Looking at the current election at the moment is Apples and Oranges. Dean & the other Dems are in the middle of a primary campaign (which hasn't been won yet) while Bush and the Republicans are gearing up for the general election and haven't really begun to campaign yet. Also the lopsided giving between the parties of big vs. little donors doesn't show up in individual campaigns which can only accept donations of under $2,000. It shows up in (formerly unlimited) party donations and will now move to unaffiliated (and untracked) advocacy groups.
It would be more fair to look at the historical numbers. Here are the facts (also from opensecrets.org) when comparing Apples to Apples. Donor demographics in percentages and by absolute numbers. Past years display the same trend (just use the pull-down to select the election cycle).
Of course that big money will still want to have an effect on the campaign. Soros's contributions alone will be statistically significant percentage of Democratic money - but now that the parties can't accept that money directly it will go to unnafiliated (yet partisan) advocacy groups and be much harder to track. Ironically the law may very well lead to LESS transparency. Those groups may be barred from political broadcast or print advertising (so much for the 1st amendment) but that much money will find it's way into the campaign (direct mail, phone, paying for "volunteers", get-out-the-vote drives etc.).
But "Windows", as a common English word, shouldn't be able to be trademarked IMHO.
It is perfectly fine to trademark an existing or even common word as long as it is not something in common use in your sphere of activity. You could not trademark an Apple orchard "Apple" but you CAN trademark a computer company or a recording studio by that name.
Lindows is in fact arguing that the "windows" trademark is invalid because "windows" is a common computer term. I'm inclined to agree but think that the court may decide that the horse is out of the barn now with the Windows(TM) name and that it would be unfair to M$ and to consumers to invalidate it now and have "IBM(TM) Windows", "RedHat(TM) Windows" etc. popping up in the marketplace.
So, now when copyright/trademark a name for product, you also copyright/trademark every word that 'sounds like' the name or is a 'synonym' of the name? WTF is that?
Yes, and it has always been that way. You can't have a name that people will confuse with another trademark, or one that "dilutes" the trademark. Lindows is a pretty clear cut case - the products are identical, the trademark in dispute is the exact same name except for one letter, the Windows trademark is strongly identifiable and the intent of the "lindows" name is pretty clearly designed to trade off of the "windows" name. Naming a competing product so similiarly to "windows" was just plain stupidity (and sounds stupid to boot)
Lindows is not bothering to argue that "Lindows" isn't infringing on Windows trademark (an open and shut case) but that Windows(TM) is INVALID since "windows" was (and is) a generic computer term.
IF windows trademark is upheld then Lindows(TM) doesn't have a leg to stand on. If it is deemed invalid then you could just go whole hog and name your product "Windows" yourself, so we could see "RedHat(TM) Windows" and "IBM(TM) Windows" etc. Such products really would create confusion in the marketplace. For that reason I think even if the courts agree that the Windows trademark shouldn't have been granted they may decide that in fairness to M$ and to consumers it is too late to go back and undo it.
Whatever the court decides this isn't really a case of a tiny little company is just innocently minding it's own business. They CHOSE a name that they had to know would provoke a lawsuit and their only defense is one that if successful would totally screw M$'s marketing - millions if not billions of dollars over more than a decade down the drain, or even used against them as competitors rush to use the "windows" name and get sales from people that think they're buying MS windows. Lindows is not playing defense - they are playing aggresive offense.
You miss out one little detail, the judge had thrown out the map previously because it flunked the civil rights issue. So much for your 'less biased sources'.
No, where did you get that idea? The court created the current district map (essentially a continuation of the previous map) because the legislature was deadlocked and couldn't didn't come up with one. You really might consider finding less biased sources. I'd suggest looking at regional papers - they are occasionally biased but are less likely to get the story so wrong as partisan opinion journals or even national papers.
That is not the result of gerrymandering, it is the result of incumbency. Texas has been Democratic for decades.
Wrong again, In the 1990 redistricting the Democrats who still had the majority in the state house but were seeing the state as a whole trending Republican. So they gerrymandered the districts to give them 70% of the house seats with only 50% of the popular vote, and most recently The only incumbency that helped them was the imcumbent Democratic state legislators doing the redistricting (with the aid of a computer program, I might add). When the state was solidly (conservative) Democrat such aggressive gerrymandering wasn't necessary, they resorted to it as the populace became increasingly Republican.
DeLay and cronies are upset that voters do not want to trade their existing democrats in for republicans to do his bidding.
Actually the voters DID vote to trade democrats for republicans - as I said 57% of the vote went Republican. It's just that the majority sentiment was packed into a small number of overwhelmingly Republican districts while the minority sentiment was spread out the get relatively thin majorities among all the rest. The result, despite losing the congressional vote by a margin that would usually be considered a landslide (14% points down!) the Democrats got MORE of the seats (17 out of 32). That is a gerrymander no matter how you justify it.
Given the corrupt way the bill was forced through - changing the rules to fit the deed there is no moral reason the courts should defer to the legislature on this one.
Exactly what "rules" have been changed? The "rules" say that the STATE not the federal courts has the responsibility to draw electoral lines. If the courts invalidate such lines for some good cause (such as a deadlocked legislature that can't get it done on time) that does not change the RULE that it is the states responsibility. Lines drawn by courts have been redrawn by state legislatures on off years in the past (in California in 1984 for example). Court drawn lines have often changed *multiple* times over the course of a decade. It's hard to see how a body given only general oversight responsibilities (the federal courts) can have complete freedom to redraw districts as it will multiple times while the body EXPLICITY given that responsiblity has it completely taken out of their hands.
