I've never even heard of this person before... maybe she'll start to put out books on a regular basis... the Fantasy-Fiction genre is simply becoming stale, new pens would help re-invigorate it.
I read it and now am apalled. Seems slanted, though? Although I am totally against all propritary formats. My tenative initial position is that of what seems to be the rest of the people here: Free Him, and do it now, because he is imprisoned for little squabbles over outdated and meaningless laws.
I don't know what this whole thing is about. Could someone give me a rundown of this case so far? Who is Dimitri Skylarov? What did he do? Why are we all supporting him? In explanation, please include : OBJECTIVE or SUBJECTIVE.
*phew*
Glad I will still be able to play MP3s, on good operating systems, and even perhaps a Macintosh. Only the stupid are affected, because those with one brain cell would go out and download the hack that will be made avalible within the first nine and a half hours that will let you play MP3s. The Internet is anarchy... Wait a second, I guess Microsoft will deem that "insecure" also... the Microsoft Internet? *shudder* Maybe one company really will end up owning the internet.
Digital Managament Rights Operating System? Call me ignorant, but that is the most incomprihensible piece of legal jargon I have ever heard. Any thoughts on what it actually means? Really, people, let's have some thought about what that means for a second. Not much comes to mind, does it?
Sometimes, the world loses a great person. While her accomplishments may seem minor compared to those of the modern-day programmers, she laid an important stone in the foundation of modern computer science. Can you imagine life without her? One whole section of a computer's logic would be eliminated. Perhaps she made some obscure discovery that tomorrow will change the way we think about computers.
Until all the problems with them are worked out (and Linux drivers are widely avalible, of course:-) ), I would recommend staying away from them. Untested Technology == Bad Nasty Crap
He had an article on "Armour Potted Meat Food Product" (on the canned website). See if you can find it, it is one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Mostly seem to be in central Europe, Canada, and Australia. Why is that? Is it that the more "leftist" governments are prone to "commie" software:-)? Quite an interesting thing.
The server will be flooded from now to Jan1. People will want to just chat on it "one more time"; the costs will be much higher than normal.(Also the 5|41P7 81DD33Z will want one more go at it) Of course, that means that the University may pull the plug on it even earlier...
One of the charts looks like this, I kid you not...
All of the different education levels rose in percentage from 2000 to 2001! Apparently in 2001 381.7% of people on the internet had some level of education... hmm...
It will be slashdotted. So here it is.
Two calls came in on the same subject in the same day this week, but from very different perspectives. The first call was from a lawyer working for the California Attorney General. He was looking for somebody like me to testify in the remedy phase of the Microsoft anti-trust case. California, as you know, is one of nine states that have chosen not to go along with the proposed anti-trust settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The nine states think Microsoft is getting off too easily. The second call came from Steve Satchell, an old friend from my InfoWorld days, who had noticed deep in the text of the proposed Microsoft/DoJ settlement that as part of the deal, there will be a three-member committee stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced. Satch wants one of those jobs.
I think he should get the position. With a background in computer hardware and software that dates back to one of the very first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, Steve Satchell knows the technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his hundreds of published computer product reviews, he knows the commercial side of the industry. He is glib and confident, too, which might come in handy while attempting to keep Microsoft honest. Sometimes there is a distinct advantage to being the first to apply for a job, so I think Satch should be a shoo-in for one of those compliance gigs. And the boy looks mighty fine in a uniform.
The job will be a challenge, that's for sure. The committee has the responsibility of settling small disputes and gathering the information needed to prosecute big ones. They are supposed to have access to ALL Microsoft source code, and their powers are sweeping. If it goes through, I only hope the court picks three tough but fair folks like Satch.
Meanwhile, there is still plenty to complain about in the text of the proposed settlement, itself.
