Part of the problem is the flexibility that Linux affords.
A highly-componentized system is great for flexibility, but a nightmare for usability and developers.
Microsoft's big-man has a penchant for screaming "Developers Developers Developers", but's he right. Developing a graphics intensive app on the Microsoft platform is a different ball of wax completely from developing on a *nix machine. DirectX works well enough that the developer is able to focus on developing things that add value to their product. There is a lot of that coming from the SDL camp, but truth be told DirectX is a success in the Windows world because of the underlying architectural differences: DirectX being install is a boolean operation: installed or not. (Well, now actually its actually a matter of versions.. all Windows distros have it.. so its just a matter of what version you want to deal with).
Windows has a great success at offering games and graphics heavy packages because of the broad hardware support, the straightforward development model for drivers and the resources MS provides for brand-name developers, and the unified relentless promoting and development of DirectX as a platform.
Ah, I see. Since they MIGHT at some point in the future potentially threaten USA, they must be invaded now? I guess Finland could at some point in the future potentially threaten the USA somehow, should Finland be invaded as well?
Excepting that Finland hasn't recently invaded any countries, any US friendly countries, or any of its neighbors.
Finland wasn't a good choice.
Hussein was volitile in the fact that he had a habit of doing whatever he felt like.
I have another bit of bad news for you... in the state i live in, people would be *litterally* starving to death if they decided to boycott Wal-Mart. When Wally-World is the only thing you've got that resembles civilisation for 150 miles, than, well, boycott isn't much of an issue.
Re:one of my friends works there
on
Inside Wal-Mart IT
·
· Score: 3, Informative
A former co-workers had a step-dad who was a VP )(they are one of the companies with like 500 vice-presidents) at walmart. I heard about him and about 5 other VP's traveling down south for a big annual meeting sharing 3 rooms at the local $49/night motel.
Just as an FYI. It seems they are cheap across the board.
X is flexible, configurable, extendable, and easy to make do what you want.
Giving novice users too much rope makes it easy to hang themselves.
A typical Linux desktop these days is getting pretty crufty. There are a lot of configuartion files (a good number of which are related to X), a plethora of files in a number of locations, and a mish-mash of scripts, loaders, and utilities.
Diverse widget sets are great; diverse font rendering systems are great, diverse printing system is great.
But all those things are not great for general-purpose novice level computing.
Being cockholded as an American puppet by the American president-to-be (maybe) is a bid deal.. what if the remaining Iraqis on board with the provisional government decided to drop out because of the association?
Third, it's wrong for you to imply that there is something untoward about Clinton and Gore asking for campaign contributions from MSFT. Clinton and Gore are (were) politicians. Politicians in the U.S. are in the business of getting reelected, which in this country means asking other people for money. If your business were asking people or companies for money, would you maybe ask the richest company on the planet? Yeah, I think you would.
It is clear as day. It's not untoward, thats how politics works. MS had no political protection. Companies with political protection do not get into antitrust trouble.
I only wish our country had the balls to fight treason like this.
I feel the same way that you do, but remember, the changes in HP's stategy have been board-approved and shareholder approved.
My personal opinion is that the board at HP got the idea that diversity is a goal instead of a side-effect of healthy policy. Carly had what many consider an unimpressive start in business, selling what was essentially commodity products. She never believed in the HP Way. And her company is quickly tanking.
But, really, this has nothing to do with the country. This is the misguided actions of a few with power.
That "puppet" comment was attrocious. Allawi is a US puppet, but to make a comment like that puts them man in greater danger. You should read up on Allawi. He is a scumbag. He is also the closest thing Iraq has right now to a western-friendly Patriot.
He was nearly axed to death by Sadaam's guard, for one.
It's very FreeRepublican of you to slime Clinton by implying that the prosecution was caused by *not getting a campaign contribution*.
I am saying that MS had not political protection. How many other monopoly cases can you remember? Right. You think there arent any out there? Right. Political contributions talk. What is fact is that Clinton and Gore both personally soliticted donations from Microsoft. I know because I asked Al Gore myself as a student hosting a debate that was carried live on C-SPAN.
AFTER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALREADY WON.
The DOJ lost. They lost the only important phase: the penalty phase. Their attempt to break up MS was defeated at every opportunity. They had no real choice but to settle.
Gates is on his way to owning every video and audio recording device on the planet, as well as nearly all the PC's.
Probably false. MS has a tiny market share in both video and audio recording devices. And that isnt going to change.
It's laughable that Freepers accuse the DOJ of making MS into a lobbying powerhouse because of their terrible persecution by evil liberals.
I didnt say that. I said plainly that the DOJ would not have taken MS to court if MS had have made political contributions as requested.
They bought their way out of it and helped install a business fascist into the presidency who dropped all the charged and then executed the DOJ. And that, my friend, is the real crime.
