The fact that Passpoer is being ported to linux means nothing, really. For a system to exist people have ot use it. The base of linux users who actually register for passport (especially those who use linux because it isn't MS) will be very small.
I didn't see anything in the article about the Passport client being ported. MS is only porting the Passport server because people have asked them to.
Why did MS comissioned a small company to port Passport server software?
Who else would they comission for something like this? Almost every big software company is one of Microsoft's competitors, as are most Unix/Linux developers. Small companies are probably the only software houses that will do business with MS any more.
There isn't (in fact most public utilities are government-sanctioned monopolies) HOWEVER, it is illegal to use one monopoly to attempt to force the creation of another (bad wording, let me try again) You can't leverage one monopoly to create another.
Exactly my point. No monopoly in itself is illegal, it's what they choose to do with the monopoly (restraint of trade, leveraging the monopoly to gain another monopoly) that is illegal. Unfortunately, they don't have some sort of declaration of monopoly status before they can bring you up on trial for abuse of a monopoly, either.
(For example: if the Xbox wipes out Sony, Nintendo, et al Their US divisions could probably sue the crap out of Microsoft, because Microsoft used the profits from it's Windows monopoly to subsidize the Xbox, and are trying to force people who develop for windows and console to develop on Xbox (though not in those terms)(see EA's reaction to Xbox's licencing, for a much better explanation)(Though I seriously doubt Xbox will)
They could sue them, but I don't think they'd get anywhere in an antitrust case unless Microsoft really started using tactics similar to what they used with IE or Windows (getting vendors to not sell or understock PS2s and Gamecubes would be the rough equivalent).
Basically a monopoly is not illegal. A monopoly that is used to create others is illegal (see so called 'anti-trust' acts (example of Windows creating monopolies or at the least attempted monopolies of IE, MS Office (though they may not be legally declared monopolies, and I think their percent is lower than reported, but they are very high.)
There's a good chance that an Office monopoly was generated by leveraging existing product monopolies (Excel for instance), but it's not likely that it was generated by the Windows monopoly (though there are some things that showed they may have used Windows to bolster Office share and vice versa). They also have a very large share of the market for IDEs with Visual Studio (and/or it's components) in something like the 90% range.
Those are all related to illegal restraint of trade or illegal abuse of a monopoly (Sherman Act). The monopoly itself is not illegal, but leveraging it to prevent others from competing is.
I would assume that the Samba team is looking for particular messaging protocols, not an API. CIFS is one of the protocols implemented by Samba, and you'll notice that it's on the list I linked to.
A networking protocol cannot make 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together, but an API could. A networking protocol can, however, make two machines work better together, whereas an API that did so would probably still use some protocol or another to transmit information. The only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow (perhaps to improve CIFS or implement a different protocol), but they could really do something along those lines with existing information if they wanted to.
Thats when the DOJ really fell apart. They got their teeth taken straight from them. No breakup, no big stick, no good settlement
The appeals court also took away a lot of their case by stating that they hadn't sufficiently proved portions of their case and couldn't continue with those portions (a lot of the integration stuff for instance). Most of what they're left with is contractual terms that MS had with ISPs, ISVs, OEMs, etc, which makes a strong case for restricting their contracts, but doesn't leave them with a whole lot of ground to stand on with the software Microsoft develops.
If the judge does decide to throw out the settlements and conclude the case, there're still quite a few portions of the case that the appeals court has stated have to be reheard before they can even get to the penalties phase. It's going to be a long one if they don't settle it, and they haven't even been in court in months.
Make anyone who SELLS closed source software liable for faults in their software that disrupt business, corrupt data, and lose revenue. You'll see Microsoft's cash pile drop like a rock.
You'd also see Microsoft shut down all support for versions of Windows previous to XP and.Net, and all versions of Office previous to XP, or, at the very least, force it into the settlement that they are not liable for software produced before the settlement. The alternative would be to simply release everything under a restricted open source license.
Of course, under a plan that required all closed source software to be financially backed by the developer (oh yeah, Microsoft doesn't sell their software directly to end-users anyway), Microsoft would probably be the only closed-source developer that could survive, precisely because of that pile of cash.
