- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft Finds Legal Defender in Justice Dept.
A top Justice Department antitrust official sent memos last month urged state prosecutors to reject an antitrust complaint filed by Google that accuses Microsoft of designing Vista, to discourage the use of Google’s desktop search program. Assistant attorney general Thomas O. Barnett, former partner at a law firm that represented Microsoft in antitrust matters, had earlier rejected Google's federal complaint.
Google alleges that Microsoft's own desktop search program cannot be turned off. Microsoft and Google indexing programs may run at the same time, severely degrading the consumer experience and discouraging the use of Google's software. |
|
|
Comments (66)
Is it really true?
45 earlier comments in the full thread.
>Dino, I don't see how the state paying transportation costs for students who attend private schools - icluding religious schools, invalidates a wall of seperation between state and church.
It doesn't because there isn't one.
However, your statement is interesting, because the people who brought the suit, a federal district court, and a court of appeals, and 4 Supreme Court justice thought that it did.
The right answer is, if there were a wall of separation, that the state could not give tax money to further religion, period. The US Congress couldn't have a chaplain, either, nor the military services. For that matter, my church could not meet in a public high school, which it used to do before we got the money to buy land and put up a building.
The fact is that, rhetoric aside, there is no wall. The state cannot favor one religion over another, any religion over no religion, or no religion over any religion. That's it. No state sponsorship, no special treatment for or against.
>I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring more to your comments on legal interpretation. It's a wee bit more involved than you seem to realize.
It doesn't because there isn't one.
However, your statement is interesting, because the people who brought the suit, a federal district court, and a court of appeals, and 4 Supreme Court justice thought that it did.
The right answer is, if there were a wall of separation, that the state could not give tax money to further religion, period. The US Congress couldn't have a chaplain, either, nor the military services. For that matter, my church could not meet in a public high school, which it used to do before we got the money to buy land and put up a building.
The fact is that, rhetoric aside, there is no wall. The state cannot favor one religion over another, any religion over no religion, or no religion over any religion. That's it. No state sponsorship, no special treatment for or against.
>I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring more to your comments on legal interpretation. It's a wee bit more involved than you seem to realize.
> Many rent the trailers in which they live - never mind the land under them.
Rent still = have. I didn't say own.
> I distinctly remember a family without any of those accessories. They may have had access to a well, so maybe we'll let slide on the clean water. I can't say whether it was running - though some people I met certainly did not have running water. You know the family is poor when the little 8-year-old girl is willing to clean a groundhog - a varmint we shot for farmers and threw away - for dinner.
DC, you're forgetting where I grew up. We didn't have indoor running water and plumbing till I was in my late teens. That was only just over 30 years ago. I've eaten groundhog for dinner. We were not in poverty. Poor != Poverty, nor is the availability of modern sewage systems the determining factor. Poverty in the sense tracyanne is trying to use it is defined primarily by shelter, food, and water (some folks would add basic medical care to that, but that's debatable). If you have those, you're not in the poverty she's claiming. You're only poor.
Now, that may not be what she means by the term, nor is it the official government definition (which defines it based on income), but it's what most people think of when they use the term. That type of poverty does in fact exist in the US, but it is much rarer than she thinks, and there are programs to deal with it. Those programs are not always successful, but the reasons aren't usually due to lack of funding.
Rent still = have. I didn't say own.
> I distinctly remember a family without any of those accessories. They may have had access to a well, so maybe we'll let slide on the clean water. I can't say whether it was running - though some people I met certainly did not have running water. You know the family is poor when the little 8-year-old girl is willing to clean a groundhog - a varmint we shot for farmers and threw away - for dinner.
DC, you're forgetting where I grew up. We didn't have indoor running water and plumbing till I was in my late teens. That was only just over 30 years ago. I've eaten groundhog for dinner. We were not in poverty. Poor != Poverty, nor is the availability of modern sewage systems the determining factor. Poverty in the sense tracyanne is trying to use it is defined primarily by shelter, food, and water (some folks would add basic medical care to that, but that's debatable). If you have those, you're not in the poverty she's claiming. You're only poor.