The courts should only step in when something goes very clearly wrong. Even when it does when the proper constitutionally mandated body comes back and does it's job right the court should defer to that proper body rather than usurp responsibilities given to others.
As far as I can see the only "rule" changed was the rule that Republican voters should be obligated to send Democratic politicians to Washington. I can understand why Democrats liked that "rule" but I don't think it should stand up in court.
The problem is that DeLay has just opened up the game so that it is a continuous process. So instead of having the boundaries fixed at ten year intervals each party will commence redistricting as soon as they take over a statehouse... If Republicans thought about what could happen when the boot is on the other foot they might realize this as well.
I don't want to defend the practice of Gerrymandering, nor continuous redistricting BUT, this is definitely a case of "turnaround is fair play". The Republicans especcially in Texas have already had "the boot on the other foot" and this is payback time.
The current districts are a clear cut case of gerrymandering. In this last election 57% of Texas voters voted to send a Republican to the House of Representatives but the Democrats got the majority of Texas seats (17 out of 32) in the house. The current Democratic gerrymander gives the Democrats 3-4 seats beyond what would be "fair" by the popular vote. In the early '90's when the current districts were first put in place the Democrats managed to capture 70% of the house seats with only 1/2 of the vote. Micheal Barrone the author of the "American Political Almanac" called it ""The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation" in the Almanac he called it "the shrewdest gerrymander". To keep the post on-topic the Democratic gerrymander was implementied using a computer program, yet strangely the New Yorker didn't find that as newsworthy at the time. Here is a relevent quote from a journalism students story (apparently the Dems screwing the Reps doesn't attract as much interest in the media) on using computers to gerrymander Texas:
The Democrats accomplished packing by using a sophisticated computer program referred to as the Computer Curtain. The Computer Curtain successfully arranged the districts so that as many Republicans as possible fit into the least number of districts. The Republican Party found it impossible to win any sort of a majority. The effects of this process are still existent even as the new plan for 2002 comes into shape.
A scrupulously fair redistricting would give the Republicans 3-4 additional seats. The Republicans to be fair are engaging in their own bit of gerrymandering to "unfairly" pick up an additional 2-3 extra seats to give them a total pick-up of 6-7.
It's worth noting that those 2-3 extra seats aren't quite as aggressive as what the Democrats achieved throughout the 90's. In the 90's however, there was no comparable outcry from outraged defenders of representative democracy. Republican complaints didn't get any traction in the media. Most likely this is a case of the Republicans not playing the game as well as the Democrats - they fought the gerrymander but didn't go the the extra-ordinary lengths that the Dems did in this round. Perhaps they didn't think that the press would be as kind to them.
Restrict gun ownership to those who can prove that they are mature enough to handle a gun.
The debate is less about reasonable restrictions on gun ownership but on two aspects of defining and implementing those restrictions. First where the burden of proof lie? Do you have to prove your fitness to own a gun or does the government have to prove your lack of fitness to restrict you from having a gun.
Also what are the assumptions that we use to define what restrictions are "reasonable". The anti-gun crowd by and large believe that guns are (almost) always bad. That the presense of guns induces otherwise non-violent people to commit violence. The presense of guns cause crime and increase the severity of the crimes committed. As a result their "reasonable" restrictions tend to pile up until only a very small number of people qualify and even when they do there are a vast number of restrictions on when, where & how they can use or possess the guns. The final result is amounts to an almost complete ban of all guns (which many anti-gun folks are honest enough to admit is their ultimate goal)
The pro-gun position is that *legally owned* guns are generally a good thing. People have a right to self-defense and a right to the *means* of self-defense. When a high percentage of the population is capable of effective self-defense the potential costs of crime are very high and crime rates drop. Their definition of "reasonable" tends to be restricted to keeping (legal) guns out of the hands of criminals, & the feebleminded. They don't like registration where their identity and guns are tracked by the government since they see it as a preface to confiscation. A not irrational fear since as I said many anti-gun folks are honest that this is in fact their goal.
The scholarly debate over the Lott/Mustard study is over which of these positions has a firmer basis in reality and the available data. Lott makes a strong case that the pro-gun position is essentially correct and that longitudinal studies of the data back it up. The introduction of concealed carry laws DID result in dropping crime rates (in the case of rape the drop was *very* dramatic, murder somewhat less so.)
There are also a few violent criminals out there. For obvious reasons the criminals are the ones commiting most crimes
Not all criminals are complete idiots, and even most that are are are smart enough to figure out that the odds of their getting shot go up as the percentage of armed victims goes up.
Since most people (even idiots) don't like getting shot - as the odds of getting shot in any particular activity goes up the willingness to engage in that activity goes down.
Yes, guns do cause more crime. The rest of the world learnt to read a bar chart years ago.. do they teach them in your schools yet?
Is this chart showing the number of murders per 100,000 people before and after the passage of a concealed carry law the one you were referring to?
Hmm... In that chart more guns DID result in less crime. Perhaps you had another chart in mind? Or did you just misread this one.
My point is not that I believe the "more guns, less crime" thesis. It's just that you're going to have to do a bit better than just accusing the economics professors that came up with the thesis of being unable to read "a bar chart" (which bar chart? supported by what data?). There is a whole lot of statistical evidence and bar charts being thrown back and forth in sholarly journals over this idea. I don't think the issue is so settled that you can simply insult those you disagree with as illiterate buffoons.
Obviously you need both a product and a customer. There *is* a distinction between the two and when we talk about the media we often forget where the end-user (viewer/listener/reader) fits into the equation.
But the term refers to the *method* by which he attempts to bring about change.
