December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

globalization & the internet
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some ranting & some food for thought.. ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 02:36:59 -0800 From: "J. Orlin Grabbe" <kalliste(a)aci.net> To: snetnews(a)world.std.com Subject: SNET: [Fwd: [OT] Information Highway: CLOSED?] - -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------595A704A5EC1CF912EEA531B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - --------------595A704A5EC1CF912EEA531B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Path: news.alt.net!wnfeed!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!newsadm From: Bill Nalty <CBasher(a)worldnet.att.net> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater Subject: [OT] Information Highway: CLOSED? Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:59:27 -0600 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Message-ID: <67jsg3$bbb(a)bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: CBasher(a)worldnet.att.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.209.91 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-WorldNet (Win95; I) For education and discussion. Not for commercial use. tf mag January 1998 A Not So Hidden Agenda ... Closing the Information Highway By Richard K. Moore Domination of cyberspace is mission-critical for the masters of globalization By RICHARD K. MOORE Propaganda is an essential mechanism in democracy. It's the primary means by which the elite insure that their interests aren't overwhelmed by the "excesses of democracy" and "mob rule." In the see-saw struggle for power, ownership of media - to influence opinion and government policies - has always been used to advantage by economic elites. Popular movements also have effectively used the media, from time to time, but in today's concentrated media industry, elite control over public opinion is, essentially, total. So total that just as a fish isn't aware of water, it's easy to forget how constrained the scope of public debate has become. Even opposition to the status quo is channeled and deflected by media emphasis, as with the US militia movements, the Perot and Buchanan candidacies, and European nationalist movements. All these are used to "define" anti-globalist sentiment as reactionary, isolationist, Luddite, and racist. Demonization of government and politicians - in fact, blaming government for problems caused by globalism and excessive corporate influence - is perhaps the single most potent coup of mind-control media in undermining democratic institutions and promoting globalism. REVISION BY OMISSION Globalization itself exemplifies media propaganda's potency. The rhetoric of neoliberalism, with its "reforms," "market forces," and "smaller government," isn't just a "position" within public debate. It frames debate. Politicians rarely question whether to embrace globalization, but compete to espouse national policies accommodating it. As media is globalized and concentrated, it's no surprise that globalization propaganda is one of its primary products. Whether the vehicle is a feature film, network news, advertisement, panel discussion, or sit-com, the presumed inevitability of the market- forces system and the bankruptcy of existing political arrangements comes through - even when the future's dark side is portrayed. The barrage's success is especially amazing given the utter bankruptcy of the neoliberal philosophy. The experience of the robber-baron era is simply forgotten in public memory. In true Orwellian fashion, we're told that market forces and deregulation are "modern" efficiencies, the brilliant result of state-of-the-art economic genius. As a consequence of this historical revision by omission, we rarely hear that these policies have been tried before and found sorely wanting - that they prompted economic instability, monopolized markets, cyclical depressions, political corruption, worker exploitation, and social depravity. Nor do we hear about how generations of reform were required to re-introduce competition into markets, stabilize the financial system, and institute more equitable employer/employee relations. In fact, regulatory regimes created a generally reasonable accommodation between interests of the elite and the people. But, because of media propaganda, everyone now "knows" that regulations are just the counter-productive ego-trips of well- or ill-meaning politico-bureaucrats with nothing better to do than interfere in other people's business. Today's "reforms" dismantle reforms which moderated decades of market abuse. Yet, old wine can be presented in new vessels. As long as the message is repeated enough and facts that don't fit are never aired, the public can swallow it. IMAGE CONTROL The mass media is the front line of corporate globalist control. This adds extra urgency to the pace of global media concentration. The central importance of corporate-dominated mass media to the globalization process, and to elite control generally, must be remembered when predicting the Internet culture's fate once commercial cyberspace comes online. The mass media's treatment of cyberspace and the Internet to date lends some portending insights. Two quite different images are typically presented, one commercially-oriented and