Bush campaigned openly on the promise of settling the MS case. Again, I know, because I personally asked then Gov. Bush this during a televised QA held at my college>
They bought their way out of it and helped install a business fascist into the presidency who dropped all the charged and then executed the DOJ. And that, my friend, is the real crime.
Yes, and despite MSs market share in OS'es they are losing market share in the browser market.
They need to make sure that the government is paying attention to their new needs, so they're taking the appropriate actions.
I dont think so. I think MS would like nothing more than for the government to stop interfering and refrain from forcing agencies to use OSS, especially against their will.
Sure, Linux is more popular than ever, but Microsoft's OSs are by far the most dominant operatings systems and has been for some time.
Being dominant isn't the same as being a monopoly. Popular isn't the same as illegal.
There are most variations of x86 operating systems in use today than at any other time in the history of the x86 platform.
So far as I know nobody else has integrated the browser and the desktop in anything like the way Microsoft has done. Providing an embeddable browser or HTML rendering engine is not the same as using the same component to access, interpret, and render both trusted and untrusted documents.
The security implications aside, you can look at KDE as an example. They use the same rendering component/framework for file-browsing as web-browsing. Look at the description on their site:
"Konqueror is the file manager for the K Desktop Environment. It supports basic file management on local UNIX filesystems, from simple cut/copy and paste operations to advanced remote and local network file browsing. Konqueror is the canvas for all the latest KDE technology, from KIO slaves (which provide mechanisms for file access) to component embedding via the KParts object interface, and it is one of the most customizable applications available. Konqueror is an Open Source web browser with HTML4.0 compliance, supporting Java applets, JavaScript, CSS1 and (partially) CSS2, as well as Netscape plugins (for example, Flash or RealVideo plugins). Konqueror is a universal viewing application, capable of embedding read-only viewing components in itself to view documents without ever launching another application. "
With a few modifications that would describe IE/ActiveX/Explorer just about to the letter (remove open source, of course).
If that was the case Microsoft wouldn't have a desktop monopoly to leverage into a browser monopoly in the first place.
I beleive they dont have a monopoly, to be honest. There is so much choice in terms of x86 operating systems that it's bizarre that anyone could claim they have a monopoly. Add into the mix Apple which competes with MS on every front as well as other bit players (for example, if someone makes a device that eliminates the need for an OS, does that make them a competitor? I believe so. That means in terms of share MS competes with makers of things like set-tops boxes and consoles).
The Bush Adm doesn't care about stopping terrorists in the United States, they only care about stoping them overseas.
Proof of this is in our 'Open' Borders policy.
Neither party has any political will to shut down illegal immigration. For the conservatives, it puts downward pressure on the job market which helps business interests and keeps inflation and monetary changes under control. For the liberals, it is both an issue of policy and practicality. Immigrants vote democrat 90% of the time. Registering to vote even as a non-citizen requires virtually no proof - a drivers license (which does not require legal status) or a phone bill (which requires an address and cash) will usually do.
You've got it pretty close to right. MS was the prototypical non-player. They had no lobbying force. They had absolutely positively no involvement - ever - in any national political campaign or movement.
Both Clinton and Gore personally soliticed donations from Microsoft for their campaigns. MS refused. The RNC soliticed for donations. MS refused.
When the DOJ began talking to Netscape, IBM, AOL, Sun, and Apple - who of course had large lobbying arms (especially Netscape, Sun and IBM), MS had absolutely no-political covering-fire.
Regardless of the merits of the case, it is nearly 100% certain that MS would not have been brought to court if they had have not refused advances for donations.
Today, MS has the pre-eminent legal and lobbying team for just about any corporation in the country. They shower money and praise on legislators of all stripes. They routinely make donations to even sure-fire losers in elections just in case someone drops dead.
MS may be big, but they aren't stupid. In less than 10 years they went from a political non-entity to a political-powerhouse.
Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web.
That's a joke. IE is losing marketshare at an amazing rate. Link. All kinds of technical and non-technical sources are recomending a shift-away from Internet Explorer.
But switching can be difficult. Windows users who want to access a document on the Web are sometimes required to use Internet Explorer, flaws and all, even if they have chosen a different product for that purpose.
That's right. A web-publisher can put any conditions he/she wants on viewing the content in the question. You can be asked to pay money, watch an advert, or use certain software.
By tilting Windows users toward Internet Explorer in this and other ways over the past nine years, Microsoft has ensured that many consumers are using a less secure browser than they would if offered a neutral choice, and prevented other software companies from competing for these customers on the merits.
That's untrue. MS pre-selecting IE does not preclude others from competing. That's a blatantly untrue statement. It makes it more difficult. That's a big difference.
The Clinton Justice Department proved all of these facts at trial. Yet the lower courts did not move to restore freedom of competition in the market for Web browsers, because they found Microsoft's appeal for freedom more compelling.
