Since Fox News fnas like to lump all three broadcast networks, CNN (online or off), the New York Times, and NPR (and some other sources not on that list) as the "liberal media", those results clearly show that the "liberal media" are far more trusted than Fox.
That's not at all settled. You seem to be taking the provisions of the settlement laying out the remedy for tying the browser with the OS to leverage the OS monopoly into a browser monopoly with what might or might not be legal with regard to tying a search bar to the OS-bundled browser to leverage those monopolies into a third field.
It is fairly clear that tying the search box would probably not, except in the circumstance you refer to, be a violation of the Settlement of the case arising from the charges of violation of the 1995 consent decree.
Whether it would, on its own, be an actionable violation of anti-trust law is another question.
Microsoft didn't basically win on the bundling issue; they got the particular remedy of breakup thrown out by the appeals court and then reached a fairly modest deal with the new administration on a settlement.
Apple is bundling safari with Mac OS X. Is that good ?
Bundling itself is neither good nor bad.
What is objectionable is leveraging a monopoly in one market to extend monopoly power to another. That's illegal. That's the problem with MS. Arguments that Apple, Google, and whoever else are doing things that are superficially similar to what MS is doing miss the point so long as the effect of what Apple, et al. are doing is not to leverage a monopoly in one area to a monopoly in another area.
It should be observed that if Google had its own OS with a monopoly in the desktop PC market, Microsoft's action would then not be objectionable, given how monopolies in any one market are exclusive.
The other important difference is that neither Google nor Mozilla has monopoly power in some other field that they are leveraging to build market power in search by the inclusion of the defaults-to-Google searchbox in Firefox.
If you want to push this argument, I have to tell you that Google is very close to being a monopoly, and that is exactly how they got Firefox to default to them.
Its not illegal to be a monopoly (and even less so a near monopoly) in one market and, as a result of that, to have other players then promote your monopoly (or near-monopoly) product in its own market.
It is illegal to leverage your monopoly power in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market.
Now, my guess is that using MSN search as a default in IE (which, IIRC, predates IE7; if you type an invalid address into the IE6 address bar the default behavior, ISTR, is an MSN search -- I can't check because even though I have IE6, mine has Google Toolbar which replaces the default behavior with a Google search) probably doesn't reach to that level, and, insofar as it does, the IE7 search box behavior is probably less problematic than the pre-IE7 address bar behavior.
But to pretend that there was some parallel between Microsoft using its OS dominance to push the MSN search system through the IE browser it controls, and Google using its search dominance to push Google search through the Firefox browser which it doesn't control is, well, missing the point rather badly.
I dunno. It seems to me both the status quo ante (originating carrier pays terminating carrier) and the status quo post (for dialup ISP calls only, the ISP carrier pays the other carrier) aren't all that sensible.
The user pays their carrier for local calling (unlimited or not, doesn't matter, its paid for, and that's the deal). The ISPs carrier pays a premium to their carrier for a number in a different area than it is physically located in. Why should either carrier compensate the other? The originating carrier knows that the virtual numbers exist, and that's part of the cost of providing local service. Similarly, the ISP's carrier knows that they'll be getting calls from the logically local exchange, that's the whole point of the service they offer. Appropriate payment for the service that is being provided ought to be built into the subscription costs on both ends, and there should be monkeying around with compensatory payments between carriers.
The old way seems like a wide open opportunity for abuse -- as long as you can selectively market your service to someone who is going to receive more than send (like, say, an ISP) you can roll in the dough, taking money from the ISP for the service, and then taking money from the user's telcos for the calls to the ISP. Win!
The way represented by this state regulatory action, though, seems like a way for the big telcos to crank up the costs for regional or national ISPs that want to maintain local access numbers, thus shutting out one of their competitors for internet service.
Both ways seem pretty dumb, but maybe I'm missing something.
Especially given that its not a price hike for dialup users, but a price hike for telephone companies providing out-of-area numbers to ISPs. There are, after all, dialup ISPs (particularly the little local ones) whose access numbers are actually physically located in the local exchange they serve and who would not be affected at all by this.
If I read that right, Global NAPs acts as a telephone service provider and offers "local" numbers that aren't actually physically in the exchange area they are logically in (mostly to ISPs). Because (for reasons I don't understand) with these local-but-not-really calls the originating local carrier pays the receiving local carrier on a per minute basis, Global NAPs has previously been getting paid by Verizon by the minute for these calls.
This ruling allows a state regulatory action to stand which would change that arrangement so that Global NAPs would pay Verizon for those calls, rather than vice versa.
