That source code is not worth diddly without thirty or so million dollars worth of computer power to run it on.
I think that the article conflates two separate issues. The first issue is whether Google is going to IPO at some obscene valuation that quickly declines to a more realistic level as nmore shares reach the market. Yep, probably the case unless Google have the foresight to do what Gates and Balmer did when Microsoft IPO'd and talk down the launch price.
The second issue is whether Google will repeat the Netscape business history. This is completely separate and there is no reason to think it will.
Mosaic Communications Corp (Netscape) started out with a business model of give away the browser and make money selling the server. That model started to show its weakness when Apache started to appear. People were just not as excited about a Web server with the latest kewl feature as Netscape thought.
Netscape deliberately gave away the browser in order to take spyglass out of the market. Spyglass was charging for its browser, Netscape was giving it away to most users. They did sign some for pay deals but these were usually loss leaders for the server code.
The other problem at Netscape was that they were selling themselves as the cutting edge of Web technology but they systematically alienated the Web Developer community. Netscape simply did not bother to show up to standards working groups, they thought that they did not need to, they would set the standard by shipping the next release. That did not work so well as Microsoft started to gear up. Microsoft did try to do some of the same tactics initially (marquee tag anyone?) but quickly realised that Netscape never showed up to standards meetings. Microsoft did, and that is why they got most of what they wanted from the HTML4 standard, Netscape got diddly.
The final nail in the coffin was when W3C got its PR machine worked up and started to promote Tim Berners-Lee as the inventor of the Web. Journalists who had been told Marc Andressen was the wunderkind were somewhat annoyed they had been lied to. Add to that the fact that Tim gave much better press availability and the history was substantially rewritten - correctly this time. Marc became just the face of Netscape, not the face of the Web.
Why do you think Talk radio has no problem selling adverts
Why do you think that every right wing talk radio show has failed on TV? Bill O'Really is only able to stay on the TV because Fox News is prepared to lose money on his show.
Radio shows do not cost that much to run, and when you run in syndication you can finance a show from ideologically committed advertisers and second tier brands.
The shout format falls apart on TV, take Rush and put him on the screeen so you can see his face when he is telling his latetest lie and it all just falls apart.
Of course it could just be a myth of the left wing media that Rush is a drug adict and that he really isn't a hypocrite when he calls for strict drug laws. It could even be the case that Bill O'Really did not demand that fox News sue Franken over the book as he now claims. But there is no way in hell that the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was not made by the Whitehouse and hung according to its directions whatever lies that George W. might like to make to the contrary.
You fail to provide a link to this claim of FNC's core demo, because it has no basis in fact.
Look at the latest rate card. It costs less to advertise on Fox News than CNN at pretty much any time and a time slot during Lou Dobbs costs considerably more than the corresponding Fox slot for a fifth of the audience.
You are flat-out wrong. The FNC demo is better than CNN's; it is popular with young republican YUPPIEs.
Viewership of Fox is inversely correlated with education and income.
Certainly, Fox is to the right of CNN, NY Times, et al. But they are obviously left of center, so how is that bad? Even if Fox really was biased toward Republicans, is that so bad, since most of the other media is biased toward Democrats?
Biased news is bad whatever. In the case of Fox the employees are actually required to bend the stories to the GOP party line. Incidentally the story of the ex-employee did not appear first on Salon, Salon just linked to it and interviewed the guy who posted it. Sure there might be bias in Salon's selection of stories, but that is rather different from deliberate and calculated bias in the stories themselves.
Hannity & Colmes has a conservative and a liberal host.
Colmes is a former comedian who was actually hired by Hannity, his role in 'debates' consists of being contradicted or interrupted by Hannity. A doormat who is only on the show to be a foil to the right wing host is not balance.
Bill O'Reilly tends to be more conservative than not, but he's not exactly a Republican hack either.
That is exactly what he is, a dishonest one at that. He could not tell the truth about the Peabody, he even tried to claim that he was not responsible for the Al Franken suit.
Actually, they aren't sueing them, they "considered legal action".
The history here is that the head of Fox News, Roger Aisles is a long time Republican activist and partisan. He was put in charge of the news operation for the sole purpose of slanting the news to the extreme right.
To get an idea of what really goes on at Fox take a read of the experiences of people who have worked there. Every day a note goes arround called 'The Memo' which contains the Republican party messages of the day. If you do not toe the line then you get fired. This is a bad thing since experience working at Fox news does not exactly enhance your resume when applying for a job with the real media.
You can tell this is going on because Fox was even able to report Bush's claim that the Whitehouse did not order the 'Mission Accomplished' banner with a straight face.
So yes it is completely believable that the executives running this bubble world outfit would have so little clue about the real world as to threaten to sue another Murdoch production - in this case a production that can if it choose defect at will to another station and a production that makes money rather than looses it hand over fist.
Fox News does well in the ratings but very poorly with advertisers. The problem is that its core democratic of poor middle aged southern white racist men do not have much in the way of buying power. Advertisers much prefer to reach 18-35 audiences, gays, professionals, etc. in short pretty much everyone who is unlikely to watch Fox. In fact advertising on Fox News actually trades at a discount to other broadcasts reaching the same demographic because advertisers know that many of the demographics they do want are actually less likely to buy a product they see advertised on a channel they associate with biggotry.
