You're right, HTC does have access to the WinMo stuff on top of the CE layer. The DO make edits to run their own "Sense" customizations on top of the WinMo base. You are not correct about Android though...the Android code is out there for anyone to download. It IS like Ubuntu in that you can get the base OS and stuff it onto anything. It takes moderately more skill than building your own kernel for the PC, but it's there and easily within reach for a company like HTC. The only stuff that Google cares about is their custom applications that don't come with the OS. Notice that HTC's added their own "Sense" adaption to the Android set for their devices...
I think Google's play here is pretty benevolent. They want to change the way the entire phone industry works, making a FOSS operating system as the launching vehicle is the mechanism by which they are doing that. If you follow Google's patents, it will give you a clue as to their direction. I think the long term goal of Google is to put the carriers out of business as they are currently working. Look for Android to support something like Skype or other VOIP. Look for Android phones to do free association with wireless access points, and look for some type of payment mechanism (similar to the blogger payment scheme) for folks to open their local wireless up for phone connections and payments...
I think that's how I remembered the quote from one of those "bug" movies, where the evil dicator bug was trying to explain almost exactly the same topic.
There is an important distinction between falsely crying "Fire" in a crowded movie house and exposing a corrupted government and potentially causing mass riots. Both involve possible harm, one is definitely not protected free speech and the other should always be. The difference seems to follow whether the statements are actually true or not.
Google, Bing, Yahoo, and the other corps seem to only be interested in protecting their profits. If they cared about the truth, the Tiananmen square would be available for computer users in China and censorship wouldn't exist on the web. The idea that we could/should create "protected" internet by censoring disturbing content, where only "good" ideas are allowed to remain is to keep ideas away from everyone. If you really want to "think of the children," you'll protect their right to say or write anything they choose into the internet. If you don't like what you see, turn off your compter or go somewhere else. Remember, you chose to read Slashdot, you chose to read this! (Uncle Malchick excluded, I've chained him to a chair and I show him Slashdot content as part of his treatment)
I'm not quite sure how I come down on the Indian instance. I don't know if it was true or slander, or even what the authors wrote. If it was even partially true, Google should be ashamed. If it wasn't true, who cares... it will prob. get picked up over on DrudgeReport and onto Fox News.
If we start down this road, the next stop is censoring the 9/11 conspiricy folks, because they're ideas are disturbing people, and so on and so on...
Hmmm.. On second though, I think I'd better get my attitude straightened out...
That's an awesome point. To drive that home a little further for the folks at www.phonenews.com, here's the snip from the above link to wikipedia
Licensing
Since 21 October 2008, Android has been available as open source. Google opened the entire source code (including network and telephony stacks[23]) under an Apache License.[24]
With the Apache License, vendors are free to add proprietary extensions without submitting those back to the open source community.
After the negative attitude I read on the link at "phonenews" from the article, I'm really wishing HTC hadn't released it... Just to put those folks at "phonenews" in their place. They don't know what they're talking about, spewing a bunch of hate towards people from India and they're just trashing on HTC.
I've been a author / user / supporter of open source software for over 10 years now and I'm still really shocked at the attitude and misconceptions that some folks have about what should be released and how fast it needs to be done. Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?
I've also personally worked with HTC on several mobile phones and I've found them to be very forthcoming. They're busy as hell, working insane hours continuously, and if they can't satisfy the Trolls at phonenews, that's too bad.
I read the article, and the trail of html links going to ONE other author who "thought that it only applies to Google Appstore aps, not other channels." There's no certainty there, not even a concurring opinion from a lawyer or statement affirming from Google.
If you really believe that the carriers via Google don't have the final say about what apps get on the phone appstore or not, you're really stupid. The carriers will ALWAYS demand that power from the handset makers, and they have the final say about what apps are allowed on the phone. Period. If they don't get that control, they're not going to allow the phones on their network, silly "open 700 mhz" rule or no. They'll find some way around the rule, drag their feet, go to court, pay some congress-critters, do whatever while the shut down as many apps as they want.
I've been developing for handsets for a while, and been watching the market for even longer. There is NO way you are going to have a mass-market handset that doesn't have the carrier ability to shut off any apps they want.
You might get around it on a few developer phones that have the security turned off and an app signature that's unique to some little project. When I say "mass market," I mean like 6 million phones, all identical and all with the possibility of running your app without some type of code signature being applied. This is NOT like 1983 and the PC revolution, where people get to pick the applications they want on their equipment. The business folks have already figured out how they're going to control app delivery for maximum profit and control. Don't expect any revolutions here. Expect slow progress only when absolutely pushed, and even then, as little as needed to relieve the pressure.
Remember that the carriers have years and billions invested in their networks. They're all still trying to digest their last acquisitions and get all the hardware to play nice together. They're all desperately looking for any 1% margin that they can squeeze from the customer before they switch to the competitor. They're desperately trying NOT to become "pipes" like the land carriers have become for the Internet, so they're not just going to roll over and let the customer decide what cool new app gets installed.
I fully expect that Google will fold the minute that T-Mobile finds something they don't like. Of course, I'd really like to see it happen (handset maker stand against carrier), but we all know it's not going to happen. You're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
There are a number of possible scenarios that would recommend against being 100% candid on how far you were breached. If I was violated, I think I'd like to take a moment to do a "self-check" on all of my important bits before I started telling everyone all of the nitty-gritty details. As the article pointed out, people were told that there was a breach, and that they should not update for a few days. How is this "anti-FOSS"?
Perhaps they were on the trail of who did this? Perhaps they were comparing notes with the Ubuntu breach cited in the article, with the goal of finding the M.O? Perhaps, like any police detective, they were keeping certain clues to themselves while they investigated further? If the crimes were found to have similar approaches, keeping quiet might improve the odds of capture?
I use Fedora, and had been using Red Hat before Fedora came along. I don't think this kind of hysterical "anti-FOSS" reaction is really fits the facts as I just read them. Perhaps they have not handled this in the best possible way, but that's far from "anti-FOSS." Just because you didn't get your precious packages today, doesn't mean they've gone all corporate spin-zone on the FOSS community. Again, I'm not saying that they've handled it as well as they could have, I'm just making the point that there might be reasons for not detailing publicly the many many disgusting ways that each and every one of their private bits have been violated and penetrated numerous times, over and over again....
Give-em a break guys, I'd be more concerned if they didn't tell anyone about the break-in at all. That would really be "corporate" behavior. Simply deny the breach and lawyer-up. As it is, they're trying to fix it, and if you're so antsy to get your packages immediately, the source and diff's are there for you to check yourself. If they start getting in the habit of this, folks will start contributing to, and using other distro's.. isn't that how FOSS is supposed to work?
Where the court appointed attorney is defending poor Megan...
New text should read...
Megan's attorney..."Your honor, the record companies are an illegal monopoly with 'unclean-hands,' any theft from them cannot be prosecuted because they obtained the rights to this so-called 'music' through illegal means. The music industry had engaged in illegal price-fixing, secret accounting, payola, thuggery and perhaps even murder to maintain their grip on new music creators. The artists don't have the opportunity to present their music directly to the consumers, and frequently don't even make any money off the albums they record. Musicians frequently see their biggest take while performing live shows, and don't receive money from the labels until they sell millions of albums. The system is rigged. The music cartel's complaint should therefore be discharged immediately."
