Blah. I wouldn't notice. At work, I sit at a desk with a wireless keyboard, wireless mouse, flatscreen LCD monitor, and all the innards hidden from me. So long as nothing abnormal were to happen, it would be unlikely that I would get out a flashlight and look for YAFBIDDFS (Yet another F.B.I.-Designed Device For Snooping).
Congratulations. You have frightened me. Have you ever heard the phrase "The right to be let alone?". While this was not explicitly stated in the articles of the US Constitution, I have trouble believing it was not meant to be inferred. The Supreme Court has said, as far back as 1834, the "defendant asks nothing -- wants nothing, but to be let alone until it can be shown that he has violated the rights of another." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591, 634 (1834).
Explain to me how it has been shown that any man has violated the rights of another before a trial. I could care less what the government suspects him of. Let a jury decide.
Warren and Brandeis understood this phrase to be a truth - As one could surmise from their famous dissenting argument in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) - The first wirtetapping case in the country - In which Warren uses the term. Through numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited later in this article, this phrase has come to be associated with preventing invasions of the private sphere by the government.
If the FBI couldn't do things like this, they'd have no power to enforce the laws of this country, we'd have total anarchy, and having someone monitor your keystrokes would be the least of your problems!
Boo-hoo. I call this FUD. Technology has not always been around. The government was not always able to so easily and woefully invade ones privacy. And quite frankly, I'm a little bit more afraid of the Government peaking in my windows, than I am of some low-level Mob member, trying to get me to play a game of poker. signature smigmature
This is just absurd. Firstly, after a quick grep, I find that google has placed a single cookie on my computer - One that I asked them to place, to save my preferences for language settings. They may or may not use this "preference ID" to track where I click. I really could not care less. They don't have my home address. They don't have my email address. They have no phone number. Not even a fake name. This is not a decision I made - they simply never asked for any of this information. This is closer to anononymity than you could ever hope to get in the 'real' world.
If they want to target advertisements to me, so be it. I might actually click on a few of them. At some point, someone has to pay for their large and expensive network. While I'm not convinced advertising alone is capable of doing this, at least it's a start. They provide a *great* service. Having said that, it occurs to me that I would greatfully pay 5$/month to use the search engine.
I wish I could simply click on cliff's name and filter out his Ask Slashdot posts. It should be that easy, but it's not.
I could almost see posting this to the Ask Slashdot Section, but definitely not to the front page. Everyone already knows spam sux0rs and it's hard to escape.
This guy wasted more time writing this incredibly long and boring submission to Slashdot than he would have simply hitting Cntrl+D on every email from slashdot (Or setting up an "amazon.com >/dev/null" mail filter)
signature smigmature
This is absurd. We should be raising the number of H1B Visas. How is America supposed to compete in the 'Global Economy' with countries with billions of citizens, if we don't steal their best and brightest?
signature smigmature
How about setting up a usability lab and asking users of varying skill levels in DOS6.2 to sit down and figure out how to perform routine tasks in Windows2000...Or even Windows98 for that matter. It's difficult for the average user to learn a new operating system, after they've spent years learning one. However, for new users, Mandrake would not be much more difficult than learning Windows. signature smigmature
Mandrake is a Redhat derivative. They follow the same sort of release schedule. x.0 = major release and extremely buggy. x.1 = A nice release, most bugs squished out, some nice new packages. x.2 = highly polished, again a few new packages. The 2.4 kernel will show up in Mandrake 8.0. signature smigmature
$su
$YourPassword
$chmod 4555/usr/bin/FileManager
^----- The Filemanager now has the SUID bit set. It will always run as root.
You could also use Sudo...kdesu...some similar program to open it as root. You can probably find a small expect script online that'll do the same for ya. There're a million options:)
signature smigmature
You have it:) It comes with Mozilla. It's called XMLTerm. It rux0rs. You can sort of swap in and out of a command-line interface. Go grab it now. signature smigmature
No. It would not be the same as Microsoft delivering Office bundled with every copy of Windows sold. If GNOME had a strangle-hold on the market and said to OEM's "If you don't pre-install GNOME Office, we'll make it very hard for you to stay in business." it would be similar. Fortunately, GNOME Office and GNOME are not bundled. You can very easily install the GNOME desktop without the GNOME-branded Office suite. signature smigmature
All I have to say is it's about time. NASA should have done this years ago. This is exactly the type of project that Americans are giddy to see.
