In court cases there are always two claims. The claim of innocence and the claim of an injustice done. Right? Not always. Many times it is a claim of person A did one time and person B did another. Such as seen many times on TV (and experienced first hand in both small claims court as well as big). I hired people to come in and do a job. They didn't. In court their claim was that they were not paid for their work (I had the voided checks), and that we owed them money still (I had the contract they signed). It became a question of who had done wrong or - the most wrong. Luckily for me, the judge looked at the evidence and decided in my favor in all cases. However, in one case - even though I had all of my evidence - the judge decided to not give me back all of the money owed to me because the other person had done some of the work. To date though - I have as of yet to collect a penny from taking anyone to court.
So in this case it is the same. The RIAA/MPAA feel that they are doing the right thing. (I do not feel that they are because I happen to know that you have to request the right to perform a wire tap - which is what this is. And a wire tap is an invasion of privacy which is why you have to go to court in order to get the request fulfilled.) The people who are going to school have rights to privacy. As do we all. Thus, and therefore, should this program be put in to place - it should be challenged on the basis of invasion of privacy.
Something else should be put in here also. The United States of America is not Russia. Although we do now have a Homeland Security division it is not the Gestapo. At least not yet. And although the RIAA/MPAA may suspect that students at the college are swapping music - they do not have parental rights over these students. Nor does the college have any documentation which is signed by the students which gives the college parental rights. Further, I am sure that the students never signed a Power of Attorney document giving the college the full rights to deal with the students in any way, shape, or form other than to teach them. The Supreme Court of the U.S also stated that e-mail and other transactions which would normally be considered private communication between two parties is just that - private. They therefore can not use a methodology which blankets innocent people as well as guilty ones. Because it invades their privacy exposing them to possible misuse such as blackmail.
To bring this back to your statement: My attitude is correct. In every lawsuit there are two opposing views. To restrict your view to the simple guilty/innocent methodology would be to restrict the law in ways which no lawyer would ever agree to. It is not just about whom is right. It is about who has suffered the most at the hands of the opponent in many cases.
So you're saying we should have a machine stick, stab, swab, glob, or however you want to put it and get our DNA? I am sure it could be done a lot easier than I am imagining it (after all, the oil on your finger contains your DNA) but I can see it now....
Human: Ok machine buddy! Let's get to work! Machine: Please put your hand on the screen so I can verify whom you are.
Human: Ok! Go to it! Machine: Let's see..... You've had two all *questionable* meat patties, special *trademarked* sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, on a bun with sesame seeds, potatoes *fried*, oil from fries, and the hair from two different dogs. Maybe you should go wash your hands before touching me.
...that the real issue is who is breaking the law the most. The record swappers (who, under the Copyright Laws do have some limited right to swap songs) or the record companies (and whomever else decides to aid them) for invasion of privacy issues.
Of the two, I would say the RIAA is the worse offender. Granted - people are stealing songs. Granted also that drug dealers sell drugs. But drug dealers seem to have more rights under the law than record swappers. With drug dealers you have to follow certain basic procedures which involve the courts, having to establish a basis for your suspicions, and targeting an individual or group but leaving out everyone else not suspected of the crime. Same with this. Neither the RIAA nor the MPAA are the law. Thus, all it will take is for someone who is innocent to get caught, have a lawsuit thrown at them, and - just like the recently concluded Sex.com case - take it through the courts.
When McCarthism came along - all it took was someone not liking someone else. When the blacklists of Hollywood started up all it took was someone not liking who you were or what you did. This is the same vigilantism in action. They only think someone is doing this and like the mafia or some movie made-up powerful cartel - they think they can just do as they please.
My two cents? If I were going to this college - as soon as the software goes on line I'd get as many people together as I could, pool everyone's money, hire a lawyer, and sue the college. Let the RIAA/MPAA hold a hot poker to the college execs. Hold a bigger one to them from the other side and see which way they jump!
Although others have pointed out that the fight isn't over the FAT system - I have noted that no one has even mentioned the mainframes and minis which came long before micros ever appeared.
I've worked on Univac 1108's, 1106's, NAS 9000s, IBM System 3's, Honeywell systems, and the original Vax's as well as some PDP systems. These all used the 8.3 filename convention and is where (I believe) the usage of 8.3 filenames under DOS came about. (Remember original DOS used EBCDIC which is an IBM standard and the PC was to originally be a "very small" mainframe.) All of these mainframes had a FAT system in place for the usage of the disk drives. So there are decades of prior FAT usage and setup. So FAT and the 8.3 filenaming convention is a done deal.
The usage of long/short names and the mapping of long/short names one to the other was done under Unix years before Microsoft even came along. This was called linking. Further, Digital Equipment Corporation, under VMS, came out with a method to do the same thing prior to Microsoft ever having done this. It is such an obvious misuse of the patent system that, as another poster put it, this is just another example of how broken our government is in this respect.
The truth, as I see it, is that we are in a war over whether or not our original systems of Patenting and Copyrighting things, as created by the people who put pen to paper, will survive. When the rules were written; it was another time. A time when it took months or years to do even one thing. (Like filing for a patent.) In today's world things are vastly different and, with the push of a button, you can submit a patent on anything to the PTO. This reduction of time means that, at some point, it becomes an exercise in logic programming to generate new patents. The basic idea behind the Patent system was to guarantee time to an individual - because it took so long to recoup your investment - so they could make a profit. Today, some inventions are overnight successes. Granted - not all, but even the creation-to-market time span is shortening. Especially when there are devices out there that can create 3D objects. So the question becomes - is the Patent and Copyright system broken because of misuse - or because they are an outmoded methodology? I think the latter.
Maybe it's time we re-invented the Patent and Copyright systems so they work in the modern world. For instance, centralize where all payments on Patents and Copyrights go. Standardize on how much has to be paid per P&C. (Like 1% of a company's gross has to be set aside to pay P&Cs. Or maybe a default amount per unit sold could be come up with. <Whatever is come up with - it should be fair - as in "Atom smashers are a lot more rare than bubble gum."> This would eliminate some P&Cs being sold at some high amount versus others which are paid only minimal amounts. And yes - there are some really stupid P&Cs out there. This is just a general methodology that I am writing.) Standardize how much is to be paid on Patents and Copyrights. Standardize how often payments are to be made to the holders of Patents and Copyrights. Standardize on how long Patents and Copyrights can exist. (I personally am in favor of the life of the author plus twenty years and no more. I am also in favor of making it illegal to change this in any way, shape, or form because of what we just went through via the DMCA. Or at least make it illegal to change it without the consent of the people. Not Congress and/or the Senate as both have been shown to be untrustworthy in this area.) Standardize top level categories. Create a standardized entry number system. Entry numbers into the system could be assigned based upon the importance/weight of an entry. (In other words - truly unique ideas are at the top. Those t
I decided to take the next step in my post. I wrote to the PTO and laid out the four types of databases which would have to be created (word conversion, phrase conversion, document database, word cross-references). I also wrote about how to use these to do the patent searches (ie: #1=Convert all words to numbers (long ints), #2=Convert all phrases to an equivalent single word [if possible], #3=The converted document [all text = #1 or #2 entries], and #4=Cross reference of where all #1s and #2s exist).
