Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:23 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 12 May 2001
>> Correction: the marketplace is *supposed* to be driven by the demands of
>> the consumer. Which is, of course, why, a hundred years ago, the U.S.
>> Congress passed the Sherman Act, to ensure that this is all that would
>> drive demand, and the desires of the producers (outside desire to
>> compete and profit) are prevented from controlling prices or excluding
>> competition.
>>
>> Having been found guilty of doing just this thing, and thereby providing
>> more than adequate evidence that your claim that MS will magically learn
>> to be competitive, and stop being anti-competitive, if people simply
>> refuse to buy MS products, is just plain brain-dead. The market has
>> been rejecting monopoly crapware for YEARS, and it hasn't done a lick of
>> good, obviously. Thus, the federal conviction, soon to be judged on
>> appeal.
>>
>> Even if they should "win the appeal" (at most resulting in a new trial),
>> though, pretending that MS hasn't been monopolizing, rather than
>> competing, for years, is just ignorance gone blind. The judges and
>> lawyers need to maintain prudent presumption of innocence, but that is
>> for courtrooms. In the real world, we are not required to deny the
>> evidence of our senses.
>>
>> There is a rather critical difference between your fantasy world and the
>> real world; the difference between being unwilling and being unable. I
>> don't cotton to any ludicrous second-guessing about what people "should"
>> be able to do that they are not already able to do. If you're going to
>> say they "should" be able to avoid MS crapware, then I'd have to agree
>> with you, but that's just double-checking that the criminal monopoly is
>> remedied, not a matter of assuming the consumers are somehow unable to
>> make competent choices in the marketplace.
>>
>> The arrogance of your position is both astounding and pathetic, and
>> extremely unreasonable.
>Question, why is it everytime a company is bought towards the DOJ, its
>always the governments fault, reality stick please! why would a
>government wish to unnecessarily ruin a cash cow? Microsoft broke the
>law, had they gracefully accepted the findings, the trial would never
>taken as long, it would have improved the image of the company, in that
>it is humble enough to accept they made a mistake, and even at the
>outermost, the company was split up, no would lose out, consumers would
>benefit in that the OS company would only sell the OS, thus the rest of
>Microsoft cannot use Windows as a leverage, and vise-versa
Just goes to show you how valuable monopoly itself can be. Microsoft
would be willing to give up ANYTHING, save the monopoly itself, to save
the monopoly.
Some people are so naive as to think this somehow ensures competitive
merit, in the absence of competition, as if desire to maintain the
monopoly forces MS to improve their products. Then they line up to pay
the monopoly prices (again); I did say they were 'naive', didn't I?
Maybe just "not very bright", seeing as they do it over and over
again...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:25 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:eTFK6.1050$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu 10 May 2001 03:19, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>> > on-time pads are theoretically uncrackable, but practically they are
>since
>> > they tend to be created using computer generated numbers, and are thus
>> > predictable. In essance, my algorithm is a one-time pad, but with a
>> > method of calculating the pad that isn't predictable unless you know how
>> > it's calculated.
>>
>> This is incorrect. A true one-time-pad would be generated by reading a
>> naturally random source of noise that an attacker would have great
>> difficulty introducing patterns into. A good example would be the timing
>> between decays in a sample of a radioactive isotope.
>
>Which is something an average person can get access to, how?
>
>Apart from the fact that this decay is debated hotly (no pun intended) about
>whether it is random or not, One-time pads created on PC's without access to
>such generator are going to be predictable at some level.
You show the same degree of competency in quantum physics as you do
cryptography, Erik. What gave you the impression that anyone is
'debating' whether or not nuclear decay is random? It seems to me to be
a rather fundamentally secure aspect of physics that this is, in fact,
the very definition of 'random', at least as close as we can possibly
get in the real world. As far as I know, in fact, it is truly random,
and other than Einstein's intuition (long since proven false) that "God
does not play dice" almost a century ago, nobody seriously questions
this.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:26 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 20:31:53
>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This is incorrect. A true one-time-pad would be generated by
> >> reading a naturally random source of noise that an attacker
> >> would have great difficulty introducing patterns into. A good
> >> example would be the timing between decays in a sample of a
> >> radioactive isotope.
>
> Erik> Which is something an average person can get access to, how?
