I've noticed the same patterns of behaviour in Microsoft apologists. I'd like to propose calling this Redmond Syndrome.
While the joke wasn't obviously directed at me, let me go on the record as being highly skeptical of MS and generally in favor of OSS alternatives to proprietary products. The fact of the matter is that the height of irony and hypocrisy is seeing/. readers crying foul as the MPEG consortium gets it in the nuts just because it is MS going after them. If anyone else had done this, there would have been loud and numerous cheers from the Amen Corner.
So was your initial post. The implication is that price-competition is inherently unfair, where feature competition would be ok. This is just silly. Feature competition is inextricably intertwined with pricing. If I add features, I have (probably) increased the value of my product so long as it is not bloated and confusing. Therefore, features are not independent of price, because price is simply a way of assigning value to an item. Value is value is value.
If you remove the ability of a company to compete based on "price" you therefore also remove its ability to affect the value of its product by altering feature sets. You are essentially requiring that a product remain static if a company is suffciently large to offend you.
I understand that MS has acted badly in the past. I am suspicious of them, too. However, when do we stop suspecting MS? When does their probation end?When are they allowed to make software and sell it for what they want to sell it for, even if it is only tangentially related to their monopolies in office suites and desktop OSes?
Comparison shopping is a tried and true past time these days. (Just look at sites like fatwallet.com.)
Not according to you. You want to prevent customers of MS from buying encoders and decoders at a good price. Your motive is to constrain MS, but it also constrains consumers.
The problem comes if one gas station were to come into the market and sell for something like $.40 per gallon. (The actual amount is arbitrary, as long as it is below the actual cost of getting the gas to the station.) Obviously, no competitor could reasonably keep up with prices like this. (The only way to do that would be to have supplemental income from another product/line covering these losses.)
Such as companies like AOL/Time Warner, Sony, etc.?
But the balance has shifted. No one else, and not even any other conglomerate of computer companies, has the money to piss away to develop online video like Microsoft does.
Time Warner/AOL, Sony, the movie studios, etc., will not let Microsoft abuse them, and they have very, very deep pockets. Also, the open source community is mobilized on this issue, and open source encoders/decoders and codecs are on the horizon. It's hard to beat smart zealots (in a good sense -- highly motivated and dedicated to the cause) fighting for a cause that they love.
Antitrust laws were invented because an oil company put up competitive gas stations near other gas stations, priced them out of business, and then jacked up prices. The parallels here are very real.
This is just wrong. It is the classic example that is given, but factually, it is wrong. First of all, Standard Oil got control of the oil business by being extremely aggressive and efficient and paying the best for workers. They controlled the distribution network (oil pipelines and, effectively, railroad rates). It had little to do with predatory pricing.
Incidentally, the real price of petroleum products dropped dramatically as Standard Oil consolidated the market. Standard Oil squeezed out many inefficiencies in the petroleum drilling, transportation, refining, and distribution processes and dropped an enormous amount of thoses savings into the pockets of the consumers.
Here is a nice summary, including parallels to the MS case:
It would definitely be a better situation that you could choose between 2+ players [evolutionary pressure on each product] and pay $25 for the quality product you want than to have only one free player available that is master of the market and not evolving.
I agree with you, except that MS will not be able to bank on being the only player in this market. There are OSS projects in the works as we speak that would be in a position to challenge MS hegemony in the future. In addition, companies like AOL, Sony, etc., would not sit still for a shitty, stagnant media delivery software.
For the low, low cost of a couple dozen engineers/programmers, they could break the lock on an MS product if the MS product were to become stagnant. I just don't see that this is a real risk in this case. Media delivery isn't an office suite or an OS. It's just not that complex, and it will be subject to the disruptive changes that can occur in technology to an extent that more massive projects may not be.
> The foul is something called dumping. The > practice of below cost in an effort to drive > competitors out of the market.
At some point, this practice can become dumping. On the other hand, to some extent it represents the competitive nature of business. Cutting prices is not always dumping. Do you drive around your neighborhood to buy gas at the most-expensive place you can to avoid supporting "dumping"?
I suspect that both price levels are artificially high. Seeing the two sides cut into the costs of multimedia licensing fees is probably going to be very good for consumers of multimedia.
I am aware that MS does cut prices in order to stave off the competition and to protect encroachments on other areas where it has a monopoly (i.e. add a free IE to the "OS" in order to stave off middleware challenges to their desktop supremacy and to kill Netscape). On the other hand, are we then requiring the largest software company in the world to unilaterally stop doing anything other than matching features and prices of its competitors? That would be bad for competitors, bad for MS, and bad for consumers.
If the MPEG people feel that they are being wronged, they know where to look in the phonebook to find a beaucoup antitrust lawyer. They may be running to the press with this story in order to protect their own wallets by calling attention to this practice. Do we really know if this is going to distress the MPEG folks, or are they just crying wolf in order to protect their own fat wallets at the expense of you and I?
MPEG may be playing a very devious game here -- they could be protecting their oligopoly profits (which involve raping you and I ruthlessly) and simultaneously getting people like those in the/. crowd to cry out in defense of their rapists. It's almost a classic Stockholm Syndrome.
Have you not followed the entire Monopoly cases? Microsoft undercuts its competitors to the point where the competition simply CANNOT sell any lower because they dont have the BILLIONS in resources to stay in business like Microsoft can, their strategy is to out live the competitor.
Sooooo...Microsoft should be forced to continue to charge a high price for its product in order to benefit consumers?
What security do these devices have to prevent the neighbor from eavesdropping on your powerline LAN? The power lines don't stop at the walls of your house?
Is there some sort of device you can put in at your fuse box to block data going in/out? What are the practical restrictions on someone coming up and using an external outlet at your house (none that I can see)?
