Hostages in Panama
If you read last months OOTM, you know I ran a piece about 3 American hostages, missionaries captured in Panama, being held in Colombia in lieu of $5 million. DO NOT FORGET THEM! Please read last month's OOTM on this subject. The men's names are:
David Mankins
Mark Rich
Rick Tenenoff
These people need your help. Write your Congressman and tell him or her that the US government needs to come to the aid of it's citizens. NOW.
Latrell Sprewell, Racist Thug
Latrell Sprewell, formerly of the California State Warriors, has decided that the NBA owes him a few million dollars for lost wages and damages. He is saying that the NBA is a monopolistic tyrant that used racial bias in making a completely arbitrary example of him.
I'm going to remember those arguments. See, I'm going to go up to my boss today and choke him. I'm going to strangle him to his knees. Then I'm going to go hang out in the men's room for a few minutes. Then I'm going to come back out and choke him again. I'm going to scream in his face that I'm going to kill him. I'll be sure to leave some nasty marks on his neck as proof that I choked him. My company will fire me. Very likely the police will put me in jail. And when I'm tried I'll plead not guilty. I'll charge that my boss is racist because, since I'm white, I'm somehow a victim of "reverse" prejudice. And then I'll sue the company I work for for lost wages and damages.
I'm going to be rich!
Seriously, the NBA should offer up an agreement to completely reverse all it's decisions regarding punishing Sprewell. It should sign an agreement giving up all rights to handle interleague disputes.
And then they should call the cops...
OR...
Carlesimo should sue Sprewell for damages, physical trauma, doctor's bills, attorney's fees, bad dreams, etc., etc.
I honestly consider Sprewell to be racist based on his charges of racism in a situation that so clearly has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the NBA handling the punishment of Sprewell and, in effect, shielding him from prosecution. Talking about biting the hand that feeds you.
India's Nukes
A few thoughts:
Ok, some conclusions:
Microsoft vs. Joe Public
I love how the Microsoft lawyers represent their client. I love it so much because they do it so badly, and with postulates and analogies that defy reason and logic. Here are a few:
MS: "Microsoft is wholly within its rights to ensure that Windows boots fully the first time it runs,"
Me: No it's not. No software manufacturer has the right to tell the customer how to use it's software. No car manufacturer has the right to tell a customer how to drive their vehicles, either. If the software doesn't run, it's the customer's fault.
MS: "Asking Microsoft to display another company's wares on the very first screen is like telling McDonald's that consumers who want a Big Mac must visit a Burger King before buying."
Me: No, it would be like telling McDonald's that they couldn't refuse sell a Big Mac to someone who was holding a Burger King bag in their hand. It's not up to Microsoft to dictate the software put on a computer system. It's up to Microsoft to simply create the best software they can. After that, it's up to the consumer to decide how to put that software to use.
DOJ: The suit asks the court to prohibit Microsoft from requiring PC makers to include Microsoft's "separate" Web browser.
MS: The company calls this a "free ride" for Netscape that is unreasonable and not supported by law.
Me: It's fair business practice, and it will benefit far more vendors than Netscape. Whining about Netscape is like conceding that fair competitive practices will mean that Microsoft's Explorer can't compete as a separate product.
DOJ: Regulators want to block the company from "dictating" to PC makers how they can configure software options shown on initial "boot" screens.
MS: Consumers can customize the desktop any way they like after the first boot, Microsoft says.
Me: First, it's not up to Microsoft to dictate when and how a system is customized once Windows is installed. Second, if they don't mind the system being modified, then why do they twist the arms of PC makers so hard to only put Microsoft products on the systems?
DOJ: The action seeks to prohibit agreements requiring PC makers and online services to feature Microsoft products and avoid "competitors'" products.
MS: Microsoft says its agreements are legal and commonplace.
Me: They are not legal, they are extortion and they constitute unfair business practices. As for how commonplace they are, so is pirating software. Perhaps we should leave Taiwan alone when they produce millions of copies of Windows 98...
For more on this story, I recommend you stop by C|Net, a fanstastic resource for the latest in computer industry news: