The grandparent rather obviously disagreeing with this statement,"And then you look at what most Fortune-500 companies actually run internally, and you find it is not Win10."
The grandparent then provides a few counter examples to your argument and even gives a sample size for how relevant the grandparent's example is vs yours. Is English not your first language?
I'm going to disagree with this one, "Win10 is a very bad deal for everybody (including, funnily, MS),"
I work for MS, on Windows; we don't consider it a bad deal, and in fact wished more of the customers on legacy versions of Windows would move to it. It has its challenges mind you, but we do not consider it a bad deal at all.
I realize this is/. and it's "cool" to be anti-MS, but it's also cool to be right occasionally.
Microsoft will 99 out of 100 leave Github alone. Like the Minecraft or LinkedIn acquisitions, Microsoft knows if they mess the community they will not get money out of it. Admittedly LinkedIn hasn't turned out super well, but that is LinkedIn's fault and not MS.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Github in fact spun off again in a few years as a non-profit. Microsoft is one of the biggest software development companies out there and VSTS just isn't working out. This means that Microsoft would want to move their source to a better option -> and that really boils down to Github or Gitlab. Once MS realizes they can trust it, they'll let it be.
I realize this place is loaded with people that have solid reasons to not trust MS, but under Satya things are quite a bit different. It's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt while preparing a backup plan in the event it goes south.
The point isn't for her to feel justice, or make money from this suit, it is for the lawyers representing her to get rich.
Remember, in most lawsuits, the lawyers come out on top. If she wasn't the one making the claims, I am sure that the law firm sponsoring this action would find someone else that would be willing to.
So, normally I would agree with you hands down, however, I think the issue is that many people are unaware that their computers are being used for malicious purposes.
Case in point: recently I visited a friend of mine to take a look at his computer. He was complaining it was running slow. A quick check showed multiple viruses on his machine. I asked him how long it had been that way, and his response was, "a few months".
The thing is, by far and large a significant portion of the population is more than likely unaware of what a botnet is, let alone possess the ability to diagnose when their computer has been infected. This is quite different then say, a harboring a bomb maker, as most people (hopefully) would be aware that the guy building bombs in their garage is bad news.
Further, this issue is complicated that the attacks may be motivated politically but carried out by private individuals. If a connection is found, say possibly even a direct link, how is a government supposed to react. Does this qualify as an act of war, espionage, or state sponsored terror attack?
It becomes a sticky issue whenever states are involved, simply due to the politics behind it. If it was soley an attack on a private enterprise, by some general criminal, I would simply recommend getting the cooperation of the government that is harboring / serving as a base of operations for the person / people behind the botnet and having it resolved that way. (Now, I do realize that there are many rogue nations or places that are willing to harbor these types of people, so in reality, a different solution is more than likely needed.)
While at the beginning Blizzard may not allow play without having connectivity to Battle.net, I am fairly sure that at some point in the future, functionality will be released that will either allow for multiplayer private servers or possibly LAN.
Remember, Blizzard did release a patch that allows you to play Starcraft 1 without having to insert the CD in. It's simply that eventually computer games reach end of life - and rather than have to continually support a base of players it is easier to simply let them play on their own. Blizzard knows this, it is simply a matter of time before they do it.
However, until then, I am fairly sure that someone will reverse engineer the software and figure out how to emulate a server on their own. Depending on the success or failure of that effort, Blizzard's stance on no LAN support may change. If the emulation / hax reaches critical mass, Blizzard may release a tool that does / has similar functionality simply to maintain that portion of the market.
I'd say at this time - it is far too early to tell though.
I'm going to respond to this with a tad more detail (since I have some).
The 747 and A380, while both are large jumbo's, are different classes of planes per international flying bodies (these classes are based on size, wheels, and other physical characteristics). The 747 is a whole class lower (a class V) while the A380 is a class (VI). What this means is that the A380 can land at far fewer airports that the 747 can (something like 300+ less). There are very few airports in the world (as far as I know of - only one airport in the USA that is specifically designed for class VI planes [Washington Dulles in the US]).
When an A380 lands at LAX, in order to accommodate it, a large portion of the taxi-way and surrounding area has to be cleared. This delays all other flights times by 10-15 minutes. Right now LAX can afford to accommodate 1-2 A380's a day, but more than that, and you have issues with all the smaller planes being delayed.
The 787 - the much delayed Boeing plane, is considerably smaller. It can land safely and be used at many more airports around the world. (And upgrading an airport to support a new class of plane, is in the millions of dollars - often as runways, terminals and other items will have to be moved and redone.)
Simply put, the A380 has a significantly smaller usage footprint (somewhere around 385 airfields worldwide can take one normally without interruptions), and as such will sell less, cause airlines are often not willing to pay for additional costs to accommodate the required upgrades to an airport.
I work currently in an organization that uses mainframes. They are the z9 series - and honestly are some of the most useful things.
We use them due to ability operate in something called a sysplex. A sysplex is when multiple mainframes share data (known as DASD) and work together. When a mainframe is in a sysplex, you can do all sorts of things to the machine without having to bring your application down. These range from whole operating system upgrades to hardware maintenance and the end user will never see the impact. A sysplex literally is designed to be a 24x7 operation.
You can buy other types of machines that will be more powerful, faster or do operation x better, but it is hard to find a set of machines that are as stable and reliable as a mainframe is (and process millions of transactions per second).
Also, in terms of virtualization - a single mainframe on z/Linux can host many virtual linux servers - enough that you can save a substantial amount on power costs (my org estimated 400k a year in savings in terms of power alone - if the linux servers that are hosted individually on one of our distributed networks went to virtual on a mainframe).
While I'd agree with most of what you said, I think it has more to do with how business units see the IT side of their business.
In many companies, IT is used to build tools to support pre-existing processes and not recommend changes to the processes. (This is generally a good thing, as it requires the business folks to provide IT with requirements and details of how they want IT to support said processes.) However, this often delegates IT to a supporting role, one that is used to provide stability and minor enhancements rather than radical new changes (which could dramatically improve the process).
Also, another issue (on which you touch briefly) is IT investment. Many companies invest only in IT when they are flush with cash and things are going well. As soon as the company hits a tough spot, IT becomes seen as a liability or a cost. This prevents IT from being as innovative as it could be because it is not always receiving steady investment, and when it is, IT is often on the critical path of a project or a developing process and does not have the time or ability to support new changes to the project / process.
I've seen some changes in this area by several major corporations in an effort to make IT more of a leading role and in order to give IT more of an innovative role. They are doing the following:
1. Stabilizing IT investment. 2. Taking IT investment and work off the critical path of projects. This allows IT to examine the project and process and suggest improvements. 3. Making IT partial owners of any process which it supports. This gives IT a say in how things will be run (by providing them with some power to counteract the business side). 5. Lastly, by implementing company wide kaizen strategies (kaizen is Toyota's version of process improvement). This allows IT to present strategies and improvements to upper management that would be innovative under some sort of corporate strategy / umbrella.
The channel doesn't actually document his every move - it's more it documents every move he wants the public to see. I spent several years in Russia (2001 - 2003), and had the opportunity to see the government's censorship firsthand. It was very efficient and almost invisible. If someone hadn't told me about it - I probably wouldn't have noticed.
You see, the papers and stations are given free rein on a variety of subjects - ranging from tracking Russian movie stars to issues on the Ukraine. Only in certain topics (like Russian losses in Chechnya) is the press under tight control, but it is done in such a way that it is almost undetectable. Many people I spoke with only thought news about Chechnya was restricted, not about anything else... they simply were unaware that things were filtered.
I mean you could buy American movies, music, and media for nothing anywhere, of all sorts and types. Things like the Bond movies which made the Russians look bad were freely available. Documentaries on the Gulags could be found in the various Dom Kineeg (bookstores). Only things critical of the current administration were strangely non-existent or in short supply.
February 7th 2007 Announcement:
An updated version of the CSS Procedural Specifications is available now. A downloadable copy is available by completing the on-line inquiry form.
That is the document that they submitted to the court as part of the "contract". It is the first update to it since 2005. My guess is they realized they were going to lose and hence the update to the license.
Most people that buy a Dell (your average consumer), are not aware that the hardware lags three to four months behind. They simply want a machine that can run latest game x or be used for college course y or whatnot.