Judge... "That's an interesting point..."
Attorney... "Your Honor, we're prepared to show that the record companies used illegal tactics to get the rights to each of the songs that the defendant has in possession. In fact, we'd like to see the accounting of record sales and proceeds to make sure that the band actually got their fair share."
Music industry lawyer...."That's going too far... my client doesn't have anything to hide, but we're going to hide it anyway..."
Megan..."You people are crooks, and I don't feel bad stealing from you one bit..."
Yeah, that's actually what I was really thinking too, but nothing slows down the wheels of business like needing to get my permission EVERY time they wish to send out a report with any of my information in it or use it for any purpose not previously approved by me. I'm reserving all rights and or descriptions of this broadcast, just like the NFL, any reproduction is unlawful without my expressed written consent.
I'd like to sue all of these folks for infringement, and keep doing this until business interests give up on IP all together. They created this IP-Frankenstien monster, Im interested in having him wreck their lab and kill the creators. Something like the angle outlined in the story would make a great cudgel to smack them around. They've made IP laws so strong, now it's time to use these weapons against them.
They're hypocrits, look how fast the Telecoms ran to congress for immunity over domestic spying.... If they faced lawsuits from 100 Million people, they'd start pushing for weaker IP laws. I would love to see every one of them destroyed. New businesses would grow up in their places and this silly IP stuff would hopefully be gone... As Donald Rumsfeld said "...That's the beauty of capitalism..." funny quote considering, but it's time for real competition.
I don't think this is as bad for ISP's as it's portrayed. These rulings strengthen the individual's ability to control their information, I applaud this! There are simply too many folks trading in my personal information without my consent. While it may seem chilling to shrink the ISP's shield immunity, it's really about leveling the playing field as far as Copyright and IP goes. I don't think the ISP's really had that big a shield to hide behind anyway, the only reason they're not getting sued by the RIAA/MPAA is because they're really the same company. In addition, they've shown that they'll roll-over for just about any junior lawyer wannabe that sends them a writ on some toilet-paper. Want a search warrent? No problem... You're sending over a "take-down" notice? Sure, we'll do that without even investigating....
With such a ruling, an individual could sue to stop all of the "information scrapers" that collect and associate telephone numbers with credit card and demographic information. Wanna see what I mean? Try http://www.intelius.com/ These folks assemble information about you and publish these results by collecting bits from your credit card transactions, legal documents, renter's records, any place they can get their hands on. By upholding your right to control this information, through the "publicity" angle, they're giving you economic control over your information! This is good, anything that allows you to control how your private, copyrighted personal information is spread is good for you.
If anyone's going to trade information about me (i.e. what shows I watch, what books I read, what demographic group I belong to, etc.) I want to make money off it too. I demand my cut, just like the RIAA/MPAA demands their cut.
To follow up on the poster's point, I've believed that there's been collusion between MS and the Government since GWB's quick settlement of the anti-trust case, and my "tin-foil hat" is not looking so silly any more. At the same time he's wrangling with the telcos to get access to domestic phone records and calls (as the NYT points out, almost immed. after he enters office), he's most likely wrangling with MS to get back doors installed. At least that's what I'd do, and I'm possibly of "normal" intelligence. It's an obvious thing to do...step 1: get access to all communications by legal means or not, step 2: make sure that the OS that runs +90% of computers has a back-door that you can easily get to.
Being the very shrewd "son-of-a-lawyer" that Bill Gates is, I'm pretty sure that he offered up back-doors in exchange for the government getting off MS's back. Quid-pro-quo.
Now that this stuff is coming out, the NYT should start digging here too. Remember that the British government PUBLICLY asked for one (back-door to BK? I can't recall exactly)... but they didn't have any leverage to force MS to respond. US had the conviction in hand and was ready to proceed, that would have caused Bill Gates to respond, especially after his poor performance on the stand.
Taking the Bush administration's stance to it's logical conclusion, the aliens would be stupid NOT to bombard us back to the stone age. I mean, as Cheney paints it, if there's a 1% chance that we MIGHT attack them, they should pre-emptively destroy us for their own safety! We've certainly given them enough information to reach that conclusion, their intelligence on us is certainly a "slam-dunk".... Furthermore we continue to resist demands from their United Federation of Planets to disarm and to be open ourselves to ongoing weapons inspections.
Any resistance to their attacks and/or bombardment, would of course, be carried out only by the "dead-enders" and they would ofcourse be appropriately labeled "insurgents."
I for one welcome our invading/bombarding forces. Perhaps we could make a deal and install myself as "Puppet Dictator" or earth!
This is really sooo simple folks. Everyone, especially the election folks, should be on-board with these types of demands. It's really not that difficult to do what the "Fair Elections" people want, unless you really ARE trying to manipulate the elections.
1) Demand that Diebold and all of the other voting machine folks print a receipt for every voter. This wouldn't be any more difficult than printing a receipt at the supermarket. You get to look at it, you put it into the basket on the way out. The paper becomes the "official" ballot always, the machine is just there to give quick results.
2) All the vote counting is redone at a central location, and EVERYONE can watch on the cable access channel or over streamed video. Want to watch 96 hours of vote counting from front to back? Sure, knock yourself out. The video feeds are provided the the cable franchise holders in every city to present on their networks on the usually blank city council channel. For those without a cable franchise for the city, you can simply lookup the video feeds on the internet.
The foot dragging on this issue is really starting to make me believe that the elections ARE being manipulated. All the horse-pucky form Diebold and the like about "too hard to make a printed tally".... Yeah, sure... And it's also too hard for cash machines and cash registers to print a receipt and verify that I've got funds before you give me cash...
As far as ballot counting, the infrastructure to let everyone watch is already there.
We just need to keep pushing until this gets done. I'm getting really tired of the 50.01% vs. 49.99% vote manipulation that's passing for "legal and fair" elections in this country. Making things look "close" is really the smoothest form of manipulation, I don't think anyone would believe the old Soviet style manipulation where the votes are always 98% for the party, but shaving just enough to make it 51-49 would be almost believable.
This really does need to get done NOW. No more fooling around, OSS voting machine code, printed receipt, video feeds of the counting and no more voter supression!
Seems to me that "fair-use" is an important part of the balance that's been struck between the copyright holders and the public. If they're saying that it's not included in "copyright," then perhaps we all should consider the whole deal is off. Hollywood is pulling the typical negotiation game here. First, they get the extensions in copyright length. Then they try to pull "fair-use" off the table and expect all of the other negotiated points (extensions, DMCA, etc.) to stick.
If they want re-negotiate, perhaps we should go back to the way it was originally setup in the constitution and start back from there. Full and exclusive copyright only lasts 17 years. Period. No extensions of any type. That's my best offer.
Hollywood is playing a very dangerous game here. Public opinion is pretty much against them, while we're re-defining copyright perhaps we should put this up for a referendum?
