The computer OS has become almost as important as water, heat and electric. How would you respond to governing for profit OS companies like a public utility?
Other programs for UA in the USA
on
Universal Access
·
· Score: 1
The real divide takes place in three high level broad catagories. They are the elderly, the poor, the displaced worker(usually from the blue colalr layoffs). Corporate America is not going to reach many of these people on the outside. And the government assumption that K-12 access programs will narrow this divide has only one foot in reality. It will require generations not a generation to achieve universal knowledge let alone unioversal access. (I know I sit on the tech committe for a "progressive" school department. Football wins the budget battles there). So where are the rest to go?
Well, take heart, there are non-profit orgranizations with outreach programs in the US. They are targeting the people without.
There are two I know of, because I am helping one grow out of it's infancy. They are the American Computer Foundation (www.acfdn.org), and the CTCNet(ctcnet.org). Both groups are trying to get free access internet cafes and educational centers introduced into all sorts of areas. Helping bridge the divide in a sane way that provides exposure to technology, access, guidence and education in a community oriented fashion.(That means no computers in pawn shops BS:0 )
They also promote programs of self-sufficency for these centers through various revenue models like building classrooms for rental purposes or computer recycling programs.
I cannot provide all the details right here, but I know these groups need funding, new and used equipment and HELP!
At this time, I know the ACF website is in the process of a refit. But the general message of the mission is there.
~SO GO TO THERE SITES~I will try to keep/. up to date on future non-profit UA activities as well.
BTW JohnK (and all others noting the outsiders in the response area)we could really use your HELP! If you truly want to get involved email me or one of the organizations listed to find out how to get involved.
One of the broader points that seems to be missed by the responses is the implications genereated by the investigative methods portion of this program. The lawyers hire a group to conduct what seems to me very similar to a wire tap. The group NetPD monitored the transactions of computer users to the Napster sites. Then collated a list of names and reported thier finds. The legitimacy and legality surrounding this type of investigative technique, without the approval of law enforcement or the courts, is truely in question. The invasion of privacy is the really topic here. Would the Rebel Metal charge just be a rubber tubber attack without the list? John has stated and restated that Metallica and it's Label have the right to protect it's IP. What he enfactically disputs are investgative methods used to collect this information. Yeah so he goes on about attacking thier fan base... so what. Keep your eyes on the donut not the hole. If this were to go unchallenged and become uncontestable policy. How much privacy will we have on the net? The really focus in my opinion is not a boycott of Metallica. Which I do anyway be I think they a just KISS wannbe's. But to open hearings on the law firm and potentially charge them with privacy violations, crimial wire tapping charges, and potentially file a civil class action for damages against them for thier conduct. The ends do not justify the means, that is the really message.
After having read this article, well written and researched article too JAMIE!!!!, I was reminded of when I looked into TrustE for our own company. And then I remembered why I rejected it.
First Item I wwanted to know was who funded this group, where were their revenues coming from, and were the sources the kind that would inspire trust. Then I looked at the Board of Trustees. Imagine my surprise when I find quite a few similarities in the list of sponsors and the BoD. It was an impressive list, but not what I would expect from a group that said it's position in the industry was to be a watchdog, whistle blower, etc.
But I continued to read.
The opinion I formed, and this is opinion only, is that TrustE was create as a marketing tool to create the aura of trust for each "member/Licensee". But did this aura equate real trust? If TrustE has fallen short on it's promise to take action in cases such as REAL NETOWRKS, what would public opinion be?.
But I cannot help feeling what I digested left me with more questions, than conclusions. We wanted to be a trusted organization. But TrustE as the governing body left me feeling a little cold within the warm fuzzy of the literature.
Some of the tougher questions were: 1.If someone real look at TrustE's organizational structure would they trust it?
2. What if the TrustE's handling of a violation were consider weak or worse ineffective?
3. Would our customers feel safe with the mark? Would they trust my company more?
4. Would a scandle within TrustE decrease consumer confidence in our services?
We did not pursue a relationship with TrustE at that time because of these types of questions. Could it change, with time who knows. But the current course of event does not impart confidence.
The Problem is within this question: Can a group that monitors privacy violations be effective when the watched are the keepers themselves?
If the REAL NETWORKS case is the rule and not the exception....... Well come to your own conclusion.