NASA must keep the public interested in their ventures to ensure future funding - Aside from the first few space shuttle launches, and recent probe missions, such as Pathfinder and the Eros asteroid probe, NASA hasn't done much to really grab ahold of American's interests and sense of adventure.
What I worry about though is the ambition of the project. Firstly, this should be a mission to Mars, delivering materials needed for future manned exploration, perhaps taking a long a landing vehicle, or probe - something that could immediately send back panoramic pictures:). To deliver a 25-ton payload from Earth to Mars in 1 year, the sails would need to be four square kilometers - just a tad larger than the sails planned by NASA. This would deliver 36 newtons of thrust.
Given a fair bit of chemical fuel, the craft could do much more than deliver a payload to mars - It could drop off the cargo, change course and continue on with NASA's current plan.
This mission should also take place SOON:) 2003 or 2004. Pathfinder only had about 3 years planning. Get cranking:)
Given these objectives, the mission could easily reinvigorate the public's perception of space travel. The idea of using sails in space seems to unreal to most everyone that they love it. To see it in action would be amazing. Hope NASA reads/.:)
Sure 'ya can. You can sue anyone you please. If you're an American citizen, and America has no treaties with the government you are suing, you're S.O.L., but you can certainly sue the British government. signature smigmature
While I consider myself a staunch libertarian, and agree with most all opinions already voiced here, I do find prudence with libel laws in general.
Freedom to speak one's mind is a self-evident necessity in a free society. However, we must have laws to protect persons and corporations from false information.
In a world without Libel and Slander laws, the BBC, a trusted news organization, could insist a corporation, say a meat processing plant, had a policy of adding human flesh to their ground beef, for the addictive properties found in Human flesh. News outlets around the world would carry the story and millions of people around the would believe it. One can easily say that the best way to fight speech, or writings, is with more of the same. However, the corporation which has been libeled should have legal recourse to collect damages, if any can be proven.
The problem with this law however is that damages do not have to be shown. It is also unfair to expect an ISP with 10 million users to filter through and edit 30 million Usenet posts a day. It is/not/ possible.
It also is/not/ possible to remove a post to Usenet once it has gone through. So the clause in the law, giving the ISP time to respond to an alert and remove the defamatory remark is mute.
In this case their is a clear right and wrong. The law has failed. And should be fixed. This is where intent comes in. If an organization has intended to libel and individual or corporation, they should be punished. If they can prove that they had ample reason to believe they were not defaming the person or corporation, they should not be held accountable. There are times, however, where this law could serve its purpose.
Don't get me wrong; The law should be re-written. It has far too many amiguities and no intent clause. But it should not be killed outright.
signature smigmature
Re:On target ruling, TERRIBLE Judge
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 2
You raised some good points here. I agree with you on many respects. Microsoft HAS abused their position. But I don't see how you can argue that Internet Explorer is not free. Since version 4.0, installing IE automatically integrates itself with the OS. Hence, Active Desktop, quick load times, one-click file opening etc. All found in Win95 after installing IE4.
Training is one thing. Microsoft has every right to make money on training. In the same sense that RedHat has the right to give their operating system away for free, making their money on training and support.
You brought up Microsoft's infamous bullying of OEMs. This is definitely an important aspect of the case where I believe Microsoft certainly has been guilty. But what should be taken into consideration is that there behavior has changed significantly since the lawsuit was first filed in '97. As I have said before, most OEMs now offer Linux pre-installed on their systems as an option. Microsoft has also signed a consent decree changing many of the behaviors you mentioned. While it has been said that they didn't follow the letter of the consent decree, I believe they did abided by it's spirit, significantly altering their behavior. While the consent decree did not solve all problems, it helped. Microsoft has, in many ways, hurt consumers. They have also helped consumers enormously. They deserve to be punished. I do not, however, want this punishment to be handed down by a blatantly biased judge. signature smigmature
Re:Judge Jackson is childish?
