If a company stock trades at below $1 for a some period(I thought it was 30 days?), they are delisted from NASDAQ. There's more to this rule than that, I think there is also a $50 million market capitalization and maybe some other stuff.
VA Linux is on the verge of this. It's stock has been freefalling for quite some time and is now hover right around $1 with market cap of around $59 million.
Redhat is doing fine, they are still up around $3 with market cap over $500 million.
Caldera on the other hand is probably going to be delisted here shortly. They've been below $1 for almost two months now, currently at 39 cents with market cap of just under $30 mil.
Stocks trading under $5 are generally considered high risk and few investors will touch them.
But being delisted from the exchange is a sign that the vultures are circling. Companies almost never recover from that position.
It's a sign of the times I guess. A lot of these companies in the 90's should never have gone public. Instead focussed on growing their business up and out the old fashioned way, one small step at a time.
I'm going to get moderated down as a troll, but what the hell I have Karma to burn!
Have you ever considered the other side effect of pressing GPL violations?
Probably not, but anyway...
You add fuel to the Microsoft argument that the GPL is viral and anti-business.
It's a double-edged sword, and from that standpoint pressing on these supposed violations gives the GPL an air of being a hot potato that no company in their right mind should touch.
At a minimum every company I have ever encountered with Exchange, Lotus Notes etc has used it for email and scheduling. Most critical is the scheduling of conference rooms and other resources.
I agree that there are a great many features that are not used routinely, but in the companies where they are used they are absolutely critical.
Many companies have built solutions for ordering office supplies, computers, move/add/change requests, etc. using automated message forms. I've seen these in both Exchange and Notes.
I think you would have a hard time walking into any major corporation and telling them. "Look, we know you use groupware. But we are a lot smarter than you and we know that all you really need is just simple email."
I am not a supporter of President Bush, and I don't wish to push forward a political agenda.
But as much as I don't like the guy, I've got to say I did not find it at all reassuring to not hear much from him, or his advisors even.
I think during the entire day Tuesday I saw him twice. Once in the morning, once at night.
The only other person I saw from his administration was Karen Hughes.
I guess the point is, it scared me as an American. From talking to others at work, many feel the same way both Democrats and Republicans.
That's not to say I don't think he might be appropriately handling it. I've got to say if there is one man I would want as Secretary of State right now it's General Powell.
I want to see my leaders, it's important to me and it's disappointing that I saw far too much of him pushing his agenda of tax cuts and national missile defense, and now I don't see enough.
But he only did so because he didn't take the time to understand them. He saw only a government intent on improving their nation through efficiency and nationalism.
He later came to acknowledge how wrong he was and regreted his words. But by that time it was too late, his reputation had been destroyed.
My point was not ad hominem. But I think right now Americans must go into the coming weeks with an open mind because it effects our long term future.
It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.
That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.
At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?
Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.
Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.
If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.
We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.
We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.
What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?
The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.
When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.
National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.
The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.
Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.
I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.
As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.
Let us consider these groups, one at a time.
First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.
Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.
As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.
England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.
We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.
The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.
It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.
No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.
Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.
Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.
I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.
We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.
The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.
In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.
I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.
When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.
They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.
Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.
Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.
There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.
To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters--less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.
Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.
Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase "steps short of war."
England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months--"the best way to defend America and keep out of war." we were told, was "by aiding the Allies."
First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.
The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.
We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient "incidents" yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]-- a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.
Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.
We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory--a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.
We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.
The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.
Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.
There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.
I think a better analogy would be arguing whether we should have seatbelts in airplanes because we need to save people in car crashes from dying.
If you go "Huh?", then maybe you understand why talking about a NMD as protection against yesterdays attack is a dubious attempt to further a partisan politcal agenda.
Intel v AMD - I don't quite agree. I don't think Intel has ever really held back on a release to milk the market. But again this goes back to the price point, they have held back on price reductions to milk the market.
If they had a 1Ghz chip available, they are going to release it regardless. Why? Because they can find suckers to pay $1,000 to get it, even though an 800Mhz chip is available for $250.
AMD has helped drive down prices. Although I suppose some argument might be made that they released product too early to get a jump on the competition, in which case that would be arguing that quality has been driven down as well.:(
Linux - Honestly I don't think Linux will ever be in a position to seriously compete with MS. It's a moving target, and Linux just doesn't have the resources behind it to keep up.
But... I think it does keep pushing MS to improve. If MS doesn't improve, the competition will catch up. Most of the really dramatic changes from MS have come since '91, and most of them just in the past 3-4 years.
OfficeXP - I had a rebate from attending the MS rollout. I received the hardware through a deal off OfficeMax. On the other hand it took me two months of fighting OfficeMax on the phone and via mail to obtain shipment of everything.:)
Hmm, I've always thought Microsoft should break themselves up as it would be good for the company. But I don't think the government has a case strong enough to justify said breakup order.
