Section 6. Conclusion: Cooperating to end the balance of financial terror
The sharp rise in U.S. net external debt since 2001 has financed a fund a boom in government borrowing, a boom in consumption and a boom in residential construction -- not a boom in investment, let alone investment in the export sector. The U.S. has become increasingly dependent on foreign purchases of fixed income debt securities - and in particular purchases of U.S. treasuries by Asian central banks - to finance huge U.S. current account deficits, deficits that are absorbing an enormous fraction of all cross-border capital flows.80
Our analysis suggests that without any policy changes, the US current account deficit will rise above 7% of GDP in 2006, and above 8% of GDP in 2008, in part because of rising interest payments to non-residents. If most of the financing for the deficit continues to come from Asia, Asian central bank reserves would need to double between the end of 2004 and the end of 2008, rising from $2.4-2.5 trillion to $5.2 trillion. Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries would rise in parallel, going from $2 trillion (end 2004 estimate) to $4.2 trillion. We doubt that Asian investors, even Asian central banks, will be willing to take on the financial risk implied by holding such a large stock of dollar claims on a country whose external credit fundamentals are deteriorating at anything like the U.S. current low nominal (let alone real) interest rates.
It is true that East Asia cannot dump its existing holdings of U.S. treasury bills without paying a financial price. If East Asia sought to diversify its reserve - holding more euros and fewer dollars as a hedge against dollar depreciation - it would trigger a downward adjustment in the dollar's value. Indeed, East Asian central banks have to continue to buy additional U.S. treasuries to provide the ongoing new financing the U.S. needs to keep the dollar from falling.
But the U.S. should not take comfort in the fact that East Asian economies cannot painlessly extricate themselves from their enormous - and growing -- financial bet on the U.S. dollar. The U.S. cannot extricate itself its dependence on the cheap financing provided by Asian reserve accumulation any more easily. The U.S. economy can only expand at its current pace on the back of the implicit subsidy provided by Asian central banks. The boom in housing created by low interest rates and, for that matter, the surge in value of all financial assets linked to low interest rates - would come to an abrupt end without access to Asian financing.
But make no mistake, this cheap financing is coming directly at the expense of the U.S. manufacturing sector. The continued transfer of resources out of tradables production bodes ills for the long-run health of the U.S. economy. It is not in the long-run interest of the U.S. economy to try to support an ever-increasing external debt load on the back of a shrinking tradables sector. At some point, the external side of U.S. economy has to expand to pay for the United States' imports, or the amount that the U.S. can import will have to fall.
Uncle Sam has reneged and defaulted on up to 40% of its trillion-dollar foreign debt, and nobody has said a word except for a line in The Economist. In plain English that means Uncle Sam runs a worldwide confidence racket with his self-made dollar based on the confidence that he has elicited and received from others around the world, and he is a also a deadbeat in that he does not honor and return the money he has received.
Lawsuit mushroom clouds rise over the remains of USA's Tech industries.
The USA will fall behind because ever more intellectual property will be locked up behind a multitude of corporations and individuals effectively ruled by lawyers who are more interested in earning legal fees rather than bothering to actually manufacture anything.
Other Governments and Europe's bureaucracies will not hesitate to forcibly acquire the necessary intellectual property needed get things done for large projects
Other countries and even Europe's parliament will also not hesitate to adopt more liberal intellectual property structures if you demonstrate that doing so will better benefit their economies as a whole, instead of just a few major corporations.
The USA administration and even more myopic major corporations will continue to let more and more manufacturing, service industry and development to be off-shored resulting in importing permanent poverty into the USA.
You want to see the future of the USA? Visit the remnants of Detroit motor city works, Ye Mighty, and despair
Aside from the high probability that Trade and Antitrust officials worldwide would soon step in if Microsoft started using government granted intellectual monopolies to restrict the one of few remaining desktop competing OS for the PC platform, an open source IP companies own patents that Microsoft uses.
Fedora and Mono and OIN -- clarifications
Sorry for referring to a magazine article that most people can't actually get to. My mistake.
Let me give a little bit more detail, for the benefit of those who can't read the article in Linux Magazine.
1. What is OIN, and why do they matter?
OIN is the Open Invention Network. Prominent members include Red Hat, Sony, Novell, IBM, and Philips. (If I've left out your prominent organization, sorry.)
The idea behind OIN: throw a bunch of patents in a pool. Make those patents available to open source developers, and to companies who support open source developers.
More importantly: pool those patents to counterattack companies who might accuse us of infringing *their* patents.
