That depends on the definition of terms. I'm using the terms as they are typically applied in American politics (which is a horrible corruption of the true meanings of the words, I know). Editors and publishers are more likely to be pro-government and establishment, which means they are (perversely in terms of language) liberal.
Reporters are slightly more balanced than their editors, but it's still an overwhelming majority with a liberal bias. Personally, I think this is a result of reporters ceasing to be journalistic watchdogs and instead becoming activists for government involvement in [insert fashionable cause here], which is typically a "liberal" position in American politics.
Note that just under 90% of reporters voted Democratic in the 1994 elections where the Republicans won the US House for the first time in 50 years... they are clearly not a representative sample of the entire population. (I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not they're right and wrong [and why], just explaining the use of the term "liberal bias" in the media.)
Note also that there are reporters with conservative baises, libertarian biases, "green" biases, et. al. Also note that many of these can overlap on certain issues (both liberals and conservatives want government control of the Internet, but for different reasons).
Let me repeat myself: all reporting has the reporter's bias built-in to it. Smart news consumers will identify the bias and try to focus on the objective part of the story. Sadly, some stories never make it out of the newsroom because of the collective biases of the reporters, their editiors, and the publishers -- to be fair, there's only a limited set of resources to allocate to news (number of reportes, space/time in the paper/magazine/show, whatever) and these people are paid to make those decisions, though it does at times come down to politics.
Fortunately, with the internet, some of the "spiked" or non-stories do get out. Of course the channels that do this don't always have the same trust levels (correctly or not) of the major media. As always, it's about having more options but that means doing more research into those options...
Sites such as./ and FR are "filters" of news rather than news generation sites. Not as indiscriminate as portals, they take existing content and try to emphasize topics of interest to their respective communities.
Having been active on both sites, they both also have one extremely important feature in common -- they provide the news consumer with a means to discuss content (and implications) of stories, but also to critique the way the stories are written and presented.
The examples on./ are easy to find. On FR, the "major media" outlets are routinely crucified for the liberal bias evident in their reporting (note, all news reporting has bias -- the major American media is generally liberal) since FR is a conservative/libertarian site.
That is the real distinction -- not just the ability to discuss news topics, but to see just how much information is filtered even before reaching the average person.
Also, the FBI (not the CIA as some might suppose) is responsible for domestic counter-terrorism. To prevent terrorist acts or investigate them after the fact may require cooperation with other governments and other foreign activites.
So, if the goal of combating terrorism is actually a valid point (which it isn't), this position makes perfect sense.
That's called a "loss leader" (like those X10 giveaway kits mentioned recently) -- the consoles are not much use without the games, which they do make a profit on.
The anti-trust would kick in if these companies decided to take (temporary) losses on the whole production line (consoles and games) long enough to demolish all competition, and then raise prices back to profitable levels. (And of course, repeating this cycle every time a new potential competitor comes along.)
Just a guess... part will go to the states to compensate for lost sales tax revenue and the rest goes into the federal coffers as an exise tax.
Remember that in most states, you're supposed to pay a "usage tax" on items ordered via mail or phone from another state equal to the sales tax you would have paid in your home state. Not that anyone ever does this, but that's the way the laws are written.
Why? Because it would be a heavy burden on the merchant to collect taxes at 50+ different rates and then send timely payments and proper forms to all of the states (and in some cases, counties or cities) that want the tax revenue. Hence, the merchant is only required to collect taxes in states where they have a physical presence.
They would require compliance from the merchants, like the sales tax system used in states today. A few sales record audit and heavy fines for violators will keep businesses (mostly) honest.
This would obviously only apply to US sales.
Quite probably. But the compliance rate will probably be quite high, and evaders will get reamed when caught.
Of course, this only makes sense (as pointed out elsewhere on this thread) if they can define product vs. service and the associated tax rates AND make the code consistent across the telephone and mail-order industries as well.
The 23x6 figure comes from a pro-Microsoft article by Bob Metcalfe talking about how Windows 2000 is going to "bury" Linux. (This link seems to be slow today...)