MS's argument all along was that it's market share was at risk, and that any moment, a competitor could grap the reigns and win back the web. They argued that the barriers to entry - regardless of what they did - were very low. Low and behold, the best browser on the market is free, open source, and multi-platform. On top of that, other browsers like Opera are low-cost and multi-platform (and also superior).
One such innovation was in writing the shared blocks of code that support both operating system and Web browsing functions in Windows. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.
Microsoft was right. Using this method of integration is very common place now. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. What if MS loses market share and Konqueror becomes the dominant browser. Will makers of file-manager utilities sue the developers and because their product cannot compete with products that tie into the rendering engine?
By a software product does not consist of code. If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.
You license the code, as you goes on to point out. But regardless of the license, the heart of software is code, not IP.
The courts have missed a golden opportunity to affirm the freedom to compete in the information age.
The courts did nothing to MS. So ask yourself. Is there more or less competition than there was in the 90's? How is that possible if MS was able to do what the government allege? If MS had an illegal monopoly on operating systems for x86 computers, how come there are more now than at anytime in history? How come users have dozens more choices than ever? And if MS leveraged the operating system lock up browsers, how come we have more choice now than ever for browsers? How come on x86 alone there are at least 4 major choices for quality web-browsing?
The government was wrong. MS had a large marketshare, but short of patenting everything in sight, it is impossible to have a monopoly on intellectual property like software.
The USA (call it "freedom" land if you want) has the HIGHEST encarceration rate (% of population in jail) of any nation. Does that sounds like a bastion of unparalleled freedom to you? It would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.
First off, your claim is wrong. It has the highest percentage of its population in criminal justice system of any industrialized (aka, G8) country.
I'd expect this, and even demand it. Why? Because first off, in many countries - namely certain European ones - violent even deadly criminals are not properly incarcerated due to financial contraints. Meaning, their average is low because they dont want to spend the money to do it right.
Second, justice dictates that those who ignore the mandates of the many and their elected representatives be treated appropriately.
Third, justice dictates that the law be applied evenely and fairly. In so many countries, rampant corruption is so regular that it is part of every day life. In this country as well as others a corruption case is a big deal. A sheriff or jailer taking a bribe to release someone is virtually unheard of
You have no idea what you talking about. Do some research. Our criminal justice system is effective, and it is a hallmark of a fair and equitable country.
I never contended that what they did was legal, only that the lawsuits have NOT stopped the downloading.
They have dramatically reduced activity. And they have certainly stopped those we were doing it.
but now you feel she not only should have known better it was justifiable for the RIAA to not only sue her but refuse to drop the case when the facts surfaced
No, I content that 12-yr olds should not be allowed to operate unsupervised, and that if she does, she should be held responsible for her actions as well should her guardians for being so remiss.
His grandkids had installed the software when visiting without his permission or knowledge. They downloaded some music, and left it running, set to start on startup. So the real violaters were his grandkids, he was an innocent bystander. Yet again your reaction is he got what he deserved.
Yes. He was operating a machine he was unqualified to operate, and was as such responsible for his ignorance.
Funny that there was no accusation in my post.
Yes, there was. The accusation was that Congress was owned by corporations and that RIAA/MPAA had purchased this law in a corrupt exchange.
As far as your claim they aren't working, get a clue. Do some research.
they got ripped off when they signed their contracts with the record companies
I can enter into any contract I want within the bounds of the law. There are thousands of very weatlhy artists. Even if they were ripped off by the RIAA, it doesnt make it okay for them to be ripped off by people who want without thinking of the law.
How soon we forget the studies that have shown that active downloaders buy more music
Irrelevant. That's irrelevant. If I make music and choose to release only to people I want, thats MY RIGHT. NOT YOURS TO BARTER AWAY WILLY-NILLY.
I'm far more concerned about things like that being prevented that Congress wasting time and money to pass yet more laws to go after music downloaders.
Lame argument. Congress can do more than aone thing at a time. Congress will continue to pass laws until the issue is resolved.
someone trojans your machine and starts sharing files off of it, then you find out 3 weeks later and spend 2 weeks trying to get it stopped weren't you "knowingly" sharing for those 2 weeks, even though you were trying to stop it? Yes you were, and you too could wind up in jail thanks to this law.
If you find out, you pull the plug. 30-seconds. Knowingly has a legal definition, you should look it up. It means you know what you are doing, and choose to do it anyways. Figure it idiot. You can make up lame examples all you want, it doesn't change the fact that this law is completely justified.
The public has spoken, repeatedly, by their actions that they do not support the RIAA's current business model any longer, that they will not stop downloading music even in the face of adverse consequences.
This isn't about a business model. This is about the law. The public has said that if P2P infringement is easy, they'll do it. Nothing more.
Further threat of jail time will just further crowd the already overcrowded jails with -- people who downloaded some music online. Now that's a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Ohh right. We should lock up murderers. You and I know both know that jail time will be for only the most extreme cases, and even then in a limited format.
