No. The real worry he has is about not growing in revenue. There's so many copies of Windows that can be sold. There are so many features you can put in Windows after which people will stop feeling the need to upgrade. Linux is also a factor in this, but not the major one imho.
It's not Linux or the government that's causing this, it's the stock market and the simple requirement to grow revenue to keep the stock moving.
What's with the slashdot editors? The Naked-PC page has been up for as long as I remember. Does Slashdot have a quota of Microsoft-related posts they have to make in order to get advertising revenue?
This is a bad troll but I'll respond anyway.
One sensationalist article about them (and scores of other companies) not paying corporate tax doesn't make "bad press". Maybe you should read the article and the comments from Slashdotters on the link you pointed to.
"the fact that both KDE2 and GNOME1.4 will be providing as good as, if not better, GUI environment for PCs and Macs"
I'll let this statement stand in solitary ridicule by itself. Hmm.. when was the last time I heard that this was happening? As far as I remember the Naked-PC page has been up there forever. What are you, a complete moron?
Chief Wife Officer, Chief Kid Officer 1, etc. would all pay taxes on the options they exercise. The only thing you'd be saving was that you wouldn't be taxed twice. (once for the corporation and the second time for the individual).
These cable companies are government-sanctioned monopolies. They are monopolies because the government allows only one of them to operate in an area. They run their cables over/under city land. As such, they should be subject to government regulation.
It would be a whole different issue if these companies had done it off of their own accord and become monopolies independent of government sanction but that is not the case here.
No. The reason for region encoding is so that they can sell separate distribution rights and also sell the DVDs at different prices for different countries. It's like them saying "Hmm.. this DVD will not be too popular in France so let's try and increase sales there by selling it cheaper there but on the other hand we know it will be really popular in Japan so let's try and make some more money by pricing it even higher."
They're separating the market out into segments so that they can target the different points in the supply/demand curves that exist in those different markets. Taking this to an extreme would be what Amazon is doing - which is to separate the market into segments of size 1 person and target the price to hit that demand curve right.
People who buy and use DVDs according to their rules will have nothing to complain about. The only people affected will be people who (in Time Warner's opinion) are trying to pirate the DVDs. Given their position, I doubt they care too much about the goodwill of those folks.
It's shocking to see how many people on Slashdot are completely clueless on the concept of H1-B visas.
For the record, I hold an H1-B visa. In the meanwhile, the company I work for is sponsoring me for a Green Card. It takes some time for a green card application to be processed by the INS. The H1-B allows me to work in the meantime.
I am by no means cheap labor. I am by no means indentured in any way. I get paid exactly as much as anyone else in my position does. If I don't like what I'm being paid I can ask for a raise or find a job somewhere else.
There are tons of other companies out there desperate for technical people. In all the interviews I've had, no one ever asked me what my visa status was - except in the context of how soon could I actually start. If I decide to switch jobs, it's a simple process of the other company filing a petition on my behalf - one which is always granted. It's just a month or so of delay.
Stop pitying H1-B visa holders. We don't need or deserve your pity.
Did you completely fail learning to read while you were in school? As i SAID, Judge Jackson didn't declare Microsoft a monopoly based on a particular market segment (desktops, etc.). He declared it a monopoly based on the kind of microcomputer (x86).
Apple, of course, does very similar things-but Apple isn't a monopoly, and M$ is.
Ironically, according to Judge Jackson's yardstick, Apple IS a monopoly. Note that he defined Microsofts monopoly as being a monopoly over x86 based computers. He didn't go on to qualify that as being important because x86 based computers are the most popular kind or anything like that. In fact, in his conclusions of law, he made no distinction between x86-based computers and Motorola-based computers for the purposes of declaring Microsoft a monopoly.
So either his statement is incomplete, which I doubt, or he definitely seems to think Apple is a monopoly too.
Microsoft Corporation has retained the law firm of
Goodwin, Procter & Hoar in Boston as local counsel in
private antitrust litigation. My son James C. Rehnquist
is a partner in that firm, and is one of the attorneys
working on those cases. I have therefore considered at
length whether his representation requires me to dis-qualify
myself on the Microsoft matters currently before
this Court. I have reviewed the relevant legal authorities
and consulted with my colleagues. I have decided that
I ought not to disqualify myself from these cases.
