A lot of people saw this comming. During the election flame-wars, many people were posting right here on slashdot that Bush would stop the breakup. This should be a surprise to very few, and certainly none who frequent this board. Bush is so deep in the pockets of big business and industry, it should come as no surprise that Microsoft would jump on that bandwagon when the opportunity arose.
Microsoft donated a total of $4,617,726 to all election campaigns in 2000. Although it does not break down specifically where the money went, 53% went to republicans, 47% to democrats. From an industry standpoint, Bush received $1,177,770 from computer and internet companies, and Gore $580,634. Certainly not huge numbers, but a quick analysis on how Bush's number is more than double the #2, and then there is a pretty linear dropoff, it is not at all unfaur to conclude that since Microsoft was far and away the biggest contributor from this industry group, a large percentage of the Bush money is from them. (A bone for the flame-mongers: More analysis of these numbers would, of course, be necessary for a solid conclusion.)
Although this decision may have also happened had Gore won, I do not think that would be the case - he is too knowledgeable about the tech sector. Also, knowing how Microsoft respects the law, it wouldnt surprise me at all if they made many more untraceable contributions (dont tell me it cant be done, its done all the time). I also wish opensecrets.org would show contributions for the 2004 election, that may be more revealing.
Is any more proof necessary that this is now truely a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation?
In 2000, Microsoft was by far the biggest computer & internet industry contributor to election campaigns with a total of $4.6 Million.
53% of this went to Republicans, 47% to Democrats. Although it does not show to which campaigns received the money, or which level of election (presidental, senatorial, etc), Gore probabaly got a pretty good chunk of this. Microsoft was playing both sides of the table, but I still dont think this would have happened under a Gore administration, he just knows too much about the tech sector.
The worst part is that couldn't we all see this coming
During the campaign flame-wars here, I dont know how many times I saw people right here on slashdot predicting Bush would stop the breakup. Everyone knows he is deep in the pockets of big oil and industry, did you not think Microsoft would get a piece of that action?
If anything the past couple years have shown, is that we now truely have a government by the corporation, of the corporation, and for the corporation.
"There aint no money in a cure!!! They just want you to be able to live with it. Twenty years from now, youll be calling into work 'no, I cant make it in today, my AIDS is acting up'"
So, in the short-term this may seem like a good idea, but in the long term it could do serious damage to the search for an AIDS cure.
Yes! and damage every other medical research going on as well. People dont seem to realize that these companies have to use these profits to pay for all their failed research as well.
I just finished reading a book, and I really hate it when people spew Ayn Rand quotes, but it looks like Roche is a real-world example in what she wrote about in Atlas Shrugged. I dont think the whold world is going this way, but this imaginary quote fits: "Oh, they're just a rich corporation, they make massive profits on this drug that is very cheap to produce, they can afford to give some of that away."
Take away the reason they got into business, they will stop doing business. Simple.
at least they're actually trying to embrace the tech instead of burying their heads in the sand
They are hardly embracing downloadable movies. Just like when DVDs were young, they "embraced" that format by developing DIVX (not the format, the pay-per-view disks and players). You could only watch the movie a few times, then had to pay more. They were even partnered up with large distribution chains such as Nobody Beats the Wiz. Everyone saw through the scam. Only when nobody bought the players or the disks did they even start looking at DVD.
This downloading scam isnt going to work either. Other posts have written that the average user is the one targetted by this service, not the geeks with the toys that hang out here. They can pretty much forget about average users using this system. On my dialup home connection, a 500M download would probably take more than 50 hours, and my connection ALWAYS crashes before then. The simple fact is, even with broadband, 500M is huge. The so-called "average user" is going to say "f it" and drive to Blockbuster.
You are right, however, that this is a first step. However, just like now, they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming for each successive step along the way, just like in the DVD/DIVX "battle".
When will these geniuses realize that it is better to have 20 people buy something for $10 than have 1 buy it for $100?
The olympic motto is "Swifter. Higher. Stronger." I fail to see how this includes chess and other non-physical competitions.
I realize other so-called sports that dont fit this motto are in, such as rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming. I dont think they belong either.
