Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:11:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >My power company has a minuscule amount of market share, yet...they are a
>> >monopoly,
>>
>> Maybe from your perspective, and in the casual vernacular, but they are
>> not a monopoly "in the legal sense", as it were. They are a public
>> utility.
> No they are a private company holding a monopoly over their market. They
>are a monopoly in the legal sense because if I decided to sell power in
>their government granted market territory, I would be legaly prosecuted, and
>sued out of business.
I haven't run across that legal definition, though I know that the
common vernacular (based mostly on experience with Ma Bell and a
real-estate board game) leads many people to make the same mistake you
are. Its still a mistake, though.
Like I said; they're a public utility, not a monopoly. They can't be a
monopoly unless their substantial market share (not government mandate)
allows them to act predatorially.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:12:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>
>> In other words, if they use their patent to monopolize. I'm not the one
>> with bizarre definitions of words. I just know what "monopoly" means,
>> and it doesn't mean "large market share" any more than it does "100%
>> market share". It means "having large market share and acquiring it
>> through anti-competitive actions, maintaining it through
>> anti-competitive actions, or using it through anti-competitive actions."
>
>
>Actually, to quote the Supreme Court...
>
>"Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition."
Thank you. But there is a subtle distinction, apparently, between
"having monopoly power" and "monopolizing". Is it having monopoly power
that makes a company "a monopoly", or using monopoly power?
According to precedent, the two things necessary are: 1) you have
monopoly power, 2) you acquired or maintained it willfully. Using it is
not a requirement. This is my point. Chad has some idea that if I
can't provide a court case showing a company being prosecuted merely for
*having* it, not *using* it (one of the three convictions in the MS case
provides this, but being only one of three it is not easy to separate).
Do you know of a particular case which might illustrate this question?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:12:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>JS/PL wrote:
>
>> Not only has the trial been riddled with unlawfull acts against Microsoft,
>> even the penalty hasn't been lawfully applied. According to the law, fine
>> them 10 million and be done with it :-)
>
>It would be within the spirit of the law to make those year-2000
>adjusted dollars. :)
Actually, they already are, I believe. Or at least late 1900s dollars;
the original statute fine was, IIRC, ten thousand dollars.
This is why anti-trust cases are generally brought as civil trials. A
corporation can hardly be deterred from monopolizing if all they have to
do is pay a "monopoly tax". If Bill Gates were personally brought to
trial (something I honestly can't see as a bad thing), he would be put
in jail for up to three years, probably, as well as fined.
The breakup is a *remedy*, not a punishment. The market is given the
duty and the pleasure of "punishing" Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:12:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Possible in his opinion, and evaluated from who's perspective? Sorry if
>> I seem to be begging you to chase your tail. My point is that ethics
>> are *subtle*, not simplistic.
>
>Perhaps, but this does not relieve us of the responsibility of
>making ethical judgments.
Not always, but it often hampers us from doing so when we have the
desire, if not the responsibility, as is the case with all historical
examinations.
[...]
>> Because they are not sentient creatures, and you can only judge sentient
>> creatures, within the context of ethics.
>
>But you can say that an event was anti-life, and the people responsible
>for it evil.
You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. First, the
matter of ethics can determine whether something is "unethical".
Whether it is "evil" is a matter of morality.
Second, as I've already stated, you cannot judge events, only people.
And people responsible for an event might be acting unethically, but
that doesn't make the event unethical, only the people's actions. In
casual conversation, of course, this doesn't prevent us from saying
things like 'the Inquisition was unethical', meaning that people
responsible for it *may* be considered to have acted unethically.
[...]
>> >Why do I have to able to do something about it?
>>
>> Because if you can't do anything about it, you have no context for
>> making an ethical decision.
>
>The context of an ethical decision would be the actor's, not the
>observer's.
The ethics applied to that context should be considered that of the
actor's, not the observer's, you are right. The context, however, must
be defined by the observers in order to correctly observe. But that
takes us back to the whole "universal ethics" issue. In order for any
ethical consideration to be valid to begin with, the ethics of the
actors and the observers must be generally equivalent. And throughout
the whole history of humans, it seems, we have had a generally
consistent set of ethics. And a lot of unethical people.
