It would be good for Microsoft to include source (any source) in their overwhelmingly binary offerings. But it's bad for OpenLinux to offer only source?
Can anyone reconcile this? Personally, if I'm given the option of source and/or binaries, I'll choose to take the source every time. I'm just not seeing what's so evil about this.
The SEC called off its investigation in exchange for Microsoft's promise that it will not break the rules in the future, though the company is not admitting that it broke rules in the past
Sorry, but what the fuck? They're "agreeing" to what exactly? To obey the law? To continue doing exactly what they're doing right now (whatever that is)? What kind of "agreement" is this?
Quo custodiet ipsos custodes? I'd be very interested in knowing how many of the SEC people involved in this "investigation" have suddenly found themselves able to pay off their mortgages, or fund their kids through college. And no, I am not joking. When you're dealing with a company with $40 billion in the bank and bad accounting practices, squirreling a couple of million in a slush fund is trivial. I mean, how many people at Microsoft actually believe that they know exactly how much money Microsoft has - and how many different figures would you get if you asked all of these "authoratative" figures?
This "nothing to see here, move along" investigation is a farce. They are either innocent, in which case there's no "agreement", or they are guilty, in which case they should get reamed. This stinks.
Hasn't anyone seen the Simpsons episode where the comic store clerk goes to sleep with a life-sized Jar-Jar doll saying "Oh Jar-Jar, no one loves you but me...".
Comic shop owner:All right, Return of the Jedi. Look at the Ewoks. They were crap!
Tim: All right, but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks looking like... fucking Shaft.
After the emotional assraping delivered by TPM and (to a lesser extent) AotC, my one comfort is that the funniest comedy series of recent years is only available on Region 2 DVD, and that most US citizens won't see it, or know about it, or figure out how to get their DVD players to play it even if I gave it to them. That's cold comfort, but I take it where I can get it.
Do what I've done. Install OpenOffice 1.0 on your corporate machine. Set it to save in Microsoft file formats by default (I know, but bear with me). Use it to create, read and write Microsoft Office files for a couple of months. Invite your coworkers to use it. See if they even notice that it's not Microsoft Office. Document everything you do with it.
When you have a big healthy list of Microsoft format files that you've touched with it, confront your IS department and demand to know why they are wasting money on Microsoft Office. Tell them that you've already removed it from your machine (that's a $300 saving to the company right there) with - demonstrably - no effect on your or anyone else's productivity. CC people in accounting or cost control. Invite them to try it, to inspect the files (using Microsoft Office, naturally) and to ask your coworkers what they think of it. Request a specific answer about why it can't be used across the enterprise, or at least trialled on a larger scale, in parallel with the existing Microsoft Office if need be. If they bitch that it's unsupported, suggest that they pay for StarOffice. If they whine that it's not guaranteed to create usable Microsoft binary format files, point out that it is creating them, and that Microsoft Office doesn't guarantee it either!
That's step 1, and it's a big step: get your company using Star/OpenOffice. Don't even bring up the issue of file formats until you've achieved this (I made that mistake). This might take years. It might never happen, because your IS guys are idiots or cowards working on the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" principle. But try for it.
Once you've got everyone using Star/OpenOffice then you can launch stage two. Switch to creating documents in the default XML format. Any Microsoft binary format documents that you touch as part of your normal work should be saved as XML. Make a nice big list of all the documents that you've changed, because (this is the good bit) nobody else should even notice. Then after a few months, back you go to IS with your list, and demand to know why everyone else is still using Microsoft binary formats as the default. At this point there simply no reason to stick with them. Point out that a default Star/OpenOffice document (zipped XML) is significantly smaller than the Microsoft binary equivelant, which should keep the beancounters happy. And that should they ever go back to a proprietary suite (gods forbid) that it's far easier to convert from XML to anything than from Microsoft binaries to anything.
