... do not equal good business for M$. So it makes sense why Thursday they dropped the potential suit re: NTFS & Linux - they were in the midst of buying a chunk of Corel!!!
Now, did you really think that M$ dropped that suit out of the kindness of Bill's heart? (for the sake of argument, let's just say he had one)
No matter how big M$ gets, an investment of $135M is part of a manoeuvering plan. And since they are 'non-voting' shares, they can always state that they have 'no real influence on Corel'. [Note also that the shares are Preferred - which points to M$ desiring a dividend for their investment.]
Hmmmmm. M$ buys dividend paying shares but can't vote.... what could they do to 'encourage' Corel to turn larger profits (and pay higher dividends).... The jaded, the consipiracy theorists, and the realistic will probably all have similar answers... [hint: the trail (of $$) goes TOWARD Redmond.]
The article never mentions actual stats (percentages/anonymous polls) on the "rampant use".
While I did see what could be defined as rampant use of coke in the early to mid-80s, I haven't seen the widespread use they allude to in the LA Times article. There is some use, but using LA as even a partial example will skew ANY statistics!! (Far more than NY.)
However, LA and NY are given to overdoing things and social-status competition in a big way, so I am not surprised by that info. And yes, the Bay Area is very tolerant of recreational drug use. But I would guess that the percentage of the 'dot com' and white-collar tech employees using using (illegal) drugs at/for work outside of LA/NY is less than 50%. Maybe under 30%. That is still several hundreds of thousands of people, but I think many of them might be on those drugs if they were in any high pressure job (Wall Street, etc.).
The same personality type/social background that was doing coke in the 80s is doing coke/meth in the late 90s/early 00s. It is just that most of the young grads that used to go into finance/Wall Street are now going into tech companies.....
...that everyone thinks 1) the FBI is looking for a rubber stamp in order to lull the avg. american (further) into her/his sense of complacency - or provide continuity in it; 2)the FBI has consistently illustrated its inability to control itself in regards to information gathering on the 'average' person (if you think the FBI is watching you, you're probably NOT paranoid); and 3) if the FBI implements it anyway, they will probably only catch the 'dumb' criminals who communicate/work on-line.
The question is: will the FBI care (read: 'revise' or 'not use/release') if no educational institution provides the rubber stamp? I have no faith (but that's beside the point), and I have no trust that any congressional committee/panel/hearing will in any way change the actions of the FBI (though it might change their line of BS).
For those trying to make use of 68k Macs, NetBSD and OpenBSD are the way(s) to go.
I will be interested to see what effect the change in the motherboard for the dual processors, and the built-in gigabit ethernet will have on the Linux for PPC versions that currently run well on single processor G4s. I suppose it will be couple of weeks before anything trickles out/down on that.
Contrary to some of the other posts, I don't think this has anything to do with regulating the internet (other than on the face of the argument). It is arising from the FBI, et al.'s concern about being able to do their jobs the way they have in the past. They want to be able to have access to what person X said/wrote to anyone else at anytime the FBI/et al. believe they need to. That said, I think they need get over it. They cannot continue to monitor all aspects of communication the way they have up to the 80s. They will have to start using their brains and good old fashioned leg work to get the info they want. In some cases, that may mean that they do get everything they want for a case, but that is part of the price of the USA being in (or towards) the front of the technological boom that the world is in the midst of. The FBI/et al. can't expect to limit competition and the "free"-market just because they might loose access to some of their current monitoring mechanisms.
Slashdot Mirror
A graphite theme is included. Basically everything that would be that translucent blue color is translucent grey instead.
Do you think DC will sue Wired for suggesting "marital aid" as a new hack for the cc? I can see the porn sites working on it now....
Now, did you really think that M$ dropped that suit out of the kindness of Bill's heart? (for the sake of argument, let's just say he had one)
Hmmmmm. M$ buys dividend paying shares but can't vote.... what could they do to 'encourage' Corel to turn larger profits (and pay higher dividends).... The jaded, the consipiracy theorists, and the realistic will probably all have similar answers... [hint: the trail (of $$) goes TOWARD Redmond.]
However, LA and NY are given to overdoing things and social-status competition in a big way, so I am not surprised by that info. And yes, the Bay Area is very tolerant of recreational drug use. But I would guess that the percentage of the 'dot com' and white-collar tech employees using using (illegal) drugs at/for work outside of LA/NY is less than 50%. Maybe under 30%. That is still several hundreds of thousands of people, but I think many of them might be on those drugs if they were in any high pressure job (Wall Street, etc.).
The same personality type/social background that was doing coke in the 80s is doing coke/meth in the late 90s/early 00s. It is just that most of the young grads that used to go into finance/Wall Street are now going into tech companies.....
...that everyone thinks 1) the FBI is looking for a rubber stamp in order to lull the avg. american (further) into her/his sense of complacency - or provide continuity in it; 2)the FBI has consistently illustrated its inability to control itself in regards to information gathering on the 'average' person (if you think the FBI is watching you, you're probably NOT paranoid); and 3) if the FBI implements it anyway, they will probably only catch the 'dumb' criminals who communicate/work on-line.
The question is: will the FBI care (read: 'revise' or 'not use/release') if no educational institution provides the rubber stamp? I have no faith (but that's beside the point), and I have no trust that any congressional committee/panel/hearing will in any way change the actions of the FBI (though it might change their line of BS).
I will be interested to see what effect the change in the motherboard for the dual processors, and the built-in gigabit ethernet will have on the Linux for PPC versions that currently run well on single processor G4s. I suppose it will be couple of weeks before anything trickles out/down on that.
Contrary to some of the other posts, I don't think this has anything to do with regulating the internet (other than on the face of the argument). It is arising from the FBI, et al.'s concern about being able to do their jobs the way they have in the past. They want to be able to have access to what person X said/wrote to anyone else at anytime the FBI/et al. believe they need to. That said, I think they need get over it. They cannot continue to monitor all aspects of communication the way they have up to the 80s. They will have to start using their brains and good old fashioned leg work to get the info they want. In some cases, that may mean that they do get everything they want for a case, but that is part of the price of the USA being in (or towards) the front of the technological boom that the world is in the midst of. The FBI/et al. can't expect to limit competition and the "free"-market just because they might loose access to some of their current monitoring mechanisms.