>> You can double-check whether someone
>> *thought* they were acting ethically, but you can't second-guess whether
>> they *were* acting ethically. If they have an ethical reason to make a
>> decision, and act in what they believed was an ethical manner, then no
>> retro-active 'blame' should accrue to them.
>
>Not good enough.
Unless you have some specific requirement for retribution, I'm afraid
that's going to have to be good enough. Otherwise, you're acting
unethically.
>> The obvious examples of
>> individuals who were acting unethically in the face of it, Mussolini,
>> Stalin, the Big 'H', fail on the first count; they did not have an
>> ethical reason for their decisions to massacre people, so whether they
>> believed they were acting ethically cannot be used in their defense.
>
>But ethical by what ethics?
Yes, that is the question. But I'm afraid you're still too confused
with "morals", whether the actors thought they were in the right, which
in my opinion has no direct bearing on whether their actions were
ethical. Ethics is the *science*, not the "personal belief" about
correct social action.
>> On
>> the other hand, some people, such as Mother Theresa, for instance, did
>> have an ethical reason for deciding to do what she did. It is clear she
>> believed she was acting ethically.
>
>Sorry, no dice. What if her ethics are wrong?
Not possible; they are not "her" ethics. Again, this is why I so
strongly divorce my consideration of "morality" in these types of
discussions; it is necessary, and is sufficient, for clearing out all of
this "who's ethics/ actor's viewpoint" stuff.
The theory of ethics is there is only one set of ethics, but we don't
have any absolute way of determining what they are. That doesn't mean
they change from person to person, the way morality does.
>> So the fact that she was needlessly
>> and callously extending the suffering of tens of thousands of people,
>> and perpetuating misery and poverty among a huge multitude of others,
>> does not make her "a bad person". Merely a misguided one.
>
>And she cultivated her own misguidedness, so she is unethical.
Well, as far as that goes, you are undoubtedly right. But did she
choose to cultivate her own misguidedness (I'm quite frankly somewhat
surprised you're going along with the "Mother Theresa was unethical"
bit; its still something of a counter-intuitive claim to some people),
or did she merely fail to overcome her misguidedness? If every
authority she questioned provided her with no reason to doubt her
convictions (unlikely, but we must at least pretend it is possible), can
she be blamed for continuing in her misguided efforts?
Just how many years of other people saying "you are being ethical when
you do that" does it take to ethically and morally convince you that you
are acting correctly?
Again, I can't help but see this inexorably reduce to the question of
free will. Did she decide to cultivate her misguidedness? How is that
possible, given the term "misguidedness"? Did she choose to decide to
cultivate it? Did she decide to choose to decide to cultivate it?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:12:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Roswell appears to have been the result of some AF test apparatus
>escaping the test range.
Well, that, and a fascinating display of human nature spread out across
more than fifty years.
[...]
>> Anyone who is capable of *interstellar* space travel in the Enstienian
>> universe we live in would know that any sentient life is a needle in a
>> haystack. The question is whether we'd be able to recognize them, and
>> they us, from some large-scale ant-farm or a particularly bizarre
>> fungus.
>
>alternatively.... we are descended from same ?
What? Space aliens?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:12:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No they are a private company holding a monopoly over their market.
>> They are a monopoly in the legal sense because if I decided to sell
>> power in their government granted market territory, I would be
>> legaly prosecuted, and sued out of business.
>
>Nope.
>
>That all changed a few years ago. Now, you can sell electrical power
>anywhere you want, and in many places, you can even force the power
>companies to let you use their lines for that purpose.
I think its the other way around. In just about all places, you could
force the power company (electricity generator) to let you use their
transmission facilities, but there are still large areas of the US where
you can't sell electricity unless you're the public utility.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:12:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
[...JS/PL finally reads the whole Sherman Act S.2, and notices the
criminal sentencing guidelines...]