Watch your tense -- Microsoft is still developing Windows 2000. It's only in beta at this point (it is in beta by now, right?)
Secondly, "good" is a subjective term. The previews so far by normally Microsoft-friendly press has been, well, um, mixed. Of course, bear in mind that this isn't a completed product yet (see previous point).
As to why Microsoft would want a Linux distribution, the small to mid-sized server market is probably the reason. 23x6 reliability ain't gonna cut it in the real world (you want YOUR server to be down 15% of the time?) Some shops will be happy with the Microsoft version, others will want something else. Given a choice between RedHat, Debian, and Microsoft Linuxes, since Microsoft supplies their desktops, why not their servers?
Maybe my previous comment was unclear. I meant that in spite of the legal status, the simple fact that it's possible to intercept the call means that all precautions should be taken.
Some moderator please post the previous comment up!
DES is the weak link in the encryption chain, so if you're transmitting vitally sensitive data, you can use the hardware to change the cipher key at a rapid enough rate that even if someone breaks one of the DES keys, they will only recover a tiny piece of information that should be useless by itself...
Since the algorithms can be published, stopping exports of encryption software doesn't do a damned bit of "good" to stop people in other contries from using it. You don't think Saddam already has military-grade encryption?
The reason the US government doesn't want strong encryption to be exportable is so that it won't be used inside the US. If there is no financial incentive to develop strong, mass-market crypto because the international markets are closed, then those products will not be available for domestic mass-market use.
Imports, of course, are available, but are generally too much of a hassle to the average US Windows/Mac user to acheive wide-spread use. And banning these imports will be the next logical step, to "protect the children" or some such nonsense.
Ok... the way I read this is that the author of the patch still retains the copyright to his/her work, unless the copyright is expressly signed over to the maintainer of the program.
So for something like Linux, it would be damn neatr IMPOSSIBLE to ever develop a proprietary fork, because every single copyright holder would have to agree to change the license terms.
For a smaller project, with only a handful of contributors, it might be more realistic to get that unanimous consent. Of course, if that's the desired route, you might as well start under a BSD-style license in the first place (at the risk of allowing anyone else to make their own proprietary version).
They'd have to prove that the encrypted messages are actually related to a crime. Of course, with the caliber of individuals (or in-duh-viduals for those in the DNRC) on today's juries, that is easier than it ought to be...
It's a pre-emptive strike against the bill's likely opponents. The favorite tactic in American politics lately is to claim you're doing whatever it is you're doing "for the children" and that what your opponent is doing will "harm the children". By throwing in useless language about protecting children, it short-circuits the opposition's propagandizing. (Note that I believe bith sides of the aisle are guilty of using this ploy, early and often.)
Whenever I hear "for the children", I start looking to see who it's *really* for (either that or bend over and grab my ankles...)
The beauty of the ability for anyone to make their own distribution is that eventually we will get distributions tailored to specific niche needs. This would allow more Linux penetration as well as provide easier setup/configuration and probably better trained technical support for people with specific computing needs.
For example:
With high-speed home internet access becoming much more available, I can see a great opportunity to get Linux into a large number of homes. Take that old PC you were going to replace and use it to run a home network! Share the bandwidth to all of your home's computers and maybe run some basic file and print sharing (Samba).
The (fictitious) XYZ distribution is tailored especially for this purpose. The customer gets exactly what he/she needs and the XYZ's technical support is geared toward setting up home networks. If rival company ZYX produces a similar product, then competition brings prices down and service up!
> Actually, both could. Double jeopardy applies > to multiple trials by the same soverign, and > Nevada and California are separate sovergeins > (the imperial pretensions of some California > agencies notwithstdanding).
I though double jeopardy applied if a court of competent jurisdiction makes a ruling. If either California or Nevada tried the case and reached a verdict, then the other could not try for the same crime.
> It's the same as being able to drag someone > into court from another state simply because > they sent a letter there...
They can do that now, if the letter was part of the commission of a crime (fraud, blackmail, false advertising, etc.) In that type of crime, however, you would have actually had to have had a real presence in that jurisdiction.