One way in which it could fit, is if the International Olympic Committee realized that the ancient olympics were a substitution for battle. The city-states of Greece sometimes avoided outright war and relied on the games to better their rival states. Chess would definately fit in this case. However, they seem to have given up tradition and pride in place of anything that makes money.
Because the fetus shouldn't have been destroyed in the first place.
So? You cant enter a debate and base your arguments on facts that you arbitrarily change. The fetus IS being thrown out. Whether or not that should happen is a completely different debate. This one is based upon the fact they are being thrown out, so your conclusions are invalid to begin with.
I thought he was taking his time because he wanted to present the appearance of actually considering it, but he actually did
I am still doubtful of this. I think he was more concerned with finding a politically neutral compromise, rather than being branded either as a right-wing heartless religious fanatic or a liar who reversed yet another of his campaign promises. The delay was probably necessary to consult with his advisers. There was a Reuters article after his meeting with the Pope on this topic, and I thought it quite funny that he actually said that (paraphrase) This is something I will have to think long and hard about, which is unusual for my administration. (/paraphrase)
As for the topic of my note, I think his was a cop-out solution. The fact is, these fetuses are being destroyed every day. They were not being bred for the purpose of stem cell research (although, I do not doubt that this possibility could arise, something could have been done about that separately - you dont throw the baby away with the bathwater, no pun intended). Why not, as the plains indians did, use all the parts of the buffalo? If a fetus is going to be destroyed anyway, why not allow this? That is what I dont understand, at least offer the parents a choice of whether or not to let it be used. I do not see a moral dilemma here.
Science at one point in history did believe those things, science changed at another point
Science never claimed that the world was flat, or that the Earth was at the center of the universe. You are going to have to drop some names here to support your argument. But before you do, realize that philosopers are not scientists; thinkers/sages are not scientists; seers are not scientists; oracles are not scientists. Scientists work through experimentation and observation. The first scientist to really challenge the notion that the Earth was flat was Gallileo, who for his efforts, was excommunicated. The church never has, and is still not open to any science that undermines their centuries of indoctrination of the masses. Dont even think of saying the church was merely embracing the previous scientific model because a) they didnt, and b) there was no previous scientific model, only guesses and assumptions.
Are hiring. Youre not going to get much else as a 16-year old unless a parent or someone else you know hooks you up. Companies do not hire summer workers and after-school part-timers into career-type positions.
The fact is, your first job is not going to help you down the road. Its very rare that it will be on your resume. You learn about the job market and workplace in general. You develop a work ethic and learn to appreciate the value of the money you do earn. Its supposed to be a type of real-world extension of your education.
I agree that the bubbling seen is very strange and certainly not caused by static electric discharge, but your soldering iron example is not a good example. The fact is, chips cannot always "take a lot more energy than your finger" Different kinds of energy will yield different results. I have worked for 6 years in electronic disty and alot of money is spent on preventing static discharge because it does not take much static electricity at all to ruin an IC. So little, in fact, that the shock you get when touching a lightswitch on a dry day is tens of times more powerful that needed. In fact, the charge necessary to ruin most ICs is not even perceptable by human touch.
The plastic or ceramic casing of the chip and metal leads are designed to withstand heat sources, such as you soldering iron. This was probably a design specification from back in the days when soldering irons were used to solder the chips to the board. However, the fine wires _inside_ cannot take much of a shock. Kind of like if you were to run 100 amps through a 5 amp fuse. The leads on which you applied the charge may show little or no effect, but the filament on the inside is cut.
As an aside, the picture posted is quite dramatic. As first glace, I would guess that the guy is not using a sufficient surge protector. Remember, he is in California and their electricity situation has not been very steady lately. When a power grid is on the verge of failing, power wanes, and surges all the time. I would not be surprised at all if this is the sort of thing that happened. Either that, or the cat chewed through the power cord...
While it is true that there would be no forced licensing, they cannot selectively license: Boucher said the bill would require companies that license their songs to a third-party company to grant similar licenses to other distributors. However, he said the bill would not require compulsory licensing. In other words, if a music label does not want to license a song, it wouldn't have to. If they licence a given song to the online distribution company they created or work with, that song is avaiable for all online distribution companies to license.