This may be somewhat convenient for some applications, and perhaps more secure than wireless, but there are still some physical security issues that seem harder to address than with CAT5.
Throw in the lower level of convenience than one gets with wireless as well as a much lower rate of throughput than with 802.11a, and I don't see much more than a niche market for this sort of product.
The correct answer is "it depends on which state we are talking about." Basic agency/principal law would say that the action of the lawyer's employee would reflect on the lawyer himself/herself, and the disclosure is a clear violation of the canons of virtually every state of the Union. The devil is in the details of the Codes of Conduct of the State Bar Association.
I think that the law firm will probably get off ok on this more likely than not. Here's why:
The employee was not authorized by the law firm to do what he did. He acted on his own, not at the direction of the firm. I am guessing as well that a 19 year old does not have the authority to bind the firm as an agent or principal.
There may be a case if the hiring firm had reason to know of this person's propensity for doing such a thing or by the firm's failing to dismiss for prior indiscretions or for failing to do a reasonable background check. Basically, the tort would be something like negligent hiring. Unless the employer has reason to know that the employee would do such a thing, the employer is most likely not liable for the actions of the employee.
An analogy that is fairly familiar is that of clergy who sexually abused people. If they did this without the knowledge of the church or if the church had no reasonable way of knowing about a propensity to commit such an act prior to the act (wilfull blindness is not an "out"), the church is probably not liable for the actions of the sexual abuser.
If the clergyman abused someone, and then the church found out, and then the priest did it again, then the church would probably be liable for the second-go-round. The was a fairly major case with this fact patter in Pennsylvania a number of years ago which subjected the (protestant, I believe) church to liability.
I think your assessment that the local state bar rules will govern this is sort of right and sort of wrong. Something can violate the rules of professional conduct and still not give rise to liability. Ultimate financial responibility even in the event of negligence on behalf of the law firm could well be limited as well, depending on the degree of fault and the existence of joint and several liability rules. A firm's violation of confidentiality is a serious breach of ethical requirements for which the responsible attorney for the client could face sanctions. Financial liability for that lawyer and for the firm (and the firm's insurer) is a separate question, however.
The 19 year old tort feasor is mostly responsible for the damage to DirecTV here, and if the law firm is less than X% at fault (40% in many states -- dunno about CA), the damages would be limited to just those that are directly the result of the firm's negligence. I could easily see a jury letting a law firm completely or at least almost all the way off the hook on this one.
California could indeed be quite different than the PA law I am familiar with, however. Your point on that issue is a very good one.
Many issues here - I hope I was able to hit at least the highlights.
Serebryany was charged under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, a law so powerful thatuntil March 2002only the most senior Justice Department officials in Washington could authorize prosecutors to wield it.
I think in bureaucratese, the proper wording is thus:
There is no safe career to be had in any profession today.
I am an attorney. Despite all the jokes, even my staid profession does not represent a "safe" job. Computerization and the entry into traditional legal jobs (real estate, estate planning) by people such as accountants, consultants, real estate brokers, etc., is undermining much of the bread and butter work I do.
The dream of being a 'company man' that the baby-boomer generation had just doesn't exist.
Absolutely true. You must be your own advocate. You will get jobs from companies, but your career is up to you. This is a free agent society.
Forget job security, defined skill sets and straight career paths. This uncertainty is here to stay.
The best I can say is to network constantly -- in case your job goes away, it helps to have an ear to the tracks to know where you can find work. Professional organizations are very useful for this.
Keep current as best you can through continuing education. Try to get recognition as an expert in an area of your profession. Publish so that you get to be better known.
Unfortunately, simply coming to work each day and doing your job isn't enough. You have to be ready to move if problems surface. It is a very dynamic society that we live in, and a global one. This makes it very difficult for individuals who can get whipsawed by macro trends.
One final thought -- to the extent that you can, you need to plan for a dynamic world not only professionally, but financially. When you have a job, you should remember what it is like not to have one. Your financial plans should reflect this, and you should do your best to build up an emergency fund in case you get laid off unexpectedly. Also, if there is a significant chance that your employment will be interrupted, consider carefully whether you really want to buy that new car on a five year payment plan.
Instability in the workforce isn't going away, and on our own, we really can't avoid it. About the best I can figure is (1) to recognize that the game is different than it was twenty years ago and (2) try to play the new game by the new rules and (3) plan my education and finances in such a way as to prevent it from interfering with my personal affairs too much.
Nightmare scenario, you fall asleep without your ring on, and awaken to the sound of a burgler, but forget your magic ring.
The only problem is the baggage associated with this sort of Ring. AFAIK, there is no volcano in New Jersey, so when someone develops One Ring (tm) technology to control the actions of Magic Ring (tm) wearers, what is to prevent him, and his army of orcs, from taking over the state in a coup d'etat?
"of course do what you want, but be wary of anyone trying to sell you something - be it a car or an idea."
The media, as a general rule, does not sell ideas. It sells readers' eyeballs/brains/wallets to advertisers. Content is to media as candy is to pedophiles.
I don't think his intention was to provide a realistic analysis of LotR as much as to play a mindgame--the last page of his article indicates this. He was trying to show how to think about the stuff you read, rather than just taking it entirely at face value.
I think his point -- be a critical consumer of anything people try to pump into you ear and eye holes -- is an excellent one.
On the other hand, his "mind game" shows an abysmal ignorance of the book. To wit:
Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colors of humanity, and all the lower classes.
Did Sauron's army have dwarves? Ents? Hobbits?
The whole article is rife with this sort of thing.