They aren't going to know the difference unless it is something major. Dell knows this. They also know that consumers who want the latest items and prices are usually smart enough to look online. By working with retailers they will reach a larger consumer market.
Even though the parent is ranked funny, there is lots of truth to it.
I've worked with and had to support Blackboard before. There are few applications that I think are worse. (I recall a bug that we experienced, where if two people submitted an assessment at the same time, or very close to the same time, the software would lose one of them.)
Also, as crappy as Vista is, it was in beta and development for a long time. At the very least, Blackboard should have issued an advisory stating that under certain conditions their software breaks. (And no sensible IT department at any major educational facility should have upgraded already anyways.)
I guess I would say the root of the problem is the lack of responsibility in the software world. Unlike some professions (for example: Civil Engineering), there is no real regulation or prevailent society to make sure that people develop by a set of standards. Having something like that, would go a long ways toward fixing problems like this.
Government is slow for many reasons - and in most cases that is a good thing given all the stupid and strange things people try to do each year (at least that I see).
Realize that there is a tradeoff - if they make it fairly simple and quick to overturn patents, then the system will get bogged down with the same amount of spam through that pipe.
The patent system was designed with the idea that it would protect the rights of the patent holder. In the beginning, it was decently hard to patent junk and things that had prior art (due to the fact that each application was reviewed by someone who hopefully had some knowledge in the area). Fast forward to today when there are millions of patents granted each year. There is no way the system can check and review each patent application before it grants the patent (as it should).
Capitalism has little to do with it - the Patent office simply is getting overwhelmed by the numbers. It is more of a lack of qualified and trained staff to do the work (cause looking at patents all day is something that doesn't pay much and is fairly boring to most people).
100k - you've got to be kidding yourself. Hillary Clinton has dinners were the attendance fee is half that. Unless you're from a small state, I seriously doubt that would get you face time. As for the million, I stand my my previous comment - unless you are from their state, I doubt they'd meet w/ you (although they would take the money).
You've also got to remember there are rather strict ethics rules. Staff are limited to somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 gifts (which means lunch at most). (Note: I'm not saying those ethics rules are always followed... but they are there).
If you want to meet w/ your elected representative, contact them when session is out. Most are in their home states - and usually host town hall / county meetings or like. Show up - and pay them a visit.
You forget that there is a lot more in D.C. than legislation (very few bills are passed each year). Another major thing most lobbying groups work on is government contracts w/ the various agencies. When it comes to contracts - money does talk, and a lot more frequently than legislation, since they are not usually scrutinized that much.
There are other issues as well, such as foreign governments and making connections w/ other people in your industry. Lobbying isn't solely about getting laws passed for you.
Lobbying groups have far less influence than most people think. (I work on the Hill - I know.) Unless the group represents someone that is a constituent (or business that employs large numbers of constituents) of the politician or the politician is corrupt (roughly 1 in 50 is), the group will not get face time with a Senator. They might get to meet one of his legislative assistants (many who are law students), but the influence a LA will have on his / her Senator varies greatly.
If you were to poll the Senators before they ran for office, you would find that their views are already in alignment with the RIAA and MPAA. That is why they get money donated to their campaign - not for influence when they are in office, but to get elected (pure and simple - cause when they are then elected the RIAA / MPAA does not need to worry about them). The American people at the moment do not care enough about the issues (that the RIAA and MPAA do) to vote based on them (and given our current problems - this may be a good thing).
When the movie / music organizations throw receptions here (they did a special dinner and advance screening of Eragon 3 weeks ago), not a single Senator went (I know - I had nothing better to do, so I rsvp'ed and showed). Heck, I bet less than 10-15 legislative assistants were there also. Most of the people that go to their meetings are either interns, people that think they're important or rarely IT people that are tired of coding (me). Now many of those interns may be your future Senators - so you could say that they are buying influence in advance... but I doubt it - given most interns pirate music left and right (a few are dumb enough to do it at work).
Anyhow - they (lobbying groups) don't buy influence, Americans simply elect people that support the lobbying groups views (i.e. an uninformed voting populace).
Most elected officials already have a set philosphy in place when they are elected. Unless something drastic happens, their views won't change.
However, it's more of the public's fault since we elect these people to represent us in the first place. So if your poll is true... American's are some of the worst voters out there.
