Well done Bill, actually I was involved with the UK side of the operation, a long time ago, hence the the nome de plume and the low user ID, the NASDAQ delisting was unsurprising, we saw it coming after Freddy was dumped on the UK side, it was just a matter of time before things fell apart, and I see Frank has another company now. Anyway, its nice to make your aquaintence.
Thats pitiful, I remember a former company I worked for spending many many thousands on being a member of MSDN so we could get access to "All the latest info", and surprise! When we needed docs for all those undocumented APIs, they told us to buy a source code licence, forgeting that they had already told us we would have access to the info we wanted through MSDN, they wanted an extra $500K if I recall, and I know of others this happened to, but somehow I can't see a line-item on any M$ accounts that says "Fraud"
It is easy to see how things are shaping up from the start Should Never Have Brought Suit looks like they put the case against the suit before anything else, I think that says alot. Then comes Allegations Of Political Influence, they say "The commentors' allegations, however, lack any factual support", not that the gutting of the DOJ team and the fact that they are suddenly settling after a new president comes into power even make it as far as circumstantial evidence, and they go on to say "Allegations that the substance of the RPFJ reflects any kind of political corruption are meritless", and what investigation did they do to come to that conclusion? None. In any other case if an alegation was made it would be investigated, here it is not, the people will draw their own conclusions. In Removing The "Fruits" Of Microsoft's Anticompetitive Conduct they say "But the United States never alleged in this case that Microsoft illegally acquired its operating system monopoly.", Stac Electronics anyone? In Fines they say "punishment is not a valid goal", now that speaks volumes, can anyone imagine if they had said the same thing about Kevin Mitnik? In Adequacy Of The United States' Competitive Impact Statement they say "As this recitation shows, while the commentors couch their objections in terms of an alleged failure by the United States to comply with the Tunney Act, for the most part the objections are in substance comments on the RPFJ itself. Because the CIS fully complies with the Tunney Act requirements, none of the objections is well taken.", again there is no explanation, no investigation, you can almost hear them say "Move along, nothing to see here", and they almost do when it comes to Timing And Process Of Hearing they say "Allowing Third-Party Participation Through An Evidentiary Hearing Would Unnecessarily Delay And Complicate These Proceedings" and they try to bury the litigating states with "The Tunney Act Proceedings Should Not Be Held In Conjunction With, Or Rely Upon Evidence From, The Litigating States' Remedy Hearing" and "The Court Should Grant Deference to the Judgment of the United States". Then we get into technical definitions "Some commentors argue that it is inappropriate for Microsoft Middleware to depend on separate distribution from a Windows Operating System Product.(84) They argue that there is no logical reason for such a distinction and that requiring separate distribution merely provides another way for Microsoft to avoid its disclosure requirements.", given that MS already has its auto-update feature in Windows the horse has already bolted. In Non-Retaliation they say "Section III.A of the RPFJ prohibits a broad range of retaliatory conduct by Microsoft" yet we already have MS trying to force OEMs to give up IP rights which can be seen as retaliatory conduct, again horse, bolted. As far as a level playing field for licencing goes "The RPFJ permits Microsoft to provide Consideration to an OEM with respect to a Microsoft product or service, but only where the level of Consideration is commensurate with the OEM's contribution to the development, distribution, promotion, or licensing that particular product or service." so as long as MS says OEM X helped out, discounts as usual all around. Back to the retaliation and "To ensure that the twenty Covered OEMs will be free from the threat of Microsoft retaliation or coercion", so if you're not one of the 20 you're fscked. The rest is just the same, attempting to defend the indefensible, there is nothing good here, not one shred, like Kurtz wrote in in his book at the end of Apocalpse Now, Kill Them All...
Tsk tsk what a waste of an fp, just incase anyone was interested Van Sickle, Harold had the fp MTC-00000001 in the case it seems.. and it all seems so familiar..
The DOJ has sold the public down the river by not breaking up Microsoft.
Breaking the company up would not have lessened its assets only its MONOPOLY POWER. The DOJ has partnered with George W. Bush to repay Bill Gates for his generous campaign contributions to him and the GOP party. There is nowhere the public can turn anymore now that our Justice Department has sold out to politics. There is no other explanation the public will believe.