The rate cut is great. Availability would be nice too. But getting the BELLS/Telco's to comply with opening up their networks and timely and reliable service to the ISP's and customers is the real issue. The telco's are dragging their feet on the Competitive Local Exchange Carrier(CLEC)issues. I have experianced these issues first hand in my job and at my home. The telcos' seem to have issues with the DSL line taking away from the high priced dedicated circuits they used to sell as the only game in town. Along with better pricing on DSL circuits the Fed needs to enforce the Telco Act and ensure the Telcos provide timely and reliable service for all.
I can understand peoples views of Gore and the message that the White House will be involved. And yes the politics of this settlement are going to be a big ol' buck of inhale.
It does seem like a conflict of interest see that the Justice Department answers to the President. But so does the Commerce Department, the Federal Reserve and economic development groups of other departments, and they will scream doom and gloom if MS' punishment is too severe. The fact is, the settlement, if handled poorly, could rock the industry as well as the economy. I also believe MS is counting on that point of view to temper part of the settlement issues in their favor. So, White House involvement will be a necessary evil to maintain balance in the economy. Remember politics drive the government but money (much to our disappointment) seems to drives politics. (These days even if you get caught with your pants down, opps sorry MR Pres).
I'm not sure what the long term projection are for an MS break-up, I leave that to the 4 panel group that is answering slashdot users questions on that. The short-term is upheaval that I don't think anyone from the financial and business world real wants. What I think you will see are a series of monetary and mutually acceptable industry restraints and/or concessions placed on MS. This will be negotiated by the White House and then paraded in front of America as a win for the Pres, the wannabe Pres and the Democratic party.
However, no matter what the economic ramifications , both near and long term, with the President being a "global thinker", will mean a stronger (and possibly vengeful) MS after all is said and done. So it would seem in this issue, there is no lesser of two Billy's.....errrr... evils.
To bad we have to wait for the linux ports. Quake is a great network load testing tool. Remember that, it's a tool....yeah that's right..... a network testing tool......
There are some amusing points not highlighted here. In response to the Byte article, I think we need to remind ol' Jerry there that we are discussing right and wrong, legal and illegal. Not industry trends, and or how nice Microsoft may have played in the early days(if they ever did). Accusing Judge Jackson of being ignorant of the industry is a red herring. Whether or not Jerry is a Microsoft cheerleader, to refute the findings based on the actions of others is wrong.
Basically, Judge Jackson stated he found Microsoft had violate monopoly and anti-trust laws. He is not concerned with industry trends or corparate behavior but industry and consumer impact. He does not care if IBM was stupid, but whether Microsoft took advantage of this stupidity in an ILLEGEAL MANNER. His conclusions are not just based on the high profile case points but the smaller ones as well. His concern is how Microsoft continued to negatively impact the market place, by improperly using its industry power to retain its position.
In a case like this, it does not matter what the other companies are doing, but what Microsoft did to further its own position. And Judge Jackson in his FOF states that Microsoft did harm. That can not be rationalized away with the feeble arguments of; well IBM was stupid, and Apple should have known better, and Netscape should have played ball better. It is like software piracy, people rationalize how they need it, Lotus does not need the cash, our compay can not afford it, etc. It still does not change the fact that you are stealing, no matter how you spin it. The same holds true for Microsoft with this finding.
Next, all Judge Jackson can do is take existing laws, case law, and existing definitions and vocabulary to determine his findings. The finding of fact, according to Judge Jackson, is that Microsoft is a monopoly by the existing standards. Perhaps there should be a new Utilities classification for OS manufacturers(this is a course of action I do not approve of). But until there is, the Judge is constrained to only use the guides at hand.
The fact that other companies acted stupidly does not absolve Microsoft of wrong doing. That is on trial. Saying that poor industry knowledge or a lack of awareness of how things work in the technology area is just a red herring.
Lastly, we are still a long way off from a conclusion. Spin-off law suits, breaking up Microsoft, etc. has several long roads to travel yet. All the other articles do is speculate as to the conclusion. And the conclusion may take several long twists before over. And with Microsoft involve I would not doubt it. There is an article(just what we need another article)on cnnfn.com about Microsoft's annual stockholders meeting that should prove an interesting read. If I read this right Bill has already conceded defeat, but asserts a tough stance on the settlement.
http://cnnfn.com/1999/11/10/technology/microsoft/
I personally do not think Microsoft will be broken up. The economic fall out will be too large. I think spin-off law suits will continue. And I think CmdrTaco will have plenty more articles he will be forced to read. Much to his apparent displeasure. Sorry Cmdr.
Well there seems to be several opinions on this submission. So lets talk a walk shall we.