28 U. S. C. 455 sets forth the legal criteria for dis-qualification
of federal magistrates, judges, and Supreme
Court Justices. This statute is divided into two subsec-tions,
both of which are relevant to the present situation.
Section 455(b) lists specific instances in which disqualifi-cation
is required, including those instances where the
child of a Justice "[i]s known . . . to have an interest that
could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."
28 U. S. C. 455(b)(5)(iii). As that provision has
been interpreted in relevant case law, there is no reason-able
basis to conclude that the interests of my son or his
law firm will be substantially affected by the proceedings
currently before the Supreme Court. It is my under-standing
that Microsoft has retained Goodwin, Procter &
Hoar on an hourly basis at the firm' s usual rates. Even
assuming that my son' s non-pecuniary interests are rele-vant
under the statute, it would be unreasonable and
speculative to conclude that the outcome of any Microsoft
proceeding in this Court would have an impact on those
interests when neither he nor his firm would have done
any work on the matters here. Thus, I believe my contin-ued
participation is consistent with 455(b)(5)(iii).
Section 455(a) contains the more general declaration
that a Justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
As this Court has stated, what matters under 455(a) "is
not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance."
Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 548 (1994). This
inquiry is an objective one, made from the perspective of a
reasonable observer who is informed of all the sur-rounding
facts and circumstances. See ibid.; In re Drexel
Burnham Lambert, Inc., 861 F. 2d 1307, 1309 (CA2 1988).
I have already explained that my son' s personal and fi-nancial
concerns will not be affected by our disposition of
the Supreme Court' s Microsoft matters. Therefore I do not
believe that a well-informed individual would conclude
that an appearance of impropriety exists simply because
my son represents, in another case, a party that is also a
party to litigation pending in this Court.
It is true that both my son' s representation and the
matters before this Court relate to Microsoft' s potential
antitrust liability. A decision by this Court as to Micro-soft'
s antitrust liability could have a significant effect on
Microsoft' s exposure to antitrust suits in other courts.
But, by virtue of this Court' s position atop the federal
judiciary, the impact of many of our decisions is often
quite broad. The fact that our disposition of the pending
Microsoft litigation could potentially affect Microsoft' s
exposure to antitrust liability in other litigation does not,
to my mind, significantly distinguish the present situation
from other cases that this Court decides. Even our most
unremarkable decision interpreting an obscure federal
regulation might have a significant impact on the clients
of our children who practice law. Giving such a broad
sweep to 455(a) seems contrary to the "reasonable per-son" standard which it embraces. I think that an objective
observer, informed of these facts, would not conclude that
my participation in the pending Microsoft matters gives
rise to an appearance of partiality.
Finally, it is important to note the negative impact that
the unnecessary disqualification of even one Justice may
have upon our Court. Here--unlike the situation in a
District Court or a Court of Appeals--there is no way to
replace a recused Justice. Not only is the Court deprived
of the participation of one of its nine members, but the
even number of those remaining creates a risk of affir-mance
of a lower court decision by an equally divided
court.
Microsoft believes there were several factual and procedural errors committed during the lower court trial. For example (I'm making this up) they could argue that Jackson was asleep during some critical argument or that a particular piece of evidence he disallowed should have been allowed, etc. Small stuff.
The Supreme Court does not rule at that level. The Supreme Court assumes the facts and records as accepted by the lower/appeals courts and then rules simply on matters of law. So if the facts and records at that level indeed were incorrect then the Supreme Court would be committing an injustice by ruling on their basis.
The appeals courts job at this point is to create the final set of facts and records which the Supreme Court will use to make its judgement on the basis of.
Hmm.. so you think ONE lower court judge is more qualified to rule/less biased on a case than nine people on the appeals bench. All this on the basis of the fact that his rulings are what you like.
I grew up in India. A country of a billion people. India has won ONE medal (a bronze) in the last three Olympics. Sports is not a big deal in India - athletes are guaranteed no money from their achievements. The most an athlete can hope for is some large company hires them at a regular job and allows them to take a little time off to practice.