Many companies offer benefits in return for service (as you mention), the difference isn't in really in what the companies offer, it's in what they do.
If we just looked at offers - then there is not much difference between a lobbyist giving a politician large sums of money and someone donating to charity. Both are giving money away right? But the law looks at more than action - it looks at intent (thankfully). Which means that accepting money from a criminal enterprise is very different than accepting money from a legitimate company.
It will probably become a felony to accept funding from such groups first (if it already isn't) since its somewhat similar to bribery. Simply because if this were to spread to other professions, the impact could potentially be much worse (and could result in having a government like some third world countries where since the mafia is willing to pay more, the whole government is corrupt).
I doubt its bias, the term is used simply to convey the message to general public. For your average person that reads the article, they may not know what a blastocyst is, and so the author decided to use embryo.
(Although there may be different reprecussions from using embryo since some critics may take it to mean 3 weeks rather than 14 days.)
I have yet to see one letter opposing this piece of legislation (or here about one, out of the thousands we receive a week [although I here tons about immigration, outsourcing, public lands and other topics).
This is because most people which contact their legislators often are considering these laws on a case by case basis (at least that is my best guess), and often do not see or understand the larger effects the laws will have. They will not know the history of the previous legislation.
Slashdot is unique in that there is (at times) an informed majority present. I have serious doubts about the average American voter having a good understanding of these issues (based on the constituent correspondance that I have seen here). In the last couple of weeks, the only major thing I remember regarding an issue that Slashdotters consider important was a full page ad by Digital Freedom in the Roll Call (a newspaper that most legislators read on a daily basis) regarding DRM and piracy.
More needs to be done than voicing your opinion to your legislator. Go out and tell your neighbors, your work contacts, your online associates. Educate them... and then something might change.
Slashdot Mirror
The grandparent rather obviously disagreeing with this statement,"And then you look at what most Fortune-500 companies actually run internally, and you find it is not Win10." The grandparent then provides a few counter examples to your argument and even gives a sample size for how relevant the grandparent's example is vs yours. Is English not your first language?
/. and it's "cool" to be anti-MS, but it's also cool to be right occasionally.
I'm going to disagree with this one, "Win10 is a very bad deal for everybody (including, funnily, MS),"
I work for MS, on Windows; we don't consider it a bad deal, and in fact wished more of the customers on legacy versions of Windows would move to it. It has its challenges mind you, but we do not consider it a bad deal at all.
I realize this is
Not really.
Microsoft will 99 out of 100 leave Github alone. Like the Minecraft or LinkedIn acquisitions, Microsoft knows if they mess the community they will not get money out of it. Admittedly LinkedIn hasn't turned out super well, but that is LinkedIn's fault and not MS.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Github in fact spun off again in a few years as a non-profit. Microsoft is one of the biggest software development companies out there and VSTS just isn't working out. This means that Microsoft would want to move their source to a better option -> and that really boils down to Github or Gitlab. Once MS realizes they can trust it, they'll let it be. I realize this place is loaded with people that have solid reasons to not trust MS, but under Satya things are quite a bit different. It's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt while preparing a backup plan in the event it goes south.
I interacted with him a few times over the years; he was a great guy. I will miss him.
The point isn't for her to feel justice, or make money from this suit, it is for the lawyers representing her to get rich.
Remember, in most lawsuits, the lawyers come out on top. If she wasn't the one making the claims, I am sure that the law firm sponsoring this action would find someone else that would be willing to.
So, normally I would agree with you hands down, however, I think the issue is that many people are unaware that their computers are being used for malicious purposes.
Case in point: recently I visited a friend of mine to take a look at his computer. He was complaining it was running slow. A quick check showed multiple viruses on his machine. I asked him how long it had been that way, and his response was, "a few months".
The thing is, by far and large a significant portion of the population is more than likely unaware of what a botnet is, let alone possess the ability to diagnose when their computer has been infected. This is quite different then say, a harboring a bomb maker, as most people (hopefully) would be aware that the guy building bombs in their garage is bad news.
Further, this issue is complicated that the attacks may be motivated politically but carried out by private individuals. If a connection is found, say possibly even a direct link, how is a government supposed to react. Does this qualify as an act of war, espionage, or state sponsored terror attack?