First is the original issues of security. Since before and after the Jane's article the concept of network, systems and device security has been an issue. Awareness is the key, not fear. I am finding a undercurrent in out communities of this sense of near apocalyptic doom saying. Yet some how we go on. The banks of Europe must have changed a lot of underwear when it was announced their 512K wire transfer encryption had been cracked. But I don't think the transfers have stopped. Nor will the advance of technology. There is no such thing as a bullet-proof system. If there were, it would be packaged, expensive, and we would not hear that the US government had been cyber-attack over 18000 times this year. The fact is, as the attackers offense creates new wholes the defenses will respond and get better. Besides according to the book Maximum Security, one of the top reasons for bad security is the user's failure to follow the proper security procedures.
Next is the issue of embedded devices. To sale that these will be fad devices may be off base. It depends on how consumers and business view them? How their lives will be impacted by this technology? We cannot dismiss these devices out of hand just gimick toys. The market could be bigger and have more long-term staying power than imagined. They very devices we are using to view this site, the PC, was not supposed to last, never need more than 640K of memory(thx Mr Gates for that one) and not need any more bandwidth than 9600 baud. So much for so called experts and the fad prediction.
This also ties into the security issue. Will either stop the proliferation of these devices, I personally don't think so. Are there devices that will bomb? Sure, there always are. However the market space is just getting started.
For instance, what are the benefits of a microwave that can utilize voice commands and download cooking instructions? Tons, imagine a microwave that can be password protected by voice or number to prevent accidents with children (never mind the family cat). The uses in the blind and elderly communities for devices of this nature just scratch the surface. To say a market is small or limited for devices like these maybe premature. How popular are gameboys still?
If perspective is needed I recommend a trip to one of the several site on the author, and social scientist, Marshall McLuhan. It is his observations on media and technology that are used as measures in the area of impact to culture. And the fact is, whatever the positive impact to our lives is where the market for these "toys" will go. And that includes the big players, not just early adopters.
Finally, who cares. Let them development the toys. Let others hack into them. In the coming years there is a shortage of technology personnel. Today there are over 400,000 open jobs, and a prediction of 2.5 million by 2002. This market only strengths our job security in the long-term.
Remember fear is a healthy thing now and again, but paranoia is crippling. Social and technological responsibilities are noble qualities to encourage. Job security is a wonderful thing.
PS. Here is a good starter site about Marshall McLuhan.
Slashdot Mirror
The computer OS has become almost as important as water, heat and electric. How would you respond to governing for profit OS companies like a public utility?
The real divide takes place in three high level broad catagories. They are the elderly, the poor, the displaced worker(usually from the blue colalr layoffs). Corporate America is not going to reach many of these people on the outside. And the government assumption that K-12 access programs will narrow this divide has only one foot in reality. It will require generations not a generation to achieve universal knowledge let alone unioversal access. (I know I sit on the tech committe for a "progressive" school department. Football wins the budget battles there). So where are the rest to go?
:0 )
/. up to date on future non-profit UA activities as well.
Well, take heart, there are non-profit orgranizations with outreach programs in the US. They are targeting the people without.
There are two I know of, because I am helping one grow out of it's infancy. They are the American Computer Foundation (www.acfdn.org), and the CTCNet(ctcnet.org). Both groups are trying to get free access internet cafes and educational centers introduced into all sorts of areas. Helping bridge the divide in a sane way that provides exposure to technology, access, guidence and education in a community oriented fashion.(That means no computers in pawn shops BS
They also promote programs of self-sufficency for these centers through various revenue models like building classrooms for rental purposes or computer recycling programs.
I cannot provide all the details right here, but I know these groups need funding, new and used equipment and HELP!
At this time, I know the ACF website is in the process of a refit. But the general message of the mission is there.
~SO GO TO THERE SITES~I will try to keep
BTW JohnK (and all others noting the outsiders in the response area)we could really use your HELP! If you truly want to get involved email me or one of the organizations listed to find out how to get involved.
One of the broader points that seems to be missed by the responses is the implications genereated by the investigative methods portion of this program. The lawyers hire a group to conduct what seems to me very similar to a wire tap. The group NetPD monitored the transactions of computer users to the Napster sites. Then collated a list of names and reported thier finds. The legitimacy and legality surrounding this type of investigative technique, without the approval of law enforcement or the courts, is truely in question. The invasion of privacy is the really topic here. Would the Rebel Metal charge just be a rubber tubber attack without the list? John has stated and restated that Metallica and it's Label have the right to protect it's IP. What he enfactically disputs are investgative methods used to collect this information. Yeah so he goes on about attacking thier fan base... so what. Keep your eyes on the donut not the hole. If this were to go unchallenged and become uncontestable policy. How much privacy will we have on the net? The really focus in my opinion is not a boycott of Metallica. Which I do anyway be I think they a just KISS wannbe's. But to open hearings on the law firm and potentially charge them with privacy violations, crimial wire tapping charges, and potentially file a civil class action for damages against them for thier conduct. The ends do not justify the means, that is the really message.