the other not. The first, frequently seen in fiction or futuristic documentaries, focuses on the excitement of cyber adventures, the thrill of virtual reality, and the promise of myriad online enterprises. This commercially- oriented image has a positive spin. Suddenly every product and organization on the block has a www.My.Logo.com, often with only symbolic utility. Madison Avenue is selling cyberspace, pre-establishing a mass-market demand for its future commercial version. The other image presents sinister hackers, wacko bomb conspirators, and luring pedophiles. Those who use the Net daily find such stories ludicrous and unrepresentative, but because we dismiss them, we may not realize that's about all the general population hears about today's Internet. The infamous Time article on cyberporn, for example, was pure demonization propaganda, and standard procedures were surreptitiously violated to get it printed. The effect wasn't undone by subsequent mild apologies. A recent US regulatory initiative (actually a censorship attempt), whose passage was assisted by that well-timed article, was fortunately rejected by the US Supreme Court. But the defamation campaign continues. The relationship between cyberspace and democracy is complex. Internet culture enables a renaissance of open public discussion - a peek at more open democratic process. But a tiny minority of the world's population experiences this phenomenon, which may not survive the commercial onslaught. On the contrary, as universal transport for mass media products, cyberspace may deliver even more sophisticated manipulation of public opinion. Rather than the realization of the democratic dream, cyberspace may become the ultimate Big Brother nightmare. When most significant events involve online transactions, and backdoors are built into encryption algorithms and communications switches, everyone's every move will be an open book to those holding the keys to the net's nervous system. From the accounting records alone, there would be a complete trail of activity, and the privacy of this information (from government, police, credit bureaus, advertisers, direct mailers, political strategists, etc.) is far from guaranteed. Systematic massive surveillance by government agencies would be easy. There's even the possibility of surreptitiously gathering audio and video signals from home sets presumed to be "off," and remote overriding of home security systems or automobile functions. Mandatory chip- based ID cards or implants may sound fanciful, but the number of initiatives in those directions worldwide is alarming. In short, cyberspace could become the ideal instrument of power for the globalist elite, giving precise scientific control over what gets distributed to whom, and full monitoring of everything everyone does. Some may insist, "It can't happen here." I would ask, "What is there to stop it?" Corporate domination of information flows is inherent to the globalization process. UTOPIA FOR THE FEW You can think of digitial cyberspace as an utopian realm, where all communication wishes can be granted. But who will run it? Net users tend to assume we'll use it for our creative purposes, just as with the Internet. But others have designs on it, too. We're willing to pay a few cents per hour, while complaining about usage charges, and our need for really high per-user bandwidth is unproven. The media industry, in contrast, can bring a huge existing traffic into cyberspace, with much higher value-per-transaction than e-mail, and bandwidth-gobbling web. We want to pay commodity prices, while the media industry willingly pays whatever it takes - passing on costs to consumers. >From a purely economic perspective, the media's interests could be expected to dominate the rules of the road. But economic considerations may not decide cyberspace rules. Continued mass media domination of information distribution is necessary for the media to play its accustomed role as shepherd of public opinion. This is mission-critical to the globalization process and elite societal control. The mechanisms of domination include concentrated infrastructure ownership, licensing bureaucracies, information property rights, libel laws, pricing structures, creation of artificial distribution scarcity, and "public interest" censorship rules. These tactics have been refined throughout the life of electronic media technology, starting with radio, and their use can be expected as part of cyberspace commercialization. Signs of these tactics are already evident. The US Internet backbone has been privatized; consolidation of ownership is beginning in Telecom and in ISP services; WIPO (World Information Property Organization) is setting down overly-restrictive global copyright rules, which the US is embellishing with draconian criminal penalties; content restrictions are cropping up, boosted by anti-Internet propaganda; pricing is being turned over increasingly to "market forces" (where traditional predatory practices can operate); chilling libel precedents are being set; and moves are afoot to centralize domain-name registration, beginning what appears to be a slippery slide toward ISP licensing. And these are still early days in commercialization. Consider the US Telecom Reform Bill of 1996. Theoretically, it encourages "increased competition." But consolidation