>That has been interpreted as $10 million for every day a company fails
>to come into compliance with the law. Of course, Microsoft makes more
>than $10 million in profits every day, so they could just pay the fines
>and keep violating the law until Congress decided to increase the fine.
I think in Microsoft's case, that would be for every individual act of
threat, coercion, or predatory development. The number could run into
the billions quite easily, I think. Or, potentially (and this would
bring it right in line with a real punishment, even for Microsoft) for
each copy of Win98 distributed, maybe. A system of payments could be
arranged so that Microsoft could spread out the cost of the trillions in
fines over a century or two, but somehow I doubt they'd last long.
Of course, if this were a criminal trial, and the criminal penalties had
anything to do with the civil relief sought by the Justice Department,
Bill Gates would be there, because you're required to be present when
you're convicted of a federal felony. His fine would be pocket change,
but he'd be lead away for his three year term in hand cuffs. Might be
worth it, don't you think?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:13:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >> >> If we use pre-existing values to choose values, where did the
>> >> >> pre-existing values come from?
>> >> >
>> >> >Education, mostly.
>> >>
>> >> Well, that would be "other people's values", then, eh?
>> >
>> >Not after you are educated. But yeah, at first you do what your
>> >dad tells you is good, and don't do what he tells you is bad.
>> >
>> >> And where did> they come from?
>> >
>> >Their education, mostly.
>>
>> Well, aside from trying to make this exchange move as slowly as possible
>> while you catch up to the full philosophical ramifications of your
>> presumptions, is there a point to your failing to recognize the tenuous
>> nature of this recursive argument?
>
>Are you asking me if I have a hidden intention which I advance by
>not understanding that my argument is tenuous? That is way too
>convoluted to deserve an answer.
Is that a yes or a no? Or should I be satisfied with your abandoning
the recursive argument entirely?
>> There are three possibilities (as always; all dichotomies are false
>> ones)
>> a) People choose their values
>> b) People learn their values from others
>> c) People may or may not choose to learn, or learn to choose, but the
>> situation is more complicated than can be understood if you accept
>> either a blanket assumption of an absolute moral code OR a
>> post-modernist relativity in which everyone determines their own ethics
>> through pure free will.
>
>Interesting, you accuse me of being a post-modern relativist, yet
>you say post-modern relativists say everyone determines their
>own ethics to free will.
>
>Since I don't say that, I guess you must accept I am not a postmodern
>relativist.
Not a very good one, at least, if you don't realize you did make this
your position, by accusing everyone who would place any but the most
relativistic constraints (lack of constraints beyond personal morals) on
ethical judgement of demanding an "absolute moral canon".
>> So how would you like to proceed? A discussion of whether free will
>> exists, or a discussion of whether ethics are determined by 'putatively
>> universal social consensus', not personal morality? I'm flexible, take
>> your pick.
>
>I'd rather not pick one or the other, but just start ignoring you more
>militantly.
Fortunately, from your perspective, that allows you to ignore my
arguments, as well. So long as you don't forget them, there's little
more I can say on the matter then.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:13:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> >You see, you still don't understand. the "T" is not a representation
>> >of the effects, it's a representation of the bit itself.
>>
>> The affects are an abstraction;
>
>Oh, no. The effects are very concrete. They cause some electrons
>to go to one state instead of another.
I think you meant "discrete", not "concrete". There is nothing about an
abstraction which makes it non-discrete, per se. To suggest that bits
flipping is not abstract is trivial reductionism, entirely
misrepresentative of the context of the argument.
>> the visual presentation, while
>> meaningless in your perspective, is all that the person who doesn't
>> *already understand* has to attempt to understand the abstraction, and
>> therefore what the discussion was about, what my request was, and why
>> the explanations I was getting were less than helpful.
>
>What can I say? No. a "t" is useless to understand what the abstraction
>is. It can only help you see if it's active or not.
Having a visual representation of an abstraction is absolutely the most
useful way to learn to grasp, or understand, an abstraction. You
confuse the act of knowing with the process of understanding. It
underlies your confusion on numerous matters throughout our discussions.
