The fact that you even ask this question is shocking.
Quite honestly, I'm stammering to even write this. To have to argue against terrorism is difficult, because it is such a preposterous argument to have! I am pleading that before this is modded a "troll" (as all dissenting views) that I am at least read.
I recognize that Slashdot is a home to left-wing extremists, and to try and pursuade you on any matter is silly. (It's like hanging out in a Star Trek chat room and saying how much it sucks. Nobody's mind will change.) Changing your minds is not my goal with this post.
But enough is enough. Violent and willful destruction is always unacceptable. Condoning it, even for what you consider to be a good cause, is dangerous and sad... because, where does it end?
Today, we cheer with the destruction of a car dealership, tomorrow, we celebrate the death of a bioengineer. As borders of "acceptability" are destroyed, the next border always begins to appear both appealing and exciting. How long before somebody posts to slashdot: "An eco-terrorist blew up a bio-engineering firm in Oklahoma City. Hundreds died, but now, they can't potentially harm our food! Is this acceptable?"
Why don't we round up all business executives and put them in concentration camps? After all, they are responsible for everything from SUVs to smoking to keeping Linux difficult for moms to install!
Great men, from King to Gandhi have taught us that the only effective forms of protest and change are non-violent. Did the Los Angeles riots change anything? No. Did Martin Luther King change America? Yes.
Part of having freedom is responsibility. In this day and age, it seems that people are begging to surrender freedoms for "safety." (To this I quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither freedom nor security!")
We want laws to protect us from cell-phones in cars. We want laws that don't let anybody smoke. We want laws that stop Microsoft from putting a browser in Windows. We want laws that stop SUVs from being driven. We want laws that keep uncooked eggs from being served at restaurants! (Caesar Salad, RIP.)
Why do we consider the public incapable of making these decisions on their own? People are well aware of the dangers of smoking. People are well aware of the dangers of SUVs. (Hell, my Jeep Cherokee from '94 had a gigantic warning label on the visor: "WARNING THIS VEHICLE FLIPS ON SHARP TURNS.")
That's all I need to know. It flips. I am at risk. I bought it anyway.
I don't smoke, but if I started tomorrow, I'd know: I will get cancer.
I know that eating and drinking in my car (far more common for accidents than cell phones) are risky behavior. I take my chances.
I know that sex leads to disease. I still like it.
I know that using Microsoft products may cause me to have a blue screen. Here I am!
The cell-phone issue is especially irritating to me. 1.5% of car accidents are the result of cell-phone usage, so they have been banned in New York. Yet, 8 times that number were caused by car radios! How long before that menace is banned? For our safety...
It is impossible to legislate a safe and happy world. If it were, I can assure you that we would never have had cars in the first place. (High speed deaths.) Say goodbye to swimming pools. (Children drown every day.) No more knives. (Stabbings.) No more guns. (Obviously.) No more biology classes! (Kids might grow up to become bioengineers!!) No more lawnmowers, no more blenders, no more staircases, no more alcohol, no more drive-thru windows, no more roller skates, no more diving boards, no more horses, no more scissors...
I could go on all day. The point is that we accept a certain amount of risk in a free society. With every risk we attempt to eliminate comes the elimination of liberty.
The fact is: if you don't like SUVs, don't drive them. If you don't like bio-engineered foods, don't eat them. If you don't like smoking, don't smoke. (And for every crisis-level alarmist report that is published about these dangers, there is another, equally reputable, that says don't panic.)
Blowing up SUV dealerships won't make SUVs go away. But they do put innocent people at risk.
If you think that SUVs are dangerous and cause too much pollution (or whatever,) educate the public. Don't punish them. And don't sacrifice their rights because "it's good for them."
It's sad that we have to have a discussion on the importance of liberty. Perhaps we should have a "Fascist Week," where for 7 days we experience a totalitarian government that controls our thoughts, actions and activities. (Protecting us from ourselves, of course.)
I think that would end the debate once and for all.
Big Media will homogenize opinion, marginalize you and other smaller competitors and make it impossible for anyone else to compete or grow in the emerging Net AOL/Disney/Sony information economy.
"Big Media" has nothing to do with the proliferation of site deaths -- poor management does.
When you blow through millions of dollars, with minimal cash influx, you're going to run out of capital, and go out of business. That's not a conspiracy... it's called capitalism.
Suck.com was hardly popular anymore, and they haven't been for years. Why should they survive?
And if Salon.com can't stay in business, it's because they were proud members of the "no profit now, we want to spread our brand name!" approach. Employing 148 people to update a site with 2 articles a day is hardly good business sense. (Especially considering the fact that Jake Tapper writes half of them!)
Their "subscription" model was a joke, and has resorted to "erotic" images to grab a few Ivy League-level porn surfers who are above going to Google and typing in "naked ladies." And since half of their articles are available for free, why join? To read the "Bushed!" section that is essentially Hotline without the clever and abundent content? Or to read the "Sex" section with Q&As that can be found EVERYWHERE!?
Salon.com, while polished, was destined for failure because of poor management. Don't shed any tears for them, learn the lesson and try harder next time. Oh, and don't be afraid of "Big Media." When they can stop you from buying a domain name for 20 bucks and writing good content, then you can worry. People like Andrew Sullivan, Matt Drudge, and Harry Knowles are doing just fine, thank you, walking over Big Media all the way to the bank.
GWB got the mayor of Arlington (who was under investigation for fraud at the time, by none other than GHWB) to impose a stadium tax on the poor resident, who had to give the stadium to the Rangers
That's hardly criminal. It's more like the rules of the game. In Louisiana, we're dealing with the same thing with the Saints' demands for a new stadium. The mayor of Arlington is not an Emperor -- if the residents are pissed, they can vote him out. But I'd think that the massive increase in their economy because of the Rangers' presence would more than compensate.
I know what the alternative min tax is. It was imposed (essentially) to stop the rich from exploiting loopholes, but wasn't adjusted for inflation.
The Senate version of the bill reduces the impact of the AMT on the tax cut. (And it's pretty likely that the AMT will see some serious reform in the near future.)
Regardless of what caused the boom in the '90s, the fact that the economy boomed while taxes went up & up pretty much dispelled the validity of the Laffer Curve
I am no economics expert, but I'd think that the economy boomed in spite of the tax hike. It's pretty clear to me that the 90s will be recorded on par with the Industrial Revolution; a complete paradigm shift in the world's way of life. I don't mean to sound like Jon Katz, but computers and the Internet have changed everything, bringing about a boom unlike anything ever known.
I loved it because the girls looked so hot in those Catholic uniforms
You should really stop listening to news media rhetoric concerning our educational system
When 30-40% of urban children can't read, it's a severe problem. You don't put your head in the sand and say "Gee, it's not that bad!"
Who are these wonderful educational entreprenuers that are going into inner city schools when the public schools close because none of them are any good?
Educational Alternatives, Inc. privatized the failing schools in Baltimore. I can't seem to find their website, though.
students who can pass an exam have learned something are very dubious in nature
If you are taught to do mathematics "for the test," you know mathematics. Either you can add or you can't. The same goes for reading and science. It's not a terribly complicated concept.
The Bushes dealt with the Nazis before WWII, they all are very unethical businesspeople, and yet they're glorified as one of America's legacy families
I've never heard of the Nazi accusation, nor am I aware of their "unethical" business practices. In fact, the very assertion that all Bushes are unethical is like saying "all Jews are cheap."
But even assuming that you are correct, don't blame George W. for something that Prescott was involved in. I wouldn't want to be blamed for the sins of my fathers.
Do you know what you'll get from those tax cuts?
I'll get back the money that I earned. And history shows us that the government will get an increase in revenue. (The Reagan tax cut yielded a real increase of 35% revenue, after the dramatic reductions, including the reduction of the top marginal rate from 75% to 28%. And don't rebut with the "deficit" crap... that was a result of increased congressional spending.)
I have to assume that you believe that tax cuts are a bad thing. I completely disagree. Taxes are limits on freedom. Taxes say "let us spend this money for you." A minimum of taxes is fine. Pay for the roads, pay for the schools. But a tax surplus is not acceptable. A tax surplus is the overcharging of citizens. The government, having paid all it's bills, has extra. Why spend it? Give it back to me, the person whom they took it from. I can invest it in employees, buy goods to strengthen the economy, and invest it. Why add another government program that will be ineffective at best?
Those bullsh!t tests
Yes. Those tests are the start of something amazing. They tell schools that the party is over. Show results, or tighten your belt.
Look, money is not the answer. We've shoveled trillions into education, and results have decreased. Why would shelling out trillions more improve the system?
