I find it a bit interesting that they've released the v4.0 alpha for Linux before they've even hinted at releasing a v4 beta for Windows. Opera software will probably wait until the code is more functional before releasing Windows betas - their Windows userbase is used to a program that works, while Linux users are more used to seeing "works in progress".
I updated to SuSE 6.3 to get glibc 2.1 so I could run Mozilla and Opera - Opera is much faster than Mozilla, but less functional. So far. In the opera.linux newsgroup, one of the developers hints that a lot of the missing functionality is already in the binary, just turned off because it doesn't work right. When they get Opera working in Linux, it will be worth paying for.
Some website glitches were captured by the folks at Memepool. Currently (11:58 PST, 01 Jan 2000) their top story. There's also an older one with some stuff dated 1900 at the MS website.
This is the perfect example of the two opposing views for Linux. Do we keep it as it has been, not the most user friendly system in the world (actually requiring computer know-how to use the computer) but very configurable and powerful, or do we make it easy for anyone (Like a Mac) but not as configurable or powerful?
My fear is that when we finally make it easier for the lowest common denominator to use, with it goes it's power and the whole reason we switched from Microsoft to begin with.
Should we even do this? Do we really want to change things to make it easier for EVERYONE (read: computer illerate)?
Yes, we do. If Linux is ever to be a "mainstream" OS, it needs to be something that is useable outside a server room or hobbyist desk. The server market is pretty big, but a lot of small offices won't even think about using a Linux server because nobody in the office has ever used it, and NT looks so familiar.
The problem with MacOS and Windows isn't that any idiot can use it, it's that people with some computer knowlege have trouble optimising it. If SaX doesn't give me all the options I know are possible, I know I can go in and hand-edit the config file to make the changes I want. I think that's possible under Windows 95/8, but the documentation for that isn't easily accessible, and I'm not sure it's even possible for a Macintosh (assuming you have a Mac where you have a choice of monitor).
I'm glad we live in a world where Slashdot's YRO keeps us vigilant against the supposedly harmful effects of Internet society. I mean, if you think about it, there are many more Internet technologies that can, when used improperly, cause security violations on your system.
Why are security holes even part of YRO? There should be a separate slashdot security section setup. (sorry!)
Pacific Telesis?!? some wag suggested changing the name to "The Telephone Company" instead.
Or NYNEX. NY & NE stand for something. What's the "X" for?
Telrad? Sounds like they sell remote geiger counters.
A local service company: "Twisted Pair". I think I dislike the name because I dislike the company, though.
Non-phone companies:
Exxon. Stupid, but an improvement over "Esso". Supposedly they paid a consultant $250k for those 2 x's.
In the UK, there's a chain of gas stations called "Q8". It's a part of the Kuwait Oil Company.
Walmart isn't great, but "Sam's Club"? Sounds ilke a bar & grill in a small town.
Re:Keyboard-specific apps
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
As the new keyboards arrived (with top fuction keys, new cursor keypad, and migrated Ctrl key), two things happened to WP for DOS users.
First, the learning curve retrain our brains to feel the new locations of WP functions was nearly as great as the learning curve for a while new app.
Second, once new locations were learned, the ability to type without glancing down was seriously compromised.
Given these constraints, is it surprising that many chose to learn a new app -- MSWord -- rather than relearn the old app? I think not.
IMO, what happened to WordPerfect was Windows. Word for DOS sucked like a Hoover. I got used to WordPerfect again when they moved the function keys rather than use Word for DOS, it wasn't that hard. (It was easier to learn "penalty-zone" keys for commands than control-sequences in WordStar.) But then Windows came out, and Word for Windows with it. WordPerfect followed, late, with a second-rate Windows version. That's when Word took over the universe. By the time WordPerfect for Windows was tolerable, everyone had switched to Windows, and was using Word.
One of your other problems seemed to be that you were afraid that easy access to the source would encourage clients to tamper with the setup, and then complain that your product stopped working right. You are apparently shipping to a set of clients who are not overly concerned that they will not have root access. Are these people that will be inclined to muck about with the software on these boxes? Even if they did, couldn't you legalese something to the effect of "screwing with the box voids your warranty"?
You don't want to do that. Even if you're right, it's bad customer relations. If it's too easy to void the warranty, a lot of your customers will do it, and a significant percentage will become disgruntled if you refuse to support them.
If you require them to take some positive steps, like ordering a CD or downloading a multi-megabyte tar.gz file, before they can "break the seal", fewer people will do it, and those that break it won't be as upset when you tell them they have to pay for support.
