I can think of more than a few places that are a sanctuary for criminals, yet you won't see the government razing those neighborhoods and starting anew, would you?
On May 13, 1985, the Philadelphia Police Department attempted to clear a building in which the MOVE members lived. The police intended to remove two wood-and-steel tactical bunkers constructed by MOVE on the roof by dropping a bomb made of military grade C-4 and a water-based gel used for mining explosions called Tovex. The resulting explosion, and the decision by Police Commissioner Sambor and Fire Chief Richmond to let the bunker burn caused the house to catch fire, igniting a massive blaze which eventually consumed almost an entire city block and left 240 people homeless. Eleven people, including John Africa, six other adults and four children, died in the resulting fire.
Overall a good post...I would add one more thing though...
Attitude, attitude, attitude!
I won't take a job where the person interviewing treats me as if they are doing me a favor in offering the job. They are after me, not the other way around. Even if I need the job, I'll never portray it like that. It is they who need me even then. Call it arrogance if you will but I'm not into indentured servitude.
The only way tightening the budget strings might be effective is if Congress cut off non-essential contracts to divert money to Iraq. Things like the FCS or some jet fighter or tanker programs. The contractors would pressure him to get out to save their programs.
You evidently weren't paying attention to both parties when DoD was trying to close non-essential bases in the BRAC hearings. Both parties argued that to close any of the proposed bases would be detrimental to not only the area they were in but the country as a whole.
The first politician that tries to cut funding for ANY military program will be castrated in the press as being an unpatriotic, job destroying, soldier bashing communist. I predict that no matter who wins Iraq will continue and all the waste, fraud and abuse that is Homeland Security will be right there with it. If you think corporate power corrupts Congress now, just try to cut back on the military industrial complex and increasingly the Homeland Security industrial complex and watch the bribes (oops..."Campaign Contributions") fly.
The problem I have with fines in general is they do no real harm to companies. The cost of the fine is then funneled back into the price tag of the product and considered a "cost of doing business". It's you and me that get screwed in the end with higher prices to cover losses in fines.
A more interesting concept would be to have a major portion of the fines go to Microsoft's competetors. It was they who were harmed by Microsoft's actions. Just think how a few hundred million would benefit FOSS projects in Europe.
I've toyed with ideas about programs that would be more corporately focused. For example, what if student loan recipients were chosen by companies? The company would be on the hook for hiring the student after graduation. The student would be responsible for maintaining good grades in a major approved by the company (note: students would be able to pick the company that offered a major that they wanted). Students who flunk out, change majors (without a new sponsor), or who decide not to work for their sponsor have to pay the loan back. If the company cuts back staff and does not hire the student, then the company eats the loan. If the company hires the student, the company is assumed to have adjusted the student's pay appropriately. After some number of years, the student will finish the loan period and can switch companies without paying back the loan.
There are many problems with this approach. First, fields seen as "not profitable" by corporate leaders would suffer greatly. Fields such as paleontology, philosophy, history and even pure mathematics would go the way of the dodo bird. Next, those who wanted one of those unpopular majors would be forced into a government student loan that has dwindling users meaning the cost would go through the roof (as if it isn't already there) simply because nobody except those unpopular majors are getting them. Lastly, the whole concept of "general education" would die because companies wouldn't pay for classes that don't directly relate to whatever job they have lined up for the student. That is just a small sample of the problems. I''m sure others can think of more.
Let's say you go get a hair cut. Then you walk out without paying for it. You haven't deprived anyone of physical property, however it is still "theft of service".
Let's take it the step further that copyright law would require...
If we were to apply copyright law to your analogy, I couldn't give anybody a haircut in the style of your barber without your barber's permission. So every time you wanted to get your hair cut by a different barber, that barber would have to obtain a license to give you your style of haircut or be sued. That is the copyright model.
You are still missing the point. The privacy MUST be throughout the entire chain of custody. You can't say that in this case because Google can sell to the highest bidder. Sure, you have to say "yes" now but how long will that last? How long before health care providers start including "check this box to opt out" language on the forms you sign at their facility? Again, given this country's penchant for calling "opt-out" a real choice, I think sensitive data like health records should remain the perview of the health providers and patients ONLY.
Given this country's penchant for "opt-out" instead of "opt-in", it is prudent that these things be protected in some fashion. Sure, the info from medical providers to Google is opt-in but from there it is a different story. How soon before insurance companies or the highest bidder gets the data from there is anybody's guess.