Now, that may not be what she means by the term, nor is it the official government definition (which defines it based on income), but it's what most people think of when they use the term. That type of poverty does in fact exist in the US, but it is much rarer than she thinks, and there are programs to deal with it. Those programs are not always successful, but the reasons aren't usually due to lack of funding.
Tracyanne:
> I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution, I studied it because it's a brilliant document...
Thanks. We like to think so. Now if only we would follow it on occasion...
I am certain that some of the founding fathers wanted more of a separation than is granted in the letter of the Constitution, but what they decided on isn't a separation, but (as Dino has pointed out), no favoritism or sponsorship. The free exercise of religion must allow individuals, even elected officials, to act upon their beliefs, so there can be no absolute separation. What they wanted to ensure was that there would never be a time when state=church, or vice versa.
> I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution, I studied it because it's a brilliant document...
Thanks. We like to think so. Now if only we would follow it on occasion...
I am certain that some of the founding fathers wanted more of a separation than is granted in the letter of the Constitution, but what they decided on isn't a separation, but (as Dino has pointed out), no favoritism or sponsorship. The free exercise of religion must allow individuals, even elected officials, to act upon their beliefs, so there can be no absolute separation. What they wanted to ensure was that there would never be a time when state=church, or vice versa.
Fair enough, jdixon.
Traceyanne, our government is supposed to be neutral toward religion, not anti-religious. That said, I was once told that a community center would not grant our ministry permission to meet because we were a religious group. I had asked in advance of launching our ministry. When we did launch, I simply chose to use my home, rather than pursue some of the other options available. However, I could easily have pushed the issue and won my case.
Traceyanne, our government is supposed to be neutral toward religion, not anti-religious. That said, I was once told that a community center would not grant our ministry permission to meet because we were a religious group. I had asked in advance of launching our ministry. When we did launch, I simply chose to use my home, rather than pursue some of the other options available. However, I could easily have pushed the issue and won my case.
>However, I could easily have pushed the issue and won my case.
The cases where cities are made to remove religious symbols make headlines, but the courts have made some important decisions to protect religious freedom. That's why, for example, a religious group is just as free to reserve or rent a space offered to the public as a secular one.
The cases where cities are made to remove religious symbols make headlines, but the courts have made some important decisions to protect religious freedom. That's why, for example, a religious group is just as free to reserve or rent a space offered to the public as a secular one.
Quoting:Traceyanne, our government is supposed to be neutral toward religion, not anti-religious.
That's the point of the wall of separation between State and Church that Jeffereson intended.
>That's the point of the wall of separation between State and Church that Jeffereson intended.
It's also why we don't actually have one. The wall sounds good when you say it, but turns out not to be neutral in practice.
It's also why we don't actually have one. The wall sounds good when you say it, but turns out not to be neutral in practice.
Quoting:'s also why we don't actually have one. The wall sounds good when you say it, but turns out not to be neutral in practice.
That's right, a wall is intended, but in practice you don't have one. You don't have one because the intent is ignored. What you get instead, particularly in the Bush Jnr Administration is a flouting of the intent, and very possibly the text of the establishment clause. You get that flouting when, for example the bush administration funds religious based groups for the purpose of promoting a religion based agenda - in for example sex education, where abstinence is taught. You also get that flouting when when religious agenda are allowed to set Science curricula, by introducing religious theology masquerading as science - the pseudo science of Creationism and Intelligent Design, so that some ding bat theists don't have to deal with probability that we are related closely to Gorillas and Chimpanzees. This is why many Americans, and people from other countries worry that the US might become a Theocracy.
Quoting:The cases where cities are made to remove religious symbols make headlines, but the courts have made some important decisions to protect religious freedom.
Where those symbols amount to the state or an arm of the state promoting a religious ideology, this is not only reasonable, but also within keeping with the establishment clause.
Quoting: That's why, for example, a religious group is just as free to reserve or rent a space offered to the public as a secular one.
And so it should be, if the religious organisation is paying out of their own money, and not being funded by the state, in some manner, it should not even bean issue, and not even come under the establishment clause.