Assuming the bill's school choice provisions are preserved in some manner, it's even more dramatic. It tells schools: if you fail, we can go elsewhere.
I don't think it's fair that smart, eager minority students in poor urban neighborhoods should be trapped in failure. Let them go to a rich white school. It's not fair that a millionaire's son can go to any private school he wishes, but a poor black man's son is stranded in a place that requires bulletproof vests as standard issue.
So yes, it is very siginicant reform. It will allow an education realignment, and will narrow the educational quality gap.
And I know the argument... "But then some schools will get even worse with less money!" Good. Because either the education will be forced to improve, or the students will migrate to better schools.
Personally, I'm for even more radical reform than the President proposes. I'd like to see a privatized education system, with genuine free-enterprise competition. The government could allocate the same funds spent on current public schools per child to private accounts. The parents could then spend that account at any school they see fit. Government could price-cap parental expenses, (all of which should be covered by the government-provided private accounts) and implement standardized testing to ensure success.
(A similar system is being tried on a small scale in urban areas around the nation.)
The weak schools would perish. Let's be honest: our education system is a abysmal failure. We are not getting our money's worth. The government does not care, because they have a bottomless pit of money, and politicians are happy because they can say "Look at all the money I voted for education!"
Of course, my idea would never happen, because my political opponent could go on television and give the half-truth, "He's crazy! He wants to end public education!!"
Yes, the Bushes cajole, kiss ass, and finagle quite effectively, and they're rewarded. Is this how you want to be
That's the real problem you have, isn't it -- class envy. Whenever somebody is successful, they're evil. In that case, you're right. Everybody in power or with money is a bad bad man.
Personally, I like to think that in America, if you work hard, you can become successful. You're not guaranteed anything, but you've got a shot at the big time. I came from a very poor family. I grew up with nothing. But today, I make a lot of money. I didn't sit at home and cry that "the man is holding me back." I gave up my days, nights, and weekends working hard, studying, and taking risks. It paid off. So don't start your "But he's had it easy!" argument. I had it hard, and I made it happen.
Many Democrats like tax cuts as much as Republicans. What's the difference btw. Breaux/Zell Miller & Jeffords/Chaffee. Everyone was wondering if GWB would be truly bipartisan or just pick off a few Democrats. Can you tell me what he's chosen?
For the majority of the tax cut debate, Zell Miller was the only Democrat to break ranks. Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter were the only Republicans. The OVERWHELMING majority of Republicans were for it, the OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats were against it.
And quite frankly, the overrated "bipartisanship" is what minority parties cry for. I didn't vote for Bush to have Tom Daschle make policy.
Clinton wanted to build a missile shield, but dumped it when the tests failed. GWB is not letting anything like science or technology stop him from spending money.
We didn't stop making space shuttles after the initial rockets blew up. We proceeded until it was successful. Recent tests indicate successful probabilities for a missile defense shield. http://www.security-policy.org/missile.html
MOST IMPORTANT--GWB's education package is largely smoke & mirrors. He takes credit for part of last year's budget that had to be paid out this year due to the balanced budget amendment. Also, if you consider all of the money it will take to implement mandatory testing, there's actually less money available for actual education than there currently is.
Uncontrolled flows of money != better education. If that were the case, the USA would have the finest education system in the world. We don't. Mandatory testing forces schools to improve if they want precious cash.
The 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut is MORE than he wanted during the campaign. (He campaigned on 1.3) And it won't be trimmed by moderate Republicans. It's already been passed. (Read a newspaper lately?)
The Republican party isn't unified under Bush? Apparently you have been sleeping the past few months. Did you think the tax cut, missile defense, education plan, and social security reform were pulled out of the sky? That's Bush's agenda, and that's what is being debated in Congress. How in the hell do you think he even got nominated? GOP unification!
The opposition was talking about a small tax cut well before six months ago
Al Gore campaigned on a 300 billion dollar tax cut. Bush campaigned on 1.3 trillion. The democrats scoffed at Bush's ridiculously large tax cut.
The Democrats caved ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
His popularity rating is pretty much because people don't expect much out of the chump
If that were the case, he'd have a negative approval rating. Don't you understand how they work? Approve = "I like what he is doing."
He will likely fail with the missile defense
This is where you reveal your ignorance of politics, and possibly your young age. Missile defense gets, regularly, a seventy percent approval in polls. No politician, whether they like it or not, will vote against it. It's political suicide.
...we don't end up with the Texas education plan across the country
Even Ted Kennedy is behind the President's education plan. You're looking at a 70-30 passage in the Senate. It's going to happen.
For the love of God, read a newspaper if you're going to argue politics.
Ok Bush may be stupid, he flunked out of college once
I agree with the sentiment, but President George W. Bush never flunked out of college. Not even once. He got his undergrad from Yale, and an MBA from Harvard.
He also defeated a sitting vice-President during times of peace and prosperity, unified a diversified "big tent" political party (which was hardly enamoured with his father) and became the chief proponent of a new branch of American conservatism. He managed to achieve a 60%+ approval rating (despite election controversy) and pass a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut (despite an opposition who wanted a ZERO dollar tax cut only 6 months ago.) He will likely succeed in getting a national missile defense shield built, and is on track for the most massive education reform package in American history.
You may disagree with him politically, but his record is hardly "stupid" in my book.
It would probably be a wise move to attempt colonization of the Moon before colonization of Mars. The moon would serve as a shakedown field test for technology and techniques. If something goes wrong, it's a lot closer back to Earth.
The key to major investment in the Mars program is potential profit. Mars is an untapped planet of ore, minerals, and *potentially* fossil fuels. While Congress might hesitate to fund a Mars mission for humanity's sake, they'd be happy to do it for Diamond's/Gold's/Oil's sake.
And while the concept of stripmining Mars may seem unpleasant, it's quite necessary, and is the only way we'll ever see real colonization attempts. (Such mining would be severely limited, anyhow, due to purely geographic reasons.) Just as the New World provided land and resource to 16th-century Europe, so would a new world to 21st-century America.
I imagine that such a massive endeavor is also going to require privatization. We've had the technology and resources to set foot on Mars for years. It's been a cf of silly alternate programs and disasters that have been the restraint. After the Martian rover wowed the American psyche, NASA should have intensified its efforts to get a manned expedition underway. A simple American flag on the surface would have been the catalyst for colonization.
Dennis Tito has probably done more for the space program than he ever could have dreamed. I suspect that cash-strapped Russia will continue it's space tourism sideline. Eventually, it's going to allow a private commercial enterprise (no pun intended) to begin space flight and exploration. American industry will eagerly invest in such programs, (think of the profits and PR) pressuring the American government to allow similar commercial exploration (under the auspices of NASA, who would serve as an administrative body. NASA would undoubtedly continue it's scientific work as well.)
In his upcoming report of massive military overhaul, Secretary Rumsfeld also seems to be casting an eye towards space for military endeavour. (Beyond the missile defense shield.) Not to sound too Trekker, but Starfleet may be closer than we think.
You give Clarke far too much credit. He wrote a short story called "The Sentinel" that had very little in common with "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Kubrick took the short story and rewrote it thoroughly, expanding the man vs. creation concept to new dimensions. Clarke then wrote the novelization in tandem with Kubrick's filming. (For other thorough Kubrick rewrites based on books, see "Lolita", "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket", and "Eyes Wide Shut." All of these were excellent works before Kubrick, but had little resemblance to the absolutely brilliant final products. ) Clarke worked with Kubrick, but most certainly was not the sole visionary behind 2001.
Clarke's a genius, but this isn't an example of it.
In his new book Pride Before The Fall, John Heilemann explains how Microsoft was brought down by the arrogant, delusional monomania...
Note to Katz: Microsoft hasn't been "brought down" yet.
They still dominate every market they compete in. (excluding Bob and handhelds.) They still dominate the browser market. They still dominate the office product market. They still dominate the OS market. They still dominate the general software markets. Hell, they're even beginning to dominate the *video game* market.
They have not been broken up. They have not been penalized in any way by the anti-trust suit, (and it's becoming increasingly unlikely that they will.)
Therefore, your premise in invalid, and your article is not worth the bandwidth it's transmitted on.
You are hereby banished. Hows about you write "Voices from Hellmouth, Part XXVI?"
It's always nice when *facts* humiliate the long-winded rants of Jon Katz.
Since Bush won, all we've heard from him is "Evil Bush! He will only let you read books on baseball!! He's evil I tell you!"