This seems like just the opening that an "open" company would need to really turn the US upside-down. The failure to sell the business unit means people are scared of being associated with the closed-source voting mess. Even if the security problems are really accidental, in the current climate, you'd be hard pressed to get anyone to believe you.
At a crossroads like this, an OSS company could just step right in and take over the whole election software market. If some OSS platform were successful here, there'd be no competition from closed source platforms after that. OSS voting forever after. I know that "open" means never having to rely on a single source (if you don't want to), but a great hardware solution coupled with all open source code would make one (or a few) companies really pop.
I have not been looking too hard for OSS voting machines myself, so maybe they're already out there. In that case, they just need some PR so that they're visible to the general population.
Redhat? Ubuntu? Where are you?... Here's your opportunity...
I don't want to encourage drunk driving, but I don't see it as the car manufacturer's responsibility to put this equipment in the car. I certainly don't want that equipment on my car (either at extra cost to me or not), and would view any car with it as being "less" of a product that I might want to buy. Put short, I wouldn't purchase such a vehicle. Period.
In addition, as the auto manufacturers start trying to determine if the driver is drunk or not, this might put them at a legal risk for any false positives or negatives. IANAL, but I'm assuming that the manufacturers of those breath analysis devices that the court forces convicted drunks to put on their cars are somehow indemnified or otherwise held blameless should the user find some way to defeat them. Because this is something ordered by the court, they may be exempt from legal liability. I'm not convinced that any car manufacturer would be so lucky if they start putting them on "production" vehicles. There are plenty of hungry lawyers ready to start some type of class-action suit on behalf of injured third parties. To this end, I say keep up the good work lawyers, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Just another case of "more nanny state, less personal responsibility."
I'm not sure that analogy is applicable. As pointed out in "C&B," the "commons" problem is that the value of the commons diminishes as more animals grazed there. In software, having other folks use (even if they never return anything) doesn't diminish your value of the software in any fashion.
With commercial software, the value is only in it's artificial scarcity. As AOL has demonstrated, we could blanket the earth in install CD's, so the supply/demand price of the software enclosed approaches zero.
I don't see any problem with it (companies using without returning everything/anything). They'll help fix the common roads when it's in their interest to do so. With more companies using OS software, they'll eventually end up using more of the "common roads" too.
Don't worry, they'll get around to it once all this IP nonsense is settled.
As long as they provide the source that they used before they signed, I think that's fair enough.
I'm with Linus, I don't think the license should be used as a "crowbar" into the hardware too. The GPL3 sounds like it places even MORE restrictions on what the user and/or developer and/or companies may do, not less... I'm against how they went about it too... it doesn't sound like the FSF even took anyone's opinions into account, RS and the rest just created an even more onerous license than the original. I don't see too many companies adopting it....
Take for instance, the following possible situation.... As a developer and small business man, this type of situation entirely possible, I've run up against this using GPL code. Company X developes a brand new, extra-cool heart monitor and defibulator widget based upon embedded linux. The product has been carefully tested at the factory, with good records kept, etc. The product uses a signed image to verify that it's the same image that went through tests and hasn't been modified. Product is FDA accepted and on the market, the company that developed the product feels fine taking the responsibility for the code. I know the license doesn't confer responsibility to the other developers, but the company has tested this particular image and they assume liability.
Now, some fool at the calibration outlet decides he's going to load some updated packages into the image, without telling anyone and without proper testing. He's creating a dangerous situation by running software that wasn't tested for it's particular use. According to the GPL3, he can resign the binaries and create a potentially injurious product, exposing company X to VERY SERIOUS liability that they had no part in.... Remember that company X did NOT want to release the signing keys, did NOT load the untested software on, but they will be held liable for any injury that results from it's being ABLE to be loaded. Company X here also may become the "deep pockets" defendant in this case, with the repair guy skating away....
No, this is totally wrong.... GPL3 should NOT be able to force this situation.
I don't like what TIVO is doing, and I sure don't like DRM, but I like what the FSF is doing even less. How about an open comment period. How about querying the free software developer as to what they want. I didn't receive any survey, I didn't find any place where I could provide feedback or vote either. They propose to speak for me, but I have not found any way to tell them what I want. People using stuff that I write will find the "either version 2, or (at your option)any later version" missing from any of my new works.
Why of course, the sooner these folks are granted their "over-broad" patents, the sooner they'll expire, leaving the field WIDE-OPEN.....
Perhaps we could see a situation where the first of these patents are expiring before the first real nano-technology is available! By all means guys... get your patents in early, the earlier the better.
I seem to recall there was a catch though....Didn't you need to actually be able to "do" the thing you were going to patent? I seem to recall that was part of the test, that it actually needed to be possible at the time you were patenting something, not just a crack-pipe dream....
I agree with a lot of your points. The problem of buses being stuck in traffic too is really at the heart of the matter. I'm just not sure that a light rail car would get away from it as it has to cross intersections everywhere, could be stopped by the usualy crazy on the tracks, etc. I've ridden Amtrack from Seattle to Portland a number of times, and it's just not like riding the rails in Europe. I'd love to have something fast that doesn't stop.
The axe that I'm grinding is in the city's refusal to do what the people want, the Monorail and stadiums are perfect examples of this. If this (monorail) were started in ernest years ago on the first ballot, it would be less than light rail. I think the city officials were mad that the people wanted something other than the dream that they put together with the feds on rail. They had their plan, they had their regional transit authority, they had a fist full of federal money and they didn't want anything to mess it up, even if the people really wanted something else. We were going to have light rail, like it or not.
In any case, here's the article from the Seattle Times outlining the strategy of opponents using lawsuits to raise the bond prices for the monorail project. It's not something that I made up, but as the author goes on to point out, it is a solid strategy. The opponents only need to win once.
I've copied the article, I'm sorry the formatting did not carry...
Lawsuit puts Monorail funding by bonds in doubt
By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter
E-mail article
Print view
Search
Most e-mailed
Most read
RSS
Statement by Monorail's finance director (PDF)
Archive: Tax bill drives frustration over monorail
The Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) is facing another financial obstacle: a lawsuit that could hinder the agency's plans to sell $1.7 billion in construction bonds.
The suit, filed by eight Seattle residents, contends the monorail's annual car-tab tax is illegal because the tax bills are based on an old state chart that assigns most used vehicles a higher value than the actual market price.
Controversy about the tax is nothing new. And it didn't dissuade voters from backing the proposed 14-mile-long Ballard to West Seattle line last fall when they overwhelmingly rejected "Monorail Recall" Initiative 83, which would have stopped the project.
Monorail officials are worried that the suit, which goes to a preliminary hearing next week in King County Superior Court, could harm the project's credit rating.
"Any delay in the resolution of this lawsuit will likely disrupt, if not delay, the financing and construction of the Monorail Green Line," SMP Finance Director Jonathan Buchter stated in an affidavit in January.
By causing uncertainty in the credit markets, the lawsuit would force SMP to pay higher interest rates or spend more on bond insurance, he predicted.
"Moreover, as long as this litigation remains pending, financing or construction may be unable to commence," Buchter said.
The monorail and Sound Transit prevailed in a separate legal challenge to car-tab taxes last year. Buchter believes SMP is on solid legal ground, but he said bond markets dislike any unsettled litigation.
