This is a bizarre idea. Nader and Love seem to miss the point that the "monoculture" is actually standardization that lets all the different departments and agencies reliably communicate with each other. And the concept that a company has to reveal their intellectual property in order to do business with the government is a thinly veiled attempt to side-step the legal system's jurisdiction to determine and make restitutions based on monopoly arguments. Does Boeing give Lockheed-Martin detailed specs on the hardware they produce?
I worked with a guy who was "let go" from the company, and the boss wanted to give his computer to somebody else. However, being a smart PHB-type boss he also wanted a copy of some relatively important code and docs that were kept on the computer.
So the boss asked a jr. lan admin to "ghost" the computer -- but of course the lan admin ghosted a fresh build over top of the existing one... The admin got the beats for it, even though it was an honest mistake. I can easily see how someone could delete something important by accident.
Anyway, can't the gubment guys just use their special sticky tape to pull out all the deleted 0s and 1s? I thought you had to really work at it to fully and completely delete data.
Hi PE
You bring up some interesting points, but to address your first statement,
Correct. However, the case in question isn't about what Microsoft's crimes were 'to you', but what the court found. And what the court found is that Microsoft violated the monopoly laws.
one of the main thrusts of Katz' argument is that the judge acted wrongly and that even independent legal experts and the appeals court judges have spoken against his ruling.
I don't think that a blanket statement like 'the courts have ruled so it is over' is a valid argument in this instance.
Once the case has gone through appeal and the supreme court, then you will have more leway with such statements.
abe
Slashdot Mirror
This is a bizarre idea.
Nader and Love seem to miss the point that the "monoculture" is actually standardization that lets all the different departments and agencies reliably communicate with each other.
And the concept that a company has to reveal their intellectual property in order to do business with the government is a thinly veiled attempt to side-step the legal system's jurisdiction to determine and make restitutions based on monopoly arguments. Does Boeing give Lockheed-Martin detailed specs on the hardware they produce?
I worked with a guy who was "let go" from the company, and the boss wanted to give his computer to somebody else. However, being a smart PHB-type boss he also wanted a copy of some relatively important code and docs that were kept on the computer.
So the boss asked a jr. lan admin to "ghost" the computer -- but of course the lan admin ghosted a fresh build over top of the existing one... The admin got the beats for it, even though it was an honest mistake. I can easily see how someone could delete something important by accident.
Anyway, can't the gubment guys just use their special sticky tape to pull out all the deleted 0s and 1s? I thought you had to really work at it to fully and completely delete data.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
My favorite browser has always been Netscape 5 and I will never, ever, ever stop using it.
my favorite browser is Netscape 5.0
Hi PE You bring up some interesting points, but to address your first statement,
Correct. However, the case in question isn't about what Microsoft's crimes were 'to you', but what the court found. And what the court found is that Microsoft violated the monopoly laws.
one of the main thrusts of Katz' argument is that the judge acted wrongly and that even independent legal experts and the appeals court judges have spoken against his ruling.
I don't think that a blanket statement like 'the courts have ruled so it is over' is a valid argument in this instance.
Once the case has gone through appeal and the supreme court, then you will have more leway with such statements. abe
abe