Congratulations, you've managed to notice that the train left the station, 6 years ago. In 1995, a LOT of people in the publishing industry were trying to figure out the following problem:
Given the growth curve of information, content_had become a commodity product, and was going to overload anybody who tried to keep up in any industry. Context, however, was going to become a huge industry, if someone could find a way to make it work. Being able to find the right/relevent information for your information consumer(s), in a realistically useful amount of time, would be huge. It still is - notice that most of the online "information" sites you read today are not producers of information, but aggregators of it. Yahoo started out well because they provided context and organization to something people didn't understand - and it's still their core business.
Like I said, the train has left the station. Tell me something I wasn't speaking at Seybold about 5-6 years ago.
Actually, you might thank Borland for bringing lower-cost spreadsheet programs to the market, back when Lotus still charged an arm-and-a-leg for 1-2-3.
The claim that Microsoft didn't do any significant UI research before the 1990s isn't really true. The Microsoft Windows 3.0 interface (released in 1990), for instance, was better in many ways than the Macintosh GUI of the time, which is one reason Motif/CDE was designed to imitate Windows 3.0 and not Mac OS. Even Windows 1.0 had its strong points (and despite its ugliness, I personally think it's a more consistent and usable interface than the original Mac OS interface, which lacked even cooperative multitasking of normal applications).
THAT is a religious statement if ever I've seen one. I was running Win 3.0 and a Mac side by side in 1991, and quite frankly, I wanted to run the Mac OS on my PC hardware. The Win 3.0 (then 3.1, then 3.11) interface wasn't easier to use, or more intuitive. It lacked a lot of the really handy features available for the Mac, and it really showed that it didn't have as much "beaten on" in the UI testing side of the house.
Motif/CDE, as I understood it, didn't feel like picking another separate) legal fight with Apple - they decided to hide behind MS's legal skirts on that front. It wasn't a "which one is better" argument, but rather a "which one is cheaper, and fits better with lying on top of a character-mode interface (which the MacOS was never designed for anyway).
I have to agree that MS spends a great deal on research these days - they've learned that lesson, and understand that that basic research underpines a lot of their downstream product development. My point was that, when Windows was originally developing, MS wasn't spending the research $$ - they were leeching the research from someone else - a lot of someone elses.
Also have to agree with the consequences of an Apple win on the look-and-feel lawsuit. Linux, tho, wouldn't have been illegal - all those that would have thought of suing would themselves have been vulnerable on the same grounds (look-and-feel of BSD, the original developers - it's related to patenting vs. prior art).
. Thank you for playing. YOU can stand up, stop bowing in the direction of Xerox PARC, and start thanking a nice guy named Doug Engelbart of Stanford Research Institute for all those neat things - windows, WYSIWYG, mice, hypertext, which he demonstrated in 1968. After he left SRI, Xerox license _his_ work, and turned it into that nice stuff that Steve Jobs saw.
Haven't quite decided on how to handle the power density issue, but it should be interesting.
The heat problem actually has a couple of solutions we're trying to choose between. The simpler is to zip tie a pair of big box fans to the outside, fair them in to suck all the air out of the cage, and crank 'em up. The more complex involves a liquid-cooling rig for the CPUs. Not sure where to mount the radiators yet, though.
Well, kinda. We're more interested in CPU density than individual server density, but (pending testing - we're gonna build some next month and see if the design's right) we should be able to cram 4x 1.1 GHz P-3s, a total of 2GB of memory, 40GB of disk, and gigabit uplinks into a 1U slot, configured as 2 physical servers. If I'm right about a couple things beyond that, we _might_ we able to double that - have to see how the first test goes. So, we're looking at (min) 150 to (max) 300 CPUs per rack (gotta leave room for a switch). Should be fun. Oh, and the cost is in the $1000/CPU range, built.
You might be so kind as to credit Apple, Commodore, and other GUI companies with the research work that Microsoft has so kindly expropriated before you bitch too loudly about the open source movement leveraging Microsoft's UI research. Until the early 90s (read 1992-93) Microsoft really didn't bother spending too much on OS UI research - the largelly relied on their partners, like Apple, to do all the work. You might note that this was the primary reason behind Apple's UI suit of the early 90s - which, if you recall, they lost mostly because they'd written a license for MS with enough loopholes to drive a small carrier group through.
Microsoft is by no means the sole and unique source of research in how people use computers. The fact that they're on top of the heap for the moment, and thus spending large amounts of money to stay there, doesn't give them sole right to the credit, or even the implementation.
