Over the years, opensource.org has posted a series of internal 
"Halloween" memos that reveal the dirty underside to how Microsoft works.

The latest is sheer political dynamite:

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

It is an SCO memo revealing that, directly or indirectly, Microsoft has 
funded SCO's attacks on Linux to the tune of $86 million or more. This 
means that they've been covertly funding a rather dubious legal attack 
on their biggest competitor. It also explains SCO's often bizarre, 
self-destructive behavior. The corporation's execs expect to be rewarded 
by Microsoft even if they destroy SCO.

This is big stuff. The fact that it has been taking place covertly means 
Microsoft knows its actions are illegal. The fact that Microsoft is 
attacking its primary competitor could be grounds for forcing the 
breakup of Microsoft much as Standard Oil was broken up.

A much better solution would be to force Microsoft to pay multiple 
billions of dollars in punitative damages to non-profit organizations to 
be used to fund development of high quality Linux/open source/Mac OS X 
software. Unlike the petty sanctions fussed over so far (unlinking 
browsers and music players), THAT would get their attention.

And all that new and free software would do wonders for the Mac share of 
the market.

-- 
****************
Preorder Lord of the Ring DVDs and videos.
http://www.inklingbooks.com/
****************

In article <blackhole-854A9B.09323604032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
 MP <blackhole@foxinternet.net.invalid> wrote:

> Over the years, opensource.org has posted a series of internal 
> "Halloween" memos that reveal the dirty underside to how Microsoft works.
> 
> The latest is sheer political dynamite:
> 
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html
> 
> It is an SCO memo revealing that, directly or indirectly, Microsoft has 
> funded SCO's attacks on Linux to the tune of $86 million or more. This 
> means that they've been covertly funding a rather dubious legal attack 
> on their biggest competitor. It also explains SCO's often bizarre, 
> self-destructive behavior. The corporation's execs expect to be rewarded 
> by Microsoft even if they destroy SCO.
> 
> This is big stuff. The fact that it has been taking place covertly means 
> Microsoft knows its actions are illegal. The fact that Microsoft is 
> attacking its primary competitor could be grounds for forcing the 
> breakup of Microsoft much as Standard Oil was broken up.

Lawyers and Lobbyists will insure that nothing happens.


> A much better solution would be to force Microsoft to pay multiple 
> billions of dollars in punitative damages to non-profit organizations to 
> be used to fund development of high quality Linux/open source/Mac OS X 
> software. Unlike the petty sanctions fussed over so far (unlinking 
> browsers and music players), THAT would get their attention.

Same comment as above applies.


> And all that new and free software would do wonders for the Mac share of 
> the market.

No it won't.

KP

-- 
Remove _me_ for e-mail address

In article <blackhole-854A9B.09323604032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
 MP <blackhole@foxinternet.net.invalid> wrote:

:> Over the years, opensource.org has posted a series of internal 
:> "Halloween" memos that reveal the dirty underside to how Microsoft works.
:> 
:> The latest is sheer political dynamite:
:> 
:> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html
:> 
:> It is an SCO memo revealing that, directly or indirectly, Microsoft has 
:> funded SCO's attacks on Linux to the tune of $86 million or more. This 
:> means that they've been covertly funding a rather dubious legal attack 
:> on their biggest competitor. It also explains SCO's often bizarre, 
:> self-destructive behavior. The corporation's execs expect to be rewarded 
:> by Microsoft even if they destroy SCO.
:> 
:> This is big stuff. The fact that it has been taking place covertly means 
:> Microsoft knows its actions are illegal. The fact that Microsoft is 
:> attacking its primary competitor could be grounds for forcing the 
:> breakup of Microsoft much as Standard Oil was broken up.
:> 
:> A much better solution would be to force Microsoft to pay multiple 
:> billions of dollars in punitative damages to non-profit organizations to 
:> be used to fund development of high quality Linux/open source/Mac OS X 
:> software. Unlike the petty sanctions fussed over so far (unlinking 
:> browsers and music players), THAT would get their attention.
:> 
:> And all that new and free software would do wonders for the Mac share of 
:> the market.

Doing something covertly doesn't necessarily imply illegality -- only 
that they would not like it "widely known".  And calling SCO "their 
biggest competitor" is rather overgenerous.

While I'm obviously not a M$ fan when I can have my Mac, I must say that 
I feel so much more secure with OS X than I ever did before it -- as a 
developer, I know what that Unix core can mean to me both as a user and 
as a potential Mac developer, something Windows users simply can't have.  
It's that which threatens Microsoft, in my opinion.  Not any possibility 
of further legal action.