In short, I trust Google about as much as Microsoft when it comes to making profits on this. And will the cost associated with it trickle down to patients? Probably.
his is more than just a releasing of API's, but a fundamental shift of Microsoft in how it views open source. Beyond releasing documentation, they are taking on the expensive task of redefining some of the core development practices so that they are better aligned with open source software initiatives.
Horse shit! "fundamental shift" would be more along the lines of GPLing Windows + Office. That is a fundamental shift. This is them trying to appear compliant with EU wishes. The "patent pledge" is incompatible with, and dangerous to, the GPL because it isn't binding on successive holders of the patent. When Microsoft decides to sell that patent, nothing guarantees the new holder won't go for broke. Again, if it was a "fundamental shift" then Microsoft would donate those patents like IBM did. They aren't doing that now are they...
I'd expect it will take some time for the true weight of this policy change to have large practical effects, but this is just as big as the trustworthy computing initiative that Microsoft underwent in the early part of the decade.
And just as likely to go the same way. TC is dead and I hope it stays that way. Anyone stupid enough to trust Microsoft in this deserves the spanking they are likely to get.
No. It *IS* legal here. Agency in the act refers to an agency of the government. This act isn't binding on corporations.except those dealing in medical & financial. The fear is that government agancies tend to leak information and people have a right to certain info remaining private. It mostly deals with Social Security numbers.
What you and others who are making the argument that it is the lack of commercial viability that is holding at bay the crapware are completely ignoring is the value of open source. One such value is the ability to fork to remove the crap. That is why it is so important to insist that vendors release the code. Every time you buy from a vendor (such as NVidia) that only releases binary blobs, you are rewarding the very behavior you detest in Windows. This is the meat of the beef between "free software" and the rest of the "open source" licenses. Free software (GPL) will ensure that the source will always be free from influences like the crapware.
I'm sorry to say that a program that you don't have the source for isn't open source. The fact that a binary may run on Linux doesn't magically make it so no matter how much the vendors wish it. Since my system is built from source, it behooves me to insist on hardware that favors my system. In short, I vote with my wallet.
I suspect that if it is a real offer the judge will approve it for two reasons. First, there are clauses that cover owed expenses in the event of loss(es) at trial(s) and second it gets this out of his court. it will be awfully hard for a creditor, even one that has so much at stake as Novell, to complain when SCO is floated this "loan" to have an objection if it will get them paid. That is, after all, why we are in the bankruptcy court in the first place.
The objection to the first sale was because there was no clause covering losses of the cases. Also, they were trying to sell property in dispute. That isn't the case with this offer. This is a hostile takeover plain and simple.
I predict the judge will allow it *IF* there is some up front money involved such as a trust or some such to cover a fall through. I don't think the agreement on its face will carry the day. In short, money talks.
I block not only for the annoyance factor but to actually speed up my browsing. Why should I have to wait for some foreign ad server to give me a cheesy ad I won't click anyway? I consider it my way of clearing those stopped up interweb tubes...
The GIS specialists don't have direct access to classified data but instead are given polygons of requested data which is based on those satellite images. Only the military, NSA, Other Security Agency has access to the output of the sats directly.
Nothing in that statement says anything about reading them, only submitting them. So the FCC creates a webpage that allows you to blow off your steam and as soon as you hit "submit" it goes to/dev/null with all the other public comment. Hey, it was easy for you to submit wasn't it?
Belgium?!?! All the way to Belgium for a phone? And the price is in Euros which are in short supply in West Virginia where I live...
In either event, I never said "impossible" I said "increasingly difficult" which it is. You can't walk into a store and get a plain Jane phone that doesn't do text, internet, GPS, etc. Go and try it. Try to look for a phone that is ONLY a phone.
Ummmm...YES it is that bad when it becomes increasingly difficult to find a simple phone that doesn't have all the bells, whistles, tampon remover, etc. Just recently they posted a story on how they are planning on using GPS in phones to tell traffic congestion. Great! Now phones are talking all by themselves without my express permission.
More importantly than the features that I don't need or want is the hidden strings attached to the service contract for those unwanted services.
This is along the same lines as being charged for cable channels you don't need or want or are actively filtering just so you can get the ones you do want. How hard is it to just give people only what they want without all the strings?
OS 10.5 won't suddenly stop working when OS 10.6 comes out. Your Honda hybrid car you buy this year won't stop running when Honda releases their new model. That is the difference.
As we pointed out in our coverage of the 2.0 spec, there's no upgrade path for older players due to the changed hardware requirementsa simple firmware update will not suffice.
