This must be the "liberal media" I keep hearing people bitch so much about.
FYI,
When you hear right wing radio types talking about the liberal media, they are explicitly excluding radio, especially AM, because until a certain formely large popular bombastic radio host came around AM radio was, for all intents and purposes, dead.
The right-wing "owns" so much of talk radio because they resurrected it as a medium from the grave by working out syndication deals. The right-wing loves to talk about the liberal media in print, on TV, on the major broadcast networks, etc.
The main fuel for this type of "liberal media" argument is that 90% of journalists want a democrat as a president.
Now, I'd like to see your Catholic school take one of THOSE kids, many of whom are suffering from severe malnutrition, and get them to have an SAT score 150-200 points above average. That's just something to think about.
My Catholic grade school, for example, did not reject any student, on any basis. We had students of ALL stripes.
Now as far as your point about water and crackers and stuff, that is not nearly as common as you make it out to be.
As far as you being self-educating, I can guarantee that you haven't always been that way.
Likewise, you have made your fair share of errors.
I never said my school was better, or that our education better. I said it was different. And I talked about some of the differences.
The real lesson I learned is to not talk on the phone and post to slashdot.
Out of everyone I know, I consider myself to be very poorly educated, actually. I was always a below average student, and always below average in terms of language skills especially in regards to English (not native).
All we need to do is give staff ultimate authority, with no accountability, and that will solve ALL of our problems!
Some times you have to bypass the bullshit, excuse making and kick the fucking kid out. That's it. No appeals, no lawyers, no school board.
The bottom line is that education has to be a mutually agreeable circumstance. If any involved actors do not wish to participate they should be shown the door.
Yes, we certainly need to send our kids to boot camp at an age where their hormones are changing daily.
Boot camp? Who said anything about boot camp?
We need to teach them that to deviate is to be wrong and punishable
What are you talking about? Enforcing a modicum of respect, academic seriousness, and discpline is hardly making them conformist automatons.
Oh yeah, now I understand why so many Catholic school kids I know are stoners these days.
What are you talking about?
but just because you have a succesful institution implemented in your area doesn't automatically make every private school better than every public school.
I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS THE PERFECT SOLUTION.
However, to be sure, there are elements of private education that could be applied to public education.
FYI. Where I was schooled, they had a dress code, but you could buy from anyone you wanted. Uniforms are unfair - I mean, who needs to support a monopoly?
A dress code enforces the same ideas but leaves the student some leaway to express themselves, to be unique, and to control the clothes they wear.
This sort of archaic conservative-society mentality is exactly what I thought of when I read the book review above - it places superficial appearances over actual results.
I agree to a small degree. My real-life experience is the opposite of what high-school taught me. I come to work wearing clothes that are comfortable to work in and are generally presentable in case the odd client comes through. Some jobs really do require a signigantly more dressy attire. Any type of position where your apperance represents a client is a position where style that is offensive to any number of people is unacceptable. For example, though I may hire you as a systems engineer, I would not hire you as my attorney should I need to go in front of a criminal court.
Apperenance generally means little, but, in a pinch, it can be a revealing judge of character. You can look at a person who is unkepmt, unshaven, with unnaturally colored hair, wearing clothes that are not the norm for a circumstance and surmise that the person does not feel the need to conform to societal expectations regarding apperance. That may help or hurt the person in your eyes. Likewise you can look at a morbidly obese person and determine that perhaps he or she isn't the best candidate to be your personal trainer and dietician.
Apperances are mostly good for making a first impression.
Employers who enforce a need to look "professional" usually are doing so out of a good reason. Mostly these cases where outward apperance are important are related to cases where the employee represents a client to a 3rd party.
The bit about dress codes though is not to enforce some false sense of conformity.
It has many benefits you gloss over:
1. It removes the perception of economic barriers: all students look equally acceptably dressed. Brand names and expensive logos take a drastic cut in importance. There is some wiggle room to display your economic status (ie, top of the line designer generic blazer as opposed to generic name brand generic blazer), however the effect is largely achieved.