"This is a harassment," Buchter said last week of the case.
The SMP is considering selling bonds before a construction contract is signed, in hopes of beating an expected rise in interest rates, Buchter said.
Henry Aronson, who led an anti-monorail campaign in 2002, is a leader of the legal team for the plaintiffs. He said undoing the tax -- not disrupting a bond sale -- is the goal of the lawsuit.
"We think taxpayers have a right to a refund for money that is unlawfully taken from them,
I'm glad to get your response. It sounds like you're not a fan of the Seattle Monorail Project...
1st:
"Do you really think that nobody in Rainier Valley or Tukwila needs to commute to downtown Seattle, or that nobody needs to get to or from the airports?
Light rail's route through the Rainier Valley and Tukwilla is about gentrification, not transit. Not enough people need to make that commute to make either solution cost effective, neither monorail or light rail. People in the Rainier Valley and Tukwilla, by large measure, do not shop downtown or at Northgate and don't fly that often. I'd be really surprised if any significent portion of the residents there worked downtown too. Not a slight, just demographics. The airlines are attempting to flee the airport for Boeing field even as we're adding a third runway for them too, that puts them right next to the Rainier Valley, you could make that with a $2 taxi ride. The only cost effective solution is lots of smaller busses operating in the Rainier Valley and Tukwilla. This isn't very sexy though, and wouldn't really help turn-over any of the properties there, that's why I believe that it wasn't selected.
The major transportation problem in Seattle that needs to get solved is the East-West route across the lake. No solution addresses this, because residents along the East and West sides of 520 & I-90 are among Washington's richest households and have more than enough money to hire lawyers and kill any proposed project. In short, their neighborhoods don't need gentrification and they would resist a public transit solution, so nothing happens.
In the monorai's favor, it does address two very heavy routes, it would address West Seattle (there's really only one route there and back)to downtown and Ballard to downtown along 15th.
2nd:
Monorail: $11.4 billion / 14 miles (SMP's June financing plan, see this Seattle P-I article) ...monorail officials were planning on paying for the line by selling 50-year junk bonds.
On the surface this appears correct, but the vast majority of the $11.4 billion you quote is for interest on those bonds, not the actual cost. The original estimate of the monorail project is $1.75 billion, with 4 times that cost going to pay interest on the bonds.
From the following article http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/23091 0_monorail01.html
Monorail project documents released last week showed that the monorail would be spending $11 billion over more than four decades -- $2 billion in principal and $9 billion in interest. Much of the interest is deferred, which raises costs. About 20 percent of the bonds are unrated -- sometimes called "junk bonds" -- and carry high interest rates of 7 to 8 percent.
The high interest cost is a direct result of the opponents of the project, who realize that one effective method of stopping the project is to spread FUD through the finincal institutions that might help to underwrite the project. Fear of lawsuit and court challenge is what has turned an otherwise solid municipal bond at low interest into a junk bond at high interest.
Further, the costs don't seem to be adjusted for time. Properties along the Rainier Valley are much less than those along 15th or West Seattle, and those properties were purchased a few years ago while the SMP is still fighting to get the right to purchase and get a financing plan. Had the SMP been given equal terms to light rail, it would be even less than it's 2 billion estimated physical cost (not interest).
I stay by my original price comparison, measured side-by-side, mile-for-mile, building monorail is cheaper than laying track.
Being a Seattle resident, I can tell you a little bit about our "Monorail Fixation"....
First, a number of people here look at the monorail as a symbol of the city. We've already got one that runs a short distance from Paul Alen's EMP to the city core. It's pretty cool. A lot of people feel that we should extend the line that runs only a few blocks into one that spans the city. I happen to be one of these people. Springfield and the monorail song aside, building monorail is cheaper per mile than the light rail solution that's currently under way here too. I seem to recall that building monorail is 1/10 the cost per mile. I also know that large sections of this can be built off site and transported to the final location when it's convenient. In this way, the disruption to the people of the city is minimized in a way that it cannot be with light rail.
Second, and most importantly, we (the city) have voted by popular referendum 4 TIMES to have the monorail. Each time, large property holders in conjunction with the paid-off officials in the city government have waged a fierce battle to prevent this. They don't want the competition, they don't want their views blocked, the proposed route doesn't help them with their gentrification plan like the already started light rail plan does. I want to emphasize that..... FOUR TIMES we've voted to create the monorail.... FOUR times the city officials have attempted to block the project in favor of their light rail solution that's more expensive and more disruptive, but puts more money in the pockets of local developers. Someone above mentioned that we've already spent too much money on our sports statiums.... That's true, and also a little bit of a sore spot for me... Through popular referendum, the people REJECTED the stadiums twice... They were built anyway, against the will of the people, to support greedy team owners, leaving us with almost $100 million in debt on the old Kingdome which was torn down. Think of that again, we still owe money on a building that's been demolished so that we can build another new statium for the rich sports team owners...
Third, building the monorail allows for outside bidding on almost all of the project. I think that this is the clincher for why the city and state are opposed to the project though. When working at "grade" level, the city and state department of transportation groups get a cut of the project. I think that they're required to be in on the project, therefore they get the federal dollars into their budgets. For projects that go underground or above ground, they can be effectively eliminated from the project in favor of private companies which specialize in either tunneling or monorail building. For most projects, the city and state will fight tooth & nail to keep the project "at grade" rather than allow tunneling or a solution like the monorail. It's all about budgets and power. We're getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government right now to build our light rail project. It will be over 10 years of work and will be mostly at street level. I think the overall budget for the 14 mile light rail project is something like $2.4 Billion. The city officials love it.... You couldn't kill the light rail project any more than you could kill the "big dig" in Boston... It's all about pork.... That's exactly why I like the monorail and hate the light rail. Light rail is going to be 10 times more expensive and doesn't even span a major traffic route! Nothing's getting solved here in Seattle by building it and nobody's going to use it. Property developers are quickly snapping up properties along the route, gentrifying the poor neighborhoods that they placed the route in, they're going to make a killing... It's a boondoggle, plain and simple, and the monorail is competing with it, therefore they think the monorail must die.
In short, look for the monorail to win a record FIFTH public referendum, after which the mayor will attempt to find another way to block and/or delay the project. I hope the people here will not let this die..
I'm guessing that this will lead to a buyout of Mainsoft by Microsoft. There's no way that Microsoft can allow a free plugin that works with Visual Studio and ports to Linux to exist in the marketplace. I think that's exactly what the Mainsoft folks had in mind too...
Yeah, I know all that the stuff people want to say about "illegal" and whatnot...I used to think like that too. I've seen Microsoft get away with criminal activity too many times now to think it's NOT some type of conspiricy with the government. MS doesn't care about illegal, think of Balmer's recent press regarding Google..."I'm gonna kill that pussy.." They're not gonna let this place exist for any length of time... It's like putting raw meat in front of a bear...
Mainsoft's gonna get swallowed up whole. Microsoft will put up a press release about how "innovative" Mainsoft is, how they are going to provide plug-ins for Microsoft now, and then the product's gonna be cancled... End of story...
