recieves it as long as they have the proper validation, processing tools on their end. It can be extended to the limits of the imagination and then some.
WARNING - This message may be biased as I am very Microsoft oriented.
I am looking VERY forward to web services. In general they make life easier. As a consultant at one of the largest XML integrators in the B2B markets, I learned the usefulness of Internet communication via XML early. Adopting web-based services along with WAP is a very exciting prospect. Imagine having your cell-phone/pda device accessing your personalized homepage that offer the services YOU subscribe to. This gives a hole new twist on web portals. Now, not only can I keep track of my doctors appointments, family functions, etc, I can actually make those appointments, schedule those functions etc just by using easy-to-implement web services that tie directly into the service suppliers system.
While it was a Microsoft biased example, MS Developer Days gave a good enactment of what the future of web-based services could provide. I'm hooked. Not just on the MS technologies, but on the whole concept of cross-internet communications.
With all that said, there is definately some danger in this. There is many a rumor and supporting documentation that shows the Government is planning on implementing services over the web also. This leaves the door wide open for espionage and general script-kiddie pranks. We've already proven time and time again that security is NOT where it needs to be for these services to be provided properly. However, technology is getting ahead of common sense and no one listens to reason. Until we can export encryption wherever we want and not have to worry about government intervention -- Until we can keep people from patenting business methods and simple-common-sense-ideas, web services are, IMHO, a disaster waiting to happen. Watch Dark Angel on Fox some time. That's where I see us heading if we don't deal with some of these issues before opening up systems across the country.
It all goes back to the same argument people have been using for guns. "If you take hacking away from people, then only bad people will know how to hack". This is just more red tape and another way for the government to "license" our freedom. I would guess that the Governments response to "how can I if I'm not a net admin" in which the answer would be "we can SELL you a 'registered' "license" so we can track what you are hacking and for what purposes. Has anyone else noticed that anytime the government doesn't have a clue on how to handle a situation they make a bunch of confusing laws around it (which discourages others from trying to forge through the government red-tape), then require you to register in some government database and obtain a license for it? It's a trend worth tracking.
So would stress testing and QA be declared illegal as it would point out flaws in an application that could be used in a way unintended by the author?
For all the times that we sit back and complain about something the government is doing, we could get off of our butts and take control of this. This is OUR government, and although I know there are things that will never change, one thing is for certain -- If even a small minority of people complain and cause enough of a problem come election time, we will be catered to. We as Americans (and I could care less about your prefix to "American") need to stand up and say enough is enough. The government only has the power they are afforded by the people. Get off your arse and complain -- at a local level is my suggestion. Work your way up from there.
They are called replicator rations. Crew members are allowed to use the replicators to create whatever food items they want and depending on how hard the request, the more rations it takes. These ration credits are what is used when they make a request with a single command.
Actually, I specifically remember an episode that the crew was gambling credits in a "lottery" type scenario. Starfleet officers, crew and others were participating. Quark runs a bar in which he collects credits of officers as well as passers-by. It's not free, it just appears that way which is why this is a representation of what Amazon patented. Money may have been abolished, but for luxury items -- those are require credits and a transaction which is completely behind the scenes inside the ship's computer.
For years Star Trek has allowed clients to order whatever they want with a single command. Knowing the clients STORED voice print, it knows who's credits to charge for the item. (No, items are NOT free onboard the enterprise). Sounds dumb, but Star Trek replicators can "order" anything" with a single command based on stored information about the client/person requesting the item. The original series ran from 1966-1969. ST The Next Generation ran from 1987-1994. Deep space nine was from 1993-1999. ST Voyager has run from 1995 to now. All of these (I think with the exception of the first series) showed people making purchases in this way.
If I win, donate my money to EFF.
My questions are:
1) Is one-click filtering now unpatentable since Gore said it first.
2) If Gore is for this type of filtering, why didn't he include it in the original spec when he was inventing the internet?
I personally think that GoCode has the better technology. The scanner reads 3-D bar codes that can hyperlink to anything you want --email, websites, applications, etc.Furthermore, the scanner looks better than that ugly "cat" design. You can fit 35 GoCodes in ONE CueCat code meaning that you can place a code in regular text and it will blend VERY nicely. Everything including the driver for this beast is written in Java so cross platform drivers can be easily made/ported to even small embedded devices. The software that comes with the scanner (for free) includes HyperPage which will take any webpage with hyperlinks and create a print-version with GoCode links in their place. It also includes a Code creator which will allow you to create codes that link to anything. Call me crazy, but it beats CueCat hands down. The ONLY reason CueCat exists is because someone had to create "Proof of Concept" to keep their "2-D barcode to Internet" patent. *ahem*
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
This has already been done on another scale...