You've made your bed with Bill, now sleep in it. A monetary fine means nothing to the world's richest man - losing his power over the industry does. As you attempt to settle with him, he is already targeting LINUX for the Internet market - he has learned nothing, except whom to contribute to for favors. You people can spin it anyway you like, we, the public, see it for what it really is. There is no longer equality under the law, there is no longer equal enforcement of the law, the law is Dubya.
I'm betting that there are alot of posts like that, I wonder if 30,000 gun toting MS-Bush bashing people are enough for a revolution....
I suppose I had better point out that detainees on Robin Island including Nelson Mandela used to get The Economist, and I'm sure if you look in the local library they will probably carry it as a periodical, so you don't have to be rich to read The Economist. Personally I think alot of the writing is insightful and much better that the usual press releases put on glossy paper that pass for business magazines.
They marched because their helicopters had been on a ship taken out by the Argentinians using an Exocet (makes you wonder why we bothered saving the French from the Nazis), oh and yes we did have Rapier (SAMs) batteries that were supposed to shoot down the aircraft, but they didnt work, but then Rapier was always a POS (from someone who worked on it). Conclusion, don't rely on the technology, always have multiple backups. Personally I would have just stuck a Polaris sub of the coast and sent one straight into Buenos Aries, that would have got them to give back the Falklands without any British casualties.
This was something very few people expected happening, and the costs and inconveniences for customers would have made the airline bankrupt before you could say "bankrupt", if it wasn't mandatory for everyone.
Um, no. Planes have been hijacked before in various parts of the world, there have been bombings (everyone remember Lockerbie?), the airlines took a decision that whatever losses came from hijackings and othr terrorist acts was a completely acceptable / tolerable loss, and by paying off the politicians made sure that the situation was cast in stone. It is lucky for us that the planes were not flown into nuclear power stations or chemical / biological weapons establishments, otherwise things could have been much much worse. As for costs they would have to be passed on to the customer, the attacks that where allowed due to lax security will cost far more than the preventative measures.
And I certainly don't remember any outbursts from the public wanting more security at the airports and airlines.
And I don't hear any outbursts from the public about trying to keep ex-Soviet nukes from being sold to lunatics that want to cause Armageddon, but it's a good idea, wouldnt you agree?
Does that mean that I think the government should have made it mandatory?
Depends if you think the government should be involved in protecting the public good, if not, then why bother having a military force at all? Before the hijackings government and airlines knew the risks, it was only the public majority that was in the dark, it seems that unfortuantely that no one in your government or in the airline industry is to beheld to account, so my insurance premiums rise because of your governments failure / corruption.
Is what the US government has done in retrospect sufficient? Well, they have secured airports and airlines better, so i'd have to say yes. Is it required? Well, they have started a war, made a secret, military, no-appeals, orwellian, right-to-judge-you-and-take-your-life-anywhere-in- the-world-"court", and made inhumane prisoner camps violating the geneva convention for prisoners of war. I fail to see how this will not generate more terrorists, but that might be just me...
Of course it will, unfortunately the US government / politicians don't take responsibility for their actions, and are allowed to get away with it, by both the media and the American people, havent you noticed that the IRA is still not on any of their lists yet Islamic terror groups are? Oh but hold on, American politicians want the vote of Irish Americans, so here in the UK thousands have been murdered by terrorists financed mainly out of the US. Americans really need to kick their "leaders" hard and get them to ensure that they change, otherwise America is likely to suffer even more in the future due to the fact that weapons (inc of mass destruction) are like any other technology they better (more destructive) and cheaper every year, they might not be evolving as fast as microprocessors, but they are still moving fast enough tomean that having a squadran of B2s is not enough, thatswhy they call it "asymmetric warfare".
Or what about the airlines being held responsible for the lax security that lead to the horror os Sept 11? You'll find that in practice having someone who is liable is not enough, you have to have the resources and commitment to carry things through, and as the law can take eons to come to a final definative conclusion it is not usually worth it, my advice is just tell everyone about the corporation, and if it is really bad, as in a threat to your corporations survival you can always set up a website and get some publicity for it, that is likely to do more good than hiring a bunch of lawyers.