Here's a perfect example of how software patents would have drasticly changed how things are today...
Imagine if the folks that came up with Visicalc had gotten a software patent for it?... Which big software and OS manufacturer wouldn't have a huge chunk of their current profits and wouldn't have at least one of the apps in their office pack?... How might the software landscape be different today?
I was always told that "you can't patent an idea," but software patents come close to that....
Are you kidding me?... These are desirable characteristics for an executive! You're talking like this should BLOCK them, when in fact they should be screened FOR being a psychopath before they're offered that top management spot.
The faster we get this mess over with, the better. We should just start offering MBA's to the prisioners in all the "super-max" facilities.... That way, they could start being useful immed. upon their return to society. I can just see it now...."IPO to be offered upon parole"
To prove my point... http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5176 see the story about this guy, he's continuing to get paid WHILE he's serving 18 mos. for criminal offenses. The board kept him on because he's a "visionary" and "knows the business" the best!
Last week, Wiederhorn pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to two felonies--bribing local money manager Jeff Grayson and lying to the IRS. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail and ordered to pay $2 million in restitution and a $25,000 fine.
Then the other shoe dropped. Turns out that Wiederhorn managed to engineer a deal in which his current company, Fog Cutter Capital Group, granted him a leave of absence, kept him on the company payroll at $350,000 a year--and handed him a bonus of $2 million.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, HTC does have access to the WinMo stuff on top of the CE layer. The DO make edits to run their own "Sense" customizations on top of the WinMo base. You are not correct about Android though...the Android code is out there for anyone to download. It IS like Ubuntu in that you can get the base OS and stuff it onto anything. It takes moderately more skill than building your own kernel for the PC, but it's there and easily within reach for a company like HTC. The only stuff that Google cares about is their custom applications that don't come with the OS. Notice that HTC's added their own "Sense" adaption to the Android set for their devices...
I think Google's play here is pretty benevolent. They want to change the way the entire phone industry works, making a FOSS operating system as the launching vehicle is the mechanism by which they are doing that. If you follow Google's patents, it will give you a clue as to their direction. I think the long term goal of Google is to put the carriers out of business as they are currently working. Look for Android to support something like Skype or other VOIP. Look for Android phones to do free association with wireless access points, and look for some type of payment mechanism (similar to the blogger payment scheme) for folks to open their local wireless up for phone connections and payments...
Just my 2 cents...
Sure, HTC buys and OS from MS to put on *some* of it's phones. If you've been watching, that number has been dropping to zero lately.
HTC does get Android from Google, but that's FOSS, so they are not beholden at all to Google for that...
I've worked with the folks at HTC, they're bright and highly motivated... Any interest that they've got in Palm is NOT because they need an OS to run.
I think that's how I remembered the quote from one of those "bug" movies, where the evil dicator bug was trying to explain almost exactly the same topic.
There is an important distinction between falsely crying "Fire" in a crowded movie house and exposing a corrupted government and potentially causing mass riots. Both involve possible harm, one is definitely not protected free speech and the other should always be. The difference seems to follow whether the statements are actually true or not.
Google, Bing, Yahoo, and the other corps seem to only be interested in protecting their profits. If they cared about the truth, the Tiananmen square would be available for computer users in China and censorship wouldn't exist on the web. The idea that we could/should create "protected" internet by censoring disturbing content, where only "good" ideas are allowed to remain is to keep ideas away from everyone. If you really want to "think of the children," you'll protect their right to say or write anything they choose into the internet. If you don't like what you see, turn off your compter or go somewhere else. Remember, you chose to read Slashdot, you chose to read this! (Uncle Malchick excluded, I've chained him to a chair and I show him Slashdot content as part of his treatment)
I'm not quite sure how I come down on the Indian instance. I don't know if it was true or slander, or even what the authors wrote. If it was even partially true, Google should be ashamed. If it wasn't true, who cares... it will prob. get picked up over on DrudgeReport and onto Fox News.
If we start down this road, the next stop is censoring the 9/11 conspiricy folks, because they're ideas are disturbing people, and so on and so on...
Hmmm.. On second though, I think I'd better get my attitude straightened out...
Licensing
Since 21 October 2008, Android has been available as open source. Google opened the entire source code (including network and telephony stacks[23]) under an Apache License.[24]
With the Apache License, vendors are free to add proprietary extensions without submitting those back to the open source community.
After the negative attitude I read on the link at "phonenews" from the article, I'm really wishing HTC hadn't released it... Just to put those folks at "phonenews" in their place. They don't know what they're talking about, spewing a bunch of hate towards people from India and they're just trashing on HTC.
I've been a author / user / supporter of open source software for over 10 years now and I'm still really shocked at the attitude and misconceptions that some folks have about what should be released and how fast it needs to be done. Even under strict GPL, HTC is ONLY required to release the source to people who have actually bought the phone. When exactly did the Hero go on sale?
I've also personally worked with HTC on several mobile phones and I've found them to be very forthcoming. They're busy as hell, working insane hours continuously, and if they can't satisfy the Trolls at phonenews, that's too bad.
I'm pretty sure that Quark covered the "Space Garbage Collection" technology... Why haven't we implemented this?
I read the article, and the trail of html links going to ONE other author who "thought that it only applies to Google Appstore aps, not other channels." There's no certainty there, not even a concurring opinion from a lawyer or statement affirming from Google.
If you really believe that the carriers via Google don't have the final say about what apps get on the phone appstore or not, you're really stupid. The carriers will ALWAYS demand that power from the handset makers, and they have the final say about what apps are allowed on the phone. Period. If they don't get that control, they're not going to allow the phones on their network, silly "open 700 mhz" rule or no. They'll find some way around the rule, drag their feet, go to court, pay some congress-critters, do whatever while the shut down as many apps as they want.
I've been developing for handsets for a while, and been watching the market for even longer. There is NO way you are going to have a mass-market handset that doesn't have the carrier ability to shut off any apps they want.
You might get around it on a few developer phones that have the security turned off and an app signature that's unique to some little project. When I say "mass market," I mean like 6 million phones, all identical and all with the possibility of running your app without some type of code signature being applied. This is NOT like 1983 and the PC revolution, where people get to pick the applications they want on their equipment. The business folks have already figured out how they're going to control app delivery for maximum profit and control. Don't expect any revolutions here. Expect slow progress only when absolutely pushed, and even then, as little as needed to relieve the pressure.
Remember that the carriers have years and billions invested in their networks. They're all still trying to digest their last acquisitions and get all the hardware to play nice together. They're all desperately looking for any 1% margin that they can squeeze from the customer before they switch to the competitor. They're desperately trying NOT to become "pipes" like the land carriers have become for the Internet, so they're not just going to roll over and let the customer decide what cool new app gets installed.
I fully expect that Google will fold the minute that T-Mobile finds something they don't like. Of course, I'd really like to see it happen (handset maker stand against carrier), but we all know it's not going to happen. You're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
There are a number of possible scenarios that would recommend against being 100% candid on how far you were breached. If I was violated, I think I'd like to take a moment to do a "self-check" on all of my important bits before I started telling everyone all of the nitty-gritty details. As the article pointed out, people were told that there was a breach, and that they should not update for a few days. How is this "anti-FOSS"?
