Seamonkey and Firefox share code, but not, I think, to the extent you are saying. Firefox ditched much of Seamonkey's options and features. I haven't used Seamonkey since around FF1.0, so I don't know it's current state.
Another feature seamonkey has which I love: The ability to resize this damn edit window so it's not so small.;-) Just grab the corner and drag.
That's in FF4, which I'm using. You can also find that in extensions.
Granted, at least there's a Chrome now to compete with IE, but I think it's still hard to argue that Firefox isn't helping push the browser state of the art ahead.
Also, Chrome is made by a corporation which has its own interests (and I have nothing against corporations, they should act on their own interests, and the maker of Chrome has done excellent things for the community, including fund Mozilla!). Mozilla pushes the interests of end users to a much greater degree, I think, such as privacy and end user control.
When Mozilla started, the browser market was dominated by a proprietary application that did not respect end user control and open standards. They've been a tremendous success, opening up the web and the browsers, and making end-user control almost standard. Bravo.
I agree that the browser war is won. I don't think they should pull out -- I suspect things would start reverting if they did -- but they are victims of their own success to a degree. (For some reason that is beyond me, this huge FOSS success has become 'uncool' on Slashdot, where it's fashionable to repeat that it's 'bloated', even though the whole thing is only 8 MB.)
Now there's a new application market that's dominated by a closed, proprietary application that does not respect end user control or open standards, and that's social networking. It might seem quixotic for Mozilla to take on Facebook, but the same was said about Microsoft and Internet Explorer, which was just as dominant then as Facebook is now. And further, opening the social networking space fits aligns almost perfectly with Mozilla's mission:
Principles
The Internet is an integral part of modern life–a key component in education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.
The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.
The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
Individuals' security on the Internet is fundamental and cannot be treated as optional.
Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on the Internet.
The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide.
Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource.
Transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability, and trust.
Commercial involvement in the development of the Internet brings many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit is critical.
Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.
Advancing the Mozilla Manifesto
There are many different ways of advancing the principles of the Mozilla Manifesto. We welcome a broad range of activities, and anticipate the same creativity that Mozilla participants have shown in other areas of the project. For individuals not deeply involved in the Mozilla project, one basic and very effective way to support the Manifesto is to use Mozilla Firefox and other products that embody the principles of the Manifesto.
Mozilla Foundation Pledge
The Mozilla Foundation pledges to support the Mozilla Manifesto in its activities. Specifically, we will:
build and enable open-source technologies and communities that support the Manifesto's principles;
build and deliver great consumer products that support the Manifesto's principles;
use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform;
promote models for creating economic value for the public benefit; and
promote the Mozilla Manifesto principles in public discourse and within the Internet industry.
You're a bit confused. Netscape ditched COMMUNICATOR because it had become bloated (and slow). Mozilla Browser was the from-scratch code that was their solution. It eventually became the lean, efficient core for Netscape 6-9, Firefox, and SeaMonkey.
Netscape is retired. Firefox continues. SeaMonkey is similar to netscape 4 in appearance, but has all the features of firefox, minus the bloat.
You're the confused one, Nursie was correct.
* Netscape did ditch Communicator, and the Mozilla Suite (now Seamonkey) was indeed written from scratch
* With the demise of Netscape, Mozilla took over Mozilla Suite
* Firefox was created, in part, to get rid of Mozilla Suite's bloat, which included a webpage editor, email client, chat client, and about 10 million unnecessary features and options added to scratch every dev's itch (though that may be appealing to/. users!)
I don't buy that Firefox is bloated. In fact, I think they've done a fantastic job of keeping a mature product simple and elegant. The UI is clean and intuitive, and the whole thing is only 8 MB! Can you name other programs that are 8 MB?!
The latest beta doesn't have much of the JavaScript performance improvements; wait for the next one or download a nightly build. All I can say is, it runs great for me. What does it do slowly? I click, the page loads.
This is pretty funny. If we were talking about Halo, we wouldn't see so many naive claims and theories, and so many of them moderated up! Instead of replying to each one, let me clarify a few points:
A major league batter knows the base he'll likely reach as soon as he knows where the ball will land. Having seen many thousands of hits, he can make a pretty good judgement pretty quickly. I've merely watched the games, and I can tell you well before the ball lands. It's all done without any math or calculations, if you can believe it, just rules of thumb based on experience:
* Over the center-fielder's head is a triple
* Reaching the wall elsewhere: a double
* Doesn't get by the outfielders: a single.