Re:Consumers need a new fair-use "bill of rights"
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
Looks really good, but a couple of quibbles:
(4) The RIGHT to rent copyrighted materials [*] to others for a fee. This is allowed by well entrenched precedent for movies but needs to be explicitly allowed for all copyrighted media (video games, audio CDs, and software). This will be pretty problematic. It is too much like what the software companies already do - and without specific subletting rights, this might not change anything.
Also, software is a little different than other media, because it can only be used in a machine which automatically duplicates it. Do we want to see software which can only be run from the CD?
(5) The RIGHT to record *unowned* copyrighted broadcast material (including Satellite and cable as well as over the air) for time-shift-viewing purposes. e.g., legally record a movie from your subscribed HBO channel while you're at work for viewing later that night or on the weekend.
The concept of "unowned" is unclear here. Does "broadcast" cover what you're trying to do here, or are there other circumstances where this might apply?
(6) The RIGHT to allow certain other 3rd parties to view copyrighted materials you acquired [*]. e.g., explicitly allow for all residents of the household to view the DVD Dad bought or use the software Dad bought, and explicit allowance for other relatives and friends to view/use the copyrighted material in a non-commercial manner. e.g., make it explicitly legal to invite a friend or SO over to watch your DVD.
Limiting this to non-commercial use seems to cover this pretty well, except for software. If I let everyone in my dorm install my MSOffice 2000 CD on their computers, but don't charge them, am I infringing copyright under your proposal?
Suppose a university was monitoring network traffic to try to weed out a potential mp3 ftp site and they found what they think to be an ftp site except all the files tranmittied are pgp encrypted. Can they legally demand that you hand over your pgp keys?
I doubt it (but IANAL), but if it's their server or their network, they can say "We have a complaint from the RIAA about illegal materials here. Please provide us with the keys to decrypt these files, or otherwise prove to us that they are not infringing copyright, or we will delete them (or disconnect you)."
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 0
Unfortunately, "moving on" (at least as us idealist type geeks have envisioned it) involves radical concepts like giving things away for free. Ideas like this are dangerous. They scare the living shit out of the entrenched power structure (which tells us over and over again about how it nailed this guy to a tree about 2000 years ago for daring to suggest ideas like that) If we were to start thinking in that direction, we might do something really radical like abandon our current concept of money (just an example, don't go there;).
Since you're in a mood to give away things for free, can I have your computer?
I went to my comp sci teacher and matter-of-factly told her about what my brother was doing. She wasn't mad at my brother; more mad at herself. So she took the next test and worded the True/False questions almost identically to the original tests--except they were opposite.
She's right on both counts. If she's teaching exactly the same class, she's gotten lazy. Even without paid note-takers, your situation will arise too often. Her response was perfect - if your brother was actually learning from your notes, he wouldn't have bombed the test.
Your logic here is schizophrenic. Cable being lame is not the case because it's so heavily regulated by the government, it's lame because CABLE COMPANIES HAVE MONOPOLIES ON CABLE SERVICE IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES!!! If anything, there should be a refocus of regulation to emphasize competition and common-access to cable infrastructure. Eminent domain it if all else fails.. Why do cable companies have local monopolies? Because local governments GAVE them those monopolies. Whenever the government is dealing with a government-established monopoly, the usual rule that the government should keep its hands off doesn't apply. The best answer to the problems caused by cable monopolies is to outlaw exclusive franchises. However, because exclusive franchises already exist, the transition towards a competitive system needs to be guided by the government at some level, with regulation to insure that the monopoly isn't used as an unfair competitive advantage elsewhere. The best solution would be to allow AT&T/MediaOne to provide bundled cable-modem and ISP service only where there is real competition between cable companies, and forbid them from bundling the service where they have a monopoly or exclusive franchise. Let AT&T/MediaOne decide whether keeping their exclusive franchises is more important than being able to offer broadband internet.
>I currently work for a consulting firm, in the contract it states that you cannot be hired by the >company you are being contracted to for 180 days prior to the end of the contract, don't know if >it's the exact same thing as what's being disussed here, but how are these things enforceable?
I recently went permanent at my job after working through an agency for 6 months. They had a similar restriction. The point of the restriction isn't to prevent you from working directly for the client, it's to make the client pay the agency for their "work" in "finding and screening" you.
My wife had a similar situation - she was an office temp on a construction site, and her boss wanted to hire her onto the payroll. (Nothing's permanent in the construction business!) Her boss had to negotiate a deal with the temp agency and pay a fee (which was negotiated down from book rate), because of the contract. However, there, the important parties to the contract are the agency and the client.