Blood and physical violence are not the only ways to terrorize a people. Remember Blaster and the rest of the fun we had this summer? Those caused great disruption to our society
I can see this point, an attack against the sense of financial security in the civillian population that is intended to demoralise and change opinion could be called "terrorism" as opposed to a similar act of sabotage that is valued for it's own effects rather than for it's effects on the psyche of the enemy.
Still I'm a bit uncomfortable calling such a bloodless attack "terrorism" though perhaps "sabotage" isn't quite adequate either.
Also, I think you're elevating the Blaster worm above it's actual effects. Blaster doesn't terrorize in anyone. Using such means to affect the enemy civillian population should probably be called "irritatism" or "frustrateism" since that is the most extreme emotion such an attack would provoke.
No, it's actually nothing like that at all. Look at the situation in Iraq. Soldiers dressed as civillians. Children with guns. Men dressed as women.
AFTER the "major combat operations" - Everyone is giving Bush grief for this but there IS a distinction. There was a phase of war in which we defeated a standing army. During that type of conflict an EMP weapon would be very useful against most of our enemies. Being able to take out a SAM radar and disrupt airfields to the point of near uselessness without using tons of explosives is of military value even without the potential benefits of being able to do so without causing human casualties if that SAM radar or airfield is right up against a civillian neighborhood.
We keep hearing about how accurate new weapons are, then hearing about accidental civillian casualties.
There will be and always have been innocent civillians killed in war - what is remarkable is that "smart bombs" have minimized them to an incredible degree. In past wars if there was an ammo dump in the midst of a civillian neighborhood the only option to destroy it was to destroy the entire neighborhood as well. In past wars such operations which in a single air raid could inflict hundreds and thousands of civillian deaths were considered the inevitable cost of war. The smart bombs which as you mentioned occasionally go astray have reduced that number by a factor of 10 or more.
Yet through it all, U.S. troops have sustained heavy losses from an enemy with very little in the way of technological infrastructure.
It seems callous to say this but U.S. troops are NOT sustaining heavy losses. Each death is a tragedy but losing an average one soldier a day simply can't be characterised as "heavy" by any method of accounting for such things. Historically such a rate of casualties would just barely register as being engaged in conflict at all. Remember what was so poignant about the title "All Quiet on the Western Front?"
Since the U.S. is all about fighting terrorism these days, that EMP won't be too useful. That's all I was trying to say.
Despite being "all about" fighting terrorism, terrorism is not the only potential threat that the U.S. has to worry about. Just because one threat is ongoing and others are merely potential doesn't mean that you can afford to ignore the potential threats. To go back to my original metaphor - just because you've been in a car accident and your automobile insurance is being "used" doesn't mean it's a good idea to cancel your health insurance since it isn't being "used". Just because the current conflict is against terrorists doesn't mean that other potential threats cease to exist and can be safely ignored.
I think this is a *great* idea. And there is even some precedence.
Back when flag-burning was declared to be constitutionally protected speech one of the states that had a law against it amended their law. Now instead of being illegal to burn the flag the new law said it was NOT illegal to punch someone burning a flag.
I don't think we should legalize the slaughter of spammers but I think a good drubbing should be perfectly within our rights.
For this particular case I'm hoping for jury-nullification.
According to conventional doctrine a rational terrorists group will avoid killing large numbers of civilian bystanders in order to avoid aleanating the community from which they draw their support (and funding).
You are confusing Terrorist with Guerilla. A terrorist by definition is doing things to cause a general sense of "terror" in his enemies civillian population. This is best achieved if the targets are essentially random so every member of the population is at potential risk and if the attacks are as horrific as possible. So a bomb in a crowded pizza parlor is an act of terrorism while a sniper targetting a soldier is an act of guerrilla warfare. Either act is a matter of tactics so any particular group can be engaged in both kinds of activities.
Obviously as in the case of the IRA bombing in the City of London a single terrorist act can have multiple advantages. It WAS a terrorist attack in that it killed a number of people that belong to the "opinion class" and thus invokes terror throughout that class. It also did financial damage to a much wider group so they felt it have an impact on their lives personally. The whole point of their terrorism was to demoralize the enemy population so that they would conclude that Northern Ireland was not worth the cost of having to live in fear. A technological attack that did even more economic damage may have been effective but part of what the terrorist wants is the graphic scenes on TV of bleeding civillians running from the blast and the sight of all that damage (the City of London bombing was dramatic). Being TOLD about a bunch of computers being disrupted doesn't move public opinion the way that the random and horrific deaths of large numbers of people *just like you* does.
Yeesh, I didn't expect so much of it to be a political rant. Then again, it's Bill Joy, maybe I should have.:-)
Sometimes very smart people that are very good in one sphere of knowledge make the mistake of thinking that their expertise extends to ALL spheres of knowledge. So you see actors & musicians, and in this case computer programmers, that think they have brilliant political insights. Bill Joy is entitled to his opinion and is entitled to voice it in any forum he cares to - but I don't see any reason to assume that it is any more insightful than yours or mine. His opinions on computer science on the other hand are something we should be listen to with a great deal of respect.
Finally someone ther has enough sense and not just a MBA degree.
Actually, I thought the article while interesting missed one of the key dynamics of OSS. It's NOT just altruism it's *cooperation*. OSS developers aren't just creating software because it seems like a nice thing to do but because they are themselves users and the software is meeting their needs. Of course as individuals they their resources are too limited to make something worth using but OSS licenses give them a mechanism for a whole legion of developers with the complimentary needs to cooperate and collectively have the resources to create great software.
But even this traditional OSS cooperation is only part of what has Gates worried. Other entities that aren't users of the software in the same sense are cooperating because it suits their needs in other ways. Hardware companies and Service companies for instance can see how a world of OSS benefit them and they are willing to contribute some of their vast resources to create that alternative OSS world.