2. It removes articial distractions. Students wearing clothing that barely covers the family jewels are a major problem in some areas (especially warm areas). It really isn't appropriate for 14 to 18 year old women to be showing significant cleavage.
3. It enforces some discpline.
I agree to a degree.. I mean, I knew plenty of kids who came from broken homes, single parent homes, etc.
But you are correct. You had to make an effort to be there. Personal interviews with an officer of the school. Written essays. Placement tests. Plus a financial contribution equal to what you could afford to pay.
Yeap, truly, it was a voluntary establishment. Public school truly has it's place. But alot could be accomplished by taking some cues from private education.
The point is, that the fact that the teachers held a religious belief doesn't mean that the students had to. The school served a proportionally less catholic population than the area as a whole. The whole state is practically 75% catholic, the city probably more so, and yet the school was no more than 50%, if that.
The fact is that students coming out of this school are probably at lot better informed of various religious viewpoints and beliefs than anyone coming a public school.
As far as SAT scores, it was a big deal when the school hit an average of 1325 (what was average a few years back? 1100? 1050?. If you filtered out the bottom 10% of my class, the average was in the high 1400s. If you picked just the top 50% of the class the avearge was in the low 1500s. If you picked the top 10% of the class the average was above 1590. If you picked the top 5 students the avearge was 1600.
I suspect your private school was both better funded and had a larger percentage of middle to high income kids.
I can guarantee you not. The schools mandate was to serve the underprivelaged. Most kids were (1) first or second generation immigrants, (2) children of poor catholics, (3) children of large families (for example, I have 5 siblings, my best friend had 8!).
We had no "free" or "reduced" lunch; our cafeteria was pay only or brown bag. I think the economic factor is off base. I know when I was there we were spending $8,000 per student while the public high-schools in towns were spending $12,000. (And just so you know, because I asked this when I was told, the indentured teachers - aka priests - were paid a full salary but then donated the proceeds to their order).
Oh, and if someone at my school had physically attacked our principal in the cafeteria, the administrators would have restrained the kid very quickly, and the kid would have been expelled. It wouldn't have been instantaneous like in your school, but it certainly would have happened.
Now, if that happens, it's not automatic. In my hometown there was a student who attacked a teacher in the parking lot. He was expelled, but then lawsuits were waived about, he was changed to a 10-day suspension, then a 5-day, and then finally he was just back in school. Where I was there was a low threshold for BS. The teachers didnt have to worry about the ACLU. Didnt have to worry about students rallying to not read books they thought were wrong, etc. You did as told, or you could pound sand. The kids who really made it hard for themselves were the ones who were trying to get kicked out but whose parents had worked out arrangements with the school to make sure they couldn't be kicked out. Punishments became very creative for them. In a public school they'd go to school to protest being singled out, they'd cave, Jesse Jackson may get involved, etc.
I went to all religious schooling, my whole life. Never set foot in a public school until I was 16 and went to take the SAT at a public school across town.
You can take a look around my area and notice that virtually every prominent civic, business, and social leader followed the same track as I did. Bank presidents, mayors, city politicans, state senators, our Congressperson, etc.
My high-school routinely scored 150-200 points higher than average on the SATs.
On top of that, we took students of all economic backgrounds, all racial backgrounds, and all religious backgrounds. The only discrimination at the time was that it was all-male.
The difference in my view? My teachers were either all Jesuit priests, all themselves educated by Jesuit priests, or at very least, dedicated to their style and manner of teaching.
I can't say exactly why the school does better than public education, but by all measures, it does. So many things are different: a student took a swing once in the cafeteria at our litterally ~75 year old WWII-era Marine vice-principal. After avoiding the attack with cat-like grace and precision, he grabbed the kid by the hair and physically expelled him from campus. Can you imagine that happening at a public school? What type of red-tape would have to be brought to bear at a government run school?