One of the interesting consequences of allowing Creationism or Intelligent design to be taught as science, is that while the proponents, at least in the US are Christians, and would expect to be able to - in whatever subtle or unsubtle way they chose - speak of this creator in terms of Christian theology, in reality every religion from the totally ding bat, such as the church of the flying Spaghetti Monster, (that we would all here agree are ding bat) to Hindus to Jains to Buddhists, to Aboriginal shamans, could, under the establishment clause have a legal right to teach their version of Creationism or Intelligent Design, right alongside the Christian version. We wouldn't get much science done, and students would in the end be even more scientifically illiterate, but hey thems the breaks, so long as the Theists are happy and don't have to be confronted with the probability that we are just another animal, more intelligent, in most cases, than the others.
Traceyanne -
Ummm...How did we get to Creationism as science?
We don't teach Creationism as science in the US. We don't teach Intelligent Design as science either.
Your understanding of US education seems to be right up there with your understanding of US Constitutional law.
Ummm...How did we get to Creationism as science?
We don't teach Creationism as science in the US. We don't teach Intelligent Design as science either.
Your understanding of US education seems to be right up there with your understanding of US Constitutional law.
> What you get instead, particularly in the Bush Jnr Administration is a flouting of the intent...
Would you care to provide specific examples? While I'm willing to grant that this administration has a deplorable record on Constitutional matters, I can't think of any cases where it violated this particular one. It's been rather busy with abridging free speech, warrantless searches, unlawful detentions, and foreign invasions, to name a few.
> You get that flouting when, for example the bush administration funds religious based groups...
I don't recall that particular proposal (faith based initiatives, I believe it was called) passing Congress. It's possible I'm misremembering, of course.
> ...for example sex education, where abstinence is taught.
Are you arguing that abstinence does not prevent pregnancy? If it does, why shouldn't it be taught in sex education? Now, teaching it as the only alternative would be another matter.
> You also get that flouting when when religious agenda are allowed to set Science curricula, by introducing religious theology masquerading as science - the pseudo science of Creationism and Intelligent Design....
Neither of which is taught as Science anywhere in the US that I know of. There have been cases where it was argued they should be taught. Those arguments failed.
> This is why many Americans, and people from other countries worry that the US might become a Theocracy.
What concern is it of other countries what political course the US follows? Surely that's an internal matter?
> Where those symbols amount to the state or an arm of the state promoting a religious ideology, this is not only reasonable, but also within keeping with the establishment clause.
And what if the removal of such symbols promotes atheism? That's would also be against the establishment clause.
> We wouldn't get much science done, and students would in the end be even more scientifically illiterate...
You're making the common mistake of assuming that the goal of the public school system is to educate people. It's not. The school system exists to indoctrinate people, not educate them. As I told Dino, education is far to important to be left to the state.
Would you care to provide specific examples? While I'm willing to grant that this administration has a deplorable record on Constitutional matters, I can't think of any cases where it violated this particular one. It's been rather busy with abridging free speech, warrantless searches, unlawful detentions, and foreign invasions, to name a few.
> You get that flouting when, for example the bush administration funds religious based groups...
I don't recall that particular proposal (faith based initiatives, I believe it was called) passing Congress. It's possible I'm misremembering, of course.
> ...for example sex education, where abstinence is taught.
Are you arguing that abstinence does not prevent pregnancy? If it does, why shouldn't it be taught in sex education? Now, teaching it as the only alternative would be another matter.
> You also get that flouting when when religious agenda are allowed to set Science curricula, by introducing religious theology masquerading as science - the pseudo science of Creationism and Intelligent Design....
Neither of which is taught as Science anywhere in the US that I know of. There have been cases where it was argued they should be taught. Those arguments failed.
> This is why many Americans, and people from other countries worry that the US might become a Theocracy.
What concern is it of other countries what political course the US follows? Surely that's an internal matter?
> Where those symbols amount to the state or an arm of the state promoting a religious ideology, this is not only reasonable, but also within keeping with the establishment clause.