It will be a long and painful process, but OpenOffice 1.0 and StarOffice 6.0 have made it possible to start it now. If you haven't tried these products, do so now. It's your first step into a larger universe.;-)
Expect Star Office to take off and become dominant
Keep expecting. I spoke to our IS guys recently and tried to sell them on the benefits of the XML format of Star/OpenOffice. They simply weren't interested, because, hey, Microsoft Office will always be available, right? They just didn't see the benefits of using an open format, even when I pointed out that it's far easier to convert from an open to a proprietary format than vice versa.
As a first step to persuading them, I've replaced my corporate licensed Microsoft Office with OpenOffice 1.0, and have been creating, reading and writing Word binary format files with it just fine. At least, none of the MS Office users that have been reading them have noticed anything different. I feel bad about continuing to use the proprietary Microsoft format, but at least this way I get to go back to the IS guys in a couple of months and point out that Office is now an expensive luxury that we can get rid of. Once we've done that, then we can convert to XML documents.
That's the strength that I see in Star/OpenOffice; the ability to migrate in two steps, so that nobody is even so much as inconvenienced (in fact people have been using OpenOffice on my machine without even realising that it's not MS Office). But it's going to take years to dig out those entrenched copies of Office, and Microsoft will fight damn hard to keep people using their proprietary formats, as (in conjunction with FUD about non-compatibility) it's the only weapon they have left.
Q) If you had to explain to Microsoft why they should change their attitude toward Open Source, what would you say?
A) Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft can just keep on gouging the idiots who are too lazy or risk averse to switch, and open source will keep supplying to the people who have a clue.
Honestly, would you want to support (directly or indirectly) businesses that both clueless enough to use IIS and too lazy to patch it? Basically I don't want to write software that's dumb enough for people like that to use. Microsoft can keep them, and keep spoon feeding them for all I care. In that respect, market segmentation is a good thing: it keeps idiots away from open source, rather than having them drag it down with demands for it to ship with one big button labelled "Do stuff."
One big problem- re-elections. 1/3 of Senators every 2 years, all Congress-dudes and Pres every 4 years
Wait, are you talking about the system that re-elects 90% of incumbents? The only major change is the President, and that's where the flaw lies, in replacing the British monarch with a US one. We'd have a far better system without a head of state, or a titular one, with actual policies decided off camera by boring little committes of tedious beaurocrats.
As an American of Lithuanian and Ukrainian Jewish descent
How many times have you visited Lithuania?
And having had a great grandfather who emigrated from Philadelphia to Palestine after it had been freed from the Ottoman Empire to have it replaced by the just as imperialist British, I do in fact understand the concept of foreign military might on ones soil.
Bullshit. All that signifies is that you have a great grandfather who did things you'll never do. Talk about your own experiences. I think we're all sick of hearing individuals whine about how they deserve special treatment or respect because one of their ancestors had an unfortunate life.
Shouldn't we be saving some of our finite resources for our grandchildren?
Now we also have to consider that we are getting better at getting oil out of places where it was previous not thought possible.
Yep, and it's lucky that there'll never be another ice age or major asteroid impact to knock us back to the stone age, right? I mean, we've got a technological solution for that, haven't we? Or are we just going to legislate against it happening?
The trouble with thinking long term is that you actually have to understand that this is not science fiction. It's like weather; it's going to happen, whether we like it or not. The question is, do we care enough to leave some easily accessible resources for our future descendants, or do we want to just keep pouring scorn on those who talk about such preposterous situations, right up until the ice sheets roll over us and perfectly preserve us enjoying our bread and circusses?
Is this yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, or is it an illustration of how futile it is to try and filter out the overwhelming false positives generated by free speech?
While you're deciding, remember that intelligence agencies are spending your taxes to monitor you. Free speech might become a very expensive priviledge.
You're right that the long term point isn't about whether oil is going to run out, but it's also not about how high the price goes.