Even some software companies that would theoretically find the OSS philophy a threat turn around and both harness it to their benefit and contribute. They can cooperate and contribute to the common foundations but sell their unique product on top of that. So Apple's proprietary operating system uses and contributes to open software at the foundational level and reverts to traditional closed source philosphy to sell the bit that makes their product unique - same with their use of khtml as the foundation for Safari, Open Source supplies the plumbing and Apple (in a proprietary way) supplies the polished interface. That kind of part-open, part-closed participation isn't exactly what the "free software" folks had in mind but in that part that *is* open such companies ARE contributing to the community, and giving Gates nightmares.
With all these varied and diverse groups contributing to OSS for their own reasons it is not a case of Microsoft competing against a ragtag band of altruistic geeks but also against a vast joint venture made up of those altruistic geeks and also MS's biggest corporate competitors. At this point I suspect that if you added up the resources of all the companies that are commiting to OSS development you'd be looking at a "disorganization" that dwarfs even mighty Microsoft - and it's getting worse (for Microsoft). At some point in the not so distant future this dynamic system/joint venture and it's vast resources will simply bury Microsoft.
That means that everyone dealing in leads makes less money, but the spammers make more
Only in the *very* short run. It wouldn't take very long at all for the people purchasing the leads to realize that most of them are bogus and they will stop buying from that source.
Also, while the people that are ultimately benefitting from the spam in this case are insulated by a degree or two of separation from actually sending the spam I don't have a problem at all with seeing them suffer for it. If the broker does business with spammers I have no problem seeing them suffer for it. If the mortgage company does business with brokers that use spam I have no problem with seeing them suffer for it. Right now the mortgage companies apparently don't care whether their leads come from legitimate sources or from spam, a few months of this and they would care - a lot.
If you were black and lived in Florida this might just allow you to vote instead of being turned away from the voting booths.
As an added bonus if you know about computers you may be able to vote several times.
I'm afraid of these systems because there are unscrupulous politicians and groups in both parties that DO engage in dirty tricks and outright voter fraud. Just look at the instances in Florida that you bring up. I do not doubt that in some of those instances there really was a concerted effort by political hacks to suppress the turnout in wards that were dominated by their opponents. I think you are laughably naive if you think it was only Republicans engaging in such tactics.
I'm not as sure about the specifics in Florida but at least where I am some of the instances of voter intimidation/fraud the question of who is cheating who is in the eye of the beholder - In one instance poll watchers from one party observed campaign volunteers from the other party illegally going right into the voting booths with voters and "helping" them vote. The poll watchers got a camcorder out of their car and recorded this illegal activity. Of course in doing so they themselves were illegally disrupting voting and intimidating voters in one of their opponents strongholds. Who was cheating who? Would you have to know which party was "helping" voters and which was "intimidating voters" to answer? (Though I'm sure you can guess - this was a "dog bites man" story.)
Brilliant insight, that explains why the economy has done so well since 9/11! And, as an added bonus explains why it continued to roar while we fought in Afghanistand and during "major combat operations" in Iraq but why it has slumped now. Historically you can see how fear and uncertaintly over islamism in Iran and advancing Communism elsewhere helped president Carter and how the general climate of security was so punishing to the Eisenhower economy in the 50's.
I think you need to adjust your tinfoil. The mind control rays are leaking through.
Keeps the people scared.. buying stuff and watching TV.
I guess I can understand the watching TV bit but I'm confused about the "scared == buying stuff" dynamic. Can you explain to me how that works?
I think your rant would have had more credibility if you had just stuck to evil "military industiral complex" without the impulsive need to somehow find a way implicate McDonalds and Pepsi Co. while you were at it.
Sure, there are some designers that use or even prefer Wintel PC's but they are the minority among Graphic Designers. Within that niche the Mac enjoys the same network advantages that Microsoft enjoys just about everywhere else. If you are freelanceing and get an on-site job they'll stick you on a Mac. If you're a design firm and bring in freelancers they'll be Mac users and will be less efficient if you stick them on an unfamiliar platform. Whenever you are getting or recieving files from other firms, ad agencies, freelancers, service bureaus, etc. they'll (almost) all be sending and expecting stuff that is Mac formatted.
I'll conceed that this is NOT necessarily the case when dealing with web designers since they are dealing with web developers that are likely using wintel. However, I think the ones most likely to be using flash are also the ones that are most tied to the Macintosh dominated design/creative industry rather than the Wintel dominated technical/developer industry. My own opinion is that the introduction of the UNIX powered OS X is a nice marraige between the two worlds that makes it the perfect platform for web design/development.
Not always, normally it comes down to what sort of computer the COMPANY buys the artists to use.
But the thing is the COMPANY isn't some giant firm standardized on Windows. It is an Advertising and/or Design firm standardized on Macs. Any real design work is outsourced to designers and they use Macs. Sure most big companies have an in-house design shop to do their internal stuff, and some are perverse enough to condemn those poor suffering souls to use Wintel (probably make them wear ties too, or at best "business casual"), but you don't think that after treating them so cruelly they would trust them to do the company website do you? Believe me the flash animation splash page on your typical fortune 500 company's site was NOT done by a corporate drone in some cubicle wasteland. It was done by a guy with a nose ring working freelance out of his studio apartment - I assure you he was not using a PeeCee (and he was not wearing a tie).
Most web developers don't care about supporting Macs. Good ones do, but a good web designer wouldn't be using Flash/Sparkle in the first place for 95% of the stuff it's used for.
No most web developers - that are using flash - are using Macs. Flash is generally used by web developers or web designers that came to web design from a graphic design background, and they use Macs.