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
It's common knowledge that Microsoft behaved childishly in the trial. Gates was snyde and condescending. He evaded every question asked of him. Many of the witnesses for Microsoft answered questions by pointing their fingers away from themselves..."Well so what if we did that, they did that." But that wasn't my point. It can be expected that a company would behave as such in an anti-trust trial. They've put their heart and souls into this company, they love it, they feel wronged and they are inherently biased. As they should be. However, a Judge should remain neutral and should not be in such a position if they cannot manage to do so. Judge Jackson was very much biased against Microsoft and behaved accordingly. He overlooked important information and believed every word fed to him by the Government's 1500 dollar-an-hour attorneys. Indeed, you are right, Microsoft was every bit as guilty, I was trying however to point out an unusual and sorry fact in court cases - a biased judge.
I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you, but I believe Microsoft's case IS defensible. As I said, I agree with many of the Courts findings, but I believe the Judge has made himself out to be a fool. You're analogy with a computer printer doesn't fit here. I don't have to buy a refill cartridge for my Internet Explorer. I don't have to buy ANYTHING for my Internet Explorer. And that's not going to change. There was a time that Netscape cost 40 bucks. Microsoft giving their browser away for free has helped consumers immeasurably. The Internet would indeed be a VERY different place today if it were not for that decision. And remember, Netscape was free very shortly after Microsoft released their browser for free. And it was in the lead up until v.5.0 of IE. Microsoft one fairly in the marketplace. They delivered a superior product. Whether or not you personally agree with that, the Marketplace certainly does, as some surveys now show Microsoft with a marketshare of as much as 80% in the browser market. Microsoft has helped develop numerous W3C standards that have helped the web immensely. You can't debate that. Netscape has, of course, also developed many standards that have helped every bit as much. But it's the mindless Microsoft bashing that ruffles my feathers. Microsoft has abused their position - but they have also done a great deal to help the computing world. They HAVE been a Godsend for consumers, creating new markets, and making PC's useable for the average Joe. You don't have to use Windows. You have other options. But we should let the battle play out in the marketplace, NOT in a courtroom. It's also noteworthy to point out that many OEMs now offer Linux pre-installed on systems they ship. Dell offers it on close to all their systems now. As for your holdings on RedHat, while it is shown as heavily oversold by technicals, I believe it will continue to fall despite the science of Stochastic. I would get out on today's pop, and put that money in MSFT if and when it falls further. It'll head back up.
The Appeals Court will, and already has to a certain degree, sided with Microsoft on the most important factor of Judge Jackson's ruling. Judge Jackson is angered by their decision, and spends a good deal of time trying to explain himself in the Conclusions of Law. He almost sounds to me like a studdering schoolboy trying to get out of his punishment.
"The court of appeals' observations on the extent to which software product design decisions may be subject to judicial scrutiny in the course of 1 tying cases are in the strictest sense obiter dicta, and are thus not formally binding"
This is almost always true. However in this case, it is truly remarkable. Judge Jackson DID want to punish Microsoft. It is evident as you read through his Conclusions of Law. He's angry with Microsoft. He all but says he did not believe a word he was told by Microsoft witnesses. He also says that the Court of Appeals was flat out wrong when they overturned his last decision, regarding the temporary injunction against Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. He laments them for it. It it almost unheard of for Judges to protest the decision of a higher court, ESPECIALLY in an official document. Judge Jackson has written these Conclusions of Law like a bitter schoolboy and as the media scours over it and brings more and more experts to review it, he will not hear the end of it. signature smigmature
On target ruling, TERRIBLE Judge
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
I have now read through the majority of Judge Jackson's Conclusions of Law and as I read it, I find more and more reasons why we need a strictly Intellectual Property, or Technology-oriented court in this country. While I agree with many points Judge Jackson makes, he shows an utter ignorance of the computer world. At one point in his ruling, he states that consumers indeed had to pay for Internet Explorer, as Microsoft had bundled it with Windows, and that Microsoft profited from this tie-in. Well Mr. Jackson, would you care to explain to me how it is that I can visit www.microsoft.com and download, at no cost to myself, Internet Explorer? How I can download a 16-bit version, and use it under Windows 3.x, which Internet Explorer was never bundled with? Throughout his Conclusions of Law, he also chastises Microsoft for NOT PROVING NEGATIVES. At times his ruling sounds so childish and angry that it's verging on hilarious.