Face facts:  the government made a half-hearted effort at them once but 
didn't have the stomach to carry it to its full, logical conclusion.  So 
it's not going to happen again.

= Steve =
-- 
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama

Steve W. Jackson:
> Face facts:  the government made a half-hearted effort at them once but 
> didn't have the stomach to carry it to its full, logical conclusion.  So 
> it's not going to happen again.

Half-hearted may be an overstatement! I've always wondered, if the
U.S.G. -- the largest buyer of computers on Earth -- wanted to break
the MS monopoly, why didn't the U.S.G. simply say "We're switching to
Macs, and if you want to do business with us, you'll be
Mac-compatible." The whole world wants a piece of your dollar and mine,
and that would have ended the MS monopoly instantly. And, if
independent studies on ROI and TCO are to be believed, it would have
saved us a bundle of $ as well.

Forget Bush and Kerry. Vote for me.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article <050320041855371221%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> > Face facts:  the government made a half-hearted effort at them once 
> > but didn't have the stomach to carry it to its full, logical 
> > conclusion.  So it's not going to happen again.
> 
> Half-hearted may be an overstatement!

It became half hearted after Bush took office.  Before then, it was 
quite aggressive.

-- 
Never play strip tarot.

In article <michelle-40D215.17450005032004@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <050320041855371221%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > > Face facts:  the government made a half-hearted effort at them once 
> > > but didn't have the stomach to carry it to its full, logical 
> > > conclusion.  So it's not going to happen again.
> > 
> > Half-hearted may be an overstatement!
> 
> It became half hearted after Bush took office.  Before then, it was 
> quite aggressive.

I think it was more or less abandoned after Bush took office, like most
other ethical concepts...

-- 
First they gerrymander us into one-party fiefs. Then they tell us they only
care about the swing districts. Then they complain about voter apathy.
 -- Gail Collins

In article <blackhole-854A9B.09323604032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
MP  <blackhole@foxinternet.net.invalid> wrote:
>Over the years, opensource.org has posted a series of internal 
>"Halloween" memos that reveal the dirty underside to how Microsoft works.
>
>The latest is sheer political dynamite:
>
>http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html
>
>It is an SCO memo revealing that, directly or indirectly, Microsoft has 
>funded SCO's attacks on Linux to the tune of $86 million or more. This 
>means that they've been covertly funding a rather dubious legal attack 
>on their biggest competitor. It also explains SCO's often bizarre, 
>self-destructive behavior. The corporation's execs expect to be rewarded 
>by Microsoft even if they destroy SCO.
>
>This is big stuff. The fact that it has been taking place covertly means 
>Microsoft knows its actions are illegal. The fact that Microsoft is 
>attacking its primary competitor could be grounds for forcing the 
>breakup of Microsoft much as Standard Oil was broken up.

You are dreaming. The current crowd in Washington wouldn't care if
the Microsofties went on prime time TV, told the world they were 
gonna use Internet Explorer to steal every penny in their customers'
bank accounts, and then did it the next day. 

The Redmond Renegades are beyond the law, beyond justice and completely
unassailable by any government. Linux may hurt 'em (and I certainly hope
so), but no elected official in any country will do a damn thing to 'em.
You will sooner see Vladimir Putin elected Pope than any government land
a blow against Bill's Boyz. Get over it.

(It gives me no pleasure to type that.)

David Derbes

>A much better solution would be to force Microsoft to pay multiple 
>billions of dollars in punitative damages to non-profit organizations to 
>be used to fund development of high quality Linux/open source/Mac OS X 
>software. Unlike the petty sanctions fussed over so far (unlinking 
>browsers and music players), THAT would get their attention.
>
>And all that new and free software would do wonders for the Mac share of 
>the market.
>
>-- 
>****************
>Preorder Lord of the Ring DVDs and videos.
>http://www.inklingbooks.com/
>****************

In article <NMa2c.43$T4.28394@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> The Redmond Renegades are beyond the law, beyond justice and completely
> unassailable by any government. Linux may hurt 'em (and I certainly hope
> so), but no elected official in any country will do a damn thing to 'em.
> You will sooner see Vladimir Putin elected Pope than any government land
> a blow against Bill's Boyz. Get over it.
> 
> (It gives me no pleasure to type that.)

Then why concede it? This reminds me of the people I saw years ago 
saying (more than one, verbatim) "I really want Netscape to win, but for 
now I'm going to use IE." Every single person who thought like that 
ended up supporting the legitimacy of IE as the preeminent browser for 
every web site that tracked which agents visted.