Do not implement legal "solutions" for technological "problems."
I think your application of bumper-sticker ideology has a few flaws in this case. These guys were NOT busted for using or even abusing a technology. They were busted for extortion - they were harrassing people and promising to stop if you paid them. The technology used to do the harrassment doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the current election at the moment is Apples and Oranges. Dean & the other Dems are in the middle of a primary campaign (which hasn't been won yet) while Bush and the Republicans are gearing up for the general election and haven't really begun to campaign yet. Also the lopsided giving between the parties of big vs. little donors doesn't show up in individual campaigns which can only accept donations of under $2,000. It shows up in (formerly unlimited) party donations and will now move to unaffiliated (and untracked) advocacy groups.
It would be more fair to look at the historical numbers. Here are the facts (also from opensecrets.org) when comparing Apples to Apples. Donor demographics in percentages and by absolute numbers. Past years display the same trend (just use the pull-down to select the election cycle).
Of course that big money will still want to have an effect on the campaign. Soros's contributions alone will be statistically significant percentage of Democratic money - but now that the parties can't accept that money directly it will go to unnafiliated (yet partisan) advocacy groups and be much harder to track. Ironically the law may very well lead to LESS transparency. Those groups may be barred from political broadcast or print advertising (so much for the 1st amendment) but that much money will find it's way into the campaign (direct mail, phone, paying for "volunteers", get-out-the-vote drives etc.).
But "Windows", as a common English word, shouldn't be able to be trademarked IMHO.
It is perfectly fine to trademark an existing or even common word as long as it is not something in common use in your sphere of activity. You could not trademark an Apple orchard "Apple" but you CAN trademark a computer company or a recording studio by that name.
Lindows is in fact arguing that the "windows" trademark is invalid because "windows" is a common computer term. I'm inclined to agree but think that the court may decide that the horse is out of the barn now with the Windows(TM) name and that it would be unfair to M$ and to consumers to invalidate it now and have "IBM(TM) Windows", "RedHat(TM) Windows" etc. popping up in the marketplace.
So, now when copyright/trademark a name for product, you also copyright/trademark every word that 'sounds like' the name or is a 'synonym' of the name? WTF is that?
Yes, and it has always been that way. You can't have a name that people will confuse with another trademark, or one that "dilutes" the trademark. Lindows is a pretty clear cut case - the products are identical, the trademark in dispute is the exact same name except for one letter, the Windows trademark is strongly identifiable and the intent of the "lindows" name is pretty clearly designed to trade off of the "windows" name. Naming a competing product so similiarly to "windows" was just plain stupidity (and sounds stupid to boot)
Lindows is not bothering to argue that "Lindows" isn't infringing on Windows trademark (an open and shut case) but that Windows(TM) is INVALID since "windows" was (and is) a generic computer term.
IF windows trademark is upheld then Lindows(TM) doesn't have a leg to stand on. If it is deemed invalid then you could just go whole hog and name your product "Windows" yourself, so we could see "RedHat(TM) Windows" and "IBM(TM) Windows" etc. Such products really would create confusion in the marketplace. For that reason I think even if the courts agree that the Windows trademark shouldn't have been granted they may decide that in fairness to M$ and to consumers it is too late to go back and undo it.
Whatever the court decides this isn't really a case of a tiny little company is just innocently minding it's own business. They CHOSE a name that they had to know would provoke a lawsuit and their only defense is one that if successful would totally screw M$'s marketing - millions if not billions of dollars over more than a decade down the drain, or even used against them as competitors rush to use the "windows" name and get sales from people that think they're buying MS windows. Lindows is not playing defense - they are playing aggresive offense.
You miss out one little detail, the judge had thrown out the map previously because it flunked the civil rights issue. So much for your 'less biased sources'.
No, where did you get that idea? The court created the current district map (essentially a continuation of the previous map) because the legislature was deadlocked and couldn't didn't come up with one. You really might consider finding less biased sources. I'd suggest looking at regional papers - they are occasionally biased but are less likely to get the story so wrong as partisan opinion journals or even national papers.
That is not the result of gerrymandering, it is the result of incumbency. Texas has been Democratic for decades.
Wrong again, In the 1990 redistricting the Democrats who still had the majority in the state house but were seeing the state as a whole trending Republican. So they gerrymandered the districts to give them 70% of the house seats with only 50% of the popular vote, and most recently The only incumbency that helped them was the imcumbent Democratic state legislators doing the redistricting (with the aid of a computer program, I might add). When the state was solidly (conservative) Democrat such aggressive gerrymandering wasn't necessary, they resorted to it as the populace became increasingly Republican.
DeLay and cronies are upset that voters do not want to trade their existing democrats in for republicans to do his bidding.
Actually the voters DID vote to trade democrats for republicans - as I said 57% of the vote went Republican. It's just that the majority sentiment was packed into a small number of overwhelmingly Republican districts while the minority sentiment was spread out the get relatively thin majorities among all the rest. The result, despite losing the congressional vote by a margin that would usually be considered a landslide (14% points down!) the Democrats got MORE of the seats (17 out of 32). That is a gerrymander no matter how you justify it.
Given the corrupt way the bill was forced through - changing the rules to fit the deed there is no moral reason the courts should defer to the legislature on this one.
Exactly what "rules" have been changed? The "rules" say that the STATE not the federal courts has the responsibility to draw electoral lines. If the courts invalidate such lines for some good cause (such as a deadlocked legislature that can't get it done on time) that does not change the RULE that it is the states responsibility. Lines drawn by courts have been redrawn by state legislatures on off years in the past (in California in 1984 for example). Court drawn lines have often changed *multiple* times over the course of a decade. It's hard to see how a body given only general oversight responsibilities (the federal courts) can have complete freedom to redraw districts as it will multiple times while the body EXPLICITY given that responsiblity has it completely taken out of their hands.