After having read this article, well written and researched article too JAMIE!!!!, I was reminded of when I looked into TrustE for our own company. And then I remembered why I rejected it.
First Item I wwanted to know was who funded this group, where were their revenues coming from, and were the sources the kind that would inspire trust. Then I looked at the Board of Trustees. Imagine my surprise when I find quite a few similarities in the list of sponsors and the BoD. It was an impressive list, but not what I would expect from a group that said it's position in the industry was to be a watchdog, whistle blower, etc.
But I continued to read.
The opinion I formed, and this is opinion only, is that TrustE was create as a marketing tool to create the aura of trust for each "member/Licensee". But did this aura equate real trust? If TrustE has fallen short on it's promise to take action in cases such as REAL NETOWRKS, what would public opinion be?.
But I cannot help feeling what I digested left me with more questions, than conclusions. We wanted to be a trusted organization. But TrustE as the governing body left me feeling a little cold within the warm fuzzy of the literature.
Some of the tougher questions were: 1.If someone real look at TrustE's organizational structure would they trust it?
2. What if the TrustE's handling of a violation were consider weak or worse ineffective?
3. Would our customers feel safe with the mark?
Would they trust my company more?
4. Would a scandle within TrustE decrease consumer confidence in our services?
We did not pursue a relationship with TrustE at that time because of these types of questions. Could it change, with time who knows. But the current course of event does not impart confidence.
The Problem is within this question: Can a group that monitors privacy violations be effective when the watched are the keepers themselves?
If the REAL NETWORKS case is the rule and not the exception....... Well come to your own conclusion.
The rate cut is great. Availability would be nice too. But getting the BELLS/Telco's to comply with opening up their networks and timely and reliable service to the ISP's and customers is the real issue. The telco's are dragging their feet on the Competitive Local Exchange Carrier(CLEC)issues. I have experianced these issues first hand in my job and at my home. The telcos' seem to have issues with the DSL line taking away from the high priced dedicated circuits they used to sell as the only game in town. Along with better pricing on DSL circuits the Fed needs to enforce the Telco Act and ensure the Telcos provide timely and reliable service for all.
I can understand peoples views of Gore and the message that the White House will be involved. And yes the politics of this settlement are going to be a big ol' buck of inhale.
It does seem like a conflict of interest see that the Justice Department answers to the President. But so does the Commerce Department, the Federal Reserve and economic development groups of other departments, and they will scream doom and gloom if MS' punishment is too severe. The fact is, the settlement, if handled poorly, could rock the industry as well as the economy. I also believe MS is counting on that point of view to temper part of the settlement issues in their favor. So, White House involvement will be a necessary evil to maintain balance in the economy. Remember politics drive the government but money (much to our disappointment) seems to drives politics. (These days even if you get caught with your pants down, opps sorry MR Pres).
I'm not sure what the long term projection are for an MS break-up, I leave that to the 4 panel group that is answering slashdot users questions on that. The short-term is upheaval that I don't think anyone from the financial and business world real wants. What I think you will see are a series of monetary and mutually acceptable industry restraints and/or concessions placed on MS. This will be negotiated by the White House and then paraded in front of America as a win for the Pres, the wannabe Pres and the Democratic party.
However, no matter what the economic ramifications , both near and long term, with the President being a "global thinker", will mean a stronger (and possibly vengeful) MS after all is said and done. So it would seem in this issue, there is no lesser of two Billy's.....errrr... evils.
To bad we have to wait for the linux ports. Quake is a great network load testing tool. Remember that, it's a tool....yeah that's right..... a network testing tool......
There are some amusing points not highlighted here. In response to the Byte article, I think we need to remind ol' Jerry there that we are discussing right and wrong, legal and illegal. Not industry trends, and or how nice Microsoft may have played in the early days(if they ever did). Accusing Judge Jackson of being ignorant of the industry is a red herring. Whether or not Jerry is a Microsoft cheerleader, to refute the findings based on the actions of others is wrong.