In article <gwestonREMOVE-AD67FC.06451006032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>In article <NMa2c.43$T4.28394@news.uchicago.edu>,
> loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>
>> The Redmond Renegades are beyond the law, beyond justice and completely
>> unassailable by any government. Linux may hurt 'em (and I certainly hope
>> so), but no elected official in any country will do a damn thing to 'em.
>> You will sooner see Vladimir Putin elected Pope than any government land
>> a blow against Bill's Boyz. Get over it.
>> 
>> (It gives me no pleasure to type that.)
>
>Then why concede it? This reminds me of the people I saw years ago 
>saying (more than one, verbatim) "I really want Netscape to win, but for 
>now I'm going to use IE." Every single person who thought like that 
>ended up supporting the legitimacy of IE as the preeminent browser for 
>every web site that tracked which agents visted.

Waitasec. I am not using IE or any other MS product except Excel, and that
only rarely. But conceding MS will never be slapped down by any government?
That's just reality. You might not want to concede that all of us are mortal,
or that dropped objects fall; in which case, you will have a more difficult 
life than necessary.

David Derbes

In article <Mwj2c.48$T4.32442@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> In article <gwestonREMOVE-AD67FC.06451006032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
> Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> >In article <NMa2c.43$T4.28394@news.uchicago.edu>,
> > loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
> >
> >> The Redmond Renegades are beyond the law, beyond justice and completely
> >> unassailable by any government. Linux may hurt 'em (and I certainly hope
> >> so), but no elected official in any country will do a damn thing to 'em.
> >> You will sooner see Vladimir Putin elected Pope than any government land
> >> a blow against Bill's Boyz. Get over it.
> >> 
> >> (It gives me no pleasure to type that.)
> >
> >Then why concede it? This reminds me of the people I saw years ago 
> >saying (more than one, verbatim) "I really want Netscape to win, but for 
> >now I'm going to use IE." Every single person who thought like that 
> >ended up supporting the legitimacy of IE as the preeminent browser for 
> >every web site that tracked which agents visted.
> 
> Waitasec. I am not using IE or any other MS product except Excel, and that
> only rarely. But conceding MS will never be slapped down by any government?
> That's just reality.

Funny thing is, it's not. There are governments further east than 
Washington, D.C. that are in the process of doing just that.

Again, the question is: Why concede that point? A large part of the 
reason Microsoft holds the power they do in the USA is that they have a 
few _very_ vocal supporters (some of whom are known to be paid for that 
support) and a whole lot of people that just go along. If you choose, 
consciously, to be one of the people that just goes along, you make it 
easier for your representative government to justify doing nothing. 
After all, that's what the people they represent want, right?

> You might not want to concede that all of us are mortal,
> or that dropped objects fall; in which case, you will have a more difficult 
> life than necessary.

I was a math major. I don't believe in proof by lack of a 
counterexample. Especially when counterexamples exist. But yes. I 
suppose life is much easier if you don't question conventional wisdom.

Much snippage below.

In article <gwestonREMOVE-9BBD67.20543406032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>In article <Mwj2c.48$T4.32442@news.uchicago.edu>,
> loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>
>> In article <gwestonREMOVE-AD67FC.06451006032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
>> Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>> >In article <NMa2c.43$T4.28394@news.uchicago.edu>,
>> > loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>> >
>> >> You will sooner see Vladimir Putin elected Pope than any government land
>> >> a blow against Bill's Boyz. Get over it.
>> >> 
>> >> (It gives me no pleasure to type that.)
>> >
>> >Then why concede it? This reminds me of the people I saw years ago 
>> >saying (more than one, verbatim) "I really want Netscape to win, but for 
>> >now I'm going to use IE." Every single person who thought like that 
>> >ended up supporting the legitimacy of IE as the preeminent browser for 
>> >every web site that tracked which agents visted.
>> 
>> Waitasec. I am not using IE or any other MS product except Excel, and that
>> only rarely. But conceding MS will never be slapped down by any government?
>> That's just reality.
>
>Funny thing is, it's not. There are governments further east than 
>Washington, D.C. that are in the process of doing just that.
>
>Again, the question is: Why concede that point? A large part of the 
>reason Microsoft holds the power they do in the USA is that they have a 
>few _very_ vocal supporters (some of whom are known to be paid for that 
>support) and a whole lot of people that just go along. If you choose, 
>consciously, to be one of the people that just goes along, you make it 
>easier for your representative government to justify doing nothing. 
>After all, that's what the people they represent want, right?