Other differences? I can think of a few that might be relevant: strict dress code - pressed pants, starched shirt, suit-coat or blazer, appropriate tie, groomed hair, proper facial hair care (beards/goatees, etc allowed, but must be neat), authority of teachers, non-reproach of teachers on matter of discipline (example: teacher told student if he didn't stop interupting he'd be forced to stand the rest of the year instead of sitting. Result? Student stood for 2 months at the back of the room), required civics class, required ethics class, required religious education class (contrary to belief, it was not an evangelical style class; it was a serious study of religion; 1 year of scholarly biblical study, 1 semester of study of Jewish scripture, 1 semester stufy of world religion, 1 year study of non-religious spirituality, 1 year study of christianity), required public speaking classes, etc. Non-core non-liberal education topics were discouraged: minimal technology classes (typing, basic computing skills), minimal phys. ed, no vo-tech, etc.
..I worked as the sole admin for 2200 Windows2k desktops at one time, as well as about the 10 Win2k servers needed to keep things running (two directory, three fileservers, two DNS, two intranet, and then testbed boxen).
There is nothing like trying to keep that number of boxes running all by yourself to keep you on your toes.
That's right, never. On the other hand, when other countries do it to the US, they will whinge and throw their fists about like some cry baby, until they get their way!
What? Are you kidding? Americans get extradited all the time. Not as often as some would like, because frankly, the crimes they comitt abroad can also be prosecuted here in the US.
Extradition is largely a tool for when one nation doesn't have a corresponding law. That's all.
It means that CBS, ABC, and NBC are no longer anywhere near the 90% marketshare they used to be.
Between cable news, the Internet, newspapers, newsmagazines, etc the nightly news isn't what 50% or more of people watch. For the first time a cable network (Fox News) beat all major networks in viewership for the conventions.
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Is this what happened?
Did the "mass media" not cover it because it wanted to suppress that which it considered objectionable?
No. The "mass media" did not cover it because "middle America" - the consumers of "mass media" find it objectionable.
Many of the articles listed are hyperbole ridden "what-if" scenarios. For example, the Selective Service is planning for a draft? GOOD. THAT'S THEIR MANDATE. Somehow this is supposed to shock the population and move us against a war.
The whole list is stuff that the compilers are saying "should big big top-line headlines but instead were barely noticed, and that makes us mad". Calling this censor ship is crap.
Most Americans NO LONGER get their news from a "major network".
Calling anything in this country "censorship" is bogus. A media outlet not running a story for fear of losing it's audience; a media outlet not publishing or promoting stories based on speculation, FUD, or whim is not "censorship".
Censorship is communist China, where publishing an article about a religious devotee gets you life in prison; censorship is communist China where publishing pornography gets you executed. Censorshop is in Iraq, where publishing a story critical of the clerics in charge of your city gets you brutally murdered.
Not everyone knows what Sunbird is. I know from the article teaser above that it's from Mozilla, and it's like Firefox. So it's a browser, like firefox? Or an e-mal client like Thunderbird?
In the future, you may get better response by telling us exactly what it is being reviewed.
"So just upgrade to Windows XP!" Not everybody's computer hardware (remember, from before fall 2001) meets XP's increased system requirements. Or has Microsoft published a program that would optimize Windows XP for use on older computers with less RAM and less hard disk space?
Windows XP, on balance, uses fewer system resources than Windows ME and Windows 2000 Professional, significantly pushing back your timeline. The fact remains that XP will run happily on a 300 mhz celeron with 128 MB of RAM and 5 GB hard disk (I know, for a fact).
The performance of XP is signficantly snappier than you might imagine on such a machine.
There's one thing to that, though. You have to be dependent on how secure your home mailbox is.
Not really. The codes are useless without the physical presence of your card. I agree that things like PINS are attractive, but in fact, I find them to be less secure as people just tend to set them to 0000's, etc.