Basically, Judge Jackson stated he found Microsoft had violate monopoly and anti-trust laws. He is not concerned with industry trends or corparate behavior but industry and consumer impact. He does not care if IBM was stupid, but whether Microsoft took advantage of this stupidity in an ILLEGEAL MANNER. His conclusions are not just based on the high profile case points but the smaller ones as well. His concern is how Microsoft continued to negatively impact the market place, by improperly using its industry power to retain its position.
In a case like this, it does not matter what the other companies are doing, but what Microsoft did to further its own position. And Judge Jackson in his FOF states that Microsoft did harm. That can not be rationalized away with the feeble arguments of; well IBM was stupid, and Apple should have known better, and Netscape should have played ball better. It is like software piracy, people rationalize how they need it, Lotus does not need the cash, our compay can not afford it, etc. It still does not change the fact that you are stealing, no matter how you spin it. The same holds true for Microsoft with this finding.
Next, all Judge Jackson can do is take existing laws, case law, and existing definitions and vocabulary to determine his findings. The finding of fact, according to Judge Jackson, is that Microsoft is a monopoly by the existing standards. Perhaps there should be a new Utilities classification for OS manufacturers(this is a course of action I do not approve of). But until there is, the Judge is constrained to only use the guides at hand.
The fact that other companies acted stupidly does not absolve Microsoft of wrong doing. That is on trial. Saying that poor industry knowledge or a lack of awareness of how things work in the technology area is just a red herring.
Lastly, we are still a long way off from a conclusion. Spin-off law suits, breaking up Microsoft, etc. has several long roads to travel yet. All the other articles do is speculate as to the conclusion. And the conclusion may take several long twists before over. And with Microsoft involve I would not doubt it. There is an article(just what we need another article)on cnnfn.com about Microsoft's annual stockholders meeting that should prove an interesting read. If I read this right Bill has already conceded defeat, but asserts a tough stance on the settlement.
http://cnnfn.com/1999/11/10/technology/microsoft/
I personally do not think Microsoft will be broken up. The economic fall out will be too large. I think spin-off law suits will continue. And I think CmdrTaco will have plenty more articles he will be forced to read. Much to his apparent displeasure. Sorry Cmdr.
Well there seems to be several opinions on this submission. So lets talk a walk shall we.
First is the original issues of security. Since before and after the Jane's article the concept of network, systems and device security has been an issue. Awareness is the key, not fear. I am finding a undercurrent in out communities of this sense of near apocalyptic doom saying. Yet some how we go on. The banks of Europe must have changed a lot of underwear when it was announced their 512K wire transfer encryption had been cracked. But I don't think the transfers have stopped. Nor will the advance of technology. There is no such thing as a bullet-proof system. If there were, it would be packaged, expensive, and we would not hear that the US government had been cyber-attack over 18000 times this year. The fact is, as the attackers offense creates new wholes the defenses will respond and get better. Besides according to the book Maximum Security, one of the top reasons for bad security is the user's failure to follow the proper security procedures.
Next is the issue of embedded devices. To sale that these will be fad devices may be off base. It depends on how consumers and business view them? How their lives will be impacted by this technology? We cannot dismiss these devices out of hand just gimick toys. The market could be bigger and have more long-term staying power than imagined. They very devices we are using to view this site, the PC, was not supposed to last, never need more than 640K of memory(thx Mr Gates for that one) and not need any more bandwidth than 9600 baud. So much for so called experts and the fad prediction.
This also ties into the security issue. Will either stop the proliferation of these devices, I personally don't think so. Are there devices that will bomb? Sure, there always are. However the market space is just getting started.
For instance, what are the benefits of a microwave that can utilize voice commands and download cooking instructions? Tons, imagine a microwave that can be password protected by voice or number to prevent accidents with children (never mind the family cat). The uses in the blind and elderly communities for devices of this nature just scratch the surface. To say a market is small or limited for devices like these maybe premature. How popular are gameboys still?
If perspective is needed I recommend a trip to one of the several site on the author, and social scientist, Marshall McLuhan. It is his observations on media and technology that are used as measures in the area of impact to culture. And the fact is, whatever the positive impact to our lives is where the market for these "toys" will go. And that includes the big players, not just early adopters.
Finally, who cares. Let them development the toys. Let others hack into them. In the coming years there is a shortage of technology personnel. Today there are over 400,000 open jobs, and a prediction of 2.5 million by 2002. This market only strengths our job security in the long-term.
Remember fear is a healthy thing now and again, but paranoia is crippling. Social and technological responsibilities are noble qualities to encourage. Job security is a wonderful thing.
PS. Here is a good starter site about Marshall McLuhan.
http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/mcluhan/m/m.html