There are variables from that 'baseline': The defense could make a play on another baserunner, giving the batter the chance to get another base. Fielding mistakes, and sometimes a hard hit, a very fast/slow runner, or a very good/bad arm can make a difference of a base, but it's rare.
For the other question, I really don't know for sure. Baserunners are regularly outside the baselines, but I've rarely seen a baserunner go that far out unless he was avoiding a tag, taking out a fielder in a double-play, or over-running first base. But they sometimes round bases pretty widely without being called out. The rules are more complicated than they appear and the umps have discretion. I don't know for sure, but I doubt they'd be called out unless they were avoiding a tag or interfering with a fielder. I wouldn't depend on an answer that didn't come from an umpire.
I'm just a long-time avid baseball fan. I'm surprised I don't see more on/.; baseball depends heavily on a very controlled environment (batter vs pitcher) and is accessible to extensive statistical analysis. For those interested, I recommend Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Think Factory, the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), and the writings of Bill James, the great modern popularizer of the statistical analysis of baseball (I think of him as the Bruce Schneier of baseball -- very insightful, clear analysis). Now, back to your regularly scheduled News for Nerds...
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
In general, if a runner thinks he can clear two bases, he'll make a wide curve. Otherwise it's just a beeline for the next base.
Interesting theory, but not how it works in practice. Players know (very likely) how far they'll get based on where the ball lands. Details in my other posts.
No offense, but wow, only on/. would you find so many people who don't know (and still promulgate theories about it). Kinda funny how we fit the stereotype. Nobody would make similar mistakes about World of Warcraft!
Exactly. He takes visual queues from the opposition players and coaches. Do I keep going, or do I stop. The decision for all four bases can't be made as soon as he contacts the ball. He hits it, he runs for 1st. Is it safe to go for second? Continue on, but that decision is made at or near 1st base.
Why does everyone keep repeating this? It's not true. I'm not a major league player, but after watching a good number of games, I assure you that I, most fans, and every major league player knows, very likely, what base they will reach when it becomes apparent where the ball will land. Sorry to repeat myself:
* Over the centerfielder's head: Triple
* Reaches the wall elsewhere: Double
* Doesn't make it past the outfielders: Single
If the defense tries to make a play on another runner, you might take an extra base, and there are a few other variables, but the above is pretty reliable. Think how many times a major leaguer has hit a ball: It's not like they have no idea what is going to happen, or that they won't make it past first when they hit it a line drive off the wall in left-center.
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
Actually, you know roughly how far you're going to get around the bases depending on where the ball goes. If it goes over the CF's head, it's probably a triple. If it reaches the wall otherwise, it's probably a double. If not, a single. At least, that's the case in the major leagues. YMMV.
it's probably hard to tell if you've hit a triple right as you start running
OT: Actually you can tell. I'm no expert but watching baseball, I can tell you which base the batter will reach as soon as I know where the ball will stop; I expect that most other baseball fans can do the same. A hit that doesn't get by the outfielders: single. A hit that reaches the wall either side of the CF: double. Hit over the CF head: triple.
Of course there's some variation, depending on the speed of the batter, on other baserunners, on the play the defense attempts, etc. But it's not too hard to predict.
Sorry, while Bush is an idiot, he is starting to look brilliant compared to Obama. Quite an impressive feat if you ask me.
You mean, because Obama has to clean up Bush's messes, like 2 wars; the alienation the rest of the world; the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression; the largest deficits in history; poisonous, extremist domestic politics; and almost no progress on any issue in 8 years?
As soon as Obama adds anything comparable to that list, let me know.
The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.
What happens if Iran smuggles a nuke into Tel Aviv and sets it off, and doesn't take credit for it? Or if an agent of theirs does something similar? What if they do that in New York, DC, and several other American cities? They can destroy their enemies without much risk of retaliation, because nobody needs to know who did it. They're rid of their enemies, and that's what matters most.
The problem I think is the people doing the research and not the research itself. People can lie about the results, which happen far to often.