I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the lawmakers. Let
me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

This has nothing to do with Letters to the Editor, calls to the senators,
and so on. 

The guys who run our country say, in their best Cuba Gooding, Jr voice:
Show me the money! And Bill's Barbarians throw them a few million. End
o' story.

>> You might not want to concede that all of us are mortal,
>> or that dropped objects fall; in which case, you will have a more difficult 
>> life than necessary.
>
>I was a math major. I don't believe in proof by lack of a 
>counterexample. Especially when counterexamples exist. But yes. I 
>suppose life is much easier if you don't question conventional wisdom.

OK, _don't_ concede the point. I am a physics teacher, and I believe in
empirical evidence. _When_ a government (_any_ government!) does something 
meaningful against these gonifs, _then_ you can tell me I was wrong.

I won't hold my breath.

It doesn't matter one whit what you or I concede. The behemoth that is
Microsoft will grind on like a glacier. Only the market can provide 
enough heat to melt 'em. The government will not help you. Not this
government, not any government. That's a fact, Jack.

David Derbes

david raoul derbes wrote:

[...]

> 
> It doesn't matter one whit what you or I concede. The behemoth that is
> Microsoft will grind on like a glacier. Only the market can provide 
> enough heat to melt 'em. The government will not help you. Not this
> government, not any government. That's a fact, Jack.

Please stop using the word "fact" to name your personal opinion about 
the possible future. A fact is something that you can prove right now. 
Your ideas about the future might become "facts" over the time and you 
will be called a Prophet or a Visionnaire or a Genius or... But as of 
today you can't prove your opinions to be "facts". Even relativistic 
approach won't help you much in this case ;-)

Personally my opinions are very  much in line with yours: I am very much 
_afraid_ that your opinion _may_ become reality ("fact") with a very 
high _probability_ .

 >
 > OK, _don't_ concede the point. I am a physics teacher, and I believe
 > in
 > empirical evidence. _When_ a government (_any_ government!) does
 > something
 > meaningful against these gonifs, _then_ you can tell me I was wrong.
 >

Since this is your theory, you are wrong as long as you (or someone 
else) don't prove it otherwise.

Being a physics teacher, I believe, one should be at least as strict as 
physics itself is. Otherwise I wouldn't like to be taught by you ;-)

P.S. What the government (_any_ government) can do is to stop spending 
_OUR_ money on Bill's products. This is what is ssssloooowly beginning 
to happen. This is a "fact".

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 1:54:36 +0000, Gregory Weston wrote
(in message <gwestonREMOVE-9BBD67.20543406032004@netnews.comcast.net>):

> Again, the question is: Why concede that point?

I agree with you, it is of course going to be difficult for those governments 
and corporations who have stupidly locked themselves into a Microsoft 
relationship. Thus, retraining people, switching over to new hardware and 
software, etc., is not feasible.

However, for any new company, the choice should clearly lay elsewhere. Many 
years ago, when faced with the deployment of a new mail server, I simply 
refused to even consider Exchange. We have half Macs half PCs. I pushed for 
FirstClass running on a Mac (now the server is based on OS X). Everybody is 
happy, we simply laugh when we read about worms and viruses bringing down 
companies' networks.

Why can others not do the same?

Paolo

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:36:37 +0000, david raoul derbes wrote
(in message <FzF2c.3$45.992@news.uchicago.edu>):

> I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the lawmakers. Let
> me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Is American society so corrupted?
If yes, why are you not doing anything about it?

Paolo

Paolo Giovanni Maria Cordone <pghc@eircom.net> writes:

> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:36:37 +0000, david raoul derbes wrote
> (in message <FzF2c.3$45.992@news.uchicago.edu>):
>
>> I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the
>> lawmakers. Let me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
>
> Is American society so corrupted?

Yes.

> If yes, why are you not doing anything about it?

Some are trying, but most simply Americans don't pay attention to
what their government is doing.  If they were, there'd be riots in
Washington on a daily basis.

As for myself, I don't support any organized political party.  I
usually vote Democrat.

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Paolo Giovanni Maria Cordone <pghc@eircom.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:36:37 +0000, david raoul derbes wrote
>>(in message <FzF2c.3$45.992@news.uchicago.edu>):
>>
>>
>>>I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the
>>>lawmakers. Let me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
>>
>>Is American society so corrupted?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
>>If yes, why are you not doing anything about it?
> 
> 
> Some are trying, but most simply Americans don't pay attention to
> what their government is doing.  If they were, there'd be riots in
> Washington on a daily basis.
> 
> As for myself, I don't support any organized political party.  I
> usually vote Democrat.