I always had the theory that it would make sense for MS to have certain "special" ways to hook a program into Windoze that only they knew about. Now that it's proven, I think that just making them give up the goods is not enough punishment.
Oh please, you can see the list of protocols that are covered. http://microsoft.com/legal/protocols/protocols.asp I'd like to know how MS' implementation of IPv4 or Firewire is a secret hook for a program to get into Windows. The API portions of the release are openly available to anyone without an NDA.
While I agree that the system should be moving more quickly on this case, it's distressing to see people ignore what's actually happened.
If they have been convicted, punish them. Don't let the accused decide their fate. Would the justice department let a killer decide their sentence? I dont think so.
They were 'convicted' and went to appeal. The appeals court overturned several portions of the case and remanded it back to the lower court to rehear portions of the case that weren't properly conducted the first time around. The judge assigned to the lower court then told the justice department, states, and Microsoft to find a way to settle the case. If that is successful, essentially there's little chance that Microsoft will actually have been convicted of anything, because settlements rarely require an admission of guilt or wrongdoing.
What bothers me about this whole thing is that if the courts ignored the appeals process and/or the normal process in court (as the appeals court found was done in the case) for any person or company that was on the good side of this community, people would be screaming bloody murder for what the courts did to screw them. Instead, because it's Microsoft, people are screaming for Microsoft's heads and actually asking the courts to ignore due process.
You can have it one way or the other, but not both. If you want the courts to behave correctly with the people you like, you have to accept that they'll do it with people you don't like. If you're going to call for the right to appeal to be revoked and for the process of a trial to be butchered, then you'd better be prepared to accept it if you or someone you like is on trial.
They can do whatever they want to Microsoft for all I care, but they'd damned well better do it right. Judges screwing with the process are just going to get their rulings overturned or remanded, which wastes everyone's time and money.
If that doesn't work for some reason, just try searching for 'The Microsoft Windows User Experience' or 'Official Guidelines for User Interface Developers and Designers'
I don't think they keep it up to date very well. It was at one time a book they sold in hard copy. Since then they've mostly just issued small guides that cover specifics for new versions of Windows. For instance, when WinXP was due for release they had an extensive guide on how to create icons in photoshop to fit with the design of the new icons in XP.
If you would read the actual Apple HIG, they say that apps which are meant to replace a real-world item/function (such as Calculator, iCal, iTunes) should be built with the brushed metal look. All other apps should use the default, untextured look. Just thinking over the apps included in OS X, it seems to me like they follow this guideline fairly closely.
Except that they only added that to the HIG after 10.2 was released. Not to mention that some of their choices are questionable in terms of both using and not using the brushed metal look. Let's not even go into the fact that QuickTime on Windows breaks almost every design guideline for Windows (and most people didn't even realize there were guidelines for Windows, it's a much smaller document than Apple's anyway).
The appeals court was far from wrong legally. As for ethics, the laws applied are in regards to ethics, and if they were ethically wrong, the laws should be changed.
From the US Court of Appeals Opinion:
While some of the Code's Canons frequently generate questions about their application, others are straightforward and easily understood. Canon 3A(6) is an example of the latter. In forbidding federal judges to comment publicly "on the merits of a pending or impending action," Canon 3A(6) applies to cases pending before any court, state or federal, trial or appellate. See Jeffrey M. Shaman et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics s 10.34, at 353 (3d ed. 2000). As "impending" indicates, the prohibition begins even before a case enters the court system, when there is reason to believe a case may be filed. Cf. E. Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct 54 (1973). An action remains "pending" until "completion of the appellate process." Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) cmt.; Comm. on Codes of Conduct, Adv. Op. No. 55 (1998).
The Microsoft case was "pending" during every one of the District Judge's meetings with reporters; the case is "pending" now; and even after our decision issues, it will remain pending for some time....
The problem here is not just what the District Judge said, but to whom he said it and when. His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates, his mule trainer analogy as a reason for his remedy--all of these remarks and others might not have given rise to a violation of the Canons or of s 455(a) had he uttered them from the bench. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56; Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) (exception to prohibition on public comments for "statements made in the course of the judge's official duties"). But then Microsoft would have had an opportunity to object, perhaps even to persuade, and the Judge would have made a record for review on appeal. It is an altogether different matter when the statements are made outside the courtroom, in private meetings unknown to the parties, in anticipation that ultimately the Judge's remarks would be reported. Rather than manifesting neutrality and impartiality, the reports of the interviews with the District Judge convey the impression of a judge posturing for posterity, trying to please the reporters with colorful analogies and observations bound to wind up in the stories they write. Members of the public may reasonably question whether the District Judge's desire for press coverage influenced his judgments, indeed whether a publicity-seeking judge might consciously or subconsciously seek the publicity-maximizing outcome. We believe, therefore, that the District Judge's interviews with reporters created an appearance that he was not acting impartially, as the Code of Conduct and s 455(a) require....
The most serious judicial misconduct occurred near or during the remedial stage. It is therefore commensurate that our remedy focus on that stage of the case. The District Judge's impatience with what he viewed as intransigence on the part of the company; his refusal to allow an evidentiary hearing; his analogizing Microsoft to Japan at the end of World War II; his story about the mule--all of these out-of-court remarks and others, plus the Judge's evident efforts to please the press, would give a reasonable, informed observer cause to question his impartiality in ordering the company split in two.
To repeat, we disqualify the District Judge retroactive only to the imposition of the remedy, and thus vacate the remedy order for the reasons given in Section V and because of the appearance of partiality created by the District Judge's misconduct.
Would you be allowed to answer the question *after* a guilty verdict was already decided, and the only thing left to choose was the severity of the sentence? I'm not sure at what point the ban on talking about it gets lifted. Jackson didn't say the things that got him thrown off the case until after the findings of fact were published.
BOth the article and the appeals court's opinion state that he made the statements well before they were published, and requested that the reporters not publish them until afterwards. That's quite different from not making the statements until afterwards, and, as the appeals court said, implied that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
A class that provides VC++ examples is fine. But one that requires you to write "VC++" code rather than C++ code, is a waste of time.
He says he gets his work done in vim. Though he didn't mention what compiler he's using, I doubt that they're using a lot of compiler-specific code. I've taken a lot of courses that teach on VC++, but very few of them use the wizards and VC++-specific code (and any one that did would certainly worry me). In my opinion, VC++ has a much better editor than most of the alternatives, but it's certainly not where I first learned to write C and C++ code (emacs was the first editor I used for C). From my own experience, if you're just writing code (especially console-based software), there's a lot less to learn about the editor to get running in VC++ than in emacs or vi. I don't think students should have to take (editor name here) 101 before they take their CS programming course.
At the same time, I do agree that the course should allow for the students to use whatever editor they're comfortable with, and should be as flexible as possible on the compiler (hell, I've had a lot of CS courses that didn't accept compiled work anyway, but they all expected it to compile with a particular compiler).
hard drive space is more of a problem than bandwidth as far as I can tell. I have a lot of movies on DVD, and wouldn't mind the kind of access I have with all of my CDs in MP3 format, but even compressing them into something like DivX format would leave me running out of space long before I got half of the movies onto the drive. Considering that I usually watch the full length of the movie, swapping discs isn't nearly as big a problem as swapping CDs, and the format's certainly much better than VHS (in so many ways; I sat down to watch Harry Potter at my parents house one nite figuring why not, only to find that it wasn't rewound, by the time it got done rewinding (it's a long movie, and maybe that VCR just doesn't rewind very quickly) I wasn't so sure I wanted to watch it any more).
At some point in the future when I can afford hundreds of gigs of storage space for movies, maybe I'll reconsider putting all of my DVDs onto my hard drive, but for now I'm happy with the format (and backing up DeCSS just in case).