We don't have to sell our brains for basic services. Or for pretty much any service, at that. There is a huge abundance on IRC networks.
People talk a lot about the corporatization of the Internet. While this is obviously true, the beauty of the Internet is that there has been and will continue to be space for the both of us. Weblogs aren't going anywhere. Usenet is still here (I won't go out on a limb and say it will be around forever though.)
What's so great about the Internet is that it doesn't cost 100,000$ to setup shop. Anyone can setup an irc.d, or a web server. Until the cost to do business skyrockets (Which it wont - it will continue to get cheaper and cheaper) the web will never become one big corporate monster.
The reason your stories were declined had to do with timing. You submitted the articles over a month ago. Slashdot has already run numerous articles on Mir becoming a hotel, long ago. Long before the time you submitted the news. But now that the launch is set to this Monday, the news is again pertinent. Sort of a follow-up. So just to set ya straight, no, ya didn't know about it before Slashdot did.
I was somewhat trolling and somewhat mustering an attempt at humor. However you interpret, you either replied to a troll, or flamed a joke. Good work. signature smigmature
Slashdot Mirror
Blah. I wouldn't notice. At work, I sit at a desk with a wireless keyboard, wireless mouse, flatscreen LCD monitor, and all the innards hidden from me. So long as nothing abnormal were to happen, it would be unlikely that I would get out a flashlight and look for YAFBIDDFS (Yet another F.B.I.-Designed Device For Snooping).
signature smigmature
They had every right to tap this guy's computer.
Congratulations. You have frightened me. Have you ever heard the phrase "The right to be let alone?". While this was not explicitly stated in the articles of the US Constitution, I have trouble believing it was not meant to be inferred. The Supreme Court has said, as far back as 1834, the "defendant asks nothing -- wants nothing, but to be let alone until it can be shown that he has violated the rights of another." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591, 634 (1834).
Explain to me how it has been shown that any man has violated the rights of another before a trial. I could care less what the government suspects him of. Let a jury decide.
Warren and Brandeis understood this phrase to be a truth - As one could surmise from their famous dissenting argument in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) - The first wirtetapping case in the country - In which Warren uses the term. Through numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited later in this article, this phrase has come to be associated with preventing invasions of the private sphere by the government.
If the FBI couldn't do things like this, they'd have no power to enforce the laws of this country, we'd have total anarchy, and having someone monitor your keystrokes would be the least of your problems!
Boo-hoo. I call this FUD. Technology has not always been around. The government was not always able to so easily and woefully invade ones privacy. And quite frankly, I'm a little bit more afraid of the Government peaking in my windows, than I am of some low-level Mob member, trying to get me to play a game of poker.
signature smigmature
This is just absurd. Firstly, after a quick grep, I find that google has placed a single cookie on my computer - One that I asked them to place, to save my preferences for language settings. They may or may not use this "preference ID" to track where I click. I really could not care less. They don't have my home address. They don't have my email address. They have no phone number. Not even a fake name. This is not a decision I made - they simply never asked for any of this information. This is closer to anononymity than you could ever hope to get in the 'real' world.
If they want to target advertisements to me, so be it. I might actually click on a few of them. At some point, someone has to pay for their large and expensive network. While I'm not convinced advertising alone is capable of doing this, at least it's a start. They provide a *great* service. Having said that, it occurs to me that I would greatfully pay 5$/month to use the search engine.
