The Microsoft Monopoly Attacks BitTorrent

It would appear Microsoft doesn't like open source software (in other words free) competition. No surprise really considering how much open source software has been eating into its immense profits. Not that open source software is making an especially huge dent, however, that has to be qualified with a "yet".

Open source software has the potential to destroy Microsoft's dominance of the software industry. Everyone like things for free, especially when they work as well or better than the stuff you have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for.

BitTorrent is an open source case in point. For those not in the know, BitTorrent is a form of software that enables large numbers of people to share large amounts of data all at the same time. It is similar to the sort of thing that happened to music with Napster and Kazaa, but with movies, and video. The difference, to radically simplify the whole process, is that BitTorrents break up data files, like a movie, into small pieces, once you've downloaded one piece you can start uploading it to all the other people who want to download the whole file. This forms a vast web of combined uploading and downloading that radically increases the speed information can be downloaded, and enourmously reduces the load on those attempting to distribute a particular data file, because everyone who is downloading the file is also helping to distribute it.

Content, however, is something Microsoft not only covets, it also wants to be the corporation you have to go to whenever you want to watch a movie, play a game, or do any form of computer interactivity on the internet. It wants to be the vehicle you have to use to see all these things. Why? So they can charge you for the privledge.

BitTorrent is an obvious threat to that effort, because it is free. It eliminates all possibility of monster profits through cornering the market, because everyone can not only use it for free, but they can also participate in improving it, if they have the technical ability.

In an effort to attack BitTorrent, Microsoft has launched a spectacularly bad bit of vaporware propaganda (vaporware being software that doesn't actually exist other than by its description).

They're calling the new vaporware "Avalanche" and they're billing it as a vastly improved form of BitTorrent. This from Forbes:

"Despite their enormous potential and popularity, existing end-system co-operative schemes may suffer from a number of inefficiencies which decrease their overall performance," the report says. "We propose a new end-system cooperative solution that uses network coding, i.e., data encoding at the interior nodes of the network, to overcome most of these problems." (click here for the full article)

Blah, blah, blah technospeak. No Microsoft doesn't have a working solution yet, so when they later go on to describe a 20% to 30% improvement in performance, you have to realize that all this is based on simulations, in other words "pretend". Vaporware to a "T".

Now if that weren't bad enough Microsoft is also using Fifth Columnists to propagandize against BitTorrents, by spreading inuendo that it will infect your computer with spyware. I guess Gates and co. are taking a few ideas from the radical right in the U.S. If you can't beat'em demonize 'em:

And now....it looks like the once (vaguely) happy, clappy world of Bittorrent is being invaded with the marketing campaign to end all marketing campaigns. A concerted effort to get everybody's favourite piece of advertising genius into your lives...Aurora. (click here for the full article)

Who does the quote above come from? According to John Dvorak of PC Magazine:

The Root of the Accusations. This was all begun by a Microsoft MVP character named Chris Boyd, who is always described as a "renowned" security expert. By whose standards is he renowned? Has he written books? Academic papers? Articles? What exactly besides blogging? So where does this assertion come from? The blog? (click here for the full article)

Of course, the internet, being what it is, especially in the area of communicating information, has pretty much been lambasting Microsoft and it's anti-BitTorrent efforts. There has been a veritable avalanche of anti-Microsoft response coming from all sectors.

The only ones dumb enough to buy this hoax, hook, line and sinker, are none other that the MSM. Especially what passes for it on the internet. Dvorak goes on:

Where Is the News Reporting? What bothered me the most about this episode was that there was no reporting whatsoever regarding the BitTorrent as spyware claims or even the credibility of the renowned MVP Chris Boyd. It was basically parroting a leap-of-faith accusation in a blog that somehow developed into these eventual talking points: Use BitTorrent and you'll get spyware. BitTorrent sucks, and oh, Microsoft has something better, although it's never been shipped—but it's better!

But peerhaps most convincing argument comes from the inventor of BitTorrent, Bram Cohen:

First of all, I'd like to clarify that Avalanche is vaporware. It isn't a product which you can use or test with, it's a bunch of proposed algorithms. There isn't even a fleshed out network protocol. The 'experiments' they've done are simulations.

It's a bad idea to give much weight to simulations, especially of something so hairy as real-world internet behavior. I spent most of my talk at stanford explaining why it's difficult to benchmark, much less simulate, BitTorrent in a way which is useful. But we can look at their simulation to see if it might at least be ballpark. (click here for the full article)

But really the best defense of BitTorrent comes in the actual using. It's not very hard. Do a Google search and you'll be able to find large numbers of websites all extolling its virtues and giving you lengthy explanations on how it works and which software applications to use to make use of this wonderful new technology. Admittedly most people use it for pirating software and movies, and that I think is the basis for the hatred it inspires in the business community, but none-the-less it is an excellent, and very free piece of software.

Attack of the Conservative Toadies

For the last few months I've begun observing what appears to be a trend amongst right wing pundits in the mainstream press. There has been a definite move to more hardline ideological rhetoric, and a much more attack oriented style. The most troublesome aspect seems to be accusations that are either baseless, or neither sourced nor supported by any sort of evidence, beyond the opinion of the pundit in question. But none the less the opinions are stated as fact.