Right, my question is more on what are the capability differences. I think widespread use will not be so much a factor because the usage will not be totally practical
Because I'm not a radar person myself and because they didn't publish much technical info in the article, I really couldn't comment on capability differences. I'd imagine that the fact that it's already widely deployed makes it much more practical for uses in which radar would not be considered because it would both have to be deployed in the area and maintained (and operated). How far they go with it probably depends on the operational costs of the system, the returns they can gain from it's use, and the legality of whatever they decide to do with it.
I would imagine that radar designed from the ground up as a radar system would have much better capabilities (accuracy, range, and so forth), but deployment and costs are probably limiting factors in what might be considered fairly mundane uses. It'd be interesting to see whether or not the government is considering licensing out intrusion detection to corporations or even citizens using this system, though.
I've never found a site that doesn't work with Mozilla.
Alternatively, I have found thousands of sites that bombard IE with popup ads, and Ad-aware reports that much more nefarious activity is happening as well.
You've never found a site that doesn't work with Mozilla, which I find amazing, but it may amaze you to know that I've never found a site that could install something through IE which Ad-aware picks up without me pressing the Yes button in a dialogue box. Do you want to trust gator? Hell No. Or maybe you've done something odd with your security settings?
I'm sorry, but that sounds exactly right to me. I still remember when I first went online. It was through AOL. Why? Because they were the only easy way to get online at the time. Any idiot could pull a CD out of their mailbox and be online within hours.
That's funny, because the first time I went online most people didn't have CD-ROMs, and almost any ISP that you signed up with would just send you a floppy disk (or two; AOL sent out floppies at the time, too, we used to format them and use them for homework) and you could get on fairly quickly with the piece of paper detailing the setup required. As an extra bonus, most local ISPs were around half the price of AOL, and within a couple of years AOL raised their prices, while everyone else was shooting for $10/month. Unfortunately, I think a lot of those smaller ISPs died out when the cable company started offering cable modems.
And I don't have a problem with it (see some other thread wandering thru here today) if it is used solely to further secure areas that are *already* supposed to be highly secure. Now, if it starts "wandering" outside of that use, particularly if used to track civilian movements in ordinary (unsecured) public places, then I have a problem with it!
Well, the real question is how far they'll go in using it. They could use it to monitor traffic flow and speed, to check the timing on red lights (ie increase/decrease the yellow time on lights to either reduce accidents or increase revenue from tickets), or to monitor any number of behavior patterns. There are a number of 'good' applications for something like this, but almost all of them can be used in a way that some (or even most) would feel is 'bad'. Even if they can't identify every single person or vehicle they're tracking (and I can think of a few easy ways to bring it to the point where you can get at least 50% identification without a single person carrying a cell phone, ie tagging a person or vehicle at it's starting point in software and cross-referencing with postal records, especially if they get accurate tracking through walls), they can flag certain areas that are known for certain types of criminal activity and then flag individuals who travel through those areas, especially those that stop for any period of time, and have police waiting to do a 'probable cause' search of the person/vehicle that was tracked through that area.
But I think the point he's trying to make is that you can't make a decision without having a bias. If all options are the same, then the only way to make a decision is to flip a coin.
You can make a decision without having a bias. Bias means that your decision is based on something other than the provided evidence, or making a decision that doesn't coincide with the evidence presented. For example, if the judge decided to ignore all of Microsoft's witnesses (or a large percentage of them) because one witness was found to have lied, he would be biased. You're supposed to throw out the testimony that was false, not throw out all of the testimony from the side that had a bad witness.
Let's say that hypothetically you are in attendance at a trial (not this one) and during the questioning a witness swore at the judge, made threats to the jury, and screamed at the top of his lungs. Then afterward you are asked by others waiting outside what the witness was like. Which answer would be the biased one:
If I was in attendance, the second answer would be the obvious one. If I was in the jury, or I was the judge, I wouldn't be allowed to answer the question.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that Passpoer is being ported to linux means nothing, really. For a system to exist people have ot use it. The base of linux users who actually register for passport (especially those who use linux because it isn't MS) will be very small.
I didn't see anything in the article about the Passport client being ported. MS is only porting the Passport server because people have asked them to.
Why did MS comissioned a small company to port Passport server software?