It becomes a sticky issue whenever states are involved, simply due to the politics behind it. If it was soley an attack on a private enterprise, by some general criminal, I would simply recommend getting the cooperation of the government that is harboring / serving as a base of operations for the person / people behind the botnet and having it resolved that way. (Now, I do realize that there are many rogue nations or places that are willing to harbor these types of people, so in reality, a different solution is more than likely needed.)
While at the beginning Blizzard may not allow play without having connectivity to Battle.net, I am fairly sure that at some point in the future, functionality will be released that will either allow for multiplayer private servers or possibly LAN.
Remember, Blizzard did release a patch that allows you to play Starcraft 1 without having to insert the CD in. It's simply that eventually computer games reach end of life - and rather than have to continually support a base of players it is easier to simply let them play on their own. Blizzard knows this, it is simply a matter of time before they do it.
However, until then, I am fairly sure that someone will reverse engineer the software and figure out how to emulate a server on their own. Depending on the success or failure of that effort, Blizzard's stance on no LAN support may change. If the emulation / hax reaches critical mass, Blizzard may release a tool that does / has similar functionality simply to maintain that portion of the market.
I'd say at this time - it is far too early to tell though.
I'm going to respond to this with a tad more detail (since I have some).
The 747 and A380, while both are large jumbo's, are different classes of planes per international flying bodies (these classes are based on size, wheels, and other physical characteristics). The 747 is a whole class lower (a class V) while the A380 is a class (VI). What this means is that the A380 can land at far fewer airports that the 747 can (something like 300+ less). There are very few airports in the world (as far as I know of - only one airport in the USA that is specifically designed for class VI planes [Washington Dulles in the US]).
When an A380 lands at LAX, in order to accommodate it, a large portion of the taxi-way and surrounding area has to be cleared. This delays all other flights times by 10-15 minutes. Right now LAX can afford to accommodate 1-2 A380's a day, but more than that, and you have issues with all the smaller planes being delayed.
The 787 - the much delayed Boeing plane, is considerably smaller. It can land safely and be used at many more airports around the world. (And upgrading an airport to support a new class of plane, is in the millions of dollars - often as runways, terminals and other items will have to be moved and redone.)
Simply put, the A380 has a significantly smaller usage footprint (somewhere around 385 airfields worldwide can take one normally without interruptions), and as such will sell less, cause airlines are often not willing to pay for additional costs to accommodate the required upgrades to an airport.
Correct - I should have said parallel sysplex - (I'm a noob to the mainframe world - and loving it).
I work currently in an organization that uses mainframes. They are the z9 series - and honestly are some of the most useful things.
We use them due to ability operate in something called a sysplex. A sysplex is when multiple mainframes share data (known as DASD) and work together. When a mainframe is in a sysplex, you can do all sorts of things to the machine without having to bring your application down. These range from whole operating system upgrades to hardware maintenance and the end user will never see the impact. A sysplex literally is designed to be a 24x7 operation.
You can buy other types of machines that will be more powerful, faster or do operation x better, but it is hard to find a set of machines that are as stable and reliable as a mainframe is (and process millions of transactions per second).
Also, in terms of virtualization - a single mainframe on z/Linux can host many virtual linux servers - enough that you can save a substantial amount on power costs (my org estimated 400k a year in savings in terms of power alone - if the linux servers that are hosted individually on one of our distributed networks went to virtual on a mainframe).
While I'd agree with most of what you said, I think it has more to do with how business units see the IT side of their business.
In many companies, IT is used to build tools to support pre-existing processes and not recommend changes to the processes. (This is generally a good thing, as it requires the business folks to provide IT with requirements and details of how they want IT to support said processes.) However, this often delegates IT to a supporting role, one that is used to provide stability and minor enhancements rather than radical new changes (which could dramatically improve the process).
Also, another issue (on which you touch briefly) is IT investment. Many companies invest only in IT when they are flush with cash and things are going well. As soon as the company hits a tough spot, IT becomes seen as a liability or a cost. This prevents IT from being as innovative as it could be because it is not always receiving steady investment, and when it is, IT is often on the critical path of a project or a developing process and does not have the time or ability to support new changes to the project / process.