The joke on the GOP and the likes of Bill O'Really is that Murdoch has no ideological commitments only business interests. He is quite happy running a Pro-Bejing communist sympathetic news channel on his Asian Star TV and he does not broadcast the BBC signal which might offend the dictators. In the UK Murdoch is quite happy to support Tony Blair's government, provided they do not threaten his economic interests. Murdoch undoubtedly considers his US channels in the same way, if Bush looses power in such a way that a return of Republican government looks to be unlikely in the near future then Fox news will flip flop to the left.
I've heard that their legal basis for this is that they don't believe the GPL to be enforceable. I don't think that parts of some EULA's are enforcable (especially those "you must agree before you open, but you're agreeing to what's inside" type), so can I go distributing that software as and when I like under my own license?
It is possible for a contract to be unenforceable and I suspect that there are cases where the GPL would be found to be unenforceable, but not as a blanket rule.
The cases where I don't think it would be enforceable is if Alice writes a program, 99% of which is her own work, happens to include a subroutine that is GPL. I do not beleive Micsoroft is right in asserting that as a matter of law the whole program becomes GPL, although if you read the GPL closely that is a possible interpretation. It certainly is RMS's actual intent, and yes I do know him. I think that Bill Gates is the only person who actually takes him seriously.
I suspect that in ordinary circumstances the limit of redress in a GPL suit would be an injunction prohibiting the distribution of the code fragments that are GPL.
I do not buy the argument that the GPL is contrary to public policy. What we have between SCO and IBM is a mutual interest contract, both IBM and SCO benefitted from the knowledge that they were pooling their mutual copyright interests in the code. This type of situation is very common, it is the basis of most standards work. In fact the US govt itself is a participant in numerous standards working groups operating under similar rules and has adopted standards based on those groups. Participation in these groups is clearly not contrary to public policy and is in fact completely uncontrovertial.
What IBM should do here is to apply to the judge for an order that puts the whole case on hold pending SCO's identification of the specific code that it claims ownership of.
True enough, but since Google is only selling 10-15% of their stocks (at least according to the article) a hostile takeover isn't possible no matter how much money is thrown about.
False, only an additional 10-15% of shares will be on the market in the IPO. But the Venture Capital firms will still hold a large chunk of stock and they will be planning to unload as soon as they can.
Google are unlikely to take the Microsoft offer now because the IPO price will be six or seven times what the company is really worth - just like the old days...
Wait until after the IPO and there will be a different dynamic, Google will settle into a realistic valuation at which point it will be a takeover target.
The fact Google uses Linux is pretty irrelevant, if you look at what the machines are actually doing very little of the time will be spent in the kernel, porting to embedded windows would have no real impact either way. The principal cause of crashes is going to be hardware failure whichever way you work it.
Right wing reactionary vs. left wing radical. The only real difference between the two is the the right winger (Donald Luskin) is angry that they called him a "stalker"
Paul is not left wing, he is anti-Bush. Specifically he predicted that Bush's economic policy would be a disaster and to date he has been right. Krugman's prediction of the budgt deficit has been much more accurate that the administrations. Krugman has been accurate in forecasting that the budget for jobs would create none. And no, todays news is not justification for three years of decline.
Lushkin is actually a journalist himself. OK, not a real one, a toy right wing journalist writing for one of Scaife's crank tank magazines. As such Lushkin is a public figure and his reputation is fair game.
are these the same 280 Americans that voted G.W. Bush into the white house?
Nope, it was only five of them that voted G. W. Bush into the Whitehouse.
Mind you given that Bush now seems to think that it is the sailors fault that the 'Mission Acomplished" sign that the Whitehouse produced and flew out to the U.S. Lincoln somehow got hung up, he can probably convince himself to believe anything, including the idea he was elected.
It's important to note that estoppel is an equitable doctrine, meaning it's a subset of legal arguments traditionally pled where someone's clear legal rights will lead to an egregious injustice.
Right, the biggest problem with SCO's case is that they refuse to mitigate their damages by telling the Linux community what the parts of the code alleged to infringe are.
It is very clear that the minute SCO reveals that information that the code will be yanked and replaced by non infringing code, most likely within hours, days at the outside.
This limits the damages that SCO can claim, since it is very clear that the infringement is not only not willful, it is involuntary. The only reason why the infringement is continuing is because SCO refuses to release that information.
The analogy would be to the distributor of a compilation 'best of hits' CD consisting of a selection from the distributor's archives, being challenged by a record label claiming that it is actually the legitimate owner of the rights to one of the songs on the compilation but refusing to specify which song is in dispute. The distributor of the compilation is then given the choice between not distributing the CD at all and risking a possibly bogus infringement claim. If the distributor is told the song that is in dispute they can easily swap it for a different one, it is the refusal to be specific that is the only reason that the plaintif's claim has standing.
This is not estoppel, but estoppel could also apply. SCO has allowed Linux to be distributed for many years and is in fact a distributor itself. Failure to enforce claims can result in them being lost. In fact this is the same claim that SCO is making against the GPL.
I don't think that the SCO objection holds because it is the behavior of IBM that is at issue, not the FSF. In this case IBM does not appear to have a history of failure to enforce its limited reciprocal rights under the GPL for the simple reason that SCO is the first company to attempt to sue...
Actually, at some point, the analog signals will be shut off.
Then none of the older TV sets will be able to tune in OTA signals. But by then (2007?), set top box receivers should be much cheaper, and then there will still be satellite and cable.
Fat chance. There is no way that the politicians are going to allow the FCC to turn off network television for even 10% of the population. That is the way they communicate with their electorate.
You know the process, you take in a huge amount in bribes from corporate controlled PACs and special interest lobbies. Then you buy TV ad time to trash your opponent with attack ads.