And here I was under the impression that the Democrats were a political 
party.   :-)

Think Independent...

Bill

In article <104mpo2sig3if7a@corp.supernews.com>,
 Bill Leeper <wleeper@actionnet.net> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> 
> > As for myself, I don't support any organized political party.  I
> > usually vote Democrat.
> 
> And here I was under the impression that the Democrats were a political 
> party.   :-)

He said "_organized_ political party."

In article <FzF2c.3$45.992@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> >> Waitasec. I am not using IE or any other MS product except Excel, and that
> >> only rarely. But conceding MS will never be slapped down by any 
> >> government?
> >> That's just reality.
> >
> >Funny thing is, it's not. There are governments further east than 
> >Washington, D.C. that are in the process of doing just that.
> >
> >Again, the question is: Why concede that point? A large part of the 
> >reason Microsoft holds the power they do in the USA is that they have a 
> >few _very_ vocal supporters (some of whom are known to be paid for that 
> >support) and a whole lot of people that just go along. If you choose, 
> >consciously, to be one of the people that just goes along, you make it 
> >easier for your representative government to justify doing nothing. 
> >After all, that's what the people they represent want, right?
> 
> I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the lawmakers. Let
> me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
> 
> This has nothing to do with Letters to the Editor, calls to the senators,
> and so on. 
> 
> The guys who run our country say, in their best Cuba Gooding, Jr voice:
> Show me the money! And Bill's Barbarians throw them a few million. End
> o' story.

Kind of like the FCC? Most of their budget comes from the industry. 
Oddly, ;) they've tended to act in a way that benefits the industry over 
the consumer. Did you not notice both houses of Congress perking up when 
the FCC riled up "enough" of their consistuents recently?

You're presenting as an inalienable truth something that's not truth, 
let alone inalienable, and criticizing others for not just accepting it. 
And you're an instructor of a hard science? Sheesh.


> >> You might not want to concede that all of us are mortal,
> >> or that dropped objects fall; in which case, you will have a more 
> >> difficult 
> >> life than necessary.
> >
> >I was a math major. I don't believe in proof by lack of a 
> >counterexample. Especially when counterexamples exist. But yes. I 
> >suppose life is much easier if you don't question conventional wisdom.
> 
> OK, _don't_ concede the point. I am a physics teacher, and I believe in
> empirical evidence. _When_ a government (_any_ government!) does something 
> meaningful against these gonifs, _then_ you can tell me I was wrong.

Okay: You're wrong.


> It doesn't matter one whit what you or I concede. The behemoth that is
> Microsoft will grind on like a glacier. Only the market can provide 
> enough heat to melt 'em. The government will not help you. Not this
> government, not any government. That's a fact, Jack.

Incorrect. And don't call me Jack. Or Shirley, for that matter.

"Sheesh" used with permisson of Pete Harbeson and Pulp Enterprises.

G

In article <404b320a@news.inet.com.pl>,
 silverdr <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:

> Being a physics teacher, I believe, one should be at least as strict as 
> physics itself is. Otherwise I wouldn't like to be taught by you ;-)

A common belief amongst non-physicists to be sure. Physics is a "hard" 
science. Not hard in the sense of difficulty, but in its rigorous 
correspondence to reality via experimentation. Physics is about as 
factual as one gets. The rigors of physics do not apply to everyday 
opinion on matters of politics and economics. There is no reason to 
expect that physicists should have any better opinion on these matters 
than anyone else. I certainly would not expect to be taught economics by 
a physics teacher.

-- 
John S. Heaney         voice & fax (401) 438-4288
I don't train in Aikido to protect myself from the world, 
but to protect the world from me.

Bill Leeper <wleeper@actionnet.net> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> As for myself, I don't support any organized political party.  I
>> usually vote Democrat.
>
> And here I was under the impression that the Democrats were a
> political party.  :-)

It was a paraphrase of Will Rogers.

> Think Independent...

I do.  I'm just not likely to vote that way for President.  I don't
want four more years of Bush.