I think you've found the problem of every institution in the history of humanity, from governments to your Linux Users Group. People. They lie, act selfishly, do dumb things, become jealous and political, etc etc. But until we build the perfect robotic overlord, we're stuck with people running things.
The question is not, do the people do these things. The question is, does the institution work regardless.
It seems that, though flawed (shocking!), we benefit from medical research. Yes the information is imperfect, but that's the nature of the beast.
criticising the official results of medical studies was seen as conspiracy theory by those in power in medical circles.
You're suggesting a conspiracy of "those in power in medical circles"? Which people specifically? What criticism? Some criticism is conspiracy theory, some isn't. As far as I know, there is robust debate in 'medical circles' about much medical research, so certainly 'they' accept criticism, whoever they are.
The difference is that if somebody hijacks the client's machine, that person's ballot might be forged. If somebody hijacks the servers, everyone's ballots might be forged.
It's not hard to imagine an automated attack on a very large number of client machines. And in addition to forging, we risk the confidentiality of the ballots.
I agree security could be improved, but it's a valuable target on a ridiculous distributed system; it seems like a long shot that security will ever be sufficient. A large scale attack on paper ballots is much more expensive... though there are always the scanning machines, tabulators, etc.... I think we're going to need to vote at live meetings and count them right there.
Web-based clients are therefore inherently insecure.
Web-based clients are insecure simply because you don't have physical control over them. You don't control the network, the routers, or the client machine. Give me (or some malware author) the client machine, and who cares what you signed on the server or how?
Imagine this: You're a security consultant. A client says: Secure this system, it can change the course of U.S. history (so it has a little value). And by the way, the system extends to 150 million clients running every kind of hardware, software, and configuration imaginable, maybe 25% of which are infected with malware, and to which we have no access and over which we have no control. Oh yeah, and any computer on earth could be a vector of attack and everything from foreign intelligence agencies to corrupt politicians to radical political groups to greedy businesses might have a motive.
I sense a lot of bias in this work. For example, their habit of calling large legislative works "reforms", inserting a blatant pro-Obama message ("such as health care for 32 million uninsured Americans under President Barack Obama"...
The very next example cited -- the very next words, in fact -- is the scheduled phase-out of the estate tax under President George W. Bush! That's pro-Obama?!
Must everything be politicized and attacked? Can't we at least finish reading the sentence first?
There's lots of talk and theorizing, but little research on the effect and influence of lobbyists. Thankfully, there is a large ten year study of lobbying, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why (available at your favorite bookstore). There's a pretty good review of it at Miller-McCune. An excerpt:
The real outcome of most lobbying -- in fact, its greatest success -- is the achievement of nothing, the maintenance of the status quo. "Sixty percent of the time, nothing happens," says Frank Baumgartner, one author of the book and a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "What we see is gridlock and successful stalemating of proposals, with occasional breakthroughs. We see a pattern of no change, no change and no change -- and then some huge reform."
But those large reforms -- such as health care for 32 million uninsured Americans under President Barack Obama, the scheduled phase-out of the estate tax under President George W. Bush, and the normalization of trade relations with China under President Bill Clinton -- are far more often linked to a change in who inhabits the White House than to campaign contributions or K Street hires.
The weak link between money and policy change is counterintuitive but understandable, the authors say. The balance of power in Washington already hugely favors the rich. The status quo reflects the considerable advantages the wealthy have managed to secure in the law, down through the generations.
Iran was grossly negligent in allowing their critical infrastructure to run on software controlled by a hostile government
That's a problem without an easy solution, and a serious security issue that is attracting attention. Most IT assets are assembled from components made all over the world -- code, chips, etc. I don't know if it's possible to find something that was made 100% domestically; if it exists, I don't know who could identify it. And certainly, you can't meet all IT requirements that way.
For example, must every military custom manufacture every IT asset it uses, reinventing every bit of technology from integrated circuit manufacturing to operating systems to applications? That seems impossible, even for large wealthy countries. They would never keep up with competitors who use off-the-shelf technology, either in terms of development or cost. So what do you do? How do you know someone didn't slip in a backdoor someplace, in some bit of code, on some chip, or in some other hardware?