This is going to be something of a landmark case, quite possibly. In the case of a criminal or civil complaint about activity on the internet, which jurisdiction should be used? The accused's location (I would assume from where the internet activity was made), the alleged victim's location, the accused's ISP location (as in this case), or even federal (inter-state) or international (inter-country)?
Pros and cons can be made for any of these cases, depending on what aspect you find most important (overall consistency vs. local variation).
I'm not saying I agree with the ruling (if it is enforced, watch all of the national ISPs flock IMMEDIATELY to the state with the most favorable legal environment).
> I believe underwater agriculture may be a > potential solution to world hunger.
"World hunger" is not a technical problem -- the United States alone can produce enough food for the entire world (and then some). The problem is distribution and politics.
That said, I think you're dead on with the rest of your comments. Colonizing the seas is a much more reasonable goal than colonizing space at this point. We won't have as much difficulty with food and air supplies, not to mention a considerably shorter commute back to our old hometowns!:)
The lessons learned from creating mostly self- sufficient settlements underwater will help out greatly when it is time to start thinking about colonizing space.
Say what you want about Gingrich (and as a conservative/libertarian, *I* can say a lot of bad things), he at least had a reasonably good grasp of the importance of technology and information (certainly compared to most of the morons in DC).
He was the driving force in getting House bills and proceedings on the Internet in a timely enough fashion so that the people could actually keep tabs on what their congresscritters were actually doing (assuming one had the time and inclination to do so).
I also caught some of his course on American history and the Constitution -- he's really a pretty bright guy, even if you don't agree with him (which, of course, includes almost eveybody).
> For example, why would they need to know > people's income?
Probably because they want to make their living by selling advertising -- they can get better rates with demographic information that lets the advertisers know their target audience.
I haven't read their privacy policy yet, but most sites that ask for this information expicitly state that it is only used for statistical pruposes (aggregate information).
..or any other movie or show that has the slick talking con artist dupe a town full of people? (Such as a traveling medicine show?)
The ability of people to be fooled is legendary, not just the young or the old -- almost everybody can be targeted by a good scam. Some of the more skeptical by nature may be immune...
The classic form of con is to discover what the people of the area want or fear, and pitch a solution to that. Modern scams go a step further, attempting to create a want or fear that, lo and behold, they alone have the answer to.
Some people will fall for it. Many won't. Want proof? Look at the number of people that forward the net legends and hoaxes to you all of the time -- hoaxes that can be disproven with just one or two mouse clicks.
Is there a solution? I don't know. Nowadays, the psychology of selling is well known to the marketers -- it tips the balance heavily in favor of those selling to the unprepared. And there will always be people who are unprepared.
When I get forwarded a hoax or scam, not only do I reply back to the sender (and often, the entire distribution list) the proofs that it is a scam, but I also try to give a link or two to sites that teach them how to spot scams for themselves.
Hmmm... when I wrote this, I was trying to *eliminate* testing the abilities of the systems administrators by only using expert administrators of both machine types (unlike the Mindcraft test where they had appx. zero Linux expertise at all) and by averaging the results of multiple tests under the same conditions, and using a different admin for each test.
For a real test, you would need several trials each under several different sets of conditions in order to produce a general result. Welcome to the world of the scientific method. The Mindcraft "study" does just the opposite -- it "proved" NT's superiority on one hardware platform under one set of conditions (namely, an optimized NT box vs. an un-optimized [or even worse] Linux box).
My point was that given a specific purpose for the target machine (i.e., a "real-world" test as most machines are used for specific, not general, purposes), each admin would be able to choose the correct configuration for the task and the environment.
NT admins would have the choice of what registry items to change, which service packs to apply, and so on. The Linux admins would choose the distribution (or roll their own), packages and applications, configuration files, etc.
You do make some good points, though. The time to set up the machine was just a guess thrown out on my part -- there still needs to be some limit and cost-effectiveness is an issue too. Also, when I say administrator, there's no reason why this cannot be a group of people instead of a single person.