"In 2000, TVA plans to pay for most of these programs in a new way, using proceeds from the agency's $6.8 billion power program, user fees and sources other than appropriations. The budget proposes appropriations of $7 million for TVA to manage the Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area."
Prior to 2000 TVA received Federal appropriations for essential stewardship activities related
to its management of the Tennessee River system and TVA properties (nonpower programs). Congress did not provide any appropriations to TVA to fund such activities in 2000. Consequently, TVA paid for essential stewardship activities primarily
with power revenues, with the remainder funded through user fees and nonpower fund balances unused in prior years.
So, were you saying something about my tax dollars not being hard at work?
Following your line of logic, go ahead and call up the NSA and give them your input.
No, that's what congresscritters are for. Used to have a pretty good one, too, that they'd listen to.
And, btw, TVA is considered a government agency, but, like the Post Office, makes it own money. Your taxdollars are not hard at work there. Your grandparent's, probably.
Actually, mine are too - TVA isn't self-supporting. The only component of the TVA that _is_ self-funded is the electricity generation program - everything else they do is paid for more-or-less with Federal money.
The NSA's computers are also paid for by the taxpayer, do you presume to tell the NSA what they can and can't install on their systems?
As a taxpayer, it's my right to insist that they follow rational, consistent, and cost-effective IT policies, to the extent of my ability within the law, for exactly the same reason - it's my money they're spending. I can't _make_ them do anything. I can't tell them to _do_ anything. OTOH, it is my right to suggest certain possibilities, and to insist that whatever policy they wind up deciding on is rational and consistent.
I don't think it's my business, your business, or anybody but the people paying for and providing the power to determine what the price should be for said power.
Let the market decide. Get goverment out of the loop entirely.
For some reason I am guessing that isn't your position on the issue.
Actually, it is exactly my position on that particular issue. However, as long as I'm writing a check each month to PG&E, and PG&E is using that money to write a check each month (or less) to the generator, then it's my business, isn't it? I'm one of "the people paying for...the power" at that point, right?
You're right about the market issue, too. That's why we just dropped $50-odd K at my office in generation capability (solar, plus battery backup). If the remarketing companies make a commodity product outlandishly expensive compared to generation costs, then I'm perfectly willing to get into the game and smack 'em where it hurts.
You see, the "let the market rule" argument works both ways. You can also use the market to whup on people, as well as be whupped on. If their profits decline by 80-90% this year because of current behavior drawing more generation capacity into the market, then I won't cry a single tear. And if I can make scandalous amounts of money selling/building/installing that generation capacity in the first place, darn, what a bummer.
Considering it's really none of your business, yes.
It's a Federal Agency. It's paid for by my taxes.
Damn right it's my business. It's my country, it's my government, and I'll damn well stick my nose in. If the rest of the country thinks it's acceptable to tell CA what out power rates should be and how badly we should be screwed, then I'm perfectly willing to step up and tell the TVA that they should be consistent in how they enforce their system policies.
After all, what corporate benefit would there be to running the Seti@home program on a few computers? (sure, if they ran it company wide, they could get some miles out of it, but not on an individual user basis)
To the Sysadmin, it's "unknown" software... could be benign, could be hazardous. They shouldn't have to be put in the position to have to make that distinction. They have better things to do (well... usually...) q:]
Y'know, in an ideal world, I would agree with you. But you and I both know that this isn't an ideal situation. Re-reading the article, it looks like the systems where they found S@H are reasonably close to being critical systems - all of the areas they mentioned look like they would have to keep the desktops locked down pretty tight.
But I will repeat my objection to making this a global (org-wide, at least), single-point ban. They are only banning S@H, even though there are probably quite a few screensavers/games/etc. that they're running on non-critical desktops that pose at least as many security risks. I got a pretty good look at how "tight" Federal agencies are with their computer systems after my wife spent a decade in the INS. Simply put, their machines are just as porous, just as prone to getting odd little bits of software put on them, as those at any company. My objection is to banning S@H, and _not_ sanitizing the rest of the organization for other unauthorized software. Is a little consistency too much to ask?
>> best they can come up with is, "some kind of risk"?
And that isn't a good answer? Do you expect them to analyze the Seti@home software to determine exactly what risks are involved? Do you expect them to do the same for every piece of crapware that is out there that the user "might" install on their system?
