This is being compared to Bush's alleged prior knowledge, which is well documented here by a rather odd but passionate fellow who has collected much evidence on the matter.
The link is here. However, I doubt anyone will read this, as my karma is so bad it's below anyone's normal threshold.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
So what?
Ok, I don't think you're trolling per se, but you certainly don't understand all of the poster's points. He's talking about Hitler burning the Reichstag (the ruling "House" in Germany at the time) secretly in order to alter Germany's mindset into being "ready" for "turbulent times" and warfare (and to prepare to lose rights and cede control). This is being compared to Bush's alleged prior knowledge, which is well documented here by a rather odd but passionate fellow who has collected much evidence on the matter. I don't know if I believe it myself, but if you want you can read the material yourself. You cannot, however, shrug this point of with a "So what"...if Bush did have prior knowledge, then this is both an extremely important connection to make and possibly the the most scary statement in the parent post.
Too bad it isn't one. The worst part of this, however, is not that a corp. can necessarily own a man's ideas in his head (albeit that is bad). Quite possibly the worst bit of it is that this sets the precedent for actually upholding these extreme "legal" documents. For years, many didn't mind skipping license agreements (thanks to GNU, Linux, BSD, now we don't have to) in Windows programs. I understand that NDAs and EULAs are different--but the spirit of this decision can easily be carried over, and now the idle threats made by companies can become harsh, legal punishments.
I think that tactic was mostly used by porn/warez/mp3/etc sites to advertise...people would constantly be flooded with links to the Pam and Tommy Lee videos, for instance. Now that file sharing has be come so common, people don't go to those sites anymore. Also, I can't verify this, but it's possible that because of so many people using broadband connections, they can host homegrown ftp sites, as another alternative to the relatively fruitless search of decent illegal sites (though I would imagine pop-up disabling in mozilla would facilitate this).
I was like 7 when these things came out, and I saw people using it on TV. I honestly thought that one could control the d-pad by hand movements. I was so let down when I saw a friends--it's a gamepad stuck on a glove. The only really cool gadget was the Nintendo Zapper--I have spent many hours trying to figure that thing out. I mean, with the technology had then, at that price, and being able to sense how far away it was from the tv? Whoa...I assume the light (phosphorized coat something or other hehe someone technical please explain this) from the tv made its way into the zapper. What did it do then? There appears to be very sparse electronics in the internals...did it accurately determine the position of the tv relative to the "barrel" and computed x-y coordinates based on that? Someone please help out I'm stumped...
Fair enough. Skepticism on the part of the courts system could have actually broken up MS instead of giving them hundreds of new (albeit younger) customers and a fine that can be paid easily by Microsoft's Custodial department.
I like what Bruce Perens says in the article, and I do have a few thoughts (i.e. rants) in general (not with the article; the article merely touches on some huge problems I have with this whole situation):
Choice Through Interoperability
No user should be required to use a particular product simply because other users do. Competing products should interoperate with each other through open standards.
That's a really good idea, however as was said in the article, "embrace and extend" makes Microsoft go beyond open standards. There is no way to prevent this. I would love it if this were the case, but Microsoft has too much leverage here. There's no way to stop Microsoft's policy too, because they would only claim that their zillion dollar investments in research and innovation are stifled. And what happens when some patented, closed down embedded bit becomes a feature users rely on? Say extended proprietary controls embedded in MS HTML that allows users to IM their senators via Windows Messenger (in a way that becomes very common to them but cannot be made via FrontPage because the tags simply download an encrypted applet from MS). This same priciple would be reversely applied: MS says "Nobody (i.e. the people browsing webpages) should be excluded from (in this case) a superior product because everyone else (using the open standards) is using something differrent. Again, I like what Bruce Perens is saying, but I'm a bit fearful of what MS could do to get around this (if my fears are unnecessary, please respond with reasons not to be).
How was Intel taken in? They didn't have any choice. Intel can't afford to lose Micrsoft's support for its new bet-the-company Itanium 64-bit processor family. Without Microsoft, the Itanium will become another DEC ALPHA - a 64-bit architecture that lost much of its market after Microsoft announced that Windows wouldn't support it. Intel needs more than a just a Windows port - it needs an excellent windows port, with Microsoft's enthusiastic support egging customers on to make the transition to the new architecture. Microsoft's price for this is for Intel to downplay its Linux involvement and support Microsoft's monopolistic initiatives.
It's amazing how much we are in a stranglehold by Microsoft here. At first I thought actually that Intel could do fine, since people would immediately know that MS pulled Itanium support because Intel refused to go along with them. Then I realized a few crafty MSNBC/MSN/ZDNET articles could really start turning the tide. And not to mention MS sponsored bench-marks, which they've done before. They could ruin it for Intel.