Ummm...Even the summary, which is usually wrong in most cases, points out that it will play Blu-ray disks but lacks some of the special features found only in players that support the new standard. What this guy is bitching about is two different things. First, the fact that he can't upgrade (via a flash ROM or something) to the new standard. What he fails to understand is the new standard also requires different configurations of hardware that his player doesn't have (there's a reason it is called a NEW standard). This is the bogus part of the suit.
Second, he is bitching about the BD-P1200 in particular which does have a reputation for being a crap player even with the old specification and Samsung's refusal to address that issue. This is what that part of the suit boils down to:
With HD DVD players hitting store shelves in April 2006, the Blu-ray Disc Association was feeling the pressure to get their products out as quickly. Samsung was first to market with a Blu-ray player, releasing the BD-P1200's predecessor, the BD-P1000, in June 2006 after a delay of a month or so. Like the first-generation P1000, the P1200 supported the original Blu-ray 1.0 profile. For a while, Samsung had the Blu-ray market to itself as Sony and Pioneer players were delayed even further. The competitive pressure from HD DVD was arguably the reason for approving Profile 1.0, even though it limited the potential of the first players and ensured that they'd never be compatible with future profiles.
That is the angle he needs to play up. Samsung's willingness to make a quick buck at consumer expense in compatibility. If it can be proved that Samsung did this with full knowledge that they weren't going to support the player after the 2.0 spec release, WITHOUT informing the customer about it, then willful fraud comes to my IANAL mind.
Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government which holds to the principle that government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of West Virginia that all persons are, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments of government they have created. To that end, the provisions of this article shall be liberally construed with the view of carrying out the above declaration of public policy."
I said I was biased to the max in this. I have been trying to get statewide tax data for years and hit the same brick wall this company hit and I work for the State! So I have this site bookmarked and will be firing off an email to them Monday requesting the data for the entire state. Sad that a State agency has to go this route.
It isn't just tax maps that are sold but any public record documents As I pointed out in my post. Tax maps in particular they sell loads of considering until recently you couldn't get them electronically and they are required before you buy or sell property, do construction and even get a mortgage. The tax map is also used in conjunction with the FEMA NFIP flood map to determine flood insurance requirements (something that is big in WV given our terrain).
Disclaimer: I live in WV and more importantly, in Kanawha County where this is happening. More, I do GIS for a living so I'm biased to the max in this...
All the tax assessors in WV have been doing a very poor job at property assessments and for years have buried it in poor paper maps. I have been to municipalities that haven't updated their tax maps in decades. I've also seen the quality of these maps and believe me, until recently they were very sketchy at best. We have had the difference between tax ticket method of determining Fair Market Value with a multiplier of 4.0 and appraised value of over double. In a properly assessed county by contrast, a 1.67 multiplier yields the appraised value. What that means is that Kanawha County is losing out on a huge amount of taxes all because the assessor's office is corrupt as all get out. This causes politicians to panic as they see dwindling taxes and before you know it those that are paying a fair share are having their property taxes increased all because the assessor isn't doing their jobs properly.
More broadly, municipalities have relied on the fees charged for paper copies of public documents so much that they feel threatened by electronic distribution. In this case it is the assessor's office but I have seen this in other areas such as deeds, birth / death certification, building permits, etc. They are seeing it as a revenue stream instead of something the public already paid for. This thinking needs to be defeated as well as those that oppose full and free disclosure.
I agree with you that all the information in a tax assessment of real property should be public record if for no other reason than the fact that the public has already paid for that information.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a big YES. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
Overall a good post...I would add one more thing though...
Attitude, attitude, attitude!
I won't take a job where the person interviewing treats me as if they are doing me a favor in offering the job. They are after me, not the other way around. Even if I need the job, I'll never portray it like that. It is they who need me even then. Call it arrogance if you will but I'm not into indentured servitude.
You evidently weren't paying attention to both parties when DoD was trying to close non-essential bases in the BRAC hearings. Both parties argued that to close any of the proposed bases would be detrimental to not only the area they were in but the country as a whole.
The first politician that tries to cut funding for ANY military program will be castrated in the press as being an unpatriotic, job destroying, soldier bashing communist. I predict that no matter who wins Iraq will continue and all the waste, fraud and abuse that is Homeland Security will be right there with it. If you think corporate power corrupts Congress now, just try to cut back on the military industrial complex and increasingly the Homeland Security industrial complex and watch the bribes (oops..."Campaign Contributions") fly.
The problem I have with fines in general is they do no real harm to companies. The cost of the fine is then funneled back into the price tag of the product and considered a "cost of doing business". It's you and me that get screwed in the end with higher prices to cover losses in fines.