There is an article on yahoo today called the The Music Online Competition Act (MOTA). Introduced by Chris Cannon (R-Utah), and our friend Rick Boucher (D-Va), it seems to take into account these 2 services. It states basically, that any song the record labels licence to these services, but be made available to licence to any third party online music distribution service that wants it. Boucher explains that he wants to avoid a distribution monopoly.
I particularly like the line about the RIAA's reaction: Not surprisingly, the RIAA bashed the bill, saying it favors government regulation over market forces. The irony here is so thick here, it doesnt require any more comment.
I say, let the businesses have their internet, and watch it crash and burn. If they haven't learned yet, maybe this will teach them.
Sure, it will teach them - teach them to follow us. While their internet crashes and burns, they will see that the new net that we start in its place is thriving just as theirs had years ago. At that point, they will start migrating to our net and demanding that we make changes to accomodate them...
Corporations and governments dont learn from history, just look at the rolls that massive banking/insurance/investment companies played in the 1929 stock market crash and look at those companies comming back today. Their attitude will be, even if they eventually destroy that net, we will have started another for them to loot. This needs to be stopped here. Unfortunately, I do not know how.
I used to belong to a newsletter that had a weekly mailing with news in the electronic components industry. At the end they usually had an interesting or funny story. They claimed this one was true. I cannot support it one way or the other.
A salesman was running a demo for some voice recognition software at a trade show. After a bit of a delay from his starting time, he was able to finish setting up and get the crowd calmed down. Just as he started his demo, someone in the crowd yelled, "FORMAT C: RETURN!". Then, a quick thinking accomplace yelled "YES RETURN!". Needless to say, the software worked...
I can understand the "just the channels I want" argument, but it has been addressed elsewhere. If the time comes when it is available, you will probably have to pay a premium for them because you are breaking up a package offered by the studios to the broadcasting companies. (see other posts above for more).
Overall, though, comperable packages are still cheaper than cable (about $10/month cheaper here). Most times, you can get a deal for a free dish and receiver in exchange for a year contract. I have had DirecTV for 2 years now and I must say that I am extremely satisfied with their service and pricing. Time Warner Cable (as most cable companies), treats their customers as a commodity. They think that they are the only game in town. They didnt ask me why I was discontinuing my service, but it sure didnt stop them from calling me once a month for the next year; and they still send me snailmail.
In order for DirecTV/UBS/etc to be able to break the cable monopoly, they need to be supported. Personally, I dont think very highly of people pirating DirecTV because it really does harm them in more ways than just their revenue stream. Once their user base reaches a number that the camble companies are unable to ignore, you will start to see competition in the market. Until then, DirecTV is still cheaper, more reliable, and has more package options.
You CAN get local network affiliates on DirecTV now. Although I think they should be free, I believe they are $2.99/month. A lot cheaper than a pirated card...
Copyright doesnt have to be involved. I believe all there needs to be is circumvention of the encryption. Thats all that is involved in the Adobe / Sklyarov case.
It also changed my Windows Media Player title bar to say "Windows Media Player Provided By X10 Media Player".
I checked out your screenshots and would bet that Microsoft would be interested to see them as well. I dont know of any skins available for Media Player (I havent read the licence either) but I would bet that they wouldn't look favorably upon another company rebranding their software.
M$ is obviously litigation-happy. Why don't we use it to our advantage for once?
presuming that the New York Times is the definitive record of history - which in and of itself is a frightning thought
A nice analysis, until this point. Cant you resist taking a shot at what you seem to consider a "liberal rag"? You need to realize that this article was about the NYT simply because they were one of the parties directly involved in the case. The ruling affects ALL publications, even the New York Post, and National Review (no, I havent seen them in microfilm/fiche, but I have seen the Wall St Journal, and Christian Science Monitor, and many others are out there). ALL publications today make up the history of our time. True, there are political leanings in most publications of today, but not really as much as some would want you to believe. The different viewpoints of so-called objective publications is a very significant part of our present history, why it happened, what effect it has on the rest of the nation, and will undoubtetly make for some interesting historical analysis in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people saw this comming. During the election flame-wars, many people were posting right here on slashdot that Bush would stop the breakup. This should be a surprise to very few, and certainly none who frequent this board. Bush is so deep in the pockets of big business and industry, it should come as no surprise that Microsoft would jump on that bandwagon when the opportunity arose.