It is, I say without prejudice or pejorative intent, the perspective of
an engineer. Perhaps we may find that being a good engineer involves
some mechanism the brain uses for treating the abstract, once
understood, as manipulatable in the same way as the concrete. We all
share this trait, of course, in our ability to "envision" things and the
fact that we lean to try to affect the trajectory of a ball, even when
we're only watching it on TV. Our brains turn abstractions into the
same kind of information as we get from our sense organs. A fascinating
thing, but prone to problems, it seems. If a great facility for
manipulating abstractions easily is born of a lack of distinction
between the concrete and the abstract, one might all too often mistake
what is actually abstract for something that is as absolute and sure as
what is truly concrete.
>> >A representation of the effects would be something very different,
>> >such as a view of the memory mapping of a running program. Which is
>> >something you probably will never see.
>>
>> And never need to see, as I already have the abstraction of what the
>> sticky bit *does*; the only point of confusion which was supposedly
>> being discussed was why I had it confused with the setuid bit.
>
>That's reason for introspection, not for a usenet post.
I fail to see a difference between the two, I'm afraid.
>> Not why it was different, but why it wasn't known to be different.
>
>The reasons for your ignorance are uninteresting.
To you, maybe. Inversely, however, I find the reasons you might be
ignorant quite fascinating (see above). I'm not picking on you; I find
little to be more fascinating that deconstructing the act or process of
both reasoning and ignorance.
>> The answer
>> is that either is rarely something that comes up a lot for the majority
>> of Unix users, and they are both represented by changes to the execute
>> bit in the permissions.
>
>You still don't get it. No, the execute bit is not changed.
>Sigh.
You still don't get it, either. The "execute bit" refers ambiguously to
both the control mechanism represented and its representation. When
asked "where is the execute bit?", you, as well as anyone else, would,
(if forced to respond through gestures) point to the representation, not
some arbitrary number of electrons hovering amidst the electromagnetic
fields of the CPU or RAM chips.
Have you another term for the particular position within the permissions
representations other than "the execute bit"? (Say "the setuid bit" or
some such and you'll prove you missed the point.) If so, you haven't
used it, but seem to be trying to ridicule me for not knowing it.
What's up with that?
>[snip]
>> [...]
>> >So, you see a "t" in a directory's permissions, and you know you can
>> >only delete your own files, without being told that. Yeah, sure.
>> >So much for the uselessness of our answers.
>>
>> That happens quite rarely even for people with much more experience than
>> I.
>
>It happens every day, to every unix user. You may not know it,
>though.
Yea, sure. How about 'they might not know it, either; in fact, the
overwhelming majority of them don't'. Just how pedantic are you
planning to be, son?
[...]
>The functional purpose is not abstract. The visual representation,
>though, is an abstraction of the real implementation of the bit.
There's that too-literal mind-set at work again. No, the functional
purpose is an abstraction, because it is not concrete. There is no
sensual data to communicate its existence to the user. The visual
representation, on the other hand, is concrete. It has form and
substance. This form and substance is not "electrons making pixels
glow", but the letter 't' in a particular position within a visual
display. Of course, that is an *abstraction*, in its own right, as all
communication is. But it is observable directly, not indirectly, so it
is not abstract. The 'bit', wherever one wishes to point to it, is
whether or not you can delete files in the directory or whatever.
Definitely an abstract concept.
>> >> In distinguishing the sticky bit from the setuid bit,
>> >> and in clarifying that they are not at all related, it seemed rather
>> >> definitive. They could, after all, have been in the same position, just
>> >> as either shares a place with the executive bit.
>> >
>> >Notice that although they share the position with the x bit, you can
>> >still say if the x bit is set or not. They are not the same as the x
>> >bit, either. So, if they can share a position with a bit and be
>> >differnt, they could also share (or not) a postion with each other and be
>> >different.
>> >
>> >The position they use makes no difference one way or the other.
>>
>> Which only makes the issue more confusing for those not already familiar
>> with it.
>
>Not for someone who is trying to understand.
Spoken like someone who not only already understands, but is incapable
of remembering what it was like not to understand, and doesn't see why
others don't understand more readily than they do.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