Yes, there are still some independently wealthy athletes who do well but on the whole it's very easy to argue that there would be many more people willing to dedicate a lot more time, effort and money to athletic excellence if there was money to be made from it.
I'll admit that musicians who make music just for the money usually make crap.
However, money serves as a huge carrot too. So if many of the great musicians were GUARANTEED that they would never make any money from their efforts, I'll bet you they would not take the risks they did, or at least not to the extent they did in order to build their music career.
It will tell you how artists in the past made their money.
And while you're reading your history text, why don't you study the other subjects too so you can finally finish high school and come back here when you're a grown adult who's not living with mommy anymore?
Hmm.. if Real Audio crashes Windows, it's Microsofts fault. If an email from Outlook crashes Netscape, it's Microsofts fault too. I think I'm beginning to see how this works.
On a more serious note, how do you guys live with yourselves? How about considering that these are just people trying to make the best possible product - sometimes doing a good job of it and at other times cutting corners and making mistakes. The world is not all black and white.
I've been using Outlook 2000 for a little over a year now. I communicate with a lot of people, including people who use elm as their client. I have hardly ever bothered to change the format of the messages I have sent. I have yet to receive a single complaint about my messages being unreadable. Quite obviously, there isn't a problem.
As for it supplanting ASCII, what part of "Plain Text is not Rich Text" do I need to explain again?
This is getting tiresome. Slashdots editors need to take at least the basic steps required to verify a story before rushing to post it just because it gives them a chance to bring out their Bill-Gates-As-The-Borg icon. I don't know, maybe stopping for a second and THINKING about it - Outlook 2000 has been out for more than a year now - wouldn't you have heard about this before if it was true?
And don't even get me started about the so-called expert who wrote the article in the first place.
Ouch. So what you're saying is that UCLA is knowingly allowing (a mostly) illegal activity in order to gain competitive advantage (or parity) with other schools.
This would look really bad if it were established in a court of law. As a Bruin alum, I just hope they don't get smoked on this too bad.
Disclaimer: I haven't been following the Mozilla development process so I'm not aware of their test practices.
By writing the email, address book, etc. they were breaking/fixing the modularity of the whole system. The bugs in design were exposed as other systems tried to use it. (This goes for some of the third party applications such as MozillaIRC and MLTerm).
Ie, the other applications were in part a debugging exercise to test the overall Mozilla engine.
Writing those applications and getting it to run with them does not prove the overall design is modular. It does not prove that the engine plays nicely with other email, address book and IM clients - just that it plays nicely with the ones included in Mozilla
Whoa! You start with saying the browser needs to be extended with javascript and/or java and you are right there. There's no point shipping a browser which won't work on the majority of web sites.
Then you make a huge logical leap by saying that email and IM is important so must be part of the browser. They are completely unrelated to browsing.
It's ironic that Microsoft got into so much trouble for including a browser with the OS which they had a monopoly with while Netscape at the same time was including email and a development platform with the browser they had a monopoly with.
So some online poll on some website is showing fluctuations. Where one option was leading earlier, another one is now. What am I missing? Why in the world is this news?
When was the last time anyone actually trusted or paid any attention to an online poll, anyway? If you do, I have a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.
And the insinuation that MSNBC rigged the poll is preposterous at best. Besides the point that it's hardly worth the effort or risk for them to do it, the far more likely possibilities are that 1) someone with a script skewed the numbers or 2)that the initial spike was because of Linux Today asking its readers to vote on that poll or 3) The initial spike was because someone with a script pumped up the Linux numbers and MSNBC took those votes away or 4) Horror of horrors, more people actually Use NT/2000!!
So is this news worthy of posting on Slashdot because it involves Microsoft or because it involves Linux or because it slings some mud at Microsoft based on some pretend charges, hoping some of it will stick?
Aaarggh. Your website does the nasty "disable-back-button-because-of-redirect" thing. Please find a way to get rid of it. It's very annoying. There was an earlier slashdot article about that about a month ago which had some clues about how to achieve what you are trying to do without annoying people.
The article is amazingly scarce on technical details.
Anonymity is not the intended purpose of these cards. The purpose of these cards is to generate credit card numbers which are one-time use only so that anyone stealing them has no use for them.