I was making the point about security in general, though the milspec stuff is also relevant, for example compare how much Nimda and Code Red cost corporations, and herefore the country as opposed to the OSS alternatives that don't have such devastating holes in them that allow virus writers to destroy value, it may not seem much compared to the human and economic cost of Sept 11, but a Sept 11 might only occur once a decade as opposed to a Code Red or Nimda that might happen on a weekly basis, ending up costing even more in terms of dollars than Sept 11 in the long run.
Also look for distributions and OSS projects based in your area, and ask them would they rather give money to Bill Gates or have it fueling the local economy. remind them that Microsoft has $38BN in cash just sitting in a bank account, doing nothing to help the US economy out of the slump. Plus you can tell them how much more secure the software is, how OSS contributes to "Homeland defense", how less time and money will be wasted on trying to get Microsoft to support their products, how the inherently "free" nature meshes with the pioneering and intensely meritocratic spirit of America. If all else fails try this as a slogan / soundbite "Mom, apple pie, open source and America, you know it makes sense"
We may have The Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act in theory, however in practice you hang by only a very thin thread, like the student who was arrested for having an interest in the David Shaylor case
Shurely this should be under Funny Laugh... any self respecting geek would make the ceiling one giant Peltier Cooler, and there arent even specs for the servers, I mean if they think they can call themselves geeks without bragging about the Connection Machine they bought of Ebay or atleast talking nerdishly about racks full of 1U dual Athlon MP 1.6GHz boxes with 3 gig of DDR2100 ( sorry I refuse to call them 1900+...ughh)... is this News for Nerds or News for Wannabe Nerds, I ask you?
They also do business consultancy, now as I'm sure you know the art of business is to be paid money for products and services, to that end you want to show that your brand</buzzword> is what people want and that goes from having a clueful receiptionist when you walk in the company HQ to having a well designed and accessable website. Now, if a receiptionist takes more that 30 seconds to offer you a cup of coffee it's probably not such a big deal, OTOH having a policy that goes contrary to everything a medium is about ("The medium is the message" - Marshall MacLuhan) like say not allowing people to link to your website means that you obviously do not understand that area of business, at that point many people will assume you know nothing about any other business arena and you will lose business to those that are more clueful.
That just gave me an idea, if anyone has got some video editing software, rip The Matrix off DVD (using DeCSS of course) and then give all the Agents little KPMG nametags, now thats what I call fair use!
I say great, let the dinosaurs use the services of KPMG, so while those of us who want to compete with those Fortune companies knock the stuffing out of them, KPMG "consultants" can write reports and have meetings, until we beat them so badly by being smarter, faster and better and they become the Enrons of the future. Oh and if your boss stiffs you on a raise, make sure they get KPMG in, they can do far more damage to a corporation than anything you can dream up.
In the UK it might be possible to file a private criminal prosecution against the offending corporation under "Attempting to obtain money by deception" and you could try and throw in the USPTO under Conspiracy. Now that would be fun!
Yes, but it's an old idea, storing video on HDs, I had had the idea back in 1987 while a student, I'm pretty sure I discussed it with atleast 20 students at the time, my vision included what would in todays parlance be called a peer2peer moderation system as the cable link would have been two way, we didnt have buzzwords back in the day, if TiVo or any other manufacturer wants me and my old hacker student freinds to stand up in court and blow this peice of trash out of the water we'll expect all expenses paid, okay?
If we are that way, why can't they be? Are you unwilling to try? (Hint: change is always brought about by those on the leading edge.. for example see - Internet)
Well look at the WordPerfect case, who had to change their software WordPerfect or M$? I rest my case. Expect to be having to rewrite software when your 70 that you wrote 30 years ago because of this, you are now an endentured slave. The only way I can see round this is to use a throw away corporation for each job you do and make it take all liabilities with it when you shut it down, prefereably offshore in a country which has good secrecy laws so they can never find you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well done Bill, actually I was involved with the UK side of the operation, a long time ago, hence the the nome de plume and the low user ID, the NASDAQ delisting was unsurprising, we saw it coming after Freddy was dumped on the UK side, it was just a matter of time before things fell apart, and I see Frank has another company now. Anyway, its nice to make your aquaintence.