No, it isn't a good answer. The statements imply a significant amount of risk based on running Seti@Home. Technically, they're correct. Risk is a non-zero number in this case. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that it also isn't a trivial number, something in the range of 10^-4 or more. Given the current data set (0 security breaches in 2 million users), it's more in the 10^-6 or -7 range _at worst_. So we're talking something over 4 orders of magnitude difference from what they've decided to imply.
Now, speaking as the owner of a company, I can understand what they're doing, and the policy statement behind the "why". But they _damn_ well better go sanitize the rest of the TVA for unauthorized software (that cutesy screen saver someone bought, or the bootleg copy of Photoshop your graphic artist is using to maintain your marcomm because you're too stingy to buy a license), or they're going to look like a really hypocritical mob.
Just my two cents.
If you actually go read the articles, the press release, and the Connexion by Boeing FAQ, you'll find that there's isn't a word about how they're going to distribute the feed once it's on the plane. At this point, it's more likely the distribution will be good old cat-5. The wireless component is the plane's onboard phased array transceiver that's used to pump the internet feed up and down to a satellite.
Of course, this does raise the interesting question of what the local-to-the-plan LAN is like. I imagine you could get a Doom/Quake/etc. game going on the plane between you and your buds without too much hassle.
PVRs are revolutionary because they free the viewer from the normal constraints of television.
Having been there, and done that, Tivos are NOT revolutionary. They are a commercialized package scaled for a single-user, single-television installation, using an open-source implementation of SGI's decade-old ITV software, run by some of the same people who ran that ITV group. We looked at doing pretty much the same thing, using (ironically) the software that powers nCube's servers. Our version had:
200 hours of storage
Ability to receive 3 input channels simultaneously
Full jukebox to the entire house - each TV could request it's own stream via a thin STB.
VCR load-to-disk and tape-from-disk capability.
Larry Ellison wasn't interested in building it.
But, to get back to the point, Tivo is about as revolutionary as a hammer. Same technology, new package.
Interesting story from one of the earlier ITV deployments. A number of years ago, BT bought the software behind nCube's new PVR. They deployed a "classic" ITV system, and once they'd finished their trials, decided it was cheaper to loft a pair of satellites just to transmit video streams than it was to try to wire the last mile.
I hope this dies an early death in the marketplace.
Actually, it did. The software that drives the nCube PVR is... Oracle Video Server. Which Oracle tried (and failed) to push for a number of years, before quietly smoking the whole division last fall and pushing it over to nCube and another company whose name escapes me for the moment.
We talked about 2 years ago about using OVS to drive a video jukebox (30 hours? pfui - we were looking at a couple hundred, on hi-capacity IDE-RAID). Part of the idea was that you'd have a thin STB on each TV, and you could stream to each one individually. Never quite got off the ground, though.
Ummm, a small point to make on this. Stealth systems do not _stop_ radar detection. They simply degrade its usefulness. Under the right circumstances, stealth _can_ be defeated. A couple examples:
During the Gulf War, the British MOD made great hay out of the fact that one of their newest destroyers had "detected" stealth fighters with their new medium-wave radar. Upon further examination, it turned out that they had parked the DD about 40 miles out from where the F-117s were based, and they watched on a know flight track during known launch sequences to see if they could pick anything up. They did! Of course, they also finally got 'round to admitting that if it had been a "real world" situation, they would have dismissed the incidental blips they were getting as atmospherics/wave action, and would have completely ignored the aircraft tracks.
As I'm sure everyone is aware by now, Yugoslav air defences shot down a stealth during the bombing action there. A more detailed examination reveals that they, too, were cued in by a combination of standard-pattern attacks (if they launch at time X, we can expect to be hit at approximately time Y), spotters operating outside the fence at Aviano, and a _very_ dense SAM trap around a particularly inviting target. Even knowing when it was going to be there, and where "there" was, it was apparently a fair amount of work to find the damn thing to shoot at it.
You wish. Music on paper was _sold_. It was not _given_ away. Remember - this was in the days before copiers and high-speed printers, when you could:
hand-copy the music
buy an authorized copy (if you could find someone willing to sell it to you)
own a printing press and print your own (note: these cost approximately as much on a relative basis as that nifty Boxster you were drooling over - NOT for the average person).
No other options available, dumbass. Why do you think printing music has always been such a staple money-maker for the last 200+ years. It's only with the advent of high-speed laser printers, cheap copiers, and digital duplication that that particular market has started to break down.