In article <404b320a@news.inet.com.pl>,
silverdr  <silverdr@inet.remove.it.pl> wrote:
>david raoul derbes wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> 
>> It doesn't matter one whit what you or I concede. The behemoth that is
>> Microsoft will grind on like a glacier. Only the market can provide 
>> enough heat to melt 'em. The government will not help you. Not this
>> government, not any government. That's a fact, Jack.
>
>Please stop using the word "fact" to name your personal opinion about 
>the possible future. A fact is something that you can prove right now. 
>Your ideas about the future might become "facts" over the time and you 
>will be called a Prophet or a Visionnaire or a Genius or... But as of 
>today you can't prove your opinions to be "facts". Even relativistic 
>approach won't help you much in this case ;-)

I think you should lighten up. How about this: the United States government,
on several occasions, appeared to be about to enforce various parts of
the Sherman Act on Microsoft, and then, for whatever reason, decided to
do no such thing, in at least one instance removing the presiding judge.

I take that as a fact. 

Based on prior actions, I infer that the government will do nothing to
prevent Microsoft from its predatory actions. Not a fact, but a strong
likelihood. Is that OK with you?

>
>Personally my opinions are very  much in line with yours: I am very much 
>_afraid_ that your opinion _may_ become reality ("fact") with a very 
>high _probability_ .
>
> >
> > OK, _don't_ concede the point. I am a physics teacher, and I believe
> > in
> > empirical evidence. _When_ a government (_any_ government!) does
> > something
> > meaningful against these gonifs, _then_ you can tell me I was wrong.
> >
>
>Since this is your theory, you are wrong as long as you (or someone 
>else) don't prove it otherwise.

A theory is basically a working hypothesis. It is not wrong until 
experimental evidence rules it wrong. It is not right until there is 
a preponderance of evidence to suggest that maybe it's OK. (Actually,
theories are never "right"; sometimes they make the leap to "law", but
more often they are just disproven. I think we should be talking of
Einstein's Laws of Relativity. They are beyond theories.)

I say that this theory of mine has more than a little support. Show me 
the evidence that the government _has_ (not _will_) moved against
Microsoft, please. So far the evidence suggests my side of this argument, 
not yours.

>Being a physics teacher, I believe, one should be at least as strict as 
>physics itself is. Otherwise I wouldn't like to be taught by you ;-)

Are you a physics teacher? Your language suggests that: Being ..., I ...
Well, until you've been one, maybe you should think about how strict you'd
want to be, and maybe you'd like to reflect on the strictness of your
own teachers. I take my cues from Einstein, who repeatedly in his 
Autobiographical Notes strongly urges teachers not to be so rigid, nor
authors of textbooks either. I recognize that logicians, philosophers
and mathematicians, not to mention lawyers, are far more careful with
language than most physicists I've known.

>P.S. What the government (_any_ government) can do is to stop spending 
>_OUR_ money on Bill's products. This is what is ssssloooowly beginning 
>to happen. This is a "fact".

Yes, and now you are saying _precisely_ what I did: it's the market that
will hurt Bill. _Only_ that. Our government is certainly part of the 
market, and other governments (notably China's) are moving rapidly away
from the Microsoft taxes.

David Derbes

In article <0001HW.BC71003B00016E18F02845B0@News.Individual.NET>,
Paolo Giovanni Maria Cordone  <pghc@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:36:37 +0000, david raoul derbes wrote
>(in message <FzF2c.3$45.992@news.uchicago.edu>):
>
>> I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the lawmakers. Let
>> me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
>
>Is American society so corrupted?
>If yes, why are you not doing anything about it?

Two responses:

  (a) What would you suggest?
  (b) What makes you think your government is any less corrupt than mine?

David Derbes

>
>Paolo
>

In article <gwestonREMOVE-AA69FA.13521307032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>In article <104mpo2sig3if7a@corp.supernews.com>,
> Bill Leeper <wleeper@actionnet.net> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> 
>> > As for myself, I don't support any organized political party.  I
>> > usually vote Democrat.
>> 
>> And here I was under the impression that the Democrats were a political 
>> party.   :-)
>
>He said "_organized_ political party."

He stole it from Will Rogers. I don't blame him, I'd have done it too.