There is an out for you if you can prove you'd applied to the client before the contract came in - I once tried to contact a headhunter, who, after seeing my list of already-contacted businesses, wasn't interested. If she set me up with a company I'd already sent a resume to, they could blow off her fee.
>Most of the arguments seem to center around restricting money vs. the free flow of money. >My question is more fundamental: Why are donations even required?
>Think about this. Thousands of charity and non-profit organizations go scraping for money to >feed the homeless, help orphans, teach kids, you name it. Yet our country's citizenry spends >MILLIONS each year donating to POLITICS and politicians instead.
The money is an investment, either in creating laws which are favorable to the contributor or in protecting the contributor from the grasping claws of the government. The less the government does, the less incentive people have to try to buy it. The bigger government gets, the more important it becomes to influence the government, and the more money will flow to politicians.
>This case is ridiculous. However, campaign finance issues do need to be addressed. >There should be restrictions on contributions.
You mean there should be restrictions on speech.
>Lobbying (of all kinds) is arguably a form of free speach.
Yes, it is.
>Though there are clearly huge abuses that simply can't be allowed.
In other words, certain speech should not be allowed.
>Its not just fortune 500 companies either, its unions, interest groups, and many others. >I basically feel that the greater good would be to disallow active advertisements.
To disallow certain speech.
>eg: TV ads, magazine ads, banner ads, etc. They tend not to be informative, and resort to scare >mongering, and mud slinging.
>But Sony don't want to enter existing workstation markets, so they will not quite face the same >problem. They want to create new markets.
No, they want to enter the Macintosh market. Most Macs in business settings are used for exactly the same sort of thing - graphics, layout, multimedia. Sony is rich enough to give it a go - the result should be more choices and better/cheaper Macs. Both are good things.
> their purpose: to demonstrate that Microsoft's cominant position is not related to inertia and most likely arises through technical superiority.
Not exactly. The authors state that MS-DOS and now Windows offer the best buy, not necessarily the technically superior product. The factors which go into the purchasing decision include much more than "technical superiority", no matter how defined. Windows cost 10% of what Solaris cost, and requires cheaper hardware. If you get 20% of Solaris' functionality, Windows wins for most users.
>If you go up to their page about the MS anti-trust case, they put forward some evidence >that prices of software products in markets where Microsoft compete have dropped much faster than >prices in markets where Microsoft does not compete. At first glance this suggests that >Microsoft is not a monopoly, since monopolies usually exert their influence to keep prices inflated.
Not quite. What matters is not whether MS is a monopoly, but whether it is using its monopoly position to the detriment of consumers.
>However, the reasoning is fallacious: The unit production cost of software is almost >zero, so the economies of scale are huge. Software which sells lots of copies should sell at >a tiny fraction of the price of specialist software. >Microsoft exercises its monopoly position in one main market: the OS. Its income from this market >is so huge that it can afford to loss-lead products in other markets. Thus MS may provide a >downward pressure on products in some markets, but only by inflating prices in another market.
MS has a near-monopoly in 2 markets. OS and office suite software. The office suite market is perhaps more instructive, because MS took the monopoly away from WordPerfect and Lotus. >The trend for MS monpoly product, its OS, is upward, not downward, despite the increase in the market. >Becuase of the huge economies of scale, it may in the past have proven beneficial in terms of price >to have a single provider rather than paying many copies to duplicate effort. But the cost of lack >of competition is lack of innovation. >The market is now so huge that software prices are essentially being driven to zero for the most >used software. Microsoft's pricing, with the exception of internet explorer, does not reflect this trend.
If one looks at what is bundled with the OS, and what is bundled with Office, the overall price trend is still down. MS may be abusing its monopoly position with the bundling that goes on, but the case for price increases isn't as strong as it looks on the surface.
>The only software markets in which Microsoft does not compete are either specialised, or fast >turnover (games). In these markets the huge economies of scale are not realised, and so the >pricing is not expected to fall in the same way.
The really important question is: Is MS's monopoly permanent? The answer appears to be no. Hardware advances are blurring the distinction between workstations/PCs and servers, and the competition in server OSs is spreading to workstations and PCs, directly opposite to the MS business plan. When Windows was the cheapest OS with lots of useful features (a GUI, etc), it was dominant.