Ideally, I'd like to see the admins simply be MSCE NT admins vs. Red Hat (or insert your favorite distribution here) certified Linux admins. The test would be more real-world since these are the people at the disposal of the typical organization needing the server in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Reporters are slightly more balanced than their editors, but it's still an overwhelming majority with a liberal bias. Personally, I think this is a result of reporters ceasing to be journalistic watchdogs and instead becoming activists for government involvement in [insert fashionable cause here], which is typically a "liberal" position in American politics.
Note that just under 90% of reporters voted Democratic in the 1994 elections where the Republicans won the US House for the first time in 50 years... they are clearly not a representative sample of the entire population. (I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not they're right and wrong [and why], just explaining the use of the term "liberal bias" in the media.)
Note also that there are reporters with conservative baises, libertarian biases, "green" biases, et. al. Also note that many of these can overlap on certain issues (both liberals and conservatives want government control of the Internet, but for different reasons).
Let me repeat myself: all reporting has the reporter's bias built-in to it. Smart news consumers will identify the bias and try to focus on the objective part of the story. Sadly, some stories never make it out of the newsroom because of the collective biases of the reporters, their editiors, and the publishers -- to be fair, there's only a limited set of resources to allocate to news (number of reportes, space/time in the paper/magazine/show, whatever) and these people are paid to make those decisions, though it does at times come down to politics.
Fortunately, with the internet, some of the "spiked" or non-stories do get out. Of course the channels that do this don't always have the same trust levels (correctly or not) of the major media. As always, it's about having more options but that means doing more research into those options...
Having been active on both sites, they both also have one extremely important feature in common -- they provide the news consumer with a means to discuss content (and implications) of stories, but also to critique the way the stories are written and presented.
The examples on ./ are easy to find. On FR, the "major media" outlets are routinely crucified for the liberal bias evident in their reporting (note, all news reporting has bias -- the major American media is generally liberal) since FR is a conservative/libertarian site.
That is the real distinction -- not just the ability to discuss news topics, but to see just how much information is filtered even before reaching the average person.
So, if the goal of combating terrorism is actually a valid point (which it isn't), this position makes perfect sense.
That's an analogy for something, but I forgot what it is...
The anti-trust would kick in if these companies decided to take (temporary) losses on the whole production line (consoles and games) long enough to demolish all competition, and then raise prices back to profitable levels. (And of course, repeating this cycle every time a new potential competitor comes along.)
Disclaimer: IANAL
Remember that in most states, you're supposed to pay a "usage tax" on items ordered via mail or phone from another state equal to the sales tax you would have paid in your home state. Not that anyone ever does this, but that's the way the laws are written.
Why? Because it would be a heavy burden on the merchant to collect taxes at 50+ different rates and then send timely payments and proper forms to all of the states (and in some cases, counties or cities) that want the tax revenue. Hence, the merchant is only required to collect taxes in states where they have a physical presence.
Of course, this only makes sense (as pointed out elsewhere on this thread) if they can define product vs. service and the associated tax rates AND make the code consistent across the telephone and mail-order industries as well.
Read Slashdot comments here.
Any other smart-assed comments you want to make? Maybe you should check your sources before posting.
Minor nitpicks...
Watch your tense -- Microsoft is still developing
Windows 2000. It's only in beta at this point (it is in beta by now, right?)
Secondly, "good" is a subjective term. The previews so far by normally Microsoft-friendly press has been, well, um, mixed. Of course, bear in mind that this isn't a completed product yet (see previous point).
As to why Microsoft would want a Linux distribution, the small to mid-sized server market is probably the reason. 23x6 reliability ain't gonna cut it in the real world (you want YOUR server to be down 15% of the time?) Some shops will be happy with the Microsoft version, others will want something else. Given a choice between RedHat, Debian, and Microsoft Linuxes, since Microsoft supplies their desktops, why not their servers?
Short version: market share.
Maybe my previous comment was unclear. I meant that in spite of the legal status, the simple fact that it's possible to intercept the call means that all precautions should be taken.
/.?
BTW, is this "encryption day" at
On the other hand, the transmissions are essentially in the public domain because of the broadcast nature of the communication.
Short version: assume everything is in the open, therefore encrypt everything.
Some moderator please post the previous comment up!