I hope they at least respond. If I get any kind of a response I will see about posting it to my website (or here) and letting everyone read it.:-) Of course, if it is just a "Go away" message - then I will not post it and I will just post that it was that kind of a message.:-( (I am hoping it will be the former and not the latter.:-) )
Now that the Patent Office has kindly placed a lot of patents into their database; they should begin the process of writing programs which help them to eliminate patents based upon (if nothing else) their documentation.
I would think the rejection of Patents would fall into a few categories: 1)Bad Spelling, 2)Bad Grammar, 3)Bad Idea. Once these are past - THEN - the object could be compared against pre-existing documents.
I know there are probably millions of documents which might match a new document but, like Google, they could be pared down based upon how closely they look like another invention. Google has how many servers and how many pages to look at and decide upon? Yet you get feedback in only a few seconds. Why not base how the PTO works on Google's model? The PTO could even sell priority for first consideration to companies.;-)
Truly though, since every invention has to be written up, and since we already know that millions of pages can (and are) rejected by a good search engine - this is what the PTO really needs.
Which brings up the question: How many patents are filed for items which are not really in that category? Like an idea for a game which might overlap how something is done in the real world. Would that patent be enforceable because it was already given out? Or does the fact that the patent is filed in different categories mean that you can patent something which has already been patented - but in a different category? So a toothbrush used by a robotic servant (and is a part of the robot itself) can be patented separately from a regular, toothbrush which is held in the hand?
If the former - then that cuts down on the number of patents which has to be searched. Otherwise, all of the patents have to be searched. Which is why it becomes so hard to determine the merits of a given patent. A good search engine though - could shave a lot of time off of how long it would take to determine the merits of any given patent.
This does not, however, eliminate the need for people who are smart enough to know that a flashlight is still a flashlight. No matter if it is called a flashlight or an object which emits a beam of light. This too (the phrase "an object which emits light") should become a part of the search engine. Or, in other words, you create a relational database which relates single words to phrases so the search engine can make better judgement calls.:-)
What if Sedna is the surviving moon of the planet which would make up the Kupier belt? Would that account for the slow rotation factor?
Also, are the namers playing with words?
From Webster's On-line Dictionary:
One entry found for sedentary. Main Entry: sedentary Pronunciation: 'se-d&n-"ter-E Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French sedentaire, from Latin sedentarius, from sedent-, sedens, present participle of sedEre to sit -- more at SIT 1 : not migratory : SETTLED 2 : doing or requiring much sitting 3 : permanently attached
Get the Top 10 Search Results for "sedentary"
For More Information on "sedentary" go to Britannica.com
...speaking in public? Do news agencies ask you to sign a waiver of your rights before running up to you to get your opinion on something?
Chat boards are like being in public places and talking. Anyone who happens to have a tape recorder (say they are making notes for use later on) and they happen to capture you saying something can't be prosecuted for having done so. (Unless it is truly slanderous or libelous.) In chat - you may need to copy/paste something so you can relate another comment back to a previous comment. Thus, playing like each copy/paste is a violation of one person's rights is like say echos in a room have to be done away with. Nice idea but not (generally) enforcable.
Last, but not least, the Supreme Court dictated that online activities are protected in the same manner as newspapers and TV reporters are protected. These people copy/paste what people say all of the time. Thus, by its very nature, this law attempts to circumvent the freedom of the press portion of what the Supreme Court was talking about.
The only way to stop the madness is to make it illegal, immorally wrong, or have a penalty which would, in effect, kill (or imprison) whoever tried to change things. Since times change, attitudes change, and people change - the above isn't likely to happen. Further, whenever there is money to be made by both good as well as bad people - you have a direct conflict of interest with hampering these people from doing whatever it is they want to do.
Some things which people want to do (such as rape, robbery, and murder) is easily decided upon by the vast majority of people. In other words - you can't do it. Or rather - you can do it but there are severe repercussions if you are found out. (And I mean normally and not those people/companies/governments which do get away with it.) Others are not so easily decided upon. Especially when mega-corporations put their force behind the passage of rules and regulations which tend to harm or stiffle competition.
The whole idea behind the passage of new laws is, simply put, control. Who will control what everyone else can do? The price of gas goes up not because there is any real crisis. It is because someone somewhere is controlling the availability of the gas. This might be because of the availability of trucks to carry it, ships to transport it, or barrels of crude oil available.
With software patents - the same outlook is being applied. That someone somewhere wants to control what you can or can not do on a computer. Like a bratty little child, that person is trying to have it all and allow no one else to use what they perceive as theirs. The truth is that only those people who designed the first computers have any right to any kind of a Patent. All other Patents simply build upon those which would have already expired and thus are not enforceable. Further, the Patent Office is ill equipped to handle whether or not any given application is truly unique. What the program does or controls might be unique - but the underlying software is not. Were this not so, then FLEX and YACC would never have come into existence.
We have come to a time when fair play, fair use, and common sense (the basis of OSS) is being pitted against the robber barons who want it all and will take it if allowed to do so. Why do you think the Magna Carta came into being? Why the U.S. broke away from England? Why India fought in its own way for freedom? Why there are so many wars all over the world now? Because the haves are abusing the have nots. They do it by passing what we call laws. They pass laws because they know that what they do is illegal and so they try to legitimize their actions by passing laws to fit how they want the world to be.
So am I saying we should rise up? Yes. We should rise up and write our leaders. You may be thrown in jail (especially if you threaten someone - so don't!), you may gain ire from your friends, you may have a terrible time of it. But it is better to go through that than to not say anything at all. Silence means you agree with the controllers and hopefully - you don't.
My wife took out something to defrost and spent over an hour trying to get the food defrosted. I walked in, went "Let me do that" and had it defrosted in about five minutes.
Now, if you wanted to talk about our old microwave - it would have taken me probably the same amount of time to defrost it as my wife took. A very cumbersome interface. So the interfaces are (IMHO) getting better and easier to use. But it is true that there are many more buttons on this new unit than the older one. It is just that the interface is laid out better. (At least to me it is.)
I do not know about anyone else, but with us I buy a lot of food all at one time, cook all of it, put it in those Gladware containers, and put it in the freezer. (We bought one of those six foot tall upright freezers so we can stock quite a bit in there.) Then we just take things out, defrost, wait a minute or two, and hit cook. The computer in the microwave oven senses when the food is at the proper temperature, reheats it, and then cooks it. The waiting for a minute or two is to allow the food to cool a bit (and spread the heat around) before starting the cook cycle. I know not everyone can do this. But once a month you cook non-stop for six hours and then you are through for the rest of the month. Beats having to cook every night although it does feel as though you are always eating TV diners.:-)
This is a similar article to one written by someone else a few years back which Slashdot ran. Basically the person threw up their hands and said there was nothing to be done then either. It is a defeatist attitude. True, maybe he does not have the answer. True that at some point in time an alternative may appear which will remove Microsoft from the foray completely or even in a major way.