Now, Linux is cheaper, though not necessarily as "useable" by the general public. This will lead to a situation where people who are very price-sensitive will abandon Windows, as will people who prefer the feature-set of Linux. MS marketing for server OSs already recognizes this; "ease of use" (it looks just like Windows) is a big part of the sales pitch for NT. The problem for MS is that it is used to being the cheaper, "good-enough" solution, and capturing the market from that end. Now, it's the premium price for premium feature (ease of use, application support) choice. That's a very different marketing situation to be in.
>One cannot actually solicit prostitution from a police officer (at least I hope not).
Yes, you can. If you offer someone money to have sex with you, you have solicited prostitution, whether or not you believe the other person will take you up on it, and whether or not they do. Cops in vice stings have to be very careful to make the "john" offer money for sex, without actually offering sex for money themselves.
Jon Katz is right that the Net won't transform politics in 2000. However, most of the reasons he gives will stay true essentially forever, so I doubt we'll see a "net candidate" in 2002 or 2004, or even by 2020.
Big changes in politics occur when a large part of the population sees things getting drastically worse. That just isn't happening in the United States right now. The last big transformation was the big rightward shift beginning in 1980, as a reaction to the 70% income tax, 18% inflation, and 12% unemployment of the Carter years, the changes in public mores of the 60s and 70s, and the perceived impotence of the US abroad.
After 18 years of Reaganite economic policy, the economy is doing quite well, and the winners significantly outvote the losers. Reagan's foreign policy lead directly to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and our foreign policy is now mostly about cleaning up the mess of 70 years of ideological empire-building. Once we figure out what to do, we do it.
The big transformation of public mores in the 60s and 70s has been partially reversed, to the point where there is a rough political equilibrium between those who would roll back more and those who would return to the 70s. Both sides are incredibly politically savvy, and use every tool they have, including the internet, to counter each other at every turn.
Money, security, and "sex & drugs & rock 'n' roll" are the three big issues in America today. No major transformation will occur until that list changes. It is possible that some issue or another which is mostly a local issue (schools, police, property rights) may force its way to the national arena, and that a significant realignment will take place because of it, but there will be netters on both sides of the issue, and both sides' consultants will use the internet for their own purposes.
Meanwhile, what the heck does Katz mean by a more interactive politician? Does he mean one who changes his policies in response to the public mood? Bill Clinton's been doing an excellent job of that without being the internet presence Katz would expect - he trims his sails to the slightest puff of an opinion poll, and would have no trouble doing so in the pre-internet age. Or does he mean one who changes his views based on rational discussion with other people with different views? That's NEVER going to happen - people in politics are either unprincipled power-seekers like Bush senior or Clinton, or have some rock-firm core beliefs which they'll never give up, like Reagan or Gephardt. Neither type will be an "interactive" politician in some new way.
Politics will change. The internet will have something to do with that. But the changes in style won't be revolutionary unless the changes in substance are, and the internet isn't likely to cause significant changes in the issues - just a gradual improvement in the economy, and a gradual erosion of the ability of government to be idiotic.
>What I want to know is if there is any body, any organisation, any international group (maybe >the red cross or the WHO or someone like that) who actually tries to measure HOW free the >countries of the world are.
>Okay, choosing ways to measure is going to be hard. Do high tax rates count as an infringement >on freedom? Does a high incidence of crime count against a country? Do export restrictions >really hurt people within the country, or do they just infringe the liberty of people outside >the country?
Freedom House's rankings do not directly measure such things, and some of what it does look for is biased towards higher government expenditure (and thus higer taxes.
>I honestly have no idea if such a measure exists, nor whether the US would top the poll or >not. I just wonder. If you could point the media at such a poll and get them to tell the >population "These things are stopping us from calling ourselves the most free nation on earth" >would it be easier to get them to do something about it (IE stop voting for it).
The United States places quite well in the Freedom House ratings, but there are criticisms in their report. In terms of economic freedom, the United States likely leads the pack by a more significant margin than in other measures.
>Actually, the original poster is right. The patent system was never intended to cover things >like algorithms (it was quite specific on the point) and to allow such patents or to apply for >them is theft or attempted theft from the whole of mankind. Ideas are morally public property and >a system which prevents free use of the human intellect are immoral. 'Intellectual property' is >not synonymous with 'patents'.
No, he's not. The original poster is an infantile socialist, who wants everything which he likes but doesn't own to be public property.
That is a separate matter from the question of whether algorithms are patentable. I believe that algorithms should not be patentable, though mechanisms or devices to implement them should be protected. So LZW should be public domain, but Unisys' code for performing it should be patentable. Then someone could avoid the royalties by creating their own device (program) to perform the compression. In the chemical industry, the sequence of reactions to convert one set of materials into another set is not patentable, but the equipment used to do so is. If you want to make alcohol from raw materials, you must not use (unless purchased from licenced vendors) patented equipment, but you may make your own. (Ignoring that any patent on fermentation and distillation as a process would have expired long ago.)