In the long term, the point is about how much easily accessable oil we leave for our descendants to use. I mean the descendants that will need to bootstrap themselves after the next ice age or big asteroid impact. Because we're going to do squat to prepare for the first one; it's only after it happens (and it will) that our descendants will realise that we'd better get the hell off the planet while we still can.
Let's leave them some easily accessible resources, huh? This isn't some hypothetical piece of science fiction. We either care enough to plan for it, or we don't. What's it to be?
If you were running a business, would you trust the FSF or ANYBODY else to use their patent portfolio to defend YOU in case of a hostile patent infringement suit?
Of course not, and I'd also cynically and mendaciously claim that I was gaining patents for the benefit of the open source community, while actually retaining the option to wield them as a weapon against anybody, including my main competitors, exactly as Red Hat is doing.
I have no problem with what Red Hat is doing, I'm just pointing out that their actions don't match their rhetoric, and that's a good sign that they're going Dark Side real soon now. Let's wait and see. One of us can say "Told you so" in about two years.
Here's my spooky prediction. We'll see "traffic congestion thinking": sure, everyone else should take the bus, but it can't hurt if I keep using my car, right?
Likewise, every country in Europe will say "Sure, we don't want those bastard Germans, French and Brits [insert or delete as appropriate] spamming our citizens, but could it really hurt that much if we enact lax legislation so that our businesses can scam^H^H^H^H market themselves globally and reap nice fat tax generating revenues, right?"
Remember, each member state can decide for itself exactly how to interpret this resolution, and how strongly to police and enforce it.
Red Hat wants to retain the ability to license these patents to closed-source companies, and make some money that way.
... while at the same time claiming to detest leveraging patents (as opposed to just making good products) as a means of making money! What part of "hypocritical" are you having trouble with?
in an attempt to protect and promote the open source community, Red Hat has elected to adopt this same stance [of defensive patents]
OK, then assign the patents to the FSF.
No? Why not?
There's only one answer to that question. Red Hat wants to retain the ability to leverage these patents against other Open Source companies.
I'm not saying that as though it's a great revelation: Red Hat are a commercial company, and their main competitors aren't Redmond, but other Linux distros. What I am saying is that they are being hypocritical about this, and that their actions - and the specifics of their promise - don't match their high ideals.
Here's what they've actually promised:
They've promised to "refrain from enforcing the infringed patent" if it's used for open source software. Not waiving the patent. Not licensing it. Just not punishing the infringement. And not in perpetuity either. This is a significant omission, and I believe that it's a deliberate omission, not just an "oopsie". The alternative answer is that Red Hat have lazy and incompetent lawyers. Choose one.
They offer to license (i.e. leverage for gain) patents to non-open source developers. Rank hypocrisy!
They will use their patents to retaliate against anyone who brings patent claims against them (this last clause is the most justifiable).
This is a thin promise. Open source developers are still infringing their patents, they're just not (at the moment) going to prosecute those infringements. That's a nasty sword of Damocles they're dangling over our heads.
Again, ask yourself why if Red Hat are actually serious about their claim to loathe patents and support open source they don't assign the patents to the FSF, or at a minimum, actually waive rights or grant an implicit or explicit license to open source developers. The actions and the promise don't match the rhetoric.
The source is Harry Knowles at Aint It Cool News. We already had this debate. Harry has become(literally) a big fat troll who is far more concerned with having his jumbo sized ego stroked by Hollywood than with anything so trite as objectivity or accuracy. He'd happily report that Jar Jar skullfucks Aunt Beru if he thought it'd buy him another ounce of mystique and geek cachet.
These aren't the spoilers you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.
...that wants to eliminate copyrights so ANYONE can make changes like this on a whim?
No, this is the crowd that consistently supports fair use of copyrighted works. One explicitely allowed fair use is parody. To me, putting Jar Jar and Amidala into Episodes IV-VI is pretty much creating a parody, and so yes, anyone should be able to do this.