Slashdot Mirror
No. The real worry he has is about not growing in revenue. There's so many copies of Windows that can be sold. There are so many features you can put in Windows after which people will stop feeling the need to upgrade. Linux is also a factor in this, but not the major one imho.
It's not Linux or the government that's causing this, it's the stock market and the simple requirement to grow revenue to keep the stock moving.
What's with the slashdot editors? The Naked-PC page has been up for as long as I remember. Does Slashdot have a quota of Microsoft-related posts they have to make in order to get advertising revenue?
This is a bad troll but I'll respond anyway. One sensationalist article about them (and scores of other companies) not paying corporate tax doesn't make "bad press". Maybe you should read the article and the comments from Slashdotters on the link you pointed to.
"the fact that both KDE2 and GNOME1.4 will be providing as good as, if not better, GUI environment for PCs and Macs"
I'll let this statement stand in solitary ridicule by itself. Hmm.. when was the last time I heard that this was happening? As far as I remember the Naked-PC page has been up there forever. What are you, a complete moron?
Chief Wife Officer, Chief Kid Officer 1, etc. would all pay taxes on the options they exercise. The only thing you'd be saving was that you wouldn't be taxed twice. (once for the corporation and the second time for the individual).
These cable companies are government-sanctioned monopolies. They are monopolies because the government allows only one of them to operate in an area. They run their cables over/under city land. As such, they should be subject to government regulation.
It would be a whole different issue if these companies had done it off of their own accord and become monopolies independent of government sanction but that is not the case here.
No. The reason for region encoding is so that they can sell separate distribution rights and also sell the DVDs at different prices for different countries. It's like them saying "Hmm.. this DVD will not be too popular in France so let's try and increase sales there by selling it cheaper there but on the other hand we know it will be really popular in Japan so let's try and make some more money by pricing it even higher."
They're separating the market out into segments so that they can target the different points in the supply/demand curves that exist in those different markets. Taking this to an extreme would be what Amazon is doing - which is to separate the market into segments of size 1 person and target the price to hit that demand curve right.
. It will certainly also cost them goodwill
People who buy and use DVDs according to their rules will have nothing to complain about. The only people affected will be people who (in Time Warner's opinion) are trying to pirate the DVDs. Given their position, I doubt they care too much about the goodwill of those folks.
It's shocking to see how many people on Slashdot are completely clueless on the concept of H1-B visas.
For the record, I hold an H1-B visa. In the meanwhile, the company I work for is sponsoring me for a Green Card. It takes some time for a green card application to be processed by the INS. The H1-B allows me to work in the meantime.
I am by no means cheap labor. I am by no means indentured in any way. I get paid exactly as much as anyone else in my position does. If I don't like what I'm being paid I can ask for a raise or find a job somewhere else.
There are tons of other companies out there desperate for technical people. In all the interviews I've had, no one ever asked me what my visa status was - except in the context of how soon could I actually start. If I decide to switch jobs, it's a simple process of the other company filing a petition on my behalf - one which is always granted. It's just a month or so of delay.
Stop pitying H1-B visa holders. We don't need or deserve your pity.
Did you completely fail learning to read while you were in school? As i SAID, Judge Jackson didn't declare Microsoft a monopoly based on a particular market segment (desktops, etc.). He declared it a monopoly based on the kind of microcomputer (x86).
Apple, of course, does very similar things-but Apple isn't a monopoly, and M$ is.
Ironically, according to Judge Jackson's yardstick, Apple IS a monopoly. Note that he defined Microsofts monopoly as being a monopoly over x86 based computers. He didn't go on to qualify that as being important because x86 based computers are the most popular kind or anything like that. In fact, in his conclusions of law, he made no distinction between x86-based computers and Motorola-based computers for the purposes of declaring Microsoft a monopoly.
So either his statement is incomplete, which I doubt, or he definitely seems to think Apple is a monopoly too.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST.
Microsoft Corporation has retained the law firm of Goodwin, Procter & Hoar in Boston as local counsel in private antitrust litigation. My son James C. Rehnquist is a partner in that firm, and is one of the attorneys working on those cases. I have therefore considered at length whether his representation requires me to dis-qualify myself on the Microsoft matters currently before this Court. I have reviewed the relevant legal authorities and consulted with my colleagues. I have decided that I ought not to disqualify myself from these cases. 28 U. S. C. 455 sets forth the legal criteria for dis-qualification of federal magistrates, judges, and Supreme Court Justices. This statute is divided into two subsec-tions, both of which are relevant to the present situation. Section 455(b) lists specific instances in which disqualifi-cation is required, including those instances where the child of a Justice "[i]s known . . . to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."