David Derbes

In article <gwestonREMOVE-76B5EB.14042807032004@netnews.comcast.net>,
Gregory Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>In article <FzF2c.3$45.992@news.uchicago.edu>,
> loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>
>> >> Waitasec. I am not using IE or any other MS product except Excel, and that
>> >> only rarely. But conceding MS will never be slapped down by any 
>> >> government?
>> >> That's just reality.
>> >
>> >Funny thing is, it's not. There are governments further east than 
>> >Washington, D.C. that are in the process of doing just that.
>> >
>> >Again, the question is: Why concede that point? A large part of the 
>> >reason Microsoft holds the power they do in the USA is that they have a 
>> >few _very_ vocal supporters (some of whom are known to be paid for that 
>> >support) and a whole lot of people that just go along. If you choose, 
>> >consciously, to be one of the people that just goes along, you make it 
>> >easier for your representative government to justify doing nothing. 
>> >After all, that's what the people they represent want, right?
>> 
>> I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the lawmakers. Let
>> me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
>> 
>> This has nothing to do with Letters to the Editor, calls to the senators,
>> and so on. 
>> 
>> The guys who run our country say, in their best Cuba Gooding, Jr voice:
>> Show me the money! And Bill's Barbarians throw them a few million. End
>> o' story.
>
>Kind of like the FCC? Most of their budget comes from the industry. 
>Oddly, ;) they've tended to act in a way that benefits the industry over 
>the consumer. Did you not notice both houses of Congress perking up when 
>the FCC riled up "enough" of their consistuents recently?

Look, once in a while the government does the right thing. It isn't all
about corruption. But you're dreaming if you think that correct behavior
is the norm.

>You're presenting as an inalienable truth something that's not truth, 
>let alone inalienable, and criticizing others for not just accepting it. 
>And you're an instructor of a hard science? Sheesh.

I am presenting the evidence of my eyes. The government has done nothing
to restrain Microsoft from its predatory behavior. Please, if you know
something to the contrary, I would like to learn it.

>> >> You might not want to concede that all of us are mortal,
>> >> or that dropped objects fall; in which case, you will have a more 
>> >> difficult 
>> >> life than necessary.
>> >
>> >I was a math major. I don't believe in proof by lack of a 
>> >counterexample. Especially when counterexamples exist. But yes. I 
>> >suppose life is much easier if you don't question conventional wisdom.
>> 
>> OK, _don't_ concede the point. I am a physics teacher, and I believe in
>> empirical evidence. _When_ a government (_any_ government!) does something 
>> meaningful against these gonifs, _then_ you can tell me I was wrong.
>
>Okay: You're wrong.

Evidence? What government has done something meaningful against these
thieves? Call me wrong, fine. But back up your statement.

>> It doesn't matter one whit what you or I concede. The behemoth that is
>> Microsoft will grind on like a glacier. Only the market can provide 
>> enough heat to melt 'em. The government will not help you. Not this
>> government, not any government. That's a fact, Jack.
>
>Incorrect. And don't call me Jack. Or Shirley, for that matter.

Shirley, you must be joking.

>"Sheesh" used with permisson of Pete Harbeson and Pulp Enterprises.

I think Stan Lee got there first.

David Derbes

>
>G

david raoul derbes wrote:


[...]

>>> Microsoft will grind on like a glacier. [...]
              ======
>>> The government will not help you. Not this
                   ======
>>> government, not any government. That's a fact, Jack.
>>
> 
> I think you should lighten up. How about this: the United States government,
> on several occasions, appeared to be about to enforce various parts of
                        ==========
> the Sherman Act on Microsoft, and then, for whatever reason, decided to
                                                               =========
> do no such thing, in at least one instance removing the presiding judge.
> 
> I take that as a fact.

> 
> Based on prior actions, I infer that the government will do nothing to
> prevent Microsoft from its predatory actions. Not a fact, but a strong
                                                =============
> likelihood. Is that OK with you?
 >

That's much better with me.

> 
> 
>>Personally my opinions are very  much in line with yours: I am very much 
>>_afraid_ that your opinion _may_ become reality ("fact") with a very 
>>high _probability_ .
>>
>>
>>Since this is your theory, you are wrong as long as you (or someone 
>>else) don't prove it otherwise.
> 
> 
> A theory is basically a working hypothesis. It is not wrong until 
> experimental evidence rules it wrong.

Neither is a fact until proven proven to be.

> It is not right until there is 
> a preponderance of evidence to suggest that maybe it's OK. (Actually,
> theories are never "right"; sometimes they make the leap to "law", but
> more often they are just disproven.

Exactly.

> I think we should be talking of
> Einstein's Laws of Relativity. They are beyond theories.)
> 
> I say that this theory of mine has more than a little support. Show me 
> the evidence that the government _has_ (not _will_) moved against
> Microsoft, please. So far the evidence suggests my side of this argument, 
> not yours.

Please, "lighten up"! I wrote that I am on the very same side. I have 
very similar impressions on the ways this world is going around.

Just please don't call the futurological idea no matter how probable and 
how close to your heart with the sentence "it is a fact".