That's sort of the point.
As far as Intel vs. AMD. I don't agree that we wouldn't have been past 1Ghz by now, I think we would have. Intel still competes primarily against itself in the form of encouraging upgrades. AMD competition does help push down prices, on that I'll agree.
In your last point you indicate that Microsoft already clearly has competition in the OS marketplace. Linux is out there, even though it's not technically as good as Microsoft's OS it is very cheap.
This should help to drive down prices. I also suspect that if the upgrade market doesn't yield numbers, prices on XP will come down as well.
I purchased Office XP at home, but only because I received a $100 rebate and $300 worth of Iomega hardware(CD-RW, Zip drive, etc) for free with purchase. That placed the upgrade cost at a very reasonable point.
Heh. I want to call the Democrats the DFL party, but I guess that's a Minnesota thing.
Anyway, I realize it's easier if you can pigeon hole decisions into a political landscape. But you really can't with this Microsoft trial.
The DOJ case was brought forth by the Clinton Justice department, true. It's also no secret that many Microsoft competitors contribute heavily to the Democrats. Most notably is Larry Ellison who gave multiple millions to the Democrats in the Florida public relations campaign.
On the other hand another Microsoft competitor who has complained fiercely is Novell, which exists in Utah and is championed by Senator Hatch.
Also on the DOJ side are two very notable Highly Republican partisans by name of Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr.
I don't agree with the DOJ case, and I'm a very partisan Democrat. Yet on the other hand my boss and many of his friends are highly Republican and they do disagree with the case.
Yet I encounter numerous persons in newsgroups who are clearly right-wing extremists who are very anti-Microsoft.
I realize these are a lot of random anecdotes and facts, but the point is there really is no trend of Republicans being for Microsoft and Democrats being against Microsoft. It's all over the board.
I'm fairly confident GEOS came out after the Macintosh. The Mac was released in January of 1984, or at least that's when the Superbowl ad ran. I first saw one at a computer show in the spring of that year.
1984 was a pretty important year for Commodore, as it was when the C-64 dominated sales.
I'm fairly certain GEOS was released towards the end of 1984. I remember first seeing it in around that time frame, and I was fairly in tuned with the Commodore scene at the time. (founded local Commodore user group and was friends with a number of magazine authors, etc.)
This history of the GUI sounds about right:
http://pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/guitimeline.h tm l
It talks about GEOS being released in 1985. I think it was early 1985, just before the Amiga launch. It was a pretty big thing at the time.
The Casio Z-7000 was most certainly not the first PDA. First of all the Newton was released before the Zoomer. The term PDA was coined by Apple.
But there were many small handheld computers dating back many years prior to this. Radio Shack, Sharp etc. had handhelds back in '81. The PC-2, etc.
Granted they didn't keep your schedule and contacts, but. The first computer I saw performing that task was the Atari Portfolio in '89. As I recall it was the first handheld that ran MS-DOS and had a small spreadsheet, etc. The father of a friend of mine purchased one, and it was quite cool at the time.
That's not to say GEOS wasn't cool, because it was. GeoWorks for the PC came out at a particularly turbulent time, but I recall it being reasonably popular for a period of time.
At least in beta form, they've drivers available for WinXP already. It's just that USB 2.0 wasn't ready for their feature complete date for WinXP RTM.
I'm puzzled by the/. commentary. The PCWorld article I read doesn't mention Linux at all. When they say having drivers available for Linux, do they mean production stable, or beta?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I thought it was funny his prediction of how Microsoft is dying and the FSF will rule the world.
Can there be anything further from the truth?
If a company stock trades at below $1 for a some period(I thought it was 30 days?), they are delisted from NASDAQ. There's more to this rule than that, I think there is also a $50 million market capitalization and maybe some other stuff.
VA Linux is on the verge of this. It's stock has been freefalling for quite some time and is now hover right around $1 with market cap of around $59 million.
Redhat is doing fine, they are still up around $3 with market cap over $500 million.
Caldera on the other hand is probably going to be delisted here shortly. They've been below $1 for almost two months now, currently at 39 cents with market cap of just under $30 mil.
Stocks trading under $5 are generally considered high risk and few investors will touch them.
But being delisted from the exchange is a sign that the vultures are circling. Companies almost never recover from that position.
It's a sign of the times I guess. A lot of these companies in the 90's should never have gone public. Instead focussed on growing their business up and out the old fashioned way, one small step at a time.
100 gig RAID arrays on the mail server, or on the file server... Doesn't matter, you still need to backup your company email wherever you put it.
Hmm, the only benefit I can see is that the developer didn't have to write code to do the conversion.
