Going back and reading what I initially wrote in response to your statement, it occurs to me I've made a very poor argument.
Of course, anecdotal evidence is "unscientific". That's why more studies should be done as to what concerns people have regarding switching.
My relating the concerns of others to you is anecdotal. That does not mean the concerns themselves are anecdotal -- and one has only to check archives to determine how many people voice them.
The statements of concerns for compatibility, far from being anecdotal evidence, are real social evidence that can be studied -- and in my experience and opinion, they disprove the denial of network effects.
Science is supposed to be impartial. Unfortunately, economics (particularly U. of Chicago lassaiz-faire type) is frequently tautological.
It is in the interest of pro-lassaiz-faire folk to deny network effects exist, since such effects point up a prime failing of the free market. Customers must be completely free to choose the best product. Unfortunately for them, I've heard far too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Every time an article about applications for Linux comes up, for example, there are invariably a cascade of talkbacks and comments along the lines of, "Yeah, these are good applications, and I like them, but they don't have good enough compatibility with [Word|Excel|Access|Insert other here].
First, most serious researchers I've read besides Kleck believe this number is quite a bit too high. This is for several reasons. From what I've seen, Kleck's study (the National Self-Defense Survey) asks a single question, and makes no effort to determine whether the responder actually stopped a crime (or only thought they did), or whether the responder was acting legally. In fact, I think Kleck even mentions the latter issue as though it's not a problem, but a feature, with his survey (unfortunately, about 50% of criminals convicted of a crime involving a gun claim they were acting in self-defense). Further, I seem to recall his question would count the *threat* of a gun as equivalent to the actual *use* of a gun when counting DGU's (never mind the fact that there's no way to tell how often the mere *threat* of a gun actually gets someone killed).
There are other, far more thorough surveys (though still flawed, of course), such as NCVS, that put the figure in the range of 50,000-100,000/year.
A pity the NRA doesn't see fit to mention the fact that Kleck's figures are so hotly contested (by everyone but them, of course).
Regardless, even if Kleck's stats are too low, it's a poor solution that only partially cures the problems it causes -- from 1 to 2 million crimes involving guns/year (NCVS). Since the rate of gun ownership is positively, not negatively associated with crime in societies around the world, it's pretty obvious gun ownership isn't the only (nor the best) way to stop crime.
Also, your analogies to guns ("why don't we ban THESE?") all fall flat for one simple reason: Guns are the ONLY commercial product of the lot designed solely to kill. Arguments about target practice and hunting fall flat; the kind of weapons we're discussing are designed to kill people. They have no other practical use.
Oh, and counting laws is a straw man. One must consider what the laws stipulate. Many are designed to prevent (the Brady Law's background checks, for example), not just punish.
Don't get me wrong. The NRA and I (and probably you) are in agreement when it comes to increased enforcement of our existing laws. We can always do more. But to claim that new laws and regulations won't do anything, without considering what they call for, is simplistic.
The founding fathers had just fought off a tyrannical government and wanted to ensure that they would not have to do so ever again. That is the reason for the Second Amendment. To provide for the people a means to overthrow the government if it became necessary.
This is an over-simplification. One of the original intentions of the 2nd Amendment was to keep some control of military power in the hands of the States -- the AntiFederalists wanted a balance of power, in the face of initial skepticism that the new Federation wouldn't work. However, "most people thought that militias would not stand to be controlled by the federal government if that body were to begin acting oppressively." (1)
Whether the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as a State or Individual right, the Courts are unanimous in deciding that it is only a limitation on the Federal Government, not on the States (see U.S. vs. Miller). In fact, the States are free to manage their militias as they see fit -- and that includes banning guns. (2)
1: But, only muskets existed when that was written. They never knew that people would have machine guns(tm) and deadly-high-powered-assault-rifles(tm). By that logic, only books and newspapers would be protected by the First Amendment. Movies, TV, Radio and your beloved Internet would all be subject to regulation by the federal government
In fact, all are subject to regulation. No right has ever been interpreted without considerations of responsibility.
There are, and always have been, limitations on ALL rights. Unless you wish to extend the right to keep and bear ALL arms (including chemical, biological, nuclear, etc.) to you, me, your neighbor, and death cultists alike?
Note that this is not an argument against the 2nd Amendment per se -- just an extremist position that disclaims all responsibility. That may or not be yours.