No, they offered sh*tty service when they got started. Frankly, the last 18 months on NP were a helluva lot better than the first 6 (5% average downtime across a 6 month period, inc. a 10 day outage where NP didn't know _they_ had called the phone company for an onsite line test). I hate getting all the bugs ironed out, and _then_ the company goes belly-up. Why couldn't they have the good graces to do it sooner?
Could be worse. At least he's using the books to keep the Great Red Capitalistmobile tuned up, not the online crowd. Think of this as a subsidized experiment in honesty.
Interesting point, when you note that a lot of that technology was developed by Boeing, in the US, and then licensed at gunpoint as part of the MacDac merger.
Or where you refering to the $30+ billion in direct, cash, development subsidies provide by Germany, France, and Italy to produce the "better" planes? Including:
Assumption of virtually all development costs of new/upgraded aircraft.
Provision of loans at below-market rates that don't have to be paid back until aircraft are sold.
Provision of subsidies to develop otherwise-uneconomic products specifically to displace US-produced content
I never said that. Frankly, the entire aircraft procurement industry is so corrupt it's not even funny. HOWEVER, when the agreed-upon rules (laws, in this case) say "thou shalt not directly bribe the decision makers", gettting caught doing exactly that amounts to death by stupidity.
My objection, frankly, is not to the watchdog monitoring, but to the bribery/etc. in the first place. If France/Germany/Japan/et al want to monitor _only for that kind of violation_, I don't have a problem with it. If a US firm gets caught in those circumstances with their pants down, they deserve to be kicked. OTOH, if you're doing it in the first place, complaining because you've been caught is more than a little disingenuous.
I remember reading somehwere that a few aviation deals in europe went boeing's way at the very last minute, when (i think) Airbus was the front runner.
You are correct - to a point. The deals weren't in Europe, either. You have forgotten to mention _why_ Airbus was the front-runnerr, and what turned the bidding. In one case, it was demonstrated proof of bribery by Airbus officials to a junior minister in the country buying the airplanes. In another case, it was a secret provision that amounted to corporate bribery. In a third case, it was when Boeing pointed out that they'd been approached for a bribe, and USDOJ produced a deposit to that individual's "secret" account from an Airbus sales executive.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the growth curve of information, content_had become a commodity product, and was going to overload anybody who tried to keep up in any industry. Context, however, was going to become a huge industry, if someone could find a way to make it work. Being able to find the right/relevent information for your information consumer(s), in a realistically useful amount of time, would be huge. It still is - notice that most of the online "information" sites you read today are not producers of information, but aggregators of it. Yahoo started out well because they provided context and organization to something people didn't understand - and it's still their core business.
Like I said, the train has left the station. Tell me something I wasn't speaking at Seybold about 5-6 years ago.
Actually, you might thank Borland for bringing lower-cost spreadsheet programs to the market, back when Lotus still charged an arm-and-a-leg for 1-2-3.
THAT is a religious statement if ever I've seen one. I was running Win 3.0 and a Mac side by side in 1991, and quite frankly, I wanted to run the Mac OS on my PC hardware. The Win 3.0 (then 3.1, then 3.11) interface wasn't easier to use, or more intuitive. It lacked a lot of the really handy features available for the Mac, and it really showed that it didn't have as much "beaten on" in the UI testing side of the house.
Motif/CDE, as I understood it, didn't feel like picking another separate) legal fight with Apple - they decided to hide behind MS's legal skirts on that front. It wasn't a "which one is better" argument, but rather a "which one is cheaper, and fits better with lying on top of a character-mode interface (which the MacOS was never designed for anyway).
I have to agree that MS spends a great deal on research these days - they've learned that lesson, and understand that that basic research underpines a lot of their downstream product development. My point was that, when Windows was originally developing, MS wasn't spending the research $$ - they were leeching the research from someone else - a lot of someone elses.
Also have to agree with the consequences of an Apple win on the look-and-feel lawsuit. Linux, tho, wouldn't have been illegal - all those that would have thought of suing would themselves have been vulnerable on the same grounds (look-and-feel of BSD, the original developers - it's related to patenting vs. prior art).
Dumbass.
The heat problem actually has a couple of solutions we're trying to choose between. The simpler is to zip tie a pair of big box fans to the outside, fair them in to suck all the air out of the cage, and crank 'em up. The more complex involves a liquid-cooling rig for the CPUs. Not sure where to mount the radiators yet, though.