When James Joyce (IIRC) announced he was leaving the Catholic Church, a reported asked if he was becoming a Protestant. He replied "God No. I've lost my faith, not my reason."
>As I was taught.. the time between creation and Christ's birth.. the dates between that were never >recorded well.. so it can be fesable. But then again, I'm just a Catholic boy. (For those of you >interpreting that teaching evolution means when the earth was 'born'.)
The Catholic Church teaches that while the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is not necessarily literally true, and that to attempt to limit the Word of God to only one out of the several possibilites which human minds can comprehend is blasphemous. Further, the Church teaches that speciation through evolution is not inconsistent with Christian faith, though that evolution was (at least in the case of man) directed by God. The findings of geology regarding the age of the earth are also not considered inconsistent with Christian belief.
Slashdot Mirror
I updated to SuSE 6.3 to get glibc 2.1 so I could run Mozilla and Opera - Opera is much faster than Mozilla, but less functional. So far. In the opera.linux newsgroup, one of the developers hints that a lot of the missing functionality is already in the binary, just turned off because it doesn't work right. When they get Opera working in Linux, it will be worth paying for.
Some website glitches were captured by the folks at Memepool. Currently (11:58 PST, 01 Jan 2000) their top story. There's also an older one with some stuff dated 1900 at the MS website.
My fear is that when we finally make it easier for the lowest common denominator to use, with it goes it's power and the whole reason we switched from Microsoft to begin with.
Should we even do this? Do we really want to change things to make it easier for EVERYONE (read: computer illerate)?
Yes, we do. If Linux is ever to be a "mainstream" OS, it needs to be something that is useable outside a server room or hobbyist desk. The server market is pretty big, but a lot of small offices won't even think about using a Linux server because nobody in the office has ever used it, and NT looks so familiar.
The problem with MacOS and Windows isn't that any idiot can use it, it's that people with some computer knowlege have trouble optimising it. If SaX doesn't give me all the options I know are possible, I know I can go in and hand-edit the config file to make the changes I want. I think that's possible under Windows 95/8, but the documentation for that isn't easily accessible, and I'm not sure it's even possible for a Macintosh (assuming you have a Mac where you have a choice of monitor).
Why are security holes even part of YRO? There should be a separate slashdot security section setup. (sorry!)
Or NYNEX. NY & NE stand for something. What's the "X" for?
Telrad? Sounds like they sell remote geiger counters.
A local service company: "Twisted Pair". I think I dislike the name because I dislike the company, though.
Non-phone companies:
Exxon. Stupid, but an improvement over "Esso". Supposedly they paid a consultant $250k for those 2 x's.
In the UK, there's a chain of gas stations called "Q8". It's a part of the Kuwait Oil Company.
Walmart isn't great, but "Sam's Club"? Sounds ilke a bar & grill in a small town.
Given these constraints, is it surprising that many chose to learn a new app -- MSWord -- rather than relearn the old app? I think not.
IMO, what happened to WordPerfect was Windows. Word for DOS sucked like a Hoover. I got used to WordPerfect again when they moved the function keys rather than use Word for DOS, it wasn't that hard. (It was easier to learn "penalty-zone" keys for commands than control-sequences in WordStar.) But then Windows came out, and Word for Windows with it. WordPerfect followed, late, with a second-rate Windows version. That's when Word took over the universe. By the time WordPerfect for Windows was tolerable, everyone had switched to Windows, and was using Word.
You don't want to do that. Even if you're right, it's bad customer relations. If it's too easy to void the warranty, a lot of your customers will do it, and a significant percentage will become disgruntled if you refuse to support them.
If you require them to take some positive steps, like ordering a CD or downloading a multi-megabyte tar.gz file, before they can "break the seal", fewer people will do it, and those that break it won't be as upset when you tell them they have to pay for support.
(4) The RIGHT to rent copyrighted materials [*] to others for a fee. This is allowed by well entrenched precedent for movies but needs to be explicitly allowed for all copyrighted media (video games, audio CDs, and software). This will be pretty problematic. It is too much like what the software companies already do - and without specific subletting rights, this might not change anything.
Also, software is a little different than other media, because it can only be used in a machine which automatically duplicates it. Do we want to see software which can only be run from the CD?