All of this was speculation, since Bush's record on any type of censorship is virtually non-existant. (That's good!)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe Lieberman's *record* indicates a strong eagerness to censor based on "protecting the children." (Games, TV, movies, magazines...)
Now, you may not like Bush, but let's be honest: when put side-by-side with Joe Lieberman, he's our *friend!*
Add that to the fact that John Ashcroft is a die-hard privacy proponent, and arch-nemesis of Carnivore, etc.... hey, things are pretty good.
>>>> My wish is that power management under Linux would be fully supported. Getting four hours battery life under Windows and two hours under Linux is disappointing.
Why don't you just read the source and program in a better power management? I was under the impression that everyone who used Linux looked at the source and improved it. It's like that bizarre cathedral!
I have to admit, reading the source and improving Linux (which doesn't really need any improvement, especially in UI) is much easier than using Windows. And let's face it, with Windows you have a hard time finding the newest software.
#include
#include
void Gore::debate( istream& ears, ostream& mouth ){
char *question;
while( !debate.eof() ){
if ( forMe( question ) == true ){
ears >> question;
head.nod_knowledgeably();
if ( strstr( question, "environment" ) != NULL ){ mouth poor, envy );
mouth lie( opponent.record() );// mouth relate( random( anecdote ) );// PAUL - gonna take this one out until we test the "random"// function so it only returns a valid anecdote.
mouth pander( random( interest_group ), random(bad_emotion) );
hands.gesture( expressively );
mouth digress;
}
else {
mouth relate( anecdote );
mouth prattle( question );
mouth ask_disingenuously( "Am I wrong?" );
body.sit_back( chair );
}
if ( forMe( question ) == false ){
hands.make_notes( notepad, pen );//mouth sigh;// eyes.roll( up );// mouth sigh;// PAUL: We're getting hit for this - gonna take it out for now.
If ( ears.listen( opponent ) == 0 && interrupt == true )
mouth fib( opponent.answer() );// PAUL: We'll keep this for now, but remember to have the lead// designer take a look at this routine.
}
}
Micro$oft is EVIL! Bill Gates is going to go to jail after the courts break up his company. Linux is AWESOME!! X-BOX sucks because it is made by Micro$oft!! I am waiting for the LINUX game console because it'll only run a few old games but IT'LL RUN LINUX and that's all I need in a game console!! Linus IS COOL! Katz sucks! I hate capitalism because they don't care about Linux users! I hate BSD for no apparent reason! I THINK open source is k3wl and I NEVER get a lockup in Netscape because I read the source and fixed ALL the bugs!
>Mihai Budiu wrote to us with an interview
>done with Brian Kernighan, one of the High
>Creator's of C
Brian Kernighan is not a "high creator" of C. All he did was write the book with DMR. Here's an exact quote from the interview, which you obviously did not read:
I can't comment on the ``worse'', but remember, C is entirely the work of Dennis Ritchie
After reading this Ask Slashdot and it's thread, I decided to read about *myself*.
I couldn't believe what I uncovered.
Here is a direct quote:
Partnership projects could be exciting and challenging. If necessary, ask for help in completing daily tasks. You may be excited about plans in the office that will expand your horizons. Some romantic situations may not be what you think they are, however. Take off any rose-colored glasses and let others be who they really are. Prepare for the unexpected and celebrate.
How could *they* possibly know all this about me!? I am shocked and in fear. Please, Mr. Jon Katz, my hero and savior... write one of your insightful articles probing this invasion of my privacy.
>>> You know, when you're dragging a corporation's name around through the news and the court systems, it's free advertising. I wonder how this would have compared with an 'OJ Simpson' brand a few years back This is a measurement of most VALUABLE brand name. This is a desirability study. An OJ Simpson brand would not be valuable or desirable. What this article is saying is that IN SPITE of the court battles, Microsoft STILL has an amazingly powerful brand name. This goes along perfectly with the overwhelming public opinion in favor of Microsoft. I don't care either way. This isn't a pro-MS post. These are simply facts. Now, I'm sure someone will respond to me with some witty distortion of the facts that will get modded to a 5 for informative. Fuck all of you, and good night. GenChalupa
The Supreme Court will not hear the case before the district court.
The government's legal strategy against Microsoft in Jackson's court was "back up the dump truck, give him every shred of evidence and argument possible."
The case ranged from Netscape to Java, from MSN to "Channels."
The DOJ attacked MS with a double barrel shotgun.
To argue before the Supreme Court, you need to attack your opponent with a scalpel.
The Supreme Court *never* takes undefined cases like that. Remember, the High Court does *not* function like a typical courtroom. The Justices will call in attorneys from MS and the DOJ, and will *grill* them unmercifully; the questions asked will be carved with an exacto knife.
There will be no witnesses. There will be no "presented evidence." There will be no cross-examination.
That is what the appellate court is for. They will take the (IMHO) very random case from the DOJ, and narrow it down, if you will. By now, both sides have sharpened their arguments considerably. Higher legal precedents will be examined; feelings will be hurt.
To whomever stated that the case is still likely to go to the Supreme Court in lieu of the Appellate: You are dead wrong.
1. By agreeing to expedite their hearing of the case, the Circuit Court of Appeals removes virtually every reason for the case to go to the High Court. (The DOJ's argument is that possible consumer harm warrants the Supreme Court hearing the case now. However, based on scheduling, the appeals court could hear and rule on the case before the High court could touch it anyway!)
2. Not only has the 3 judge panel agreed to hear the MS case.... the entire District Court panel will hear the case en banc. That is unprecedented!! (Three of the ten judges opted out, leaving the court pro-MS, 4-3) With that kind of unheard-of force from the Appeals court, the Supreme Court won't touch this thing.
Quite frankly, things now look very bad for the DOJ. This appeals court has *always* sided with Microsoft on even the most minute of matters. Think Penfield was hard on MS? The same fate awaits the DOJ.
What leads me to this conclusion? Firstly, four of the the seven judges presiding over the appeal are staunch Conservatives. (Jackson, though a Reagan appointee, has always been center-of-the-line, and quite anti-MS.) Secondly, this same court flat-out rejected Jackson's two previous rulings on Microsoft. (This happens less than you might think... two slaps in the face for quite similar legal matters.)
Plus, the DOJ now looks quite foolish for having the audacity to ask Jackson to withhold his ruling on MS conduct stay requests. Regardless of Jackson's opinion on the matter, the The District Court of Appeals has now basically said, "That'll be quite enough out of you. We'll take it from here."
Love MS or hate them, legally-speaking, you can't help but be shocked at the level of incompetence the government has displayed in this case. From the infamous Netscape-buyout offer from Barksdale to the amazing shifting market that invalidated many of the DOJ's arguments, to this latest stay fiasco, the DOJ fought like a lightweight.
"But they won" is hardly an argument. Jackson has never pretended to be impartial. (Two previous hard-hitting verdicts against the company, the fact that he - not once - accomodated a filing by MS... the fact that he basically took the DOJ's closing arguments and put his name on it for prelems, the fact that he spent about an hour deciding the fate of the company...) Microsoft never stood a chance in his court.
I was surprised, not by the fact that he ruled against MS, but the fact that he didn't order Bill Gates' death by hanging.
I also strongly am offended that he punished Microsoft because "they exhibited no remorse." Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public? That would undermine your argument's foundation. Did he expect MS to apologize for the decline of every company they offended? These aren't murders, for christssake, these are multi-billion dollar businesses.
Frankly, if I ran the DOJ and wanted to go after Microsoft, I'd have one argument: "They put that talking paperclip in Office."