The courts should only step in when something goes very clearly wrong. Even when it does when the proper constitutionally mandated body comes back and does it's job right the court should defer to that proper body rather than usurp responsibilities given to others.
As far as I can see the only "rule" changed was the rule that Republican voters should be obligated to send Democratic politicians to Washington. I can understand why Democrats liked that "rule" but I don't think it should stand up in court.
I don't want to defend the practice of Gerrymandering, nor continuous redistricting BUT, this is definitely a case of "turnaround is fair play". The Republicans especcially in Texas have already had "the boot on the other foot" and this is payback time.
The current districts are a clear cut case of gerrymandering. In this last election 57% of Texas voters voted to send a Republican to the House of Representatives but the Democrats got the majority of Texas seats (17 out of 32) in the house. The current Democratic gerrymander gives the Democrats 3-4 seats beyond what would be "fair" by the popular vote. In the early '90's when the current districts were first put in place the Democrats managed to capture 70% of the house seats with only 1/2 of the vote. Micheal Barrone the author of the "American Political Almanac" called it ""The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation" in the Almanac he called it "the shrewdest gerrymander". To keep the post on-topic the Democratic gerrymander was implementied using a computer program, yet strangely the New Yorker didn't find that as newsworthy at the time. Here is a relevent quote from a journalism students story (apparently the Dems screwing the Reps doesn't attract as much interest in the media) on using computers to gerrymander Texas: A scrupulously fair redistricting would give the Republicans 3-4 additional seats. The Republicans to be fair are engaging in their own bit of gerrymandering to "unfairly" pick up an additional 2-3 extra seats to give them a total pick-up of 6-7.
It's worth noting that those 2-3 extra seats aren't quite as aggressive as what the Democrats achieved throughout the 90's. In the 90's however, there was no comparable outcry from outraged defenders of representative democracy. Republican complaints didn't get any traction in the media. Most likely this is a case of the Republicans not playing the game as well as the Democrats - they fought the gerrymander but didn't go the the extra-ordinary lengths that the Dems did in this round. Perhaps they didn't think that the press would be as kind to them.
Restrict gun ownership to those who can prove that they are mature enough to handle a gun.
The debate is less about reasonable restrictions on gun ownership but on two aspects of defining and implementing those restrictions. First where the burden of proof lie? Do you have to prove your fitness to own a gun or does the government have to prove your lack of fitness to restrict you from having a gun. Also what are the assumptions that we use to define what restrictions are "reasonable". The anti-gun crowd by and large believe that guns are (almost) always bad. That the presense of guns induces otherwise non-violent people to commit violence. The presense of guns cause crime and increase the severity of the crimes committed. As a result their "reasonable" restrictions tend to pile up until only a very small number of people qualify and even when they do there are a vast number of restrictions on when, where & how they can use or possess the guns. The final result is amounts to an almost complete ban of all guns (which many anti-gun folks are honest enough to admit is their ultimate goal)
The pro-gun position is that *legally owned* guns are generally a good thing. People have a right to self-defense and a right to the *means* of self-defense. When a high percentage of the population is capable of effective self-defense the potential costs of crime are very high and crime rates drop. Their definition of "reasonable" tends to be restricted to keeping (legal) guns out of the hands of criminals, & the feebleminded. They don't like registration where their identity and guns are tracked by the government since they see it as a preface to confiscation. A not irrational fear since as I said many anti-gun folks are honest that this is in fact their goal.
The scholarly debate over the Lott/Mustard study is over which of these positions has a firmer basis in reality and the available data. Lott makes a strong case that the pro-gun position is essentially correct and that longitudinal studies of the data back it up. The introduction of concealed carry laws DID result in dropping crime rates (in the case of rape the drop was *very* dramatic, murder somewhat less so.)
Here is the other position:
There are also a few violent criminals out there. For obvious reasons the criminals are the ones commiting most crimes
Not all criminals are complete idiots, and even most that are are are smart enough to figure out that the odds of their getting shot go up as the percentage of armed victims goes up.
Since most people (even idiots) don't like getting shot - as the odds of getting shot in any particular activity goes up the willingness to engage in that activity goes down.
Yes, guns do cause more crime. The rest of the world learnt to read a bar chart years ago.. do they teach them in your schools yet?
Is this chart showing the number of murders per 100,000 people before and after the passage of a concealed carry law the one you were referring to?
Hmm... In that chart more guns DID result in less crime. Perhaps you had another chart in mind? Or did you just misread this one.
My point is not that I believe the "more guns, less crime" thesis. It's just that you're going to have to do a bit better than just accusing the economics professors that came up with the thesis of being unable to read "a bar chart" (which bar chart? supported by what data?). There is a whole lot of statistical evidence and bar charts being thrown back and forth in sholarly journals over this idea. I don't think the issue is so settled that you can simply insult those you disagree with as illiterate buffoons.
Obviously you need both a product and a customer. There *is* a distinction between the two and when we talk about the media we often forget where the end-user (viewer/listener/reader) fits into the equation.
Of course those things aren't on your forehead or hand... yet.
A terrorist wants change.
But the term refers to the *method* by which he attempts to bring about change.
Blood and physical violence are not the only ways to terrorize a people. Remember Blaster and the rest of the fun we had this summer? Those caused great disruption to our society
I can see this point, an attack against the sense of financial security in the civillian population that is intended to demoralise and change opinion could be called "terrorism" as opposed to a similar act of sabotage that is valued for it's own effects rather than for it's effects on the psyche of the enemy.