>
>Linux has a /dev/random as a source of true random bits. It's been
>there for a few years. To generate random bits is simply reading from
>this char device. I often do that in shell scripts with 'dd' piped to
>'od'. How hard is that?
Easy, as long as you ignore the "true" part of "true random bits". Such
things are pragmatically useful, but they are not true randomness; using
such a mechanism in cryptography is not theoretically secure.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:27 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> It is, of course, ALWAYS possible to remove this extraneous stuff. The
>> question is how sure and simple a procedure it is, and it is obvious
>> that, despite your desire to handwave the problem using MSConfig, it is
>> NEVER a sure or a simple thing to do so in Windows. Any Windows. (And
>> the variations in what will and will not or may or may not be necessary
>> to be reasonably sure and reasonably simple varies WILDLY between
>> versions, of course.)
>
>Nope.
>It's quite easy, and usually knowledge is easy to transfer between NT & 9x.
Now that is what we call an air-tight argument. Not.
>> >BTW, copying MSConfig to NT will work just find, you just need to ignore
>all
>> >the error messages is spew when it start.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Small surprise. Monopoly crapware at its finest.
>
>It tries to check for files that doesn't exist on NT, T. Max.
>Of *course* it would spew error mesages.
Of *course* it has some trivial technical "reason" for being monopoly
crapware, Ayende. I'm just pointing out that it is. I don't care if
it's because it checks for files or it misses the warmth of Bill Gates'
affections, it's a ridiculous and pathetic circumstance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:28 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 05:13:23
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >Media Player 7 is unusable on a P133 with 32M Ram for either CD
>> >or mp3 playing while winamp works just fine. It works on a
>> >P300 laptop with 128M, but I don't have anything in between to
>> >try.
>>
>> Thanks for the backup Les. I'd have to wonder whether winamp really
>> "works just fine" on such a limited system, though. It seems hard to
>> imagine that the OS itself would "work just fine", let alone a program
>> on top of it. ;-)
>
>Is your memory that poor? People really did use computers for useful
>things earlier than last year. I was running a unix system driving about
>40 serial lines in the mid 80's with an 80 gig hard drive, 2 gigs of RAM
>and a CPU with about the power of a '286. It didn't draw any pretty
>pictures on the screen but it got a lot of work done and ran for years with
>next to no attention.
Yea, Les, but that was *Unix*. See my point? Take the 'win' out of
'winamp', and... guess what? Look at me.... 'not shocked that a P133
with 32 Meg of ram is useful'. See my point?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:29 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 09:08:22
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 21:50:31
><snip>
>> >Max, you really have to stretch to maintain your "Microsoft and all of
>> >its works are evil and the worst products anyone has ever produced"
>> >attitude.
>>
>> I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I did, would I be
>> using Microsoft products? ;-D
>
>Um, you've stated many times that you're forced to use Microsoft
>products and that's why you haven't switched to the OS that you spend so
>much of your life promoting.
Not precisely, but close enough.
>The only conclusion I can draw is that you
>don't really believe your own rhetoric that you post here. If that's
>the case then I've completely misjudged you. You're just here for the
>entertainment. My apologies...
I honestly haven't the foggiest idea where you would draw that
conclusion from. Perhaps you're confabulating this ridiculously
metaphysical "evil and all their works" horse-shit with the actual
unlawful activities MS has performed, or discombobulated the idea of
'consumers being forced' with 'me being forced'.
Try this one on for size, if you're in the mood for entertainment:
Consumers are forced by circumstances, not by Microsoft, to use Windows.
Yet Microsoft is legally responsible for those circumstances, and thus
is guilty of monopolizing even though they never forced anyone to buy
their product, ever. Substitute "even if" for "even though", and you
don't change the truth or the meaning of the statement. Nor the legal
ramifications; it isn't a question of evil, it is a question of criminal
conduct.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:30 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"Greg Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:MPG.15654c153a31f262989699@news...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 21:50:31
>> <snip>
>> > >Max, you really have to stretch to maintain your "Microsoft and all of
>> > >its works are evil and the worst products anyone has ever produced"
>> > >attitude.
>> >
>> > I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I did, would I be
>> > using Microsoft products? ;-D
>>
>> Um, you've stated many times that you're forced to use Microsoft
>> products and that's why you haven't switched to the OS that you spend so
>> much of your life promoting.
>
>Yes, indeed, *how* are you forced to use MS products, T. Max.
>No monopoly may appear in the reply, btw.