With what I am proposing it requires physical posseion of two items, plus use within a specified time period plus the fact that you'd have the various codes dollar limited. With that combination you are hard pressed to lose.
You need access to the post office PLUS your credit card. And even then, the codes are dollar amounted limited (like, you could order 10 a month of under $50, 5 a month under $10, 1 a month over $250) and time limited.
A simple phone call with an automated system from a set of listed phone numbers adds an additional layer of security: now a person would have to intercept your mail, steal wallet, break in your home and make a phone call, then go on an online shopping spree. Compared to now where all they have to do is steal your wallet, that's a big step up in my mind.. plus in my idea you dont have to worry about crappy vendors having your number stolen..
Market share isn't the point. The point is what else is available.
Consider other monopolies. If you are a monopoly on, let's say, diamonds, it's not hard to maintain your monopoly. You just raise prices, and purchase any newly discovered diamond mines. That way you can control supply, and keep it restricted to inflate prices and create a false sense of shortfall. This is how DeBeers can corner the market, even though they hold about a 80% stake in the market. Even though 20% of the market is held by other companies, they still hold a very firm monopoly position.
In MS's case, they can't buy up the supply, because the supply works for free or almost free. The supply of OS's - namely Linux - cannot be stopped. Even if the top developers were hired off, new developers are being minted every day. In the diamond world, DeBeers can raise and lower prices without regard to any other economic factor. Since they hold so much of the supply, other supplies cannot make up for the cut in productions. Meaning, if DeBeers cuts production in half, the other producers cannot make up the shortfall, and prices will rocket.
The fact that MS is not a monopoly is perfectly clear by any reasonable standard. 6-years ago if you wanted to negotiate prices with MS, they laughed at you, and told you to sign on the dotted line as-is. Now, all you need to do is mention "Linux" and a special reaction squad kicks into gear and sharpens their pencil to come up with a more competitive offer.
What does all this mean? It means that, even though only 1-3% of home users utilize Linux, it can effectively compete with MS, and force MS to be more competitive than ever in terms of pricing, support, and especially quality.
The bottom line being that since Linux costs basically nothing to produce, nothing to distribute, and very little maintain the relative effects of it's small marketshare are multipled greatly.
They can prosecute MS on performing illegal acts to obtain a monopoly on other things than operating systems.
Untrue. Everything MS was accused of doing in the first trial is illegal IF AND ONLY IF they possed a monopoly on desktop operating systems for x86 hardware.
Without that monopoly, there is no violation. MS's tactics are exactly legal if they are not a monopoly on desktop operating systems.
The crime is obtaining a majority of the market without the consumers wanting it
No. There is no crime in a having a monopoly. The crime is illegally maintaining a monopoly, and using a monopoly to extend into a new market.
For example, can MS start making toaster, and require that stores that carry MS toasters ONLY carry their line of toasters? Yes, of course they can. Will anyone listen? No, of course not. Why would a store that sells appliances only get onboard with one maker. Not smart.
Likewise, MS can do the same with operating systems, codecs, anything they want assuming that they are not not a monopoly in that market.
When the settlement expires, MS will probably file for a ruling declaring they are not a monopoly. Then, with that as established fact, the gloves will be off.
Ohh right.. because we all know MS has a monopoly on video codecs.. ohh wait.. or, rather, media technology.. ohh wait.. hmm.. desktop operating systems?
That's an idea. MS's anti-trust settlement expires soon. That means for any new litigation the issue of whether MS has a monopoly on desktop operating systems must be redecided.
Let's think about that one. You think anyone could prove this time around MS has a monopoly when there are millions of Linux users out there?
Slashdot Mirror
This must be the "liberal media" I keep hearing people bitch so much about.
FYI,
When you hear right wing radio types talking about the liberal media, they are explicitly excluding radio, especially AM, because until a certain formely large popular bombastic radio host came around AM radio was, for all intents and purposes, dead.