The question here is - is it Linux/BSD/Unix? To me, the answer is yes. Although, as one person here has already said, there isn't an income tax program available unless you are running Mac OS X - that is besides the point. Because that is a void which, as more companies come onboard Linux, will be filled.
What I am trying to say is - is that I think of this need people have for an OS which is stable and programs which, when they crash, do not take the system with it (as well as just plain good software) is a void. Surrounding this void are the various OSs available. With the help of major corporations such as IBM, HP, and the like - the people who have fallen into the void are finding their way out and into Linux. These are people who used to be in the Windows area but became dissatisfied with everything that has been going on for the past ten or fifteen years. So they slowly but surely drifted into the void. Where, no matter what they did - they were unhappy about their situation but could not figure out what to do about it. Well, let me tell you that these people, once they have seen just how much free software is out there as well as how many people there are out there who want to help them get unstuck and back to being productive - they just go "Wow" and it really affects them deeply to know that there are others out there who share their beliefs, needs, and passions for doing things.
So my message is - don't give up, throw up your hands, and quit. We are making a difference and no matter what - Microsoft can not go forever without making a profit. True. They may seek to take on Open Source Software. But you can't stop it because then you would be taking on the whole world. And since the world is who is footing the bill for Microsoft to even be around - you can't bite the hand that feeds you and expect that hand to feed you again.
So - so what if he doesn't know the answer. No one person will have that answer. It is only going to come - from all of us. Working together. To achieve the common goal of making things better in the world.
Yes - that would make more sense and is what I thought I was posting (silly me!). Symantics (of the non-Norton kind). I would have said "along the line of the train tracks" or maybe "along the tracks the train rides on" if I really meant the train tracks. But I can see how what I wrote is rather archaic in how it is laid out (so to speak).
Not trying to derail what you wrote or to act like Ven Diesel. I'm just railroading my thoughts here. But I'll cross those tracks when I get to them. Ah - too many bad puns and too little sleep.:-)
But you are quite right - I should have been more specific and clear in what I wrote.:-)
Yes, well - some people just don't like Audacious. *Shrug* Takes all kinds.
I just finished dealing with someone who said I was a hate monger. I've never thought of myself as a hate monger - but who knows? Maybe I should look in the mirror more often? I thought once a day, when I shaved, was enough but ya just never know.
Ah well, since joking around must now be flamebait I'm expecting this to draw quite a bit of flack. The funny thing is - the e-mail I received said my post was moderated to funny (+1). Which is what I thought it was - funny I mean. In the normal sense of the word. So imagine my surprise when I check it and it is no longer listed as funny but as flamebait. My thoughts are that Slashdot's e-mailing system must be mucked up a bit. Otherwise, why would it tell me it was moderated as funny?
You know - I think there's a joke in there somewhere but I just can't quite see it.:-) Besides - why would I want to entice whomever it was that marked my last message as flamebait to do so again? *nudge-nudge-wink-wink*
You know, if I'm a couple hundred miles away - I wouldn't hear it at all.;-)
Seriously though, why don't they try using small speakers placed along the line of the train which project anti-soundwave patterns so the two cancel each other out. Like the devices now being put into people's homes? And for those inside as well.
Oh well. I looked and could not find the sound device (electronic) which matches incoming sounds and then creates the alternate sound wave which cancels out the incoming sound. I saw it in a recent electronic's magazine but I can't find that either right now. So I know it's out there but I do not remember where. Sorry folks!:-/
When I first read the article I mentally converted Poway to PovRay and found myself thinking "What the heck are those guys doing now!? And where is this city located?"
1. Get together. 2. Use open standards. 3. Create special TCP/IPv6 addresses for each cell phone so communication is: 3a. Standardized between each phone. 3b. Can use everyone else's cell phone as a pathway to reach the nearest tower (like the web uses each node as a path to send/receive packets presently). 4. Have a standardized set of commands which can be sent to a cell phone. 4a. Which has a method of setting the volume up or down and to ring or just vibrate. 4b. Which has a standardized set of PGP keys so malicious people can not go around mucking with other people's phones. 4c. Which also has some smarts built into it so the phone knows the difference between an incoming command via another phone and an incoming command via an outside source (so theatres et al can have a device which broadcasts to the phones but other phones can not broadcast the message).
Places where there is not to be any noise above a whisper could then have a device which sends a "VOLUME:BUZZ:X:Y:Z" message out. Using GPS tracking, any phone inside of the area (say 500ft [or maybe 200m] around X:Y:Z) would have their settings reset to just buzz. Once away from the area the phone would reset itself to the proper volumn level. Other places, where no phone calls can be received would have something like "VOLUME:OFF:X:Y:Z" followed by "CALLS:OFF:X:Y:Z". (Or maybe "VOLCAL:OFF:X:Y:Z".
Phone companies could then provide an automated message which states something like "This customer's phone is presently not accepting calls. If this is an emergency, please press one now. To leave a message press two." The command override would have been given by the person in advance (ie: to start your service you have to give an emergency override id number). The system then sends the override message along with the password (encrypted of course) and the phone begins by first buzzing the person, then incrementally increasing the speaker's loudness. Once maximum volume has been reached (and no one has answered) the phone resets to the override command and sends back that it failed to reach the person.
The person on the other end is notified of this and they are given the option of leaving a voicemail and/or phone number to be reached at.
It isn't all that hard to imagine a way this can all work. The hard part is getting all of the phone companies to agree to work together and to settle on one methodology of making the phones work.
The neat thing is - cell phones could be their own routers, hubs, DNS, et al. It just takes a different way of looking at things.
But was it? I did not know that dead people had an opinion. Further, upon questioning many of the people who's names were used - they had no idea a letter had been sent in their name. By what stretch of the imagination is this an honest opinion? And yes. You should be fined. Doesn't always happen - but then if you have a pair of pliers in your back pocket after sundown in Texas you can be hung from the neck until dead and they don't do that either. Just because the laws are there does not always mean they are enforced.
Quite the appeal to fear there
All I can say is - yeah...right. If that was an appeal to fear then I'm Alfred Hitchcock. Come on - get it together guy. If you really have a point to make - then make it.
What you are asking for is for laws to NOT be applied to everyone equally
Oh really? Is that what I was saying? That due to the size, money, and influence which Microsoft has - that it is being allowed to set its own terms when it comes to punishment? To flaunt their ability to twist things around so they benefit from what they've done? Or, as the original story pointed out - the punishment does not fit the crime because Microsoft is so powerful that it only takes a few days to get past the punishment. Wow. So just why did we even bother to prosecute them in the first place? We spent hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of man hours, and we get new computers with Microsoft products installed into our schools so they can extend their monopoly even further? You know - that's like convicting someone of murder, giving them a slap on the wrist, and saying "Don't do that again." I'm sure they will be so afraid that they will never ever kill someone again. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... As I said before - yeah - right.