Perhaps they were on the trail of who did this? Perhaps they were comparing notes with the Ubuntu breach cited in the article, with the goal of finding the M.O? Perhaps, like any police detective, they were keeping certain clues to themselves while they investigated further? If the crimes were found to have similar approaches, keeping quiet might improve the odds of capture?
I use Fedora, and had been using Red Hat before Fedora came along. I don't think this kind of hysterical "anti-FOSS" reaction is really fits the facts as I just read them. Perhaps they have not handled this in the best possible way, but that's far from "anti-FOSS." Just because you didn't get your precious packages today, doesn't mean they've gone all corporate spin-zone on the FOSS community. Again, I'm not saying that they've handled it as well as they could have, I'm just making the point that there might be reasons for not detailing publicly the many many disgusting ways that each and every one of their private bits have been violated and penetrated numerous times, over and over again....
Give-em a break guys, I'd be more concerned if they didn't tell anyone about the break-in at all. That would really be "corporate" behavior. Simply deny the breach and lawyer-up. As it is, they're trying to fix it, and if you're so antsy to get your packages immediately, the source and diff's are there for you to check yourself. If they start getting in the habit of this, folks will start contributing to, and using other distro's.. isn't that how FOSS is supposed to work?
Where the court appointed attorney is defending poor Megan...
New text should read...
Megan's attorney..."Your honor, the record companies are an illegal monopoly with 'unclean-hands,' any theft from them cannot be prosecuted because they obtained the rights to this so-called 'music' through illegal means. The music industry had engaged in illegal price-fixing, secret accounting, payola, thuggery and perhaps even murder to maintain their grip on new music creators. The artists don't have the opportunity to present their music directly to the consumers, and frequently don't even make any money off the albums they record. Musicians frequently see their biggest take while performing live shows, and don't receive money from the labels until they sell millions of albums. The system is rigged. The music cartel's complaint should therefore be discharged immediately."
Judge... "That's an interesting point..."
Attorney... "Your Honor, we're prepared to show that the record companies used illegal tactics to get the rights to each of the songs that the defendant has in possession. In fact, we'd like to see the accounting of record sales and proceeds to make sure that the band actually got their fair share."
Music industry lawyer...."That's going too far... my client doesn't have anything to hide, but we're going to hide it anyway..."
Megan..."You people are crooks, and I don't feel bad stealing from you one bit..."
Judge..."Case dismissed..."
Yeah, that's actually what I was really thinking too, but nothing slows down the wheels of business like needing to get my permission EVERY time they wish to send out a report with any of my information in it or use it for any purpose not previously approved by me. I'm reserving all rights and or descriptions of this broadcast, just like the NFL, any reproduction is unlawful without my expressed written consent.
I'd like to sue all of these folks for infringement, and keep doing this until business interests give up on IP all together. They created this IP-Frankenstien monster, Im interested in having him wreck their lab and kill the creators. Something like the angle outlined in the story would make a great cudgel to smack them around. They've made IP laws so strong, now it's time to use these weapons against them.
They're hypocrits, look how fast the Telecoms ran to congress for immunity over domestic spying.... If they faced lawsuits from 100 Million people, they'd start pushing for weaker IP laws. I would love to see every one of them destroyed. New businesses would grow up in their places and this silly IP stuff would hopefully be gone... As Donald Rumsfeld said "...That's the beauty of capitalism..." funny quote considering, but it's time for real competition.
I don't think this is as bad for ISP's as it's portrayed. These rulings strengthen the individual's ability to control their information, I applaud this! There are simply too many folks trading in my personal information without my consent. While it may seem chilling to shrink the ISP's shield immunity, it's really about leveling the playing field as far as Copyright and IP goes. I don't think the ISP's really had that big a shield to hide behind anyway, the only reason they're not getting sued by the RIAA/MPAA is because they're really the same company. In addition, they've shown that they'll roll-over for just about any junior lawyer wannabe that sends them a writ on some toilet-paper. Want a search warrent? No problem... You're sending over a "take-down" notice? Sure, we'll do that without even investigating....
With such a ruling, an individual could sue to stop all of the "information scrapers" that collect and associate telephone numbers with credit card and demographic information. Wanna see what I mean? Try http://www.intelius.com/ These folks assemble information about you and publish these results by collecting bits from your credit card transactions, legal documents, renter's records, any place they can get their hands on. By upholding your right to control this information, through the "publicity" angle, they're giving you economic control over your information! This is good, anything that allows you to control how your private, copyrighted personal information is spread is good for you.
If anyone's going to trade information about me (i.e. what shows I watch, what books I read, what demographic group I belong to, etc.) I want to make money off it too. I demand my cut, just like the RIAA/MPAA demands their cut.
To follow up on the poster's point, I've believed that there's been collusion between MS and the Government since GWB's quick settlement of the anti-trust case, and my "tin-foil hat" is not looking so silly any more. At the same time he's wrangling with the telcos to get access to domestic phone records and calls (as the NYT points out, almost immed. after he enters office), he's most likely wrangling with MS to get back doors installed. At least that's what I'd do, and I'm possibly of "normal" intelligence. It's an obvious thing to do...step 1: get access to all communications by legal means or not, step 2: make sure that the OS that runs +90% of computers has a back-door that you can easily get to.
Being the very shrewd "son-of-a-lawyer" that Bill Gates is, I'm pretty sure that he offered up back-doors in exchange for the government getting off MS's back. Quid-pro-quo.
Now that this stuff is coming out, the NYT should start digging here too. Remember that the British government PUBLICLY asked for one (back-door to BK? I can't recall exactly)... but they didn't have any leverage to force MS to respond. US had the conviction in hand and was ready to proceed, that would have caused Bill Gates to respond, especially after his poor performance on the stand.
Yep. Now we just need to find the smoking gun...
Taking the Bush administration's stance to it's logical conclusion, the aliens would be stupid NOT to bombard us back to the stone age. I mean, as Cheney paints it, if there's a 1% chance that we MIGHT attack them, they should pre-emptively destroy us for their own safety! We've certainly given them enough information to reach that conclusion, their intelligence on us is certainly a "slam-dunk".... Furthermore we continue to resist demands from their United Federation of Planets to disarm and to be open ourselves to ongoing weapons inspections.
Any resistance to their attacks and/or bombardment, would of course, be carried out only by the "dead-enders" and they would ofcourse be appropriately labeled "insurgents."
I for one welcome our invading/bombarding forces. Perhaps we could make a deal and install myself as "Puppet Dictator" or earth!
This is really sooo simple folks. Everyone, especially the election folks, should be on-board with these types of demands. It's really not that difficult to do what the "Fair Elections" people want, unless you really ARE trying to manipulate the elections.
1) Demand that Diebold and all of the other voting machine folks print a receipt for every voter. This wouldn't be any more difficult than printing a receipt at the supermarket. You get to look at it, you put it into the basket on the way out. The paper becomes the "official" ballot always, the machine is just there to give quick results.