Thats pitiful, I remember a former company I worked for spending many many thousands on being a member of MSDN so we could get access to "All the latest info", and surprise! When we needed docs for all those undocumented APIs, they told us to buy a source code licence, forgeting that they had already told us we would have access to the info we wanted through MSDN, they wanted an extra $500K if I recall, and I know of others this happened to, but somehow I can't see a line-item on any M$ accounts that says "Fraud"
Are the headlines -
...
Microsoft, Terrorist Corporation
Dubya, linked to global economic terrorist Enron
Echelon global terrorist network uncovered
MPAA/RIAA media terrorism spotlighted
Putins murder of Chechens, terrorism at the heart of Russia
Israel terrorist-government massacre of innocent Palestinians
... and we all know why
Looks like inetgw is Microsofts Internet Gateway, or is that Microsoft Astroturfing Gateway?
It is easy to see how things are shaping up from the start Should Never Have Brought Suit looks like they put the case against the suit before anything else, I think that says alot. Then comes Allegations Of Political Influence, they say "The commentors' allegations, however, lack any factual support", not that the gutting of the DOJ team and the fact that they are suddenly settling after a new president comes into power even make it as far as circumstantial evidence, and they go on to say "Allegations that the substance of the RPFJ reflects any kind of political corruption are meritless", and what investigation did they do to come to that conclusion? None. In any other case if an alegation was made it would be investigated, here it is not, the people will draw their own conclusions. In Removing The "Fruits" Of Microsoft's Anticompetitive Conduct they say "But the United States never alleged in this case that Microsoft illegally acquired its operating system monopoly.", Stac Electronics anyone? In Fines they say "punishment is not a valid goal", now that speaks volumes, can anyone imagine if they had said the same thing about Kevin Mitnik? In Adequacy Of The United States' Competitive Impact Statement they say "As this recitation shows, while the commentors couch their objections in terms of an alleged failure by the United States to comply with the Tunney Act, for the most part the objections are in substance comments on the RPFJ itself. Because the CIS fully complies with the Tunney Act requirements, none of the objections is well taken.", again there is no explanation, no investigation, you can almost hear them say "Move along, nothing to see here", and they almost do when it comes to Timing And Process Of Hearing they say "Allowing Third-Party Participation Through An Evidentiary Hearing Would Unnecessarily Delay And Complicate These Proceedings" and they try to bury the litigating states with "The Tunney Act Proceedings Should Not Be Held In Conjunction With, Or Rely Upon Evidence From, The Litigating States' Remedy Hearing" and "The Court Should Grant Deference to the Judgment of the United States". Then we get into technical definitions "Some commentors argue that it is inappropriate for Microsoft Middleware to depend on separate distribution from a Windows Operating System Product.(84) They argue that there is no logical reason for such a distinction and that requiring separate distribution merely provides another way for Microsoft to avoid its disclosure requirements.", given that MS already has its auto-update feature in Windows the horse has already bolted. In Non-Retaliation they say "Section III.A of the RPFJ prohibits a broad range of retaliatory conduct by Microsoft" yet we already have MS trying to force OEMs to give up IP rights which can be seen as retaliatory conduct, again horse, bolted. As far as a level playing field for licencing goes "The RPFJ permits Microsoft to provide Consideration to an OEM with respect to a Microsoft product or service, but only where the level of Consideration is commensurate with the OEM's contribution to the development, distribution, promotion, or licensing that particular product or service." so as long as MS says OEM X helped out, discounts as usual all around. Back to the retaliation and "To ensure that the twenty Covered OEMs will be free from the threat of Microsoft retaliation or coercion", so if you're not one of the 20 you're fscked. The rest is just the same, attempting to defend the indefensible, there is nothing good here, not one shred, like Kurtz wrote in in his book at the end of Apocalpse Now, Kill Them All...
Tsk tsk what a waste of an fp, just incase anyone was interested Van Sickle, Harold had the fp MTC-00000001 in the case it seems.. and it all seems so familiar..
The DOJ has sold the public down the river by not breaking up Microsoft.
Breaking the company up would not have lessened its assets only its MONOPOLY
POWER. The DOJ has partnered with George W. Bush to repay Bill Gates for
his generous campaign contributions to him and the GOP party. There is
nowhere the public can turn anymore now that our Justice Department has sold
out to politics. There is no other explanation the public will believe.