Listen. Your logic is heavily flawed. You are saying that because I said to apply the law that I am a hate monger. When in truth - I just want them to play and suffer by the same rules and laws underwhich the rest of us have to play. And simply because it is Microsoft and simply because you might like them - does not make the rest of us automatically hate mongers. So - sorry, I just don't see your logic.
If one is convicted of a crime one should be punished.
I certainly hope so! But realistically - it doesn't work that way. There was a recent court case in Galveston, Texas where someone who was clearly a murderer walked free. The guy had lots of money, hired a good lawyer, and although they could find parts of the body - they couldn't find the deceased's head. Therefore he walked free. That was certainly justice!
Realistically though. Why would IBM, Sun Microsystem, too many companies to list them all, lots and lots of people from all sorts of backgrounds (myself included), the European Community, Japan, China, in fact all of Asia, and even Australia - all of them not like the outcome of the Microsoft trial. Are we all hate mongers? Or could there just be a smidgen of truth here about how Microsoft was treated versus - say AT&T? Remember the baby Bells? Ever wonder why that happened? Think they are nicer today? No - they are back to their tricks again. (See: 1,2, 3, and many others via Google's search engine)
However! Tell you what! Without all of the personal attacks. Without all this hate monger junk - why don't you just present your points on whether or not you believe the Justice Department should or should not use a "Divide and Conquer" approach? That is what everyone really wants to know (myself included). Be waiting to hear from you.
This is true and not true. IBM was ordered to divest itself of major components as well as to do other things. The US Government put restrictions on what it could or could not do. This is the only reason Compaq was able to reverse-engineer the PC and to create clones. Further, IBM fought (and lost to some degree) the clone wars. What really happened in the background was that IBM finally gave up trying to stop the proliferation of PCs and instead drastically dropped the price of leasing the rights to their BIOS information. By the time they had done this though, the other companies who had created their own BIOSs were gaining popularity and the rest is history. IBM shut down it's plants to create PCs and/or laptops and IBM does not even make its own micros or laptops today. They are made by other companies who just slap the IBM logo onto them. (Apple's PowerPC also comes to mind. Motorola used to make Apple's CPUS. Motorola's CPUS though were really IBM creations. But Motorola did the actual production of them.)
As for cheap hardware - that is a natural process of economy. The overhead inherent in a technologically advanced country will make, at some point, it more feasible to outsource things to other countries where the labor is cheaper. Since the labor is cheaper the items are produced at a cheaper rate. That rate, even with import duties, is still cheaper than it would have been to create the item in the original country. Which is why it is cheaper to have some place like India produce your software. Not exactly a great thing (since I was laid off for quite a while myself because of this effect) but I can understand why it is happening.
No. The $10,000.00 fine is using the US Mail to commit fraud.
You could send a letter however you wished. However, consider this:
If you were under investigation for criminal actions and you began trying to influence your trial by sending letters to the state posing as different or even ficticious people. Do you think they would not slap a fine on you? Or throw you in jail for mail fraud? I believe they would. So why aren't the rules, regulations, and laws being applied equally to both you and the major corporation? That is the question.
I also believe the only warping here is the strange outlook that it is ok for those in a position of power to do wrong and get away with it. It is also not true that I hate Microsoft. But it is true that their actions do irritate me and that all of these different things were being done by Microsoft during its trial and yet they were never brought to account for their actions. Further, although they were found to be a monopoly and found to be terribly abusing their monopolistic abilities - they were just given a slap on the wrist and, as the gentlemen in the original article points out - why bother? You aren't hurting them. Punishment? I've said all along - what punishment? The solution doesn't punish. It cajoles them maybe - but punish? Yeah - right. Punishment places a burden on the one being punished. Not that it puts them out of business. Not that it makes it impossible for them to function. But it should make it harder for them to function normally. Is it doing this? I'd have to say no. Therefore - it isn't really a punishment at all.
So I guess I should now succumb to your flamebait on me being a hate monger and post a witty retort. Please. I really don't care that much. This isn't a discussion of personal attacks, snide remarks, or juvenile outbursts. It is a talk about outlooks on subjects. Mine is that Microsoft was never punished. What's yours?
And to further bring this back on track: There are reasons there are punishments for the misuse of the US Mail system (which IMHO this is - and yes, it does NOT rank up there with someone sending Anthrax through the mail). But it is a misuse because they were attempting to interefere with an ongoing investigation. Thus, it is not an ad campaign such as to sell a product but instead is an attempt to stop the investigation through strong arm tactics and by attempting to overpower the state by brow beating them into submission.
The thing is - I seem to recall that the tactics worked and the state backed down. Pity - as I believe they had more abuses to pile on top of the already large stack due to the mail campaign.
The only way to subdue a larger opponent is to divide that opponent's forces and proceed to conquer them. Microsoft and any other large corporation knows this and uses it against any legal strategy which is brought against it. Our government is just too afraid to use it against them.
Remember that the original judgement order would have split Microsoft up. Remember also that they fought it tooth and nail because they knew that if it happened - then they really would have had problems.
Remember AT&T was split up and we got better phone service. IBM had to split up and we now have microcomputers that are so cheap you could work at MacDonald's and still buy one. Microsoft should be split up so software can evolve the way it should.
But then, Microsoft has enough money to buy anything and anyone. So the guy is right. When you are making so much money that you can thumb your nose at the law - who's laws do you live by? The answer is - no one's but your own. Someone giving you a hard time? Buy them off or buy someone who will remove the problem. And that doesn't mean you have to hire a hit man. You just need to hire/buy/create another company to put pressure on legislators, or do letter writing campaigns, or even just visit these people and hint that your company which brings vast wealth into the U.S. would leave and...well, I'm sure you get the picture.
So did the DOJ of Utah. If you have forgotten, remember that Microsoft was in big trouble with the State of Utah for creating a company which wrote ficticious letters to them asking for leniency in their case against Microsoft. IMHO - that is a $10,000.00 fine for each and every letter written and a 5-10 in jail for each offense. Since there were litterally thousands of letters we should never see Mr. Gates or anyone else who was in charge of Microsoft at the time ever again. Yet - there have been no arrests even though Microsoft admitted they had done this.
I think Mr. Roosevelt said it best:"...So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
We need victory. True victory and not hollow lapdog lickings. But all we have gotten so far is a pat on the head.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, it's a terrible attitude to take.
In court cases there are always two claims. The claim of innocence and the claim of an injustice done. Right? Not always. Many times it is a claim of person A did one time and person B did another. Such as seen many times on TV (and experienced first hand in both small claims court as well as big). I hired people to come in and do a job. They didn't. In court their claim was that they were not paid for their work (I had the voided checks), and that we owed them money still (I had the contract they signed). It became a question of who had done wrong or - the most wrong. Luckily for me, the judge looked at the evidence and decided in my favor in all cases. However, in one case - even though I had all of my evidence - the judge decided to not give me back all of the money owed to me because the other person had done some of the work. To date though - I have as of yet to collect a penny from taking anyone to court.
