I am sorry, but do you realize how stupid you sound? I mean, have you ever seen pictures of an oil rig or even a refinery? Now have you ever seen a picture of a small bush with berries? Which one do you think takes either governments or huge multinationals to produce and maintain, and which can be tended by people who work more and harder in a day than you will in a lifetime?
Please, think again about what you said, get informed, at say here (The site is in Afrikaans, but I am sure you will figure out how to click the English link); come back here, and post what a heal you have been.
Don't be too proud---a sincere mea culpa will get you many points.
This gizmo's GPS gizmo will work in Banff, AB (pop: 6 people 300 ski bunnies and a tired goat) but will not work in Anchorage, AK with a population of over a quarter of a million people!
I mean really people, there are _fifty_ states in the U.S. Not 47, not 48, but 50.
I guess I could also complain that this thing does not work in Hawaii, but
1.) I don't live there. 2.) If I did, I would have so many better things to do than care if anyone Outside knew we existed.
Well, don't bother registering, or downloading. The viewer is broken: you can look at your sid file, even zoom in on it, but can't zoom-out, pan, et c. which makes for a frustrating experiance. The reason that you can't do these things is that the menues won't let you select anything. I think it uses Motif or something, but in any event looks pretty crappy.
I tried looking through the documentation, but there was little to none suppied with the package, and the web site only seemd to deal with licensing issues. Of course, no way to look through the source--binary only.
I am so glad the Library of Congress is using this seemingly propriatary format---heavens we can't let Linux users run amock with those maps.
It is not just IP that the US is trying to clamp down on, the whole U. S. policy towards emerging countries is hypocritical: but there has always been a good historical president for it:
Just to take one example: the U. S. is pushing for all sorts of free trade agreements. Why? Well, for the first hundred years of our existence, the main form of revenue for our government had been tariffs (taxes on imports---taxes on exports are actually prohibited by the constitution.) At the time of the Revolutionary War, the main U.S. exports were cotton, tobacco, from the South and lumber from New England. You may notice that these are either raw materials or agricultural goods. But the money is in the value added, as readers of/. know so well: silicon is litteraly dirt cheep, ic chips made from silicon are perhaps the most expensive substance by weight.
It is no secret that the U.S. used protective tariffs to protect early manufacturer's (who otherwise could not compete with England). It is also no secret that the U. S. really did not like it when others tried to do the same. Now we are doing it with GATT. Throughout the last century we were not so sublte: Marines were sent throughout this hemesphere to make sure that bananas were grown and local governments were not too concerned about the welafare of the common man at the exoence of U. S. buisness interests.
The tragic thing is, just as with development of manufacture, this colonial IP policiy hurts both the developin countries and the people in developed nations. They can't form a manufacturing base, we can't get real, honest, labor unions. And of course, by keeping so many people in the unmechanized fields and unsecured mineshafts, we are really missing out on the increadible behefits that a well educated _global_ populace could bring.
We can blame M$ for quite a bit, but not for corrupting the political process: they just used what they found.
I do not belive that in reality there is "outright corruption": no paper sacks pass between Chairman Bill and Secretary John (Ashcroft). But Bill will pay quite a bit of money to eat rubber chickens with both Democratic and Republican movers and shakers, and as a consequence, these movers and shakers are, well, moved and shaken.
All of a sudden a type of recieved wisdom exists at the DoJ or at Commerce, that says "What is good for M$ is good for America." The fact is that there are other CEO's even more open handed than Ch.Bill, gulping down rubber chickens like there is no tomarow. And, surprise, suprise, these CEO's are just as opposed at the stifling of innovation and the "blunting of America's competative edje through government over-regulation."
I really wonder if this would be such a scandal in other countries: in the U.K., the "old boys network" is even more established---and just as much a pure plutocracy. If you have enough money the Tories, and even the new Liberals under Blair won't check whether your antecedents hail from Surrey or Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps it is only on your smaller countries (by population) such as New Zealand or Finnland that the populace is close enough to the government that something of a democracy still exists. Maybe it is true what Kurt Vonnegut said:
"Any country bigger than Denmark is not worth a damn."