3: But, it says "well regulated Militia...," so the government can "regulate" it as it sees fit. Today we use the term regulated to mean controlled. During the late 18th century, the term "well regulated" meant something like "in good woring order" There are writings from the time that refer to well regulated farms or foundrys.
This is a common "pro-gun" argument, and ignores the fact that while the term "well-regulated" could mean "smoothly functioning", it could also refer to exactly what we mean by it today. To quote Mark Pitcavage: "There is a continuity from the time of the founders (and before) through the nineteenth century through today, in which the term "regulated" as it related to the militia referred to regulations.
"'Well regulated' in the Second Amendment refers to the combination of state and federal regulations, as authority over the militia under the Constitution was divided between the two by the Militia Clauses. Most of the founders emphasized federal regulations, since that was what was at issue during the ratification debates. " (3)
In writings from the time referring specifically to the militias, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Sullivan, Alexander Hamilton, the Federal Farmer, Benjamin Lincoln, Luther Martin, James Wilson, and David Ramsay (among others) all refer to "well-regulated" as meaning "controlled by regulations". Many, many other examples of the use of the term "regulated" as meaning "controlled" can be culled from the time period as well. (4)
Actually, this has been the subject of learned debate on comp.virus and alt.comp.virus at times. The consensus is you're correct: using some sort of quasi-Latin plural "virii" is incorrect. It should be "viruses".
Note: I am not an expert in Latin. I simply relay the opinions of those with deeper knowledge than mine.
This is actually quite hillarious, given BG's infamous "need to win". I'm sure other Microsofties (Ballmer comes to mind) could drug him or lock him up for a few days while they quietly accept the fine, though.
It'd be pretty foolhardy not to have such a contingency plan for times like that.
But if you still want the free market, I'll work with that. Microsoft only has its monopoly because of government regulation. Their chief asset is a set of copyrights. In a free market, copyright law simply does not exist. Microsoft is a government protected monopoly.
I'd like to point out that the Good Libertarian would respond to this by claiming all copyrights (in fact, all intellectual property protection) should be abolished completely.
Unfortunately, Libertarians have yet to turn around and explain how reasonable investments in R&D would continue to be made, when any gains from such investments would be public domain the moment a product goes out the company door.
Antitrust law makes illegal "combinations in restraint of trade," and "anticompetitive practices." Taken literally, that makes all businesses criminal, since by definition, they work to beat their competition and drive them out of business.
Attempting to beat competition is not "anticompetitive". Attempting to prevent competition is anticompetitive, when one is in a position to do it. These are not really difficult concepts; they are the meaning behind antitrust laws. Perhaps you have an example of when they've been applied successfully using a different interpretation?
Also, despite your assertions, all laws are open to some interpretation, no matter how "vague" or "specific", and all have qualifiers.
In addition, the Constitution is not a law in the same sense as other laws. It is a limitation on the power of government, not a limitation on the actions of the people. Thus it is much less important that it be narrowly focused, since an overly broad interpretation will provide more freedom to the people while a broad interpretation of other laws leads to less freedom.
This is simply untrue. The U.S. Constitution is a description of general principles of government. As such, it provides limitations on the rights and priveledges of all parties. Using your example, an overly broad interpretation of the 4th Amendment would allow the government to conduct what you or I might view as "unreasonable" searches and seizures -- surely, something you would view as "less freedom".
Capitalism means the free market. A free market in which the Federal government is allowed to step in and stop companies who act "unfairly" is a contradiction in terms.
This is a Libertarian interpretation, one which equates "Capitalism" with "free" with "lassaiz-faire". Furthermore, there is NO (non-idealistic) reason to believe a lassaiz-faire market is always superior; rather, history tends to indicate the opposite, in many cases. Ever hear of the "Theory of the Second Best"?
Over the long term, monopolies are impossible in a free market, even without antitrust law.
Perhaps over the VERY long term, individual monopolies won't last (though there's no real reason to believe they won't, either). However, I for one don't think a series of abusive monopolies are any better. Further, free markets are predicated upon easy entry into the market. If a market is cornered or coerced, it isn't free.
Your faith in lassaiz-faire markets is quite idealistic. Check out "The Bigness Complex", by Walter Adams if you'd like an alternative point of view.
I don't think I'd paint the typical Slashdot reader/participant as a Libertarian. Either that, or they're not very familiar with what being a "Libertarian" means: even a short glance at the Libertarian Party's platform indicates diametric opposition to nearly all things government, especially interference in business. For example, the Libs would love to not only repeal antitrust laws, but get rid of the FTC and scale back the Justice Dept.