Well, kinda. We're more interested in CPU density than individual server density, but (pending testing - we're gonna build some next month and see if the design's right) we should be able to cram 4x 1.1 GHz P-3s, a total of 2GB of memory, 40GB of disk, and gigabit uplinks into a 1U slot, configured as 2 physical servers. If I'm right about a couple things beyond that, we _might_ we able to double that - have to see how the first test goes. So, we're looking at (min) 150 to (max) 300 CPUs per rack (gotta leave room for a switch). Should be fun. Oh, and the cost is in the $1000/CPU range, built.
Microsoft is by no means the sole and unique source of research in how people use computers. The fact that they're on top of the heap for the moment, and thus spending large amounts of money to stay there, doesn't give them sole right to the credit, or even the implementation.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2000/pdf/budge t.pdf
"In 2000, TVA plans to pay for most of these programs in a new way, using proceeds from the agency's $6.8 billion power program, user fees and sources other than appropriations. The budget proposes appropriations of $7 million for TVA to manage the Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area."
http://www.tva.gov/finance/reports/pdf/fy2000ar.pd f
Page 19
Prior to 2000 TVA received Federal appropriations for essential stewardship activities related to its management of the Tennessee River system and TVA properties (nonpower programs). Congress did not provide any appropriations to TVA to fund such activities in 2000. Consequently, TVA paid for essential stewardship activities primarily with power revenues, with the remainder funded through user fees and nonpower fund balances unused in prior years.
So, were you saying something about my tax dollars not being hard at work?
No, that's what congresscritters are for. Used to have a pretty good one, too, that they'd listen to.
And, btw, TVA is considered a government agency, but, like the Post Office, makes it own money. Your taxdollars are not hard at work there. Your grandparent's, probably.
Actually, mine are too - TVA isn't self-supporting. The only component of the TVA that _is_ self-funded is the electricity generation program - everything else they do is paid for more-or-less with Federal money.
As a taxpayer, it's my right to insist that they follow rational, consistent, and cost-effective IT policies, to the extent of my ability within the law, for exactly the same reason - it's my money they're spending. I can't _make_ them do anything. I can't tell them to _do_ anything. OTOH, it is my right to suggest certain possibilities, and to insist that whatever policy they wind up deciding on is rational and consistent.
Let the market decide. Get goverment out of the loop entirely.
For some reason I am guessing that isn't your position on the issue.
Actually, it is exactly my position on that particular issue. However, as long as I'm writing a check each month to PG&E, and PG&E is using that money to write a check each month (or less) to the generator, then it's my business, isn't it? I'm one of "the people paying for...the power" at that point, right?
You're right about the market issue, too. That's why we just dropped $50-odd K at my office in generation capability (solar, plus battery backup). If the remarketing companies make a commodity product outlandishly expensive compared to generation costs, then I'm perfectly willing to get into the game and smack 'em where it hurts.
You see, the "let the market rule" argument works both ways. You can also use the market to whup on people, as well as be whupped on. If their profits decline by 80-90% this year because of current behavior drawing more generation capacity into the market, then I won't cry a single tear. And if I can make scandalous amounts of money selling/building/installing that generation capacity in the first place, darn, what a bummer.
It's a Federal Agency. It's paid for by my taxes.
Damn right it's my business. It's my country, it's my government, and I'll damn well stick my nose in. If the rest of the country thinks it's acceptable to tell CA what out power rates should be and how badly we should be screwed, then I'm perfectly willing to step up and tell the TVA that they should be consistent in how they enforce their system policies.
To the Sysadmin, it's "unknown" software... could be benign, could be hazardous. They shouldn't have to be put in the position to have to make that distinction. They have better things to do (well... usually...) q:] Y'know, in an ideal world, I would agree with you. But you and I both know that this isn't an ideal situation. Re-reading the article, it looks like the systems where they found S@H are reasonably close to being critical systems - all of the areas they mentioned look like they would have to keep the desktops locked down pretty tight.
But I will repeat my objection to making this a global (org-wide, at least), single-point ban. They are only banning S@H, even though there are probably quite a few screensavers/games/etc. that they're running on non-critical desktops that pose at least as many security risks. I got a pretty good look at how "tight" Federal agencies are with their computer systems after my wife spent a decade in the INS. Simply put, their machines are just as porous, just as prone to getting odd little bits of software put on them, as those at any company. My objection is to banning S@H, and _not_ sanitizing the rest of the organization for other unauthorized software. Is a little consistency too much to ask?