Of course, this should surprise no-one. Nothing short of a radical break-up will cause this company to be one whit less arrogant---indeed, one can argue that since its primary duty is towards its shareholders, there is no incentive for Microsoft to change.
But in this political climate, such government action is highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite has been happening: Standard oil was broken up a nearly a century ago, and now its old pieces are reassembling themselves. There does not seem a merger that the F.T.C. does not love.
The biggest mistake that Microsoft has made was ignoring politics for such a long time. Before this case, its net political contribution to either party were nearly nil. As soon as the first writs started to come in, so did money start to pour from Redmond to Washington, now contributions to both parties are in the millions, and Federal prosecutors have become far less eager.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but here is my prediction as to the outcome of all these legal actions: appeals, followed by more appeals, followed by earnest wrist slapping.
But there is a bright side: Microsoft vision of the P.C. as a direct conduit between it and its customers' wallets will do more to break up its stranglehold than all the judges on the bench.
Piont well taken, I shouyld have used ex cathedra as my example. But I still did not find the judge's language to be particularly stilted. In fact, omerta makes it almost colorful.
First, to defend the judge's language, his article appeared in a "trade paper," i. e., a journal for jurisits. Hence the unqualified use of esoteric terms like omerta is just as justified as a reference to "snrtRNA" in Natrure or even "M$" on these pages.
Second, there are rule breakings and rule breakings. The judge violated no law, and the appeals court took him to task only for "'deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant' violations of ethical canons"
One can ask whether if one considers an action to be perfectly ethical, one should still refrain form acting in such a manner because the long standing tradition of one's profession says that an action is unethical. In this light, to not act muight be considered cowardly, and ispo fact unethical, which I think is the judge's point.
One could wish, however, that the judge was a bit more circumspect in his statements. Shure, it was good that he was vocal, but perhaps the stridency and the timleness of his speech did more to hurt the cause than help it.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, think again about what you said, get informed, at say here (The site is in Afrikaans, but I am sure you will figure out how to click the English link); come back here, and post what a heal you have been.
Don't be too proud---a sincere mea culpa will get you many points.
This gizmo's GPS gizmo will work in Banff, AB (pop: 6 people 300 ski bunnies and a tired goat) but will not work in Anchorage, AK with a population of over a quarter of a million people!
I mean really people, there are _fifty_ states in the U.S. Not 47, not 48, but 50.
I guess I could also complain that this thing does not work in Hawaii, but
1.) I don't live there.
2.) If I did, I would have so many better things to do than care if anyone Outside knew we existed.
Well, don't bother registering, or downloading. The viewer is broken: you can look at your sid file, even zoom in on it, but can't zoom-out, pan, et c. which makes for a frustrating experiance. The reason that you can't do these things is that the menues won't let you select anything. I think it uses Motif or something, but in any event looks pretty crappy. I tried looking through the documentation, but there was little to none suppied with the package, and the web site only seemd to deal with licensing issues. Of course, no way to look through the source--binary only. I am so glad the Library of Congress is using this seemingly propriatary format---heavens we can't let Linux users run amock with those maps.
It is not just IP that the US is trying to clamp down on, the whole U. S. policy towards emerging countries is hypocritical: but there has always been a good historical president for it:
/. know so well: silicon is litteraly dirt cheep, ic chips made from silicon are perhaps the most expensive substance by weight.