28 U. S. C. 455(b)(5)(iii). As that provision has been interpreted in relevant case law, there is no reason-able basis to conclude that the interests of my son or his law firm will be substantially affected by the proceedings currently before the Supreme Court. It is my under-standing that Microsoft has retained Goodwin, Procter & Hoar on an hourly basis at the firm' s usual rates. Even assuming that my son' s non-pecuniary interests are rele-vant under the statute, it would be unreasonable and speculative to conclude that the outcome of any Microsoft proceeding in this Court would have an impact on those interests when neither he nor his firm would have done any work on the matters here. Thus, I believe my contin-ued participation is consistent with 455(b)(5)(iii).
Section 455(a) contains the more general declaration that a Justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." As this Court has stated, what matters under 455(a) "is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance." Liteky v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 548 (1994). This inquiry is an objective one, made from the perspective of a reasonable observer who is informed of all the sur-rounding facts and circumstances. See ibid.; In re Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 861 F. 2d 1307, 1309 (CA2 1988). I have already explained that my son' s personal and fi-nancial concerns will not be affected by our disposition of the Supreme Court' s Microsoft matters. Therefore I do not believe that a well-informed individual would conclude that an appearance of impropriety exists simply because my son represents, in another case, a party that is also a party to litigation pending in this Court.
It is true that both my son' s representation and the matters before this Court relate to Microsoft' s potential antitrust liability. A decision by this Court as to Micro-soft' s antitrust liability could have a significant effect on Microsoft' s exposure to antitrust suits in other courts. But, by virtue of this Court' s position atop the federal judiciary, the impact of many of our decisions is often quite broad. The fact that our disposition of the pending Microsoft litigation could potentially affect Microsoft' s exposure to antitrust liability in other litigation does not, to my mind, significantly distinguish the present situation from other cases that this Court decides. Even our most unremarkable decision interpreting an obscure federal regulation might have a significant impact on the clients of our children who practice law. Giving such a broad sweep to 455(a) seems contrary to the "reasonable per-son" standard which it embraces. I think that an objective observer, informed of these facts, would not conclude that my participation in the pending Microsoft matters gives rise to an appearance of partiality.
Finally, it is important to note the negative impact that the unnecessary disqualification of even one Justice may have upon our Court. Here--unlike the situation in a District Court or a Court of Appeals--there is no way to replace a recused Justice. Not only is the Court deprived of the participation of one of its nine members, but the even number of those remaining creates a risk of affir-mance of a lower court decision by an equally divided court.
Microsoft believes there were several factual and procedural errors committed during the lower court trial. For example (I'm making this up) they could argue that Jackson was asleep during some critical argument or that a particular piece of evidence he disallowed should have been allowed, etc. Small stuff.
The Supreme Court does not rule at that level. The Supreme Court assumes the facts and records as accepted by the lower/appeals courts and then rules simply on matters of law. So if the facts and records at that level indeed were incorrect then the Supreme Court would be committing an injustice by ruling on their basis.
The appeals courts job at this point is to create the final set of facts and records which the Supreme Court will use to make its judgement on the basis of.
Oh, and IANAL btw.
Hmm.. so you think ONE lower court judge is more qualified to rule/less biased on a case than nine people on the appeals bench. All this on the basis of the fact that his rulings are what you like.
Thinking 101.
I grew up in India. A country of a billion people. India has won ONE medal (a bronze) in the last three Olympics. Sports is not a big deal in India - athletes are guaranteed no money from their achievements. The most an athlete can hope for is some large company hires them at a regular job and allows them to take a little time off to practice.
Yes, there are still some independently wealthy athletes who do well but on the whole it's very easy to argue that there would be many more people willing to dedicate a lot more time, effort and money to athletic excellence if there was money to be made from it.
I'll admit that musicians who make music just for the money usually make crap.