Well said, and I agree with you about the media. However, my claim is that there is a double standard, i.e. no matter what M$ does, they're doing something bad, but we don't place others under the same level scrutiny. We should scrutinize them when they do wrong--just not make it an automatic process. Many have lost their capacity to think *critically* and analyze situations. Instead of getting down on M$ for _not_ using the DMCA, we should attack all instances of the DMCA, because it truly is a horrible bill.
I don't really get this point. One of our founding fathers invented something and believed that such inventions and ideas should be openly shared for the benefit of everyone (before R&D costs totalled to the millions). Open-source and free software advocates believe the same. What are we going to do, call up our friendly-neighborhood software giant and say "Hey man! You think we're so un-American for being open and sharing so much, but lo! Uncle Benny played a mean armonica, and he wanted everyone to benefit from the free and unhindered proliferation of inventions and ideas. So there! Get off our backs." Or perhaps a letter to the senator?
Sorry, just a bit ridiculous for me. However, I do like the fact bit itself, just not the underlying implications. If no one else sees them, that's cool. Mod me down if you must, I can see how this could be seen as flaimbat. I personally however strongly want to support GNU/Linux, etc, and feel this is the wrong way to go about doing it. I believe we should continue to simply make good free and open software, and work to enlighten others to their advantages. Therefore, you could say I'm not upset with the article itself, but saw a prime example of a particular sentiment that bothers me.
I was really hinting at a larger concept outlined in Milton Friedman's essay regarding the social and ethical responsibility of corporate exectives. The idea that companies should be directed by their shareholders, and the CEO's and boards should act in their interests, keeping everything open. Like any other economic model, it's idealistic to the point of being somewhat of a theoretical extreme. However, the point that I was trying to apply to M$ is that trying to work to benefit shareholders and also customers can coincide with "the right thing." We shouldn't automatically suspect them of foul play. (I'm certainly not accusing you of not sort of "getting my wonderful point that was so rudely rebutted" like many do on/.) I just felt the need to clarify my original post.
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Why is obligation to shareholders bad? It's a delicate economical system that works fine. If the Enron execs had felt the obligation to shareholders, instead of themselves, than the company would have continued to grow in a reasonable, time tested manner.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle [eff.org] and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
Look, with the recent usage of the DMCA by HP and others, it's obvious "M$" could have used it. The question was raised by the student, not M$, when he went to the EFF. M$ responded, and gave a fine reason. I'm against their business practices too, but they clearly responded to this in a clear, rational way. Average Joe does that, it's good thinking. M$ does it, it's conspiring to control everyone.
The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
Allright, there ya go. Apply this idea to what M$ did. Please, please, please, get your (general public who shares this view) mind off autopilot and find real reasons why M$ is bad--there's abounding evidence as to why they're a very good thing, lets focus on how M$ is an out-of-control exception and the benefits of competition are gone because of monopolization. It makes more sense, and is more likely to gain success.
Slashdot Mirror
This is being compared to Bush's alleged prior knowledge, which is well documented here by a rather odd but passionate fellow who has collected much evidence on the matter.
The link is here. However, I doubt anyone will read this, as my karma is so bad it's below anyone's normal threshold.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
So what?
Ok, I don't think you're trolling per se, but you certainly don't understand all of the poster's points. He's talking about Hitler burning the Reichstag (the ruling "House" in Germany at the time) secretly in order to alter Germany's mindset into being "ready" for "turbulent times" and warfare (and to prepare to lose rights and cede control). This is being compared to Bush's alleged prior knowledge, which is well documented here by a rather odd but passionate fellow who has collected much evidence on the matter. I don't know if I believe it myself, but if you want you can read the material yourself. You cannot, however, shrug this point of with a "So what"...if Bush did have prior knowledge, then this is both an extremely important connection to make and possibly the the most scary statement in the parent post.
Too bad it isn't one. The worst part of this, however, is not that a corp. can necessarily own a man's ideas in his head (albeit that is bad). Quite possibly the worst bit of it is that this sets the precedent for actually upholding these extreme "legal" documents. For years, many didn't mind skipping license agreements (thanks to GNU, Linux, BSD, now we don't have to) in Windows programs. I understand that NDAs and EULAs are different--but the spirit of this decision can easily be carried over, and now the idle threats made by companies can become harsh, legal punishments.
I think that tactic was mostly used by porn/warez/mp3/etc sites to advertise...people would constantly be flooded with links to the Pam and Tommy Lee videos, for instance. Now that file sharing has be come so common, people don't go to those sites anymore. Also, I can't verify this, but it's possible that because of so many people using broadband connections, they can host homegrown ftp sites, as another alternative to the relatively fruitless search of decent illegal sites (though I would imagine pop-up disabling in mozilla would facilitate this).
I was like 7 when these things came out, and I saw people using it on TV. I honestly thought that one could control the d-pad by hand movements. I was so let down when I saw a friends--it's a gamepad stuck on a glove. The only really cool gadget was the Nintendo Zapper--I have spent many hours trying to figure that thing out. I mean, with the technology had then, at that price, and being able to sense how far away it was from the tv? Whoa...I assume the light (phosphorized coat something or other hehe someone technical please explain this) from the tv made its way into the zapper. What did it do then? There appears to be very sparse electronics in the internals...did it accurately determine the position of the tv relative to the "barrel" and computed x-y coordinates based on that? Someone please help out I'm stumped...