He makes some interesting points, but on the whole, he is simply obnoxious, annoying, and frequently wrong about the book. I think he is more or less just trying to capitalize on T2T as a vehicle to allow him to jerk himself off in public on Salon. He did the same thing with Star Wars. His shtick is getting old.
That doesn't mean I don't like Tolkien. But there's no need to be so hard on Brin, who is, after all, a writer himself.
It doesn't strike me that Brin is a wallflower. He publishes for money in a very public venue. I don't feel the least bit bad about being hard on him. My recollection is that his Star Wars review and the LOTR review are at the least fraternal twins. As hard as he beats his drum, he only needs to do it once, IMHO.
As far as anything involving good and evil being necessarily black and white, I don't buy it. Gradations of morality, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity are possible within a good/evil battle. I think that those grey areas are quite evident in LOTR. Brin doesn't buy it. Fine. Evidently, you buy into his position. I think you're both wrong. We disagree.
Regarding one of your final points:
I'd like to write something that can provide meaningful social commentary, without the cliched and shallow idea that people can be "good" and "evil" and that good must always win.
I think that is a neat-o idea. I think that to some extent it was done by JRRT. Good did prevail, but only just. The "good" victors suffered significant consequences as a result of the war, and nobody really emerges unscathed. The climactic moment involved a hopelessly corrupted creature, Gollum, doing the work of the "good" side when he accidentally destroys the Ring. Frodo, at the last, is corrupted by it and cannot destroy it. The quest failed, but the world was saved by luck alone.
The scouring of the Shire and the departure by Gandalf, Frodo, et al, from the Grey Havens at the end of ROTK doesn't strike me as being a particularly happy ending. Frodo never recovered fully from his experiences with the Ring. Much that was "good" in Middle Earth passed as a result of the destruction of the Ring.
Sauron was able to survive his near death experience to nearly prevail at the end by preying on the ambition and weakness of men (Isildur keeping the Ring), the vanity of the elves (who made the rings, except the One), the pride of the dwarves (delving too deep and nearly causing the death of Gandalf), and some weakness in the hobbits (Smeagol). The "good" races all suffered from some major faults.
The end of the book cannot really be described as a classic "happy ending" -- it is really much more sophisticated than that. Brin simply did a disservice to the book by giving it a superficial reading.
I certainly wish you well with your project, but I wouldn't look to Brin as being an inspiration or anything.
According to this article it was a modification of existing radar.
According to the same article, it was also radar based on interpreting cel tower signals:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's stealth bombers may be in danger of having their cover blown by a new type of radar that uses cell phone technology, researchers say.
The Air Force says the problem is limited and America's stealth fleet is in no danger. Yet U.S. intelligence reports label the radar a serious threat, and several scientists say they agree.
"We're talking about radar technology that can pinpoint almost any disturbance in the atmosphere," said Hugh Brownstone, a physicist at the Intergon Research Center in New York who has worked for the cell phone giant Nokia.
"You might not be able to distinguish between a stealth plane and a normal one, but you might not need to," he said. "The point is, you can see the stealth plane as a blip."
The potential risk comes from radar towers used by cell phone companies to draw in signal patterns. The new technology, called passive radar, watches signals from common cell phone transmissions. When a plane passes through, it leaves a hole in the pattern, giving away its location.
Traditional radar -- the kind stealthy B-2 and F-117A bombers can fool with their angles and radar-absorbing paint -- sends out signals and waits for them to bounce off large objects in the sky and return."
GF.
Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!?
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
OK, for those of you who still didn't read it, the point was to get you to examine the story from a different perspective, to get you to consider for a moment the possibility that the "good guys" were really the "bad guys." It's an exercise in not being such a MTV-loving couch-potato consumer who just takes everything at face value... "oooh shiny objects and hot women, must deactivate brain while watching movie."
Brin did the same thing with Star Wars a while back -- consider the Empire as a force of good and Yoda as an arrogant turd, or some such thing. I vaguely remember the review...
This guy evidently has a drum to beat, namely to turn over various media interpretations of literature to look at them from different perspectives. Basically, he didn't need four "pages" to do this -- he could write this in a couple of paragraphs. The review seems to be mostly an exercise in being a smarty-pants who is trying call Tolkien an elitist, sexist, racist while being too cute by half. Any point he may have been trying to make was muted by his overbearing, prickly style. Classic "Salon" writing for you.
Fuck 'im. He's wrong anyway. The story isn't black and white. Saruman was good, but was corrupted and turned to evil. The King of Rohan and Denethor were good people corrupted by evil, with different results. Gollum is a mixture of good and evil, or at least evil and less evil. Butterbur is good tempered by stupidity. The "good" allies have divisions - the elves vs. dwarves. The humans vs. elves, the men of Minas Tirith and Rohan have little/no love for Galadriel and the Ents, the Steward of Gondor vs. Aragorn, etc.
I think Brin gave a simplistic reading of the book and then looked for another way to repackage his review of Star Wars in order to make some change from Salon. Coming from someone whose apparent point is to look at the "standard" tale and turn it over before making judgments, he seems to ignore much of what is in there that doesn't comport with his interpretation of the book.
GF.
Why not just use cell towers for radar?
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Recently in the ex-Yugoslav mess, I believe that there were reports of the use of cell towers to track the "stealth" bomber, so who needs radar? Besides, is the DOD planning on bombing Starbucks? One can only hope!
GF
Re:Enough with the optimism
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The elves seemed fixated on stasis, and even the things that they built (Rivendell, Lothlorien) were in part the products of the power of Sauron and were held together by the rings he created for the elves and which he vested with their power.
Sorry -- I blew it with the above statement. The elven rings were not made by Sauron, but were made by elves -- what follows is a pretty good summary of the history of the various rings.
Who made the Rings of Power? It was the Elves of Eregion who made all the rings, except for the One which Sauron forged by himself in Mount Doom.