However, money serves as a huge carrot too. So if many of the great musicians were GUARANTEED that they would never make any money from their efforts, I'll bet you they would not take the risks they did, or at least not to the extent they did in order to build their music career.
It will tell you how artists in the past made their money. And while you're reading your history text, why don't you study the other subjects too so you can finally finish high school and come back here when you're a grown adult who's not living with mommy anymore?
Hmm.. if Real Audio crashes Windows, it's Microsofts fault. If an email from Outlook crashes Netscape, it's Microsofts fault too. I think I'm beginning to see how this works.
On a more serious note, how do you guys live with yourselves? How about considering that these are just people trying to make the best possible product - sometimes doing a good job of it and at other times cutting corners and making mistakes. The world is not all black and white.
I've been using Outlook 2000 for a little over a year now. I communicate with a lot of people, including people who use elm as their client. I have hardly ever bothered to change the format of the messages I have sent. I have yet to receive a single complaint about my messages being unreadable. Quite obviously, there isn't a problem.
As for it supplanting ASCII, what part of "Plain Text is not Rich Text" do I need to explain again?
This is getting tiresome. Slashdots editors need to take at least the basic steps required to verify a story before rushing to post it just because it gives them a chance to bring out their Bill-Gates-As-The-Borg icon. I don't know, maybe stopping for a second and THINKING about it - Outlook 2000 has been out for more than a year now - wouldn't you have heard about this before if it was true?
And don't even get me started about the so-called expert who wrote the article in the first place.
Ouch. So what you're saying is that UCLA is knowingly allowing (a mostly) illegal activity in order to gain competitive advantage (or parity) with other schools.
This would look really bad if it were established in a court of law. As a Bruin alum, I just hope they don't get smoked on this too bad.
Disclaimer: I haven't been following the Mozilla development process so I'm not aware of their test practices.
By writing the email, address book, etc. they were breaking/fixing the modularity of the whole system. The bugs in design were exposed as other systems tried to use it. (This goes for some of the third party applications such as MozillaIRC and MLTerm).
Ie, the other applications were in part a debugging exercise to test the overall Mozilla engine.
Writing those applications and getting it to run with them does not prove the overall design is modular. It does not prove that the engine plays nicely with other email, address book and IM clients - just that it plays nicely with the ones included in Mozilla
Whoa! You start with saying the browser needs to be extended with javascript and/or java and you are right there. There's no point shipping a browser which won't work on the majority of web sites.
Then you make a huge logical leap by saying that email and IM is important so must be part of the browser. They are completely unrelated to browsing.
It's ironic that Microsoft got into so much trouble for including a browser with the OS which they had a monopoly with while Netscape at the same time was including email and a development platform with the browser they had a monopoly with.
So some online poll on some website is showing fluctuations. Where one option was leading earlier, another one is now. What am I missing? Why in the world is this news?
When was the last time anyone actually trusted or paid any attention to an online poll, anyway? If you do, I have a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.
And the insinuation that MSNBC rigged the poll is preposterous at best. Besides the point that it's hardly worth the effort or risk for them to do it, the far more likely possibilities are that 1) someone with a script skewed the numbers or 2)that the initial spike was because of Linux Today asking its readers to vote on that poll or 3) The initial spike was because someone with a script pumped up the Linux numbers and MSNBC took those votes away or 4) Horror of horrors, more people actually Use NT/2000!!
So is this news worthy of posting on Slashdot because it involves Microsoft or because it involves Linux or because it slings some mud at Microsoft based on some pretend charges, hoping some of it will stick?
Aaarggh. Your website does the nasty "disable-back-button-because-of-redirect" thing. Please find a way to get rid of it. It's very annoying. There was an earlier slashdot article about that about a month ago which had some clues about how to achieve what you are trying to do without annoying people.
Regards,
Donut
The article is amazingly scarce on technical details.
Anonymity is not the intended purpose of these cards. The purpose of these cards is to generate credit card numbers which are one-time use only so that anyone stealing them has no use for them.
This post is NOT insightful. It tells someone who disagrees to go away because the poster doesn't care for a dissenting opinion.
I'd hate to see Slashdot become a fascist society where dissent is not permitted. The parent is a troll. Please moderate accordingly.