I wouldn't shed a tear if it were the FTC, the FBI or the Capitol Hill police which eliminate a fraudulent representation from a company. It would have been nice if you would have pointed out which agency should have nailed them for fraudulently providing a service in interstate commerce. Then I could have just said whatever and moved on.
The FCC, in its spectrum regulation role "in the public interest" is and should be going the way of the dodo bird. Where it finds fraud and fines it "in the public interest", they do good and proper work that is actually more justifiable than their original remit. I can't find it in myself to get too angry over the whole thing.
The Apple paper on AD/OD integration is a good place to start. I do question why you'd need Active Directory at all unless you have some sort of application that requires it and isn't fooled by Samba/LDAP.
You might want to keep an eye on these guys. Power.org members are likely to produce those PPC standard case motherboards in the reasonably near future.
Their scope of authority, I'll bet, includes fraudulently offering service. I really doubt that they put "we're going to block competitive services off your network at will" in their T&C to their customers.
Would you sign up with an ISP that will port block you out of services you want? I wouldn't . I'm reasonably sure that most of their (the fined telco) customers didn't either.
Again, it's all about the fraud. Market forces pretty much take care of the rest.
Replace VOIP with HTTP and your point has exactly the same validity, which would be none at all. If nobody can send a message to my computer without explicit permission from my ISP then what you have isn't Internet service as it has traditionally been known. It's something else that happens to use the TCP/IP stack and is being fraudulently sold as Internet service.
Whatever customers they can retain after they have to truthfully disclose what they're offering, they're welcome to. I don't think they'll be enough to stave off bankruptcy.
It may be private, but they contracted to provide Internet service. If they sell service without notifying in advance of port blockage, they should (and probably will) call it fraud.
The cure is simply to prosecute the fraud, where it exists, insist on advance port blocking disclosure, and let the free market hammer the blocking ISP's P&L statement. I can't imagine that there's much of a market for crippled Internet service when you can go to other services for the same price and get full access to all ports.
I think Darwin runs Apple's directory services just fine and it's available in x86 flavors. It's free, doesn't require new metal, and will play really nice as you go into your next server upgrade cycle where you can get OS X server boxes.
Even if the industries don't relocate, the pollution does. If your Mark III stamping machine doesn't meet Kyoto standards, Siemans doesn't toss it in the dumpster. It sells it, very often to the 3rd world where it will continue doing its work (and contributing just as much to global pollution).
Doing stuff tends to throw pollutants in the air. Any serious economic activity that will get us out of the caves and into a modern society is going to have pollution attached. Here's a clue for you. If you get rich enough, you start caring about pollution and are willing to pay for cleanup activities. If you're poor you don't give a damn.
Wealth makes it possible to have high living standards and clean economies. We're nowhere near wealthy enough to run a global clean economy without tyranny. Environmentalist treaties that cut growth can actually leave you with net more pollution 50 years out.
Actually, if the extra economic growth enables you to get rich enough to ride out the mostly naturally caused changes then, yes, extra economic growth with some extra global warming gas deposits would be worth it. It all depends on how much better off we would be from the growth and how much worse off we would be from the pollution. The global warming alarmists are most often very unhappy at the idea of amelioration rather than prevention as a coping strategy.
The US produces more than 25% of the world's goods. If we were proportionate to our production, we'd have higher CO2 emissions.
I can't let the idea that "CO2 is the major factor in climate change" go unchallenged. In fact the atmosphere is a complex brew of a great many factors, some of which warm, others that cool the atmosphere. Singling out CO2 in isolation is neither scientific, nor very intelligent. Try water vapor next time as the most significant of greenhouse factors.
So if Dell buys a PRC company, it's emissions burdens increase. That's a real nice way to make sure we can't buy up any good companies or even run joint ventures. All that will happen is that Dell will go out of the manufacturing business and instead of buying up a company in the PRC or India or even building its own, it'll just contract with a local firm.
Net environmental result = zero Net economic impact = more inefficiency.
You can't make a decent world if you can't pay for it. The less economic growth you have, the less ability there is to pay for cleaning up things.