Everyone knows that is not going to happen, especially by 2007, including the FCC. But they have to pretend it will because one of the justifications for the last tax give away for the rich was estimated income from selling off the analog spectrum.
This rulling will have little impact. Instead of selling TVs you will see companies selling 'monitor displays'. Take the analog tuner out so it can only receive cable and the device is not FCC controlled
Oh, and those "British" people seem to have fought a war not to be considered so.
Actually they fought a war so that they could enjoy the same political rights in America as if they were living in Britain.
The real cause of complaint was the Canada act which limited the westward growth of the Southern colonies. This had been passed in Britain without consulting the colonies.
The rebels would have been complete fools to have fought the war over the issue of tax, taxes rose after the war as was inevitable. The refusal to pay tax was merely a tactic intended to bring about representation in the British parliament. Otherwise the symbolic act of throwing tea into harbors etc would have been pretty futile and unimportant guestures.
Oh and the fact that the king in question was a corpulent German who spent much of his time completely bonkers hardly helped the issue.
Don't twist Scripture. Jesus never said to overthrow the government
My copy has a direct quote that tells everyone to get a sword, and if they don't have a sword sell their cloak to buy one.
Overthrowing the corrupt quisling establishment who the Romans rulled through was precisely what Jesus was up to. He almost got away with it as well.
As for forcing welfare states on the unwilling... sounds like someone has been reading that millionaires of the bible crap which tries to make out that greed is Christian. No, the meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan is not that the Samaritan was rich enough to give his cloak away.
The point about render unto ceasar is that the roman coin with a graven image of ceasar was considered to be a part of ceasar and thus bellonged to him. The deeper political point being made was that Jesus was proposing a program of religious reforms and was not going to challenge the terms of the Roman occupation. Notice the way that Pontius Pilate is very keen to emphasise that the trial of Jesus is an internal Jewish issue.
Exactly. During the era that the Nazi party was rising to power in Germany, the communist party was doing the same. The nazi power saw that while they were destroying other parties, the communist party was consistently gaining power. They started murdering communist leaders. There was some big incident with it, but I dont remember what it was.
The NAZI party rose to power through McCarthyite red baiting tactics. The main reason that other countries tollerated Hitler was as a bulwark against Bolshevism.
Hitler was actually correct in his accusation that the commintern was run from Moscow. The communist and fascist cadres had running battles against each other in the streets.
The communist strategy appeared to have been to allow the Fasicsts to attempt a coup and then take over themselves in the confusion. Hitler had already tried one coup (the beer hall putsch) which farcical though it was showed his intentions plainly enough.
What the communists did not anticipate was that Hitler would use them as the excuse for the coup, mobilizing the entire apparatus of the state and party against them. Hitler had the Reichstag burned down, put the blame on the communists and ordered them rounded up.
Knowing this history is one of the reasons that so many people are nervous of the tactics being used by Ashcroft, particularly when he claims that anyone who questions his tactics is suspect in their patriotism. That is precisely the tactic that Hitler used to gain power.
Stalin - 35 Mao - 40 Hitler - 10 Pol Pot - 3 Ok. So maybe I exagerated a bit. It's only killed 88,000,000.
Hitler was not a communist, he was a fascist. And he did not kill 10 million, more like 30 million. The 10 million is approaximately the number of people who were exterminated or died in death camps, political opponents, jews, homosexuals, mentally infirm, socialists, etc. Hitler was also directly responsible for WWII which killed another 20 million.
It is difficult to accurately determine the number that died under Stalin because the only way to work it out is to look at the population falls in the relevant areas and it is difficult to know how many were killed by Stalin and how many by Hitler. There is a similar problem with estimates of the number of Jews murdered by Hitler, the '6 million' figure commonly quoted is the high end of an estimate that was presented at Nuremberg. The holocaust deniers spend a lot of time trying to make an issue of the number comparing it with other estimates. What the deniers don't tell you however is that the biggest unknown is not the numbers who died - the records are suprisingly good there. The unknown is the proportion who were Jewish. You could be arrested and sent to the camps for many reasons.
But if you are going to count the deaths from these dictators it only seems fair to mention the numbers killed by Imperialism as well.
Famines in India and diseases killed at least five million and possibly as meny as ten in the first half of the century. These had always occurred in the region of course, but they were made far worse by the fact that a foreign occupation was now extracting wealth at a huge rate. The US occupation of the Philippines resulted in almost a million native deaths, and so it goes on.
All in all there is not a great deal to say for any of the pre-WWII political systems. The best that any of them managed to do was to prevent domestic despotism.
Stalin and Mao were monsters in charge of socialist, not communist, systems.
Stalin and Mao both called themselves Communist. More importantly they both persecuted socialists, or for that matter anyone who opposed them.
One of the reasons that Hitler got into power in Germany was that Stalin ordered the communist deputies not to form a coalition with the socialists and moderates to keep Hitler out.
There have been a small number of utopian societies who have applied communist principles. The best known of these, the Shakers, the Onedia commune predate Marx. Incidentally, commune, communisim, ever thought that there might be a link.
Religious communes still exist, Monastaries, Convents, etc. but the only communes in the communist model still arround are the Israeli Kibutz. Even here the second and third generation are behaving in pretty much the same way that they did at Onedia, the dirty secret of the Kibutz movement is that it was only kept running by cheap external labor. One of the big social issues in Israel is the older Kibutzim who gave all their income to the kibutz in the belief that they would be supported in their old age, oops.