The Supreme Court will not hear the case before the district court. The government's legal strategy against Microsoft in Jackson's court was "back up the dump truck, give him every shred of evidence and argument possible." The case ranged from Netscape to Java, from MSN to "Channels." The DOJ attacked MS with a double barrel shotgun. To argue before the Supreme Court, you need to attack your opponent with a scalpel. The Supreme Court *never* takes undefined cases like that. Remember, the High Court does *not* function like a typical courtroom. The Justices will call in attorneys from MS and the DOJ, and will *grill* them unmercifully; the questions asked will be carved with an exacto knife. There will be no witnesses. There will be no "presented evidence." There will be no cross-examination. That is what the appellate court is for. They will take the (IMHO) very random case from the DOJ, and narrow it down, if you will. By now, both sides have sharpened their arguments considerably. Higher legal precedents will be examined; feelings will be hurt. To whomever stated that the case is still likely to go to the Supreme Court in lieu of the Appellate: You are dead wrong. 1. By agreeing to expedite their hearing of the case, the Circuit Court of Appeals removes virtually every reason for the case to go to the High Court. (The DOJ's argument is that possible consumer harm warrants the Supreme Court hearing the case now. However, based on scheduling, the appeals court could hear and rule on the case before the High court could touch it anyway!) 2. Not only has the 3 judge panel agreed to hear the MS case.... the entire District Court panel will hear the case en banc. That is unprecedented!! (Three of the ten judges opted out, leaving the court pro-MS, 4-3) With that kind of unheard-of force from the Appeals court, the Supreme Court won't touch this thing. Quite frankly, things now look very bad for the DOJ. This appeals court has *always* sided with Microsoft on even the most minute of matters. Think Penfield was hard on MS? The same fate awaits the DOJ. What leads me to this conclusion? Firstly, four of the the seven judges presiding over the appeal are staunch Conservatives. (Jackson, though a Reagan appointee, has always been center-of-the-line, and quite anti-MS.) Secondly, this same court flat-out rejected Jackson's two previous rulings on Microsoft. (This happens less than you might think... two slaps in the face for quite similar legal matters.) Plus, the DOJ now looks quite foolish for having the audacity to ask Jackson to withhold his ruling on MS conduct stay requests. Regardless of Jackson's opinion on the matter, the The District Court of Appeals has now basically said, "That'll be quite enough out of you. We'll take it from here." Love MS or hate them, legally-speaking, you can't help but be shocked at the level of incompetence the government has displayed in this case. From the infamous Netscape-buyout offer from Barksdale to the amazing shifting market that invalidated many of the DOJ's arguments, to this latest stay fiasco, the DOJ fought like a lightweight. "But they won" is hardly an argument. Jackson has never pretended to be impartial. (Two previous hard-hitting verdicts against the company, the fact that he - not once - accomodated a filing by MS... the fact that he basically took the DOJ's closing arguments and put his name on it for prelems, the fact that he spent about an hour deciding the fate of the company...) Microsoft never stood a chance in his court. I was surprised, not by the fact that he ruled against MS, but the fact that he didn't order Bill Gates' death by hanging. I also strongly am offended that he punished Microsoft because "they exhibited no remorse." Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public? That would undermine your argument's foundation. Did he expect MS to apologize for the decline of every company they offended? These aren't murders, for christssake, these are multi-billion dollar businesses. Frankly, if I ran the DOJ and wanted to go after Microsoft, I'd have one argument: "They put that talking paperclip in Office."
Ah yes, I'm so delighted that the government, a body that masterfully delivers our mail to the wrong address at ever increasing prices, is now placing it's surgeon-like hands into my industry.
Where does IIS go? Where does IE go? Where does Bob go?
Don't worry, I'm sure the government will figure out something.
In the mean time, for god's sake, please take the web browser out of the hands of a software monopoly like Microsoft and put it in the hands of a media monopoly like AOL!!
Jim Clark is a real good guy. We should all love him. He bowed to AOL like the French to Hitler. Real dedication.
We've been operating under the assumption that we know better than the consumer. IE is on the desktop, so people will use IE. They are incapable of typing in www.netscape.com because they are drooling animals.
At least it's an option.
On AOL, try changing email clients. Or web clients. Or FTP. Or anything.
This anti-trust trial is irrelevant. IBM was evil. It fell. MS was evil. It is falling. AOL is today's evil. And it's a far more formidable enemy. For millions, they control Internet access. For virtually everybody, they control content and information.
Sheesh. I guess I've rattled enough feathers. Everyone go back to reading your code for errors and complaining about MS.
Ah, hell, I give up. Reason has no place here. Fuck Microsoft. Fuck AOL. Fuck VA Linux Systems. Fuck Slashdot. Fuck Taco and Hemos and that rat bastard Roblimo. While I'm sinking further into moderation hell...
Nobody here wants the government getting involved in the Internet. Yet everybody wants the government involved in the software industry. (That makes sense. Since obviously the Internet doesn't use software.)
Everybody here rants how Linux is going to kick Windows' ass. Linux rules!! Yeah! Yet you have to enlist the government to slay Windows because Linux can't do it.
Everybody here values this forum's free speech, yet you take any well reasoned and factual comment which disagrees with/. mainstream and moderate it down to 0 as Overrated or Flamebait. But a posting of "Linus kicks Bills sorry ass yadda yadda yadda" gets a 5, for being Informative.
Open source ethic will make Linux easy to use. Just like EMACS!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Fuck moderation points, I'm just getting warmed up!
OPEN SOURCE! OPEN SOURCE! I won't run Windows because it's not open source! But let me haul ass to CompUSA to buy my closed-source copy of Diablo II and WordPerfect 2000.
There's no fragmentation in the Linux world!! Nooo!!! But don't run that program, because it requires Xfree 32.2353, but it only comes standard with Red Hat 8.3. But if you have SuSE 5.2389 running the 2.44 kernel you need to download the 9.87 xstuff. Well, don't worry, because once you have everything, you need to copy it into/folder/misc, unless you run Debian, where you put it in/misc/folder. But on Red Hat, you don't use that file. Linux supports you graphics card, but only Mandrake 663.3 has the right driver. If you have Corel, you won't have much luck. But Corel's based off of Debian, but the same software and desktop isn't bundled, so don't bother typing in that command....
Who else can I piss off? A big FUCK YOU goes out to all of you penguin fuckers who cum when you see Linux ported to fucking digital watches. Hey assholes, how about fixing the damn bug that crashes Netscape every ten minutes? And why the fuck do you want Linux on a toaster anyway?
BUSINESS IS EVIL, eh Katz? I bet you sure jumped at the chance to get some of that hot VA Linux IPO.
That's enough. I'm going to save ammo for the sequel.
I'm delighted that you responded to my message in a perfectly Slashdot groupthink manner. If you reread my message (or in your case, read it for the first time) you will see that:
A.) Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent violations, even though it owns thousands of far deadlier patents than this.
B.) Being a perfect Slashdot reader, you are blindly attacking Microsoft with no substantive information to back yourself up. As I posed in another post, In the decades that MS has been around, and out of the thousands of patents that MS holds.... Name ONE incident of Microsoft suing another company over patent violations.
Nowthen, reread my message, you will will see the logical, and historically accurate reason for the patents: Legal Defense.
It's OK to be against software patents. I personally believe that the government should ban them. However, until they do, what's the alternative?
A couple of years ago, some yahoo sued dozens of game companies that used video animation in their games. The plantiff owned the patent for full motion video. (!)
The case was ultimately dismissed, but think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal defense it took to stop the frivilous case. Had some reasonable, benevolent company owned the patent but not enforced it, the case never would have been brought, and everyone would have been happy.
Our patent system is broken, and until it is fixed, Defensive Patents are the lesser of two evils.
>Given Microsoft's track record in general, I >think at least some skepticism and even >preparation is in order.
I disagree.
Given Microsoft's track record, no preparation is in order. Microsoft competes in the arena of business. Even if you think Microsoft is out to slay us all, two things you can absolutely NOT say about them:
1.) They strategically sue their competition.
2.) They strategically use the government against their competition.
Microsoft, as far as I know, never sues anyone. (excluding matters of piracy, of course.) Oh, they wage bloody and violent wars in the marketplace, but never have I seen them go to the courts and say, "Stop ABC Widgetsoft from doing that!"
They could have on numerous occasions, (AOL's acquisition of TimeWarner comes to mind, as do numerous potential patent lawsuits against others) but Microsoft has steered clear of that. I consider that a Very Good Thing.
Sun Microsystems is the polar opposite of this. That is a sue-happy enterprise.
Another interesting fact about MS is their restraint in going to the government tactically. In fact, this is probably hurting them today. Had they been "playing the game," they might have avoided this lawsuit all together. Contrast that with Oracle, who put the political pressure on (the weak, useless) Orrin Hatch to start hearings in the Senate in the mid-90s. (Hearings which amounted to nothing, and wasted tax-dollars all to get Orrin "Give me your money and I'll give you my time" Hatch good TV exposure.
Microsoft seems to dislike fighting outside of the market, which is at least one good thing that everyone can agree on about them.
Slashdot Mirror
Are these sorts of actions justifiable
The fact that you even ask this question is shocking.
Quite honestly, I'm stammering to even write this. To have to argue against terrorism is difficult, because it is such a preposterous argument to have! I am pleading that before this is modded a "troll" (as all dissenting views) that I am at least read.
I recognize that Slashdot is a home to left-wing extremists, and to try and pursuade you on any matter is silly. (It's like hanging out in a Star Trek chat room and saying how much it sucks. Nobody's mind will change.) Changing your minds is not my goal with this post.