Let's be real here. You have no idea idea what this law will or will not do. You haven't read the text, even though it is readily available. You have no idea what effect on musicians, artists, programmers, FOSS advocates, or whatnot will be if uninhibited P2P is allowed to proceed.
You haven't thought anywhere past the basic "Congress is in the pocket of the RIAA" and "Illegal music downloading helps muscians becauase it makes them more popular" and "why are we bothering with these crimes when crimes X Y and Z aren't stamped out yet". Typical childish perspectives.
I would not consider a search of my house without my knowledge to be reasonable under ANY curcumstances, much less because it was decided by a secret court.
Well then you are completely at odds with just about every court who has ever decided the topic. The whole point of the FISA court is that in some cases letting the defandant know his/her premises has been searched invalidates the search itself. So, basically, you are wrong. You do not have a right to be free from unknown to you searches. There is a large bit of process that has to be followed to get such a warrant. They are rare. And easily justifiable.
Yes, this right has been restored but it was STILL lost to the war on terror.
When something contreversial happens, it is challenged in court. If the court says reinforces the action, a precendent is set. If it strikes down the action, a precendent is set. A precendent in support of strong protections have been set. This is a victory for freedom, not a loss. Yes the liberty of a person or small number of persons was restricted. That is the sacrifice that must be made sometimes in the name of increased liberty for all.
Where in there do you see anything that says Citizen, American, or any term that could be construed as NOT applying to US Residents who are not also citizens?
This is very basic. International terrorists are not criminals. They are not accused of crimes, but rather, acts of wars, which are by definition not crimes. Therefore, as you can clearly see by the language of the amendment, no protection is afforded. This is very basic. The courts have affirmed this dozens of times.
Your original question didn't stipulate that the rights could not be later restored by another body.
You are claiming that the 6th amendment and 4th amendments were lost liberties: gone. I am saying, they were interuppted one way, that was struck down. An instance, a single case of something does not mean liberty has been lost. Get it into your head. This is how government has worked for 225+ years. A law is passed. It is enforced. It is challenged in court. The court reviews the law and its enforcement. The court makes a ruling on its applicability and constitutionality. It is appealed up to and including the Supreme Court. Repeat as needed.
The current administration has started to use "free speech zones" to keep protesters out of sight.
This is based on an old law, not a law that was passed during the "current administration". The ability to legally place mass-protestors in designated areas is decades old. DECADES. Get it into your head. This isn't anything new. Protestors have never had the right to go anywhere, to go onto private property, to have front row access.
The military have banned all photographs of returning Coffins from Iraq.
That is a bald-face lie. They have not banned photographs. They have not banned the printing of photos of Coffins from Iraq. They have restricted access to the air-force base where they are recieved.
I am going to try to get something into your head. The 1st amendment says that you print anything, say anything, etc. It does not guarantee you a right to get into a military base, at a certain given time, and photograph a certain given something. If you were, by some chance, able to get into said military base and take said photographs there is NOTHING the military or anyone else could do to prohibit you from publishing those photos.
Can you tell me who this is supposed to help?
My bosses son was in Iraq. Maybe she'd rather not have his coffin photographed and splashed over the front cover of Time, on anti-Bush T-shirts, and on bumber stickers and on TV everynight. Did you ever think of that? Regardless. Despite these wishes if you had said photos, it'd be perfectly legal for you to print them. Check out thememoryhole.org if you need proof that it is legal to publish them.
Thats great.. but what, do you think wherever you live doesn't have a [dictator|despot|Congress|Parliment|Executive]?
You think you'll be the nation who says F.U. to the rest of the world?
When the US and EU start imposing trade sanctions, when your ISPs are refused peering with US telecos who own much of the backbone, and your machines targetted by trade associates you will realize your profanity and idiocy was at your own peril.
And what's the lifetime cap on her insurance policy? What will she do if she runs into the lifetime cap and can't get more coverage?
When that happens you are eligible for Medicare/Medicaid.
I guess my point is the liberty lost..
Your point is wrong. The claim is that we are less free and have less liberty since 9/11.
Here is a case were the government tried to expand its power, and the natural checks and balances prevented that from happening.
Clearly there was injustice and harm done to this individual. Clearly. However, this is not shut-and-close, all is lost, the government is repressing me, this is it time. If our right to a redress of grievances, to a trial, to not be held without charges was truly jeopordized this man would never have been released. That's the status quo in very many places across the world. Here, he fought the government, and won!
That's something to be celebrated, not lamented. Clearly he was wrong. But the great thing about system is that now you and I have greater freedom and greater liberty thanks to his sacrifice and tribulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem is the flexibility that Linux affords.
A highly-componentized system is great for flexibility, but a nightmare for usability and developers.