So no, I don't think you can fairly say that communism has not been tried, or for that matter claim that Stalin and Mao were some other kind of dictator. Both killed millions in their attempts to impose a utopian commune system, that is what caused the Ukranian famine and the millions of deaths in the cultural revolution. Very few people will choose communism willingly.
Moreover at the time when communism was working, in the utopian societies these places were very affluent compared to their neighbors. The average inhabitant of the Shaker or Onedia commune had a living standard that compared favorably with the upper middle class of the day in a time when the average peasant was a malnourished hovel dweller.
What people really wanted was not communism, what they wanted was pensions and a welfare system to care for them in old age, or if they got sick.
>> Yes, but the comments in question were conditional on the day we become a dictatorship
I'm so sorry I expended my mod points earlier in the day. What a bunch of flamebait bullshit this line of crap is. "Dictatorship?" Get fucking real.
It is such a shame that the states in the deep south no longer invest in education, if they had you might have actually been able to read what I wrote.
The statements were predicated on an event that we presume has not occurred - a dictatorship. Therefore they do not fall into the imminent threat category, nor are they a specific threat.
It is interesting the way you Bushies are so touchy on the dictatorship issue that the mere mention of the word sends you into a blathering rage that makes you unable to read.
Of course the reason you all do this is that you know that there is more than a grain of truth there. The stealling of the 2000 election, the imprisonment without trial, the Orwellian titled 'Patriot act'.
The crux of this argument is that Bush missed some drills in 1972 while he was working on a political campaign in Alabama.
The crux of the matter is that he refused to have his pilots medical just after the Pentagon added a check for illegal drug use.
You can try to spin this whichever way that Karl Rove tells you but the facts are against you. The fact is that your great leader is a coward who ducked the draft and then deserted to avoid a drug test.
The Iraq entries could only have got there if someone was told to go and stop stories appearing in the Google cache.
The person who got the job appears to have done it in a pretty clumsy way, that is pretty much par for the course for this type of work. Nixon did not expect Gordon Liddy and his pals to get caught in a third rate burgalry either.
It looks to me like someone was told to block out the Iraq files and simply did a directory listing on the web server and then appended/iraq to everything.
"This admin has a long history of attempting to rewrite history"
Please provide examples.
Last year - Iraq going to acquire WMD imminently
This year - We never said that
Election - Pledge that there will not be a deficit
After huge deficit - Bush claims that the pledge was conditional, only he never said it.
Claim - SEC cleared Bush of corruption at Harken
Fact - It didn't, the letter in question said it didn't
And so on. Even if we accept the Bush claim that he did actually speak to the unnamed journalist about conditions on the no-deficit pledge it hardly excuses him. He knew the pledge was reported unconditionally. In any case the claim is ridiculous, all candidate contact with the media is monitored and minuted. In most cases recorded too.
every major journalist worth his/her salt would be all over it within hours. so it wouldn't succeed in obscuring information.
Where have you been living the past five years? Journalists don't criticize Bush.
They still have not published the fact that he deserted from the national guard during Vietnam and they practically ignored his DUI conviction.
The GOP has the media cowed with their constant 'liberal media' babble. There number of journalists who are prepared to hold Bush to account is tiny - Krugman, Conanston, Irvins, Alterman. After that its Al Franken, Jon Stewart and David Letterman.
it would create an incredible backlash as soon as detected. what purpose would this serve?
The chances that the mainstream media will pick this one up are very small. Just think how they would have reacted if it was Clinton!
Apparently some poor fool made similar remarks on k5 a while back, and did indeed receive a personal visit from the SS. No charges filed, but 'tis a rude awakening indeed when your online words come and knock on your door.
Yes, but the comments in question were conditional on the day we become a dictatorship so the probability they will attract notice is much less.
There are quite a few people being watched because they threatened the life of a current or past president. There is a federal law that requires the secret service to investigate every single one.
Of course in the new Ashcroft USA where the bill of rights is now regarded as advice that the executive is free to ignore when inconvenient it probably isn't such a great idea to say such things.
It is probably a better idea to work to prevent the election of Bush in 2004. Between Diebold, Fox News and Ashcroft it may be the last time we get the chance.
Yeah and how exactly do you think that people who are on IPv6 networks are going to be able to communicate to the IPv4 world?
IPv6 makes the NAT concept absolutely vital to any migration strategy. It is going to be 10 or twenty years before IPv4 addresses go away.
The thing that gets me about the smug anti-NAT tirades that the IETF indulges in is that if NAT had not saved their ass we would have run out of IP addresses long ago. Instead of trying to make NAT work as well as possible they did everything they could to sabotage it, don't want to have competition for IPv6...
Maybe because a NAT misconfiguration could do all sorts of nasty things. With IPv6 and its tight IPSec integrations,
Ah the great amateur security expert.
We know that end users misconfigure their machines all the time, they fail to apply patches and do lots of idiotic things. So yes lets make sure that the end user machine is our first, last and only line of defense against that kind of idiocy as well as buggy application software.
Encryption does absolutely nothing to protect a system against an attack that exploits a software security hole like a buffer overrun. So IPSEC does absoultely NOTHING to protect a system against the type of attacks that a firewall/NAT configuration is intended to.
I want to see ISPs deploy NAT/Firewall boxes to all their end users, not just to control incomming connections but to secure outgoing connections as well. At present a machine that is hacked that has a broadband access places no restrictions on what the hacker can then do with it, send spam, launch a DDoS attack, portscan other machines.
I have better things to do than worry about whether Mr Coffee has been hacked and is being used to attack other systems. Mr Coffee has no need to initiate connections to anything else on the external network.