After the defeat of Morgoth in the First Age, some of the remaining Noldorin Elves settled in Eregion and built a city called Ost-in-Edhil around the year 750 in the Second Age close to the west gate of the dwarven kingdom of Moria. About the year 1200, Sauron came among the Elves in a fair form using the name Annatar (Lord of Gifts), but with a dark plan to ensnare them. Sauron greatly desired to "persuade the Elves to his service, for he knew that the Firstborn had the greater power [Silm]." He taught them secret lore, and with this knowledge their craftsmen (a guild called the Gwaith-i-Mírdain, the People of the Jewel-smiths) created the Rings of Power which included the Seven and the Nine. But Sauron had a part in the creation of these rings and he guided the Elves in their making. However, the Three Elven Rings were conceived and made by the Elven-smith, Celebrimbor, alone, and Sauron never touched the Three.
Why were the Rings of Power Made, and what were their Powers? The reason is tied to the regret the Elves had for the passage of time. The Elves were immortal and were fated to live as long as Middle-earth lasted. As such, the earth changed with the passage of time, and the Elves saw many things that were fair become destroyed and lost by the hurts of evil. Sauron, as tempter, awoke a desire in the hearts of Elves to heal the hurts of the earth and create a paradise on this side of the sea to compare to Valinor - and to be its rulers; whereas in Valinor they were only subjects and below the Valar. The Rings of Power were primarily made to slow the passage of time and preserve their creations of beauty. Yet they had other powers as well.
Tolkien provides a revealing insight on to the nature of the Rings and their powers in one of his letters:
"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. `change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching `magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron...such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible." [Letters #131) The Rings were not made as instruments of war or domination; they could not create lightning bolts or hail storms. Yet, they conferred powers commensurate with that of the user; a Great Ring in the hands of a weak and lesser person could not work effects to the extent of the wise or great. Notice Galadriel's words to Frodo in Lothlórien:
"Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others." [FR] The Elves used the Three Rings to create "islands of timeless beauty" and guard them against the passage of time and evil. Their use can be seen at work at various points:
Elrond used the power of his ring, Vilya, to cause the flood of the river Bruinen when the Nazgûl tried to capture Frodo. Galadriel used the power of her ring, Nenya, to keep a guard on Lothlórien so that none could enter without her leave. Gandalf used the power of his ring, Narya, to kindle the hearts and spirits of the enemies of Sauron to do great deeds. But the use of the Elven Rings was possible only after Sauron was defeated in the Second Age and his Ring taken and assumed lost. If Sauron regained the One, then all the works of the Elves and the use of their Rings would be subject to the evil will of Sauron.
After 100 or so years of reckless optimism, we're finally starting to realize that the future can suck,
Or even because of technology.
One of the things I love most about Tolkien's work are the recurring themes of loss, of how the best has passed us by already, how everything degrades.
I think it is more a sentimentality, although the world of Tolkien was always haunted by a dark side - Morgoth preceded Sauron, after all. I think that Tolkien's story was more a story of the world changing than degrading. The elves seemed fixated on stasis, and even the things that they built (Rivendell, Lothlorien) were in part the products of the power of Sauron and were held together by the rings he created for the elves and which he vested with their power. The disappearance of the elves from the world could be viewed as a return to a more natural and simpler time. Lothlorien, for all its beauty and goodness, was essentially an artificial construct. Galadriel herself admitted as much in the books.
I don't think one should fashion their worldview around that kind of pessimism,
Acknowledging change doesn't need to be sad, unless one is sentimental. I think that rigid stasis is probably a worse state of affairs, as those without hope are eternally hopeless and can do nothing but despair. Those on the short end of the stick in a world where there is change can have some hope that things may get better.
but the point is that after a century of reckless optimism that has spawned all manner of recklessly misused technology, maybe a little negativity will make us think twice about the consequences of our actions.
Brin goes over how JRR Tolkien was a snobby, romantic anglo-saxon elitist, writing about WII. OK... Now tell me something I don't know!
Tolkien himself rejected this notion many times during his lifetime. The story was not a cipher for WWII or the atom bomb. It was just a story. If Brin did something more than simply topical reading/viewing, he would know this. The perpetuation of this myth is just out and out intellectual laziness.
Remember, "Any resemblance to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
I am all for the propagation of this technology. I live in an area with no broadband access whatsoever . . ..just don't put the radiating tower in my backyard . ..my kids are weird enough without growing extra appendages
I understand that you are trying to be funny, but I see sooooooo much cell tower ignorance at zoning hearings.
First of all, people (including zoning officials) do not understand that radiation levels are not something that can keep out cell towers. That is an area which has been pre-empted by federal law.
Second, they do not understand that cell phone radiation is not ionizing radiation. It cannot break chemical bonds and cause genetic mutations. It could cook you if you stood close enough and it broadcast at a high enough power, but it cannot cause cancerous changes. These people hear "radiation" and think "Godzilla" not "reading lamp". It's just blatant science ignorance.
How about having a computer for a secretary? DARPA is funding [eetasia.com] a "enduring personalized cognitive assistant." The system will be able to "reason, use represented knowledge, learn from experience, accumulate knowledge, explain itself, accept direction, be aware of its own behavior and capabilities as well as respond in a robust manner to surprises."
Great -- Clippy backed by the Department of Defense. There's a B movie plot in there somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed the same patterns of behaviour in Microsoft apologists. I'd like to propose calling this Redmond Syndrome.
/. readers crying foul as the MPEG consortium gets it in the nuts just because it is MS going after them. If anyone else had done this, there would have been loud and numerous cheers from the Amen Corner.
While the joke wasn't obviously directed at me, let me go on the record as being highly skeptical of MS and generally in favor of OSS alternatives to proprietary products. The fact of the matter is that the height of irony and hypocrisy is seeing
GF.
MSIE is not free. It is an important part of an expensive operating system.
I'm sorry, but I think I can download IE for Mac OS for free, can't I?
GF.
First, your gas analogy is a trifle flawed.
So was your initial post. The implication is that price-competition is inherently unfair, where feature competition would be ok. This is just silly. Feature competition is inextricably intertwined with pricing. If I add features, I have (probably) increased the value of my product so long as it is not bloated and confusing. Therefore, features are not independent of price, because price is simply a way of assigning value to an item. Value is value is value.
If you remove the ability of a company to compete based on "price" you therefore also remove its ability to affect the value of its product by altering feature sets. You are essentially requiring that a product remain static if a company is suffciently large to offend you.
I understand that MS has acted badly in the past. I am suspicious of them, too. However, when do we stop suspecting MS? When does their probation end?When are they allowed to make software and sell it for what they want to sell it for, even if it is only tangentially related to their monopolies in office suites and desktop OSes?
Comparison shopping is a tried and true past time these days. (Just look at sites like fatwallet.com.)
Not according to you. You want to prevent customers of MS from buying encoders and decoders at a good price. Your motive is to constrain MS, but it also constrains consumers.
The problem comes if one gas station were to come into the market and sell for something like $.40 per gallon. (The actual amount is arbitrary, as long as it is below the actual cost of getting the gas to the station.) Obviously, no competitor could reasonably keep up with prices like this. (The only way to do that would be to have supplemental income from another product/line covering these losses.)
Such as companies like AOL/Time Warner, Sony, etc.?
GF.
But the balance has shifted. No one else, and not even any other conglomerate of computer companies, has the money to piss away to develop online video like Microsoft does.
Time Warner/AOL, Sony, the movie studios, etc., will not let Microsoft abuse them, and they have very, very deep pockets. Also, the open source community is mobilized on this issue, and open source encoders/decoders and codecs are on the horizon. It's hard to beat smart zealots (in a good sense -- highly motivated and dedicated to the cause) fighting for a cause that they love.
Antitrust laws were invented because an oil company put up competitive gas stations near other gas stations, priced them out of business, and then jacked up prices. The parallels here are very real.
This is just wrong. It is the classic example that is given, but factually, it is wrong. First of all, Standard Oil got control of the oil business by being extremely aggressive and efficient and paying the best for workers. They controlled the distribution network (oil pipelines and, effectively, railroad rates). It had little to do with predatory pricing.
Incidentally, the real price of petroleum products dropped dramatically as Standard Oil consolidated the market. Standard Oil squeezed out many inefficiencies in the petroleum drilling, transportation, refining, and distribution processes and dropped an enormous amount of thoses savings into the pockets of the consumers.
Here is a nice summary, including parallels to the MS case:
http://reason.com/0111/fe.dk.antitrusts.shtml
GF.
It would definitely be a better situation that you could choose between 2+ players [evolutionary pressure on each product] and pay $25 for the quality product you want than to have only one free player available that is master of the market and not evolving.
I agree with you, except that MS will not be able to bank on being the only player in this market. There are OSS projects in the works as we speak that would be in a position to challenge MS hegemony in the future. In addition, companies like AOL, Sony, etc., would not sit still for a shitty, stagnant media delivery software.
For the low, low cost of a couple dozen engineers/programmers, they could break the lock on an MS product if the MS product were to become stagnant. I just don't see that this is a real risk in this case. Media delivery isn't an office suite or an OS. It's just not that complex, and it will be subject to the disruptive changes that can occur in technology to an extent that more massive projects may not be.
GF.
> The foul is something called dumping. The
/. crowd to cry out in defense of their rapists. It's almost a classic Stockholm Syndrome.
> practice of below cost in an effort to drive
> competitors out of the market.
At some point, this practice can become dumping. On the other hand, to some extent it represents the competitive nature of business. Cutting prices is not always dumping. Do you drive around your neighborhood to buy gas at the most-expensive place you can to avoid supporting "dumping"?
I suspect that both price levels are artificially high. Seeing the two sides cut into the costs of multimedia licensing fees is probably going to be very good for consumers of multimedia.
I am aware that MS does cut prices in order to stave off the competition and to protect encroachments on other areas where it has a monopoly (i.e. add a free IE to the "OS" in order to stave off middleware challenges to their desktop supremacy and to kill Netscape). On the other hand, are we then requiring the largest software company in the world to unilaterally stop doing anything other than matching features and prices of its competitors? That would be bad for competitors, bad for MS, and bad for consumers.
If the MPEG people feel that they are being wronged, they know where to look in the phonebook to find a beaucoup antitrust lawyer. They may be running to the press with this story in order to protect their own wallets by calling attention to this practice. Do we really know if this is going to distress the MPEG folks, or are they just crying wolf in order to protect their own fat wallets at the expense of you and I?
MPEG may be playing a very devious game here -- they could be protecting their oligopoly profits (which involve raping you and I ruthlessly) and simultaneously getting people like those in the
GF.
Have you not followed the entire Monopoly cases? Microsoft undercuts its competitors to the point where the competition simply CANNOT sell any lower because they dont have the BILLIONS in resources to stay in business like Microsoft can, their strategy is to out live the competitor.
Sooooo...Microsoft should be forced to continue to charge a high price for its product in order to benefit consumers?
GF
What security do these devices have to prevent the neighbor from eavesdropping on your powerline LAN? The power lines don't stop at the walls of your house?
Is there some sort of device you can put in at your fuse box to block data going in/out? What are the practical restrictions on someone coming up and using an external outlet at your house (none that I can see)?