Those who followed the case closely will remember that one of Microsoft's chief claims during the trial was that times and the nature of business have changed, and that anti-trust enforcement ought to be different today than it was when the laws were first passed in the early part of the last century. This is a fast-moving industry based on intellectual, rather than industrial, capital, goes the argument. Sure, Microsoft is on top today (and every day since it got bigger than Lotus around 1986) but, hey, that could change in a Redmond minute. This argument evidently didn't resonate with the court, though, since Microsoft was found guilty. Keep repeating to yourself: "Microsoft is guilty."
Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft's actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before.
Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically protect companies in commerce -- organizations in business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against "competing" commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial vendors -- computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft's greatest single threat on the operating system front comes from Linux -- a non-commercial product -- and it faces a growing threat on the applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. It is as though they don't even exist.
Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: "...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,..."
So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill these products.
Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft "middleware." In this section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify commercial concerns only.
But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- even the Department of Justice itself -- have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows.
I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. They showed through the case little understanding of how the software business really functions. But they are also complying with the law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with the market realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free products could become a major force in any industry -- well, it just would have seemed insane.
This is far from over, though. The nine states are still in the fight and you can be, too, by exercising your right under the Tunney Act to comment on the proposed settlement. The Tunney Act procedures require the United States to:
1. File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement (CIS) with the court.
2. Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal Register.
3. Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected newspapers.
4. Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after the proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
5. Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, in the Federal Register.
6. File the comments received and responses to them with the court.
You might try running the cables on the outside of the walls. Easy to upgrade, easy to run. Buy some clamps, and paste the cable, then paint it. Just an idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh... Never saw that before.
Perhaps for GNOME 2, they should change it to a RIGHT foot instead... just a thought.
I've never even heard of this person before... maybe she'll start to put out books on a regular basis... the Fantasy-Fiction genre is simply becoming stale, new pens would help re-invigorate it.
Flames will be used to save on energy bills.
I read it and now am apalled. Seems slanted, though? Although I am totally against all propritary formats. My tenative initial position is that of what seems to be the rest of the people here: Free Him, and do it now, because he is imprisoned for little squabbles over outdated and meaningless laws.
I don't know what this whole thing is about. Could someone give me a rundown of this case so far? Who is Dimitri Skylarov? What did he do? Why are we all supporting him? In explanation, please include : OBJECTIVE or SUBJECTIVE.
Intel + Propriataryness
Archtecture: Not yet. Still need to reveal how this (P4) works.
Names: No. Pentium(tm)
RAM: Yay! A victory!
Intel still has a way to go, but is definitly a good start.
No comments about spelling/grammer, please.
*phew*
Glad I will still be able to play MP3s, on good operating systems, and even perhaps a Macintosh. Only the stupid are affected, because those with one brain cell would go out and download the hack that will be made avalible within the first nine and a half hours that will let you play MP3s. The Internet is anarchy... Wait a second, I guess Microsoft will deem that "insecure" also... the Microsoft Internet? *shudder* Maybe one company really will end up owning the internet.
Digital Managament Rights Operating System? Call me ignorant, but that is the most incomprihensible piece of legal jargon I have ever heard. Any thoughts on what it actually means? Really, people, let's have some thought about what that means for a second. Not much comes to mind, does it?
I wasn't talking about me! I was talking about people who actually work as programmers.
Sometimes, the world loses a great person. While her accomplishments may seem minor compared to those of the modern-day programmers, she laid an important stone in the foundation of modern computer science. Can you imagine life without her? One whole section of a computer's logic would be eliminated. Perhaps she made some obscure discovery that tomorrow will change the way we think about computers.
Until all the problems with them are worked out (and Linux drivers are widely avalible, of course :-) ), I would recommend staying away from them. Untested Technology == Bad Nasty Crap
He had an article on "Armour Potted Meat Food Product" (on the canned website). See if you can find it, it is one of the funniest things I've ever read.
Someone I know uses them as skates.
The Quickie (sp?) is back! They should have used the Hell Kitty laptop.