IPv6 should eliminate NATs. The people who enjoy the false security (prevention of inbound connections) that NAT provides will keep using them.
IPv6 does nothing to change the need for firewalls. In fact it increases the need because you are going to have a lot more devices in a network.
The problem with end to end security is that it falls flat on its face if the end is compromised. The security area directors of the IETF understand this, Dave Clark who invented the end to end concept understands this (see his 2001 paper on re-evaluating end to end). The problem is that the parts of the IETF who don't have a clue when it comes to security have convinced themselves that end-to-end is everything.
IPv6 does not provide end to end encryption either, that is a myth. The stacks have to support end to end crypto but there is nobody in the IPSEC working group who can give you the slightest idea how to connect it up to a key exchange infrastructure. Oh and the DNSSEC spec turns out to be impossible to deploy in dotcom, that does not matter though because dotcom should be smaller anyway (that is their argument, I kid you not).
IPv6 has lingered in obscurity for the past decade because the IETF establishment does not have the slightest idea how to drive deployment. At this point they have alienated all the major vendors except for CISCO. Nobody in industry wants to have to deal with IETF process that takes ten years to approve simple specs and makes a huge show of being open while making sure that the important decisions can be taken behind the scenes by the magic circle.
Slashdot Mirror
That source code is not worth diddly without thirty or so million dollars worth of computer power to run it on.
I think that the article conflates two separate issues. The first issue is whether Google is going to IPO at some obscene valuation that quickly declines to a more realistic level as nmore shares reach the market. Yep, probably the case unless Google have the foresight to do what Gates and Balmer did when Microsoft IPO'd and talk down the launch price.
The second issue is whether Google will repeat the Netscape business history. This is completely separate and there is no reason to think it will.
Mosaic Communications Corp (Netscape) started out with a business model of give away the browser and make money selling the server. That model started to show its weakness when Apache started to appear. People were just not as excited about a Web server with the latest kewl feature as Netscape thought.
Netscape deliberately gave away the browser in order to take spyglass out of the market. Spyglass was charging for its browser, Netscape was giving it away to most users. They did sign some for pay deals but these were usually loss leaders for the server code.
The other problem at Netscape was that they were selling themselves as the cutting edge of Web technology but they systematically alienated the Web Developer community. Netscape simply did not bother to show up to standards working groups, they thought that they did not need to, they would set the standard by shipping the next release. That did not work so well as Microsoft started to gear up. Microsoft did try to do some of the same tactics initially (marquee tag anyone?) but quickly realised that Netscape never showed up to standards meetings. Microsoft did, and that is why they got most of what they wanted from the HTML4 standard, Netscape got diddly.
The final nail in the coffin was when W3C got its PR machine worked up and started to promote Tim Berners-Lee as the inventor of the Web. Journalists who had been told Marc Andressen was the wunderkind were somewhat annoyed they had been lied to. Add to that the fact that Tim gave much better press availability and the history was substantially rewritten - correctly this time. Marc became just the face of Netscape, not the face of the Web.
Why do you think that every right wing talk radio show has failed on TV? Bill O'Really is only able to stay on the TV because Fox News is prepared to lose money on his show.
Radio shows do not cost that much to run, and when you run in syndication you can finance a show from ideologically committed advertisers and second tier brands.
The shout format falls apart on TV, take Rush and put him on the screeen so you can see his face when he is telling his latetest lie and it all just falls apart.
Of course it could just be a myth of the left wing media that Rush is a drug adict and that he really isn't a hypocrite when he calls for strict drug laws. It could even be the case that Bill O'Really did not demand that fox News sue Franken over the book as he now claims. But there is no way in hell that the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was not made by the Whitehouse and hung according to its directions whatever lies that George W. might like to make to the contrary.
Look at the latest rate card. It costs less to advertise on Fox News than CNN at pretty much any time and a time slot during Lou Dobbs costs considerably more than the corresponding Fox slot for a fifth of the audience.
You are flat-out wrong. The FNC demo is better than CNN's; it is popular with young republican YUPPIEs.
Viewership of Fox is inversely correlated with education and income.
Biased news is bad whatever. In the case of Fox the employees are actually required to bend the stories to the GOP party line. Incidentally the story of the ex-employee did not appear first on Salon, Salon just linked to it and interviewed the guy who posted it. Sure there might be bias in Salon's selection of stories, but that is rather different from deliberate and calculated bias in the stories themselves.
Hannity & Colmes has a conservative and a liberal host.
Colmes is a former comedian who was actually hired by Hannity, his role in 'debates' consists of being contradicted or interrupted by Hannity. A doormat who is only on the show to be a foil to the right wing host is not balance.
Bill O'Reilly tends to be more conservative than not, but he's not exactly a Republican hack either.
That is exactly what he is, a dishonest one at that. He could not tell the truth about the Peabody, he even tried to claim that he was not responsible for the Al Franken suit.
The history here is that the head of Fox News, Roger Aisles is a long time Republican activist and partisan. He was put in charge of the news operation for the sole purpose of slanting the news to the extreme right.
To get an idea of what really goes on at Fox take a read of the experiences of people who have worked there. Every day a note goes arround called 'The Memo' which contains the Republican party messages of the day. If you do not toe the line then you get fired. This is a bad thing since experience working at Fox news does not exactly enhance your resume when applying for a job with the real media.
You can tell this is going on because Fox was even able to report Bush's claim that the Whitehouse did not order the 'Mission Accomplished' banner with a straight face.