You've made your bed with Bill, now sleep in it. A monetary fine means
nothing to the world's richest man - losing his power over the industry
does. As you attempt to settle with him, he is already targeting LINUX for
the Internet market - he has learned nothing, except whom to contribute to
for favors. You people can spin it anyway you like, we, the public, see it
for what it really is. There is no longer equality under the law, there is
no longer equal enforcement of the law, the law is Dubya.
I'm betting that there are alot of posts like that, I wonder if 30,000 gun toting MS-Bush bashing people are enough for a revolution....
You, a rich Economist reader
I suppose I had better point out that detainees on Robin Island including Nelson Mandela used to get The Economist, and I'm sure if you look in the local library they will probably carry it as a periodical, so you don't have to be rich to read The Economist. Personally I think alot of the writing is insightful and much better that the usual press releases put on glossy paper that pass for business magazines.
They marched because their helicopters had been on a ship taken out by the Argentinians using an Exocet (makes you wonder why we bothered saving the French from the Nazis), oh and yes we did have Rapier (SAMs) batteries that were supposed to shoot down the aircraft, but they didnt work, but then Rapier was always a POS (from someone who worked on it). Conclusion, don't rely on the technology, always have multiple backups. Personally I would have just stuck a Polaris sub of the coast and sent one straight into Buenos Aries, that would have got them to give back the Falklands without any British casualties.
Personally I can't wait for them to arrive, then I can finally get to say "Get away from her you bitch!"
you forgot... and hot_grits=true
This was something very few people expected happening, and the costs and inconveniences for customers would have made the airline bankrupt before you could say "bankrupt", if it wasn't mandatory for everyone.
- the-world-"court", and made inhumane prisoner camps violating the geneva convention for prisoners of war. I fail to see how this will not generate more terrorists, but that might be just me...
Um, no. Planes have been hijacked before in various parts of the world, there have been bombings (everyone remember Lockerbie?), the airlines took a decision that whatever losses came from hijackings and othr terrorist acts was a completely acceptable / tolerable loss, and by paying off the politicians made sure that the situation was cast in stone. It is lucky for us that the planes were not flown into nuclear power stations or chemical / biological weapons establishments, otherwise things could have been much much worse. As for costs they would have to be passed on to the customer, the attacks that where allowed due to lax security will cost far more than the preventative measures.
And I certainly don't remember any outbursts from the public wanting more security at the airports and airlines.
And I don't hear any outbursts from the public about trying to keep ex-Soviet nukes from being sold to lunatics that want to cause Armageddon, but it's a good idea, wouldnt you agree?
Does that mean that I think the government should have made it mandatory?
Depends if you think the government should be involved in protecting the public good, if not, then why bother having a military force at all? Before the hijackings government and airlines knew the risks, it was only the public majority that was in the dark, it seems that unfortuantely that no one in your government or in the airline industry is to beheld to account, so my insurance premiums rise because of your governments failure / corruption.
Is what the US government has done in retrospect sufficient? Well, they have secured airports and airlines better, so i'd have to say yes. Is it required? Well, they have started a war, made a secret, military, no-appeals, orwellian, right-to-judge-you-and-take-your-life-anywhere-in
Of course it will, unfortunately the US government / politicians don't take responsibility for their actions, and are allowed to get away with it, by both the media and the American people, havent you noticed that the IRA is still not on any of their lists yet Islamic terror groups are? Oh but hold on, American politicians want the vote of Irish Americans, so here in the UK thousands have been murdered by terrorists financed mainly out of the US. Americans really need to kick their "leaders" hard and get them to ensure that they change, otherwise America is likely to suffer even more in the future due to the fact that weapons (inc of mass destruction) are like any other technology they better (more destructive) and cheaper every year, they might not be evolving as fast as microprocessors, but they are still moving fast enough tomean that having a squadran of B2s is not enough, thatswhy they call it "asymmetric warfare".
Or what about the airlines being held responsible for the lax security that lead to the horror os Sept 11? You'll find that in practice having someone who is liable is not enough, you have to have the resources and commitment to carry things through, and as the law can take eons to come to a final definative conclusion it is not usually worth it, my advice is just tell everyone about the corporation, and if it is really bad, as in a threat to your corporations survival you can always set up a website and get some publicity for it, that is likely to do more good than hiring a bunch of lawyers.
No they lend it to Enron and Argentina...