One of the biggest weapons in OIN is the set of Commerce One patents. Basically, Commerce One got lots of potentially scary patents on e-commerce stuff, and then they went bankrupt -- and the question "who's going to buy the Commerce One patents" was hot for a while. When a mystery buyer scooped them up, it was big news in certain circles.
Turned out that the buyer was Novell. And they turned around and contributed them to the OIN pool. Well-deserved kudos to Novell.
For those who prefer the "nuclear patent war" analogy: OIN is the NATO of software patents -- and the Commerce One patents are ICBMs.
2. Where does Mono fit in?
Mono is on the OIN list of "protected patents". Meaning, "if someone sues you for allegedly infringing a patent on this list, you can use any of the patents in OIN's arsenal to go after them."
3. Why couldn't you tell us this in January, when you first dropped Mono into Fedora trees?
The existance of OIN has been public knowledge for a while, but the specific applicatations that were to be protected were not. (And applicatations is a funny typo, so I'm leaving it in.)
We were waiting for OIN to publish their "protected list" of applicatations. We didn't want to jump the gun. We started putting Mono stuff into our trees in January with the belief that OIN would be publishing their "protected list" any day now... any day now... any day now. For whatever reasons (good reasons, I'm sure), that didn't happen as quickly as we expected. By then we were committed to putting Mono into FC5, though, and so we had to make an uncomfortable public statement about "certain business issues" and so forth.
I don't actually know whether OIN *has* published this list -- going to openinventionnetwork.com doesn't show this list anywhere -- but since our lawyer is now comfortable listing them in a magazine article, that's good enough for me.:)
Hope this clears things up a little.
Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER. I AM NOT GIVING ANYONE LEGAL ADVICE. I AM MERELY EXPLAINING RED HAT'S POSITION FOR OTHER LAYMEN LIKE MYSELF. MARK WEBBINK'S ARTICLE IN LINUX MAGAZINE IS MUCH BETTER, IF YOU CAN GET A COPY OF IT. SORRY FOR SHOUTING. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
If Microsoft should choose to sue people for using projects under the umbrella such as Linux or MONO, the Mutually Assured Destruction clock hits midnight.
OpenBSD has no wealthy sponsors, nor a business model.
Naturally, the OpenBSD project requires funds to operate, due to
electrial costs, Internet line costs and the same hardware upgrades
that everyone must experience. For this reason, the project sells
CDROMs and T-shirts and posters. Thus, when you buy an OpenBSD CD,
whether at a conference, from any sales site, or from our
CDROM ordering page, you are helping to
increase the chance that OpenBSD will continue to make future releases.
It is also possible to donate funds or hardware,
in which case your name ends up on our
Donations page.
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by 21 Secunia advisories some of which are rated Highly critical.
Windows Server 2003 R2's Unix interop feature is derived from Microsoft's Services For Unix (SFU) which pulled a lot of source code from OpenBSD compiled by and packaged with GNU GCC.
I have seen a single 2.8Mhz P4 Redhat box with 4Gb of memory handle twenty six remote LTSP users running Gnome, Mozilla ( email and browsing ) and OpenOffice2.0 with no real problems. A script will renice any application which atempts dominate the system. Memory, and not CPU usage, seems to be the most limiting factor. With 4Gb around 120Mb of non-shared memory is generally availabe to each user.
The above setup may not be really suitable for full screen 30fps multimedia movies ( I have experimented with VLC viewer running as a local application on PII 400 LTSP stations -- works very well ) but thats not what it's primary role.
By alocating one external hub to each "station" you can use HAL config script to "alocate" the each hub to its station. All it takes then is to customise the GNOME/X Display Manager to grant read write access to devices pluged into that hub for the user logging in to the X session.
A little cement on the hub could lock in the keyboard and mouse.
Within the 7.5 meter cable distance imposed by DVI
on
Quad PCIe Motherboard
·
· Score: 1
Consider a server in the middle of a cross + of alcoves. Each "arm" is limited to 7.5 meters from the "desktop server". Allocate 2.5m each side at each inside corner users and 1.5m for three users either side of the arms. 4 + 8 * 3 = 28. Easy fit.
Although they have chosen to deploy Linux using the traditional thick desktop/workstation model, they use a spare server that operates as an X11 application server. This is used on a regular basis by the helpdesk, IT support and a few Windows users that access both windows and remote X Linux. The rescue partition, that can be also network booted via PXE, is based on the Linux Terminal Server Project ( http://www.ltsp.org/ ). During an install or if a security violation is detected, the user of the desktop is booted into Linux thin client, and can access all their files though the Application server. Forensic examination, repairs and installs can take place in the background while the person uses the thin client.