That's why I find it rather comical to note Eric Raymond's justifications for the DOJ's going after Microsoft (or lack of outrage at the DOJ, take your pick). Since he's a self-described Libertarian who has written several papers on the matter, he should know better.
I strongly suspect more people would renounce Libertarianism if they looked closely at the LP's positions, and really thought about the consequences.
Yep. Even a quick look at their website (appropriately: http://www.independent.org) indicates a radically-lassaiz faire market stance (not to mention other right-wing positions).
I'd hardly expect such an organization to conduct unbiased research, but any institute that wants to present itself as a purveyor of non-partisan findings has a strong interest in keeping their conflict-of-interest nose clean. The hiding of major contributions, when the contributors happen to be the beneficiaries of Institute actions, is a major strike against them. Even more so, when they duped professionals into placing their name on Independent Institute advertisements by presenting an appearance of bias-free findings. That tends to make professionals angry, and I'd be suprised if the Independent Institute garners much support in the future.
A more interesting question will be the impact upon the trial judge.
I've already seen several people here remark that this probably means the NSA can break whatever's out there now, or is now relying upon inserting "back doors" at the time of the proposed technical review of a product.
There's also the possibility that the Administration is trying to help Gore.
I'm of the opinion, however, that they might just be bowing to the inevitable. This action might have been sparked, in no small part, by the recent furor over the extra key in Windows CSP system. Since this extra key now enables ANYONE to install their own encryption in Windows (i.e. export control for Windows is now dead as a doornail -- a huge, huge deal), they might just be reacting (finally) to the writing on the wall.
Actually, RSA is probably the one I'm most wary of (as compared to symmetric ciphers like IDEA and CAST). Given the pace of public innovation in factoring large numbers into primes, and the NSA's head start, I wouldn't be terribly suprised if they could beat most RSA systems in use today.
I vote for three. I think the NSA is maybe 5-10 years (at MOST) ahead of public-domain cryptography. Hardly enough lead-time to magically have mathematical solutions to the world's toughest public-domain cryptosystems.
Of course, it's always possible that they engage in all kinds of spying methods, and this is just one of them. But I truly believe that ascribing all-powerful status to ANY organization of humans is bound to fall short of the mark.
'Fernandez reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret meaning, to the "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara. According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the conference did not deny the "NSA" key was built into their software. But they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without users' knowledge.
But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were stunned to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders. This discovery, by van Someren, was based on advance search methods which test and report on the "entropy" of programming code.'
You can't vote out the NSA people, but you can elect people who will abolish the CIA/NSA/others, and rebuild the intelligence system from the ground up, with substantial congressional oversight.
Check voting records, and vote for people who run on platforms that include reform. Or lobby!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, anecdotal evidence is "unscientific". That's why more studies should be done as to what concerns people have regarding switching.
My relating the concerns of others to you is anecdotal. That does not mean the concerns themselves are anecdotal -- and one has only to check archives to determine how many people voice them.
The statements of concerns for compatibility, far from being anecdotal evidence, are real social evidence that can be studied -- and in my experience and opinion, they disprove the denial of network effects.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
It seems to me it would be fairly easy to conduct a study of what people see as most important in a potential switch to another office suite.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is simply untrue. Anecdotal evidence is all that is needed to negate a claim that is based upon absolutes, such as a denial of network effects.
The controversy over the DVORAK keyboard is itself "anecdotal evidence".
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Leibowitz has served as a resource for the defense in the Microsoft trial. Unfortunately, his stuff seems to have been unconvincing there, as well.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
It is in the interest of pro-lassaiz-faire folk to deny network effects exist, since such effects point up a prime failing of the free market. Customers must be completely free to choose the best product. Unfortunately for them, I've heard far too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Every time an article about applications for Linux comes up, for example, there are invariably a cascade of talkbacks and comments along the lines of, "Yeah, these are good applications, and I like them, but they don't have good enough compatibility with [Word|Excel|Access|Insert other here].
Deny as they wish, I'm already convinced.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
The only annoying thing is that someone will probably have to spend money to do it.