It certainly does not allow Verizon to charge dialup users on a per minute basis; it allows Verizon to charge Global NAPs -- the ISPs phone company -- on a per minute basis, rather than vice versa, for the calls.
Now, of course, this (if other states follow suit) is likely substantially discourage companies from providing virtual local numbers for ISPs, which could well adversely effect the dialup market [especially the big national and regional dialup ISPs -- the surviving local dialups might rely more on real rather than virtual local numbers, and not be hurt at all], but its hardly a tax on dialup users, as such.
Researchers rely, like the open-source movement, on the relatively free and unfettered exchange of information. Its the whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" things.
Yeah, this means that the bad people that would spend the most effort and resources to find out dangerous ideas often get them for free, the same as the good people that wouldn't spend the effort and resources, and would otherwise not know anything about how to defend against them if they weren't published.
I think its a worthwhile tradeoff. YMMV, of course.
Modifying negotiated terms and presenting them back with the intent that the other party won't read them because you are representing that you signed the contract they gave you is, as well as the risk that it simply fails (in which case you've certainly burned your bridges with that record company, at least), also, once it gets caught, put you in the position of being at risk of being sued, as that is simply a form of fraud.
Yeah, those dastardly anti-Bush Republican committee chairs. Always out to destroy the President and embarrass his party at all costs, particularly in an election year.
First, a bit of pedantry, its not the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court", it is the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" which is set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But more substantively, the ruling you cite refers back to a Fourth Circuit ruling prior to the adoption of FISA (which, therefore, discusses what powers the President has when Congress has not acted) and then makes some comments about inherent power that have little precedential weight because the issue of the degree and extent of Presidential authority to act without or contrary to Congressional dicates was not at issue in the case before the FISC. Instead, the issue was whether FISA has expanded Presidential power.
Though, for some reason, everytime this issue gets brought up in any internet forum, some defender of the administration trots this out as if it conclusively proved something.
Let's face it, if a 'bug' in Vista prevents browsers from visiting 'www.google.com',[...]
Then once Vista ships it'll take about 3 nanoseconds for the word to spread on the Web, and another couple days for it to hit the major media, and stores that don't want to deal with massive waves of complaints from Gmail/Google Calendar/etc. users are going to warn people up front, and Microsoft is going to have a hard time moving Vista out the door.
Google, insofar as it is fighting the Windows monopoly, is doing so by working very hard to make OS irrelevant.
Developing an OS would be a waste of resources for them. Though I can see them putting together and supporting their own Linux distro (or similar derivative of another open-source OS, though Linux seems most reasonable.)
With the Writely purchase, I'd expect one of Google's long term goals is more likely to be produce a full-featured "Web 2.0" office suite, and market servers running it without relying on Google's ad-based public systems to corporate customers, instead of competing directly with Microsoft in a desktop office suite war.
Competing with MS, sure, but choosing the ground rather than fighting directly on MS's turf.
Specter has a history of pretending to be interested in holding Bush's feet to the fire, but he never follows through with any substance. Its a good way to let the Republican leadership know that they need to toss some concessions his way on other issues, and at the same time a way to shape a nice "moderate" image.
Effective politics? Sure. Substance? Not so much.
Seeing as how there is no physical packaging, nor physical inventory that might suffer breakage, one wonders how Sony will defend against these charges.
Since the charges appear to be fixed percentages and not based on any actual breakage or packaging costs, I'd guess (and this is only a guess) they are based on a schedule of charges included in some part or annex to the contract, which doesn't differentiate by media type, and the plaintiffs in the suit are going to have to try to defeat that by arguing that internet download was not envisioned by the original contract and either shouldn't have the deductions applied, or should require a new negotiation of terms.
...if you call it "low-tech vandalism" rather than "data mining", you don't get to use big shiny buzzwords.
So "data mining" it is, even though, well, it isn't.
So as I scan the responses here the overwhelming message is that cell phones are secure because they are closed-source and their code isn't published anywhere.
The gist I got was that they were secure because they are secure because they don't allow random software to run and don't expose any but secure APIs (requiring code-signing, etc.) to any software that does run, not that they were secure because their code was unpublished and not open-source.
I hadn't seen it before, but looking at it, it doesn't seem a whole lot different than any of Google's personalized pages (and it seems less responsive), so I don't see why its an "If you haven't seen this, you haven't seen Web 2.0".
The technical part sounds like a collaborative interface to something like the Google Homepage platform, applied in an enterprise environment.
The meta-marketing part sounds like "Enterprise software makers are starting to use astroturf posting on web discussion boards to promote their products."