This comment was intended as a jest.
... many countries that have democratic governments have democratic software.
Better Message Text:
Interesting
I actually am I big proponent of the GPL, and in terms of politics, PS PE-- if you get my drift. So lay off.
Mostly seem to be in central Europe, Canada, and Australia. Why is that? Is it that the more "leftist" governments are prone to "commie" software :-)? Quite an interesting thing.
Gee-ahnt? Jeeant? How do you pronoune this silly, silly acronym?
The server will be flooded from now to Jan1. People will want to just chat on it "one more time"; the costs will be much higher than normal.(Also the 5|41P7 81DD33Z will want one more go at it) Of course, that means that the University may pull the plug on it even earlier...
One of the charts looks like this, I kid you not...
All of the different education levels rose in percentage from 2000 to 2001! Apparently in 2001 381.7% of people on the internet had some level of education... hmm...
It will be slashdotted. So here it is.
..."
Two calls came in on the same subject in the same day this week, but from very different perspectives. The first call was from a lawyer working for the California Attorney General. He was looking for somebody like me to testify in the remedy phase of the Microsoft anti-trust case. California, as you know, is one of nine states that have chosen not to go along with the proposed anti-trust settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The nine states think Microsoft is getting off too easily. The second call came from Steve Satchell, an old friend from my InfoWorld days, who had noticed deep in the text of the proposed Microsoft/DoJ settlement that as part of the deal, there will be a three-member committee stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced. Satch wants one of those jobs.
I think he should get the position. With a background in computer hardware and software that dates back to one of the very first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, Steve Satchell knows the technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his hundreds of published computer product reviews, he knows the commercial side of the industry. He is glib and confident, too, which might come in handy while attempting to keep Microsoft honest. Sometimes there is a distinct advantage to being the first to apply for a job, so I think Satch should be a shoo-in for one of those compliance gigs. And the boy looks mighty fine in a uniform.
The job will be a challenge, that's for sure. The committee has the responsibility of settling small disputes and gathering the information needed to prosecute big ones. They are supposed to have access to ALL Microsoft source code, and their powers are sweeping. If it goes through, I only hope the court picks three tough but fair folks like Satch.
Meanwhile, there is still plenty to complain about in the text of the proposed settlement, itself.
Those who followed the case closely will remember that one of Microsoft's chief claims during the trial was that times and the nature of business have changed, and that anti-trust enforcement ought to be different today than it was when the laws were first passed in the early part of the last century. This is a fast-moving industry based on intellectual, rather than industrial, capital, goes the argument. Sure, Microsoft is on top today (and every day since it got bigger than Lotus around 1986) but, hey, that could change in a Redmond minute. This argument evidently didn't resonate with the court, though, since Microsoft was found guilty. Keep repeating to yourself: "Microsoft is guilty."
Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft's actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before.
Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically protect companies in commerce -- organizations in business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against "competing" commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial vendors -- computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft's greatest single threat on the operating system front comes from Linux -- a non-commercial product -- and it faces a growing threat on the applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. It is as though they don't even exist.
Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: "...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,
So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill these products.
Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft "middleware." In this section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify commercial concerns only.
But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- even the Department of Justice itself -- have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows.
I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. They showed through the case little understanding of how the software business really functions. But they are also complying with the law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with the market realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free products could become a major force in any industry -- well, it just would have seemed insane.
This is far from over, though. The nine states are still in the fight and you can be, too, by exercising your right under the Tunney Act to comment on the proposed settlement. The Tunney Act procedures require the United States to:
1. File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement (CIS) with the court.
2. Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal Register.
3. Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected newspapers.
4. Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after the proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
5. Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, in the Federal Register.
6. File the comments received and responses to them with the court.
You might try running the cables on the outside of the walls. Easy to upgrade, easy to run. Buy some clamps, and paste the cable, then paint it. Just an idea.
Personally, I found the movie crude and boring...