So yes it is completely believable that the executives running this bubble world outfit would have so little clue about the real world as to threaten to sue another Murdoch production - in this case a production that can if it choose defect at will to another station and a production that makes money rather than looses it hand over fist.
Fox News does well in the ratings but very poorly with advertisers. The problem is that its core democratic of poor middle aged southern white racist men do not have much in the way of buying power. Advertisers much prefer to reach 18-35 audiences, gays, professionals, etc. in short pretty much everyone who is unlikely to watch Fox. In fact advertising on Fox News actually trades at a discount to other broadcasts reaching the same demographic because advertisers know that many of the demographics they do want are actually less likely to buy a product they see advertised on a channel they associate with biggotry.
The joke on the GOP and the likes of Bill O'Really is that Murdoch has no ideological commitments only business interests. He is quite happy running a Pro-Bejing communist sympathetic news channel on his Asian Star TV and he does not broadcast the BBC signal which might offend the dictators. In the UK Murdoch is quite happy to support Tony Blair's government, provided they do not threaten his economic interests. Murdoch undoubtedly considers his US channels in the same way, if Bush looses power in such a way that a return of Republican government looks to be unlikely in the near future then Fox news will flip flop to the left.
It is possible for a contract to be unenforceable and I suspect that there are cases where the GPL would be found to be unenforceable, but not as a blanket rule.
The cases where I don't think it would be enforceable is if Alice writes a program, 99% of which is her own work, happens to include a subroutine that is GPL. I do not beleive Micsoroft is right in asserting that as a matter of law the whole program becomes GPL, although if you read the GPL closely that is a possible interpretation. It certainly is RMS's actual intent, and yes I do know him. I think that Bill Gates is the only person who actually takes him seriously.
I suspect that in ordinary circumstances the limit of redress in a GPL suit would be an injunction prohibiting the distribution of the code fragments that are GPL.
I do not buy the argument that the GPL is contrary to public policy. What we have between SCO and IBM is a mutual interest contract, both IBM and SCO benefitted from the knowledge that they were pooling their mutual copyright interests in the code. This type of situation is very common, it is the basis of most standards work. In fact the US govt itself is a participant in numerous standards working groups operating under similar rules and has adopted standards based on those groups. Participation in these groups is clearly not contrary to public policy and is in fact completely uncontrovertial.
What IBM should do here is to apply to the judge for an order that puts the whole case on hold pending SCO's identification of the specific code that it claims ownership of.
False, only an additional 10-15% of shares will be on the market in the IPO. But the Venture Capital firms will still hold a large chunk of stock and they will be planning to unload as soon as they can.
Google are unlikely to take the Microsoft offer now because the IPO price will be six or seven times what the company is really worth - just like the old days...
Wait until after the IPO and there will be a different dynamic, Google will settle into a realistic valuation at which point it will be a takeover target.
The fact Google uses Linux is pretty irrelevant, if you look at what the machines are actually doing very little of the time will be spent in the kernel, porting to embedded windows would have no real impact either way. The principal cause of crashes is going to be hardware failure whichever way you work it.
Paul is not left wing, he is anti-Bush. Specifically he predicted that Bush's economic policy would be a disaster and to date he has been right. Krugman's prediction of the budgt deficit has been much more accurate that the administrations. Krugman has been accurate in forecasting that the budget for jobs would create none. And no, todays news is not justification for three years of decline.
Lushkin is actually a journalist himself. OK, not a real one, a toy right wing journalist writing for one of Scaife's crank tank magazines. As such Lushkin is a public figure and his reputation is fair game.
Nope, it was only five of them that voted G. W. Bush into the Whitehouse.
Mind you given that Bush now seems to think that it is the sailors fault that the 'Mission Acomplished" sign that the Whitehouse produced and flew out to the U.S. Lincoln somehow got hung up, he can probably convince himself to believe anything, including the idea he was elected.
Right, the biggest problem with SCO's case is that they refuse to mitigate their damages by telling the Linux community what the parts of the code alleged to infringe are.
It is very clear that the minute SCO reveals that information that the code will be yanked and replaced by non infringing code, most likely within hours, days at the outside.
This limits the damages that SCO can claim, since it is very clear that the infringement is not only not willful, it is involuntary. The only reason why the infringement is continuing is because SCO refuses to release that information.
The analogy would be to the distributor of a compilation 'best of hits' CD consisting of a selection from the distributor's archives, being challenged by a record label claiming that it is actually the legitimate owner of the rights to one of the songs on the compilation but refusing to specify which song is in dispute. The distributor of the compilation is then given the choice between not distributing the CD at all and risking a possibly bogus infringement claim. If the distributor is told the song that is in dispute they can easily swap it for a different one, it is the refusal to be specific that is the only reason that the plaintif's claim has standing.
This is not estoppel, but estoppel could also apply. SCO has allowed Linux to be distributed for many years and is in fact a distributor itself. Failure to enforce claims can result in them being lost. In fact this is the same claim that SCO is making against the GPL.
I don't think that the SCO objection holds because it is the behavior of IBM that is at issue, not the FSF. In this case IBM does not appear to have a history of failure to enforce its limited reciprocal rights under the GPL for the simple reason that SCO is the first company to attempt to sue...
Fat chance. There is no way that the politicians are going to allow the FCC to turn off network television for even 10% of the population. That is the way they communicate with their electorate.
You know the process, you take in a huge amount in bribes from corporate controlled PACs and special interest lobbies. Then you buy TV ad time to trash your opponent with attack ads.