Microsoft donated a total of $4,617,726 to all election campaigns in 2000. Although it does not break down specifically where the money went, 53% went to republicans, 47% to democrats. From an industry standpoint, Bush received $1,177,770 from computer and internet companies, and Gore $580,634. Certainly not huge numbers, but a quick analysis on how Bush's number is more than double the #2, and then there is a pretty linear dropoff, it is not at all unfaur to conclude that since Microsoft was far and away the biggest contributor from this industry group, a large percentage of the Bush money is from them. (A bone for the flame-mongers: More analysis of these numbers would, of course, be necessary for a solid conclusion.)
Although this decision may have also happened had Gore won, I do not think that would be the case - he is too knowledgeable about the tech sector. Also, knowing how Microsoft respects the law, it wouldnt surprise me at all if they made many more untraceable contributions (dont tell me it cant be done, its done all the time). I also wish opensecrets.org would show contributions for the 2004 election, that may be more revealing.
Is any more proof necessary that this is now truely a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation?
In 2000, Microsoft was by far the biggest computer & internet industry contributor to election campaigns with a total of $4.6 Million.
53% of this went to Republicans, 47% to Democrats. Although it does not show to which campaigns received the money, or which level of election (presidental, senatorial, etc), Gore probabaly got a pretty good chunk of this. Microsoft was playing both sides of the table, but I still dont think this would have happened under a Gore administration, he just knows too much about the tech sector.
The worst part is that couldn't we all see this coming
During the campaign flame-wars here, I dont know how many times I saw people right here on slashdot predicting Bush would stop the breakup. Everyone knows he is deep in the pockets of big oil and industry, did you not think Microsoft would get a piece of that action?
If anything the past couple years have shown, is that we now truely have a government by the corporation, of the corporation, and for the corporation.
One of their best articles
http://www.theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_starves .html
"There aint no money in a cure!!! They just want you to be able to live with it. Twenty years from now, youll be calling into work 'no, I cant make it in today, my AIDS is acting up'"
So, in the short-term this may seem like a good idea, but in the long term it could do serious damage to the search for an AIDS cure.
Yes! and damage every other medical research going on as well. People dont seem to realize that these companies have to use these profits to pay for all their failed research as well.
I just finished reading a book, and I really hate it when people spew Ayn Rand quotes, but it looks like Roche is a real-world example in what she wrote about in Atlas Shrugged. I dont think the whold world is going this way, but this imaginary quote fits: "Oh, they're just a rich corporation, they make massive profits on this drug that is very cheap to produce, they can afford to give some of that away."
Take away the reason they got into business, they will stop doing business. Simple.
at least they're actually trying to embrace the tech instead of burying their heads in the sand
They are hardly embracing downloadable movies. Just like when DVDs were young, they "embraced" that format by developing DIVX (not the format, the pay-per-view disks and players). You could only watch the movie a few times, then had to pay more. They were even partnered up with large distribution chains such as Nobody Beats the Wiz. Everyone saw through the scam. Only when nobody bought the players or the disks did they even start looking at DVD.
This downloading scam isnt going to work either. Other posts have written that the average user is the one targetted by this service, not the geeks with the toys that hang out here. They can pretty much forget about average users using this system. On my dialup home connection, a 500M download would probably take more than 50 hours, and my connection ALWAYS crashes before then. The simple fact is, even with broadband, 500M is huge. The so-called "average user" is going to say "f it" and drive to Blockbuster.
You are right, however, that this is a first step. However, just like now, they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming for each successive step along the way, just like in the DVD/DIVX "battle".
When will these geniuses realize that it is better to have 20 people buy something for $10 than have 1 buy it for $100?
The olympic motto is "Swifter. Higher. Stronger." I fail to see how this includes chess and other non-physical competitions.
I realize other so-called sports that dont fit this motto are in, such as rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming. I dont think they belong either.
One way in which it could fit, is if the International Olympic Committee realized that the ancient olympics were a substitution for battle. The city-states of Greece sometimes avoided outright war and relied on the games to better their rival states. Chess would definately fit in this case. However, they seem to have given up tradition and pride in place of anything that makes money.