This case will have no effect on the SPAM that is currently coming into your e-mail box. Monsterhut is already kaput.
Hmm, maybe he's watched enough slasher films to know that when the bad guy goes down, you keep hitting him. MonsterHut is utterly unrepentent, still assert that their business model is both legal and sound (they actually claim that the court got it wrong), and explicitely intend to start up spamming again as soon as they can slease their way onto another ISP.
While I'm completely ready to agree that Spitzer is probably just showboating and looking for an easy win, I'd be delighted to see a huge fine levied on MonsterHut, regardless of their ability to pay it. The more precedent we get, the better, because every piece of anti-spam case history will make it easier and faster to shut down and sue or fine new spamhausen as they spring up.
The case earlier this month just established that MonsterHut are in the wrong, and let their ISP pull the plug on them. Now we need to assign a suitable punishment, and make sure that we send the message clear and loud: spam is not legitimate, and if you do it, you will pay for it.
I know it's probably coincidence, but I worked on a mecha game called Steel Legions back in 1997-1998
It died a death (and I moved on), but here's a list of the realism features it had when I left it:
An enclosed and instrument heavy cockpit view, much like Steel Battalion.
Passive and active radar with echoes from ground clutter, ECM ghosts, and counter-battery plotting.
Smoke that blocked line of sight, and defensive smoke cannisters.
IR homing missiles and flares that took into account heat factors like nearby burning objects (or your mecha being on fire).
Fire that spread from object to object according to wind direction (and fire extinguishers - we actually had a support mecha with a water cannon)
Damage based on a chance of each and any round penetrating rather than the ablative model favoured by most games.
Projectiles with realistic trajectories effected by gravity and wind (although the mecha handled the adjustments, so you just pointed the cursor), that ricocheted off armour or hardened buildings (yes, you could destroy yourself by opening fire at close range, if you were very unlucky)
Long range bombardment and indirect fire support, including firing laser homing missiles from defilade for a friendly unit to guide to target with a laser designator.
An AI that would follow mecha footprints and would call down recce by fire on where it thought you were hiding.
Sounds impressive huh? Thinking back, it was damn impressive. So why did it never get published? The usual reasons: we were pushing too many polygons with too shoddy an engine; it was a great simulation, but not a great game; we ran out of money.
The second point is the most interesting one. We quickly discovered that the most effective (but aggravating) enemy was a piddly little infantry soldier hiding in a bush with a laser designator and a radio, while the big shiney enemy mecha sat unseen behind a hill crest, firing missiles or mortars from defilade.
Likewise, any realistic model of accuracy and damage (based on contemporary tank systems) means one shot = one hit = one kill, for the biggest weapon systems. If you're in the mecha equivelant of a T-72 up against an M1A2, your only possible option is to never be in a position where it can see you. That's a great illustration of the futility of fighting a stand up war against a technologically superior enemy (as the Iraqi tank battalions learned in the Gulf), but it makes for a hell of a frustrating game.
I'll be very interested to see what Steel Battalions is like, but I rather suspect that it's complex or fully featured as opposed to actually realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be good for Microsoft to include source (any source) in their overwhelmingly binary offerings. But it's bad for OpenLinux to offer only source?
Can anyone reconcile this? Personally, if I'm given the option of source and/or binaries, I'll choose to take the source every time. I'm just not seeing what's so evil about this.
Sorry, but what the fuck? They're "agreeing" to what exactly? To obey the law? To continue doing exactly what they're doing right now (whatever that is)? What kind of "agreement" is this?
Quo custodiet ipsos custodes? I'd be very interested in knowing how many of the SEC people involved in this "investigation" have suddenly found themselves able to pay off their mortgages, or fund their kids through college. And no, I am not joking. When you're dealing with a company with $40 billion in the bank and bad accounting practices, squirreling a couple of million in a slush fund is trivial. I mean, how many people at Microsoft actually believe that they know exactly how much money Microsoft has - and how many different figures would you get if you asked all of these "authoratative" figures?
This "nothing to see here, move along" investigation is a farce. They are either innocent, in which case there's no "agreement", or they are guilty, in which case they should get reamed. This stinks.
This is so insightful that it makes me wish for a moderation of "Troll, +1"
While we're trading anecdotes, see Spaced, Series 2.
After the emotional assraping delivered by TPM and (to a lesser extent) AotC, my one comfort is that the funniest comedy series of recent years is only available on Region 2 DVD, and that most US citizens won't see it, or know about it, or figure out how to get their DVD players to play it even if I gave it to them. That's cold comfort, but I take it where I can get it.
I'd rather it had a scene with you in your Chewbacca costume. For some reason, I can't get that image out of my head, and it's deeply disturbing me.
Do what I've done. Install OpenOffice 1.0 on your corporate machine. Set it to save in Microsoft file formats by default (I know, but bear with me). Use it to create, read and write Microsoft Office files for a couple of months. Invite your coworkers to use it. See if they even notice that it's not Microsoft Office. Document everything you do with it.
When you have a big healthy list of Microsoft format files that you've touched with it, confront your IS department and demand to know why they are wasting money on Microsoft Office. Tell them that you've already removed it from your machine (that's a $300 saving to the company right there) with - demonstrably - no effect on your or anyone else's productivity. CC people in accounting or cost control. Invite them to try it, to inspect the files (using Microsoft Office, naturally) and to ask your coworkers what they think of it. Request a specific answer about why it can't be used across the enterprise, or at least trialled on a larger scale, in parallel with the existing Microsoft Office if need be. If they bitch that it's unsupported, suggest that they pay for StarOffice. If they whine that it's not guaranteed to create usable Microsoft binary format files, point out that it is creating them, and that Microsoft Office doesn't guarantee it either!
That's step 1, and it's a big step: get your company using Star/OpenOffice. Don't even bring up the issue of file formats until you've achieved this (I made that mistake). This might take years. It might never happen, because your IS guys are idiots or cowards working on the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" principle. But try for it.
Once you've got everyone using Star/OpenOffice then you can launch stage two. Switch to creating documents in the default XML format. Any Microsoft binary format documents that you touch as part of your normal work should be saved as XML. Make a nice big list of all the documents that you've changed, because (this is the good bit) nobody else should even notice. Then after a few months, back you go to IS with your list, and demand to know why everyone else is still using Microsoft binary formats as the default. At this point there simply no reason to stick with them. Point out that a default Star/OpenOffice document (zipped XML) is significantly smaller than the Microsoft binary equivelant, which should keep the beancounters happy. And that should they ever go back to a proprietary suite (gods forbid) that it's far easier to convert from XML to anything than from Microsoft binaries to anything.
It will be a long and painful process, but OpenOffice 1.0 and StarOffice 6.0 have made it possible to start it now. If you haven't tried these products, do so now. It's your first step into a larger universe. ;-)
Keep expecting. I spoke to our IS guys recently and tried to sell them on the benefits of the XML format of Star/OpenOffice. They simply weren't interested, because, hey, Microsoft Office will always be available, right? They just didn't see the benefits of using an open format, even when I pointed out that it's far easier to convert from an open to a proprietary format than vice versa.
As a first step to persuading them, I've replaced my corporate licensed Microsoft Office with OpenOffice 1.0, and have been creating, reading and writing Word binary format files with it just fine. At least, none of the MS Office users that have been reading them have noticed anything different. I feel bad about continuing to use the proprietary Microsoft format, but at least this way I get to go back to the IS guys in a couple of months and point out that Office is now an expensive luxury that we can get rid of. Once we've done that, then we can convert to XML documents.