Microsoft's big-man has a penchant for screaming "Developers Developers Developers", but's he right. Developing a graphics intensive app on the Microsoft platform is a different ball of wax completely from developing on a *nix machine. DirectX works well enough that the developer is able to focus on developing things that add value to their product. There is a lot of that coming from the SDL camp, but truth be told DirectX is a success in the Windows world because of the underlying architectural differences: DirectX being install is a boolean operation: installed or not. (Well, now actually its actually a matter of versions.. all Windows distros have it.. so its just a matter of what version you want to deal with).
Windows has a great success at offering games and graphics heavy packages because of the broad hardware support, the straightforward development model for drivers and the resources MS provides for brand-name developers, and the unified relentless promoting and development of DirectX as a platform.
People expect checks and balances to happen overnight..
The nasty bits of the USA PATRIOT act are on the way out.
Critics however just bitch and moan and complain and want it gone overnight. If that was possible, that'd be worse than what we have now.
Checks and balances exisits, but they are slow moving deliberative iterative processes.
Ah, I see. Since they MIGHT at some point in the future potentially threaten USA, they must be invaded now? I guess Finland could at some point in the future potentially threaten the USA somehow, should Finland be invaded as well?
Excepting that Finland hasn't recently invaded any countries, any US friendly countries, or any of its neighbors.
Finland wasn't a good choice.
Hussein was volitile in the fact that he had a habit of doing whatever he felt like.
I have another bit of bad news for you... in the state i live in, people would be *litterally* starving to death if they decided to boycott Wal-Mart. When Wally-World is the only thing you've got that resembles civilisation for 150 miles, than, well, boycott isn't much of an issue.
A former co-workers had a step-dad who was a VP )(they are one of the companies with like 500 vice-presidents) at walmart. I heard about him and about 5 other VP's traveling down south for a big annual meeting sharing 3 rooms at the local $49/night motel.
Just as an FYI. It seems they are cheap across the board.
X is flexible, configurable, extendable, and easy to make do what you want.
Giving novice users too much rope makes it easy to hang themselves.
A typical Linux desktop these days is getting pretty crufty. There are a lot of configuartion files (a good number of which are related to X), a plethora of files in a number of locations, and a mish-mash of scripts, loaders, and utilities.
Diverse widget sets are great; diverse font rendering systems are great, diverse printing system is great.
But all those things are not great for general-purpose novice level computing.
Being cockholded as an American puppet by the American president-to-be (maybe) is a bid deal.. what if the remaining Iraqis on board with the provisional government decided to drop out because of the association?
Third, it's wrong for you to imply that there is something untoward about Clinton and Gore asking for campaign contributions from MSFT. Clinton and Gore are (were) politicians. Politicians in the U.S. are in the business of getting reelected, which in this country means asking other people for money. If your business were asking people or companies for money, would you maybe ask the richest company on the planet? Yeah, I think you would.
It is clear as day. It's not untoward, thats how politics works. MS had no political protection. Companies with political protection do not get into antitrust trouble.
I only wish our country had the balls to fight treason like this.
I feel the same way that you do, but remember, the changes in HP's stategy have been board-approved and shareholder approved.
My personal opinion is that the board at HP got the idea that diversity is a goal instead of a side-effect of healthy policy. Carly had what many consider an unimpressive start in business, selling what was essentially commodity products. She never believed in the HP Way. And her company is quickly tanking.
But, really, this has nothing to do with the country. This is the misguided actions of a few with power.
That "puppet" comment was attrocious. Allawi is a US puppet, but to make a comment like that puts them man in greater danger. You should read up on Allawi. He is a scumbag. He is also the closest thing Iraq has right now to a western-friendly Patriot.
He was nearly axed to death by Sadaam's guard, for one.
The answer is the question is better politicans.
It's very FreeRepublican of you to slime Clinton by implying that the prosecution was caused by *not getting a campaign contribution*.
I am saying that MS had not political protection. How many other monopoly cases can you remember? Right. You think there arent any out there? Right. Political contributions talk. What is fact is that Clinton and Gore both personally soliticted donations from Microsoft. I know because I asked Al Gore myself as a student hosting a debate that was carried live on C-SPAN.
AFTER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALREADY WON.
The DOJ lost. They lost the only important phase: the penalty phase. Their attempt to break up MS was defeated at every opportunity. They had no real choice but to settle.
Gates is on his way to owning every video and audio recording device on the planet, as well as nearly all the PC's.
Probably false. MS has a tiny market share in both video and audio recording devices. And that isnt going to change.
It's laughable that Freepers accuse the DOJ of making MS into a lobbying powerhouse because of their terrible persecution by evil liberals.
I didnt say that. I said plainly that the DOJ would not have taken MS to court if MS had have made political contributions as requested.
They bought their way out of it and helped install a business fascist into the presidency who dropped all the charged and then executed the DOJ. And that, my friend, is the real crime.
Bush campaigned openly on the promise of settling the MS case. Again, I know, because I personally asked then Gov. Bush this during a televised QA held at my college>
They bought their way out of it and helped install a business fascist into the presidency who dropped all the charged and then executed the DOJ. And that, my friend, is the real crime.