The reality is that the price of dirty factories will go down on the secondary market and the PRC and the rest of the third world will continue to do what they've been doing, buying up our old, dirty capital equipment and running the factory over there. Since they aren't bound by Kyoto, it's perfectly legitimate. All that will happen is that the price differential between new and used will grow so the 3rd world is going to become less likely to buy new, clean equipment.
Actually, when toting up all the speeches and position papers, there were 26 reasons used for the invasion of Iraq, 22 of which were used by administration figures at one time or another. Somebody got a nice paper out of toting them all up. Whether Saddam directly ordered 9/11 is very dubious. Operational contacts, some support, some training have been documented between Al Queda and Saddam's regime.
Saddam was a terrorism innovator. He popularized the tactic of state recompense for government reprisals regarding suicide bombing. A bomber would blow himself to hell and Israel would bulldoze the family house to encourage other fathers to keep a tighter rein on their kids. Saddam would cut a check to the family ($25k) in order to make them whole (when you toted up the support checks from various sources, it was actually profitable to have a dead end kid blow himself up). Once Saddam fell, everybody else shut the hell up and the checks weren't coming anymore.
Terrorists and their sympathizer states do swap techniques. Just for open state sponsorship of terrorist acts, Saddam needed to fall before people started sending checks to US terrorists for every gas station sniping. Somehow liberal opponents to the war never seem to get around to sorting that out.
Apparently when people actually go and measure Maldives sea level history they find that it's recently been falling, not rising and at least one fishing boat route is no longer used because it's fallen enough that they scrape bottom now along a non-growing subsurface bit of geology.
Actually, Apple's been very good at finding small niche markets that have fat/happy dominant competitors, buying up a good upstart and undercutting the price of the dominant so Apple ends up owning the market. There are lots of verticals that Apple could invest in beyond movie editing. They're doing something similar in biotech and no doubt they are eyeing lots of other strategic buys to expand their offerings. Every time they buy into a vertical and severely undercut the incumbents on price, they incent people who are in that vertical to switch to Macintosh and buy a bit of market share. At a certain point, the sum of the niches will start showing up in the broader market share numbers.
Increasing software availability, increasing Mac dominated niches, that's a lot better than a discount plan for general computer purchasers.
Actually, Apple's building market share on low prices but its in markets you're probably not paying attention to. Final Cut Pro won its position based in part on its low price. Apple's 1U servers and RAID farms provide incredible performance and storage density in their class all for competitive or downright low prices. As Xsan comes out and people realize they can take 20-40% off their SAN storage budget by using XServe/XRaid products and plugging them into their existing Filenet SAN infrastructure, Apple's going to start being a real presence in the enterprise. That growth is going to keep Apple alive during the transition when Jobs inevitably retires in a decade or three.
The influx of NeXT computing programming houses actually makes this argument weaker, not stronger. As GNUStep progresses in its goal to resync with Mac OS X, another crop of small developers you never heard of will be writing using Cocoa on Mac OS X and GNUStep on Linux.
The developer problem is a lot better now that first class tools ship with every Mac. I expect the problem to get better, not worse over time.
Lying, cheating, and stealing have bad effects beyond the immediate MS software and hardware ecosystem. Such bad behavior is a cancer on the whole system and reduces trust levels throughout the system. In real, day to day terms, it kicks up the risk premium a fraction of a point for everybody. And how is the guy spending an extra few bucks on his mortgage in added risk going to protect himself? He can't.
Actually, if they've been lying as accused, the company is largely finished. People will go to jail and Microsoft will be ripped to shreds. Arthur Anderson's corporate sins weren't as big as this and they're toast.
Statistically, the children of Congress are over represented in Iraq by 4-5 times compared to any set of 535 random US families. How much more over representation has to occur before liberals stop drinking Michael Moore's koolaid?
Unless you're going to have a 6 year draft, with extensions, you're never going to get the kind of longevity needed to maintain a military that takes this few casualties during operations. The reason the Pentagon is opposed to a draft (and they are, viscerally) is that it's going to add to their troop losses by multiple factors of ten. If you think you can't make a political point without getting a lot of people killed, something's wrong with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't shed a tear if it were the FTC, the FBI or the Capitol Hill police which eliminate a fraudulent representation from a company. It would have been nice if you would have pointed out which agency should have nailed them for fraudulently providing a service in interstate commerce. Then I could have just said whatever and moved on.