I'm going to get moderated down as a troll, but what the hell I have Karma to burn!
Have you ever considered the other side effect of pressing GPL violations?
Probably not, but anyway...
You add fuel to the Microsoft argument that the GPL is viral and anti-business.
It's a double-edged sword, and from that standpoint pressing on these supposed violations gives the GPL an air of being a hot potato that no company in their right mind should touch.
Something to think about...
Ahh, hyperbole!
Where would the world be without it?
It's an important quote, but it must always be put into proper context in any given debate.
Franklin was talking about liberties far more essential than what is being debated here.
Interesting notion.
It's sort of like the argument "If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns."
Then saying, "Yep, and it makes it a lot easier to identify the criminals, doesn't it?"
I have to agree with you. The government is not stupid, they just don't always give us the full story.
Understandable, but here's my question...
How much damage has Linus Torvalds suffered from this copyright infringement?
Lost sales? What?
I just don't know exactly how you would relate monetary damages to something given away for free.
"Fred can reply to you@foo.com, but doesn't have a way to reply to "Joe User, Marketing" or whatever Jane's fictitious title is. "
Huh?
Exchange automatically does the conversion when it goes out the SMTP layer.
That's incorrect.
At a minimum every company I have ever encountered with Exchange, Lotus Notes etc has used it for email and scheduling. Most critical is the scheduling of conference rooms and other resources.
I agree that there are a great many features that are not used routinely, but in the companies where they are used they are absolutely critical.
Many companies have built solutions for ordering office supplies, computers, move/add/change requests, etc. using automated message forms. I've seen these in both Exchange and Notes.
I think you would have a hard time walking into any major corporation and telling them. "Look, we know you use groupware. But we are a lot smarter than you and we know that all you really need is just simple email."
I am not a supporter of President Bush, and I don't wish to push forward a political agenda.
But as much as I don't like the guy, I've got to say I did not find it at all reassuring to not hear much from him, or his advisors even.
I think during the entire day Tuesday I saw him twice. Once in the morning, once at night.
The only other person I saw from his administration was Karen Hughes.
I guess the point is, it scared me as an American. From talking to others at work, many feel the same way both Democrats and Republicans.
That's not to say I don't think he might be appropriately handling it. I've got to say if there is one man I would want as Secretary of State right now it's General Powell.
I want to see my leaders, it's important to me and it's disappointing that I saw far too much of him pushing his agenda of tax cuts and national missile defense, and now I don't see enough.
Yes, Lindbergh supported the Nazis.
But he only did so because he didn't take the time to understand them. He saw only a government intent on improving their nation through efficiency and nationalism.
He later came to acknowledge how wrong he was and regreted his words. But by that time it was too late, his reputation had been destroyed.
My point was not ad hominem. But I think right now Americans must go into the coming weeks with an open mind because it effects our long term future.
Charles Lindbergh's Des Moines Speech of 1941
It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.
That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.
At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?
Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.
Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.
If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.
We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.
We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.
What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?
The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.
When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.
National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.
The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.
Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.
I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.
As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.
Let us consider these groups, one at a time.
First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.
Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.
As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.
England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.
We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.
The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.
It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.
No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.
Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.
Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.
I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.
We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.
The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.
In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.
I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.
When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.
They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.
Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.
Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.
There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.
To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters--less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.
Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.
Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase "steps short of war."
England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months--"the best way to defend America and keep out of war." we were told, was "by aiding the Allies."
First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.
The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.
We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient "incidents" yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]-- a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.
Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.
We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory--a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.
We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.
The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.
Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.
There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.
I think a better analogy would be arguing whether we should have seatbelts in airplanes because we need to save people in car crashes from dying.
If you go "Huh?", then maybe you understand why talking about a NMD as protection against yesterdays attack is a dubious attempt to further a partisan politcal agenda.
One writes software because of a desire to solve a particular problem.
If the problem goes away, then it's entirely reasonable that the solution no longer has a market.
We might as well bemoan the loss of buggy whip manufacturers with the advent of the car.
Or passenger trains with the advent of the Airplane.
Or commercial Unix makers like SCO with the advent of Linux.
Which is why the standard practice for any GPLed software is to require contributors to sign over copyright back to the original owner.
At least this is what GNU requires.
Otherwise, it becomes a big mess.
"Corporations can't hire an army "
Well except for the Mafia and some of the Columbian Drug Cartel...
Then of course the United States has been in Iraq for the past 10 years because of our corporate interests.
Intel v AMD - I don't quite agree. I don't think Intel has ever really held back on a release to milk the market. But again this goes back to the price point, they have held back on price reductions to milk the market.
:(
:)
If they had a 1Ghz chip available, they are going to release it regardless. Why? Because they can find suckers to pay $1,000 to get it, even though an 800Mhz chip is available for $250.