Still I'm a bit uncomfortable calling such a bloodless attack "terrorism" though perhaps "sabotage" isn't quite adequate either.
Also, I think you're elevating the Blaster worm above it's actual effects. Blaster doesn't terrorize in anyone. Using such means to affect the enemy civillian population should probably be called "irritatism" or "frustrateism" since that is the most extreme emotion such an attack would provoke.
No, it's actually nothing like that at all. Look at the situation in Iraq. Soldiers dressed as civillians. Children with guns. Men dressed as women.
AFTER the "major combat operations" - Everyone is giving Bush grief for this but there IS a distinction. There was a phase of war in which we defeated a standing army. During that type of conflict an EMP weapon would be very useful against most of our enemies. Being able to take out a SAM radar and disrupt airfields to the point of near uselessness without using tons of explosives is of military value even without the potential benefits of being able to do so without causing human casualties if that SAM radar or airfield is right up against a civillian neighborhood.
We keep hearing about how accurate new weapons are, then hearing about accidental civillian casualties.
There will be and always have been innocent civillians killed in war - what is remarkable is that "smart bombs" have minimized them to an incredible degree. In past wars if there was an ammo dump in the midst of a civillian neighborhood the only option to destroy it was to destroy the entire neighborhood as well. In past wars such operations which in a single air raid could inflict hundreds and thousands of civillian deaths were considered the inevitable cost of war. The smart bombs which as you mentioned occasionally go astray have reduced that number by a factor of 10 or more.
Yet through it all, U.S. troops have sustained heavy losses from an enemy with very little in the way of technological infrastructure.
It seems callous to say this but U.S. troops are NOT sustaining heavy losses. Each death is a tragedy but losing an average one soldier a day simply can't be characterised as "heavy" by any method of accounting for such things. Historically such a rate of casualties would just barely register as being engaged in conflict at all. Remember what was so poignant about the title "All Quiet on the Western Front?"
Since the U.S. is all about fighting terrorism these days, that EMP won't be too useful. That's all I was trying to say.
Despite being "all about" fighting terrorism, terrorism is not the only potential threat that the U.S. has to worry about. Just because one threat is ongoing and others are merely potential doesn't mean that you can afford to ignore the potential threats. To go back to my original metaphor - just because you've been in a car accident and your automobile insurance is being "used" doesn't mean it's a good idea to cancel your health insurance since it isn't being "used". Just because the current conflict is against terrorists doesn't mean that other potential threats cease to exist and can be safely ignored.
I think this is a *great* idea. And there is even some precedence.
Back when flag-burning was declared to be constitutionally protected speech one of the states that had a law against it amended their law. Now instead of being illegal to burn the flag the new law said it was NOT illegal to punch someone burning a flag.
I don't think we should legalize the slaughter of spammers but I think a good drubbing should be perfectly within our rights.
For this particular case I'm hoping for jury-nullification.
What makes you think this weapon has anything to do with stopping guys that strap bombs to themselves?
You argument is something like saying: "Medical insurance is useless, because I have a car and I need automobile insurance."
According to conventional doctrine a rational terrorists group will avoid killing large numbers of civilian bystanders in order to avoid aleanating the community from which they draw their support (and funding).
You are confusing Terrorist with Guerilla. A terrorist by definition is doing things to cause a general sense of "terror" in his enemies civillian population. This is best achieved if the targets are essentially random so every member of the population is at potential risk and if the attacks are as horrific as possible. So a bomb in a crowded pizza parlor is an act of terrorism while a sniper targetting a soldier is an act of guerrilla warfare. Either act is a matter of tactics so any particular group can be engaged in both kinds of activities.
Obviously as in the case of the IRA bombing in the City of London a single terrorist act can have multiple advantages. It WAS a terrorist attack in that it killed a number of people that belong to the "opinion class" and thus invokes terror throughout that class. It also did financial damage to a much wider group so they felt it have an impact on their lives personally. The whole point of their terrorism was to demoralize the enemy population so that they would conclude that Northern Ireland was not worth the cost of having to live in fear. A technological attack that did even more economic damage may have been effective but part of what the terrorist wants is the graphic scenes on TV of bleeding civillians running from the blast and the sight of all that damage (the City of London bombing was dramatic). Being TOLD about a bunch of computers being disrupted doesn't move public opinion the way that the random and horrific deaths of large numbers of people *just like you* does.
Yeesh, I didn't expect so much of it to be a political rant. Then again, it's Bill Joy, maybe I should have. :-)
Sometimes very smart people that are very good in one sphere of knowledge make the mistake of thinking that their expertise extends to ALL spheres of knowledge. So you see actors & musicians, and in this case computer programmers, that think they have brilliant political insights. Bill Joy is entitled to his opinion and is entitled to voice it in any forum he cares to - but I don't see any reason to assume that it is any more insightful than yours or mine. His opinions on computer science on the other hand are something we should be listen to with a great deal of respect.
Finally someone ther has enough sense and not just a MBA degree.
Actually, I thought the article while interesting missed one of the key dynamics of OSS. It's NOT just altruism it's *cooperation*. OSS developers aren't just creating software because it seems like a nice thing to do but because they are themselves users and the software is meeting their needs. Of course as individuals they their resources are too limited to make something worth using but OSS licenses give them a mechanism for a whole legion of developers with the complimentary needs to cooperate and collectively have the resources to create great software.
But even this traditional OSS cooperation is only part of what has Gates worried. Other entities that aren't users of the software in the same sense are cooperating because it suits their needs in other ways. Hardware companies and Service companies for instance can see how a world of OSS benefit them and they are willing to contribute some of their vast resources to create that alternative OSS world.