is permitted both horizontally and vertically: A telco can expand its territory, and be sold/merged with content (media) companies. Prices and the definition of services are determined by "the market." There's also a transition period, during which it must be determined that "competition is occurring." After that, it becomes a more or less laissez-faire ball game, in a climate of deregulation and lack of anti-trust enforcement. There's no going back, no guarantee that if competition fades, regulation will return. Just as the media industry is vertically integrated (owning its own distribution infrastructure), so it will seek telecom acquisitions as the digital network nears implementation. Following awesome merger wars among huge conglomerates, a single media-communications mega-industry, dominated by a clique of vertically-integrated majors, is likely to emerge. Regulation will indeed govern cyberspace but - in accordance with the globalist paradigm - it will be regulation by and for the cartel. CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION Monopolization is about creating an all-the-traffic- will-bear marketplace. This operates today, for example, in cinemas and video rentals. Films compete on the basis of consumer interest, not price. So, cyberspace majors will compete, but in content acquisition - seeking the most successful offerings and coverage - and in extending market territories. This competition may bring consumers ever more titillating entertainment, but the scope and "message" of their entertainment (and information) will be molded by corporations. International regulations being created for libel, copyright, and pornography combine to make Internet culture ultimately untenable. A bulletin board, for example, would not be run in open mode; in essence, staff would have to filter submissions to avoid prosecution liability. List owners would be forced to become censors, verifying contributor's statements like newspaper editors. The open universe of today's Internet seems destined for marginalization, just like CB-radio or public-interest broadcasting, thus completing the commercial domination of cyberspace and corporate domination of society. The ability to distribute media products at reasonable rates to large audiences translates into the ability to start up a competing media company, with production costs as the only major capitalization required. This is exactly what media cartels wish to avoid; discouraging start-ups is what "control over distribution" is all about. In the case of TV, scarce bandwidth translated into expensive licenses, and the cartel was easily maintained. In cyberspace, the cartel can maintain distribution control by defining services and setting prices, so that media distribution is artificially expensive and cost-effective only on a massive scale, requiring massive capitalization. What will it cost to send a message to one person in commercial cyberspace? My guess is that the "traffic will bear" about as much for a one-page message as a first-class letter. This may seem over-priced, but so what? I consider my voice phone service (and CDs) over-priced - c'est la vie under monopoly market forces. The advertising brochure will boast, "Get your message instantly to anyone in the world - for one flat rate less than a domestic postage stamp." At 25 cents per recipient, a 500-person Internet mailing-list carries a $125 posting fee direct from the poster to the telco. You can play with the numbers, talk about receiver-pays, and note that corporate users will insist on affordable networking, but monopoly-controlled pricing could totally change Internet usage patterns. The media-com industry will make plenty of money from 1-1 e-mail messaging, and plenty more from their own commercial products. Whether they want to encourage widespread citizen networking is entirely up to them, according to their own sovereign cost/benefit analysis. If they don't favor it, it won't happen - except in the same marginalized way of HAM radio. There likely will be some kind of commercial chat- room/discussion-group industry, but monopolized by online versions of talk radio, presided over by an Oprah Winfrey and Larry King - with inset screens for "randomly selected" guests. "Online discussion" will thus be a new kind of media product, its distribution economics structured to favor the cartel. The prospects surely seem dim for both democracy and cyberspace, and cyberspace itself may be more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. Following a career in computer software with Xerox, PARC, Apple, and others, RICHARD K. MOORE moved to Ireland, where he is developing a book, a documentary, and a grant-funded website. - --------------------------------- A Not So Hidden Agenda ... Date: Sun, 21 Dec 97 19:07:24 +0000 From: Brenda Jinkins <bjinkins(a)wspice.com> From: [www.FreeRepublic.com] Posted by: Boyd () * 12/21/97 10:37:09 PST - --------------595A704A5EC1CF912EEA531B-- - -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo(a)world.std.com - -> Posted by: "J. Orlin Grabbe" <kalliste(a)aci.net> ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Lock and Load
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not being a native English speaker, I do not understand the meaning and origin of the phrase "LOck and Load". Please explain.