The right-wing "owns" so much of talk radio because they resurrected it as a medium from the grave by working out syndication deals. The right-wing loves to talk about the liberal media in print, on TV, on the major broadcast networks, etc.
The main fuel for this type of "liberal media" argument is that 90% of journalists want a democrat as a president.
Now, I'd like to see your Catholic school take one of THOSE kids, many of whom are suffering from severe malnutrition, and get them to have an SAT score 150-200 points above average. That's just something to think about.
My Catholic grade school, for example, did not reject any student, on any basis. We had students of ALL stripes.
Now as far as your point about water and crackers and stuff, that is not nearly as common as you make it out to be.
As far as you being self-educating, I can guarantee that you haven't always been that way.
Likewise, you have made your fair share of errors.
I never said my school was better, or that our education better. I said it was different. And I talked about some of the differences.
The real lesson I learned is to not talk on the phone and post to slashdot.
Out of everyone I know, I consider myself to be very poorly educated, actually. I was always a below average student, and always below average in terms of language skills especially in regards to English (not native).
Thanks.
All we need to do is give staff ultimate authority, with no accountability, and that will solve ALL of our problems!
Some times you have to bypass the bullshit, excuse making and kick the fucking kid out. That's it. No appeals, no lawyers, no school board.
The bottom line is that education has to be a mutually agreeable circumstance. If any involved actors do not wish to participate they should be shown the door.
You'd be surprised at the students that most private schools will take. It's hardly the whitewashed "cream of the cream" environment you'd imagine.
The students going in resemble nothing at all the students coming out.
Yes, we certainly need to send our kids to boot camp at an age where their hormones are changing daily.
Boot camp? Who said anything about boot camp?
We need to teach them that to deviate is to be wrong and punishable
What are you talking about? Enforcing a modicum of respect, academic seriousness, and discpline is hardly making them conformist automatons.
Oh yeah, now I understand why so many Catholic school kids I know are stoners these days.
What are you talking about?
but just because you have a succesful institution implemented in your area doesn't automatically make every private school better than every public school.
I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS THE PERFECT SOLUTION.
However, to be sure, there are elements of private education that could be applied to public education.
FYI. Where I was schooled, they had a dress code, but you could buy from anyone you wanted. Uniforms are unfair - I mean, who needs to support a monopoly?
A dress code enforces the same ideas but leaves the student some leaway to express themselves, to be unique, and to control the clothes they wear.
This sort of archaic conservative-society mentality is exactly what I thought of when I read the book review above - it places superficial appearances over actual results.
I agree to a small degree. My real-life experience is the opposite of what high-school taught me. I come to work wearing clothes that are comfortable to work in and are generally presentable in case the odd client comes through. Some jobs really do require a signigantly more dressy attire. Any type of position where your apperance represents a client is a position where style that is offensive to any number of people is unacceptable. For example, though I may hire you as a systems engineer, I would not hire you as my attorney should I need to go in front of a criminal court.
Apperenance generally means little, but, in a pinch, it can be a revealing judge of character. You can look at a person who is unkepmt, unshaven, with unnaturally colored hair, wearing clothes that are not the norm for a circumstance and surmise that the person does not feel the need to conform to societal expectations regarding apperance. That may help or hurt the person in your eyes. Likewise you can look at a morbidly obese person and determine that perhaps he or she isn't the best candidate to be your personal trainer and dietician.
Apperances are mostly good for making a first impression.
Employers who enforce a need to look "professional" usually are doing so out of a good reason. Mostly these cases where outward apperance are important are related to cases where the employee represents a client to a 3rd party.
The bit about dress codes though is not to enforce some false sense of conformity.
It has many benefits you gloss over:
1. It removes the perception of economic barriers: all students look equally acceptably dressed. Brand names and expensive logos take a drastic cut in importance. There is some wiggle room to display your economic status (ie, top of the line designer generic blazer as opposed to generic name brand generic blazer), however the effect is largely achieved.