DES is the weak link in the encryption chain, so if you're transmitting vitally sensitive data, you can use the hardware to change the cipher key at a rapid enough rate that even if someone breaks one of the DES keys, they will only recover a tiny piece of information that should be useless by itself...
Since the algorithms can be published, stopping exports of encryption software doesn't do a damned bit of "good" to stop people in other contries from using it. You don't think Saddam already has military-grade encryption?
The reason the US government doesn't want strong encryption to be exportable is so that it won't be used inside the US. If there is no financial incentive to develop strong, mass-market crypto because the international markets are closed, then those products will not be available for domestic mass-market use.
Imports, of course, are available, but are generally too much of a hassle to the average US Windows/Mac user to acheive wide-spread use. And banning these imports will be the next logical step, to "protect the children" or some such nonsense.
Compare this to the story on the DOJ challenge easing crypto bans. The government wants the ability to read everybody's email or other electronic communication.
Standard disclaimer: IANAL
Ok... the way I read this is that the author of the patch still retains the copyright to his/her work, unless the copyright is expressly signed over to the maintainer of the program.
So for something like Linux, it would be damn neatr IMPOSSIBLE to ever develop a proprietary fork, because every single copyright holder would have to agree to change the license terms.
For a smaller project, with only a handful of contributors, it might be more realistic to get that unanimous consent. Of course, if that's the desired route, you might as well start under a BSD-style license in the first place (at the risk of allowing anyone else to make their own proprietary version).
They'd have to prove that the encrypted messages are actually related to a crime. Of course, with the caliber of individuals (or in-duh-viduals for those in the DNRC) on today's juries, that is easier than it ought to be...
It's a pre-emptive strike against the bill's
likely opponents. The favorite tactic in American
politics lately is to claim you're doing whatever
it is you're doing "for the children" and that
what your opponent is doing will "harm the
children". By throwing in useless language about
protecting children, it short-circuits the
opposition's propagandizing. (Note that I
believe bith sides of the aisle are guilty of
using this ploy, early and often.)
Whenever I hear "for the children", I start
looking to see who it's *really* for (either
that or bend over and grab my ankles...)
The beauty of the ability for anyone to make their
own distribution is that eventually we will get
distributions tailored to specific niche needs.
This would allow more Linux penetration as well as
provide easier setup/configuration and probably
better trained technical support for people with
specific computing needs.
For example:
With high-speed home internet access becoming
much more available, I can see a great opportunity
to get Linux into a large number of homes. Take
that old PC you were going to replace and use it
to run a home network! Share the bandwidth to
all of your home's computers and maybe run some
basic file and print sharing (Samba).
The (fictitious) XYZ distribution is tailored
especially for this purpose. The customer gets
exactly what he/she needs and the XYZ's technical
support is geared toward setting up home networks.
If rival company ZYX produces a similar product,
then competition brings prices down and service
up!
> Don't forget, they could be the first self-
:)
:) ***
> propelled Beowolf cluster...
Don't you mean Beo-woof!
*** PLEASE moderate this lame joke down
> Actually, both could. Double jeopardy applies
> to multiple trials by the same soverign, and
> Nevada and California are separate sovergeins
> (the imperial pretensions of some California
> agencies notwithstdanding).
I though double jeopardy applied if a court of
competent jurisdiction makes a ruling. If either
California or Nevada tried the case and reached
a verdict, then the other could not try for the
same crime.
> It's the same as being able to drag someone
> into court from another state simply because
> they sent a letter there...
They can do that now, if the letter was part of
the commission of a crime (fraud, blackmail,
false advertising, etc.) In that type of crime,
however, you would have actually had to have had
a real presence in that jurisdiction.
This is going to be something of a landmark case,
quite possibly. In the case of a criminal or
civil complaint about activity on the internet,
which jurisdiction should be used? The accused's
location (I would assume from where the internet
activity was made), the alleged victim's location,
the accused's ISP location (as in this case), or
even federal (inter-state) or international
(inter-country)?
Pros and cons can be made for any of these cases,
depending on what aspect you find most important
(overall consistency vs. local variation).