Slashdot Mirror
Seamonkey and Firefox share code, but not, I think, to the extent you are saying. Firefox ditched much of Seamonkey's options and features. I haven't used Seamonkey since around FF1.0, so I don't know it's current state.
Another feature seamonkey has which I love: The ability to resize this damn edit window so it's not so small. ;-) Just grab the corner and drag.
That's in FF4, which I'm using. You can also find that in extensions.
Exactly this.
Granted, at least there's a Chrome now to compete with IE, but I think it's still hard to argue that Firefox isn't helping push the browser state of the art ahead.
Also, Chrome is made by a corporation which has its own interests (and I have nothing against corporations, they should act on their own interests, and the maker of Chrome has done excellent things for the community, including fund Mozilla!). Mozilla pushes the interests of end users to a much greater degree, I think, such as privacy and end user control.
When Mozilla started, the browser market was dominated by a proprietary application that did not respect end user control and open standards. They've been a tremendous success, opening up the web and the browsers, and making end-user control almost standard. Bravo.
I agree that the browser war is won. I don't think they should pull out -- I suspect things would start reverting if they did -- but they are victims of their own success to a degree. (For some reason that is beyond me, this huge FOSS success has become 'uncool' on Slashdot, where it's fashionable to repeat that it's 'bloated', even though the whole thing is only 8 MB.)
Now there's a new application market that's dominated by a closed, proprietary application that does not respect end user control or open standards, and that's social networking. It might seem quixotic for Mozilla to take on Facebook, but the same was said about Microsoft and Internet Explorer, which was just as dominant then as Facebook is now. And further, opening the social networking space fits aligns almost perfectly with Mozilla's mission:
Principles
in education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment
and society as a whole.
accessible.
beings.
treated as optional.
on the Internet.
upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation
and decentralized participation worldwide.
Internet as a public resource.
accountability, and trust.
many benefits; a balance between commercial goals and public benefit
is critical.
important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.
Advancing the Mozilla Manifesto
There are many different ways of advancing the principles of the
Mozilla Manifesto. We welcome a broad range of activities, and
anticipate the same creativity that Mozilla participants have shown in
other areas of the project. For individuals not deeply involved in the
Mozilla project, one basic and very effective way to support the
Manifesto is to use Mozilla Firefox and other products that embody the
principles of the Manifesto.
Mozilla Foundation Pledge
The Mozilla Foundation pledges to support the Mozilla Manifesto in
its activities. Specifically, we will:
support the Manifesto's principles;
Manifesto's principles;
and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the
Internet an open platform;
and
within the Internet industry.
You're a bit confused. Netscape ditched COMMUNICATOR because it had become bloated (and slow). Mozilla Browser was the from-scratch code that was their solution. It eventually became the lean, efficient core for Netscape 6-9, Firefox, and SeaMonkey.
Netscape is retired.
Firefox continues.
SeaMonkey is similar to netscape 4 in appearance, but has all the features of firefox, minus the bloat.
You're the confused one, Nursie was correct. /. users!)
* Netscape did ditch Communicator, and the Mozilla Suite (now Seamonkey) was indeed written from scratch
* With the demise of Netscape, Mozilla took over Mozilla Suite
* Firefox was created, in part, to get rid of Mozilla Suite's bloat, which included a webpage editor, email client, chat client, and about 10 million unnecessary features and options added to scratch every dev's itch (though that may be appealing to
I don't buy that Firefox is bloated. In fact, I think they've done a fantastic job of keeping a mature product simple and elegant. The UI is clean and intuitive, and the whole thing is only 8 MB! Can you name other programs that are 8 MB?!
The latest beta doesn't have much of the JavaScript performance improvements; wait for the next one or download a nightly build. All I can say is, it runs great for me. What does it do slowly? I click, the page loads.
However, Firefox does have a memory fragmentation problem.
If we're talking about the same thing, that issue was resolved a couple years ago for Firefox 3. See here.
It's beta software. You're reporting that beta software crashes? Dog bites man?
I use FF heavily and support it for many users. Haven't seen memory issues since FF 3.0 (or maybe earlier).