I've seen some changes in this area by several major corporations in an effort to make IT more of a leading role and in order to give IT more of an innovative role. They are doing the following:
1. Stabilizing IT investment.
2. Taking IT investment and work off the critical path of projects. This allows IT to examine the project and process and suggest improvements.
3. Making IT partial owners of any process which it supports. This gives IT a say in how things will be run (by providing them with some power to counteract the business side).
5. Lastly, by implementing company wide kaizen strategies (kaizen is Toyota's version of process improvement). This allows IT to present strategies and improvements to upper management that would be innovative under some sort of corporate strategy / umbrella.
The channel doesn't actually document his every move - it's more it documents every move he wants the public to see. I spent several years in Russia (2001 - 2003), and had the opportunity to see the government's censorship firsthand. It was very efficient and almost invisible. If someone hadn't told me about it - I probably wouldn't have noticed.
You see, the papers and stations are given free rein on a variety of subjects - ranging from tracking Russian movie stars to issues on the Ukraine. Only in certain topics (like Russian losses in Chechnya) is the press under tight control, but it is done in such a way that it is almost undetectable. Many people I spoke with only thought news about Chechnya was restricted, not about anything else... they simply were unaware that things were filtered.
I mean you could buy American movies, music, and media for nothing anywhere, of all sorts and types. Things like the Bond movies which made the Russians look bad were freely available. Documentaries on the Gulags could be found in the various Dom Kineeg (bookstores). Only things critical of the current administration were strangely non-existent or in short supply.
From DVDCCA
February 7th 2007 Announcement:
An updated version of the CSS Procedural Specifications is available now. A downloadable copy is available by completing the on-line inquiry form.
That is the document that they submitted to the court as part of the "contract". It is the first update to it since 2005. My guess is they realized they were going to lose and hence the update to the license.
Most people that buy a Dell (your average consumer), are not aware that the hardware lags three to four months behind. They simply want a machine that can run latest game x or be used for college course y or whatnot.
They aren't going to know the difference unless it is something major. Dell knows this. They also know that consumers who want the latest items and prices are usually smart enough to look online. By working with retailers they will reach a larger consumer market.
Even though the parent is ranked funny, there is lots of truth to it.
I've worked with and had to support Blackboard before. There are few applications that I think are worse. (I recall a bug that we experienced, where if two people submitted an assessment at the same time, or very close to the same time, the software would lose one of them.)
Also, as crappy as Vista is, it was in beta and development for a long time. At the very least, Blackboard should have issued an advisory stating that under certain conditions their software breaks. (And no sensible IT department at any major educational facility should have upgraded already anyways.)
I guess I would say the root of the problem is the lack of responsibility in the software world. Unlike some professions (for example: Civil Engineering), there is no real regulation or prevailent society to make sure that people develop by a set of standards. Having something like that, would go a long ways toward fixing problems like this.
I don't much care where the chimps evolve to...
I would like to know if this is a learned behavior from an outside source or if this is simply something they have discovered on their own.
Government is slow for many reasons - and in most cases that is a good thing given all the stupid and strange things people try to do each year (at least that I see).
Realize that there is a tradeoff - if they make it fairly simple and quick to overturn patents, then the system will get bogged down with the same amount of spam through that pipe.
The patent system was designed with the idea that it would protect the rights of the patent holder. In the beginning, it was decently hard to patent junk and things that had prior art (due to the fact that each application was reviewed by someone who hopefully had some knowledge in the area). Fast forward to today when there are millions of patents granted each year. There is no way the system can check and review each patent application before it grants the patent (as it should).
Capitalism has little to do with it - the Patent office simply is getting overwhelmed by the numbers. It is more of a lack of qualified and trained staff to do the work (cause looking at patents all day is something that doesn't pay much and is fairly boring to most people).
100k - you've got to be kidding yourself. Hillary Clinton has dinners were the attendance fee is half that. Unless you're from a small state, I seriously doubt that would get you face time. As for the million, I stand my my previous comment - unless you are from their state, I doubt they'd meet w/ you (although they would take the money).
You've also got to remember there are rather strict ethics rules. Staff are limited to somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 gifts (which means lunch at most). (Note: I'm not saying those ethics rules are always followed... but they are there).