> 
> 
>>Being a physics teacher, I believe, one should be at least as strict as 
>>physics itself is. Otherwise I wouldn't like to be taught by you ;-)
> 
> 
> Are you a physics teacher? Your language suggests that: Being ..., I ...

Being a physics teacher (I believe so) one should be [...] Is that 
slightly better?

> Well, until you've been one, maybe you should think about how strict you'd
> want to be, and maybe you'd like to reflect on the strictness of your
> own teachers. I take my cues from Einstein, who repeatedly in his 
> Autobiographical Notes strongly urges teachers not to be so rigid, nor
> authors of textbooks either. I recognize that logicians, philosophers
> and mathematicians, not to mention lawyers, are far more careful with
> language than most physicists I've known.

OK. I see your point. OTOH do you teach your students that "because the 
last four weeks there was no rain in Vancouver, BC - there will be no 
rain for the next five years. It is a fact!" ???

> 
>>P.S. What the government (_any_ government) can do is to stop spending 
>>_OUR_ money on Bill's products. This is what is ssssloooowly beginning 
>>to happen. This is a "fact".
> 
> 
> Yes, and now you are saying _precisely_ what I did: it's the market that
> will hurt Bill. _Only_ that. Our government is certainly part of the 
> market, and other governments (notably China's) are moving rapidly away
> from the Microsoft taxes.

Didn't I say I am in line with you? ;-) Just can't stand the unjustified 
authoritativeness even with my allies. Just get it: in this world one 
does not call a future possibility a fact until the possibility becomes 
reality. Otherwise he seems... well, "unserious" to say the least. I 
consciously excluded the chance that you have found a way to 
reproducably peek the future and are then fully qualified to say what 
_will_ happen. But since I don't want to be more strict then the 
greatest physicists of the time, please correct me if I am wrong with that.

Once we are done here then we are on the same wagon again.

Gregory Weston wrote:

> In article <104mpo2sig3if7a@corp.supernews.com>,
>  Bill Leeper <wleeper@actionnet.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As for myself, I don't support any organized political party.  I
>>>usually vote Democrat.
>>
>>And here I was under the impression that the Democrats were a political 
>>party.   :-)
> 
> 
> He said "_organized_ political party."

True, so I guess we really have no real political parties. We are in 
worse shape than I thought.   :-)

Bill

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Bill Leeper <wleeper@actionnet.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As for myself, I don't support any organized political party.  I
>>>usually vote Democrat.
>>
>>And here I was under the impression that the Democrats were a
>>political party.  :-)
> 
> 
> It was a paraphrase of Will Rogers.
> 
> 
>>Think Independent...
> 
> 
> I do.  I'm just not likely to vote that way for President.  I don't
> want four more years of Bush.

I guess I have become a cynic. Lately I have come to the conclusion that 
none of the major candidates has my best interests at heart. Of course 
we get what we ask for. The process seems to be set up to make sure 
anyone really qualified won't run. Who would want to put their family 
through all that. I wish Colin Powell had run as an independent. last 
election.   :-)

Bill

david raoul derbes wrote:

> In article <0001HW.BC71003B00016E18F02845B0@News.Individual.NET>,
> Paolo Giovanni Maria Cordone  <pghc@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:36:37 +0000, david raoul derbes wrote
>>(in message <FzF2c.3$45.992@news.uchicago.edu>):
>>
>>
>>>I think you are mistaken about why Microsoft rules the lawmakers. Let
>>>me spell it out for you: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
>>
>>Is American society so corrupted?
>>If yes, why are you not doing anything about it?
> 
> 
> Two responses:
> 
>   (a) What would you suggest?
>   (b) What makes you think your government is any less corrupt than mine?
> 
> David Derbes

Well put...

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:04:26 +0000, david raoul derbes wrote
(in message <K%M2c.8$45.5267@news.uchicago.edu>):

>  (a) What would you suggest?

Hard for me to say, I find the American society already difficult to 
understand: a land of opportuinities, yes, but also one of horrendous 
exploitment and total lack of constraints on market forces and their 
influence on just about anything social.

>   (b) What makes you think your government is any less corrupt than mine?

By just knowing that things are not as they are over there. Maybe it's 
because Ireland is a small country, but outragiously wrong situations such as 
the one we are discussing in this thread are not very likely to happen, as 
people would object strongly and make their voices heard. Money does not buy 
everything here.
Also, thankfully we still have a Mario Monti in the Eurpean Commission :-)

Paolo