This is pretty funny. If we were talking about Halo, we wouldn't see so many naive claims and theories, and so many of them moderated up! Instead of replying to each one, let me clarify a few points:
A major league batter knows the base he'll likely reach as soon as he knows where the ball will land. Having seen many thousands of hits, he can make a pretty good judgement pretty quickly. I've merely watched the games, and I can tell you well before the ball lands. It's all done without any math or calculations, if you can believe it, just rules of thumb based on experience:
* Over the center-fielder's head is a triple
* Reaching the wall elsewhere: a double
* Doesn't get by the outfielders: a single.
There are variables from that 'baseline': The defense could make a play on another baserunner, giving the batter the chance to get another base. Fielding mistakes, and sometimes a hard hit, a very fast/slow runner, or a very good/bad arm can make a difference of a base, but it's rare.
For the other question, I really don't know for sure. Baserunners are regularly outside the baselines, but I've rarely seen a baserunner go that far out unless he was avoiding a tag, taking out a fielder in a double-play, or over-running first base. But they sometimes round bases pretty widely without being called out. The rules are more complicated than they appear and the umps have discretion. I don't know for sure, but I doubt they'd be called out unless they were avoiding a tag or interfering with a fielder. I wouldn't depend on an answer that didn't come from an umpire.
I'm just a long-time avid baseball fan. I'm surprised I don't see more on /.; baseball depends heavily on a very controlled environment (batter vs pitcher) and is accessible to extensive statistical analysis. For those interested, I recommend Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Think Factory, the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), and the writings of Bill James, the great modern popularizer of the statistical analysis of baseball (I think of him as the Bruce Schneier of baseball -- very insightful, clear analysis). Now, back to your regularly scheduled News for Nerds ...
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
In general, if a runner thinks he can clear two bases, he'll make a wide curve. Otherwise it's just a beeline for the next base.
Interesting theory, but not how it works in practice. Players know (very likely) how far they'll get based on where the ball lands. Details in my other posts.
No offense, but wow, only on /. would you find so many people who don't know (and still promulgate theories about it). Kinda funny how we fit the stereotype. Nobody would make similar mistakes about World of Warcraft!
Exactly. He takes visual queues from the opposition players and coaches. Do I keep going, or do I stop. The decision for all four bases can't be made as soon as he contacts the ball. He hits it, he runs for 1st. Is it safe to go for second? Continue on, but that decision is made at or near 1st base.
Why does everyone keep repeating this? It's not true. I'm not a major league player, but after watching a good number of games, I assure you that I, most fans, and every major league player knows, very likely, what base they will reach when it becomes apparent where the ball will land. Sorry to repeat myself:
* Over the centerfielder's head: Triple
* Reaches the wall elsewhere: Double
* Doesn't make it past the outfielders: Single
If the defense tries to make a play on another runner, you might take an extra base, and there are a few other variables, but the above is pretty reliable. Think how many times a major leaguer has hit a ball: It's not like they have no idea what is going to happen, or that they won't make it past first when they hit it a line drive off the wall in left-center.
You get a hit, you run straight for 1st. If after arriving you can keep going, you curve over to second. Unless you belted it out of the park (and are therefore in little hurry) it's unlikely you can get further than that, but anybody going on to 3rd will make another wide curve.
Actually, you know roughly how far you're going to get around the bases depending on where the ball goes. If it goes over the CF's head, it's probably a triple. If it reaches the wall otherwise, it's probably a double. If not, a single. At least, that's the case in the major leagues. YMMV.
it's probably hard to tell if you've hit a triple right as you start running
OT: Actually you can tell. I'm no expert but watching baseball, I can tell you which base the batter will reach as soon as I know where the ball will stop; I expect that most other baseball fans can do the same. A hit that doesn't get by the outfielders: single. A hit that reaches the wall either side of the CF: double. Hit over the CF head: triple.
Of course there's some variation, depending on the speed of the batter, on other baserunners, on the play the defense attempts, etc. But it's not too hard to predict.
Sorry, while Bush is an idiot, he is starting to look brilliant compared to Obama. Quite an impressive feat if you ask me.
You mean, because Obama has to clean up Bush's messes, like 2 wars; the alienation the rest of the world; the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression; the largest deficits in history; poisonous, extremist domestic politics; and almost no progress on any issue in 8 years?
As soon as Obama adds anything comparable to that list, let me know.
Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide
Yes, who ever heard of humanity doing obviously self-destructive things? Like going to war?
The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.
What happens if Iran smuggles a nuke into Tel Aviv and sets it off, and doesn't take credit for it? Or if an agent of theirs does something similar? What if they do that in New York, DC, and several other American cities? They can destroy their enemies without much risk of retaliation, because nobody needs to know who did it. They're rid of their enemies, and that's what matters most.
Why should I trust the researchers in TFA? Oh ... I see ... they have the truth.
The problem I think is the people doing the research and not the research itself. People can lie about the results, which happen far to often.
I think you've found the problem of every institution in the history of humanity, from governments to your Linux Users Group. People. They lie, act selfishly, do dumb things, become jealous and political, etc etc. But until we build the perfect robotic overlord, we're stuck with people running things.
The question is not, do the people do these things. The question is, does the institution work regardless.
It seems that, though flawed (shocking!), we benefit from medical research. Yes the information is imperfect, but that's the nature of the beast.
You're suggesting a conspiracy of "those in power in medical circles"? Which people specifically? What criticism? Some criticism is conspiracy theory, some isn't. As far as I know, there is robust debate in 'medical circles' about much medical research, so certainly 'they' accept criticism, whoever they are.
It's not hard to imagine an automated attack on a very large number of client machines. And in addition to forging, we risk the confidentiality of the ballots.
I agree security could be improved, but it's a valuable target on a ridiculous distributed system; it seems like a long shot that security will ever be sufficient. A large scale attack on paper ballots is much more expensive ... though there are always the scanning machines, tabulators, etc. ... I think we're going to need to vote at live meetings and count them right there.
Web-based clients are insecure simply because you don't have physical control over them. You don't control the network, the routers, or the client machine. Give me (or some malware author) the client machine, and who cares what you signed on the server or how?
Imagine this: You're a security consultant. A client says: Secure this system, it can change the course of U.S. history (so it has a little value). And by the way, the system extends to 150 million clients running every kind of hardware, software, and configuration imaginable, maybe 25% of which are infected with malware, and to which we have no access and over which we have no control. Oh yeah, and any computer on earth could be a vector of attack and everything from foreign intelligence agencies to corrupt politicians to radical political groups to greedy businesses might have a motive.
Why are we even discussing this as a possibility?
The very next example cited -- the very next words, in fact -- is the scheduled phase-out of the estate tax under President George W. Bush! That's pro-Obama?!
Must everything be politicized and attacked? Can't we at least finish reading the sentence first?
Thank you.
There's lots of talk and theorizing, but little research on the effect and influence of lobbyists. Thankfully, there is a large ten year study of lobbying, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why (available at your favorite bookstore). There's a pretty good review of it at Miller-McCune. An excerpt:
The real outcome of most lobbying -- in fact, its greatest success -- is the achievement of nothing, the maintenance of the status quo. "Sixty percent of the time, nothing happens," says Frank Baumgartner, one author of the book and a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "What we see is gridlock and successful stalemating of proposals, with occasional breakthroughs. We see a pattern of no change, no change and no change -- and then some huge reform."
But those large reforms -- such as health care for 32 million uninsured Americans under President Barack Obama, the scheduled phase-out of the estate tax under President George W. Bush, and the normalization of trade relations with China under President Bill Clinton -- are far more often linked to a change in who inhabits the White House than to campaign contributions or K Street hires.
The weak link between money and policy change is counterintuitive but understandable, the authors say. The balance of power in Washington already hugely favors the rich. The status quo reflects the considerable advantages the wealthy have managed to secure in the law, down through the generations.
That's a problem without an easy solution, and a serious security issue that is attracting attention. Most IT assets are assembled from components made all over the world -- code, chips, etc. I don't know if it's possible to find something that was made 100% domestically; if it exists, I don't know who could identify it. And certainly, you can't meet all IT requirements that way.
For example, must every military custom manufacture every IT asset it uses, reinventing every bit of technology from integrated circuit manufacturing to operating systems to applications? That seems impossible, even for large wealthy countries. They would never keep up with competitors who use off-the-shelf technology, either in terms of development or cost. So what do you do? How do you know someone didn't slip in a backdoor someplace, in some bit of code, on some chip, or in some other hardware?