Fair enough. Skepticism on the part of the courts system could have actually broken up MS instead of giving them hundreds of new (albeit younger) customers and a fine that can be paid easily by Microsoft's Custodial department.
I like what Bruce Perens says in the article, and I do have a few thoughts (i.e. rants) in general (not with the article; the article merely touches on some huge problems I have with this whole situation):
Choice Through Interoperability No user should be required to use a particular product simply because other users do. Competing products should interoperate with each other through open standards.
That's a really good idea, however as was said in the article, "embrace and extend" makes Microsoft go beyond open standards. There is no way to prevent this. I would love it if this were the case, but Microsoft has too much leverage here. There's no way to stop Microsoft's policy too, because they would only claim that their zillion dollar investments in research and innovation are stifled. And what happens when some patented, closed down embedded bit becomes a feature users rely on? Say extended proprietary controls embedded in MS HTML that allows users to IM their senators via Windows Messenger (in a way that becomes very common to them but cannot be made via FrontPage because the tags simply download an encrypted applet from MS). This same priciple would be reversely applied: MS says "Nobody (i.e. the people browsing webpages) should be excluded from (in this case) a superior product because everyone else (using the open standards) is using something differrent. Again, I like what Bruce Perens is saying, but I'm a bit fearful of what MS could do to get around this (if my fears are unnecessary, please respond with reasons not to be).
How was Intel taken in? They didn't have any choice. Intel can't afford to lose Micrsoft's support for its new bet-the-company Itanium 64-bit processor family. Without Microsoft, the Itanium will become another DEC ALPHA - a 64-bit architecture that lost much of its market after Microsoft announced that Windows wouldn't support it. Intel needs more than a just a Windows port - it needs an excellent windows port, with Microsoft's enthusiastic support egging customers on to make the transition to the new architecture. Microsoft's price for this is for Intel to downplay its Linux involvement and support Microsoft's monopolistic initiatives.
It's amazing how much we are in a stranglehold by Microsoft here. At first I thought actually that Intel could do fine, since people would immediately know that MS pulled Itanium support because Intel refused to go along with them. Then I realized a few crafty MSNBC/MSN/ZDNET articles could really start turning the tide. And not to mention MS sponsored bench-marks, which they've done before. They could ruin it for Intel.
Well said, and I agree with you about the media. However, my claim is that there is a double standard, i.e. no matter what M$ does, they're doing something bad, but we don't place others under the same level scrutiny. We should scrutinize them when they do wrong--just not make it an automatic process. Many have lost their capacity to think *critically* and analyze situations. Instead of getting down on M$ for _not_ using the DMCA, we should attack all instances of the DMCA, because it truly is a horrible bill.
Sorry, just a bit ridiculous for me. However, I do like the fact bit itself, just not the underlying implications. If no one else sees them, that's cool. Mod me down if you must, I can see how this could be seen as flaimbat. I personally however strongly want to support GNU/Linux, etc, and feel this is the wrong way to go about doing it. I believe we should continue to simply make good free and open software, and work to enlighten others to their advantages. Therefore, you could say I'm not upset with the article itself, but saw a prime example of a particular sentiment that bothers me.
I was really hinting at a larger concept outlined in Milton Friedman's essay regarding the social and ethical responsibility of corporate exectives. The idea that companies should be directed by their shareholders, and the CEO's and boards should act in their interests, keeping everything open. Like any other economic model, it's idealistic to the point of being somewhat of a theoretical extreme. However, the point that I was trying to apply to M$ is that trying to work to benefit shareholders and also customers can coincide with "the right thing." We shouldn't automatically suspect them of foul play. (I'm certainly not accusing you of not sort of "getting my wonderful point that was so rudely rebutted" like many do on /.) I just felt the need to clarify my original post.
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Why is obligation to shareholders bad? It's a delicate economical system that works fine. If the Enron execs had felt the obligation to shareholders, instead of themselves, than the company would have continued to grow in a reasonable, time tested manner.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle [eff.org] and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
Look, with the recent usage of the DMCA by HP and others, it's obvious "M$" could have used it. The question was raised by the student, not M$, when he went to the EFF. M$ responded, and gave a fine reason. I'm against their business practices too, but they clearly responded to this in a clear, rational way. Average Joe does that, it's good thinking. M$ does it, it's conspiring to control everyone.
The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
Allright, there ya go. Apply this idea to what M$ did. Please, please, please, get your (general public who shares this view) mind off autopilot and find real reasons why M$ is bad--there's abounding evidence as to why they're a very good thing, lets focus on how M$ is an out-of-control exception and the benefits of competition are gone because of monopolization. It makes more sense, and is more likely to gain success.