I was making the point about security in general, though the milspec stuff is also relevant, for example compare how much Nimda and Code Red cost corporations, and herefore the country as opposed to the OSS alternatives that don't have such devastating holes in them that allow virus writers to destroy value, it may not seem much compared to the human and economic cost of Sept 11, but a Sept 11 might only occur once a decade as opposed to a Code Red or Nimda that might happen on a weekly basis, ending up costing even more in terms of dollars than Sept 11 in the long run.
Also look for distributions and OSS projects based in your area, and ask them would they rather give money to Bill Gates or have it fueling the local economy. remind them that Microsoft has $38BN in cash just sitting in a bank account, doing nothing to help the US economy out of the slump. Plus you can tell them how much more secure the software is, how OSS contributes to "Homeland defense", how less time and money will be wasted on trying to get Microsoft to support their products, how the inherently "free" nature meshes with the pioneering and intensely meritocratic spirit of America. If all else fails try this as a slogan / soundbite "Mom, apple pie, open source and America, you know it makes sense"
Tony and his cronies write some really attrocious laws that have already limited your freedoms, including RIPA and the Terrorism Act
Home Office extends online snooping laws
The Terrorism Act 2000
Then there is Echelon of course
This is how we know Echelon exists
We may have The Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act in theory, however in practice you hang by only a very thin thread, like the student who was arrested for having an interest in the David Shaylor case
British student arrested under Official Secrets Act
Now if only I could clone Guy Fawkes...
Shurely this should be under Funny Laugh... any self respecting geek would make the ceiling one giant Peltier Cooler, and there arent even specs for the servers, I mean if they think they can call themselves geeks without bragging about the Connection Machine they bought of Ebay or atleast talking nerdishly about racks full of 1U dual Athlon MP 1.6GHz boxes with 3 gig of DDR2100 ( sorry I refuse to call them 1900+...ughh)... is this News for Nerds or News for Wannabe Nerds, I ask you?
They also do business consultancy, now as I'm sure you know the art of business is to be paid money for products and services, to that end you want to show that your brand</buzzword> is what people want and that goes from having a clueful receiptionist when you walk in the company HQ to having a well designed and accessable website. Now, if a receiptionist takes more that 30 seconds to offer you a cup of coffee it's probably not such a big deal, OTOH having a policy that goes contrary to everything a medium is about ("The medium is the message" - Marshall MacLuhan) like say not allowing people to link to your website means that you obviously do not understand that area of business, at that point many people will assume you know nothing about any other business arena and you will lose business to those that are more clueful.
That just gave me an idea, if anyone has got some video editing software, rip The Matrix off DVD (using DeCSS of course) and then give all the Agents little KPMG nametags, now thats what I call fair use!
I say great, let the dinosaurs use the services of KPMG, so while those of us who want to compete with those Fortune companies knock the stuffing out of them, KPMG "consultants" can write reports and have meetings, until we beat them so badly by being smarter, faster and better and they become the Enrons of the future. Oh and if your boss stiffs you on a raise, make sure they get KPMG in, they can do far more damage to a corporation than anything you can dream up.
In the UK it might be possible to file a private criminal prosecution against the offending corporation under "Attempting to obtain money by deception" and you could try and throw in the USPTO under Conspiracy. Now that would be fun!
Yes, but it's an old idea, storing video on HDs, I had had the idea back in 1987 while a student, I'm pretty sure I discussed it with atleast 20 students at the time, my vision included what would in todays parlance be called a peer2peer moderation system as the cable link would have been two way, we didnt have buzzwords back in the day, if TiVo or any other manufacturer wants me and my old hacker student freinds to stand up in court and blow this peice of trash out of the water we'll expect all expenses paid, okay?
If we are that way, why can't they be? Are you unwilling to try? (Hint: change is always brought about by those on the leading edge.. for example see - Internet)
Or just take them to the WTO for restriction of trade.
Well look at the WordPerfect case, who had to change their software WordPerfect or M$? I rest my case. Expect to be having to rewrite software when your 70 that you wrote 30 years ago because of this, you are now an endentured slave. The only way I can see round this is to use a throw away corporation for each job you do and make it take all liabilities with it when you shut it down, prefereably offshore in a country which has good secrecy laws so they can never find you.