1 0

Netly News Special Report: Censorware in the Stacks
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Netly News brings you a four-part exclusive report today on the first library censorware lawsuit, filed this morning against a Virginia county that installed X-Stop software. Also check out our upgraded Censorware Search Engine to see if *you're* censored in Loudoun County -- we now include databases from IGear and X-Stop. Censorware in the Stacks -- lawsuit filed: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1649,00.html The Censor's Sensitivity -- X-Stop's woes: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1652,00.html Bob Corn-Revere to the Rescue: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1653,00.html Censorware Search Engine 2.0: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/spoofcentral/censored/ -Declan

1 0

Lock and Load (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:41:31 -0800 (PST) > From: Mix <mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> > Subject: Lock and Load > Not being a native English speaker, I do not understand the > meaning and origin of the phrase "LOck and Load". It means to lock the rifles safety and load it's chamber in preperation for firing at an enemy. It is usualy used in a military context but head-bangers and such use it when talking about loading their bongs and I am shure other groups use it as well in various contexts. In short it means "get ready for action". ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Hate speech and censorship
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis writes: > Perhaps the state shouldn't be in the business of providing library services > to begin with; then there will be no 1st amendment issue, and if you don't > like the censorware used by a private library, why, use another private > library, or start your own. > > (Nor would there be an issue with private libraries refusing service to > readers who smell bad.) How ironic that Vulis supports the right of private libraries to refuse service to bad-smelling readers, while whining about Gilmore's refusal to allow Gilmore's own private machine to pass Vulis' foul-smelling posts. Private actions are not censorship, and Gilmore had the right to do anything he wanted with toad.com. Likewise list members had every right to move to other hosts. Vulis's infantile name-calling is easily seen to be totally lacking in justification, unsurprising given his demonstrated lack of reasoning abilities on this issue.

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> (Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his >plug for >> "homophobia".) >> chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content. >I wish you could be a little more specific. >Harrashing email and excessive cross-posting in violation of each >UseNet >group charter is not >censorship. If ISP's censored flames (harrasments, whatever) then we might as well call every ISP AOL. >If someone sends a gay an email saying "I will kill you. Look out for >the >next gay pride parade" that's is legitimate ground for action. What if it was a joke, or a false threat? >> I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the >$$, not >> for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more >$$ in >> bending over, which is usually the case. >What is wrong selling privacy for money? It usually involves making it shitty. >> Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy >ISP" >> because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty >software >> and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on >content, >> while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't >censor content. >> What a pathological liar. >I suppose you can back up your claim with documentation. >What court document are you referring as evidence that Sameer Parekh >is a >pathological liar? None is necessary. Parekh is a liar, and just a general tool of c2.net.

4 4

Have some fun
by suzy1＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TEN MINUTES FREE! Just for you if you're over 18. Five minutes in our Private Show AND five minutes in our Voyeur Show. Try it to see if you like it. Adults only! We support the AOL Browser! http://www.babequest.com Signup for free and use your free time.