>I want to hear *reasons* not rethorics.
Lack of alternatives which are convenient and practical and widely
supported by the industry. Doh!
Not that I ever actually claimed "MS forced me to buy their products".
Learn to deal with rhetoric, gentlemen; it is a skill that will serve
you throughout your lifetime. Believe it or not, "force" is an
abstraction, not necessarily a physical act of coercion.
Perhaps that explains why they didn't just make "forcing people to buy
your products" illegal, way back at the end of the nineteenth century.
Instead, they simply said "it is a felony to monopolize OR ATTEMPT to
monopolize" and "all contracts in restraint of trade are illegal". All
three of which amount to the same thing, quite specifically.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:30 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 08:31:19
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> You beat me to it :)
>
>T Max needs a good spanking.
Now if only if one of you were capable of giving it to me... ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:31 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 00:58:05 GMT;
[...]
>I fail to see how anyone can accuse Max of being
>a hypocrit.
Silly boy; it's obvious. Wishful thinking. Or should we say "ad
hominem attack"; in this case, it seems to amount to the same thing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:32 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 00:43:27
>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 10 May 2001 18:39:07 +0100,
>> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> >>But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
>> >> >>Puh-lease!
>> >>
>> >> But if they're using Windows, then they will have first hand knowledge
>> >> of its problems. This makes perfect sense to me.
>> >
>> > If they're bad mouthing Windows and praising Linux, then why are they
>> > still using Windows? That sounds to me like hypocracy.
>
>Pete is expressing the frustrations of many professionals that have to
>put up with bugs that never get fixed, or promised to get fixed. No O/S
>is immune to bugs. However, Linux is the fastest to react to criticisms
>of bugs and get them fixed. I welcome Petes bug reports to the Linux
>community.... only that Pete should say that he reports these bugs to
>the appropriate group that can fix them.
Nonsense; Pete is expressing his frustration at being unable to avoid a
spanking, nothing more.
>Max is no hypocrit! He argues with logic.
HEY! I do NOT argue with logic! Logic and I are very good friends.
Sure, there was that period we didn't talk for a couple of years,
because logic was mad at me for stealing his girlfriend, but THAT DOES
NOT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE! I think its VERY unfair of you to claim I have
some problem with logic. Sure, tensions get heated once in a while,
we've both been known to raise our voices, maybe pound on a table, but
these are DISCUSSIONS, not arguments. I would appreciate it if you
wouldn't cast aspersions like that against me, or my friends, in public
forums.
>You are quite correct Terry.
Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:33 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"Judge Jackson's ruling will divert innovative companies from creating
>better products. Worse, it will send the message to innovators around the
>world that in America we punish success. It is this ruling, not Microsoft,
>that is damaging to consumers, as it would deny consumers new products,
>better accessibility and lower prices. I'm confident the appeals court will
>reject Judge Jackson's notion that any one man can foresee how this world of
>possibility should unfold."
>US Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX)
>
Oh, well, if *Dick Armey* says it, then we know it must be true, right?
What does Jackson know about the law, anyway?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:34 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>> >
>> > "Judge Jackson's ruling will divert innovative companies from creating
>> > better products. Worse, it will send the message to innovators around
>the
>> > world that in America we punish success. It is this ruling, not
>Microsoft,
>> > that is damaging to consumers, as it would deny consumers new products,
>> > better accessibility and lower prices. I'm confident the appeals court
>will
>> > reject Judge Jackson's notion that any one man can foresee how this
>world of
>> > possibility should unfold."
>> > US Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX)
>>
>> micro$oft has NEVER competed fairly. They are a success only becasue of
>> unfair, anti-competitve and predatory actions. Hopefully the Appeals
>> Court will see that and send the case to a lower court for tougher
>> penalties.
>
>Yeah - that's going to happen....start holding your breath about that one.
There are no 'penalties', Rick; this is a civil trial. There is only a
'remedy', as the government(s) (the plaintiffs) have not ask for any
punitive damages.
But, then, if JS PL is at all correct, and the appeals court "throws
out" the case, you can expect the next step (pretending for a moment the
Supreme Court will have nothing to say about it) will most probably be a
series of criminal trials for Gates and staff. Unfortunately, the
'penalties' might not be up to Rick's standards of proper vengeance in
that case, either, but *each instance* of anti-competitive action might
be fined, and there's always some chance that our boy Bill will spend
some time in prison. Minimal security, but no doubt that's all the
worse for a megalomaniac, robbing him of his delusions of persecution
and martyrdom.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:35 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"The high tech industry, including Microsoft, has been responsible for
>almost 40% of our nation's recent economic growth.