Just my two cents.
signature smigmature
Yes, It seems to me that while GBNOME is promising, KDE is further ahead. KDE could probably use the added help from the GBNOME developers.
However, this post is a little bit off-topic here. Nautilus is actually a file manager for the GNOME project.
signature smigmature
s/email from slashdot/email from amazon.com/ Should preview my posts.
signature smigmature
I wish I could simply click on cliff's name and filter out his Ask Slashdot posts. It should be that easy, but it's not.
/dev/null" mail filter)
I could almost see posting this to the Ask Slashdot Section, but definitely not to the front page. Everyone already knows spam sux0rs and it's hard to escape.
This guy wasted more time writing this incredibly long and boring submission to Slashdot than he would have simply hitting Cntrl+D on every email from slashdot (Or setting up an "amazon.com >
signature smigmature
This is absurd. We should be raising the number of H1B Visas. How is America supposed to compete in the 'Global Economy' with countries with billions of citizens, if we don't steal their best and brightest?
signature smigmature
How about setting up a usability lab and asking users of varying skill levels in DOS6.2 to sit down and figure out how to perform routine tasks in Windows2000...Or even Windows98 for that matter. It's difficult for the average user to learn a new operating system, after they've spent years learning one. However, for new users, Mandrake would not be much more difficult than learning Windows.
signature smigmature
Mandrake is a Redhat derivative. They follow the same sort of release schedule. x.0 = major release and extremely buggy. x.1 = A nice release, most bugs squished out, some nice new packages. x.2 = highly polished, again a few new packages. The 2.4 kernel will show up in Mandrake 8.0.
signature smigmature
So let me get this straight. This has either already happened, is going to happen later, or will never happen?
Nice to see you covered all the bases. If I were a betting man, I'd like those odds.
signature smigmature
$su $YourPassword $chmod 4555 /usr/bin/FileManager
^----- The Filemanager now has the SUID bit set. It will always run as root.
You could also use Sudo...kdesu...some similar program to open it as root. You can probably find a small expect script online that'll do the same for ya. There're a million options:)
signature smigmature
You have it:) It comes with Mozilla. It's called XMLTerm. It rux0rs. You can sort of swap in and out of a command-line interface. Go grab it now.
signature smigmature
No. It would not be the same as Microsoft delivering Office bundled with every copy of Windows sold. If GNOME had a strangle-hold on the market and said to OEM's "If you don't pre-install GNOME Office, we'll make it very hard for you to stay in business." it would be similar. Fortunately, GNOME Office and GNOME are not bundled. You can very easily install the GNOME desktop without the GNOME-branded Office suite.
signature smigmature
All I have to say is it's about time. NASA should have done this years ago. This is exactly the type of project that Americans are giddy to see.
/. :)
NASA must keep the public interested in their ventures to ensure future funding - Aside from the first few space shuttle launches, and recent probe missions, such as Pathfinder and the Eros asteroid probe, NASA hasn't done much to really grab ahold of American's interests and sense of adventure.
What I worry about though is the ambition of the project. Firstly, this should be a mission to Mars, delivering materials needed for future manned exploration, perhaps taking a long a landing vehicle, or probe - something that could immediately send back panoramic pictures:). To deliver a 25-ton payload from Earth to Mars in 1 year, the sails would need to be four square kilometers - just a tad larger than the sails planned by NASA. This would deliver 36 newtons of thrust.
Given a fair bit of chemical fuel, the craft could do much more than deliver a payload to mars - It could drop off the cargo, change course and continue on with NASA's current plan.
This mission should also take place SOON:) 2003 or 2004. Pathfinder only had about 3 years planning. Get cranking:)
Given these objectives, the mission could easily reinvigorate the public's perception of space travel. The idea of using sails in space seems to unreal to most everyone that they love it. To see it in action would be amazing. Hope NASA reads
signature smigmature
Sure 'ya can. You can sue anyone you please. If you're an American citizen, and America has no treaties with the government you are suing, you're S.O.L., but you can certainly sue the British government.
signature smigmature
While I consider myself a staunch libertarian, and agree with most all opinions already voiced here, I do find prudence with libel laws in general.