Who else would they comission for something like this? Almost every big software company is one of Microsoft's competitors, as are most Unix/Linux developers. Small companies are probably the only software houses that will do business with MS any more.
There isn't (in fact most public utilities are government-sanctioned monopolies) HOWEVER, it is illegal to use one monopoly to attempt to force the creation of another (bad wording, let me try again) You can't leverage one monopoly to create another.
Exactly my point. No monopoly in itself is illegal, it's what they choose to do with the monopoly (restraint of trade, leveraging the monopoly to gain another monopoly) that is illegal. Unfortunately, they don't have some sort of declaration of monopoly status before they can bring you up on trial for abuse of a monopoly, either.
(For example: if the Xbox wipes out Sony, Nintendo, et al Their US divisions could probably sue the crap out of Microsoft, because Microsoft used the profits from it's Windows monopoly to subsidize the Xbox, and are trying to force people who develop for windows and console to develop on Xbox (though not in those terms)(see EA's reaction to Xbox's licencing, for a much better explanation)(Though I seriously doubt Xbox will)
They could sue them, but I don't think they'd get anywhere in an antitrust case unless Microsoft really started using tactics similar to what they used with IE or Windows (getting vendors to not sell or understock PS2s and Gamecubes would be the rough equivalent).
Basically a monopoly is not illegal. A monopoly that is used to create others is illegal (see so called 'anti-trust' acts (example of Windows creating monopolies or at the least attempted monopolies of IE, MS Office (though they may not be legally declared monopolies, and I think their percent is lower than reported, but they are very high.)
There's a good chance that an Office monopoly was generated by leveraging existing product monopolies (Excel for instance), but it's not likely that it was generated by the Windows monopoly (though there are some things that showed they may have used Windows to bolster Office share and vice versa). They also have a very large share of the market for IDEs with Visual Studio (and/or it's components) in something like the 90% range.
Those are all related to illegal restraint of trade or illegal abuse of a monopoly (Sherman Act). The monopoly itself is not illegal, but leveraging it to prevent others from competing is.
Wanna tell that to the Samba team?
I would assume that the Samba team is looking for particular messaging protocols, not an API. CIFS is one of the protocols implemented by Samba, and you'll notice that it's on the list I linked to.
A networking protocol cannot make 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together, but an API could. A networking protocol can, however, make two machines work better together, whereas an API that did so would probably still use some protocol or another to transmit information. The only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow (perhaps to improve CIFS or implement a different protocol), but they could really do something along those lines with existing information if they wanted to.
Thats when the DOJ really fell apart. They got their teeth taken straight from them. No breakup, no big stick, no good settlement
The appeals court also took away a lot of their case by stating that they hadn't sufficiently proved portions of their case and couldn't continue with those portions (a lot of the integration stuff for instance). Most of what they're left with is contractual terms that MS had with ISPs, ISVs, OEMs, etc, which makes a strong case for restricting their contracts, but doesn't leave them with a whole lot of ground to stand on with the software Microsoft develops.
If the judge does decide to throw out the settlements and conclude the case, there're still quite a few portions of the case that the appeals court has stated have to be reheard before they can even get to the penalties phase. It's going to be a long one if they don't settle it, and they haven't even been in court in months.
Make anyone who SELLS closed source software liable for faults in their software that disrupt business, corrupt data, and lose revenue. You'll see Microsoft's cash pile drop like a rock.
.Net, and all versions of Office previous to XP, or, at the very least, force it into the settlement that they are not liable for software produced before the settlement. The alternative would be to simply release everything under a restricted open source license.
You'd also see Microsoft shut down all support for versions of Windows previous to XP and
Of course, under a plan that required all closed source software to be financially backed by the developer (oh yeah, Microsoft doesn't sell their software directly to end-users anyway), Microsoft would probably be the only closed-source developer that could survive, precisely because of that pile of cash.
yes both the act and the monopoly are illegal
Please enlighten me, because I have yet to see the law in the US that declares it illegal to have a monopoly.