2. It removes articial distractions. Students wearing clothing that barely covers the family jewels are a major problem in some areas (especially warm areas). It really isn't appropriate for 14 to 18 year old women to be showing significant cleavage.
3. It enforces some discpline.
I agree to a degree.. I mean, I knew plenty of kids who came from broken homes, single parent homes, etc.
But you are correct. You had to make an effort to be there. Personal interviews with an officer of the school. Written essays. Placement tests. Plus a financial contribution equal to what you could afford to pay.
Yeap, truly, it was a voluntary establishment. Public school truly has it's place. But alot could be accomplished by taking some cues from private education.
The point is, that the fact that the teachers held a religious belief doesn't mean that the students had to. The school served a proportionally less catholic population than the area as a whole. The whole state is practically 75% catholic, the city probably more so, and yet the school was no more than 50%, if that.
The fact is that students coming out of this school are probably at lot better informed of various religious viewpoints and beliefs than anyone coming a public school.
As far as SAT scores, it was a big deal when the school hit an average of 1325 (what was average a few years back? 1100? 1050?. If you filtered out the bottom 10% of my class, the average was in the high 1400s. If you picked just the top 50% of the class the avearge was in the low 1500s. If you picked the top 10% of the class the average was above 1590. If you picked the top 5 students the avearge was 1600.
I suspect your private school was both better funded and had a larger percentage of middle to high income kids. I can guarantee you not. The schools mandate was to serve the underprivelaged. Most kids were (1) first or second generation immigrants, (2) children of poor catholics, (3) children of large families (for example, I have 5 siblings, my best friend had 8!).
We had no "free" or "reduced" lunch; our cafeteria was pay only or brown bag. I think the economic factor is off base. I know when I was there we were spending $8,000 per student while the public high-schools in towns were spending $12,000. (And just so you know, because I asked this when I was told, the indentured teachers - aka priests - were paid a full salary but then donated the proceeds to their order).
Oh, and if someone at my school had physically attacked our principal in the cafeteria, the administrators would have restrained the kid very quickly, and the kid would have been expelled. It wouldn't have been instantaneous like in your school, but it certainly would have happened.
Now, if that happens, it's not automatic. In my hometown there was a student who attacked a teacher in the parking lot. He was expelled, but then lawsuits were waived about, he was changed to a 10-day suspension, then a 5-day, and then finally he was just back in school. Where I was there was a low threshold for BS. The teachers didnt have to worry about the ACLU. Didnt have to worry about students rallying to not read books they thought were wrong, etc. You did as told, or you could pound sand. The kids who really made it hard for themselves were the ones who were trying to get kicked out but whose parents had worked out arrangements with the school to make sure they couldn't be kicked out. Punishments became very creative for them. In a public school they'd go to school to protest being singled out, they'd cave, Jesse Jackson may get involved, etc.
It's odd though...
I went to all religious schooling, my whole life. Never set foot in a public school until I was 16 and went to take the SAT at a public school across town.
You can take a look around my area and notice that virtually every prominent civic, business, and social leader followed the same track as I did. Bank presidents, mayors, city politicans, state senators, our Congressperson, etc.
My high-school routinely scored 150-200 points higher than average on the SATs.
On top of that, we took students of all economic backgrounds, all racial backgrounds, and all religious backgrounds. The only discrimination at the time was that it was all-male.
The difference in my view? My teachers were either all Jesuit priests, all themselves educated by Jesuit priests, or at very least, dedicated to their style and manner of teaching.
I can't say exactly why the school does better than public education, but by all measures, it does. So many things are different: a student took a swing once in the cafeteria at our litterally ~75 year old WWII-era Marine vice-principal. After avoiding the attack with cat-like grace and precision, he grabbed the kid by the hair and physically expelled him from campus. Can you imagine that happening at a public school? What type of red-tape would have to be brought to bear at a government run school?