Neither of them sounds like an enormous deal that is worthy of much hype. But the, big change is just the aggregate of lots of minor evolutionary steps, a lot of times.
What seems to be needed is some kind of identification system, probably certificate based, for individual/organization identity that can be used over the telephone system to enhance caller ID.
While the telcos are also ISPs, its no so much the telcos-as-ISPs that are doing this as the telcos-as-backbone-providers. The end-user's ISP would have relatively little to do with whether or not the user experience is affected, as the idea is to charge the toll (or delay packets) for packets travelling over the telcos networks at any point.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Fox News fnas like to lump all three broadcast networks, CNN (online or off), the New York Times, and NPR (and some other sources not on that list) as the "liberal media", those results clearly show that the "liberal media" are far more trusted than Fox.
That's not at all settled. You seem to be taking the provisions of the settlement laying out the remedy for tying the browser with the OS to leverage the OS monopoly into a browser monopoly with what might or might not be legal with regard to tying a search bar to the OS-bundled browser to leverage those monopolies into a third field. It is fairly clear that tying the search box would probably not, except in the circumstance you refer to, be a violation of the Settlement of the case arising from the charges of violation of the 1995 consent decree. Whether it would, on its own, be an actionable violation of anti-trust law is another question. Microsoft didn't basically win on the bundling issue; they got the particular remedy of breakup thrown out by the appeals court and then reached a fairly modest deal with the new administration on a settlement.
It should be observed that if Google had its own OS with a monopoly in the desktop PC market, Microsoft's action would then not be objectionable, given how monopolies in any one market are exclusive.
The other important difference is that neither Google nor Mozilla has monopoly power in some other field that they are leveraging to build market power in search by the inclusion of the defaults-to-Google searchbox in Firefox.
Its not illegal to be a monopoly (and even less so a near monopoly) in one market and, as a result of that, to have other players then promote your monopoly (or near-monopoly) product in its own market.
It is illegal to leverage your monopoly power in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market.
Now, my guess is that using MSN search as a default in IE (which, IIRC, predates IE7; if you type an invalid address into the IE6 address bar the default behavior, ISTR, is an MSN search -- I can't check because even though I have IE6, mine has Google Toolbar which replaces the default behavior with a Google search) probably doesn't reach to that level, and, insofar as it does, the IE7 search box behavior is probably less problematic than the pre-IE7 address bar behavior.
But to pretend that there was some parallel between Microsoft using its OS dominance to push the MSN search system through the IE browser it controls, and Google using its search dominance to push Google search through the Firefox browser which it doesn't control is, well, missing the point rather badly.
I dunno. It seems to me both the status quo ante (originating carrier pays terminating carrier) and the status quo post (for dialup ISP calls only, the ISP carrier pays the other carrier) aren't all that sensible.
The user pays their carrier for local calling (unlimited or not, doesn't matter, its paid for, and that's the deal). The ISPs carrier pays a premium to their carrier for a number in a different area than it is physically located in. Why should either carrier compensate the other? The originating carrier knows that the virtual numbers exist, and that's part of the cost of providing local service. Similarly, the ISP's carrier knows that they'll be getting calls from the logically local exchange, that's the whole point of the service they offer. Appropriate payment for the service that is being provided ought to be built into the subscription costs on both ends, and there should be monkeying around with compensatory payments between carriers.
The old way seems like a wide open opportunity for abuse -- as long as you can selectively market your service to someone who is going to receive more than send (like, say, an ISP) you can roll in the dough, taking money from the ISP for the service, and then taking money from the user's telcos for the calls to the ISP. Win!
The way represented by this state regulatory action, though, seems like a way for the big telcos to crank up the costs for regional or national ISPs that want to maintain local access numbers, thus shutting out one of their competitors for internet service.
Both ways seem pretty dumb, but maybe I'm missing something.
If you have a static IP, the only time your modem should need to reconnect (not "dial") is when you have some kind of line difficulty or turn it off.
Especially given that its not a price hike for dialup users, but a price hike for telephone companies providing out-of-area numbers to ISPs. There are, after all, dialup ISPs (particularly the little local ones) whose access numbers are actually physically located in the local exchange they serve and who would not be affected at all by this.
If I read that right, Global NAPs acts as a telephone service provider and offers "local" numbers that aren't actually physically in the exchange area they are logically in (mostly to ISPs). Because (for reasons I don't understand) with these local-but-not-really calls the originating local carrier pays the receiving local carrier on a per minute basis, Global NAPs has previously been getting paid by Verizon by the minute for these calls.