That's the strength that I see in Star/OpenOffice; the ability to migrate in two steps, so that nobody is even so much as inconvenienced (in fact people have been using OpenOffice on my machine without even realising that it's not MS Office). But it's going to take years to dig out those entrenched copies of Office, and Microsoft will fight damn hard to keep people using their proprietary formats, as (in conjunction with FUD about non-compatibility) it's the only weapon they have left.
...unless you're interoperating with an open source operating system, I take it? Didn't work as a defence for DeCSS.
A) Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft can just keep on gouging the idiots who are too lazy or risk averse to switch, and open source will keep supplying to the people who have a clue.
Honestly, would you want to support (directly or indirectly) businesses that both clueless enough to use IIS and too lazy to patch it? Basically I don't want to write software that's dumb enough for people like that to use. Microsoft can keep them, and keep spoon feeding them for all I care. In that respect, market segmentation is a good thing: it keeps idiots away from open source, rather than having them drag it down with demands for it to ship with one big button labelled "Do stuff."
Unless you take that in context with decent, well funded mass transit.
And yet the evidence suggests otherwise. Once you put a US citizen into a car, you can't get him or her out, ever.
Wait, are you talking about the system that re-elects 90% of incumbents? The only major change is the President, and that's where the flaw lies, in replacing the British monarch with a US one. We'd have a far better system without a head of state, or a titular one, with actual policies decided off camera by boring little committes of tedious beaurocrats.
How many times have you visited Lithuania?
Bullshit. All that signifies is that you have a great grandfather who did things you'll never do. Talk about your own experiences. I think we're all sick of hearing individuals whine about how they deserve special treatment or respect because one of their ancestors had an unfortunate life.
- Shouldn't we be saving some of our finite resources for our grandchildren?
Now we also have to consider that we are getting better at getting oil out of places where it was previous not thought possible.Yep, and it's lucky that there'll never be another ice age or major asteroid impact to knock us back to the stone age, right? I mean, we've got a technological solution for that, haven't we? Or are we just going to legislate against it happening?
The trouble with thinking long term is that you actually have to understand that this is not science fiction. It's like weather; it's going to happen, whether we like it or not. The question is, do we care enough to leave some easily accessible resources for our future descendants, or do we want to just keep pouring scorn on those who talk about such preposterous situations, right up until the ice sheets roll over us and perfectly preserve us enjoying our bread and circusses?
Hey, that's illegal everywhere except Japan.
agent package spores president activate terminate Allah plastique stegonography
Is this yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, or is it an illustration of how futile it is to try and filter out the overwhelming false positives generated by free speech?
While you're deciding, remember that intelligence agencies are spending your taxes to monitor you. Free speech might become a very expensive priviledge.
You're right that the long term point isn't about whether oil is going to run out, but it's also not about how high the price goes.
In the long term, the point is about how much easily accessable oil we leave for our descendants to use. I mean the descendants that will need to bootstrap themselves after the next ice age or big asteroid impact. Because we're going to do squat to prepare for the first one; it's only after it happens (and it will) that our descendants will realise that we'd better get the hell off the planet while we still can.
Let's leave them some easily accessible resources, huh? This isn't some hypothetical piece of science fiction. We either care enough to plan for it, or we don't. What's it to be?
Of course not, and I'd also cynically and mendaciously claim that I was gaining patents for the benefit of the open source community, while actually retaining the option to wield them as a weapon against anybody, including my main competitors, exactly as Red Hat is doing.
I have no problem with what Red Hat is doing, I'm just pointing out that their actions don't match their rhetoric, and that's a good sign that they're going Dark Side real soon now. Let's wait and see. One of us can say "Told you so" in about two years.
Here's my spooky prediction. We'll see "traffic congestion thinking": sure, everyone else should take the bus, but it can't hurt if I keep using my car, right?
Likewise, every country in Europe will say "Sure, we don't want those bastard Germans, French and Brits [insert or delete as appropriate] spamming our citizens, but could it really hurt that much if we enact lax legislation so that our businesses can scam^H^H^H^H market themselves globally and reap nice fat tax generating revenues, right?"