(5) The RIGHT to record *unowned* copyrighted broadcast material (including Satellite and cable as well as over the air) for time-shift-viewing purposes. e.g., legally record a movie from your subscribed HBO channel while you're at work for viewing later that night or on the weekend.
The concept of "unowned" is unclear here. Does "broadcast" cover what you're trying to do here, or are there other circumstances where this might apply?
(6) The RIGHT to allow certain other 3rd parties to view copyrighted materials you acquired [*]. e.g., explicitly allow for all residents of the household to view the DVD Dad bought or use the software Dad bought, and explicit allowance for other relatives and friends to view/use the copyrighted material in a non-commercial manner. e.g., make it explicitly legal to invite a friend or SO over to watch your DVD.
Limiting this to non-commercial use seems to cover this pretty well, except for software. If I let everyone in my dorm install my MSOffice 2000 CD on their computers, but don't charge them, am I infringing copyright under your proposal?
I doubt it (but IANAL), but if it's their server or their network, they can say "We have a complaint from the RIAA about illegal materials here. Please provide us with the keys to decrypt these files, or otherwise prove to us that they are not infringing copyright, or we will delete them (or disconnect you)."
Since you're in a mood to give away things for free, can I have your computer?
She's right on both counts. If she's teaching exactly the same class, she's gotten lazy. Even without paid note-takers, your situation will arise too often. Her response was perfect - if your brother was actually learning from your notes, he wouldn't have bombed the test.
Your logic here is schizophrenic. Cable being lame is not the case because it's so heavily regulated by the government, it's lame because CABLE COMPANIES HAVE MONOPOLIES ON CABLE SERVICE IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES!!! If anything, there should be a refocus of regulation to emphasize competition and common-access to cable infrastructure. Eminent domain it if all else fails.. Why do cable companies have local monopolies? Because local governments GAVE them those monopolies. Whenever the government is dealing with a government-established monopoly, the usual rule that the government should keep its hands off doesn't apply. The best answer to the problems caused by cable monopolies is to outlaw exclusive franchises. However, because exclusive franchises already exist, the transition towards a competitive system needs to be guided by the government at some level, with regulation to insure that the monopoly isn't used as an unfair competitive advantage elsewhere. The best solution would be to allow AT&T/MediaOne to provide bundled cable-modem and ISP service only where there is real competition between cable companies, and forbid them from bundling the service where they have a monopoly or exclusive franchise. Let AT&T/MediaOne decide whether keeping their exclusive franchises is more important than being able to offer broadband internet.
>I currently work for a consulting firm, in the contract it states that you cannot be hired by the
>company you are being contracted to for 180 days prior to the end of the contract, don't know if
>it's the exact same thing as what's being disussed here, but how are these things enforceable?
I recently went permanent at my job after working through an agency for 6 months. They had a similar restriction. The point of the restriction isn't to prevent you from working directly for the client, it's to make the client pay the agency for their "work" in "finding and screening" you.
My wife had a similar situation - she was an office temp on a construction site, and her boss wanted to hire her onto the payroll. (Nothing's permanent in the construction business!) Her boss had to negotiate a deal with the temp agency and pay a fee (which was negotiated down from book rate), because of the contract. However, there, the important parties to the contract are the agency and the client.
There is an out for you if you can prove you'd applied to the client before the contract came in - I once tried to contact a headhunter, who, after seeing my list of already-contacted businesses, wasn't interested. If she set me up with a company I'd already sent a resume to, they could blow off her fee.
>Now the interesting question is, what happens when they kill you?
A way to solve this with the "what happens when you kill the Doom process" question:
You are the Doom process. You die, the thing goes down, and takes X with it. You're left at the command prompt.
>Most of the arguments seem to center around restricting money vs. the free flow of money.
>My question is more fundamental: Why are donations even required?
>Think about this. Thousands of charity and non-profit organizations go scraping for money to
>feed the homeless, help orphans, teach kids, you name it. Yet our country's citizenry spends
>MILLIONS each year donating to POLITICS and politicians instead.
The money is an investment, either in creating laws which are favorable to the contributor or in protecting the contributor from the grasping claws of the government. The less the government does, the less incentive people have to try to buy it. The bigger government gets, the more important it becomes to influence the government, and the more money will flow to politicians.
>This case is ridiculous. However, campaign finance issues do need to be addressed.
>There should be restrictions on contributions.
You mean there should be restrictions on speech.
>Lobbying (of all kinds) is arguably a form of free speach.
Yes, it is.
>Though there are clearly huge abuses that simply can't be allowed.
In other words, certain speech should not be allowed.
>Its not just fortune 500 companies either, its unions, interest groups, and many others.