And what if the removal of such symbols promotes atheism? That's would also be against the establishment clause.
> We wouldn't get much science done, and students would in the end be even more scientifically illiterate...
You're making the common mistake of assuming that the goal of the public school system is to educate people. It's not. The school system exists to indoctrinate people, not educate them. As I told Dino, education is far to important to be left to the state.
> We don't teach Creationism as science in the US. We don't teach Intelligent Design as science either.
The Kansas Board of Education did try to change the definition of science to allow creationism/intelligent design to be taught as science. Several board members lost in the Republican primary, so that tells you what kind of a minority they are. Not that it would have been likely to stand a court challenge anyway (contingent on a school actually attempting to do that, and I'm not aware of any that did).
The Kansas Board of Education did try to change the definition of science to allow creationism/intelligent design to be taught as science. Several board members lost in the Republican primary, so that tells you what kind of a minority they are. Not that it would have been likely to stand a court challenge anyway (contingent on a school actually attempting to do that, and I'm not aware of any that did).
>Several board members lost in the Republican primary, so that tells you what kind of a minority they are.
I don't understand what you're saying there.
What I do understand is that people are free to believe as they wish and they are free to further their goals -- up to and until the law draws a line. Put the wrong people in the right place and you get a temporary imbalance. As I recall, the Kansas situation made news everywhere, underscoring the anamoly that it was.
I don't understand what you're saying there.
What I do understand is that people are free to believe as they wish and they are free to further their goals -- up to and until the law draws a line. Put the wrong people in the right place and you get a temporary imbalance. As I recall, the Kansas situation made news everywhere, underscoring the anamoly that it was.
> We don't teach Creationism as science in the US. We don't teach Intelligent Design as science either.
Um, actually, Intelligent Design was a matter of Scientists approaching the Church - the possibility of our planet forming at all were so miniscule they could only arrive at one conclusion - some sort of intelligent design. This is the scientists, not the Church. The Catholic Church in Rome has played a part in the dialog - probably has contributed much to the discussion, since they have astronomers in their service (clergymen). I'm afraid I no longer have the magazine where I read that, but it was either Time or US News. But I specifically recall that the scientists were the ones who initiated the conversation.
Um, actually, Intelligent Design was a matter of Scientists approaching the Church - the possibility of our planet forming at all were so miniscule they could only arrive at one conclusion - some sort of intelligent design. This is the scientists, not the Church. The Catholic Church in Rome has played a part in the dialog - probably has contributed much to the discussion, since they have astronomers in their service (clergymen). I'm afraid I no longer have the magazine where I read that, but it was either Time or US News. But I specifically recall that the scientists were the ones who initiated the conversation.
> As I recall, the Kansas situation made news everywhere, underscoring the anamoly that it was.
Absolutely - the fact that even Republicans in Kansas, hardly a liberal stronghold, don't like messing with science education demonstrates that the view of some outside the US is not very accurate. There were even reports in Asia news outlets about the strange policy in Kansas, and that becomes the view of many about the US.
Absolutely - the fact that even Republicans in Kansas, hardly a liberal stronghold, don't like messing with science education demonstrates that the view of some outside the US is not very accurate. There were even reports in Asia news outlets about the strange policy in Kansas, and that becomes the view of many about the US.
> But I specifically recall that the scientists were the ones who initiated the conversation.
Yes, but, let us remember, we live in a world where those who question anything wearing the label "Global Warming" are equated with Holocaust deniers.
The truth is that Intelligent Design is not mainstream science. It is not appropriate for a science class although I think it would be great stuff for a philosophy of science class, ie, one that probes what science is more than the knowledge that science has uncovered.
Yes, but, let us remember, we live in a world where those who question anything wearing the label "Global Warming" are equated with Holocaust deniers.
The truth is that Intelligent Design is not mainstream science. It is not appropriate for a science class although I think it would be great stuff for a philosophy of science class, ie, one that probes what science is more than the knowledge that science has uncovered.
@dcparris:
For the first time in my life I will quote George Will
"The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum."