1 0

Fwd: Mother Jones on Microsoft and BSA
by mj＠creative.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's some more on Microsoft. >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:07:14 -0500 (EST) >Reply-To: love(a)cptech.org >Originator: am-info(a)essential.org >Sender: am-info(a)essential.org >Precedence: bulk >From: James Love <love(a)cptech.org> >To: Multiple recipients of list <am-info(a)essential.org> >Subject: Mother Jones on Microsoft and BSA >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:07:37 -0800 (PST) > From: Richard Reynolds <reynolds(a)mojones.com> > Subject: Mother Jones Microsoft story > >For Release: >December 22, 1997 >Contacts: >Richard Reynolds 415/665-6637 x240 >Kerry Lauerman 415/665-6637 x215 > >Microsoft Blackmails Foreign Companies >Switch To Microsoft, and Your Legal Problems Will Disappear > >Microsoft appears to be using the Business Software Alliance (BSA) to >blackmail foreign companies into making exclusive deals with Microsoft, >reports Mother Jones magazine in a story released last night on the MoJo >Wire, Mother Jones' Web site: > >http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF98/burstein.html > >When the BSA tracks down companies using software pirated from its >various members, reports Mother Jones investigative reporter Rachel >Burstein, the offender is offered a simple out: Switch to Microsoft >products and your legal problems will disappear. > >* In 1995 the BSA caught Antel, Uruguay's national telephone company, >using unlicensed Microsoft, Novell, and Symantec software. Ricardo >Tascenho, Antel's information technology manager, told Mother Jones the >company settled the matter by signing a "special agreement" with >Microsoft to replace all its software with Microsoft products. According >to Eduardo DeFreitas, the BSA's lawyer in Uruguay, Microsoft's Uruguay >manager, Tomas Blatt, instructed him to drop the suit so that Microsoft >and Antel could "work out a deal for the future." > >* Felipe Yungman, Novell's manager of security for Argentina, says >Novell's investigations also indicate that the BSA has set up sweetheart >deals for Microsoft there. "Companies or government offices had to, as a >condition [that the BSA] forgive them of piracy, replace Novell products >with Microsoft products," he told Mother Jones. > >* In 1996, when the BSA sued the Australian shipping company Toll >Holdings for piracy, the suit alleged that Toll illegally used copies of >programs made by Lotus, Novell, Symantec, and Microsoft. According to >Martin Dunne, Toll's chief information technology officer, other than >keeping Symantec's anti-virus software, they only buy Microsoft now. A >Novell official told Mother Jones that Toll "offered to legalize on all >Microsoft products if [the BSA] dropped the suit." Both the BSA and Toll >deny any impropriety. > >* In Slovenia, where 96 percent of all software is pirated, Microsoft's >country manager, Aaron Marko, is also head of the BSA office. Marko says >that because enforcement is difficult in the country's court system, he >offers discounted > >Microsoft software to companies caught pirating by the BSA. Microsoft >denies that the BSA acts solely on its behalf. But officials at >Novell and Lotus told Mother Jones that they will stop actively >participating in the BSA's programs in Asia and Latin America by the >beginning of 1998. > >Greg Wrenn, senior corporate counsel for Adobe, says his company has >stayed with the BSA, but he acknowledges Microsoft's upper hand: "If an >attorney does Microsoft work and BSA work and never hears from another >company besides Microsoft, he's going to do the work for the guy who's >in his office every week." > >The BSA story is part of a five-part cover package on Microsoft featured >in Mother Jones' January/February issue. ># # # > > >Full Article: > >Overseas Invasion >by Rachel Burstein > >Like Coke, Nike, and the tobacco industry before it, Microsoft now has >to >hook new consumers abroad. But the company has discovered a way to bully >foreign companies into buying Microsoft-and only Microsoft. > >In 1995 Antel, the national telephone company of Uruguay, was caught >pirating $100,000 worth of unlicensed software programs from Microsoft, >Novell, and Symantec. Antel was nabbed by the Business Software >Alliance, a >trade association that partly acts as a global bounty hunter for the >software industry. The BSA's lawyers in Uruguay quickly filed suit. > >But instead of waiting for a ruling on the case, the BSA abruptly >dropped >the suit in the fall of 1997. The BSA receives funding from most of the >top >software companies but appears to be most heavily funded by Microsoft. >And, >according to Antel's information technology manager, Ricardo Tascenho, >the >company settled the matter by signing a "special agreement" with >Microsoft >to replace all of its software with Microsoft products. > >The BSA's lawyer in Uruguay, Eduardo DeFreitas, supports Tascenho's >story: >"Microsoft told me to stop working on the case because they would write >an >agreement with Antel." DeFreitas says Microsoft's Uruguay manager, Tomas >Blatt, instructed him to drop the suit so that Microsoft could "work out >a >deal for the future." Blatt refused to answer questions about the >settlement, claiming, "I don't have any information about the Antel >case. >You should call >BSA in Uruguay-Eduardo DeFreitas." > >Antel's situation suggests that when the BSA cracks down on piracy >overseas, it's Bill Gates who turns out to be the pirate. >Representatives >from rival firms complain that Microsoft is abusing its power within the >BSA to speed its global dominance. > >Microsoft denies that the BSA acts solely on its behalf. "I am not aware >of >any instance where that has happened," says Microsoft attorney Brad >Smith. >And the BSA dismisses the charges; spokeswoman Diane Smiroldo calls them >"hard to believe." But officials at Novell and Lotus confirm that by >January, both companies will have stopped actively participating in the >BSA's programs in Asia and Latin America. Novell says these allegations >played a part in its decision; Lotus refuses to comment. Such concerns >are also among the reasons Netscape is reluctant to join the BSA, says >Netscape attorney Peter Harter. > >The accusations aren't just limited to Uruguay: > >* Felipe Yungman, Novell's manager of security for Argentina, says he >and >another staffer at Novell discovered, while pursuing their own >investigation for the company, that the BSA was setting up sweetheart >deals >for Microsoft. "Companies or government offices had to, as a condition >[that the BSA] forgive them of piracy, replace Novell products with >Microsoft products," he says. > >were bullied by Microsoft, saying that he is trying to convince them to >come forward. "Most of the companies don't want to get involved," he >explains. "They think they need Microsoft. You cannot oblige them to >testify." > >Mario Tucci, Novell's country manager for Latin America, supports >Yungman's allegations. "If you call BSA, you will reach Microsoft," he >says. "They shield Microsoft's actions with the BSA name. It's bad for >us >and [for] the software industry." > >* In 1996, when the BSA sued the Australian shipping company Toll >Holdings >for piracy, BSA lawyer Charles Gonsalves, of the Sydney-based firm of >Mallesons Stephen Jaques, oversaw the case. > >"I generally handle cases for both Microsoft and the BSA," Gonsalves >told >Mother Jones. > >But while the suit alleged that Toll illegally used copies of programs >made >by Lotus, Novell, Symantec, and Microsoft, Martin Dunne, Toll's chief >information technology officer, says the company settled by paying fines >to >only Symantec and Microsoft. And, Dunne says, other than keeping >Symantec's >anti-virus software, the company has made a significant change: Toll >only >buys Microsoft now. > >According to a Novell official, Toll "offered to legalize on all >Microsoft >products if [the BSA] dropped the suit." Both the BSA and Toll deny any >impropriety. While a written agreement between Toll and Gonsalves does >exist, neither party would reveal the terms of the settlement. When >Gonsalves was asked if Microsoft ever paid for his handling of BSA >cases, >he chuckled and said, "That's a confidential matter." > >* In Slovenia, where 96 percent of all software is pirated, the head of >the >BSA office, Aaron Marko, is also Microsoft's country manager. Marko says >that because enforcement is difficult in the country's court system, he >offers discounted Microsoft software to companies caught pirating by the >BSA. Does Marko see this as a conflict of interest, since he also >supposedly represents other software firms? "BSA is trying to find the >pirate. Then it is a question of marketing and product awareness to see >who >will get the legal market share," he says. When asked which BSA members >have local subsidiaries that do local marketing, Marko says only >Microsoft >and Oracle, which is not a direct Microsoft competitor. > >These allegations "raise questions as to whether the BSA serves the >interest of its members or whether it serves its dominant member," says >James Love, director of Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology. >And >for the foreign companies, he says, "these seem to be stories of >blackmail." > >The BSA employs a team of more than 100 lawyers and investigators to >find >cases of software piracy-a crime it says costs the industry $11 billion >a >year. The BSA says it catches "thousands of cases a year," many through >its >55 piracy hotlines, the most famous of which urges employees to "Nail >Your >Boss" by calling. > >While the BSA won't release its funding details, it does say that money >comes from membership dues, which are based on each company's software >revenues. This is one way in which Microsoft dominates the BSA: >Microsoft's >annual revenues, for example, are eight times that of Novell, its >largest >rival. > >In the future, Novell and Lotus say they will use their own in-house >resources for anti-piracy efforts in Asia and Latin America. > >But other BSA members, while concerned about Microsoft's role in the >organization, aren't quite willing to go their own way. Greg Wrenn, >senior >corporate counsel for Adobe, says his company has stayed with the BSA >despite having had some uneasy experiences with Microsoft. For example, >Wrenn says, the Microsoft attorneys who worked for the BSA refrained >from >going after big Microsoft clients caught pirating Adobe products-until >Adobe prodded them. > >Wrenn says Adobe will stay in the BSA, pressuring the organization to >play >fair. But he acknowledges Microsoft's upper hand. "If an attorney does >Microsoft work and BSA work and never hears from another company besides >Microsoft, he's going to do the work for the guy who's in his office >every >week," Wrenn says. > > > >________________________________________ >Richard Reynolds/Communications Director >Mother Jones magazine >415/665-6637 x240 >731 Market Street, 6th Floor >San Francisco, CA 94103 >