>I basically feel that the greater good would be to disallow active advertisements.
To disallow certain speech.
>eg: TV ads, magazine ads, banner ads, etc. They tend not to be informative, and resort to scare
>mongering, and mud slinging.
Who does the censoring, Mr. Greater Good?
>But Sony don't want to enter existing workstation markets, so they will not quite face the same
>problem. They want to create new markets.
No, they want to enter the Macintosh market. Most Macs in business settings are used for exactly the same sort of thing - graphics, layout, multimedia. Sony is rich enough to give it a go - the result should be more choices and better/cheaper Macs. Both are good things.
> their purpose: to demonstrate that Microsoft's cominant position is not related to inertia and most likely arises through technical superiority.
Not exactly. The authors state that MS-DOS and now Windows offer the best buy, not necessarily the technically superior product. The factors which go into the purchasing decision include much more than "technical superiority", no matter how defined. Windows cost 10% of what Solaris cost, and requires cheaper hardware. If you get 20% of Solaris' functionality, Windows wins for most users.
>If you go up to their page about the MS anti-trust case, they put forward some evidence
>that prices of software products in markets where Microsoft compete have dropped much faster than
>prices in markets where Microsoft does not compete. At first glance this suggests that
>Microsoft is not a monopoly, since monopolies usually exert their influence to keep prices inflated.
Not quite. What matters is not whether MS is a monopoly, but whether it is using its monopoly position to the detriment of consumers.
>However, the reasoning is fallacious:
The unit production cost of software is almost
>zero, so the economies of scale are huge. Software which sells lots of copies should sell at
>a tiny fraction of the price of specialist software.
>Microsoft exercises its monopoly position in one main market: the OS. Its income from this market
>is so huge that it can afford to loss-lead products in other markets. Thus MS may provide a
>downward pressure on products in some markets, but only by inflating prices in another market.
MS has a near-monopoly in 2 markets. OS and office suite software. The office suite market is perhaps more instructive, because MS took the monopoly away from WordPerfect and Lotus.
>The trend for MS monpoly product, its OS, is upward, not downward, despite the increase in the market.
>Becuase of the huge economies of scale, it may in the past have proven beneficial in terms of price
>to have a single provider rather than paying many copies to duplicate effort. But the cost of lack
>of competition is lack of innovation.
>The market is now so huge that software prices are essentially being driven to zero for the most
>used software. Microsoft's pricing, with the exception of internet explorer, does not reflect
this trend.
If one looks at what is bundled with the OS, and what is bundled with Office, the overall price trend is still down. MS may be abusing its monopoly position with the bundling that goes on, but the case for price increases isn't as strong as it looks on the surface.
>The only software markets in which Microsoft does not compete are either specialised, or fast
>turnover (games). In these markets the huge economies of scale are not realised, and so the
>pricing is not expected to fall in the same way.
The really important question is: Is MS's monopoly permanent? The answer appears to be no. Hardware advances are blurring the distinction between workstations/PCs and servers, and the competition in server OSs is spreading to workstations and PCs, directly opposite to the MS business plan. When Windows was the cheapest OS with lots of useful features (a GUI, etc), it was dominant.
Now, Linux is cheaper, though not necessarily as "useable" by the general public. This will lead to a situation where people who are very price-sensitive will abandon Windows, as will people who prefer the feature-set of Linux. MS marketing for server OSs already recognizes this; "ease of use" (it looks just like Windows) is a big part of the sales pitch for NT. The problem for MS is that it is used to being the cheaper, "good-enough" solution, and capturing the market from that end. Now, it's the premium price for premium feature (ease of use, application support) choice. That's a very different marketing situation to be in.
>One cannot actually solicit prostitution from a police officer (at least I hope not).
Yes, you can. If you offer someone money to have sex with you, you have solicited prostitution, whether or not you believe the other person will take you up on it, and whether or not they do. Cops in vice stings have to be very careful to make the "john" offer money for sex, without actually offering sex for money themselves.
Jon Katz is right that the Net won't transform politics in 2000. However, most of the reasons he gives will stay true essentially forever, so I doubt we'll see a "net candidate" in 2002 or 2004, or even by 2020.
Big changes in politics occur when a large part of the population sees things getting drastically worse. That just isn't happening in the United States right now. The last big transformation was the big rightward shift beginning in 1980, as a reaction to the 70% income tax, 18% inflation, and 12% unemployment of the Carter years, the changes in public mores of the 60s and 70s, and the perceived impotence of the US abroad.