Other differences? I can think of a few that might be relevant: strict dress code - pressed pants, starched shirt, suit-coat or blazer, appropriate tie, groomed hair, proper facial hair care (beards/goatees, etc allowed, but must be neat), authority of teachers, non-reproach of teachers on matter of discipline (example: teacher told student if he didn't stop interupting he'd be forced to stand the rest of the year instead of sitting. Result? Student stood for 2 months at the back of the room), required civics class, required ethics class, required religious education class (contrary to belief, it was not an evangelical style class; it was a serious study of religion; 1 year of scholarly biblical study, 1 semester of study of Jewish scripture, 1 semester stufy of world religion, 1 year study of non-religious spirituality, 1 year study of christianity), required public speaking classes, etc. Non-core non-liberal education topics were discouraged: minimal technology classes (typing, basic computing skills), minimal phys. ed, no vo-tech, etc.
Ohh well.
"Major Networks" = The Big Three (sometimes Four) - ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX. Basically, the broadcast networks.
Two decades ago 90% of people watched the evening news on one of these networks. Now its less 40%, and dropping.
People who get news from other souces tend to get it in lots of other sources. Not just one other source. Get it?
I know the feeling..
..I worked as the sole admin for 2200 Windows2k desktops at one time, as well as about the 10 Win2k servers needed to keep things running (two directory, three fileservers, two DNS, two intranet, and then testbed boxen).
There is nothing like trying to keep that number of boxes running all by yourself to keep you on your toes.
That's right, never. On the other hand, when other countries do it to the US, they will whinge and throw their fists about like some cry baby, until they get their way!
What? Are you kidding? Americans get extradited all the time. Not as often as some would like, because frankly, the crimes they comitt abroad can also be prosecuted here in the US.
Extradition is largely a tool for when one nation doesn't have a corresponding law. That's all.
It means that CBS, ABC, and NBC are no longer anywhere near the 90% marketshare they used to be.
Between cable news, the Internet, newspapers, newsmagazines, etc the nightly news isn't what 50% or more of people watch. For the first time a cable network (Fox News) beat all major networks in viewership for the conventions.
censor
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Is this what happened?
Did the "mass media" not cover it because it wanted to suppress that which it considered objectionable?
No. The "mass media" did not cover it because "middle America" - the consumers of "mass media" find it objectionable.
Many of the articles listed are hyperbole ridden "what-if" scenarios. For example, the Selective Service is planning for a draft? GOOD. THAT'S THEIR MANDATE. Somehow this is supposed to shock the population and move us against a war.
The whole list is stuff that the compilers are saying "should big big top-line headlines but instead were barely noticed, and that makes us mad". Calling this censor ship is crap.
Most Americans NO LONGER get their news from a "major network".
Calling anything in this country "censorship" is bogus. A media outlet not running a story for fear of losing it's audience; a media outlet not publishing or promoting stories based on speculation, FUD, or whim is not "censorship".
Censorship is communist China, where publishing an article about a religious devotee gets you life in prison; censorship is communist China where publishing pornography gets you executed. Censorshop is in Iraq, where publishing a story critical of the clerics in charge of your city gets you brutally murdered.
Let's get real here.
...I know this might be undue but..
Not everyone knows what Sunbird is. I know from the article teaser above that it's from Mozilla, and it's like Firefox. So it's a browser, like firefox? Or an e-mal client like Thunderbird?
In the future, you may get better response by telling us exactly what it is being reviewed.
"So just upgrade to Windows XP!" Not everybody's computer hardware (remember, from before fall 2001) meets XP's increased system requirements. Or has Microsoft published a program that would optimize Windows XP for use on older computers with less RAM and less hard disk space?
Windows XP, on balance, uses fewer system resources than Windows ME and Windows 2000 Professional, significantly pushing back your timeline. The fact remains that XP will run happily on a 300 mhz celeron with 128 MB of RAM and 5 GB hard disk (I know, for a fact).