Just to take one example: the U. S. is pushing for all sorts of free trade agreements. Why? Well, for the first hundred years of our existence, the main form of revenue for our government had been tariffs (taxes on imports---taxes on exports are actually prohibited by the constitution.) At the time of the Revolutionary War, the main U.S. exports were cotton, tobacco, from the South and lumber from New England. You may notice that these are either raw materials or agricultural goods. But the money is in the value added, as readers of
It is no secret that the U.S. used protective tariffs to protect early manufacturer's (who otherwise could not compete with England). It is also no secret that the U. S. really did not like it when others tried to do the same. Now we are doing it with GATT. Throughout the last century we were not so sublte: Marines were sent throughout this hemesphere to make sure that bananas were grown and local governments were not too concerned about the welafare of the common man at the exoence of U. S. buisness interests.
The tragic thing is, just as with development of manufacture, this colonial IP policiy hurts both the developin countries and the people in developed nations. They can't form a manufacturing base, we can't get real, honest, labor unions. And of course, by keeping so many people in the unmechanized fields and unsecured mineshafts, we are really missing out on the increadible behefits that a well educated _global_ populace could bring.
We can blame M$ for quite a bit, but not for corrupting the political process: they just used what they found.
I do not belive that in reality there is "outright corruption": no paper sacks pass between Chairman Bill and Secretary John (Ashcroft). But Bill will pay quite a bit of money to eat rubber chickens with both Democratic and Republican movers and shakers, and as a consequence, these movers and shakers are, well, moved and shaken.
All of a sudden a type of recieved wisdom exists at the DoJ or at Commerce, that says "What is good for M$ is good for America." The fact is that there are other CEO's even more open handed than Ch.Bill, gulping down rubber chickens like there is no tomarow. And, surprise, suprise, these CEO's are just as opposed at the stifling of innovation and the "blunting of America's competative edje through government over-regulation."
I really wonder if this would be such a scandal in other countries: in the U.K., the "old boys network" is even more established---and just as much a pure plutocracy. If you have enough money the Tories, and even the new Liberals under Blair won't check whether your antecedents hail from Surrey or Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps it is only on your smaller countries (by population) such as New Zealand or Finnland that the populace is close enough to the government that something of a democracy still exists. Maybe it is true what Kurt Vonnegut said:
"Any country bigger than Denmark is not worth a damn."
Of course, this should surprise no-one. Nothing short of a radical break-up will cause this company to be one whit less arrogant---indeed, one can argue that since its primary duty is towards its shareholders, there is no incentive for Microsoft to change.
But in this political climate, such government action is highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite has been happening: Standard oil was broken up a nearly a century ago, and now its old pieces are reassembling themselves. There does not seem a merger that the F.T.C. does not love.
The biggest mistake that Microsoft has made was ignoring politics for such a long time. Before this case, its net political contribution to either party were nearly nil. As soon as the first writs started to come in, so did money start to pour from Redmond to Washington, now contributions to both parties are in the millions, and Federal prosecutors have become far less eager.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but here is my prediction as to the outcome of all these legal actions: appeals, followed by more appeals, followed by earnest wrist slapping.
But there is a bright side: Microsoft vision of the P.C. as a direct conduit between it and its customers' wallets will do more to break up its stranglehold than all the judges on the bench.
Piont well taken, I shouyld have used ex cathedra as my example. But I still did not find the judge's language to be particularly stilted. In fact, omerta makes it almost colorful.
First, to defend the judge's language, his article appeared in a "trade paper," i. e., a journal for jurisits. Hence the unqualified use of esoteric terms like omerta is just as justified as a reference to "snrtRNA" in Natrure or even "M$" on these pages.
Second, there are rule breakings and rule breakings. The judge violated no law, and the appeals court took him to task only for "'deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant' violations of ethical canons"
One can ask whether if one considers an action to be perfectly ethical, one should still refrain form acting in such a manner because the long standing tradition of one's profession says that an action is unethical. In this light, to not act muight be considered cowardly, and ispo fact unethical, which I think is the judge's point.
One could wish, however, that the judge was a bit more circumspect in his statements. Shure, it was good that he was vocal, but perhaps the stridency and the timleness of his speech did more to hurt the cause than help it.