So in this case it is the same. The RIAA/MPAA feel that they are doing the right thing. (I do not feel that they are because I happen to know that you have to request the right to perform a wire tap - which is what this is. And a wire tap is an invasion of privacy which is why you have to go to court in order to get the request fulfilled.) The people who are going to school have rights to privacy. As do we all. Thus, and therefore, should this program be put in to place - it should be challenged on the basis of invasion of privacy.
Something else should be put in here also. The United States of America is not Russia. Although we do now have a Homeland Security division it is not the Gestapo. At least not yet. And although the RIAA/MPAA may suspect that students at the college are swapping music - they do not have parental rights over these students. Nor does the college have any documentation which is signed by the students which gives the college parental rights. Further, I am sure that the students never signed a Power of Attorney document giving the college the full rights to deal with the students in any way, shape, or form other than to teach them. The Supreme Court of the U.S also stated that e-mail and other transactions which would normally be considered private communication between two parties is just that - private. They therefore can not use a methodology which blankets innocent people as well as guilty ones. Because it invades their privacy exposing them to possible misuse such as blackmail.
To bring this back to your statement: My attitude is correct. In every lawsuit there are two opposing views. To restrict your view to the simple guilty/innocent methodology would be to restrict the law in ways which no lawyer would ever agree to. It is not just about whom is right. It is about who has suffered the most at the hands of the opponent in many cases.
So you're saying we should have a machine stick, stab, swab, glob, or however you want to put it and get our DNA? I am sure it could be done a lot easier than I am imagining it (after all, the oil on your finger contains your DNA) but I can see it now....
Human: Ok machine buddy! Let's get to work!
Machine: Please put your hand on the screen so I can verify whom you are.
Human: Ok! Go to it!
Machine: Let's see..... You've had two all *questionable* meat patties, special *trademarked* sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, on a bun with sesame seeds, potatoes *fried*, oil from fries, and the hair from two different dogs. Maybe you should go wash your hands before touching me.
...that the real issue is who is breaking the law the most. The record swappers (who, under the Copyright Laws do have some limited right to swap songs) or the record companies (and whomever else decides to aid them) for invasion of privacy issues.
Of the two, I would say the RIAA is the worse offender. Granted - people are stealing songs. Granted also that drug dealers sell drugs. But drug dealers seem to have more rights under the law than record swappers. With drug dealers you have to follow certain basic procedures which involve the courts, having to establish a basis for your suspicions, and targeting an individual or group but leaving out everyone else not suspected of the crime. Same with this. Neither the RIAA nor the MPAA are the law. Thus, all it will take is for someone who is innocent to get caught, have a lawsuit thrown at them, and - just like the recently concluded Sex.com case - take it through the courts.
When McCarthism came along - all it took was someone not liking someone else. When the blacklists of Hollywood started up all it took was someone not liking who you were or what you did. This is the same vigilantism in action. They only think someone is doing this and like the mafia or some movie made-up powerful cartel - they think they can just do as they please.
My two cents? If I were going to this college - as soon as the software goes on line I'd get as many people together as I could, pool everyone's money, hire a lawyer, and sue the college. Let the RIAA/MPAA hold a hot poker to the college execs. Hold a bigger one to them from the other side and see which way they jump!
It is also a landmark case because now we know who's had sex and who hasn't.
:-P )
(I'll just go back to playing my video games now. You know - the ones with the simulated sex.
Although others have pointed out that the fight isn't over the FAT system - I have noted that no one has even mentioned the mainframes and minis which came long before micros ever appeared.
I've worked on Univac 1108's, 1106's, NAS 9000s, IBM System 3's, Honeywell systems, and the original Vax's as well as some PDP systems. These all used the 8.3 filename convention and is where (I believe) the usage of 8.3 filenames under DOS came about. (Remember original DOS used EBCDIC which is an IBM standard and the PC was to originally be a "very small" mainframe.) All of these mainframes had a FAT system in place for the usage of the disk drives. So there are decades of prior FAT usage and setup. So FAT and the 8.3 filenaming convention is a done deal.
The usage of long/short names and the mapping of long/short names one to the other was done under Unix years before Microsoft even came along. This was called linking. Further, Digital Equipment Corporation, under VMS, came out with a method to do the same thing prior to Microsoft ever having done this. It is such an obvious misuse of the patent system that, as another poster put it, this is just another example of how broken our government is in this respect.
The truth, as I see it, is that we are in a war over whether or not our original systems of Patenting and Copyrighting things, as created by the people who put pen to paper, will survive. When the rules were written; it was another time. A time when it took months or years to do even one thing. (Like filing for a patent.) In today's world things are vastly different and, with the push of a button, you can submit a patent on anything to the PTO. This reduction of time means that, at some point, it becomes an exercise in logic programming to generate new patents. The basic idea behind the Patent system was to guarantee time to an individual - because it took so long to recoup your investment - so they could make a profit. Today, some inventions are overnight successes. Granted - not all, but even the creation-to-market time span is shortening. Especially when there are devices out there that can create 3D objects. So the question becomes - is the Patent and Copyright system broken because of misuse - or because they are an outmoded methodology? I think the latter.
Maybe it's time we re-invented the Patent and Copyright systems so they work in the modern world. For instance, centralize where all payments on Patents and Copyrights go. Standardize on how much has to be paid per P&C. (Like 1% of a company's gross has to be set aside to pay P&Cs. Or maybe a default amount per unit sold could be come up with. <Whatever is come up with - it should be fair - as in "Atom smashers are a lot more rare than bubble gum."> This would eliminate some P&Cs being sold at some high amount versus others which are paid only minimal amounts. And yes - there are some really stupid P&Cs out there. This is just a general methodology that I am writing.) Standardize how much is to be paid on Patents and Copyrights. Standardize how often payments are to be made to the holders of Patents and Copyrights. Standardize on how long Patents and Copyrights can exist. (I personally am in favor of the life of the author plus twenty years and no more. I am also in favor of making it illegal to change this in any way, shape, or form because of what we just went through via the DMCA. Or at least make it illegal to change it without the consent of the people. Not Congress and/or the Senate as both have been shown to be untrustworthy in this area.) Standardize top level categories. Create a standardized entry number system. Entry numbers into the system could be assigned based upon the importance/weight of an entry. (In other words - truly unique ideas are at the top. Those t
Ha! I like that! :-P
;-)
But better by far to be called Loquacious than to be a mime at a keyboard. Because you know - a mime is a terrible thing to waste.
I decided to take the next step in my post. I wrote to the PTO and laid out the four types of databases which would have to be created (word conversion, phrase conversion, document database, word cross-references). I also wrote about how to use these to do the patent searches (ie: #1=Convert all words to numbers (long ints), #2=Convert all phrases to an equivalent single word [if possible], #3=The converted document [all text = #1 or #2 entries], and #4=Cross reference of where all #1s and #2s exist).
:-) Of course, if it is just a "Go away" message - then I will not post it and I will just post that it was that kind of a message. :-( (I am hoping it will be the former and not the latter. :-) )
I hope they at least respond. If I get any kind of a response I will see about posting it to my website (or here) and letting everyone read it.