AMD has helped drive down prices. Although I suppose some argument might be made that they released product too early to get a jump on the competition, in which case that would be arguing that quality has been driven down as well.
Linux - Honestly I don't think Linux will ever be in a position to seriously compete with MS. It's a moving target, and Linux just doesn't have the resources behind it to keep up.
But... I think it does keep pushing MS to improve. If MS doesn't improve, the competition will catch up. Most of the really dramatic changes from MS have come since '91, and most of them just in the past 3-4 years.
OfficeXP - I had a rebate from attending the MS rollout. I received the hardware through a deal off OfficeMax. On the other hand it took me two months of fighting OfficeMax on the phone and via mail to obtain shipment of everything.
Hmm, I've always thought Microsoft should break themselves up as it would be good for the company. But I don't think the government has a case strong enough to justify said breakup order.
That's sort of the point.
As far as Intel vs. AMD. I don't agree that we wouldn't have been past 1Ghz by now, I think we would have. Intel still competes primarily against itself in the form of encouraging upgrades. AMD competition does help push down prices, on that I'll agree.
In your last point you indicate that Microsoft already clearly has competition in the OS marketplace. Linux is out there, even though it's not technically as good as Microsoft's OS it is very cheap.
This should help to drive down prices. I also suspect that if the upgrade market doesn't yield numbers, prices on XP will come down as well.
I purchased Office XP at home, but only because I received a $100 rebate and $300 worth of Iomega hardware(CD-RW, Zip drive, etc) for free with purchase. That placed the upgrade cost at a very reasonable point.
Heh. I want to call the Democrats the DFL party, but I guess that's a Minnesota thing.
Anyway, I realize it's easier if you can pigeon hole decisions into a political landscape. But you really can't with this Microsoft trial.
The DOJ case was brought forth by the Clinton Justice department, true. It's also no secret that many Microsoft competitors contribute heavily to the Democrats. Most notably is Larry Ellison who gave multiple millions to the Democrats in the Florida public relations campaign.
On the other hand another Microsoft competitor who has complained fiercely is Novell, which exists in Utah and is championed by Senator Hatch.
Also on the DOJ side are two very notable Highly Republican partisans by name of Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr.
I don't agree with the DOJ case, and I'm a very partisan Democrat. Yet on the other hand my boss and many of his friends are highly Republican and they do disagree with the case.
Yet I encounter numerous persons in newsgroups who are clearly right-wing extremists who are very anti-Microsoft.
I realize these are a lot of random anecdotes and facts, but the point is there really is no trend of Republicans being for Microsoft and Democrats being against Microsoft. It's all over the board.
I'm fairly confident GEOS came out after the Macintosh. The Mac was released in January of 1984, or at least that's when the Superbowl ad ran. I first saw one at a computer show in the spring of that year.
h tm l
1984 was a pretty important year for Commodore, as it was when the C-64 dominated sales.
I'm fairly certain GEOS was released towards the end of 1984. I remember first seeing it in around that time frame, and I was fairly in tuned with the Commodore scene at the time. (founded local Commodore user group and was friends with a number of magazine authors, etc.)
This history of the GUI sounds about right:
http://pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/guitimeline.
It talks about GEOS being released in 1985. I think it was early 1985, just before the Amiga launch. It was a pretty big thing at the time.
The Casio Z-7000 was most certainly not the first PDA. First of all the Newton was released before the Zoomer. The term PDA was coined by Apple.
But there were many small handheld computers dating back many years prior to this. Radio Shack, Sharp etc. had handhelds back in '81. The PC-2, etc.
Granted they didn't keep your schedule and contacts, but. The first computer I saw performing that task was the Atari Portfolio in '89. As I recall it was the first handheld that ran MS-DOS and had a small spreadsheet, etc. The father of a friend of mine purchased one, and it was quite cool at the time.
That's not to say GEOS wasn't cool, because it was. GeoWorks for the PC came out at a particularly turbulent time, but I recall it being reasonably popular for a period of time.
At least in beta form, they've drivers available for WinXP already. It's just that USB 2.0 wasn't ready for their feature complete date for WinXP RTM.
/. commentary. The PCWorld article I read doesn't mention Linux at all. When they say having drivers available for Linux, do they mean production stable, or beta?
I'm puzzled by the
Microsoft is planning on supporting USB 2.0 under Windows XP. It's just that drivers were not ready in time for the RTM version.
This link talks about their support for USB 2.0:
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/usb/
Please list all of the features of Office, and from that list please highlight the 10% of features that people use.
I'm curious if your list will match up with mine. I suspect it won't.
I'm also not so arrogant to think I know better than my customer what features they need.