The performance of XP is signficantly snappier than you might imagine on such a machine.
There's one thing to that, though. You have to be dependent on how secure your home mailbox is.
Not really. The codes are useless without the physical presence of your card. I agree that things like PINS are attractive, but in fact, I find them to be less secure as people just tend to set them to 0000's, etc.
With what I am proposing it requires physical posseion of two items, plus use within a specified time period plus the fact that you'd have the various codes dollar limited. With that combination you are hard pressed to lose.
You need access to the post office PLUS your credit card. And even then, the codes are dollar amounted limited (like, you could order 10 a month of under $50, 5 a month under $10, 1 a month over $250) and time limited.
A simple phone call with an automated system from a set of listed phone numbers adds an additional layer of security: now a person would have to intercept your mail, steal wallet, break in your home and make a phone call, then go on an online shopping spree. Compared to now where all they have to do is steal your wallet, that's a big step up in my mind.. plus in my idea you dont have to worry about crappy vendors having your number stolen..
Market share isn't the point. The point is what else is available.
Consider other monopolies. If you are a monopoly on, let's say, diamonds, it's not hard to maintain your monopoly. You just raise prices, and purchase any newly discovered diamond mines. That way you can control supply, and keep it restricted to inflate prices and create a false sense of shortfall. This is how DeBeers can corner the market, even though they hold about a 80% stake in the market. Even though 20% of the market is held by other companies, they still hold a very firm monopoly position.
In MS's case, they can't buy up the supply, because the supply works for free or almost free. The supply of OS's - namely Linux - cannot be stopped. Even if the top developers were hired off, new developers are being minted every day. In the diamond world, DeBeers can raise and lower prices without regard to any other economic factor. Since they hold so much of the supply, other supplies cannot make up for the cut in productions. Meaning, if DeBeers cuts production in half, the other producers cannot make up the shortfall, and prices will rocket.
The fact that MS is not a monopoly is perfectly clear by any reasonable standard. 6-years ago if you wanted to negotiate prices with MS, they laughed at you, and told you to sign on the dotted line as-is. Now, all you need to do is mention "Linux" and a special reaction squad kicks into gear and sharpens their pencil to come up with a more competitive offer.
Read this article for more details on that.
What does all this mean? It means that, even though only 1-3% of home users utilize Linux, it can effectively compete with MS, and force MS to be more competitive than ever in terms of pricing, support, and especially quality.
The bottom line being that since Linux costs basically nothing to produce, nothing to distribute, and very little maintain the relative effects of it's small marketshare are multipled greatly.
They can prosecute MS on performing illegal acts to obtain a monopoly on other things than operating systems.
Untrue. Everything MS was accused of doing in the first trial is illegal IF AND ONLY IF they possed a monopoly on desktop operating systems for x86 hardware.
Without that monopoly, there is no violation. MS's tactics are exactly legal if they are not a monopoly on desktop operating systems.
The crime is obtaining a majority of the market without the consumers wanting it
No. There is no crime in a having a monopoly. The crime is illegally maintaining a monopoly, and using a monopoly to extend into a new market.
For example, can MS start making toaster, and require that stores that carry MS toasters ONLY carry their line of toasters? Yes, of course they can. Will anyone listen? No, of course not. Why would a store that sells appliances only get onboard with one maker. Not smart.
Likewise, MS can do the same with operating systems, codecs, anything they want assuming that they are not not a monopoly in that market.
When the settlement expires, MS will probably file for a ruling declaring they are not a monopoly. Then, with that as established fact, the gloves will be off.
Ohh right.. because we all know MS has a monopoly on video codecs.. ohh wait.. or, rather, media technology.. ohh wait.. hmm.. desktop operating systems?
That's an idea. MS's anti-trust settlement expires soon. That means for any new litigation the issue of whether MS has a monopoly on desktop operating systems must be redecided.
Let's think about that one. You think anyone could prove this time around MS has a monopoly when there are millions of Linux users out there?