And that isn't a good answer? Do you expect them to analyze the Seti@home software to determine exactly what risks are involved? Do you expect them to do the same for every piece of crapware that is out there that the user "might" install on their system?
No, it isn't a good answer. The statements imply a significant amount of risk based on running Seti@Home. Technically, they're correct. Risk is a non-zero number in this case. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that it also isn't a trivial number, something in the range of 10^-4 or more. Given the current data set (0 security breaches in 2 million users), it's more in the 10^-6 or -7 range _at worst_. So we're talking something over 4 orders of magnitude difference from what they've decided to imply.
Now, speaking as the owner of a company, I can understand what they're doing, and the policy statement behind the "why". But they _damn_ well better go sanitize the rest of the TVA for unauthorized software (that cutesy screen saver someone bought, or the bootleg copy of Photoshop your graphic artist is using to maintain your marcomm because you're too stingy to buy a license), or they're going to look like a really hypocritical mob. Just my two cents.
Of course, this does raise the interesting question of what the local-to-the-plan LAN is like. I imagine you could get a Doom/Quake/etc. game going on the plane between you and your buds without too much hassle.
Having been there, and done that, Tivos are NOT revolutionary. They are a commercialized package scaled for a single-user, single-television installation, using an open-source implementation of SGI's decade-old ITV software, run by some of the same people who ran that ITV group. We looked at doing pretty much the same thing, using (ironically) the software that powers nCube's servers. Our version had:
- 200 hours of storage
- Ability to receive 3 input channels simultaneously
- Full jukebox to the entire house - each TV could request it's own stream via a thin STB.
- VCR load-to-disk and tape-from-disk capability.
Larry Ellison wasn't interested in building it.But, to get back to the point, Tivo is about as revolutionary as a hammer. Same technology, new package.
Interesting story from one of the earlier ITV deployments. A number of years ago, BT bought the software behind nCube's new PVR. They deployed a "classic" ITV system, and once they'd finished their trials, decided it was cheaper to loft a pair of satellites just to transmit video streams than it was to try to wire the last mile.
Actually, it did. The software that drives the nCube PVR is ... Oracle Video Server. Which Oracle tried (and failed) to push for a number of years, before quietly smoking the whole division last fall and pushing it over to nCube and another company whose name escapes me for the moment.
We talked about 2 years ago about using OVS to drive a video jukebox (30 hours? pfui - we were looking at a couple hundred, on hi-capacity IDE-RAID). Part of the idea was that you'd have a thin STB on each TV, and you could stream to each one individually. Never quite got off the ground, though.
No other options available, dumbass. Why do you think printing music has always been such a staple money-maker for the last 200+ years. It's only with the advent of high-speed laser printers, cheap copiers, and digital duplication that that particular market has started to break down.
No, they offered sh*tty service when they got started. Frankly, the last 18 months on NP were a helluva lot better than the first 6 (5% average downtime across a 6 month period, inc. a 10 day outage where NP didn't know _they_ had called the phone company for an onsite line test). I hate getting all the bugs ironed out, and _then_ the company goes belly-up. Why couldn't they have the good graces to do it sooner?
Could be worse. At least he's using the books to keep the Great Red Capitalistmobile tuned up, not the online crowd. Think of this as a subsidized experiment in honesty.
Or where you refering to the $30+ billion in direct, cash, development subsidies provide by Germany, France, and Italy to produce the "better" planes? Including:
Here's a few more examples:
http://www.house.gov/lipinski/aviation.htm
My objection, frankly, is not to the watchdog monitoring, but to the bribery/etc. in the first place. If France/Germany/Japan/et al want to monitor _only for that kind of violation_, I don't have a problem with it. If a US firm gets caught in those circumstances with their pants down, they deserve to be kicked. OTOH, if you're doing it in the first place, complaining because you've been caught is more than a little disingenuous.
You are correct - to a point. The deals weren't in Europe, either. You have forgotten to mention _why_ Airbus was the front-runnerr, and what turned the bidding. In one case, it was demonstrated proof of bribery by Airbus officials to a junior minister in the country buying the airplanes. In another case, it was a secret provision that amounted to corporate bribery. In a third case, it was when Boeing pointed out that they'd been approached for a bribe, and USDOJ produced a deposit to that individual's "secret" account from an Airbus sales executive.