This may be somewhat convenient for some applications, and perhaps more secure than wireless, but there are still some physical security issues that seem harder to address than with CAT5.
Throw in the lower level of convenience than one gets with wireless as well as a much lower rate of throughput than with 802.11a, and I don't see much more than a niche market for this sort of product.
GF.
The correct answer is "it depends on which state we are talking about." Basic agency/principal law would say that the action of the lawyer's employee would reflect on the lawyer himself/herself, and the disclosure is a clear violation of the canons of virtually every state of the Union. The devil is in the details of the Codes of Conduct of the State Bar Association.
I think that the law firm will probably get off ok on this more likely than not. Here's why:
The employee was not authorized by the law firm to do what he did. He acted on his own, not at the direction of the firm. I am guessing as well that a 19 year old does not have the authority to bind the firm as an agent or principal.
There may be a case if the hiring firm had reason to know of this person's propensity for doing such a thing or by the firm's failing to dismiss for prior indiscretions or for failing to do a reasonable background check. Basically, the tort would be something like negligent hiring. Unless the employer has reason to know that the employee would do such a thing, the employer is most likely not liable for the actions of the employee.
An analogy that is fairly familiar is that of clergy who sexually abused people. If they did this without the knowledge of the church or if the church had no reasonable way of knowing about a propensity to commit such an act prior to the act (wilfull blindness is not an "out"), the church is probably not liable for the actions of the sexual abuser.
If the clergyman abused someone, and then the church found out, and then the priest did it again, then the church would probably be liable for the second-go-round. The was a fairly major case with this fact patter in Pennsylvania a number of years ago which subjected the (protestant, I believe) church to liability.
I think your assessment that the local state bar rules will govern this is sort of right and sort of wrong. Something can violate the rules of professional conduct and still not give rise to liability. Ultimate financial responibility even in the event of negligence on behalf of the law firm could well be limited as well, depending on the degree of fault and the existence of joint and several liability rules. A firm's violation of confidentiality is a serious breach of ethical requirements for which the responsible attorney for the client could face sanctions. Financial liability for that lawyer and for the firm (and the firm's insurer) is a separate question, however.
The 19 year old tort feasor is mostly responsible for the damage to DirecTV here, and if the law firm is less than X% at fault (40% in many states -- dunno about CA), the damages would be limited to just those that are directly the result of the firm's negligence. I could easily see a jury letting a law firm completely or at least almost all the way off the hook on this one.
California could indeed be quite different than the PA law I am familiar with, however. Your point on that issue is a very good one.
Many issues here - I hope I was able to hit at least the highlights.
guac-fu.
Serebryany was charged under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, a law so powerful that until March 2002 only the most senior Justice Department officials in Washington could authorize prosecutors to wield it.
I think in bureaucratese, the proper wording is thus:
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
guaf-fu
kfg? kentucky-fried gnu?
Kentucky-fried GNU/Linux.
Guac-fu.
There is no safe career to be had in any profession today.
I am an attorney. Despite all the jokes, even my staid profession does not represent a "safe" job. Computerization and the entry into traditional legal jobs (real estate, estate planning) by people such as accountants, consultants, real estate brokers, etc., is undermining much of the bread and butter work I do.
The dream of being a 'company man' that the baby-boomer generation had just doesn't exist.
Absolutely true. You must be your own advocate. You will get jobs from companies, but your career is up to you. This is a free agent society.
Forget job security, defined skill sets and straight career paths. This uncertainty is here to stay.
The best I can say is to network constantly -- in case your job goes away, it helps to have an ear to the tracks to know where you can find work. Professional organizations are very useful for this.
Keep current as best you can through continuing education. Try to get recognition as an expert in an area of your profession. Publish so that you get to be better known.
Unfortunately, simply coming to work each day and doing your job isn't enough. You have to be ready to move if problems surface. It is a very dynamic society that we live in, and a global one. This makes it very difficult for individuals who can get whipsawed by macro trends.
One final thought -- to the extent that you can, you need to plan for a dynamic world not only professionally, but financially. When you have a job, you should remember what it is like not to have one. Your financial plans should reflect this, and you should do your best to build up an emergency fund in case you get laid off unexpectedly. Also, if there is a significant chance that your employment will be interrupted, consider carefully whether you really want to buy that new car on a five year payment plan.
Instability in the workforce isn't going away, and on our own, we really can't avoid it. About the best I can figure is (1) to recognize that the game is different than it was twenty years ago and (2) try to play the new game by the new rules and (3) plan my education and finances in such a way as to prevent it from interfering with my personal affairs too much.
GF.
Nightmare scenario, you fall asleep without your ring on, and awaken to the sound of a burgler, but forget your magic ring.
The only problem is the baggage associated with this sort of Ring. AFAIK, there is no volcano in New Jersey, so when someone develops One Ring (tm) technology to control the actions of Magic Ring (tm) wearers, what is to prevent him, and his army of orcs, from taking over the state in a coup d'etat?
GF.
"of course do what you want, but be wary of anyone trying to sell you something - be it a car or an idea."
The media, as a general rule, does not sell ideas. It sells readers' eyeballs/brains/wallets to advertisers. Content is to media as candy is to pedophiles.
GF.
John:
Just post under your normal user name. There's nothing wrong with pimping your own project. No need to AC-post.
GF.
I don't think his intention was to provide a realistic analysis of LotR as much as to play a mindgame--the last page of his article indicates this. He was trying to show how to think about the stuff you read, rather than just taking it entirely at face value.
I think his point -- be a critical consumer of anything people try to pump into you ear and eye holes -- is an excellent one.
On the other hand, his "mind game" shows an abysmal ignorance of the book. To wit:
Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colors of humanity, and all the lower classes.