It is not a matter of opposing (at least for me) the teaching of intelligent design, it's teaching it as science. That's the main reason the Kansas BOE tried to change the definition of science.
For the first time in my life I will quote George Will
"The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum."
It is not a matter of opposing (at least for me) the teaching of intelligent design, it's teaching it as science. That's the main reason the Kansas BOE tried to change the definition of science.
> For the first time in my life I will quote George Will
I thought you were smarter than that. George Will is one of the best minds in the talking head set. No William F. Buckley, jr, but, then, who is?
Sadly, you pick a quote that illustrates a minor misunderstanding on his part.
Some elements of ID are susceptible to contradicting evidence and are thus testable.
Specificly, I am thinking of irreducible complexity. That could be refuted with regard to specific examples (such as flagellar motors) by demonstrating a process consistent with the theory (or theories, as the case may be) of evolution by which those examples could come about.
I think it hasn't been done to date because it hardly seems worth the trouble. The whole irreducible complexity argument sounds to me like people who argue that the Egyptians must have had help from space aliens to build the pyramids because we don't know of any technology that could do it. Presuming B requires more than not knowing how A came about.
I thought you were smarter than that. George Will is one of the best minds in the talking head set. No William F. Buckley, jr, but, then, who is?
Sadly, you pick a quote that illustrates a minor misunderstanding on his part.
Some elements of ID are susceptible to contradicting evidence and are thus testable.
Specificly, I am thinking of irreducible complexity. That could be refuted with regard to specific examples (such as flagellar motors) by demonstrating a process consistent with the theory (or theories, as the case may be) of evolution by which those examples could come about.
I think it hasn't been done to date because it hardly seems worth the trouble. The whole irreducible complexity argument sounds to me like people who argue that the Egyptians must have had help from space aliens to build the pyramids because we don't know of any technology that could do it. Presuming B requires more than not knowing how A came about.
> I thought you were smarter than that. George Will is one of the best minds in the talking head set. No William F. Buckley, jr, but, then, who is?
While I make no claims to intelligence, it's more a reference to my lack of interest in politics, rather than a criticism of George Will. I don't spend my days listening to Randi Rhodes and my evenings watching Michael Moore documentaries either. I do listen to Ed Schultz every now and then.
As for William F. Buckley, Jr, I'm just a youngster. He must have been more influential back in the old days.
While I make no claims to intelligence, it's more a reference to my lack of interest in politics, rather than a criticism of George Will. I don't spend my days listening to Randi Rhodes and my evenings watching Michael Moore documentaries either. I do listen to Ed Schultz every now and then.
As for William F. Buckley, Jr, I'm just a youngster. He must have been more influential back in the old days.
> He must have been more influential back in the old days.
Yes.
Yes.
Attorneys who used to work for Microsoft
Technically speaking, he didn't work for Microsoft. He worked for a firm that represented Microsoft, but he did not work on their cases, and, if things were done right (Surely all law firms do things right, right?) would have been separated by a "Chinese Wall" from the Microsoft cases.
And, of course, partners never discuss major clients and cases with each other at meetings or over lunch or on the golf course or anywhere else. Just like all those beauty contestant pageants really do want nothing more than world peace.
There is a practical problem to keep in mind. Some kinds of law are handled by a limited number of very large firms that may have hundreds or even thousands of lawyers. It can be hard to find a lawyer who hasn't worked for a firm that has handled a large client.
In this case, however, I don't think that's limburger we're smelling.
And, of course, partners never discuss major clients and cases with each other at meetings or over lunch or on the golf course or anywhere else. Just like all those beauty contestant pageants really do want nothing more than world peace.
There is a practical problem to keep in mind. Some kinds of law are handled by a limited number of very large firms that may have hundreds or even thousands of lawyers. It can be hard to find a lawyer who hasn't worked for a firm that has handled a large client.
In this case, however, I don't think that's limburger we're smelling.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
By the way, I'm not JUST going to the Internet to find something that will support my argument. I spent quite a bit of time some time ago studying up on the US constitution, I studied it because it's a brilliant document, of which the Australian constitution is a poor shadow, in my opinion.