The abuse of patents has really gotten out of hand.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
First, most serious researchers I've read besides Kleck believe this number is quite a bit too high. This is for several reasons. From what I've seen, Kleck's study (the National Self-Defense Survey) asks a single question, and makes no effort to determine whether the responder actually stopped a crime (or only thought they did), or whether the responder was acting legally. In fact, I think Kleck even mentions the latter issue as though it's not a problem, but a feature, with his survey (unfortunately, about 50% of criminals convicted of a crime involving a gun claim they were acting in self-defense). Further, I seem to recall his question would count the *threat* of a gun as equivalent to the actual *use* of a gun when counting DGU's (never mind the fact that there's no way to tell how often the mere *threat* of a gun actually gets someone killed).
There are other, far more thorough surveys (though still flawed, of course), such as NCVS, that put the figure in the range of 50,000-100,000/year.
A pity the NRA doesn't see fit to mention the fact that Kleck's figures are so hotly contested (by everyone but them, of course).
Regardless, even if Kleck's stats are too low, it's a poor solution that only partially cures the problems it causes -- from 1 to 2 million crimes involving guns/year (NCVS). Since the rate of gun ownership is positively, not negatively associated with crime in societies around the world, it's pretty obvious gun ownership isn't the only (nor the best) way to stop crime.
Also, your analogies to guns ("why don't we ban THESE?") all fall flat for one simple reason: Guns are the ONLY commercial product of the lot designed solely to kill. Arguments about target practice and hunting fall flat; the kind of weapons we're discussing are designed to kill people. They have no other practical use.
Oh, and counting laws is a straw man. One must consider what the laws stipulate. Many are designed to prevent (the Brady Law's background checks, for example), not just punish.
Don't get me wrong. The NRA and I (and probably you) are in agreement when it comes to increased enforcement of our existing laws. We can always do more. But to claim that new laws and regulations won't do anything, without considering what they call for, is simplistic.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is an over-simplification. One of the original intentions of the 2nd Amendment was to keep some control of military power in the hands of the States -- the AntiFederalists wanted a balance of power, in the face of initial skepticism that the new Federation wouldn't work. However, "most people thought that militias would not stand to be controlled by the federal government if that body were to begin acting oppressively." (1)
Whether the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as a State or Individual right, the Courts are unanimous in deciding that it is only a limitation on the Federal Government, not on the States (see U.S. vs. Miller). In fact, the States are free to manage their militias as they see fit -- and that includes banning guns. (2)
1: But, only muskets existed when that was written. They never knew that people would have machine guns(tm) and deadly-high-powered-assault-rifles(tm). By that logic, only books and newspapers would be protected by the First Amendment. Movies, TV, Radio and your beloved Internet would all be subject to regulation by the federal government
In fact, all are subject to regulation. No right has ever been interpreted without considerations of responsibility.
There are, and always have been, limitations on ALL rights. Unless you wish to extend the right to keep and bear ALL arms (including chemical, biological, nuclear, etc.) to you, me, your neighbor, and death cultists alike?
Note that this is not an argument against the 2nd Amendment per se -- just an extremist position that disclaims all responsibility. That may or not be yours.
3: But, it says "well regulated Militia...," so the government can "regulate" it as it sees fit. Today we use the term regulated to mean controlled. During the late 18th century, the term "well regulated" meant something like "in good woring order" There are writings from the time that refer to well regulated farms or foundrys.
This is a common "pro-gun" argument, and ignores the fact that while the term "well-regulated" could mean "smoothly functioning", it could also refer to exactly what we mean by it today. To quote Mark Pitcavage: "There is a continuity from the time of the founders (and before) through the nineteenth century through today, in which the term "regulated" as it related to the militia referred to regulations.
"'Well regulated' in the Second Amendment refers to the combination of state and federal regulations, as authority over the militia under the Constitution was divided between the two by the Militia Clauses. Most of the founders emphasized federal regulations, since that was what was at issue during the ratification debates. " (3)
In writings from the time referring specifically to the militias, Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Sullivan, Alexander Hamilton, the Federal Farmer, Benjamin Lincoln, Luther Martin, James Wilson, and David Ramsay (among others) all refer to "well-regulated" as meaning "controlled by regulations". Many, many other examples of the use of the term "regulated" as meaning "controlled" can be culled from the time period as well. (4)
1. Mark Pitcavage and Sheldon Sheps, "The New Militia FAQ", URL: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq1.htm .
2. Findlaw.com, "Second Amendment", URL: http://caselaw. findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/index.ht ml.
3. Pitcavage and Sheps, "The New Militia FAQ".
4. Ibid.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Note: I am not an expert in Latin. I simply relay the opinions of those with deeper knowledge than mine.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
This is actually an important point -- I wonder if they considered it.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
It'd be pretty foolhardy not to have such a contingency plan for times like that.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'd like to point out that the Good Libertarian would respond to this by claiming all copyrights (in fact, all intellectual property protection) should be abolished completely.