Did Sauron's army have dwarves? Ents? Hobbits?
The whole article is rife with this sort of thing.
He makes some interesting points, but on the whole, he is simply obnoxious, annoying, and frequently wrong about the book. I think he is more or less just trying to capitalize on T2T as a vehicle to allow him to jerk himself off in public on Salon. He did the same thing with Star Wars. His shtick is getting old.
That doesn't mean I don't like Tolkien. But there's no need to be so hard on Brin, who is, after all, a writer himself.
It doesn't strike me that Brin is a wallflower. He publishes for money in a very public venue. I don't feel the least bit bad about being hard on him. My recollection is that his Star Wars review and the LOTR review are at the least fraternal twins. As hard as he beats his drum, he only needs to do it once, IMHO.
As far as anything involving good and evil being necessarily black and white, I don't buy it. Gradations of morality, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity are possible within a good/evil battle. I think that those grey areas are quite evident in LOTR. Brin doesn't buy it. Fine. Evidently, you buy into his position. I think you're both wrong. We disagree.
Regarding one of your final points:
I'd like to write something that can provide meaningful social commentary, without the cliched and shallow idea that people can be "good" and "evil" and that good must always win.
I think that is a neat-o idea. I think that to some extent it was done by JRRT. Good did prevail, but only just. The "good" victors suffered significant consequences as a result of the war, and nobody really emerges unscathed. The climactic moment involved a hopelessly corrupted creature, Gollum, doing the work of the "good" side when he accidentally destroys the Ring. Frodo, at the last, is corrupted by it and cannot destroy it. The quest failed, but the world was saved by luck alone.
The scouring of the Shire and the departure by Gandalf, Frodo, et al, from the Grey Havens at the end of ROTK doesn't strike me as being a particularly happy ending. Frodo never recovered fully from his experiences with the Ring. Much that was "good" in Middle Earth passed as a result of the destruction of the Ring.
Sauron was able to survive his near death experience to nearly prevail at the end by preying on the ambition and weakness of men (Isildur keeping the Ring), the vanity of the elves (who made the rings, except the One), the pride of the dwarves (delving too deep and nearly causing the death of Gandalf), and some weakness in the hobbits (Smeagol). The "good" races all suffered from some major faults.
The end of the book cannot really be described as a classic "happy ending" -- it is really much more sophisticated than that. Brin simply did a disservice to the book by giving it a superficial reading.
I certainly wish you well with your project, but I wouldn't look to Brin as being an inspiration or anything.
GF.
According to this article it was a modification of existing radar.
According to the same article, it was also radar based on interpreting cel tower signals:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's stealth bombers may be in danger of having their cover blown by a new type of radar that uses cell phone technology, researchers say.
The Air Force says the problem is limited and America's stealth fleet is in no danger. Yet U.S. intelligence reports label the radar a serious threat, and several scientists say they agree.
"We're talking about radar technology that can pinpoint almost any disturbance in the atmosphere," said Hugh Brownstone, a physicist at the Intergon Research Center in New York who has worked for the cell phone giant Nokia.
"You might not be able to distinguish between a stealth plane and a normal one, but you might not need to," he said. "The point is, you can see the stealth plane as a blip."
The potential risk comes from radar towers used by cell phone companies to draw in signal patterns. The new technology, called passive radar, watches signals from common cell phone transmissions. When a plane passes through, it leaves a hole in the pattern, giving away its location.
Traditional radar -- the kind stealthy B-2 and F-117A bombers can fool with their angles and radar-absorbing paint -- sends out signals and waits for them to bounce off large objects in the sky and return."
GF.
OK, for those of you who still didn't read it, the point was to get you to examine the story from a different perspective, to get you to consider for a moment the possibility that the "good guys" were really the "bad guys." It's an exercise in not being such a MTV-loving couch-potato consumer who just takes everything at face value... "oooh shiny objects and hot women, must deactivate brain while watching movie."
Brin did the same thing with Star Wars a while back -- consider the Empire as a force of good and Yoda as an arrogant turd, or some such thing. I vaguely remember the review...
This guy evidently has a drum to beat, namely to turn over various media interpretations of literature to look at them from different perspectives. Basically, he didn't need four "pages" to do this -- he could write this in a couple of paragraphs. The review seems to be mostly an exercise in being a smarty-pants who is trying call Tolkien an elitist, sexist, racist while being too cute by half. Any point he may have been trying to make was muted by his overbearing, prickly style. Classic "Salon" writing for you.
Fuck 'im. He's wrong anyway. The story isn't black and white. Saruman was good, but was corrupted and turned to evil. The King of Rohan and Denethor were good people corrupted by evil, with different results. Gollum is a mixture of good and evil, or at least evil and less evil. Butterbur is good tempered by stupidity. The "good" allies have divisions - the elves vs. dwarves. The humans vs. elves, the men of Minas Tirith and Rohan have little/no love for Galadriel and the Ents, the Steward of Gondor vs. Aragorn, etc.
I think Brin gave a simplistic reading of the book and then looked for another way to repackage his review of Star Wars in order to make some change from Salon. Coming from someone whose apparent point is to look at the "standard" tale and turn it over before making judgments, he seems to ignore much of what is in there that doesn't comport with his interpretation of the book.
GF.
Recently in the ex-Yugoslav mess, I believe that there were reports of the use of cell towers to track the "stealth" bomber, so who needs radar? Besides, is the DOD planning on bombing Starbucks? One can only hope!
GF
The elves seemed fixated on stasis, and even the things that they built (Rivendell, Lothlorien) were in part the products of the power of Sauron and were held together by the rings he created for the elves and which he vested with their power.