2) All the vote counting is redone at a central location, and EVERYONE can watch on the cable access channel or over streamed video. Want to watch 96 hours of vote counting from front to back? Sure, knock yourself out. The video feeds are provided the the cable franchise holders in every city to present on their networks on the usually blank city council channel. For those without a cable franchise for the city, you can simply lookup the video feeds on the internet.
The foot dragging on this issue is really starting to make me believe that the elections ARE being manipulated. All the horse-pucky form Diebold and the like about "too hard to make a printed tally".... Yeah, sure... And it's also too hard for cash machines and cash registers to print a receipt and verify that I've got funds before you give me cash...
As far as ballot counting, the infrastructure to let everyone watch is already there.
We just need to keep pushing until this gets done. I'm getting really tired of the 50.01% vs. 49.99% vote manipulation that's passing for "legal and fair" elections in this country. Making things look "close" is really the smoothest form of manipulation, I don't think anyone would believe the old Soviet style manipulation where the votes are always 98% for the party, but shaving just enough to make it 51-49 would be almost believable.
This really does need to get done NOW. No more fooling around, OSS voting machine code, printed receipt, video feeds of the counting and no more voter supression!
Seems to me that "fair-use" is an important part of the balance that's been struck between the copyright holders and the public. If they're saying that it's not included in "copyright," then perhaps we all should consider the whole deal is off. Hollywood is pulling the typical negotiation game here. First, they get the extensions in copyright length. Then they try to pull "fair-use" off the table and expect all of the other negotiated points (extensions, DMCA, etc.) to stick.
If they want re-negotiate, perhaps we should go back to the way it was originally setup in the constitution and start back from there. Full and exclusive copyright only lasts 17 years. Period. No extensions of any type. That's my best offer.
Hollywood is playing a very dangerous game here. Public opinion is pretty much against them, while we're re-defining copyright perhaps we should put this up for a referendum?
This seems like just the opening that an "open" company would need to really turn the US upside-down. The failure to sell the business unit means people are scared of being associated with the closed-source voting mess. Even if the security problems are really accidental, in the current climate, you'd be hard pressed to get anyone to believe you.
At a crossroads like this, an OSS company could just step right in and take over the whole election software market. If some OSS platform were successful here, there'd be no competition from closed source platforms after that. OSS voting forever after. I know that "open" means never having to rely on a single source (if you don't want to), but a great hardware solution coupled with all open source code would make one (or a few) companies really pop.
I have not been looking too hard for OSS voting machines myself, so maybe they're already out there. In that case, they just need some PR so that they're visible to the general population.
Redhat? Ubuntu? Where are you?... Here's your opportunity...
I don't want to encourage drunk driving, but I don't see it as the car manufacturer's responsibility to put this equipment in the car. I certainly don't want that equipment on my car (either at extra cost to me or not), and would view any car with it as being "less" of a product that I might want to buy. Put short, I wouldn't purchase such a vehicle. Period.
In addition, as the auto manufacturers start trying to determine if the driver is drunk or not, this might put them at a legal risk for any false positives or negatives. IANAL, but I'm assuming that the manufacturers of those breath analysis devices that the court forces convicted drunks to put on their cars are somehow indemnified or otherwise held blameless should the user find some way to defeat them. Because this is something ordered by the court, they may be exempt from legal liability. I'm not convinced that any car manufacturer would be so lucky if they start putting them on "production" vehicles. There are plenty of hungry lawyers ready to start some type of class-action suit on behalf of injured third parties. To this end, I say keep up the good work lawyers, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Just another case of "more nanny state, less personal responsibility."
I'm not sure that analogy is applicable. As pointed out in "C&B," the "commons" problem is that the value of the commons diminishes as more animals grazed there. In software, having other folks use (even if they never return anything) doesn't diminish your value of the software in any fashion.
With commercial software, the value is only in it's artificial scarcity. As AOL has demonstrated, we could blanket the earth in install CD's, so the supply/demand price of the software enclosed approaches zero.
I don't see any problem with it (companies using without returning everything/anything). They'll help fix the common roads when it's in their interest to do so. With more companies using OS software, they'll eventually end up using more of the "common roads" too.
Don't worry, they'll get around to it once all this IP nonsense is settled.
As long as they provide the source that they used before they signed, I think that's fair enough.
I'm with Linus, I don't think the license should be used as a "crowbar" into the hardware too. The GPL3 sounds like it places even MORE restrictions on what the user and/or developer and/or companies may do, not less... I'm against how they went about it too... it doesn't sound like the FSF even took anyone's opinions into account, RS and the rest just created an even more onerous license than the original. I don't see too many companies adopting it....
Take for instance, the following possible situation.... As a developer and small business man, this type of situation entirely possible, I've run up against this using GPL code. Company X developes a brand new, extra-cool heart monitor and defibulator widget based upon embedded linux. The product has been carefully tested at the factory, with good records kept, etc. The product uses a signed image to verify that it's the same image that went through tests and hasn't been modified. Product is FDA accepted and on the market, the company that developed the product feels fine taking the responsibility for the code. I know the license doesn't confer responsibility to the other developers, but the company has tested this particular image and they assume liability.
Now, some fool at the calibration outlet decides he's going to load some updated packages into the image, without telling anyone and without proper testing. He's creating a dangerous situation by running software that wasn't tested for it's particular use. According to the GPL3, he can resign the binaries and create a potentially injurious product, exposing company X to VERY SERIOUS liability that they had no part in.... Remember that company X did NOT want to release the signing keys, did NOT load the untested software on, but they will be held liable for any injury that results from it's being ABLE to be loaded. Company X here also may become the "deep pockets" defendant in this case, with the repair guy skating away....
No, this is totally wrong.... GPL3 should NOT be able to force this situation.
I don't like what TIVO is doing, and I sure don't like DRM, but I like what the FSF is doing even less. How about an open comment period. How about querying the free software developer as to what they want. I didn't receive any survey, I didn't find any place where I could provide feedback or vote either. They propose to speak for me, but I have not found any way to tell them what I want. People using stuff that I write will find the "either version 2, or (at your option)any later version" missing from any of my new works.
@*&% the GPL3!
Why of course, the sooner these folks are granted their "over-broad" patents, the sooner they'll expire, leaving the field WIDE-OPEN.....
Perhaps we could see a situation where the first of these patents are expiring before the first real nano-technology is available! By all means guys... get your patents in early, the earlier the better.
I seem to recall there was a catch though....Didn't you need to actually be able to "do" the thing you were going to patent? I seem to recall that was part of the test, that it actually needed to be possible at the time you were patenting something, not just a crack-pipe dream....
The axe that I'm grinding is in the city's refusal to do what the people want, the Monorail and stadiums are perfect examples of this. If this (monorail) were started in ernest years ago on the first ballot, it would be less than light rail. I think the city officials were mad that the people wanted something other than the dream that they put together with the feds on rail. They had their plan, they had their regional transit authority, they had a fist full of federal money and they didn't want anything to mess it up, even if the people really wanted something else. We were going to have light rail, like it or not.
In any case, here's the article from the Seattle Times outlining the strategy of opponents using lawsuits to raise the bond prices for the monorail project. It's not something that I made up, but as the author goes on to point out, it is a solid strategy. The opponents only need to win once.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/ texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=monorail22m&date =20050322&query=monorail+lawsuit
I've copied the article, I'm sorry the formatting did not carry...