Yes, and despite MSs market share in OS'es they are losing market share in the browser market.
Face it. You paranoid and overdramatic.
They need to make sure that the government is paying attention to their new needs, so they're taking the appropriate actions.
I dont think so. I think MS would like nothing more than for the government to stop interfering and refrain from forcing agencies to use OSS, especially against their will.
Sure, Linux is more popular than ever, but Microsoft's OSs are by far the most dominant operatings systems and has been for some time.
Being dominant isn't the same as being a monopoly. Popular isn't the same as illegal.
There are most variations of x86 operating systems in use today than at any other time in the history of the x86 platform.
So far as I know nobody else has integrated the browser and the desktop in anything like the way Microsoft has done. Providing an embeddable browser or HTML rendering engine is not the same as using the same component to access, interpret, and render both trusted and untrusted documents.
The security implications aside, you can look at KDE as an example. They use the same rendering component/framework for file-browsing as web-browsing. Look at the description on their site: "Konqueror is the file manager for the K Desktop Environment. It supports basic file management on local UNIX filesystems, from simple cut/copy and paste operations to advanced remote and local network file browsing. Konqueror is the canvas for all the latest KDE technology, from KIO slaves (which provide mechanisms for file access) to component embedding via the KParts object interface, and it is one of the most customizable applications available. Konqueror is an Open Source web browser with HTML4.0 compliance, supporting Java applets, JavaScript, CSS1 and (partially) CSS2, as well as Netscape plugins (for example, Flash or RealVideo plugins). Konqueror is a universal viewing application, capable of embedding read-only viewing components in itself to view documents without ever launching another application. "
With a few modifications that would describe IE/ActiveX/Explorer just about to the letter (remove open source, of course).
If that was the case Microsoft wouldn't have a desktop monopoly to leverage into a browser monopoly in the first place.
I beleive they dont have a monopoly, to be honest. There is so much choice in terms of x86 operating systems that it's bizarre that anyone could claim they have a monopoly. Add into the mix Apple which competes with MS on every front as well as other bit players (for example, if someone makes a device that eliminates the need for an OS, does that make them a competitor? I believe so. That means in terms of share MS competes with makers of things like set-tops boxes and consoles).
The Bush Adm doesn't care about stopping terrorists in the United States, they only care about stoping them overseas. Proof of this is in our 'Open' Borders policy.
Neither party has any political will to shut down illegal immigration. For the conservatives, it puts downward pressure on the job market which helps business interests and keeps inflation and monetary changes under control. For the liberals, it is both an issue of policy and practicality. Immigrants vote democrat 90% of the time. Registering to vote even as a non-citizen requires virtually no proof - a drivers license (which does not require legal status) or a phone bill (which requires an address and cash) will usually do.
You've got it pretty close to right. MS was the prototypical non-player. They had no lobbying force. They had absolutely positively no involvement - ever - in any national political campaign or movement.
Both Clinton and Gore personally soliticed donations from Microsoft for their campaigns. MS refused. The RNC soliticed for donations. MS refused.
When the DOJ began talking to Netscape, IBM, AOL, Sun, and Apple - who of course had large lobbying arms (especially Netscape, Sun and IBM), MS had absolutely no-political covering-fire.
Regardless of the merits of the case, it is nearly 100% certain that MS would not have been brought to court if they had have not refused advances for donations.
Today, MS has the pre-eminent legal and lobbying team for just about any corporation in the country. They shower money and praise on legislators of all stripes. They routinely make donations to even sure-fire losers in elections just in case someone drops dead.
MS may be big, but they aren't stupid. In less than 10 years they went from a political non-entity to a political-powerhouse.
From the article:
Internet Explorer will continue its chokehold on the World Wide Web.
That's a joke. IE is losing marketshare at an amazing rate. Link. All kinds of technical and non-technical sources are recomending a shift-away from Internet Explorer.
But switching can be difficult. Windows users who want to access a document on the Web are sometimes required to use Internet Explorer, flaws and all, even if they have chosen a different product for that purpose.
That's right. A web-publisher can put any conditions he/she wants on viewing the content in the question. You can be asked to pay money, watch an advert, or use certain software.
By tilting Windows users toward Internet Explorer in this and other ways over the past nine years, Microsoft has ensured that many consumers are using a less secure browser than they would if offered a neutral choice, and prevented other software companies from competing for these customers on the merits.
That's untrue. MS pre-selecting IE does not preclude others from competing. That's a blatantly untrue statement. It makes it more difficult. That's a big difference.
The Clinton Justice Department proved all of these facts at trial. Yet the lower courts did not move to restore freedom of competition in the market for Web browsers, because they found Microsoft's appeal for freedom more compelling.
MS's argument all along was that it's market share was at risk, and that any moment, a competitor could grap the reigns and win back the web. They argued that the barriers to entry - regardless of what they did - were very low. Low and behold, the best browser on the market is free, open source, and multi-platform. On top of that, other browsers like Opera are low-cost and multi-platform (and also superior).