Later!
Now that the Patent Office has kindly placed a lot of patents into their database; they should begin the process of writing programs which help them to eliminate patents based upon (if nothing else) their documentation.
;-)
:-)
I would think the rejection of Patents would fall into a few categories: 1)Bad Spelling, 2)Bad Grammar, 3)Bad Idea. Once these are past - THEN - the object could be compared against pre-existing documents.
I know there are probably millions of documents which might match a new document but, like Google, they could be pared down based upon how closely they look like another invention. Google has how many servers and how many pages to look at and decide upon? Yet you get feedback in only a few seconds. Why not base how the PTO works on Google's model? The PTO could even sell priority for first consideration to companies.
Truly though, since every invention has to be written up, and since we already know that millions of pages can (and are) rejected by a good search engine - this is what the PTO really needs.
Which brings up the question: How many patents are filed for items which are not really in that category? Like an idea for a game which might overlap how something is done in the real world. Would that patent be enforceable because it was already given out? Or does the fact that the patent is filed in different categories mean that you can patent something which has already been patented - but in a different category? So a toothbrush used by a robotic servant (and is a part of the robot itself) can be patented separately from a regular, toothbrush which is held in the hand?
If the former - then that cuts down on the number of patents which has to be searched. Otherwise, all of the patents have to be searched. Which is why it becomes so hard to determine the merits of a given patent. A good search engine though - could shave a lot of time off of how long it would take to determine the merits of any given patent.
This does not, however, eliminate the need for people who are smart enough to know that a flashlight is still a flashlight. No matter if it is called a flashlight or an object which emits a beam of light. This too (the phrase "an object which emits light") should become a part of the search engine. Or, in other words, you create a relational database which relates single words to phrases so the search engine can make better judgement calls.
Just a few thoughts.
What if Sedna is the surviving moon of the planet which would make up the Kupier belt? Would that account for the slow rotation factor?
Also, are the namers playing with words?
From Webster's On-line Dictionary:
One entry found for sedentary.
Main Entry: sedentary
Pronunciation: 'se-d&n-"ter-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French sedentaire, from Latin sedentarius, from sedent-, sedens, present participle of sedEre to sit -- more at SIT
1 : not migratory : SETTLED
2 : doing or requiring much sitting
3 : permanently attached
Get the Top 10 Search Results for "sedentary"
For More Information on "sedentary" go to Britannica.com
...speaking in public? Do news agencies ask you to sign a waiver of your rights before running up to you to get your opinion on something?
Chat boards are like being in public places and talking. Anyone who happens to have a tape recorder (say they are making notes for use later on) and they happen to capture you saying something can't be prosecuted for having done so. (Unless it is truly slanderous or libelous.) In chat - you may need to copy/paste something so you can relate another comment back to a previous comment. Thus, playing like each copy/paste is a violation of one person's rights is like say echos in a room have to be done away with. Nice idea but not (generally) enforcable.
Last, but not least, the Supreme Court dictated that online activities are protected in the same manner as newspapers and TV reporters are protected. These people copy/paste what people say all of the time. Thus, by its very nature, this law attempts to circumvent the freedom of the press portion of what the Supreme Court was talking about.
The only way to stop the madness is to make it illegal, immorally wrong, or have a penalty which would, in effect, kill (or imprison) whoever tried to change things. Since times change, attitudes change, and people change - the above isn't likely to happen. Further, whenever there is money to be made by both good as well as bad people - you have a direct conflict of interest with hampering these people from doing whatever it is they want to do.
Some things which people want to do (such as rape, robbery, and murder) is easily decided upon by the vast majority of people. In other words - you can't do it. Or rather - you can do it but there are severe repercussions if you are found out. (And I mean normally and not those people/companies/governments which do get away with it.) Others are not so easily decided upon. Especially when mega-corporations put their force behind the passage of rules and regulations which tend to harm or stiffle competition.
The whole idea behind the passage of new laws is, simply put, control. Who will control what everyone else can do? The price of gas goes up not because there is any real crisis. It is because someone somewhere is controlling the availability of the gas. This might be because of the availability of trucks to carry it, ships to transport it, or barrels of crude oil available.
With software patents - the same outlook is being applied. That someone somewhere wants to control what you can or can not do on a computer. Like a bratty little child, that person is trying to have it all and allow no one else to use what they perceive as theirs. The truth is that only those people who designed the first computers have any right to any kind of a Patent. All other Patents simply build upon those which would have already expired and thus are not enforceable. Further, the Patent Office is ill equipped to handle whether or not any given application is truly unique. What the program does or controls might be unique - but the underlying software is not. Were this not so, then FLEX and YACC would never have come into existence.
We have come to a time when fair play, fair use, and common sense (the basis of OSS) is being pitted against the robber barons who want it all and will take it if allowed to do so. Why do you think the Magna Carta came into being? Why the U.S. broke away from England? Why India fought in its own way for freedom? Why there are so many wars all over the world now? Because the haves are abusing the have nots. They do it by passing what we call laws. They pass laws because they know that what they do is illegal and so they try to legitimize their actions by passing laws to fit how they want the world to be.
So am I saying we should rise up? Yes. We should rise up and write our leaders. You may be thrown in jail (especially if you threaten someone - so don't!), you may gain ire from your friends, you may have a terrible time of it. But it is better to go through that than to not say anything at all. Silence means you agree with the controllers and hopefully - you don't.
Later.
I don't know about you, but on my microwave there are about twenty buttons you can push (including the numeric keys). Of the twenty buttons I use two:
:-)
1. Speed Defrost (Computer controlled)
2. Speed Cook (Computer controlled)
My wife took out something to defrost and spent over an hour trying to get the food defrosted. I walked in, went "Let me do that" and had it defrosted in about five minutes.
Now, if you wanted to talk about our old microwave - it would have taken me probably the same amount of time to defrost it as my wife took. A very cumbersome interface. So the interfaces are (IMHO) getting better and easier to use. But it is true that there are many more buttons on this new unit than the older one. It is just that the interface is laid out better. (At least to me it is.)
I do not know about anyone else, but with us I buy a lot of food all at one time, cook all of it, put it in those Gladware containers, and put it in the freezer. (We bought one of those six foot tall upright freezers so we can stock quite a bit in there.) Then we just take things out, defrost, wait a minute or two, and hit cook. The computer in the microwave oven senses when the food is at the proper temperature, reheats it, and then cooks it. The waiting for a minute or two is to allow the food to cool a bit (and spread the heat around) before starting the cook cycle. I know not everyone can do this. But once a month you cook non-stop for six hours and then you are through for the rest of the month. Beats having to cook every night although it does feel as though you are always eating TV diners.
This is a similar article to one written by someone else a few years back which Slashdot ran. Basically the person threw up their hands and said there was nothing to be done then either. It is a defeatist attitude. True, maybe he does not have the answer. True that at some point in time an alternative may appear which will remove Microsoft from the foray completely or even in a major way.