I always had the theory that it would make sense for MS to have certain "special" ways to hook a program into Windoze that only they knew about. Now that it's proven, I think that just making them give up the goods is not enough punishment.
p
Oh please, you can see the list of protocols that are covered. http://microsoft.com/legal/protocols/protocols.as
I'd like to know how MS' implementation of IPv4 or Firewire is a secret hook for a program to get into Windows. The API portions of the release are openly available to anyone without an NDA.
While I agree that the system should be moving more quickly on this case, it's distressing to see people ignore what's actually happened.
If they have been convicted, punish them. Don't let the accused decide their fate. Would the justice department let a killer decide their sentence? I dont think so.
They were 'convicted' and went to appeal. The appeals court overturned several portions of the case and remanded it back to the lower court to rehear portions of the case that weren't properly conducted the first time around. The judge assigned to the lower court then told the justice department, states, and Microsoft to find a way to settle the case. If that is successful, essentially there's little chance that Microsoft will actually have been convicted of anything, because settlements rarely require an admission of guilt or wrongdoing.
What bothers me about this whole thing is that if the courts ignored the appeals process and/or the normal process in court (as the appeals court found was done in the case) for any person or company that was on the good side of this community, people would be screaming bloody murder for what the courts did to screw them. Instead, because it's Microsoft, people are screaming for Microsoft's heads and actually asking the courts to ignore due process.
You can have it one way or the other, but not both. If you want the courts to behave correctly with the people you like, you have to accept that they'll do it with people you don't like. If you're going to call for the right to appeal to be revoked and for the process of a trial to be butchered, then you'd better be prepared to accept it if you or someone you like is on trial.
They can do whatever they want to Microsoft for all I care, but they'd damned well better do it right. Judges screwing with the process are just going to get their rulings overturned or remanded, which wastes everyone's time and money.
remove the space from that url (after ?url=) and it should work in most browsers (works on IE 6 and Phoenix 0.3 here)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dnwue/html/welcome.asp
If that doesn't work for some reason, just try searching for 'The Microsoft Windows User Experience' or 'Official Guidelines for User Interface Developers and Designers'
I don't think they keep it up to date very well. It was at one time a book they sold in hard copy. Since then they've mostly just issued small guides that cover specifics for new versions of Windows. For instance, when WinXP was due for release they had an extensive guide on how to create icons in photoshop to fit with the design of the new icons in XP.
If you would read the actual Apple HIG, they say that apps which are meant to replace a real-world item/function (such as Calculator, iCal, iTunes) should be built with the brushed metal look. All other apps should use the default, untextured look. Just thinking over the apps included in OS X, it seems to me like they follow this guideline fairly closely.
Except that they only added that to the HIG after 10.2 was released. Not to mention that some of their choices are questionable in terms of both using and not using the brushed metal look. Let's not even go into the fact that QuickTime on Windows breaks almost every design guideline for Windows (and most people didn't even realize there were guidelines for Windows, it's a much smaller document than Apple's anyway).
The appeals court was far from wrong legally. As for ethics, the laws applied are in regards to ethics, and if they were ethically wrong, the laws should be changed.
...
...
From the US Court of Appeals Opinion:
While some of the Code's Canons frequently generate questions about their application, others are straightforward and easily understood. Canon 3A(6) is an example of the latter. In forbidding federal judges to comment publicly "on the merits of a pending or impending action," Canon 3A(6) applies to cases pending before any court, state or federal, trial or appellate. See Jeffrey M. Shaman et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics s 10.34, at 353 (3d ed. 2000). As "impending" indicates, the prohibition begins even before a case enters the court system, when there is reason to believe a case may be filed. Cf. E. Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct 54 (1973). An action remains "pending" until "completion of the appellate process." Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) cmt.; Comm. on Codes of Conduct, Adv. Op. No. 55 (1998).
The Microsoft case was "pending" during every one of the District Judge's meetings with reporters; the case is "pending" now; and even after our decision issues, it will remain pending for some time.