Anyone ever open up a perfectly good website in a Microsoft editor? Simply opening the page in the editor immediately kills your site. *grin*
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
Will breaking up MS not just make them a more powerful force? See AT&T/Lucent/Misc Bells. They were split up... and now they are merging again ... hmmm.
Aside from that. This means no anti-trust cases will stick in the future. Once they are split up, each company can monopolize on it's individual area and not be committing a crime.
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
Most of us don't realize this, but the real reason we don't currently pay tax on items from out of state is because of the age-old complaint of "taxation without representation". Sales taxes go towards supporting the state and local government. If we don't reside in the state of purchase, we are not being represented. Even suggesting an ecommerce-tax begs the question, what representation will we receive for this additional tax? Will I now be able to vote in state elections where I have paid taxes? Will I be able to request help from a state which I don't reside simply because I bought something over the internet before? Or will the government tidy this whole mess up (as usual) by simply stating that the tax will go to the state in which you reside?
Be alert people, this is one of the REAL issues of ecommerce tax. It's time we start asking these questions before it's too late!
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
I tell you, I was just like this as I child and look at me -- I turned out just fine! This makes me so mad I oughta go bomb a government building just to show them! *grin*
(Echelon note: this IS a joke, but feel free to check me out anyway. Email me for a social security number. *cackle*)
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
Yes. I understood that fact. But my position still remains. Perhaps we should evaluate what effect working for certain types of people can have on us. It may not have even had anything to do with work -- and it probably didn't. However, it's good to note facts and examine patters. Especially in comedy. Someone made a point that some people use humor to cover their pain -- and that is evident in the pattern. I'm saying, perhaps we should start looking to see where the pain comes from. I'm not downing your position at all. In fact I agree with you. Anyone that degrades this event into a "see I told you so" is ignorant. Someone who notes the facts of this and uses it to distinguish patterns -- whatever those patterns may be (like them or not) is indeed a wise man.
While some insist on finding what they "want" out of facts, others ignore them to the same end.
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
I'm really not trying to get into a huge argument, but I have to speak up. I saw many posts saying "I hope no one tries to use this as evidence for [blank]". Having somewhat of a diverse background, and trying to keep a level head about this, I have to ask, why not? Don't take me wrong. This is a TERRIBLE thing and I'm NOT saying, "Good, she's dead". I watch South Park. I have since soxmas so long ago (spirit of Christmas). I however, have to say that to neglect this incident as useful data would be not only unscientific, but stupid! Would you say, "Boy, I hope they don't use that crash dummy test as evidence that seat belts save lives!"
I'm not saying there is any correlation. I'm not putting together any pieces. I'm speaking in general that when things happen, we shouldn't tie up emotions into a one-sided view. As intelligent people, we should always evaluate situations and change position when we are given enough reason to do so (proof). We should always take facts into account.
Well that's my take. This was in no way meant to take away from the pain I'm sure this is causing the family. And this is in no way an attempt to start an argument. If you want to flame me, please feel free to email me.
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
The pure and simple fact that anyone wants government intervention is because they are too scared and too weak to do any real work themselves. You want to blame Microsoft for all these "wrongs" they supposedly did. Yet how did they get that way -- because they gave what people wanted and needed. I'm sorry that we have to disagree on this. I'm also sorry that your argument isn't strong enough on it's own merrit that you had to resort to attempts to belittle me. That's ok. I have done quite alright for myself inspite of your assumptions. If you want regulation, how about you gather a group and regulate yourself? We are capable of handling our own affairs without the government. Gov't has it's place, but this isn't one of them. I can see that my arguments are falling on deaf ears so I wont continue arguing with you. I will simply say that one day I sincerely hope that one day when America wakes up entrenched in pure socialism, it realizes it got that way on it's own. No one took their freedom from them. No one forced them to do anything -- they gave it away.
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com
Yes they do. This was a wake-up call to the rest of Silicon Valley as much as anyone. The whole reason this case went as far as it did is because those in the government were tired of not getting anything from the industry. How dare we make money and not give them more than our 40%-60% in taxes? By attacking the big guy they are showing everyone that if you don't pet the cammel properly, it's bound to spit.
SL33ZE, MCSD
em: joedipshit@hotmail.com