But enough is enough. Violent and willful destruction is always unacceptable. Condoning it, even for what you consider to be a good cause, is dangerous and sad... because, where does it end?
Today, we cheer with the destruction of a car dealership, tomorrow, we celebrate the death of a bioengineer. As borders of "acceptability" are destroyed, the next border always begins to appear both appealing and exciting. How long before somebody posts to slashdot: "An eco-terrorist blew up a bio-engineering firm in Oklahoma City. Hundreds died, but now, they can't potentially harm our food! Is this acceptable?"
Why don't we round up all business executives and put them in concentration camps? After all, they are responsible for everything from SUVs to smoking to keeping Linux difficult for moms to install!
Great men, from King to Gandhi have taught us that the only effective forms of protest and change are non-violent. Did the Los Angeles riots change anything? No. Did Martin Luther King change America? Yes.
Part of having freedom is responsibility. In this day and age, it seems that people are begging to surrender freedoms for "safety." (To this I quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither freedom nor security!")
We want laws to protect us from cell-phones in cars. We want laws that don't let anybody smoke. We want laws that stop Microsoft from putting a browser in Windows. We want laws that stop SUVs from being driven. We want laws that keep uncooked eggs from being served at restaurants! (Caesar Salad, RIP.)
Why do we consider the public incapable of making these decisions on their own? People are well aware of the dangers of smoking. People are well aware of the dangers of SUVs. (Hell, my Jeep Cherokee from '94 had a gigantic warning label on the visor: "WARNING THIS VEHICLE FLIPS ON SHARP TURNS.")
That's all I need to know. It flips. I am at risk. I bought it anyway.
I don't smoke, but if I started tomorrow, I'd know: I will get cancer.
I know that eating and drinking in my car (far more common for accidents than cell phones) are risky behavior. I take my chances.
I know that sex leads to disease. I still like it.
I know that using Microsoft products may cause me to have a blue screen. Here I am!
The cell-phone issue is especially irritating to me. 1.5% of car accidents are the result of cell-phone usage, so they have been banned in New York. Yet, 8 times that number were caused by car radios! How long before that menace is banned? For our safety...
It is impossible to legislate a safe and happy world. If it were, I can assure you that we would never have had cars in the first place. (High speed deaths.) Say goodbye to swimming pools. (Children drown every day.) No more knives. (Stabbings.) No more guns. (Obviously.) No more biology classes! (Kids might grow up to become bioengineers!!) No more lawnmowers, no more blenders, no more staircases, no more alcohol, no more drive-thru windows, no more roller skates, no more diving boards, no more horses, no more scissors...
I could go on all day. The point is that we accept a certain amount of risk in a free society. With every risk we attempt to eliminate comes the elimination of liberty.
The fact is: if you don't like SUVs, don't drive them. If you don't like bio-engineered foods, don't eat them. If you don't like smoking, don't smoke. (And for every crisis-level alarmist report that is published about these dangers, there is another, equally reputable, that says don't panic.)
Blowing up SUV dealerships won't make SUVs go away. But they do put innocent people at risk.
If you think that SUVs are dangerous and cause too much pollution (or whatever,) educate the public. Don't punish them. And don't sacrifice their rights because "it's good for them."
It's sad that we have to have a discussion on the importance of liberty. Perhaps we should have a "Fascist Week," where for 7 days we experience a totalitarian government that controls our thoughts, actions and activities. (Protecting us from ourselves, of course.)
I think that would end the debate once and for all.
GenChalupa
Big Media will homogenize opinion, marginalize you and other smaller competitors and make it impossible for anyone else to compete or grow in the emerging Net AOL/Disney/Sony information economy.
"Big Media" has nothing to do with the proliferation of site deaths -- poor management does.
When you blow through millions of dollars, with minimal cash influx, you're going to run out of capital, and go out of business. That's not a conspiracy... it's called capitalism.
Suck.com was hardly popular anymore, and they haven't been for years. Why should they survive?
And if Salon.com can't stay in business, it's because they were proud members of the "no profit now, we want to spread our brand name!" approach. Employing 148 people to update a site with 2 articles a day is hardly good business sense. (Especially considering the fact that Jake Tapper writes half of them!)
Their "subscription" model was a joke, and has resorted to "erotic" images to grab a few Ivy League-level porn surfers who are above going to Google and typing in "naked ladies." And since half of their articles are available for free, why join? To read the "Bushed!" section that is essentially Hotline without the clever and abundent content? Or to read the "Sex" section with Q&As that can be found EVERYWHERE!?
Salon.com, while polished, was destined for failure because of poor management. Don't shed any tears for them, learn the lesson and try harder next time. Oh, and don't be afraid of "Big Media." When they can stop you from buying a domain name for 20 bucks and writing good content, then you can worry. People like Andrew Sullivan, Matt Drudge, and Harry Knowles are doing just fine, thank you, walking over Big Media all the way to the bank.
GenChalupa
What a silly statement. That's like saying Toyota is struggling to have any kind of success in the automotive arena other than their cars' popularity.
For a more likely idea of Microsoft's internet strategy, try this.
GenChalupa
GWB got the mayor of Arlington (who was under investigation for fraud at the time, by none other than GHWB) to impose a stadium tax on the poor resident, who had to give the stadium to the Rangers
:-)
That's hardly criminal. It's more like the rules of the game. In Louisiana, we're dealing with the same thing with the Saints' demands for a new stadium. The mayor of Arlington is not an Emperor -- if the residents are pissed, they can vote him out. But I'd think that the massive increase in their economy because of the Rangers' presence would more than compensate.
I know what the alternative min tax is. It was imposed (essentially) to stop the rich from exploiting loopholes, but wasn't adjusted for inflation.
The Senate version of the bill reduces the impact of the AMT on the tax cut. (And it's pretty likely that the AMT will see some serious reform in the near future.)
Regardless of what caused the boom in the '90s, the fact that the economy boomed while taxes went up & up pretty much dispelled the validity of the Laffer Curve
I am no economics expert, but I'd think that the economy boomed in spite of the tax hike. It's pretty clear to me that the 90s will be recorded on par with the Industrial Revolution; a complete paradigm shift in the world's way of life. I don't mean to sound like Jon Katz, but computers and the Internet have changed everything, bringing about a boom unlike anything ever known.
I loved it because the girls looked so hot in those Catholic uniforms
We agree! A perfect ending! Amen!
GenChalupa
You should really stop listening to news media rhetoric concerning our educational system
When 30-40% of urban children can't read, it's a severe problem. You don't put your head in the sand and say "Gee, it's not that bad!"
Who are these wonderful educational entreprenuers that are going into inner city schools when the public schools close because none of them are any good?
Educational Alternatives, Inc. privatized the failing schools in Baltimore. I can't seem to find their website, though.
students who can pass an exam have learned something are very dubious in nature
If you are taught to do mathematics "for the test," you know mathematics. Either you can add or you can't. The same goes for reading and science. It's not a terribly complicated concept.
GenChalupa
The Bushes dealt with the Nazis before WWII, they all are very unethical businesspeople, and yet they're glorified as one of America's legacy families
I've never heard of the Nazi accusation, nor am I aware of their "unethical" business practices. In fact, the very assertion that all Bushes are unethical is like saying "all Jews are cheap."
But even assuming that you are correct, don't blame George W. for something that Prescott was involved in. I wouldn't want to be blamed for the sins of my fathers.
Do you know what you'll get from those tax cuts?
I'll get back the money that I earned. And history shows us that the government will get an increase in revenue. (The Reagan tax cut yielded a real increase of 35% revenue, after the dramatic reductions, including the reduction of the top marginal rate from 75% to 28%. And don't rebut with the "deficit" crap... that was a result of increased congressional spending.)
I have to assume that you believe that tax cuts are a bad thing. I completely disagree. Taxes are limits on freedom. Taxes say "let us spend this money for you." A minimum of taxes is fine. Pay for the roads, pay for the schools. But a tax surplus is not acceptable. A tax surplus is the overcharging of citizens. The government, having paid all it's bills, has extra. Why spend it? Give it back to me, the person whom they took it from. I can invest it in employees, buy goods to strengthen the economy, and invest it. Why add another government program that will be ineffective at best?
Those bullsh!t tests
Yes. Those tests are the start of something amazing. They tell schools that the party is over. Show results, or tighten your belt.
Look, money is not the answer. We've shoveled trillions into education, and results have decreased. Why would shelling out trillions more improve the system?
