Your point about Word Perfect is false and misleading. Word Perfect died because Microsoft targeted it. MS viewed Word Perfect as a big threat and abused their monopoly position to end that threat. They purposefully changed specifications and withdrew APIs in Windows 95 a month before it was due to be released. Word Perfect/Novell had to recode much of the program, hence it was late and bug ridden. All this came out in the Comes vs MS trial and is about to resurface if Novell continues their case against MS. Before you say prove it, read for yourself:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018

I note your plugging a Microsoft shop in your sig - aren't astroturfers normally less obvious?

The satellites scour the planet for heat trails produced by flying rockets and missiles.

But never airplanes, drones, jets, helicopters, ships, cars and other road vehicles, trains, those on horse, donkey or camel back, whales and dolphins, big game animals, joggers or skateboard riders.

If that happens, they will just sell to some other troll. They've shown they will follow the money anywhere.

Is that Bing down there in the moat, going down for the third time?

No, I think this is just IBM's stupidity? narrow mindedless? I can't work them out. Ride the monopoly as hard as possible but of course this isn't quite a monopoly. Two years ago we bought a new IBM SAN from the "broker market" for just over 1/2 the "best" price from IBM. Of course IBM *still* made profit on the deal. Their POWER servers are so over priced, for the same money (broker market mind you) we can buy 3 beefy Intel servers with quite adequate performance, so they are seriously losing a lot of market. Go figure.

I didn't think it would be enough to bring down Slashdot, I was wrong.

It smells, too.

I note that IANA has classified 240/8 - 255/8 (well 254/8 really - 255 is for broadcasts) as reserved for future use. Is not the future now?

Agreed, an open computer will run what the user wants. But surely one's computer should not become compromised through normal use. This is a fundamental design issue - if the OS is securely structured, a user would be precluded from doing what they shouldn't yet be able to use it freely. There is no reason why I need modification access to system config files, kernel modules or system libraries, for example, just to install an app or run it. This is extremely difficult to do - computers are still very primitive devices, yet Linux is slowly getting there, Windows glacially so - reactively so. MS have squandered so many opportunities to make genuine improvements I can only see them as a disingenuous, shambling security actor.

Why are you blaming the user? Blame MS for their crappy OS .

What really annoys me is this attempt to lock down hardware. I refuse to buy a computer I can't install whatever I like on it.

You are mistaken that a corporation must be state owned for a government to act on its behalf. There are numerous well known US examples: United Fruit (historically), Haliburton, Microsoft, RIAA/MPAA and the recent revelation (via Wikileaks) of US diplomats aiding manufacturers of genetically engineered products. In such a corrupt system, ownership is not required.

A bomb. I wonder how long it will take to produce it.

lobbying, donations, special access ...

And how is Java secure?

Along with beowolf clusters and Russia doing stuff in reverse, we now have the equally tiresome joke that Microsoft is being nicer to open source. Why do these articles keep getting posted?

> I could travel back in time, the first thing I would do is buy as many water rights in Colorado as I possibly could.

How about restricting how much water is taken from the river - and appropriately distributing what is available? Rivers, like any other finite system, need management. Then there wouldn't be a problem with retaining rainwater....