A more interesting concept would be to have a major portion of the fines go to Microsoft's competetors. It was they who were harmed by Microsoft's actions. Just think how a few hundred million would benefit FOSS projects in Europe.
Umm...No. the tax would be based on the winning bid amount not the gain/loss. Bid that $OMG value and pay hugely in taxes on it.
I am liking this idea lots.
There are many problems with this approach. First, fields seen as "not profitable" by corporate leaders would suffer greatly. Fields such as paleontology, philosophy, history and even pure mathematics would go the way of the dodo bird. Next, those who wanted one of those unpopular majors would be forced into a government student loan that has dwindling users meaning the cost would go through the roof (as if it isn't already there) simply because nobody except those unpopular majors are getting them. Lastly, the whole concept of "general education" would die because companies wouldn't pay for classes that don't directly relate to whatever job they have lined up for the student. That is just a small sample of the problems. I''m sure others can think of more.
Let's say you go get a hair cut. Then you walk out without paying for it. You haven't deprived anyone of physical property, however it is still "theft of service".
Let's take it the step further that copyright law would require...
If we were to apply copyright law to your analogy, I couldn't give anybody a haircut in the style of your barber without your barber's permission. So every time you wanted to get your hair cut by a different barber, that barber would have to obtain a license to give you your style of haircut or be sued. That is the copyright model.
You are still missing the point. The privacy MUST be throughout the entire chain of custody. You can't say that in this case because Google can sell to the highest bidder. Sure, you have to say "yes" now but how long will that last? How long before health care providers start including "check this box to opt out" language on the forms you sign at their facility? Again, given this country's penchant for calling "opt-out" a real choice, I think sensitive data like health records should remain the perview of the health providers and patients ONLY.
Given this country's penchant for "opt-out" instead of "opt-in", it is prudent that these things be protected in some fashion. Sure, the info from medical providers to Google is opt-in but from there it is a different story. How soon before insurance companies or the highest bidder gets the data from there is anybody's guess.
In short, I trust Google about as much as Microsoft when it comes to making profits on this. And will the cost associated with it trickle down to patients? Probably.
Horse shit! "fundamental shift" would be more along the lines of GPLing Windows + Office. That is a fundamental shift. This is them trying to appear compliant with EU wishes. The "patent pledge" is incompatible with, and dangerous to, the GPL because it isn't binding on successive holders of the patent. When Microsoft decides to sell that patent, nothing guarantees the new holder won't go for broke. Again, if it was a "fundamental shift" then Microsoft would donate those patents like IBM did. They aren't doing that now are they...
And just as likely to go the same way. TC is dead and I hope it stays that way. Anyone stupid enough to trust Microsoft in this deserves the spanking they are likely to get.
No. It *IS* legal here. Agency in the act refers to an agency of the government. This act isn't binding on corporations.except those dealing in medical & financial. The fear is that government agancies tend to leak information and people have a right to certain info remaining private. It mostly deals with Social Security numbers.
This would be legal in the US too. There is nothing in the Privacy Act of 1974 that forbids it.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/privstat.htm
What you and others who are making the argument that it is the lack of commercial viability that is holding at bay the crapware are completely ignoring is the value of open source. One such value is the ability to fork to remove the crap. That is why it is so important to insist that vendors release the code. Every time you buy from a vendor (such as NVidia) that only releases binary blobs, you are rewarding the very behavior you detest in Windows. This is the meat of the beef between "free software" and the rest of the "open source" licenses. Free software (GPL) will ensure that the source will always be free from influences like the crapware.
I'm sorry to say that a program that you don't have the source for isn't open source. The fact that a binary may run on Linux doesn't magically make it so no matter how much the vendors wish it. Since my system is built from source, it behooves me to insist on hardware that favors my system. In short, I vote with my wallet.
I suspect that if it is a real offer the judge will approve it for two reasons. First, there are clauses that cover owed expenses in the event of loss(es) at trial(s) and second it gets this out of his court. it will be awfully hard for a creditor, even one that has so much at stake as Novell, to complain when SCO is floated this "loan" to have an objection if it will get them paid. That is, after all, why we are in the bankruptcy court in the first place.
The objection to the first sale was because there was no clause covering losses of the cases. Also, they were trying to sell property in dispute. That isn't the case with this offer. This is a hostile takeover plain and simple.
I predict the judge will allow it *IF* there is some up front money involved such as a trust or some such to cover a fall through. I don't think the agreement on its face will carry the day. In short, money talks.
I block not only for the annoyance factor but to actually speed up my browsing. Why should I have to wait for some foreign ad server to give me a cheesy ad I won't click anyway? I consider it my way of clearing those stopped up interweb tubes...