Because the fetus shouldn't have been destroyed in the first place.
So? You cant enter a debate and base your arguments on facts that you arbitrarily change. The fetus IS being thrown out. Whether or not that should happen is a completely different debate. This one is based upon the fact they are being thrown out, so your conclusions are invalid to begin with.
I thought he was taking his time because he wanted to present the appearance of actually considering it, but he actually did
I am still doubtful of this. I think he was more concerned with finding a politically neutral compromise, rather than being branded either as a right-wing heartless religious fanatic or a liar who reversed yet another of his campaign promises. The delay was probably necessary to consult with his advisers. There was a Reuters article after his meeting with the Pope on this topic, and I thought it quite funny that he actually said that (paraphrase) This is something I will have to think long and hard about, which is unusual for my administration. (/paraphrase)
As for the topic of my note, I think his was a cop-out solution. The fact is, these fetuses are being destroyed every day. They were not being bred for the purpose of stem cell research (although, I do not doubt that this possibility could arise, something could have been done about that separately - you dont throw the baby away with the bathwater, no pun intended). Why not, as the plains indians did, use all the parts of the buffalo? If a fetus is going to be destroyed anyway, why not allow this? That is what I dont understand, at least offer the parents a choice of whether or not to let it be used. I do not see a moral dilemma here.
Science at one point in history did believe those things, science changed at another point
Science never claimed that the world was flat, or that the Earth was at the center of the universe. You are going to have to drop some names here to support your argument. But before you do, realize that philosopers are not scientists; thinkers/sages are not scientists; seers are not scientists; oracles are not scientists. Scientists work through experimentation and observation. The first scientist to really challenge the notion that the Earth was flat was Gallileo, who for his efforts, was excommunicated. The church never has, and is still not open to any science that undermines their centuries of indoctrination of the masses. Dont even think of saying the church was merely embracing the previous scientific model because a) they didnt, and b) there was no previous scientific model, only guesses and assumptions.
Thanks to the
Reading in bed doesn't get in the way of hot sex.
Woman: "Would you close that thing already!!" *SLAM!*
Man: AIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
Are hiring. Youre not going to get much else as a 16-year old unless a parent or someone else you know hooks you up. Companies do not hire summer workers and after-school part-timers into career-type positions.
The fact is, your first job is not going to help you down the road. Its very rare that it will be on your resume. You learn about the job market and workplace in general. You develop a work ethic and learn to appreciate the value of the money you do earn. Its supposed to be a type of real-world extension of your education.
I agree that the bubbling seen is very strange and certainly not caused by static electric discharge, but your soldering iron example is not a good example. The fact is, chips cannot always "take a lot more energy than your finger" Different kinds of energy will yield different results. I have worked for 6 years in electronic disty and alot of money is spent on preventing static discharge because it does not take much static electricity at all to ruin an IC. So little, in fact, that the shock you get when touching a lightswitch on a dry day is tens of times more powerful that needed. In fact, the charge necessary to ruin most ICs is not even perceptable by human touch.
The plastic or ceramic casing of the chip and metal leads are designed to withstand heat sources, such as you soldering iron. This was probably a design specification from back in the days when soldering irons were used to solder the chips to the board. However, the fine wires _inside_ cannot take much of a shock. Kind of like if you were to run 100 amps through a 5 amp fuse. The leads on which you applied the charge may show little or no effect, but the filament on the inside is cut.
As an aside, the picture posted is quite dramatic. As first glace, I would guess that the guy is not using a sufficient surge protector. Remember, he is in California and their electricity situation has not been very steady lately. When a power grid is on the verge of failing, power wanes, and surges all the time. I would not be surprised at all if this is the sort of thing that happened. Either that, or the cat chewed through the power cord...
While it is true that there would be no forced licensing, they cannot selectively license: Boucher said the bill would require companies that license their songs to a third-party company to grant similar licenses to other distributors. However, he said the bill would not require compulsory licensing. In other words, if a music label does not want to license a song, it wouldn't have to. If they licence a given song to the online distribution company they created or work with, that song is avaiable for all online distribution companies to license.