The problem here is not just what the District Judge said, but to whom he said it and when. His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates, his mule trainer analogy as a reason for his remedy--all of these remarks and others might not have given rise to a violation of the Canons or of s 455(a) had he uttered them from the bench. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56; Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) (exception to prohibition on public comments for "statements made in the course of the judge's official duties"). But then Microsoft would have had an opportunity to object, perhaps even to persuade, and the Judge would have made a record for review on appeal. It is an altogether different matter when the statements are made outside the courtroom, in private meetings unknown to the parties, in anticipation that ultimately the Judge's remarks would be reported. Rather than manifesting neutrality and impartiality, the reports of the interviews with the District Judge convey the impression of a judge posturing for posterity, trying to please the reporters with colorful analogies and observations bound to wind up in the stories they write. Members of the public may reasonably question whether the District Judge's desire for press coverage influenced his judgments, indeed whether a publicity-seeking judge might consciously or subconsciously seek the publicity-maximizing outcome. We believe, therefore, that the District Judge's interviews with reporters created an appearance that he was not acting impartially, as the Code of Conduct and s 455(a) require.
The most serious judicial misconduct occurred near or during the remedial stage. It is therefore commensurate that our remedy focus on that stage of the case. The District Judge's impatience with what he viewed as intransigence on the part of the company; his refusal to allow an evidentiary hearing; his analogizing Microsoft to Japan at the end of World War II; his story about the mule--all of these out-of-court remarks and others, plus the Judge's evident efforts to please the press, would give a reasonable, informed observer cause to question his impartiality in ordering the company split in two.
To repeat, we disqualify the District Judge retroactive only to the imposition of the remedy, and thus vacate the remedy order for the reasons given in Section V and because of the appearance of partiality created by the District Judge's misconduct.
Would you be allowed to answer the question *after* a guilty verdict was already decided, and the only thing left to choose was the severity of the sentence? I'm not sure at what point the ban on talking about it gets lifted. Jackson didn't say the things that got him thrown off the case until after the findings of fact were published.
BOth the article and the appeals court's opinion state that he made the statements well before they were published, and requested that the reporters not publish them until afterwards. That's quite different from not making the statements until afterwards, and, as the appeals court said, implied that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
A class that provides VC++ examples is fine. But one that requires you to write "VC++" code rather than C++ code, is a waste of time.
He says he gets his work done in vim. Though he didn't mention what compiler he's using, I doubt that they're using a lot of compiler-specific code. I've taken a lot of courses that teach on VC++, but very few of them use the wizards and VC++-specific code (and any one that did would certainly worry me). In my opinion, VC++ has a much better editor than most of the alternatives, but it's certainly not where I first learned to write C and C++ code (emacs was the first editor I used for C). From my own experience, if you're just writing code (especially console-based software), there's a lot less to learn about the editor to get running in VC++ than in emacs or vi. I don't think students should have to take (editor name here) 101 before they take their CS programming course.
At the same time, I do agree that the course should allow for the students to use whatever editor they're comfortable with, and should be as flexible as possible on the compiler (hell, I've had a lot of CS courses that didn't accept compiled work anyway, but they all expected it to compile with a particular compiler).
hard drive space is more of a problem than bandwidth as far as I can tell. I have a lot of movies on DVD, and wouldn't mind the kind of access I have with all of my CDs in MP3 format, but even compressing them into something like DivX format would leave me running out of space long before I got half of the movies onto the drive. Considering that I usually watch the full length of the movie, swapping discs isn't nearly as big a problem as swapping CDs, and the format's certainly much better than VHS (in so many ways; I sat down to watch Harry Potter at my parents house one nite figuring why not, only to find that it wasn't rewound, by the time it got done rewinding (it's a long movie, and maybe that VCR just doesn't rewind very quickly) I wasn't so sure I wanted to watch it any more).
At some point in the future when I can afford hundreds of gigs of storage space for movies, maybe I'll reconsider putting all of my DVDs onto my hard drive, but for now I'm happy with the format (and backing up DeCSS just in case).