Unfortunately, Libertarians have yet to turn around and explain how reasonable investments in R&D would continue to be made, when any gains from such investments would be public domain the moment a product goes out the company door.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Attempting to beat competition is not "anticompetitive". Attempting to prevent competition is anticompetitive, when one is in a position to do it. These are not really difficult concepts; they are the meaning behind antitrust laws. Perhaps you have an example of when they've been applied successfully using a different interpretation?
Also, despite your assertions, all laws are open to some interpretation, no matter how "vague" or "specific", and all have qualifiers.
In addition, the Constitution is not a law in the same sense as other laws. It is a limitation on the power of government, not a limitation on the actions of the people. Thus it is much less important that it be narrowly focused, since an overly broad interpretation will provide more freedom to the people while a broad interpretation of other laws leads to less freedom.
This is simply untrue. The U.S. Constitution is a description of general principles of government. As such, it provides limitations on the rights and priveledges of all parties. Using your example, an overly broad interpretation of the 4th Amendment would allow the government to conduct what you or I might view as "unreasonable" searches and seizures -- surely, something you would view as "less freedom".
Capitalism means the free market. A free market in which the Federal government is allowed to step in and stop companies who act "unfairly" is a contradiction in terms.
This is a Libertarian interpretation, one which equates "Capitalism" with "free" with "lassaiz-faire". Furthermore, there is NO (non-idealistic) reason to believe a lassaiz-faire market is always superior; rather, history tends to indicate the opposite, in many cases. Ever hear of the "Theory of the Second Best"?
Over the long term, monopolies are impossible in a free market, even without antitrust law.
Perhaps over the VERY long term, individual monopolies won't last (though there's no real reason to believe they won't, either). However, I for one don't think a series of abusive monopolies are any better. Further, free markets are predicated upon easy entry into the market. If a market is cornered or coerced, it isn't free.
Your faith in lassaiz-faire markets is quite idealistic. Check out "The Bigness Complex", by Walter Adams if you'd like an alternative point of view.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
That's why I find it rather comical to note Eric Raymond's justifications for the DOJ's going after Microsoft (or lack of outrage at the DOJ, take your pick). Since he's a self-described Libertarian who has written several papers on the matter, he should know better.
I strongly suspect more people would renounce Libertarianism if they looked closely at the LP's positions, and really thought about the consequences.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I'd hardly expect such an organization to conduct unbiased research, but any institute that wants to present itself as a purveyor of non-partisan findings has a strong interest in keeping their conflict-of-interest nose clean. The hiding of major contributions, when the contributors happen to be the beneficiaries of Institute actions, is a major strike against them. Even more so, when they duped professionals into placing their name on Independent Institute advertisements by presenting an appearance of bias-free findings. That tends to make professionals angry, and I'd be suprised if the Independent Institute garners much support in the future.
A more interesting question will be the impact upon the trial judge.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Ayn Rand? Try Anna Frank. "...I still believe people are good at heart..." ;^)
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
$15 million will buy a lot of beowulf. Anyone see how many nodes? I didn't find the number listed.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
I believe you're referring to GPG - Gnu Privacy Guard. Get it here.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
There's also the possibility that the Administration is trying to help Gore.
I'm of the opinion, however, that they might just be bowing to the inevitable. This action might have been sparked, in no small part, by the recent furor over the extra key in Windows CSP system. Since this extra key now enables ANYONE to install their own encryption in Windows (i.e. export control for Windows is now dead as a doornail -- a huge, huge deal), they might just be reacting (finally) to the writing on the wall.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
El Gamal, IIRC, may be a different story.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Of course, it's always possible that they engage in all kinds of spying methods, and this is just one of them. But I truly believe that ascribing all-powerful status to ANY organization of humans is bound to fall short of the mark.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
URL: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/comp uting/9909/03/windows.nsa/
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
'Fernandez reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret meaning, to the "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara. According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the conference did not deny the "NSA" key was built into their software. But they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without users' knowledge.
But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were stunned to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders. This discovery, by van Someren, was based on advance search methods which test and report on the "entropy" of programming code.'
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Not just a security flaw that Microsoft knew of, but designed in.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Check voting records, and vote for people who run on platforms that include reform. Or lobby!
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from