Even some software companies that would theoretically find the OSS philophy a threat turn around and both harness it to their benefit and contribute. They can cooperate and contribute to the common foundations but sell their unique product on top of that. So Apple's proprietary operating system uses and contributes to open software at the foundational level and reverts to traditional closed source philosphy to sell the bit that makes their product unique - same with their use of khtml as the foundation for Safari, Open Source supplies the plumbing and Apple (in a proprietary way) supplies the polished interface. That kind of part-open, part-closed participation isn't exactly what the "free software" folks had in mind but in that part that *is* open such companies ARE contributing to the community, and giving Gates nightmares.
With all these varied and diverse groups contributing to OSS for their own reasons it is not a case of Microsoft competing against a ragtag band of altruistic geeks but also against a vast joint venture made up of those altruistic geeks and also MS's biggest corporate competitors. At this point I suspect that if you added up the resources of all the companies that are commiting to OSS development you'd be looking at a "disorganization" that dwarfs even mighty Microsoft - and it's getting worse (for Microsoft). At some point in the not so distant future this dynamic system/joint venture and it's vast resources will simply bury Microsoft.
That means that everyone dealing in leads makes less money, but the spammers make more
Only in the *very* short run. It wouldn't take very long at all for the people purchasing the leads to realize that most of them are bogus and they will stop buying from that source. Also, while the people that are ultimately benefitting from the spam in this case are insulated by a degree or two of separation from actually sending the spam I don't have a problem at all with seeing them suffer for it. If the broker does business with spammers I have no problem seeing them suffer for it. If the mortgage company does business with brokers that use spam I have no problem with seeing them suffer for it. Right now the mortgage companies apparently don't care whether their leads come from legitimate sources or from spam, a few months of this and they would care - a lot.
If you were black and lived in Florida this might just allow you to vote instead of being turned away from the voting booths.
As an added bonus if you know about computers you may be able to vote several times.
I'm afraid of these systems because there are unscrupulous politicians and groups in both parties that DO engage in dirty tricks and outright voter fraud. Just look at the instances in Florida that you bring up. I do not doubt that in some of those instances there really was a concerted effort by political hacks to suppress the turnout in wards that were dominated by their opponents. I think you are laughably naive if you think it was only Republicans engaging in such tactics.
I'm not as sure about the specifics in Florida but at least where I am some of the instances of voter intimidation/fraud the question of who is cheating who is in the eye of the beholder - In one instance poll watchers from one party observed campaign volunteers from the other party illegally going right into the voting booths with voters and "helping" them vote. The poll watchers got a camcorder out of their car and recorded this illegal activity. Of course in doing so they themselves were illegally disrupting voting and intimidating voters in one of their opponents strongholds. Who was cheating who? Would you have to know which party was "helping" voters and which was "intimidating voters" to answer? (Though I'm sure you can guess - this was a "dog bites man" story.)
Brilliant insight, that explains why the economy has done so well since 9/11! And, as an added bonus explains why it continued to roar while we fought in Afghanistand and during "major combat operations" in Iraq but why it has slumped now. Historically you can see how fear and uncertaintly over islamism in Iran and advancing Communism elsewhere helped president Carter and how the general climate of security was so punishing to the Eisenhower economy in the 50's.
I think you need to adjust your tinfoil. The mind control rays are leaking through.
Keeps the people scared.. buying stuff and watching TV.
I guess I can understand the watching TV bit but I'm confused about the "scared == buying stuff" dynamic. Can you explain to me how that works?
I think your rant would have had more credibility if you had just stuck to evil "military industiral complex" without the impulsive need to somehow find a way implicate McDonalds and Pepsi Co. while you were at it.
Sure, there are some designers that use or even prefer Wintel PC's but they are the minority among Graphic Designers. Within that niche the Mac enjoys the same network advantages that Microsoft enjoys just about everywhere else. If you are freelanceing and get an on-site job they'll stick you on a Mac. If you're a design firm and bring in freelancers they'll be Mac users and will be less efficient if you stick them on an unfamiliar platform. Whenever you are getting or recieving files from other firms, ad agencies, freelancers, service bureaus, etc. they'll (almost) all be sending and expecting stuff that is Mac formatted.
I'll conceed that this is NOT necessarily the case when dealing with web designers since they are dealing with web developers that are likely using wintel. However, I think the ones most likely to be using flash are also the ones that are most tied to the Macintosh dominated design/creative industry rather than the Wintel dominated technical/developer industry. My own opinion is that the introduction of the UNIX powered OS X is a nice marraige between the two worlds that makes it the perfect platform for web design/development.
Not always, normally it comes down to what sort of computer the COMPANY buys the artists to use.
But the thing is the COMPANY isn't some giant firm standardized on Windows. It is an Advertising and/or Design firm standardized on Macs. Any real design work is outsourced to designers and they use Macs. Sure most big companies have an in-house design shop to do their internal stuff, and some are perverse enough to condemn those poor suffering souls to use Wintel (probably make them wear ties too, or at best "business casual"), but you don't think that after treating them so cruelly they would trust them to do the company website do you? Believe me the flash animation splash page on your typical fortune 500 company's site was NOT done by a corporate drone in some cubicle wasteland. It was done by a guy with a nose ring working freelance out of his studio apartment - I assure you he was not using a PeeCee (and he was not wearing a tie).
Most web developers don't care about supporting Macs. Good ones do, but a good web designer wouldn't be using Flash/Sparkle in the first place for 95% of the stuff it's used for.
No most web developers - that are using flash - are using Macs. Flash is generally used by web developers or web designers that came to web design from a graphic design background, and they use Macs.