One such innovation was in writing the shared blocks of code that support both operating system and Web browsing functions in Windows. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, describing Windows and Internet Explorer as "physically and technologically integrated" through this sharing of code.
Microsoft was right. Using this method of integration is very common place now. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. What if MS loses market share and Konqueror becomes the dominant browser. Will makers of file-manager utilities sue the developers and because their product cannot compete with products that tie into the rendering engine?
By a software product does not consist of code. If it did, you would own the Windows code on your computer and could sell copies of that code with impunity.
You license the code, as you goes on to point out. But regardless of the license, the heart of software is code, not IP.
The courts have missed a golden opportunity to affirm the freedom to compete in the information age.
The courts did nothing to MS. So ask yourself. Is there more or less competition than there was in the 90's? How is that possible if MS was able to do what the government allege? If MS had an illegal monopoly on operating systems for x86 computers, how come there are more now than at anytime in history? How come users have dozens more choices than ever? And if MS leveraged the operating system lock up browsers, how come we have more choice now than ever for browsers? How come on x86 alone there are at least 4 major choices for quality web-browsing?
The government was wrong. MS had a large marketshare, but short of patenting everything in sight, it is impossible to have a monopoly on intellectual property like software.
You cannot corner the supply side of software!
The USA (call it "freedom" land if you want) has the HIGHEST encarceration rate (% of population in jail) of any nation. Does that sounds like a bastion of unparalleled freedom to you? It would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.
First off, your claim is wrong. It has the highest percentage of its population in criminal justice system of any industrialized (aka, G8) country.
I'd expect this, and even demand it. Why? Because first off, in many countries - namely certain European ones - violent even deadly criminals are not properly incarcerated due to financial contraints. Meaning, their average is low because they dont want to spend the money to do it right.
Second, justice dictates that those who ignore the mandates of the many and their elected representatives be treated appropriately.
Third, justice dictates that the law be applied evenely and fairly. In so many countries, rampant corruption is so regular that it is part of every day life. In this country as well as others a corruption case is a big deal. A sheriff or jailer taking a bribe to release someone is virtually unheard of
You have no idea what you talking about. Do some research. Our criminal justice system is effective, and it is a hallmark of a fair and equitable country.
I never contended that what they did was legal, only that the lawsuits have NOT stopped the downloading.
They have dramatically reduced activity. And they have certainly stopped those we were doing it.
but now you feel she not only should have known better it was justifiable for the RIAA to not only sue her but refuse to drop the case when the facts surfaced
No, I content that 12-yr olds should not be allowed to operate unsupervised, and that if she does, she should be held responsible for her actions as well should her guardians for being so remiss.
His grandkids had installed the software when visiting without his permission or knowledge. They downloaded some music, and left it running, set to start on startup. So the real violaters were his grandkids, he was an innocent bystander. Yet again your reaction is he got what he deserved.
Yes. He was operating a machine he was unqualified to operate, and was as such responsible for his ignorance.
Funny that there was no accusation in my post.
Yes, there was. The accusation was that Congress was owned by corporations and that RIAA/MPAA had purchased this law in a corrupt exchange.
As far as your claim they aren't working, get a clue. Do some research.
they got ripped off when they signed their contracts with the record companies
I can enter into any contract I want within the bounds of the law. There are thousands of very weatlhy artists. Even if they were ripped off by the RIAA, it doesnt make it okay for them to be ripped off by people who want without thinking of the law.
How soon we forget the studies that have shown that active downloaders buy more music
Irrelevant. That's irrelevant. If I make music and choose to release only to people I want, thats MY RIGHT. NOT YOURS TO BARTER AWAY WILLY-NILLY.
I'm far more concerned about things like that being prevented that Congress wasting time and money to pass yet more laws to go after music downloaders.
Lame argument. Congress can do more than aone thing at a time. Congress will continue to pass laws until the issue is resolved.
someone trojans your machine and starts sharing files off of it, then you find out 3 weeks later and spend 2 weeks trying to get it stopped weren't you "knowingly" sharing for those 2 weeks, even though you were trying to stop it? Yes you were, and you too could wind up in jail thanks to this law.
If you find out, you pull the plug. 30-seconds. Knowingly has a legal definition, you should look it up. It means you know what you are doing, and choose to do it anyways. Figure it idiot. You can make up lame examples all you want, it doesn't change the fact that this law is completely justified.
The public has spoken, repeatedly, by their actions that they do not support the RIAA's current business model any longer, that they will not stop downloading music even in the face of adverse consequences.
This isn't about a business model. This is about the law. The public has said that if P2P infringement is easy, they'll do it. Nothing more.
Further threat of jail time will just further crowd the already overcrowded jails with -- people who downloaded some music online. Now that's a good use of taxpayer dollars.