How's it stand up not including Microsoft, that's what I wanna know.
>We don't want to take
>action that could stifle growth and innovation and in the end harm the
>consumers the antitrust laws were designed to protect. It is unfortunate
>that one of America's most important companies has been forced to redirect
>its focus from developing better products to battling our own government."
>US Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-)
Given the results of their "focus" on "developing better products", I'd
say forcing them to redirect their activities in compliance with law
seems very attractive, personally.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:36 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>Well, you can throw around semantics all day long.
Worse yet, you need to, or you're just making things up as you go along.
This "throwing around semantics" is otherwise known as "clearly
communicating", if I read you correctly.
>DOS was a (very primitive) OS. And the *only* way to get access to
>its services was by way of those INT21h routines.
Thus the point; this was not commonly done, since DOS didn't really HAVE
any services to speak of, at least not ones that weren't already
available directly from the BIOS. I'll go along with "BIS", BIOS
Instruction Set, but calling it an API is definitely a revision of
history.
>Now, that is exactly what an API does, and you can twist words as much
>as you like, that fact is unchanged.
What is an API is determined solely, in my mind, by what an API *is*.
If you start trying to deconstruct it down to "what it does", then
you'll soon find that anything and everything is an API, and that
doesn't actually help with clear communications, having made the term
pointedly useless.
>That the way to access was better geared to assembly language does not
>change it. All the compilers available at the time had no difficulty
>accessing it.
Accessing what? DOS, or BIOS (through DOS)?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:37 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"This decision makes it clear that the Justice Department has no
>understanding of American business or the marketplace, and that the Justice
>Department has no respect for property rights - intellectual or otherwise.
That statement makes it rather clear that Representative Pombo has no
understanding of American law or free market capitalism, and that this
should rightly disqualify him for his job; if he is not willing to
support the law, he cannot be trusted to make it.
>I
>would be worried if Microsoft did not appeal this decision.
I would have been, too, to be honest. It would have meant they had an
even more reprehensible and unstoppable strategy in the works. But .NET
turned out a massive disappointment, so...
If they lose again, I would be worried if MS did not appeal this
decision, and petition the Supreme Court. I would not be worried,
however, if the court refused to hear the case, but I would not be
surprised (and I would be VERY optimistic) if they took it. Still a
little disappointed, since that means its going to mean a longer time
until the monopoly is remedied. Every moment it continues to maintain
prices above competitive levels without productive advantage, and
exclude competition and thus innovation, is an irretrievable loss for
the industry and society. But it would be REAL nice if the SC put a
nice bow on it for you, JS PL.
>Allowing the
>government to take away the property rights of a company, simply because the
>products it created have become popular sets up a very dangerous precedent.
Please describe how MS's property rights are being "taken away". Then
compare and contrast the Lasercomb America v. Reynolds decision. I
wonder if Pombo has ever heard of that one?
>Judging from its activities under the Clinton/Gore Administration, if
>anything should be broken up, it's the Justice Department."
>US Rep Richard Pombo (R-CA)
Now that sounds like a clear statement of the Republican position. Or
lack of one, should I say?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:01:38 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"Today may be a good day for the Clinton Administration's Legislation by
>Litigation agenda, but it is a sad day for the American consumer.
The litigation was enacted more than a hundred years ago. If the
Senator disagrees with it, then he should sponsor a bill to change the
legislation which demands the current litigation. If he fails to do
that, his statements can be seen as not merely rhetorical opinion, but
simply blatant posturing. In the context, Oklahomans should be rather
disappointed in their choice of representative to the Senate.
>If the
>Clinton Administration believes that there should be a federal Department of
>Software Regulation, it should propose one so that the Congress can decide
>whether we need federal bureaucrats and federal judges to write our computer
>software and decide how we surf the Internet."
>US Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK)
Look, JS PL; you KNOW I'm having LOADS of fun with this 'post a silly
quote' thing. But could you manage to maybe use quotes from sometime in
the past year or so? These "software regulation" things are just SO
old, they've been ridiculed to death already, and that kinda limits the
entertainment value of your trolls.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