The FCC, in its spectrum regulation role "in the public interest" is and should be going the way of the dodo bird. Where it finds fraud and fines it "in the public interest", they do good and proper work that is actually more justifiable than their original remit. I can't find it in myself to get too angry over the whole thing.
The Apple paper on AD/OD integration is a good place to start. I do question why you'd need Active Directory at all unless you have some sort of application that requires it and isn't fooled by Samba/LDAP.
You might want to keep an eye on these guys. Power.org members are likely to produce those PPC standard case motherboards in the reasonably near future.
Since the OS X TCP/IP stack is likely fully available in Darwin, why don't you go look and let us administrator types know?
Their scope of authority, I'll bet, includes fraudulently offering service. I really doubt that they put "we're going to block competitive services off your network at will" in their T&C to their customers.
Would you sign up with an ISP that will port block you out of services you want? I wouldn't . I'm reasonably sure that most of their (the fined telco) customers didn't either.
Again, it's all about the fraud. Market forces pretty much take care of the rest.
Replace VOIP with HTTP and your point has exactly the same validity, which would be none at all. If nobody can send a message to my computer without explicit permission from my ISP then what you have isn't Internet service as it has traditionally been known. It's something else that happens to use the TCP/IP stack and is being fraudulently sold as Internet service.
Whatever customers they can retain after they have to truthfully disclose what they're offering, they're welcome to. I don't think they'll be enough to stave off bankruptcy.
It may be private, but they contracted to provide Internet service. If they sell service without notifying in advance of port blockage, they should (and probably will) call it fraud.
The cure is simply to prosecute the fraud, where it exists, insist on advance port blocking disclosure, and let the free market hammer the blocking ISP's P&L statement. I can't imagine that there's much of a market for crippled Internet service when you can go to other services for the same price and get full access to all ports.
I think Darwin runs Apple's directory services just fine and it's available in x86 flavors. It's free, doesn't require new metal, and will play really nice as you go into your next server upgrade cycle where you can get OS X server boxes.
Even if the industries don't relocate, the pollution does. If your Mark III stamping machine doesn't meet Kyoto standards, Siemans doesn't toss it in the dumpster. It sells it, very often to the 3rd world where it will continue doing its work (and contributing just as much to global pollution).
Doing stuff tends to throw pollutants in the air. Any serious economic activity that will get us out of the caves and into a modern society is going to have pollution attached. Here's a clue for you. If you get rich enough, you start caring about pollution and are willing to pay for cleanup activities. If you're poor you don't give a damn.
Wealth makes it possible to have high living standards and clean economies. We're nowhere near wealthy enough to run a global clean economy without tyranny. Environmentalist treaties that cut growth can actually leave you with net more pollution 50 years out.
Actually, if the extra economic growth enables you to get rich enough to ride out the mostly naturally caused changes then, yes, extra economic growth with some extra global warming gas deposits would be worth it. It all depends on how much better off we would be from the growth and how much worse off we would be from the pollution. The global warming alarmists are most often very unhappy at the idea of amelioration rather than prevention as a coping strategy.
Then again, a great deal of climate reports don't actually seem to be science. The hockey stick is in doubt, my friend.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
The US produces more than 25% of the world's goods. If we were proportionate to our production, we'd have higher CO2 emissions.
I can't let the idea that "CO2 is the major factor in climate change" go unchallenged. In fact the atmosphere is a complex brew of a great many factors, some of which warm, others that cool the atmosphere. Singling out CO2 in isolation is neither scientific, nor very intelligent. Try water vapor next time as the most significant of greenhouse factors.
So if Dell buys a PRC company, it's emissions burdens increase. That's a real nice way to make sure we can't buy up any good companies or even run joint ventures. All that will happen is that Dell will go out of the manufacturing business and instead of buying up a company in the PRC or India or even building its own, it'll just contract with a local firm.
Net environmental result = zero
Net economic impact = more inefficiency.
You can't make a decent world if you can't pay for it. The less economic growth you have, the less ability there is to pay for cleaning up things.