Assuming the bill's school choice provisions are preserved in some manner, it's even more dramatic. It tells schools: if you fail, we can go elsewhere.
I don't think it's fair that smart, eager minority students in poor urban neighborhoods should be trapped in failure. Let them go to a rich white school. It's not fair that a millionaire's son can go to any private school he wishes, but a poor black man's son is stranded in a place that requires bulletproof vests as standard issue.
So yes, it is very siginicant reform. It will allow an education realignment, and will narrow the educational quality gap.
And I know the argument... "But then some schools will get even worse with less money!" Good. Because either the education will be forced to improve, or the students will migrate to better schools.
Personally, I'm for even more radical reform than the President proposes. I'd like to see a privatized education system, with genuine free-enterprise competition. The government could allocate the same funds spent on current public schools per child to private accounts. The parents could then spend that account at any school they see fit. Government could price-cap parental expenses, (all of which should be covered by the government-provided private accounts) and implement standardized testing to ensure success.
(A similar system is being tried on a small scale in urban areas around the nation.)
The weak schools would perish. Let's be honest: our education system is a abysmal failure. We are not getting our money's worth. The government does not care, because they have a bottomless pit of money, and politicians are happy because they can say "Look at all the money I voted for education!"
Of course, my idea would never happen, because my political opponent could go on television and give the half-truth, "He's crazy! He wants to end public education!!"
Ah well.
Yes, the Bushes cajole, kiss ass, and finagle quite effectively, and they're rewarded. Is this how you want to be
That's the real problem you have, isn't it -- class envy. Whenever somebody is successful, they're evil. In that case, you're right. Everybody in power or with money is a bad bad man.
Personally, I like to think that in America, if you work hard, you can become successful. You're not guaranteed anything, but you've got a shot at the big time. I came from a very poor family. I grew up with nothing. But today, I make a lot of money. I didn't sit at home and cry that "the man is holding me back." I gave up my days, nights, and weekends working hard, studying, and taking risks. It paid off. So don't start your "But he's had it easy!" argument. I had it hard, and I made it happen.
Many Democrats like tax cuts as much as Republicans. What's the difference btw. Breaux/Zell Miller & Jeffords/Chaffee. Everyone was wondering if GWB would be truly bipartisan or just pick off a few Democrats. Can you tell me what he's chosen?
For the majority of the tax cut debate, Zell Miller was the only Democrat to break ranks. Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter were the only Republicans. The OVERWHELMING majority of Republicans were for it, the OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats were against it.
And quite frankly, the overrated "bipartisanship" is what minority parties cry for. I didn't vote for Bush to have Tom Daschle make policy.
Clinton wanted to build a missile shield, but dumped it when the tests failed. GWB is not letting anything like science or technology stop him from spending money.
We didn't stop making space shuttles after the initial rockets blew up. We proceeded until it was successful. Recent tests indicate successful probabilities for a missile defense shield. http://www.security-policy.org/missile.html
MOST IMPORTANT--GWB's education package is largely smoke & mirrors. He takes credit for part of last year's budget that had to be paid out this year due to the balanced budget amendment. Also, if you consider all of the money it will take to implement mandatory testing, there's actually less money available for actual education than there currently is.
Uncontrolled flows of money != better education. If that were the case, the USA would have the finest education system in the world. We don't. Mandatory testing forces schools to improve if they want precious cash.
GenChalupa
Your ignorance merits the death penalty.
...we don't end up with the Texas education plan across the country
The 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut is MORE than he wanted during the campaign. (He campaigned on 1.3) And it won't be trimmed by moderate Republicans. It's already been passed. (Read a newspaper lately?)
The Republican party isn't unified under Bush? Apparently you have been sleeping the past few months. Did you think the tax cut, missile defense, education plan, and social security reform were pulled out of the sky? That's Bush's agenda, and that's what is being debated in Congress. How in the hell do you think he even got nominated? GOP unification!
The opposition was talking about a small tax cut well before six months ago
Al Gore campaigned on a 300 billion dollar tax cut. Bush campaigned on 1.3 trillion. The democrats scoffed at Bush's ridiculously large tax cut.
The Democrats caved ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
His popularity rating is pretty much because people don't expect much out of the chump
If that were the case, he'd have a negative approval rating. Don't you understand how they work? Approve = "I like what he is doing."
He will likely fail with the missile defense
This is where you reveal your ignorance of politics, and possibly your young age. Missile defense gets, regularly, a seventy percent approval in polls. No politician, whether they like it or not, will vote against it. It's political suicide.
Even Ted Kennedy is behind the President's education plan. You're looking at a 70-30 passage in the Senate. It's going to happen.
For the love of God, read a newspaper if you're going to argue politics.
GenChalupa
Ok Bush may be stupid, he flunked out of college once
I agree with the sentiment, but President George W. Bush never flunked out of college. Not even once. He got his undergrad from Yale, and an MBA from Harvard.
He also defeated a sitting vice-President during times of peace and prosperity, unified a diversified "big tent" political party (which was hardly enamoured with his father) and became the chief proponent of a new branch of American conservatism. He managed to achieve a 60%+ approval rating (despite election controversy) and pass a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut (despite an opposition who wanted a ZERO dollar tax cut only 6 months ago.) He will likely succeed in getting a national missile defense shield built, and is on track for the most massive education reform package in American history.
You may disagree with him politically, but his record is hardly "stupid" in my book.
GenChalupa
It would probably be a wise move to attempt colonization of the Moon before colonization of Mars. The moon would serve as a shakedown field test for technology and techniques. If something goes wrong, it's a lot closer back to Earth.
The key to major investment in the Mars program is potential profit. Mars is an untapped planet of ore, minerals, and *potentially* fossil fuels. While Congress might hesitate to fund a Mars mission for humanity's sake, they'd be happy to do it for Diamond's/Gold's/Oil's sake.
And while the concept of stripmining Mars may seem unpleasant, it's quite necessary, and is the only way we'll ever see real colonization attempts. (Such mining would be severely limited, anyhow, due to purely geographic reasons.) Just as the New World provided land and resource to 16th-century Europe, so would a new world to 21st-century America.
I imagine that such a massive endeavor is also going to require privatization. We've had the technology and resources to set foot on Mars for years. It's been a cf of silly alternate programs and disasters that have been the restraint. After the Martian rover wowed the American psyche, NASA should have intensified its efforts to get a manned expedition underway. A simple American flag on the surface would have been the catalyst for colonization.
Dennis Tito has probably done more for the space program than he ever could have dreamed. I suspect that cash-strapped Russia will continue it's space tourism sideline. Eventually, it's going to allow a private commercial enterprise (no pun intended) to begin space flight and exploration. American industry will eagerly invest in such programs, (think of the profits and PR) pressuring the American government to allow similar commercial exploration (under the auspices of NASA, who would serve as an administrative body. NASA would undoubtedly continue it's scientific work as well.)
In his upcoming report of massive military overhaul, Secretary Rumsfeld also seems to be casting an eye towards space for military endeavour. (Beyond the missile defense shield.) Not to sound too Trekker, but Starfleet may be closer than we think.
GenChalupa
You give Clarke far too much credit. He wrote a short story called "The Sentinel" that had very little in common with "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Kubrick took the short story and rewrote it thoroughly, expanding the man vs. creation concept to new dimensions. Clarke then wrote the novelization in tandem with Kubrick's filming. (For other thorough Kubrick rewrites based on books, see "Lolita", "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket", and "Eyes Wide Shut." All of these were excellent works before Kubrick, but had little resemblance to the absolutely brilliant final products. ) Clarke worked with Kubrick, but most certainly was not the sole visionary behind 2001.
Clarke's a genius, but this isn't an example of it.
GenChalupa
In his new book Pride Before The Fall, John Heilemann explains how Microsoft was brought down by the arrogant, delusional monomania...
Note to Katz: Microsoft hasn't been "brought down" yet.
They still dominate every market they compete in. (excluding Bob and handhelds.) They still dominate the browser market. They still dominate the office product market. They still dominate the OS market. They still dominate the general software markets. Hell, they're even beginning to dominate the *video game* market.
They have not been broken up. They have not been penalized in any way by the anti-trust suit, (and it's becoming increasingly unlikely that they will.)
Therefore, your premise in invalid, and your article is not worth the bandwidth it's transmitted on.
You are hereby banished. Hows about you write "Voices from Hellmouth, Part XXVI?"
GenChalupa
It's always nice when *facts* humiliate the long-winded rants of Jon Katz.
Since Bush won, all we've heard from him is "Evil Bush! He will only let you read books on baseball!! He's evil I tell you!"