The question here is - is it Linux/BSD/Unix? To me, the answer is yes. Although, as one person here has already said, there isn't an income tax program available unless you are running Mac OS X - that is besides the point. Because that is a void which, as more companies come onboard Linux, will be filled.
What I am trying to say is - is that I think of this need people have for an OS which is stable and programs which, when they crash, do not take the system with it (as well as just plain good software) is a void. Surrounding this void are the various OSs available. With the help of major corporations such as IBM, HP, and the like - the people who have fallen into the void are finding their way out and into Linux. These are people who used to be in the Windows area but became dissatisfied with everything that has been going on for the past ten or fifteen years. So they slowly but surely drifted into the void. Where, no matter what they did - they were unhappy about their situation but could not figure out what to do about it. Well, let me tell you that these people, once they have seen just how much free software is out there as well as how many people there are out there who want to help them get unstuck and back to being productive - they just go "Wow" and it really affects them deeply to know that there are others out there who share their beliefs, needs, and passions for doing things.
So my message is - don't give up, throw up your hands, and quit. We are making a difference and no matter what - Microsoft can not go forever without making a profit. True. They may seek to take on Open Source Software. But you can't stop it because then you would be taking on the whole world. And since the world is who is footing the bill for Microsoft to even be around - you can't bite the hand that feeds you and expect that hand to feed you again.
So - so what if he doesn't know the answer. No one person will have that answer. It is only going to come - from all of us. Working together. To achieve the common goal of making things better in the world.
Ack! That was sooooooo bad! :-) I wish I had some mod points to give you I'd mod that very funny! :->
Yes - that would make more sense and is what I thought I was posting (silly me!). Symantics (of the non-Norton kind). I would have said "along the line of the train tracks" or maybe "along the tracks the train rides on" if I really meant the train tracks. But I can see how what I wrote is rather archaic in how it is laid out (so to speak).
:-)
:-)
Not trying to derail what you wrote or to act like Ven Diesel. I'm just railroading my thoughts here. But I'll cross those tracks when I get to them. Ah - too many bad puns and too little sleep.
But you are quite right - I should have been more specific and clear in what I wrote.
Yes, well - some people just don't like Audacious. *Shrug* Takes all kinds.
:-) Besides - why would I want to entice whomever it was that marked my last message as flamebait to do so again? *nudge-nudge-wink-wink*
I just finished dealing with someone who said I was a hate monger. I've never thought of myself as a hate monger - but who knows? Maybe I should look in the mirror more often? I thought once a day, when I shaved, was enough but ya just never know.
Ah well, since joking around must now be flamebait I'm expecting this to draw quite a bit of flack. The funny thing is - the e-mail I received said my post was moderated to funny (+1). Which is what I thought it was - funny I mean. In the normal sense of the word. So imagine my surprise when I check it and it is no longer listed as funny but as flamebait. My thoughts are that Slashdot's e-mailing system must be mucked up a bit. Otherwise, why would it tell me it was moderated as funny?
You know - I think there's a joke in there somewhere but I just can't quite see it.
Later!
You know, if I'm a couple hundred miles away - I wouldn't hear it at all. ;-)
:-/
Seriously though, why don't they try using small speakers placed along the line of the train which project anti-soundwave patterns so the two cancel each other out. Like the devices now being put into people's homes? And for those inside as well.
Here's another site about quieting down buses et al.
Oh well. I looked and could not find the sound device (electronic) which matches incoming sounds and then creates the alternate sound wave which cancels out the incoming sound. I saw it in a recent electronic's magazine but I can't find that either right now. So I know it's out there but I do not remember where. Sorry folks!
When I first read the article I mentally converted Poway to PovRay and found myself thinking "What the heck are those guys doing now!? And where is this city located?"
:-)
(Working on too many graphic projects!)
No. What the phone companies should do is:
1. Get together.
2. Use open standards.
3. Create special TCP/IPv6 addresses for each cell phone so communication is:
3a. Standardized between each phone.
3b. Can use everyone else's cell phone as a pathway to reach the nearest tower (like the web uses each node as a path to send/receive packets presently).
4. Have a standardized set of commands which can be sent to a cell phone.
4a. Which has a method of setting the volume up or down and to ring or just vibrate.
4b. Which has a standardized set of PGP keys so malicious people can not go around mucking with other people's phones.
4c. Which also has some smarts built into it so the phone knows the difference between an incoming command via another phone and an incoming command via an outside source (so theatres et al can have a device which broadcasts to the phones but other phones can not broadcast the message).
Places where there is not to be any noise above a whisper could then have a device which sends a "VOLUME:BUZZ:X:Y:Z" message out. Using GPS tracking, any phone inside of the area (say 500ft [or maybe 200m] around X:Y:Z) would have their settings reset to just buzz. Once away from the area the phone would reset itself to the proper volumn level. Other places, where no phone calls can be received would have something like "VOLUME:OFF:X:Y:Z" followed by "CALLS:OFF:X:Y:Z". (Or maybe "VOLCAL:OFF:X:Y:Z".
Phone companies could then provide an automated message which states something like "This customer's phone is presently not accepting calls. If this is an emergency, please press one now. To leave a message press two." The command override would have been given by the person in advance (ie: to start your service you have to give an emergency override id number). The system then sends the override message along with the password (encrypted of course) and the phone begins by first buzzing the person, then incrementally increasing the speaker's loudness. Once maximum volume has been reached (and no one has answered) the phone resets to the override command and sends back that it failed to reach the person.
The person on the other end is notified of this and they are given the option of leaving a voicemail and/or phone number to be reached at.
It isn't all that hard to imagine a way this can all work. The hard part is getting all of the phone companies to agree to work together and to settle on one methodology of making the phones work.
The neat thing is - cell phones could be their own routers, hubs, DNS, et al. It just takes a different way of looking at things.
Pane Software?
:-)
Screenware? (Or maybe Screamware for those times you keep killing your OS thorugh your programming glitches.)
POLOS? (Plain Old Lindows Operation System)
Carpe Diem OS (Because you don't know what you are getting into with the MS vs Lindows stuff)
Good names are just hard to come by sometimes.
As long as it was their honest opinion
But was it? I did not know that dead people had an opinion. Further, upon questioning many of the people who's names were used - they had no idea a letter had been sent in their name. By what stretch of the imagination is this an honest opinion? And yes. You should be fined. Doesn't always happen - but then if you have a pair of pliers in your back pocket after sundown in Texas you can be hung from the neck until dead and they don't do that either. Just because the laws are there does not always mean they are enforced.
Quite the appeal to fear there
All I can say is - yeah...right. If that was an appeal to fear then I'm Alfred Hitchcock. Come on - get it together guy. If you really have a point to make - then make it.