4) Install a DHCP demon on the local server to allocate local IP addresses, DNS and gateway settings. If the desktops are network boot capable then install TFTP to remotely boot and use Knoppix via PXE and the network. If the desktop OS is constantly crashing, or is infected by malware, the user can select PXE/network boot via the BIOS, and boot into Knoppix. The user can then be instructed over the phone to enable the ssh server to allow remote scan,repair and reimaging of the desktop partitions. The user can use the Knoppix desktop to continue working with full access to files while the the remote administrator fixes/reimages the drive in the background.( Consider hiring someone who knows how to customise Knoppix or another live Linux system for your setup )
Commercial user support services, like Linspire's Click and Run service, and non-freely redistributable code, such as proprietary software and plugins, should not and in most cases cannot be included on Ubuntu's CD/DVD distributions.
However, there is no reason why Ubuntu could not host Digitally Signed Shell Scripts ( DSSS ) on their website, and by default, include a MIME setting so that web-browsers will pass the script along to a plugin that checks that it has been signed by Ubuntu before executing the shell script. The script would then perform the one click download and install of the required software. The advantage of this is that the DSSS could be linked to by any Ubuntu website, FAQ , help, page etc.
Two precondition:
1) Ubuntu should not preselect any one service over another, but include scripts to install competeing services.
2) Any Ubuntu "affiliated service" that wants a Ubuntu DSSS would be required to sign an agreement to not use it to install anybadware.
A trust but verify build environment. Using one PC to host a virtual network of locked down servers used to :
1) rebuild source RPMs and other packages.
2) compare the rebuilt binaries to downloaded/existing packages.
3) digitally sign the packages for local install if OK.
Also maybe add a stage 0, running lint and other source checking tools over the source code before build to check for buggy code.
Microsoft argues that the second sentence of paragraph 2.2 was
intended merely to restate the first sentence. But it clearly does not
restate the first sentence, and neither Microsoft nor the trial court has
explained how the words in the second sentence could be so interpreted.
Try as we might, it is impossible to reconcile the wording of the two
sentences with Microsoft's proposed construction.
It should be noted that Microsoft took out the same type of license with Unisys for the GIF LZH compression patents. Users who wrote code that called the Microsoft API s were not covered by Microsoft's license with Unisys. Who knows how many other vendors Microsoft has a similar licensing scheme.
1) Any patent lawsuit against a user of a software component used by major
vendors will automatically result in those vendors lending legal support to reduce
the chance that their own customers will also end up being sued.
2) Any
patent lawsuit costs the suing party at least several hundred thousand
dollars.
3) Any patent put before the courts is at very great risk of being
destroyed by prior art.
4) Any payout awarded from a single end user has to
be in proportion to value of the patented technology. The value of a single
instance will could only be measured in hundreds of dollars, not coming close to
covering the costs of suing
5) Patent lawsuits take six years to over a
decade to work it's way though appeals.
6) Developers will release new
software using a method that circumvents the patent in question within two
months. This will be quickly adopted and by the time the first patent case is
resolved there will be no further customers for the patent holder to sue.
7)
The outrage generated in taking out a case against any open source will result
in Groklaw and other groups putting the
suing party and their lawyers under the closest scrutiny. You will not believe
the level of bad publicity, let alone the the amount of prior art, dirty
business practices, and legal suspect practices and even violation of
statutes that will be uncovered.
Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to
get medieval on your ass."
Any IP case against users of open source pute the attacker at a far greater risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Current account balance ? 150th out of 150, United States $ -829,100,000,000 2005 est.
Lowest external debt ? 205th out of 205, United States $ 8,837,000,000,000 30 June 2005 est.
The look on a redneck's face when he finally comes to the realization that President Bush has screwed over his life savings : Priceless.
Google Detroit "tax break" OnStar
Google Detroit "tax break" Saab
Detroit's financial woes.
The USA will fall behind because ever more intellectual property will be locked up behind a multitude of corporations and individuals effectively ruled by lawyers who are more interested in earning legal fees rather than bothering to actually manufacture anything.
Other Governments and Europe's bureaucracies will not hesitate to forcibly acquire the necessary intellectual property needed get things done for large projects
Other countries and even Europe's parliament will also not hesitate to adopt more liberal intellectual property structures if you demonstrate that doing so will better benefit their economies as a whole, instead of just a few major corporations.
The USA administration and even more myopic major corporations will continue to let more and more manufacturing, service industry and development to be off-shored resulting in importing permanent poverty into the USA.