All of this was speculation, since Bush's record on any type of censorship is virtually non-existant. (That's good!)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe Lieberman's *record* indicates a strong eagerness to censor based on "protecting the children." (Games, TV, movies, magazines...)
Now, you may not like Bush, but let's be honest: when put side-by-side with Joe Lieberman, he's our *friend!*
Add that to the fact that John Ashcroft is a die-hard privacy proponent, and arch-nemesis of Carnivore, etc.... hey, things are pretty good.
GenChalupa
>>>>
My wish is that power management under Linux would be fully supported. Getting four hours battery life under Windows and two hours under Linux is disappointing.
Why don't you just read the source and program in a better power management? I was under the impression that everyone who used Linux looked at the source and improved it. It's like that bizarre cathedral!
I have to admit, reading the source and improving Linux (which doesn't really need any improvement, especially in UI) is much easier than using Windows. And let's face it, with Windows you have a hard time finding the newest software.
Good luck!
GenChalupa
AT&T *WON* their antitrust suit. They broke up voluntarily.
Please get your facts straight.
#include #include void Gore::debate( istream& ears, ostream& mouth ){ char *question; while( !debate.eof() ){ if ( forMe( question ) == true ){ ears >> question; head.nod_knowledgeably(); if ( strstr( question, "environment" ) != NULL ){ mouth poor, envy ); mouth lie( opponent.record() ); // mouth relate( random( anecdote ) ); // PAUL - gonna take this one out until we test the "random" // function so it only returns a valid anecdote.
mouth pander( random( interest_group ), random(bad_emotion) );
hands.gesture( expressively );
mouth digress;
}
else {
mouth relate( anecdote );
mouth prattle( question );
mouth ask_disingenuously( "Am I wrong?" );
body.sit_back( chair );
}
if ( forMe( question ) == false ){
hands.make_notes( notepad, pen ); //mouth sigh; // eyes.roll( up ); // mouth sigh; // PAUL: We're getting hit for this - gonna take it out for now.
If ( ears.listen( opponent ) == 0 && interrupt == true )
mouth fib( opponent.answer() ); // PAUL: We'll keep this for now, but remember to have the lead // designer take a look at this routine.
}
}
Micro$oft is EVIL! Bill Gates is going to go to jail after the courts break up his company. Linux is AWESOME!! X-BOX sucks because it is made by Micro$oft!! I am waiting for the LINUX game console because it'll only run a few old games but IT'LL RUN LINUX and that's all I need in a game console!! Linus IS COOL! Katz sucks! I hate capitalism because they don't care about Linux users! I hate BSD for no apparent reason! I THINK open source is k3wl and I NEVER get a lockup in Netscape because I read the source and fixed ALL the bugs!
That about cover it?
GenChalupa
>Mihai Budiu wrote to us with an interview
>done with Brian Kernighan, one of the High
>Creator's of C
Brian Kernighan is not a "high creator" of C. All he did was write the book with DMR. Here's an exact quote from the interview, which you obviously did not read:
I can't comment on the ``worse'', but remember, C is entirely the work of Dennis Ritchie
GenChalupa
After reading this Ask Slashdot and it's thread, I decided to read about *myself*.
I couldn't believe what I uncovered.
Here is a direct quote:
Partnership projects could be exciting and challenging. If necessary, ask for help in completing daily tasks. You may be excited about plans in the office that will expand your horizons. Some romantic situations may not be what you think they are, however. Take off any rose-colored glasses and let others be who they really are. Prepare for the unexpected and celebrate.
How could *they* possibly know all this about me!? I am shocked and in fear. Please, Mr. Jon Katz, my hero and savior... write one of your insightful articles probing this invasion of my privacy.
GenChalupa
>>> You know, when you're dragging a corporation's name around through the news and the court systems, it's free advertising. I wonder how this would have compared with an 'OJ Simpson' brand a few years back This is a measurement of most VALUABLE brand name. This is a desirability study. An OJ Simpson brand would not be valuable or desirable. What this article is saying is that IN SPITE of the court battles, Microsoft STILL has an amazingly powerful brand name. This goes along perfectly with the overwhelming public opinion in favor of Microsoft. I don't care either way. This isn't a pro-MS post. These are simply facts. Now, I'm sure someone will respond to me with some witty distortion of the facts that will get modded to a 5 for informative. Fuck all of you, and good night. GenChalupa
The Supreme Court will not hear the case before the district court.
The government's legal strategy against Microsoft in Jackson's court was "back up the dump truck, give him every shred of evidence and argument possible."
The case ranged from Netscape to Java, from MSN to "Channels."
The DOJ attacked MS with a double barrel shotgun.
To argue before the Supreme Court, you need to attack your opponent with a scalpel.
The Supreme Court *never* takes undefined cases like that. Remember, the High Court does *not* function like a typical courtroom. The Justices will call in attorneys from MS and the DOJ, and will *grill* them unmercifully; the questions asked will be carved with an exacto knife.
There will be no witnesses. There will be no "presented evidence." There will be no cross-examination.
That is what the appellate court is for. They will take the (IMHO) very random case from the DOJ, and narrow it down, if you will. By now, both sides have sharpened their arguments considerably. Higher legal precedents will be examined; feelings will be hurt.
To whomever stated that the case is still likely to go to the Supreme Court in lieu of the Appellate: You are dead wrong.
1. By agreeing to expedite their hearing of the case, the Circuit Court of Appeals removes virtually every reason for the case to go to the High Court. (The DOJ's argument is that possible consumer harm warrants the Supreme Court hearing the case now. However, based on scheduling, the appeals court could hear and rule on the case before the High court could touch it anyway!)
2. Not only has the 3 judge panel agreed to hear the MS case.... the entire District Court panel will hear the case en banc. That is unprecedented!! (Three of the ten judges opted out, leaving the court pro-MS, 4-3) With that kind of unheard-of force from the Appeals court, the Supreme Court won't touch this thing.
Quite frankly, things now look very bad for the DOJ. This appeals court has *always* sided with Microsoft on even the most minute of matters. Think Penfield was hard on MS? The same fate awaits the DOJ.
What leads me to this conclusion? Firstly, four of the the seven judges presiding over the appeal are staunch Conservatives. (Jackson, though a Reagan appointee, has always been center-of-the-line, and quite anti-MS.) Secondly, this same court flat-out rejected Jackson's two previous rulings on Microsoft. (This happens less than you might think... two slaps in the face for quite similar legal matters.)
Plus, the DOJ now looks quite foolish for having the audacity to ask Jackson to withhold his ruling on MS conduct stay requests. Regardless of Jackson's opinion on the matter, the The District Court of Appeals has now basically said, "That'll be quite enough out of you. We'll take it from here."
Love MS or hate them, legally-speaking, you can't help but be shocked at the level of incompetence the government has displayed in this case. From the infamous Netscape-buyout offer from Barksdale to the amazing shifting market that invalidated many of the DOJ's arguments, to this latest stay fiasco, the DOJ fought like a lightweight.
"But they won" is hardly an argument. Jackson has never pretended to be impartial. (Two previous hard-hitting verdicts against the company, the fact that he - not once - accomodated a filing by MS... the fact that he basically took the DOJ's closing arguments and put his name on it for prelems, the fact that he spent about an hour deciding the fate of the company...) Microsoft never stood a chance in his court.
I was surprised, not by the fact that he ruled against MS, but the fact that he didn't order Bill Gates' death by hanging.
I also strongly am offended that he punished Microsoft because "they exhibited no remorse." Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public? That would undermine your argument's foundation. Did he expect MS to apologize for the decline of every company they offended? These aren't murders, for christssake, these are multi-billion dollar businesses.
Frankly, if I ran the DOJ and wanted to go after Microsoft, I'd have one argument: "They put that talking paperclip in Office."