/not/ possible.
/not/ possible to remove a post to Usenet once it has gone through. So the clause in the law, giving the ISP time to respond to an alert and remove the defamatory remark is mute.
Freedom to speak one's mind is a self-evident necessity in a free society. However, we must have laws to protect persons and corporations from false information.
In a world without Libel and Slander laws, the BBC, a trusted news organization, could insist a corporation, say a meat processing plant, had a policy of adding human flesh to their ground beef, for the addictive properties found in Human flesh. News outlets around the world would carry the story and millions of people around the would believe it. One can easily say that the best way to fight speech, or writings, is with more of the same. However, the corporation which has been libeled should have legal recourse to collect damages, if any can be proven.
The problem with this law however is that damages do not have to be shown. It is also unfair to expect an ISP with 10 million users to filter through and edit 30 million Usenet posts a day. It is
It also is
In this case their is a clear right and wrong. The law has failed. And should be fixed. This is where intent comes in. If an organization has intended to libel and individual or corporation, they should be punished. If they can prove that they had ample reason to believe they were not defaming the person or corporation, they should not be held accountable. There are times, however, where this law could serve its purpose.
Don't get me wrong; The law should be re-written. It has far too many amiguities and no intent clause. But it should not be killed outright.
signature smigmature
You raised some good points here. I agree with you on many respects. Microsoft HAS abused their position. But I don't see how you can argue that Internet Explorer is not free. Since version 4.0, installing IE automatically integrates itself with the OS. Hence, Active Desktop, quick load times, one-click file opening etc. All found in Win95 after installing IE4.
Training is one thing. Microsoft has every right to make money on training. In the same sense that RedHat has the right to give their operating system away for free, making their money on training and support.
You brought up Microsoft's infamous bullying of OEMs. This is definitely an important aspect of the case where I believe Microsoft certainly has been guilty. But what should be taken into consideration is that there behavior has changed significantly since the lawsuit was first filed in '97. As I have said before, most OEMs now offer Linux pre-installed on their systems as an option. Microsoft has also signed a consent decree changing many of the behaviors you mentioned. While it has been said that they didn't follow the letter of the consent decree, I believe they did abided by it's spirit, significantly altering their behavior. While the consent decree did not solve all problems, it helped. Microsoft has, in many ways, hurt consumers. They have also helped consumers enormously. They deserve to be punished. I do not, however, want this punishment to be handed down by a blatantly biased judge.
signature smigmature
It's common knowledge that Microsoft behaved childishly in the trial. Gates was snyde and condescending. He evaded every question asked of him. Many of the witnesses for Microsoft answered questions by pointing their fingers away from themselves..."Well so what if we did that, they did that."
But that wasn't my point. It can be expected that a company would behave as such in an anti-trust trial. They've put their heart and souls into this company, they love it, they feel wronged and they are inherently biased. As they should be. However, a Judge should remain neutral and should not be in such a position if they cannot manage to do so. Judge Jackson was very much biased against Microsoft and behaved accordingly. He overlooked important information and believed every word fed to him by the Government's 1500 dollar-an-hour attorneys.
Indeed, you are right, Microsoft was every bit as guilty, I was trying however to point out an unusual and sorry fact in court cases - a biased judge.
signature smigmature
I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you, but I believe Microsoft's case IS defensible. As I said, I agree with many of the Courts findings, but I believe the Judge has made himself out to be a fool.
You're analogy with a computer printer doesn't fit here. I don't have to buy a refill cartridge for my Internet Explorer. I don't have to buy ANYTHING for my Internet Explorer. And that's not going to change. There was a time that Netscape cost 40 bucks. Microsoft giving their browser away for free has helped consumers immeasurably. The Internet would indeed be a VERY different place today if it were not for that decision.