I'm not saying I agree with the ruling (if it
is enforced, watch all of the national ISPs flock
IMMEDIATELY to the state with the most favorable
legal environment).
> I believe underwater agriculture may be a
:)
> potential solution to world hunger.
"World hunger" is not a technical problem --
the United States alone can produce enough food
for the entire world (and then some). The
problem is distribution and politics.
That said, I think you're dead on with the rest
of your comments. Colonizing the seas is a
much more reasonable goal than colonizing space
at this point. We won't have as much difficulty
with food and air supplies, not to mention a
considerably shorter commute back to our old
hometowns!
The lessons learned from creating mostly self-
sufficient settlements underwater will help out
greatly when it is time to start thinking about
colonizing space.
Say what you want about Gingrich (and as a
conservative/libertarian, *I* can say a lot of
bad things), he at least had a reasonably good
grasp of the importance of technology and
information (certainly compared to most of the
morons in DC).
He was the driving force in getting House bills
and proceedings on the Internet in a timely
enough fashion so that the people could actually
keep tabs on what their congresscritters were
actually doing (assuming one had the time and
inclination to do so).
I also caught some of his course on American
history and the Constitution -- he's really a
pretty bright guy, even if you don't agree with
him (which, of course, includes almost eveybody).
> For example, why would they need to know
> people's income?
Probably because they want to make their living
by selling advertising -- they can get better
rates with demographic information that lets the
advertisers know their target audience.
I haven't read their privacy policy yet, but most
sites that ask for this information expicitly
state that it is only used for statistical
pruposes (aggregate information).
..or any other movie or show that has the slick
talking con artist dupe a town full of people?
(Such as a traveling medicine show?)
The ability of people to be fooled is legendary,
not just the young or the old -- almost everybody
can be targeted by a good scam. Some of the more
skeptical by nature may be immune...
The classic form of con is to discover what the
people of the area want or fear, and pitch a
solution to that. Modern scams go a step further,
attempting to create a want or fear that, lo and
behold, they alone have the answer to.
Some people will fall for it. Many won't. Want
proof? Look at the number of people that forward
the net legends and hoaxes to you all of the time
-- hoaxes that can be disproven with just one or
two mouse clicks.
Is there a solution? I don't know. Nowadays,
the psychology of selling is well known to the
marketers -- it tips the balance heavily in favor
of those selling to the unprepared. And there
will always be people who are unprepared.
When I get forwarded a hoax or scam, not only do
I reply back to the sender (and often, the entire
distribution list) the proofs that it is a scam,
but I also try to give a link or two to sites that
teach them how to spot scams for themselves.
Educating the net, one gullible person at a time.
Hmmm... when I wrote this, I was trying to
*eliminate* testing the abilities of the systems
administrators by only using expert administrators
of both machine types (unlike the Mindcraft test
where they had appx. zero Linux expertise at all)
and by averaging the results of multiple tests
under the same conditions, and using a different
admin for each test.
For a real test, you would need several trials
each under several different sets of conditions
in order to produce a general result. Welcome
to the world of the scientific method. The
Mindcraft "study" does just the opposite -- it
"proved" NT's superiority on one hardware platform
under one set of conditions (namely, an optimized
NT box vs. an un-optimized [or even worse] Linux
box).
My point was that given a specific purpose for
the target machine (i.e., a "real-world" test as
most machines are used for specific, not general,
purposes), each admin would be able to choose
the correct configuration for the task and the
environment.
NT admins would have the choice of what registry
items to change, which service packs to apply,
and so on. The Linux admins would choose the
distribution (or roll their own), packages and
applications, configuration files, etc.
You do make some good points, though. The time
to set up the machine was just a guess thrown out
on my part -- there still needs to be some limit
and cost-effectiveness is an issue too. Also,
when I say administrator, there's no reason why
this cannot be a group of people instead of a
single person.
Ideally, I'd like to see the admins simply be
MSCE NT admins vs. Red Hat (or insert your
favorite distribution here) certified Linux
admins. The test would be more real-world since
these are the people at the disposal of the
typical organization needing the server in the
first place.