:
Sorry -- I blew it with the above statement. The elven rings were not made by Sauron, but were made by elves -- what follows is a pretty good summary of the history of the various rings.
Who made the Rings of Power?
It was the Elves of Eregion who made all the rings, except for the One which Sauron forged by himself in Mount Doom.
After the defeat of Morgoth in the First Age, some of the remaining Noldorin Elves settled in Eregion and built a city called Ost-in-Edhil around the year 750 in the Second Age close to the west gate of the dwarven kingdom of Moria. About the year 1200, Sauron came among the Elves in a fair form using the name Annatar (Lord of Gifts), but with a dark plan to ensnare them. Sauron greatly desired to "persuade the Elves to his service, for he knew that the Firstborn had the greater power [Silm]." He taught them secret lore, and with this knowledge their craftsmen (a guild called the Gwaith-i-Mírdain, the People of the Jewel-smiths) created the Rings of Power which included the Seven and the Nine. But Sauron had a part in the creation of these rings and he guided the Elves in their making. However, the Three Elven Rings were conceived and made by the Elven-smith, Celebrimbor, alone, and Sauron never touched the Three.
Why were the Rings of Power Made, and what were their Powers?
The reason is tied to the regret the Elves had for the passage of time. The Elves were immortal and were fated to live as long as Middle-earth lasted. As such, the earth changed with the passage of time, and the Elves saw many things that were fair become destroyed and lost by the hurts of evil. Sauron, as tempter, awoke a desire in the hearts of Elves to heal the hurts of the earth and create a paradise on this side of the sea to compare to Valinor - and to be its rulers; whereas in Valinor they were only subjects and below the Valar. The Rings of Power were primarily made to slow the passage of time and preserve their creations of beauty. Yet they had other powers as well.
Tolkien provides a revealing insight on to the nature of the Rings and their powers in one of his letters:
"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. `change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching `magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron...such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible." [Letters #131)
The Rings were not made as instruments of war or domination; they could not create lightning bolts or hail storms. Yet, they conferred powers commensurate with that of the user; a Great Ring in the hands of a weak and lesser person could not work effects to the extent of the wise or great. Notice Galadriel's words to Frodo in Lothlórien:
"Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others." [FR]
The Elves used the Three Rings to create "islands of timeless beauty" and guard them against the passage of time and evil. Their use can be seen at work at various points
Elrond used the power of his ring, Vilya, to cause the flood of the river Bruinen when the Nazgûl tried to capture Frodo.
Galadriel used the power of her ring, Nenya, to keep a guard on Lothlórien so that none could enter without her leave.
Gandalf used the power of his ring, Narya, to kindle the hearts and spirits of the enemies of Sauron to do great deeds.
But the use of the Elven Rings was possible only after Sauron was defeated in the Second Age and his Ring taken and assumed lost. If Sauron regained the One, then all the works of the Elves and the use of their Rings would be subject to the evil will of Sauron.
GF
After 100 or so years of reckless optimism, we're finally starting to realize that the future can suck,
Or even because of technology.
One of the things I love most about Tolkien's work are the recurring themes of loss, of how the best has passed us by already, how everything degrades.
I think it is more a sentimentality, although the world of Tolkien was always haunted by a dark side - Morgoth preceded Sauron, after all. I think that Tolkien's story was more a story of the world changing than degrading. The elves seemed fixated on stasis, and even the things that they built (Rivendell, Lothlorien) were in part the products of the power of Sauron and were held together by the rings he created for the elves and which he vested with their power. The disappearance of the elves from the world could be viewed as a return to a more natural and simpler time. Lothlorien, for all its beauty and goodness, was essentially an artificial construct. Galadriel herself admitted as much in the books.
I don't think one should fashion their worldview around that kind of pessimism,
Acknowledging change doesn't need to be sad, unless one is sentimental. I think that rigid stasis is probably a worse state of affairs, as those without hope are eternally hopeless and can do nothing but despair. Those on the short end of the stick in a world where there is change can have some hope that things may get better.
but the point is that after a century of reckless optimism that has spawned all manner of recklessly misused technology, maybe a little negativity will make us think twice about the consequences of our actions.
Indeed. Not all change is for the better.
GF
Brin goes over how JRR Tolkien was a snobby, romantic anglo-saxon elitist, writing about WII. OK... Now tell me something I don't know!
Tolkien himself rejected this notion many times during his lifetime. The story was not a cipher for WWII or the atom bomb. It was just a story. If Brin did something more than simply topical reading/viewing, he would know this. The perpetuation of this myth is just out and out intellectual laziness.
Remember, "Any resemblance to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
GF
I am all for the propagation of this technology. I live in an area with no broadband access whatsoever . . . .just don't put the radiating tower in my backyard . . .my kids are weird enough without growing extra appendages
I understand that you are trying to be funny, but I see sooooooo much cell tower ignorance at zoning hearings.
First of all, people (including zoning officials) do not understand that radiation levels are not something that can keep out cell towers. That is an area which has been pre-empted by federal law.
Second, they do not understand that cell phone radiation is not ionizing radiation. It cannot break chemical bonds and cause genetic mutations. It could cook you if you stood close enough and it broadcast at a high enough power, but it cannot cause cancerous changes. These people hear "radiation" and think "Godzilla" not "reading lamp". It's just blatant science ignorance.
GF.
How about having a computer for a secretary? DARPA is funding [eetasia.com] a "enduring personalized cognitive assistant." The system will be able to "reason, use represented knowledge, learn from experience, accumulate knowledge, explain itself, accept direction, be aware of its own behavior and capabilities as well as respond in a robust manner to surprises."
Great -- Clippy backed by the Department of Defense. There's a B movie plot in there somewhere.
GF.