And remember, Netscape was free very shortly after Microsoft released their browser for free. And it was in the lead up until v.5.0 of IE. Microsoft one fairly in the marketplace. They delivered a superior product. Whether or not you personally agree with that, the Marketplace certainly does, as some surveys now show Microsoft with a marketshare of as much as 80% in the browser market. Microsoft has helped develop numerous W3C standards that have helped the web immensely. You can't debate that. Netscape has, of course, also developed many standards that have helped every bit as much. But it's the mindless Microsoft bashing that ruffles my feathers. Microsoft has abused their position - but they have also done a great deal to help the computing world. They HAVE been a Godsend for consumers, creating new markets, and making PC's useable for the average Joe. You don't have to use Windows. You have other options. But we should let the battle play out in the marketplace, NOT in a courtroom.
It's also noteworthy to point out that many OEMs now offer Linux pre-installed on systems they ship. Dell offers it on close to all their systems now.
As for your holdings on RedHat, while it is shown as heavily oversold by technicals, I believe it will continue to fall despite the science of Stochastic. I would get out on today's pop, and put that money in MSFT if and when it falls further. It'll head back up.
signature smigmature
The Appeals Court will, and already has to a certain degree, sided with Microsoft on the most important factor of Judge Jackson's ruling. Judge Jackson is angered by their decision, and spends a good deal of time trying to explain himself in the Conclusions of Law. He almost sounds to me like a studdering schoolboy trying to get out of his punishment.
"The court of appeals' observations on the extent to which software product design decisions may be subject to judicial scrutiny in the course of 1 tying cases are in the strictest sense obiter dicta, and are thus not formally binding"
In other words, I'm right, you're wrong.
signature smigmature
This is almost always true. However in this case, it is truly remarkable. Judge Jackson DID want to punish Microsoft. It is evident as you read through his Conclusions of Law. He's angry with Microsoft. He all but says he did not believe a word he was told by Microsoft witnesses. He also says that the Court of Appeals was flat out wrong when they overturned his last decision, regarding the temporary injunction against Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. He laments them for it. It it almost unheard of for Judges to protest the decision of a higher court, ESPECIALLY in an official document. Judge Jackson has written these Conclusions of Law like a bitter schoolboy and as the media scours over it and brings more and more experts to review it, he will not hear the end of it.
signature smigmature
I have now read through the majority of Judge Jackson's Conclusions of Law and as I read it, I find more and more reasons why we need a strictly Intellectual Property, or Technology-oriented court in this country. While I agree with many points Judge Jackson makes, he shows an utter ignorance of the computer world. At one point in his ruling, he states that consumers indeed had to pay for Internet Explorer, as Microsoft had bundled it with Windows, and that Microsoft profited from this tie-in. Well Mr. Jackson, would you care to explain to me how it is that I can visit www.microsoft.com and download, at no cost to myself, Internet Explorer? How I can download a 16-bit version, and use it under Windows 3.x, which Internet Explorer was never bundled with?
Throughout his Conclusions of Law, he also chastises Microsoft for NOT PROVING NEGATIVES. At times his ruling sounds so childish and angry that it's verging on hilarious.
signature smigmature
We don't have to sell our brains for basic services. Or for pretty much any service, at that. There is a huge abundance on IRC networks.
People talk a lot about the corporatization of the Internet. While this is obviously true, the beauty of the Internet is that there has been and will continue to be space for the both of us. Weblogs aren't going anywhere. Usenet is still here (I won't go out on a limb and say it will be around forever though.)
What's so great about the Internet is that it doesn't cost 100,000$ to setup shop. Anyone can setup an irc.d, or a web server. Until the cost to do business skyrockets (Which it wont - it will continue to get cheaper and cheaper) the web will never become one big corporate monster.
signature smigmature
The reason your stories were declined had to do with timing. You submitted the articles over a month ago. Slashdot has already run numerous articles on Mir becoming a hotel, long ago. Long before the time you submitted the news. But now that the launch is set to this Monday, the news is again pertinent. Sort of a follow-up. So just to set ya straight, no, ya didn't know about it before Slashdot did.
signature smigmature
I was somewhat trolling and somewhat mustering an attempt at humor. However you interpret, you either replied to a troll, or flamed a joke. Good work.
signature smigmature