The Supreme Court will not hear the case before the district court. The government's legal strategy against Microsoft in Jackson's court was "back up the dump truck, give him every shred of evidence and argument possible." The case ranged from Netscape to Java, from MSN to "Channels." The DOJ attacked MS with a double barrel shotgun. To argue before the Supreme Court, you need to attack your opponent with a scalpel. The Supreme Court *never* takes undefined cases like that. Remember, the High Court does *not* function like a typical courtroom. The Justices will call in attorneys from MS and the DOJ, and will *grill* them unmercifully; the questions asked will be carved with an exacto knife. There will be no witnesses. There will be no "presented evidence." There will be no cross-examination. That is what the appellate court is for. They will take the (IMHO) very random case from the DOJ, and narrow it down, if you will. By now, both sides have sharpened their arguments considerably. Higher legal precedents will be examined; feelings will be hurt. To whomever stated that the case is still likely to go to the Supreme Court in lieu of the Appellate: You are dead wrong. 1. By agreeing to expedite their hearing of the case, the Circuit Court of Appeals removes virtually every reason for the case to go to the High Court. (The DOJ's argument is that possible consumer harm warrants the Supreme Court hearing the case now. However, based on scheduling, the appeals court could hear and rule on the case before the High court could touch it anyway!) 2. Not only has the 3 judge panel agreed to hear the MS case.... the entire District Court panel will hear the case en banc. That is unprecedented!! (Three of the ten judges opted out, leaving the court pro-MS, 4-3) With that kind of unheard-of force from the Appeals court, the Supreme Court won't touch this thing. Quite frankly, things now look very bad for the DOJ. This appeals court has *always* sided with Microsoft on even the most minute of matters. Think Penfield was hard on MS? The same fate awaits the DOJ. What leads me to this conclusion? Firstly, four of the the seven judges presiding over the appeal are staunch Conservatives. (Jackson, though a Reagan appointee, has always been center-of-the-line, and quite anti-MS.) Secondly, this same court flat-out rejected Jackson's two previous rulings on Microsoft. (This happens less than you might think... two slaps in the face for quite similar legal matters.) Plus, the DOJ now looks quite foolish for having the audacity to ask Jackson to withhold his ruling on MS conduct stay requests. Regardless of Jackson's opinion on the matter, the The District Court of Appeals has now basically said, "That'll be quite enough out of you. We'll take it from here." Love MS or hate them, legally-speaking, you can't help but be shocked at the level of incompetence the government has displayed in this case. From the infamous Netscape-buyout offer from Barksdale to the amazing shifting market that invalidated many of the DOJ's arguments, to this latest stay fiasco, the DOJ fought like a lightweight. "But they won" is hardly an argument. Jackson has never pretended to be impartial. (Two previous hard-hitting verdicts against the company, the fact that he - not once - accomodated a filing by MS... the fact that he basically took the DOJ's closing arguments and put his name on it for prelems, the fact that he spent about an hour deciding the fate of the company...) Microsoft never stood a chance in his court. I was surprised, not by the fact that he ruled against MS, but the fact that he didn't order Bill Gates' death by hanging. I also strongly am offended that he punished Microsoft because "they exhibited no remorse." Umm... if you are basing your entire case on "WE ARE 100% INNOCENT", logically speaking, why would you exhihib remorse in trial or in public? That would undermine your argument's foundation. Did he expect MS to apologize for the decline of every company they offended? These aren't murders, for christssake, these are multi-billion dollar businesses. Frankly, if I ran the DOJ and wanted to go after Microsoft, I'd have one argument: "They put that talking paperclip in Office."
Ah yes, I'm so delighted that the government, a body that masterfully delivers our mail to the wrong address at ever increasing prices, is now placing it's surgeon-like hands into my industry.
/. mainstream and moderate it down to 0 as Overrated or Flamebait. But a posting of "Linus kicks Bills sorry ass yadda yadda yadda" gets a 5, for being Informative.
/folder/misc, unless you run Debian, where you put it in /misc/folder. But on Red Hat, you don't use that file. Linux supports you graphics card, but only Mandrake 663.3 has the right driver. If you have Corel, you won't have much luck. But Corel's based off of Debian, but the same software and desktop isn't bundled, so don't bother typing in that command....
Where does IIS go? Where does IE go? Where does Bob go?
Don't worry, I'm sure the government will figure out something.
In the mean time, for god's sake, please take the web browser out of the hands of a software monopoly like Microsoft and put it in the hands of a media monopoly like AOL!!
Jim Clark is a real good guy. We should all love him. He bowed to AOL like the French to Hitler. Real dedication.
We've been operating under the assumption that we know better than the consumer. IE is on the desktop, so people will use IE. They are incapable of typing in www.netscape.com because they are drooling animals.
At least it's an option.
On AOL, try changing email clients. Or web clients. Or FTP. Or anything.
This anti-trust trial is irrelevant. IBM was evil. It fell. MS was evil. It is falling. AOL is today's evil. And it's a far more formidable enemy. For millions, they control Internet access. For virtually everybody, they control content and information.
Sheesh. I guess I've rattled enough feathers. Everyone go back to reading your code for errors and complaining about MS.
Ah, hell, I give up. Reason has no place here. Fuck Microsoft. Fuck AOL. Fuck VA Linux Systems. Fuck Slashdot. Fuck Taco and Hemos and that rat bastard Roblimo. While I'm sinking further into moderation hell...
Nobody here wants the government getting involved in the Internet. Yet everybody wants the government involved in the software industry. (That makes sense. Since obviously the Internet doesn't use software.)
Everybody here rants how Linux is going to kick Windows' ass. Linux rules!! Yeah! Yet you have to enlist the government to slay Windows because Linux can't do it.
Everybody here values this forum's free speech, yet you take any well reasoned and factual comment which disagrees with
Open source ethic will make Linux easy to use. Just like EMACS!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Fuck moderation points, I'm just getting warmed up!
OPEN SOURCE! OPEN SOURCE! I won't run Windows because it's not open source! But let me haul ass to CompUSA to buy my closed-source copy of Diablo II and WordPerfect 2000.
There's no fragmentation in the Linux world!! Nooo!!! But don't run that program, because it requires Xfree 32.2353, but it only comes standard with Red Hat 8.3. But if you have SuSE 5.2389 running the 2.44 kernel you need to download the 9.87 xstuff. Well, don't worry, because once you have everything, you need to copy it into
Who else can I piss off? A big FUCK YOU goes out to all of you penguin fuckers who cum when you see Linux ported to fucking digital watches. Hey assholes, how about fixing the damn bug that crashes Netscape every ten minutes? And why the fuck do you want Linux on a toaster anyway?
BUSINESS IS EVIL, eh Katz? I bet you sure jumped at the chance to get some of that hot VA Linux IPO.
That's enough. I'm going to save ammo for the sequel.
Fuck all of you, and goodnight.
I'm delighted that you responded to my message in a perfectly Slashdot groupthink manner. If you reread my message (or in your case, read it for the first time) you will see that:
A.) Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent violations, even though it owns thousands of far deadlier patents than this.
B.) Being a perfect Slashdot reader, you are blindly attacking Microsoft with no substantive information to back yourself up. As I posed in another post, In the decades that MS has been around, and out of the thousands of patents that MS holds.... Name ONE incident of Microsoft suing another company over patent violations.
Nowthen, reread my message, you will will see the logical, and historically accurate reason for the patents: Legal Defense.
It's OK to be against software patents. I personally believe that the government should ban them. However, until they do, what's the alternative?
A couple of years ago, some yahoo sued dozens of game companies that used video animation in their games. The plantiff owned the patent for full motion video. (!)
The case was ultimately dismissed, but think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal defense it took to stop the frivilous case. Had some reasonable, benevolent company owned the patent but not enforced it, the case never would have been brought, and everyone would have been happy.
Our patent system is broken, and until it is fixed, Defensive Patents are the lesser of two evils.
Gen Chalupa
>Given Microsoft's track record in general, I
>think at least some skepticism and even
>preparation is in order.
I disagree.
Given Microsoft's track record, no preparation is in order. Microsoft competes in the arena of business. Even if you think Microsoft is out to slay us all, two things you can absolutely NOT say about them:
1.) They strategically sue their competition.
2.) They strategically use the government against their competition.
Microsoft, as far as I know, never sues anyone. (excluding matters of piracy, of course.) Oh, they wage bloody and violent wars in the marketplace, but never have I seen them go to the courts and say, "Stop ABC Widgetsoft from doing that!"
They could have on numerous occasions, (AOL's acquisition of TimeWarner comes to mind, as do numerous potential patent lawsuits against others) but Microsoft has steered clear of that. I consider that a Very Good Thing.
Sun Microsystems is the polar opposite of this. That is a sue-happy enterprise.
Another interesting fact about MS is their restraint in going to the government tactically. In fact, this is probably hurting them today. Had they been "playing the game," they might have avoided this lawsuit all together. Contrast that with Oracle, who put the political pressure on (the weak, useless) Orrin Hatch to start hearings in the Senate in the mid-90s. (Hearings which amounted to nothing, and wasted tax-dollars all to get Orrin "Give me your money and I'll give you my time" Hatch good TV exposure.
Microsoft seems to dislike fighting outside of the market, which is at least one good thing that everyone can agree on about them.
Gen Chalupa