The reality is that the price of dirty factories will go down on the secondary market and the PRC and the rest of the third world will continue to do what they've been doing, buying up our old, dirty capital equipment and running the factory over there. Since they aren't bound by Kyoto, it's perfectly legitimate. All that will happen is that the price differential between new and used will grow so the 3rd world is going to become less likely to buy new, clean equipment.
Way to go global environmentalists!
Actually, when toting up all the speeches and position papers, there were 26 reasons used for the invasion of Iraq, 22 of which were used by administration figures at one time or another. Somebody got a nice paper out of toting them all up. Whether Saddam directly ordered 9/11 is very dubious. Operational contacts, some support, some training have been documented between Al Queda and Saddam's regime.
Saddam was a terrorism innovator. He popularized the tactic of state recompense for government reprisals regarding suicide bombing. A bomber would blow himself to hell and Israel would bulldoze the family house to encourage other fathers to keep a tighter rein on their kids. Saddam would cut a check to the family ($25k) in order to make them whole (when you toted up the support checks from various sources, it was actually profitable to have a dead end kid blow himself up). Once Saddam fell, everybody else shut the hell up and the checks weren't coming anymore.
Terrorists and their sympathizer states do swap techniques. Just for open state sponsorship of terrorist acts, Saddam needed to fall before people started sending checks to US terrorists for every gas station sniping. Somehow liberal opponents to the war never seem to get around to sorting that out.
Apparently when people actually go and measure Maldives sea level history they find that it's recently been falling, not rising and at least one fishing boat route is no longer used because it's fallen enough that they scrape bottom now along a non-growing subsurface bit of geology.
Actually, Apple's been very good at finding small niche markets that have fat/happy dominant competitors, buying up a good upstart and undercutting the price of the dominant so Apple ends up owning the market. There are lots of verticals that Apple could invest in beyond movie editing. They're doing something similar in biotech and no doubt they are eyeing lots of other strategic buys to expand their offerings. Every time they buy into a vertical and severely undercut the incumbents on price, they incent people who are in that vertical to switch to Macintosh and buy a bit of market share. At a certain point, the sum of the niches will start showing up in the broader market share numbers.
Increasing software availability, increasing Mac dominated niches, that's a lot better than a discount plan for general computer purchasers.
How about Apple's wikipedia entry?
Actually, Apple's building market share on low prices but its in markets you're probably not paying attention to. Final Cut Pro won its position based in part on its low price. Apple's 1U servers and RAID farms provide incredible performance and storage density in their class all for competitive or downright low prices. As Xsan comes out and people realize they can take 20-40% off their SAN storage budget by using XServe/XRaid products and plugging them into their existing Filenet SAN infrastructure, Apple's going to start being a real presence in the enterprise. That growth is going to keep Apple alive during the transition when Jobs inevitably retires in a decade or three.
The influx of NeXT computing programming houses actually makes this argument weaker, not stronger. As GNUStep progresses in its goal to resync with Mac OS X, another crop of small developers you never heard of will be writing using Cocoa on Mac OS X and GNUStep on Linux.
The developer problem is a lot better now that first class tools ship with every Mac. I expect the problem to get better, not worse over time.
Lying, cheating, and stealing have bad effects beyond the immediate MS software and hardware ecosystem. Such bad behavior is a cancer on the whole system and reduces trust levels throughout the system. In real, day to day terms, it kicks up the risk premium a fraction of a point for everybody. And how is the guy spending an extra few bucks on his mortgage in added risk going to protect himself? He can't.
Actually, if they've been lying as accused, the company is largely finished. People will go to jail and Microsoft will be ripped to shreds. Arthur Anderson's corporate sins weren't as big as this and they're toast.
Statistically, the children of Congress are over represented in Iraq by 4-5 times compared to any set of 535 random US families. How much more over representation has to occur before liberals stop drinking Michael Moore's koolaid?
Unless you're going to have a 6 year draft, with extensions, you're never going to get the kind of longevity needed to maintain a military that takes this few casualties during operations. The reason the Pentagon is opposed to a draft (and they are, viscerally) is that it's going to add to their troop losses by multiple factors of ten. If you think you can't make a political point without getting a lot of people killed, something's wrong with you.