Everyone knows that is not going to happen, especially by 2007, including the FCC. But they have to pretend it will because one of the justifications for the last tax give away for the rich was estimated income from selling off the analog spectrum.
This rulling will have little impact. Instead of selling TVs you will see companies selling 'monitor displays'. Take the analog tuner out so it can only receive cable and the device is not FCC controlled
Actually they fought a war so that they could enjoy the same political rights in America as if they were living in Britain.
The real cause of complaint was the Canada act which limited the westward growth of the Southern colonies. This had been passed in Britain without consulting the colonies.
The rebels would have been complete fools to have fought the war over the issue of tax, taxes rose after the war as was inevitable. The refusal to pay tax was merely a tactic intended to bring about representation in the British parliament. Otherwise the symbolic act of throwing tea into harbors etc would have been pretty futile and unimportant guestures.
Oh and the fact that the king in question was a corpulent German who spent much of his time completely bonkers hardly helped the issue.
My copy has a direct quote that tells everyone to get a sword, and if they don't have a sword sell their cloak to buy one.
Overthrowing the corrupt quisling establishment who the Romans rulled through was precisely what Jesus was up to. He almost got away with it as well.
As for forcing welfare states on the unwilling... sounds like someone has been reading that millionaires of the bible crap which tries to make out that greed is Christian. No, the meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan is not that the Samaritan was rich enough to give his cloak away.
The point about render unto ceasar is that the roman coin with a graven image of ceasar was considered to be a part of ceasar and thus bellonged to him. The deeper political point being made was that Jesus was proposing a program of religious reforms and was not going to challenge the terms of the Roman occupation. Notice the way that Pontius Pilate is very keen to emphasise that the trial of Jesus is an internal Jewish issue.
The NAZI party rose to power through McCarthyite red baiting tactics. The main reason that other countries tollerated Hitler was as a bulwark against Bolshevism.
Hitler was actually correct in his accusation that the commintern was run from Moscow. The communist and fascist cadres had running battles against each other in the streets.
The communist strategy appeared to have been to allow the Fasicsts to attempt a coup and then take over themselves in the confusion. Hitler had already tried one coup (the beer hall putsch) which farcical though it was showed his intentions plainly enough.
What the communists did not anticipate was that Hitler would use them as the excuse for the coup, mobilizing the entire apparatus of the state and party against them. Hitler had the Reichstag burned down, put the blame on the communists and ordered them rounded up.
Knowing this history is one of the reasons that so many people are nervous of the tactics being used by Ashcroft, particularly when he claims that anyone who questions his tactics is suspect in their patriotism. That is precisely the tactic that Hitler used to gain power.
Fortunately Karl Rove is no Gobbels.
Hitler was not a communist, he was a fascist. And he did not kill 10 million, more like 30 million. The 10 million is approaximately the number of people who were exterminated or died in death camps, political opponents, jews, homosexuals, mentally infirm, socialists, etc. Hitler was also directly responsible for WWII which killed another 20 million.
It is difficult to accurately determine the number that died under Stalin because the only way to work it out is to look at the population falls in the relevant areas and it is difficult to know how many were killed by Stalin and how many by Hitler. There is a similar problem with estimates of the number of Jews murdered by Hitler, the '6 million' figure commonly quoted is the high end of an estimate that was presented at Nuremberg. The holocaust deniers spend a lot of time trying to make an issue of the number comparing it with other estimates. What the deniers don't tell you however is that the biggest unknown is not the numbers who died - the records are suprisingly good there. The unknown is the proportion who were Jewish. You could be arrested and sent to the camps for many reasons.
But if you are going to count the deaths from these dictators it only seems fair to mention the numbers killed by Imperialism as well.
Famines in India and diseases killed at least five million and possibly as meny as ten in the first half of the century. These had always occurred in the region of course, but they were made far worse by the fact that a foreign occupation was now extracting wealth at a huge rate. The US occupation of the Philippines resulted in almost a million native deaths, and so it goes on.
All in all there is not a great deal to say for any of the pre-WWII political systems. The best that any of them managed to do was to prevent domestic despotism.
Stalin and Mao both called themselves Communist. More importantly they both persecuted socialists, or for that matter anyone who opposed them.
One of the reasons that Hitler got into power in Germany was that Stalin ordered the communist deputies not to form a coalition with the socialists and moderates to keep Hitler out.
There have been a small number of utopian societies who have applied communist principles. The best known of these, the Shakers, the Onedia commune predate Marx. Incidentally, commune, communisim, ever thought that there might be a link.
Religious communes still exist, Monastaries, Convents, etc. but the only communes in the communist model still arround are the Israeli Kibutz. Even here the second and third generation are behaving in pretty much the same way that they did at Onedia, the dirty secret of the Kibutz movement is that it was only kept running by cheap external labor. One of the big social issues in Israel is the older Kibutzim who gave all their income to the kibutz in the belief that they would be supported in their old age, oops.
So no, I don't think you can fairly say that communism has not been tried, or for that matter claim that Stalin and Mao were some other kind of dictator. Both killed millions in their attempts to impose a utopian commune system, that is what caused the Ukranian famine and the millions of deaths in the cultural revolution. Very few people will choose communism willingly.
Moreover at the time when communism was working, in the utopian societies these places were very affluent compared to their neighbors. The average inhabitant of the Shaker or Onedia commune had a living standard that compared favorably with the upper middle class of the day in a time when the average peasant was a malnourished hovel dweller.
What people really wanted was not communism, what they wanted was pensions and a welfare system to care for them in old age, or if they got sick.