What you are asking for is for laws to NOT be applied to everyone equally
Oh really? Is that what I was saying? That due to the size, money, and influence which Microsoft has - that it is being allowed to set its own terms when it comes to punishment? To flaunt their ability to twist things around so they benefit from what they've done? Or, as the original story pointed out - the punishment does not fit the crime because Microsoft is so powerful that it only takes a few days to get past the punishment. Wow. So just why did we even bother to prosecute them in the first place? We spent hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of man hours, and we get new computers with Microsoft products installed into our schools so they can extend their monopoly even further? You know - that's like convicting someone of murder, giving them a slap on the wrist, and saying "Don't do that again." I'm sure they will be so afraid that they will never ever kill someone again. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... As I said before - yeah - right.
Listen. Your logic is heavily flawed. You are saying that because I said to apply the law that I am a hate monger. When in truth - I just want them to play and suffer by the same rules and laws underwhich the rest of us have to play. And simply because it is Microsoft and simply because you might like them - does not make the rest of us automatically hate mongers. So - sorry, I just don't see your logic.
If one is convicted of a crime one should be punished.
I certainly hope so! But realistically - it doesn't work that way. There was a recent court case in Galveston, Texas where someone who was clearly a murderer walked free. The guy had lots of money, hired a good lawyer, and although they could find parts of the body - they couldn't find the deceased's head. Therefore he walked free. That was certainly justice!
Realistically though. Why would IBM, Sun Microsystem, too many companies to list them all, lots and lots of people from all sorts of backgrounds (myself included), the European Community, Japan, China, in fact all of Asia, and even Australia - all of them not like the outcome of the Microsoft trial. Are we all hate mongers? Or could there just be a smidgen of truth here about how Microsoft was treated versus - say AT&T? Remember the baby Bells? Ever wonder why that happened? Think they are nicer today? No - they are back to their tricks again. (See: 1,2, 3, and many others via Google's search engine)
However! Tell you what! Without all of the personal attacks. Without all this hate monger junk - why don't you just present your points on whether or not you believe the Justice Department should or should not use a "Divide and Conquer" approach? That is what everyone really wants to know (myself included). Be waiting to hear from you.
Later!
The earth doesn't like to be.....probed.
It won't bend over, it won't spread-em, and it doesn't care how sensitive those damn machines are.
I also want to know who's going to be up there pulling all of those strings on those gyros!
(There! I feel much better now! I know it's stupid! I can hear you groaning out there - but I just had to post it!)
This is true and not true. IBM was ordered to divest itself of major components as well as to do other things. The US Government put restrictions on what it could or could not do. This is the only reason Compaq was able to reverse-engineer the PC and to create clones. Further, IBM fought (and lost to some degree) the clone wars. What really happened in the background was that IBM finally gave up trying to stop the proliferation of PCs and instead drastically dropped the price of leasing the rights to their BIOS information. By the time they had done this though, the other companies who had created their own BIOSs were gaining popularity and the rest is history. IBM shut down it's plants to create PCs and/or laptops and IBM does not even make its own micros or laptops today. They are made by other companies who just slap the IBM logo onto them. (Apple's PowerPC also comes to mind. Motorola used to make Apple's CPUS. Motorola's CPUS though were really IBM creations. But Motorola did the actual production of them.)
As for cheap hardware - that is a natural process of economy. The overhead inherent in a technologically advanced country will make, at some point, it more feasible to outsource things to other countries where the labor is cheaper. Since the labor is cheaper the items are produced at a cheaper rate. That rate, even with import duties, is still cheaper than it would have been to create the item in the original country. Which is why it is cheaper to have some place like India produce your software. Not exactly a great thing (since I was laid off for quite a while myself because of this effect) but I can understand why it is happening.
No. The $10,000.00 fine is using the US Mail to commit fraud.
You could send a letter however you wished. However, consider this:
If you were under investigation for criminal actions and you began trying to influence your trial by sending letters to the state posing as different or even ficticious people. Do you think they would not slap a fine on you? Or throw you in jail for mail fraud? I believe they would. So why aren't the rules, regulations, and laws being applied equally to both you and the major corporation? That is the question.
I also believe the only warping here is the strange outlook that it is ok for those in a position of power to do wrong and get away with it. It is also not true that I hate Microsoft. But it is true that their actions do irritate me and that all of these different things were being done by Microsoft during its trial and yet they were never brought to account for their actions. Further, although they were found to be a monopoly and found to be terribly abusing their monopolistic abilities - they were just given a slap on the wrist and, as the gentlemen in the original article points out - why bother? You aren't hurting them. Punishment? I've said all along - what punishment? The solution doesn't punish. It cajoles them maybe - but punish? Yeah - right. Punishment places a burden on the one being punished. Not that it puts them out of business. Not that it makes it impossible for them to function. But it should make it harder for them to function normally. Is it doing this? I'd have to say no. Therefore - it isn't really a punishment at all.
So I guess I should now succumb to your flamebait on me being a hate monger and post a witty retort. Please. I really don't care that much. This isn't a discussion of personal attacks, snide remarks, or juvenile outbursts. It is a talk about outlooks on subjects. Mine is that Microsoft was never punished. What's yours?
And to further bring this back on track: There are reasons there are punishments for the misuse of the US Mail system (which IMHO this is - and yes, it does NOT rank up there with someone sending Anthrax through the mail). But it is a misuse because they were attempting to interefere with an ongoing investigation. Thus, it is not an ad campaign such as to sell a product but instead is an attempt to stop the investigation through strong arm tactics and by attempting to overpower the state by brow beating them into submission.
The thing is - I seem to recall that the tactics worked and the state backed down. Pity - as I believe they had more abuses to pile on top of the already large stack due to the mail campaign.
The only way to subdue a larger opponent is to divide that opponent's forces and proceed to conquer them. Microsoft and any other large corporation knows this and uses it against any legal strategy which is brought against it. Our government is just too afraid to use it against them.
Remember that the original judgement order would have split Microsoft up. Remember also that they fought it tooth and nail because they knew that if it happened - then they really would have had problems.
Remember AT&T was split up and we got better phone service. IBM had to split up and we now have microcomputers that are so cheap you could work at MacDonald's and still buy one. Microsoft should be split up so software can evolve the way it should.
But then, Microsoft has enough money to buy anything and anyone. So the guy is right. When you are making so much money that you can thumb your nose at the law - who's laws do you live by? The answer is - no one's but your own. Someone giving you a hard time? Buy them off or buy someone who will remove the problem. And that doesn't mean you have to hire a hit man. You just need to hire/buy/create another company to put pressure on legislators, or do letter writing campaigns, or even just visit these people and hint that your company which brings vast wealth into the U.S. would leave and...well, I'm sure you get the picture.
So did the DOJ of Utah. If you have forgotten, remember that Microsoft was in big trouble with the State of Utah for creating a company which wrote ficticious letters to them asking for leniency in their case against Microsoft. IMHO - that is a $10,000.00 fine for each and every letter written and a 5-10 in jail for each offense. Since there were litterally thousands of letters we should never see Mr. Gates or anyone else who was in charge of Microsoft at the time ever again. Yet - there have been no arrests even though Microsoft admitted they had done this.
I think Mr. Roosevelt said it best:"...So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
We need victory. True victory and not hollow lapdog lickings. But all we have gotten so far is a pat on the head.
Later.