You want to see the future of the USA? Visit the remnants of Detroit motor city works, Ye Mighty, and despair
9th June 2003 What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL.
SCO's case is dead in the water and Darl is possibly facing criminal charges of false claims to the copyright office and SEC.
Fromm 2003 : The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extortion.
Fedora's Greg DeKoenigsberg has finally posted a explanation on why Redhat has now included Mono in Fedora Core 5:
If Microsoft should choose to sue people for using projects under the umbrella such as Linux or MONO, the Mutually Assured Destruction clock hits midnight.Also see what Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims?
Daniel Wallace's crackpot Anti-GPL arguments were repeatedly and utterly refuted back in Febuary 2004.
http://www.sco.com was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 9-Mar-2006 20:57:45 GMT
Worse still
http://www.edgeclickpark.com was running Apache on Windows 2000 when last queried at 14-Mar-2006 14:43:14 GMT
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by 21 Secunia advisories some of which are rated Highly critical.
For a full history of NT, Interix and SFU, see Should that not be GNU/Microsoft SFU?
The above setup may not be really suitable for full screen 30fps multimedia movies ( I have experimented with VLC viewer running as a local application on PII 400 LTSP stations -- works very well ) but thats not what it's primary role.
By alocating one external hub to each "station" you can use HAL config script to "alocate" the each hub to its station. All it takes then is to customise the GNOME/X Display Manager to grant read write access to devices pluged into that hub for the user logging in to the X session.
A little cement on the hub could lock in the keyboard and mouse.
Consider a server in the middle of a cross + of alcoves. Each "arm" is limited to 7.5 meters from the "desktop server". Allocate 2.5m each side at each inside corner users and 1.5m for three users either side of the arms.
4 + 8 * 3 = 28. Easy fit.
Userful Desktop Multiplier (TM) v2.0 Supports Ten Displays but that is mearly a limit of the hardware, not the OS.
( 4 Displays * 4 PCI Express X16 slots = 16 Screens ) +
( 4 Displays * 2 PCI Express x1 slots = 8 Screens ) +
( 2 Displays * 1 PCI slot = 2 Screens )
= a total of 26 displays.
It's a pity it is not an multiprocessor opteron system...
See 2005 April's How Many Desktop PCs Can One Server Replace?
Err, the Babylon referred to is located within modern day Iraq.
Just ask Bush and Blair.
However, there is no reason why Ubuntu could not host Digitally Signed Shell Scripts ( DSSS ) on their website, and by default, include a MIME setting so that web-browsers will pass the script along to a plugin that checks that it has been signed by Ubuntu before executing the shell script. The script would then perform the one click download and install of the required software. The advantage of this is that the DSSS could be linked to by any Ubuntu website, FAQ , help, page etc.
Two precondition:
1) Ubuntu should not preselect any one service over another, but include scripts to install competeing services.
2) Any Ubuntu "affiliated service" that wants a Ubuntu DSSS would be required to sign an agreement to not use it to install any badware.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 : Twelve Step TrustABLE IT : VLSBs in VDNZs From TBAs.
A trust but verify build environment. Using one PC to host a virtual network of locked down servers used to :
1) rebuild source RPMs and other packages.
2) compare the rebuilt binaries to downloaded/existing packages.
3) digitally sign the packages for local install if OK.
Also maybe add a stage 0, running lint and other source checking tools over the source code before build to check for buggy code.
see Chris Dibona's comment Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.
Timeline Inc has won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft for the right to sue Microsoft's customers, and subsequently sued Cognos. On February 13, 2004, Cognos settled at cost to Cognos totaling $1.75 million
2) Any patent lawsuit costs the suing party at least several hundred thousand dollars.
3) Any patent put before the courts is at very great risk of being destroyed by prior art.
4) Any payout awarded from a single end user has to be in proportion to value of the patented technology. The value of a single instance will could only be measured in hundreds of dollars, not coming close to covering the costs of suing
5) Patent lawsuits take six years to over a decade to work it's way though appeals.
6) Developers will release new software using a method that circumvents the patent in question within two months. This will be quickly adopted and by the time the first patent case is resolved there will be no further customers for the patent holder to sue.
7) The outrage generated in taking out a case against any open source will result in Groklaw and other groups putting the suing party and their lawyers under the closest scrutiny. You will not believe the level of bad publicity, let alone the the amount of prior art, dirty business practices, and legal suspect practices and even violation of statutes that will be uncovered.
Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to get medieval on your ass."
Any IP case against users of open source pute the attacker at a far greater risk.