Right, my question is more on what are the capability differences. I think widespread use will not be so much a factor because the usage will not be totally practical
Because I'm not a radar person myself and because they didn't publish much technical info in the article, I really couldn't comment on capability differences. I'd imagine that the fact that it's already widely deployed makes it much more practical for uses in which radar would not be considered because it would both have to be deployed in the area and maintained (and operated). How far they go with it probably depends on the operational costs of the system, the returns they can gain from it's use, and the legality of whatever they decide to do with it.
I would imagine that radar designed from the ground up as a radar system would have much better capabilities (accuracy, range, and so forth), but deployment and costs are probably limiting factors in what might be considered fairly mundane uses. It'd be interesting to see whether or not the government is considering licensing out intrusion detection to corporations or even citizens using this system, though.
I've never found a site that doesn't work with Mozilla.
Alternatively, I have found thousands of sites that bombard IE with popup ads, and Ad-aware reports that much more nefarious activity is happening as well.
You've never found a site that doesn't work with Mozilla, which I find amazing, but it may amaze you to know that I've never found a site that could install something through IE which Ad-aware picks up without me pressing the Yes button in a dialogue box. Do you want to trust gator? Hell No. Or maybe you've done something odd with your security settings?
I'm sorry, but that sounds exactly right to me. I still remember when I first went online. It was through AOL. Why? Because they were the only easy way to get online at the time. Any idiot could pull a CD out of their mailbox and be online within hours.
That's funny, because the first time I went online most people didn't have CD-ROMs, and almost any ISP that you signed up with would just send you a floppy disk (or two; AOL sent out floppies at the time, too, we used to format them and use them for homework) and you could get on fairly quickly with the piece of paper detailing the setup required. As an extra bonus, most local ISPs were around half the price of AOL, and within a couple of years AOL raised their prices, while everyone else was shooting for $10/month. Unfortunately, I think a lot of those smaller ISPs died out when the cable company started offering cable modems.
What are you going to do with all that nice software you've written when Microsoft makes it incompatible with the next version of Windows?
That would be such a rare occurance that most people probably wouldn't know what to do.
And I don't have a problem with it (see some other thread wandering thru here today) if it is used solely to further secure areas that are *already* supposed to be highly secure. Now, if it starts "wandering" outside of that use, particularly if used to track civilian movements in ordinary (unsecured) public places, then I have a problem with it!
Well, the real question is how far they'll go in using it. They could use it to monitor traffic flow and speed, to check the timing on red lights (ie increase/decrease the yellow time on lights to either reduce accidents or increase revenue from tickets), or to monitor any number of behavior patterns. There are a number of 'good' applications for something like this, but almost all of them can be used in a way that some (or even most) would feel is 'bad'. Even if they can't identify every single person or vehicle they're tracking (and I can think of a few easy ways to bring it to the point where you can get at least 50% identification without a single person carrying a cell phone, ie tagging a person or vehicle at it's starting point in software and cross-referencing with postal records, especially if they get accurate tracking through walls), they can flag certain areas that are known for certain types of criminal activity and then flag individuals who travel through those areas, especially those that stop for any period of time, and have police waiting to do a 'probable cause' search of the person/vehicle that was tracked through that area.
Sorry, I don't pay enough attention to the spelling on some of the chips we use around here, I guess ;)
Now I get to type random crap until Slashdot decides to let me post. Nevermind, I can't even think of anything useless worth typing.
But I think the point he's trying to make is that you can't make a decision without having a bias. If all options are the same, then the only way to make a decision is to flip a coin.
You can make a decision without having a bias. Bias means that your decision is based on something other than the provided evidence, or making a decision that doesn't coincide with the evidence presented. For example, if the judge decided to ignore all of Microsoft's witnesses (or a large percentage of them) because one witness was found to have lied, he would be biased. You're supposed to throw out the testimony that was false, not throw out all of the testimony from the side that had a bad witness.
Let's say that hypothetically you are in attendance at a trial (not this one) and during the questioning a witness swore at the judge, made threats to the jury, and screamed at the top of his lungs. Then afterward you are asked by others waiting outside what the witness was like. Which answer would be the biased one:
If I was in attendance, the second answer would be the obvious one. If I was in the jury, or I was the judge, I wouldn't be allowed to answer the question.