There is an article on yahoo today called the The Music Online Competition Act (MOTA). Introduced by Chris Cannon (R-Utah), and our friend Rick Boucher (D-Va), it seems to take into account these 2 services. It states basically, that any song the record labels licence to these services, but be made available to licence to any third party online music distribution service that wants it. Boucher explains that he wants to avoid a distribution monopoly.
The article is here.
I particularly like the line about the RIAA's reaction: Not surprisingly, the RIAA bashed the bill, saying it favors government regulation over market forces. The irony here is so thick here, it doesnt require any more comment.
I say, let the businesses have their internet, and watch it crash and burn. If they haven't learned yet, maybe this will teach them.
Sure, it will teach them - teach them to follow us. While their internet crashes and burns, they will see that the new net that we start in its place is thriving just as theirs had years ago. At that point, they will start migrating to our net and demanding that we make changes to accomodate them...
Corporations and governments dont learn from history, just look at the rolls that massive banking/insurance/investment companies played in the 1929 stock market crash and look at those companies comming back today. Their attitude will be, even if they eventually destroy that net, we will have started another for them to loot. This needs to be stopped here. Unfortunately, I do not know how.
What would be an interesting case is if this guy's CD-CD machine was manufactured by Sony, and was damanged by a copy of a Sony disk he made using it.
--------
I used to belong to a newsletter that had a weekly mailing with news in the electronic components industry. At the end they usually had an interesting or funny story. They claimed this one was true. I cannot support it one way or the other.
A salesman was running a demo for some voice recognition software at a trade show. After a bit of a delay from his starting time, he was able to finish setting up and get the crowd calmed down. Just as he started his demo, someone in the crowd yelled, "FORMAT C: RETURN!". Then, a quick thinking accomplace yelled "YES RETURN!". Needless to say, the software worked...
I can understand the "just the channels I want" argument, but it has been addressed elsewhere. If the time comes when it is available, you will probably have to pay a premium for them because you are breaking up a package offered by the studios to the broadcasting companies. (see other posts above for more).
Overall, though, comperable packages are still cheaper than cable (about $10/month cheaper here). Most times, you can get a deal for a free dish and receiver in exchange for a year contract. I have had DirecTV for 2 years now and I must say that I am extremely satisfied with their service and pricing. Time Warner Cable (as most cable companies), treats their customers as a commodity. They think that they are the only game in town. They didnt ask me why I was discontinuing my service, but it sure didnt stop them from calling me once a month for the next year; and they still send me snailmail.
In order for DirecTV/UBS/etc to be able to break the cable monopoly, they need to be supported. Personally, I dont think very highly of people pirating DirecTV because it really does harm them in more ways than just their revenue stream. Once their user base reaches a number that the camble companies are unable to ignore, you will start to see competition in the market. Until then, DirecTV is still cheaper, more reliable, and has more package options.
You CAN get local network affiliates on DirecTV now. Although I think they should be free, I believe they are $2.99/month. A lot cheaper than a pirated card...
There's a provision in copyright law
Copyright doesnt have to be involved. I believe all there needs to be is circumvention of the encryption. Thats all that is involved in the Adobe / Sklyarov case.
--------
It also changed my Windows Media Player title bar to say "Windows Media Player Provided By X10 Media Player".
I checked out your screenshots and would bet that Microsoft would be interested to see them as well. I dont know of any skins available for Media Player (I havent read the licence either) but I would bet that they wouldn't look favorably upon another company rebranding their software.
M$ is obviously litigation-happy. Why don't we use it to our advantage for once?
--------
presuming that the New York Times is the definitive record of history - which in and of itself is a frightning thought
A nice analysis, until this point. Cant you resist taking a shot at what you seem to consider a "liberal rag"? You need to realize that this article was about the NYT simply because they were one of the parties directly involved in the case. The ruling affects ALL publications, even the New York Post, and National Review (no, I havent seen them in microfilm/fiche, but I have seen the Wall St Journal, and Christian Science Monitor, and many others are out there). ALL publications today make up the history of our time. True, there are political leanings in most publications of today, but not really as much as some would want you to believe. The different viewpoints of so-called objective publications is a very significant part of our present history, why it happened, what effect it has on the rest of the nation, and will undoubtetly make for some interesting historical analysis in the future.
--------