After 18 years of Reaganite economic policy, the economy is doing quite well, and the winners significantly outvote the losers. Reagan's foreign policy lead directly to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and our foreign policy is now mostly about cleaning up the mess of 70 years of ideological empire-building. Once we figure out what to do, we do it.
The big transformation of public mores in the 60s and 70s has been partially reversed, to the point where there is a rough political equilibrium between those who would roll back more and those who would return to the 70s. Both sides are incredibly politically savvy, and use every tool they have, including the internet, to counter each other at every turn.
Money, security, and "sex & drugs & rock 'n' roll" are the three big issues in America today. No major transformation will occur until that list changes. It is possible that some issue or another which is mostly a local issue (schools, police, property rights) may force its way to the national arena, and that a significant realignment will take place because of it, but there will be netters on both sides of the issue, and both sides' consultants will use the internet for their own purposes.
Meanwhile, what the heck does Katz mean by a more interactive politician? Does he mean one who changes his policies in response to the public mood? Bill Clinton's been doing an excellent job of that without being the internet presence Katz would expect - he trims his sails to the slightest puff of an opinion poll, and would have no trouble doing so in the pre-internet age. Or does he mean one who changes his views based on rational discussion with other people with different views? That's NEVER going to happen - people in politics are either unprincipled power-seekers like Bush senior or Clinton, or have some rock-firm core beliefs which they'll never give up, like Reagan or Gephardt. Neither type will be an "interactive" politician in some new way.
Politics will change. The internet will have something to do with that. But the changes in style won't be revolutionary unless the changes in substance are, and the internet isn't likely to cause significant changes in the issues - just a gradual improvement in the economy, and a gradual erosion of the ability of government to be idiotic.
>the red cross or the WHO or someone like that) who actually tries to measure HOW free the
>countries of the world are.
Freedom House has been doing this since 1970.
>Okay, choosing ways to measure is going to be hard. Do high tax rates count as an infringement
>on freedom? Does a high incidence of crime count against a country? Do export restrictions
>really hurt people within the country, or do they just infringe the liberty of people outside
>the country?
Freedom House's rankings do not directly measure such things, and some of what it does look for is biased towards higher government expenditure (and thus higer taxes.
>I honestly have no idea if such a measure exists, nor whether the US would top the poll or
>not. I just wonder. If you could point the media at such a poll and get them to tell the
>population "These things are stopping us from calling ourselves the most free nation on earth"
>would it be easier to get them to do something about it (IE stop voting for it).
The United States places quite well in the Freedom House ratings, but there are criticisms in their report. In terms of economic freedom, the United States likely leads the pack by a more significant margin than in other measures.
>Actually, the original poster is right. The patent system was never intended to cover things
>like algorithms (it was quite specific on the point) and to allow such patents or to apply for
>them is theft or attempted theft from the whole of mankind. Ideas are morally public property and
>a system which prevents free use of the human intellect are immoral. 'Intellectual property' is
>not synonymous with 'patents'.
No, he's not. The original poster is an infantile socialist, who wants everything which he likes but doesn't own to be public property.
That is a separate matter from the question of whether algorithms are patentable. I believe that algorithms should not be patentable, though mechanisms or devices to implement them should be protected. So LZW should be public domain, but Unisys' code for performing it should be patentable. Then someone could avoid the royalties by creating their own device (program) to perform the compression. In the chemical industry, the sequence of reactions to convert one set of materials into another set is not patentable, but the equipment used to do so is. If you want to make alcohol from raw materials, you must not use (unless purchased from licenced vendors) patented equipment, but you may make your own. (Ignoring that any patent on fermentation and distillation as a process would have expired long ago.)
>So, why does Microsoft even bother making Win2000 run on 32-bit machines?
Because NT 5 was supposed to be out soon after the Pentium II, not in 2000
When James Joyce (IIRC) announced he was leaving the Catholic Church, a reported asked if he was becoming a Protestant. He replied "God No. I've lost my faith, not my reason."
>As I was taught.. the time between creation and Christ's birth.. the dates between that were never
>recorded well.. so it can be fesable. But then again, I'm just a Catholic boy. (For those of you
>interpreting that teaching evolution means when the earth was 'born'.)
The Catholic Church teaches that while the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is not necessarily literally true, and that to attempt to limit the Word of God to only one out of the several possibilites which human minds can comprehend is blasphemous. Further, the Church teaches that speciation through evolution is not inconsistent with Christian faith, though that evolution was (at least in the case of man) directed by God. The findings of geology regarding the age of the earth are also not considered inconsistent with Christian belief.