This ruling allows a state regulatory action to stand which would change that arrangement so that Global NAPs would pay Verizon for those calls, rather than vice versa.
It certainly does not allow Verizon to charge dialup users on a per minute basis; it allows Verizon to charge Global NAPs -- the ISPs phone company -- on a per minute basis, rather than vice versa, for the calls.
Now, of course, this (if other states follow suit) is likely substantially discourage companies from providing virtual local numbers for ISPs, which could well adversely effect the dialup market [especially the big national and regional dialup ISPs -- the surviving local dialups might rely more on real rather than virtual local numbers, and not be hurt at all], but its hardly a tax on dialup users, as such.
Researchers rely, like the open-source movement, on the relatively free and unfettered exchange of information. Its the whole "standing on the shoulders of giants" things.
Yeah, this means that the bad people that would spend the most effort and resources to find out dangerous ideas often get them for free, the same as the good people that wouldn't spend the effort and resources, and would otherwise not know anything about how to defend against them if they weren't published.
I think its a worthwhile tradeoff. YMMV, of course.
Modifying negotiated terms and presenting them back with the intent that the other party won't read them because you are representing that you signed the contract they gave you is, as well as the risk that it simply fails (in which case you've certainly burned your bridges with that record company, at least), also, once it gets caught, put you in the position of being at risk of being sued, as that is simply a form of fraud.
Yeah, those dastardly anti-Bush Republican committee chairs. Always out to destroy the President and embarrass his party at all costs, particularly in an election year.
First, a bit of pedantry, its not the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court", it is the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" which is set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But more substantively, the ruling you cite refers back to a Fourth Circuit ruling prior to the adoption of FISA (which, therefore, discusses what powers the President has when Congress has not acted) and then makes some comments about inherent power that have little precedential weight because the issue of the degree and extent of Presidential authority to act without or contrary to Congressional dicates was not at issue in the case before the FISC. Instead, the issue was whether FISA has expanded Presidential power.
Though, for some reason, everytime this issue gets brought up in any internet forum, some defender of the administration trots this out as if it conclusively proved something.
Then once Vista ships it'll take about 3 nanoseconds for the word to spread on the Web, and another couple days for it to hit the major media, and stores that don't want to deal with massive waves of complaints from Gmail/Google Calendar/etc. users are going to warn people up front, and Microsoft is going to have a hard time moving Vista out the door.
Google, insofar as it is fighting the Windows monopoly, is doing so by working very hard to make OS irrelevant.
Developing an OS would be a waste of resources for them. Though I can see them putting together and supporting their own Linux distro (or similar derivative of another open-source OS, though Linux seems most reasonable.)
With the Writely purchase, I'd expect one of Google's long term goals is more likely to be produce a full-featured "Web 2.0" office suite, and market servers running it without relying on Google's ad-based public systems to corporate customers, instead of competing directly with Microsoft in a desktop office suite war.
Competing with MS, sure, but choosing the ground rather than fighting directly on MS's turf.
Specter has a history of pretending to be interested in holding Bush's feet to the fire, but he never follows through with any substance. Its a good way to let the Republican leadership know that they need to toss some concessions his way on other issues, and at the same time a way to shape a nice "moderate" image. Effective politics? Sure. Substance? Not so much.
...if you call it "low-tech vandalism" rather than "data mining", you don't get to use big shiny buzzwords. So "data mining" it is, even though, well, it isn't.
The gist I got was that they were secure because they are secure because they don't allow random software to run and don't expose any but secure APIs (requiring code-signing, etc.) to any software that does run, not that they were secure because their code was unpublished and not open-source.
One of us isn't reading the responses right.
I hadn't seen it before, but looking at it, it doesn't seem a whole lot different than any of Google's personalized pages (and it seems less responsive), so I don't see why its an "If you haven't seen this, you haven't seen Web 2.0".
The technical part sounds like a collaborative interface to something like the Google Homepage platform, applied in an enterprise environment. The meta-marketing part sounds like "Enterprise software makers are starting to use astroturf posting on web discussion boards to promote their products." Neither of them sounds like an enormous deal that is worthy of much hype. But the, big change is just the aggregate of lots of minor evolutionary steps, a lot of times.
What seems to be needed is some kind of identification system, probably certificate based, for individual/organization identity that can be used over the telephone system to enhance caller ID.
While the telcos are also ISPs, its no so much the telcos-as-ISPs that are doing this as the telcos-as-backbone-providers. The end-user's ISP would have relatively little to do with whether or not the user experience is affected, as the idea is to charge the toll (or delay packets) for packets travelling over the telcos networks at any point.