Remember, each member state can decide for itself exactly how to interpret this resolution, and how strongly to police and enforce it.
... while at the same time claiming to detest leveraging patents (as opposed to just making good products) as a means of making money! What part of "hypocritical" are you having trouble with?
OK, then assign the patents to the FSF.
No? Why not?
There's only one answer to that question. Red Hat wants to retain the ability to leverage these patents against other Open Source companies.
I'm not saying that as though it's a great revelation: Red Hat are a commercial company, and their main competitors aren't Redmond, but other Linux distros. What I am saying is that they are being hypocritical about this, and that their actions - and the specifics of their promise - don't match their high ideals.
Here's what they've actually promised:
This is a thin promise. Open source developers are still infringing their patents, they're just not (at the moment) going to prosecute those infringements. That's a nasty sword of Damocles they're dangling over our heads.
Again, ask yourself why if Red Hat are actually serious about their claim to loathe patents and support open source they don't assign the patents to the FSF, or at a minimum, actually waive rights or grant an implicit or explicit license to open source developers. The actions and the promise don't match the rhetoric.
...you give her cash, and let her make up her own mind about what she needs.
The source is Harry Knowles at Aint It Cool News. We already had this debate. Harry has become(literally) a big fat troll who is far more concerned with having his jumbo sized ego stroked by Hollywood than with anything so trite as objectivity or accuracy. He'd happily report that Jar Jar skullfucks Aunt Beru if he thought it'd buy him another ounce of mystique and geek cachet.
These aren't the spoilers you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.
No, this is the crowd that consistently supports fair use of copyrighted works. One explicitely allowed fair use is parody. To me, putting Jar Jar and Amidala into Episodes IV-VI is pretty much creating a parody, and so yes, anyone should be able to do this.
Hmm, maybe he's watched enough slasher films to know that when the bad guy goes down, you keep hitting him. MonsterHut is utterly unrepentent, still assert that their business model is both legal and sound (they actually claim that the court got it wrong), and explicitely intend to start up spamming again as soon as they can slease their way onto another ISP.
While I'm completely ready to agree that Spitzer is probably just showboating and looking for an easy win, I'd be delighted to see a huge fine levied on MonsterHut, regardless of their ability to pay it. The more precedent we get, the better, because every piece of anti-spam case history will make it easier and faster to shut down and sue or fine new spamhausen as they spring up.
The case earlier this month just established that MonsterHut are in the wrong, and let their ISP pull the plug on them. Now we need to assign a suitable punishment, and make sure that we send the message clear and loud: spam is not legitimate, and if you do it, you will pay for it.
I know it's probably coincidence, but I worked on a mecha game called Steel Legions back in 1997-1998
It died a death (and I moved on), but here's a list of the realism features it had when I left it:
Sounds impressive huh? Thinking back, it was damn impressive. So why did it never get published? The usual reasons: we were pushing too many polygons with too shoddy an engine; it was a great simulation, but not a great game; we ran out of money.
The second point is the most interesting one. We quickly discovered that the most effective (but aggravating) enemy was a piddly little infantry soldier hiding in a bush with a laser designator and a radio, while the big shiney enemy mecha sat unseen behind a hill crest, firing missiles or mortars from defilade.
Likewise, any realistic model of accuracy and damage (based on contemporary tank systems) means one shot = one hit = one kill, for the biggest weapon systems. If you're in the mecha equivelant of a T-72 up against an M1A2, your only possible option is to never be in a position where it can see you. That's a great illustration of the futility of fighting a stand up war against a technologically superior enemy (as the Iraqi tank battalions learned in the Gulf), but it makes for a hell of a frustrating game.
I'll be very interested to see what Steel Battalions is like, but I rather suspect that it's complex or fully featured as opposed to actually realistic.