Get it right. The "internal agencies" is FEMA. See:
http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/
The GIS specialists don't have direct access to classified data but instead are given polygons of requested data which is based on those satellite images. Only the military, NSA, Other Security Agency has access to the output of the sats directly.
Nothing in that statement says anything about reading them, only submitting them. So the FCC creates a webpage that allows you to blow off your steam and as soon as you hit "submit" it goes to /dev/null with all the other public comment. Hey, it was easy for you to submit wasn't it?
Belgium?!?! All the way to Belgium for a phone? And the price is in Euros which are in short supply in West Virginia where I live...
In either event, I never said "impossible" I said "increasingly difficult" which it is. You can't walk into a store and get a plain Jane phone that doesn't do text, internet, GPS, etc. Go and try it. Try to look for a phone that is ONLY a phone.
So you get off my lawn too...
Ummmm...YES it is that bad when it becomes increasingly difficult to find a simple phone that doesn't have all the bells, whistles, tampon remover, etc. Just recently they posted a story on how they are planning on using GPS in phones to tell traffic congestion. Great! Now phones are talking all by themselves without my express permission.
More importantly than the features that I don't need or want is the hidden strings attached to the service contract for those unwanted services.
This is along the same lines as being charged for cable channels you don't need or want or are actively filtering just so you can get the ones you do want. How hard is it to just give people only what they want without all the strings?
Oh, and get off my lawn too!
OS 10.5 won't suddenly stop working when OS 10.6 comes out. Your Honda hybrid car you buy this year won't stop running when Honda releases their new model. That is the difference.
Ummm...Even the summary, which is usually wrong in most cases, points out that it will play Blu-ray disks but lacks some of the special features found only in players that support the new standard. What this guy is bitching about is two different things. First, the fact that he can't upgrade (via a flash ROM or something) to the new standard. What he fails to understand is the new standard also requires different configurations of hardware that his player doesn't have (there's a reason it is called a NEW standard). This is the bogus part of the suit.
Second, he is bitching about the BD-P1200 in particular which does have a reputation for being a crap player even with the old specification and Samsung's refusal to address that issue. This is what that part of the suit boils down to:
That is the angle he needs to play up. Samsung's willingness to make a quick buck at consumer expense in compatibility. If it can be proved that Samsung did this with full knowledge that they weren't going to support the player after the 2.0 spec release, WITHOUT informing the customer about it, then willful fraud comes to my IANAL mind.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/29B/ChapterEntire.cfm
"29B-1-1. Declaration of policy.
Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government which holds to the principle that government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of West Virginia that all persons are, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments of government they have created. To that end, the provisions of this article shall be liberally construed with the view of carrying out the above declaration of public policy."
Need I go further?
I said I was biased to the max in this. I have been trying to get statewide tax data for years and hit the same brick wall this company hit and I work for the State! So I have this site bookmarked and will be firing off an email to them Monday requesting the data for the entire state. Sad that a State agency has to go this route.
It isn't just tax maps that are sold but any public record documents As I pointed out in my post. Tax maps in particular they sell loads of considering until recently you couldn't get them electronically and they are required before you buy or sell property, do construction and even get a mortgage. The tax map is also used in conjunction with the FEMA NFIP flood map to determine flood insurance requirements (something that is big in WV given our terrain).
Disclaimer: I live in WV and more importantly, in Kanawha County where this is happening. More, I do GIS for a living so I'm biased to the max in this...
All the tax assessors in WV have been doing a very poor job at property assessments and for years have buried it in poor paper maps. I have been to municipalities that haven't updated their tax maps in decades. I've also seen the quality of these maps and believe me, until recently they were very sketchy at best. We have had the difference between tax ticket method of determining Fair Market Value with a multiplier of 4.0 and appraised value of over double. In a properly assessed county by contrast, a 1.67 multiplier yields the appraised value. What that means is that Kanawha County is losing out on a huge amount of taxes all because the assessor's office is corrupt as all get out. This causes politicians to panic as they see dwindling taxes and before you know it those that are paying a fair share are having their property taxes increased all because the assessor isn't doing their jobs properly.
More broadly, municipalities have relied on the fees charged for paper copies of public documents so much that they feel threatened by electronic distribution. In this case it is the assessor's office but I have seen this in other areas such as deeds, birth / death certification, building permits, etc. They are seeing it as a revenue stream instead of something the public already paid for. This thinking needs to be defeated as well as those that oppose full and free disclosure.
I agree with you that all the information in a tax assessment of real property should be public record if for no other reason than the fact that the public has already paid for that information.