1st:
"Do you really think that nobody in Rainier Valley or Tukwila needs to commute to downtown Seattle, or that nobody needs to get to or from the airports?
Light rail's route through the Rainier Valley and Tukwilla is about gentrification, not transit. Not enough people need to make that commute to make either solution cost effective, neither monorail or light rail. People in the Rainier Valley and Tukwilla, by large measure, do not shop downtown or at Northgate and don't fly that often. I'd be really surprised if any significent portion of the residents there worked downtown too. Not a slight, just demographics. The airlines are attempting to flee the airport for Boeing field even as we're adding a third runway for them too, that puts them right next to the Rainier Valley, you could make that with a $2 taxi ride. The only cost effective solution is lots of smaller busses operating in the Rainier Valley and Tukwilla. This isn't very sexy though, and wouldn't really help turn-over any of the properties there, that's why I believe that it wasn't selected.
The major transportation problem in Seattle that needs to get solved is the East-West route across the lake. No solution addresses this, because residents along the East and West sides of 520 & I-90 are among Washington's richest households and have more than enough money to hire lawyers and kill any proposed project. In short, their neighborhoods don't need gentrification and they would resist a public transit solution, so nothing happens.
In the monorai's favor, it does address two very heavy routes, it would address West Seattle (there's really only one route there and back)to downtown and Ballard to downtown along 15th.
2nd:
...monorail officials were planning on paying for the line by selling 50-year junk bonds.
Monorail: $11.4 billion / 14 miles (SMP's June financing plan, see this Seattle P-I article)
On the surface this appears correct, but the vast majority of the $11.4 billion you quote is for interest on those bonds, not the actual cost. The original estimate of the monorail project is $1.75 billion, with 4 times that cost going to pay interest on the bonds.1 0_monorail01.html
From the following article http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/2309
The high interest cost is a direct result of the opponents of the project, who realize that one effective method of stopping the project is to spread FUD through the finincal institutions that might help to underwrite the project. Fear of lawsuit and court challenge is what has turned an otherwise solid municipal bond at low interest into a junk bond at high interest.
Further, the costs don't seem to be adjusted for time. Properties along the Rainier Valley are much less than those along 15th or West Seattle, and those properties were purchased a few years ago while the SMP is still fighting to get the right to purchase and get a financing plan. Had the SMP been given equal terms to light rail, it would be even less than it's 2 billion estimated physical cost (not interest).
I stay by my original price comparison, measured side-by-side, mile-for-mile, building monorail is cheaper than laying track.
Being a Seattle resident, I can tell you a little bit about our "Monorail Fixation"....
First, a number of people here look at the monorail as a symbol of the city. We've already got one that runs a short distance from Paul Alen's EMP to the city core. It's pretty cool. A lot of people feel that we should extend the line that runs only a few blocks into one that spans the city. I happen to be one of these people. Springfield and the monorail song aside, building monorail is cheaper per mile than the light rail solution that's currently under way here too. I seem to recall that building monorail is 1/10 the cost per mile. I also know that large sections of this can be built off site and transported to the final location when it's convenient. In this way, the disruption to the people of the city is minimized in a way that it cannot be with light rail.
Second, and most importantly, we (the city) have voted by popular referendum 4 TIMES to have the monorail. Each time, large property holders in conjunction with the paid-off officials in the city government have waged a fierce battle to prevent this. They don't want the competition, they don't want their views blocked, the proposed route doesn't help them with their gentrification plan like the already started light rail plan does. I want to emphasize that..... FOUR TIMES we've voted to create the monorail.... FOUR times the city officials have attempted to block the project in favor of their light rail solution that's more expensive and more disruptive, but puts more money in the pockets of local developers. Someone above mentioned that we've already spent too much money on our sports statiums.... That's true, and also a little bit of a sore spot for me... Through popular referendum, the people REJECTED the stadiums twice... They were built anyway, against the will of the people, to support greedy team owners, leaving us with almost $100 million in debt on the old Kingdome which was torn down. Think of that again, we still owe money on a building that's been demolished so that we can build another new statium for the rich sports team owners...
Third, building the monorail allows for outside bidding on almost all of the project. I think that this is the clincher for why the city and state are opposed to the project though. When working at "grade" level, the city and state department of transportation groups get a cut of the project. I think that they're required to be in on the project, therefore they get the federal dollars into their budgets. For projects that go underground or above ground, they can be effectively eliminated from the project in favor of private companies which specialize in either tunneling or monorail building. For most projects, the city and state will fight tooth & nail to keep the project "at grade" rather than allow tunneling or a solution like the monorail. It's all about budgets and power. We're getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government right now to build our light rail project. It will be over 10 years of work and will be mostly at street level. I think the overall budget for the 14 mile light rail project is something like $2.4 Billion. The city officials love it.... You couldn't kill the light rail project any more than you could kill the "big dig" in Boston... It's all about pork.... That's exactly why I like the monorail and hate the light rail. Light rail is going to be 10 times more expensive and doesn't even span a major traffic route! Nothing's getting solved here in Seattle by building it and nobody's going to use it. Property developers are quickly snapping up properties along the route, gentrifying the poor neighborhoods that they placed the route in, they're going to make a killing... It's a boondoggle, plain and simple, and the monorail is competing with it, therefore they think the monorail must die.
In short, look for the monorail to win a record FIFTH public referendum, after which the mayor will attempt to find another way to block and/or delay the project. I hope the people here will not let this die..
I'm guessing that this will lead to a buyout of Mainsoft by Microsoft. There's no way that Microsoft can allow a free plugin that works with Visual Studio and ports to Linux to exist in the marketplace. I think that's exactly what the Mainsoft folks had in mind too...
Yeah, I know all that the stuff people want to say about "illegal" and whatnot...I used to think like that too. I've seen Microsoft get away with criminal activity too many times now to think it's NOT some type of conspiricy with the government. MS doesn't care about illegal, think of Balmer's recent press regarding Google..."I'm gonna kill that pussy.." They're not gonna let this place exist for any length of time... It's like putting raw meat in front of a bear...
Mainsoft's gonna get swallowed up whole. Microsoft will put up a press release about how "innovative" Mainsoft is, how they are going to provide plug-ins for Microsoft now, and then the product's gonna be cancled... End of story...
Here's a perfect example of how software patents would have drasticly changed how things are today...
Imagine if the folks that came up with Visicalc had gotten a software patent for it?... Which big software and OS manufacturer wouldn't have a huge chunk of their current profits and wouldn't have at least one of the apps in their office pack?... How might the software landscape be different today?
I was always told that "you can't patent an idea," but software patents come close to that....
The faster we get this mess over with, the better. We should just start offering MBA's to the prisioners in all the "super-max" facilities.... That way, they could start being useful immed. upon their return to society. I can just see it now...."IPO to be offered upon parole"
To prove my point... http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5176
see the story about this guy, he's continuing to get paid WHILE he's serving 18 mos. for criminal offenses. The board kept him on because he's a "visionary" and "knows the business" the best!
See what I mean?