I'm so sorry I expended my mod points earlier in the day. What a bunch of flamebait bullshit this line of crap is. "Dictatorship?" Get fucking real.
It is such a shame that the states in the deep south no longer invest in education, if they had you might have actually been able to read what I wrote.
The statements were predicated on an event that we presume has not occurred - a dictatorship. Therefore they do not fall into the imminent threat category, nor are they a specific threat.
It is interesting the way you Bushies are so touchy on the dictatorship issue that the mere mention of the word sends you into a blathering rage that makes you unable to read.
Of course the reason you all do this is that you know that there is more than a grain of truth there. The stealling of the 2000 election, the imprisonment without trial, the Orwellian titled 'Patriot act'.
The crux of the matter is that he refused to have his pilots medical just after the Pentagon added a check for illegal drug use.
You can try to spin this whichever way that Karl Rove tells you but the facts are against you. The fact is that your great leader is a coward who ducked the draft and then deserted to avoid a drug test.
Bullshit.
The Iraq entries could only have got there if someone was told to go and stop stories appearing in the Google cache.
The person who got the job appears to have done it in a pretty clumsy way, that is pretty much par for the course for this type of work. Nixon did not expect Gordon Liddy and his pals to get caught in a third rate burgalry either.
It looks to me like someone was told to block out the Iraq files and simply did a directory listing on the web server and then appended /iraq to everything.
If you want to find out for sure file some FOIAs.
Last year - Iraq going to acquire WMD imminently
This year - We never said that
Election - Pledge that there will not be a deficit
After huge deficit - Bush claims that the pledge was conditional, only he never said it.
Claim - SEC cleared Bush of corruption at Harken
Fact - It didn't, the letter in question said it didn't
And so on. Even if we accept the Bush claim that he did actually speak to the unnamed journalist about conditions on the no-deficit pledge it hardly excuses him. He knew the pledge was reported unconditionally. In any case the claim is ridiculous, all candidate contact with the media is monitored and minuted. In most cases recorded too.
Where have you been living the past five years? Journalists don't criticize Bush.
They still have not published the fact that he deserted from the national guard during Vietnam and they practically ignored his DUI conviction.
The GOP has the media cowed with their constant 'liberal media' babble. There number of journalists who are prepared to hold Bush to account is tiny - Krugman, Conanston, Irvins, Alterman. After that its Al Franken, Jon Stewart and David Letterman.
it would create an incredible backlash as soon as detected. what purpose would this serve?
The chances that the mainstream media will pick this one up are very small. Just think how they would have reacted if it was Clinton!
Yes, but the comments in question were conditional on the day we become a dictatorship so the probability they will attract notice is much less.
There are quite a few people being watched because they threatened the life of a current or past president. There is a federal law that requires the secret service to investigate every single one.
Of course in the new Ashcroft USA where the bill of rights is now regarded as advice that the executive is free to ignore when inconvenient it probably isn't such a great idea to say such things.
It is probably a better idea to work to prevent the election of Bush in 2004. Between Diebold, Fox News and Ashcroft it may be the last time we get the chance.
Yeah and how exactly do you think that people who are on IPv6 networks are going to be able to communicate to the IPv4 world?
IPv6 makes the NAT concept absolutely vital to any migration strategy. It is going to be 10 or twenty years before IPv4 addresses go away.
The thing that gets me about the smug anti-NAT tirades that the IETF indulges in is that if NAT had not saved their ass we would have run out of IP addresses long ago. Instead of trying to make NAT work as well as possible they did everything they could to sabotage it, don't want to have competition for IPv6...
Ah the great amateur security expert.
We know that end users misconfigure their machines all the time, they fail to apply patches and do lots of idiotic things. So yes lets make sure that the end user machine is our first, last and only line of defense against that kind of idiocy as well as buggy application software.
Encryption does absolutely nothing to protect a system against an attack that exploits a software security hole like a buffer overrun. So IPSEC does absoultely NOTHING to protect a system against the type of attacks that a firewall/NAT configuration is intended to.
I want to see ISPs deploy NAT/Firewall boxes to all their end users, not just to control incomming connections but to secure outgoing connections as well. At present a machine that is hacked that has a broadband access places no restrictions on what the hacker can then do with it, send spam, launch a DDoS attack, portscan other machines.
I have better things to do than worry about whether Mr Coffee has been hacked and is being used to attack other systems. Mr Coffee has no need to initiate connections to anything else on the external network.
IPv6 does nothing to change the need for firewalls. In fact it increases the need because you are going to have a lot more devices in a network.
The problem with end to end security is that it falls flat on its face if the end is compromised. The security area directors of the IETF understand this, Dave Clark who invented the end to end concept understands this (see his 2001 paper on re-evaluating end to end). The problem is that the parts of the IETF who don't have a clue when it comes to security have convinced themselves that end-to-end is everything.
IPv6 does not provide end to end encryption either, that is a myth. The stacks have to support end to end crypto but there is nobody in the IPSEC working group who can give you the slightest idea how to connect it up to a key exchange infrastructure. Oh and the DNSSEC spec turns out to be impossible to deploy in dotcom, that does not matter though because dotcom should be smaller anyway (that is their argument, I kid you not).
IPv6 has lingered in obscurity for the past decade because the IETF establishment does not have the slightest idea how to drive deployment. At this point they have alienated all the major vendors except for CISCO. Nobody in industry wants to have to deal with IETF process that takes ten years to approve simple specs and makes a huge show of being open while making sure that the important decisions can be taken behind the scenes by the magic circle.