If you want to meet w/ your elected representative, contact them when session is out. Most are in their home states - and usually host town hall / county meetings or like. Show up - and pay them a visit.
I wrote some journals on this - here and here.
You forget that there is a lot more in D.C. than legislation (very few bills are passed each year). Another major thing most lobbying groups work on is government contracts w/ the various agencies. When it comes to contracts - money does talk, and a lot more frequently than legislation, since they are not usually scrutinized that much.
There are other issues as well, such as foreign governments and making connections w/ other people in your industry. Lobbying isn't solely about getting laws passed for you.
BS (at least w/ the lobbying groups).
Lobbying groups have far less influence than most people think. (I work on the Hill - I know.) Unless the group represents someone that is a constituent (or business that employs large numbers of constituents) of the politician or the politician is corrupt (roughly 1 in 50 is), the group will not get face time with a Senator. They might get to meet one of his legislative assistants (many who are law students), but the influence a LA will have on his / her Senator varies greatly.
If you were to poll the Senators before they ran for office, you would find that their views are already in alignment with the RIAA and MPAA. That is why they get money donated to their campaign - not for influence when they are in office, but to get elected (pure and simple - cause when they are then elected the RIAA / MPAA does not need to worry about them). The American people at the moment do not care enough about the issues (that the RIAA and MPAA do) to vote based on them (and given our current problems - this may be a good thing).
When the movie / music organizations throw receptions here (they did a special dinner and advance screening of Eragon 3 weeks ago), not a single Senator went (I know - I had nothing better to do, so I rsvp'ed and showed). Heck, I bet less than 10-15 legislative assistants were there also. Most of the people that go to their meetings are either interns, people that think they're important or rarely IT people that are tired of coding (me). Now many of those interns may be your future Senators - so you could say that they are buying influence in advance... but I doubt it - given most interns pirate music left and right (a few are dumb enough to do it at work).
Anyhow - they (lobbying groups) don't buy influence, Americans simply elect people that support the lobbying groups views (i.e. an uninformed voting populace).
...what the elected officials believe.
Most elected officials already have a set philosphy in place when they are elected. Unless something drastic happens, their views won't change.
However, it's more of the public's fault since we elect these people to represent us in the first place. So if your poll is true... American's are some of the worst voters out there.
True, but only to an extent.
Many companies offer benefits in return for service (as you mention), the difference isn't in really in what the companies offer, it's in what they do.
If we just looked at offers - then there is not much difference between a lobbyist giving a politician large sums of money and someone donating to charity. Both are giving money away right? But the law looks at more than action - it looks at intent (thankfully). Which means that accepting money from a criminal enterprise is very different than accepting money from a legitimate company.
There is probably a fairly big financial incentive also.
Commerical piracy of Vista will be at least as big as piracy of XP - and the sellers / producers of the pirated software will need this sort of stuff.
At least I hope not.
It will probably become a felony to accept funding from such groups first (if it already isn't) since its somewhat similar to bribery. Simply because if this were to spread to other professions, the impact could potentially be much worse (and could result in having a government like some third world countries where since the mafia is willing to pay more, the whole government is corrupt).
I doubt its bias, the term is used simply to convey the message to general public. For your average person that reads the article, they may not know what a blastocyst is, and so the author decided to use embryo.
(Although there may be different reprecussions from using embryo since some critics may take it to mean 3 weeks rather than 14 days.)
I somwhere work on the Hill.
I have yet to see one letter opposing this piece of legislation (or here about one, out of the thousands we receive a week [although I here tons about immigration, outsourcing, public lands and other topics).
This is because most people which contact their legislators often are considering these laws on a case by case basis (at least that is my best guess), and often do not see or understand the larger effects the laws will have. They will not know the history of the previous legislation.
Slashdot is unique in that there is (at times) an informed majority present. I have serious doubts about the average American voter having a good understanding of these issues (based on the constituent correspondance that I have seen here). In the last couple of weeks, the only major thing I remember regarding an issue that Slashdotters consider important was a full page ad by Digital Freedom in the Roll Call (a newspaper that most legislators read on a daily basis) regarding DRM and piracy.
More needs to be done than voicing your opinion to your legislator. Go out and tell your neighbors, your work contacts, your online associates. Educate them... and then something might change.