Ohh right. We should lock up murderers. You and I know both know that jail time will be for only the most extreme cases, and even then in a limited format.
Let's be real here. You have no idea idea what this law will or will not do. You haven't read the text, even though it is readily available. You have no idea what effect on musicians, artists, programmers, FOSS advocates, or whatnot will be if uninhibited P2P is allowed to proceed.
You haven't thought anywhere past the basic "Congress is in the pocket of the RIAA" and "Illegal music downloading helps muscians becauase it makes them more popular" and "why are we bothering with these crimes when crimes X Y and Z aren't stamped out yet". Typical childish perspectives.
I would not consider a search of my house without my knowledge to be reasonable under ANY curcumstances, much less because it was decided by a secret court.
Well then you are completely at odds with just about every court who has ever decided the topic. The whole point of the FISA court is that in some cases letting the defandant know his/her premises has been searched invalidates the search itself. So, basically, you are wrong. You do not have a right to be free from unknown to you searches. There is a large bit of process that has to be followed to get such a warrant. They are rare. And easily justifiable.
Yes, this right has been restored but it was STILL lost to the war on terror.
When something contreversial happens, it is challenged in court. If the court says reinforces the action, a precendent is set. If it strikes down the action, a precendent is set. A precendent in support of strong protections have been set. This is a victory for freedom, not a loss. Yes the liberty of a person or small number of persons was restricted. That is the sacrifice that must be made sometimes in the name of increased liberty for all.
Where in there do you see anything that says Citizen, American, or any term that could be construed as NOT applying to US Residents who are not also citizens?
This is very basic. International terrorists are not criminals. They are not accused of crimes, but rather, acts of wars, which are by definition not crimes. Therefore, as you can clearly see by the language of the amendment, no protection is afforded. This is very basic. The courts have affirmed this dozens of times.
Your original question didn't stipulate that the rights could not be later restored by another body.
You are claiming that the 6th amendment and 4th amendments were lost liberties: gone. I am saying, they were interuppted one way, that was struck down. An instance, a single case of something does not mean liberty has been lost. Get it into your head. This is how government has worked for 225+ years. A law is passed. It is enforced. It is challenged in court. The court reviews the law and its enforcement. The court makes a ruling on its applicability and constitutionality. It is appealed up to and including the Supreme Court. Repeat as needed.
The current administration has started to use "free speech zones" to keep protesters out of sight.
This is based on an old law, not a law that was passed during the "current administration". The ability to legally place mass-protestors in designated areas is decades old. DECADES. Get it into your head. This isn't anything new. Protestors have never had the right to go anywhere, to go onto private property, to have front row access.
The military have banned all photographs of returning Coffins from Iraq.
That is a bald-face lie. They have not banned photographs. They have not banned the printing of photos of Coffins from Iraq. They have restricted access to the air-force base where they are recieved.
I am going to try to get something into your head. The 1st amendment says that you print anything, say anything, etc. It does not guarantee you a right to get into a military base, at a certain given time, and photograph a certain given something. If you were, by some chance, able to get into said military base and take said photographs there is NOTHING the military or anyone else could do to prohibit you from publishing those photos.
Can you tell me who this is supposed to help?
My bosses son was in Iraq. Maybe she'd rather not have his coffin photographed and splashed over the front cover of Time, on anti-Bush T-shirts, and on bumber stickers and on TV everynight. Did you ever think of that? Regardless. Despite these wishes if you had said photos, it'd be perfectly legal for you to print them. Check out thememoryhole.org if you need proof that it is legal to publish them.
Even if you don't
Thats great.. but what, do you think wherever you live doesn't have a [dictator|despot|Congress|Parliment|Executive]?
You think you'll be the nation who says F.U. to the rest of the world?
When the US and EU start imposing trade sanctions, when your ISPs are refused peering with US telecos who own much of the backbone, and your machines targetted by trade associates you will realize your profanity and idiocy was at your own peril.
No, the average person does not spend $10,000 on healthcare. Maybe a household, but no, not per person.
Whether the family pays for it or not, it is paying for at some point. Whether through reduced services or increased taxes, it is being paid for.
And what's the lifetime cap on her insurance policy? What will she do if she runs into the lifetime cap and can't get more coverage?
When that happens you are eligible for Medicare/Medicaid.
I guess my point is the liberty lost..
Your point is wrong. The claim is that we are less free and have less liberty since 9/11.
Here is a case were the government tried to expand its power, and the natural checks and balances prevented that from happening.
Clearly there was injustice and harm done to this individual. Clearly. However, this is not shut-and-close, all is lost, the government is repressing me, this is it time. If our right to a redress of grievances, to a trial, to not be held without charges was truly jeopordized this man would never have been released. That's the status quo in very many places across the world. Here, he fought the government, and won!
That's something to be celebrated, not lamented. Clearly he was wrong. But the great thing about system is that now you and I have greater freedom and greater liberty thanks to his sacrifice and tribulation.