1 0

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:42:34 -0800 (PST) > From: Mix <mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> > Subject: Re: Lock and Load > Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Not being a native English speaker, I do not understand the > > > meaning and origin of the phrase "LOck and Load". > > > > It means to lock the rifles safety and load it's chamber in preperation for > > firing at an enemy. It is usualy used in a military context but head-bangers > > and such use it when talking about loading their bongs and I am shure other > > groups use it as well in various contexts. > > > > Wait a second, aren't we supposed to load first and lock later? How > can you load a rifle if it is on safety? Well on my .22 I slide bullets down the loading tube and manualy cycle the bolt. On the M1 carbine I simply insert the clip and cycle the bolt. On a HK-33 or G3 you do the same sort of thing. Those are the ones I know how to work because I have used them. In general the safety locks the trigger and firing-pin mechanism not the loading or chambering mechanism. I don't know of a safety on a rifle that blocks the bolt. But I ain't a gun nut (IAAGN). Revolvers are self-explanatory. Automatics generaly block the trigger and firing-pin mechanism, again not the bolt. Just grab that damn thing above the barrel and pull toward yourself with a loaded clip. When it releases should be loaded and on safety. Certainly works that way on the 1911 that I use on occassion where the hammer action is blocked (hint - don't drop it when cocked and safetied). I don't think I have ever shot an automatic that didn't work that way (all 3 or 4 of them). Again, IAAGN. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Lock and Load
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12/22/97 5:30 PM, mparson(a)smartnap.com (mparson(a)smartnap.com) passed this wisdom: >> Wait a second, aren't we supposed to load first and lock later? >> How can you load a rifle if it is on safety? > >You can load most rifles with the safety on. We loaded our M-16s on >the line while the weapon was on 'safe' all the time. The next >command was always, "Rotate your selector switch from 'safe' to >'semi.' Firers, watch your lanes... fire at will." Most safeties >are just trigger locks that prevent you pulling the trigger, they >do nothing preventing you from sticking in a loaded magazine and >chambering a round. At the risk of thumping upon a well deceased equine carcass, the original expression was "Load and Lock" (admittedly "Load and Lock" rolls off the tongue more easily than the inverse) as there were many weapons whose actions could not be loaded when in the 'safe' position. There are probably as many weapons where this is true as there where it is not. In general it makes most sense to check for safe condition before and after loading. But, to answer the orginal question, it is generally used as a euphemism for "get ready for action" either offensive or defensive. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ7w2z7r4fUXwraZAQGHtAf/Qi3zmRF6nfW/OxkyiV5gyh+7Yl+HuVnP ri6kmiyI0273h10dz7naAftBTUXUDNLTKyGputK97ApLd1LI8pw0IXJuR4zCs8dn eis5k1jf/RdEX7l3et1PogkeKseC0u0CsPr8kv7xkJcth0Wo5aFCSvGGiIKAAQLO cGOyvdlA1cdA0L5PLizCpAkt5TATDbSpus0uadPOrh/MEv7GcOdaT4eHlKUDL0rJ ypwZt3VQqlkZKf7d7WISt/CicR2HiI1tDlqfqcJasvUvYJNshi0KpASVWCybZ49a wiXytgjo2BlQCDUtCnAn0NH7hP+bqC3W9TaXcGMTyxaLMsUBsKFxTQ== =DHrc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Journeys are about discovery, about lives touching briefly and then parting, except on the Internet, where distant lives can intertwine, and where a journey of discovery never has to end." -- Jim Heid

1 0