What also appears to be happening is an adoption by many of these pundits of many of the same talking points. I suppose this should come be unsurprising, since many of them undoubtedly read each other's material, and likely communicate regularly to each other, as the mainstream media pundit circle is a fairly small one in Canada.

While I certainly don't have the time to do a thourough study of pundit behaviour in the press, that for example, counts the number of baseless accusations made and timelines of how and when they begin to adopt the more virulent of each other's rhetoric, I think I am going to begin to try providing a regular feature of the worst sort of abusive rhetoric. I would also encourage others here on the e-group to do the same, because I think it is important that the ultra right wing press tactics that have been so successful in the US be not so easily adopted here.

The repeated harping on press in the US for it's so-called liberal bias by a seemingly endless number of right wing think tanks and media attack dogs all funded by wealthy families and the corporate elite has radically skewed press coverage in the United States. We've all been witness to the horribly poor pro-war coverage by much of the American mainstream media in the lead up to the Iraq War. Just how poor a job the US media has done has only been underlined by the revelations of the Downing Street Memo, and a host of other evidence, frequently buried in denial and misinformation being pedaled by the Bush Administration.

While I agree that I, or anyone else who shares my concerns, are unlikely to make a huge difference, I think it is important to start somewhere. What's more I think it is important to encourage those who have the ability to examine this ramping up of right wing rhetoric to look more closely at any patterns of behaviour that may be developing amongst the right wing press here in Canada, because I think only sustained effort of counter attack has any hope of defusing the sort of ideological tilt they are trying to impose of the media here in Canada.

What I find most alarming about the current trend is the talking up amongst Conservative party toadies, like Andrew Coyne and Lorne Gunter, is their ad nauseum attacks on the integrity of parliment, the focus of their attacks being on the Liberals, primarily on the basis of Adscam, but not limited to just that scandal. Ignored repeatedly is the fact this corruption is being investigated, and that every effort is being made by the Liberal government to bring those involved to justice while still following lawful process, to which even politicians are entitled.

They also regularly appear to be infuriated that much of the Canadian electorate does not share their point of view, and all to often they parse out parts of the electorate for the focus of their fury. Specifically they attack Ontario voters, because it is Ontario that decides the fate of the Liberals staying in power in the next election, and it is Ontario voters that have been steadfast in lack of support for Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

I think, however, it is important to simply go beyond polemic in an article like this, and point to an example of egerigious rhetoric on the part of one of these pundits. This is only one example, but I could easily come up with many more were I able to make a living pointing out the repeated flaws in the stupidity these toadies come up with.

So with that I'll point out the latest column by Lorne Gunter that appeared in the Sunday, June 5th 2005 Edmonton Journal. Before I begin quoting Gunter, I think it important to establish his credentials as a right wing toady. Any Google search will provide you with a host of links of his rather extreme right wing points of view, one conservative website in particular takes the time to provide a list of his more specious quotations (click here). Gunter also makes regular appearances on, of all places, the CBC National, which in the article quoted below, which presumably is a part of the Liberal biased media in parlimentary press gallery, which the CBC National covers extensively.

Gunter started his article with a sustained and blanket attack on the Liberals and the press for their handling of the Grewal tape issue, as so called evidence of this bias he trots out the hoary old scandal of Chretien's interest in the Shawinigan golf course.

"Admittedly, their task is made very much easier by the Parliamentary press gallery's singular lack of curiosity in any and all allegations against Liberals. While the gallery will fixate for days on even the slightest Tory burp, getting them to divert their gaze from Liberal misdeeds is no tougher than distracting a crow with a scrap of tinfoil.

Contrast the gallery's actions concerning allegations that Grewal's tape recordings of his negotiations with prime ministerial chief-of-staff Tim Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh may have been altered with reporters' actions four years ago when it was alleged that then prime minister Jean Chretien may have forged -- or at least back-dated -- a bill of sale for his 25-per-cent stake in a Shawinigan golf course to clear himself of conflict of interest charges. (click here for the full article)"

Well of course what we have here is the comparison of a current scandal, fresh in everyone's memory, with an almost decade old scandal, the details of which even reporters who covered it will have a hard time remembering off the top of their heads. It would be difficult at best to recall whether or not Gunter is exaggerating the facts of that case, as he goes on to later frame it to suit his purpose further in his opinion piece.

In the current Grewal scandal, no one comes out looking good, yet the press coverage focus on the altered recordings is entirely appropriate, for this was shaping up to be a scandal the Conservatives were looking to use as justitifcation for yet another attempt to bring down the Liberal government. That the Conservative Party may have tried to manufacture evidence they would use to bring down the federal government is a very important story, but it is one Gunter conveniently ignores in favour of complaining about the media, and trying to move focus away from the misdeeds of his ideological allies.

Moreover, his assertion of a Liberal bias in the parliment press gallery is laughable. The coverage of the Gomery inquiry and the regular lambasting the Liberals receive in the press is simply evidence that the press are, if anything, playing up the scandal. The relentless detail of the inquiry, and the relentless fury of right wing pundits has been legion in every major paper and on every major news program in Canada.

When transcripts of the Grewal tapes appeared in the National Post, they had Andrew Coyne's column attacking the Liberal government on the front page of the paper. So the opinion of a well known ultra conservative pudit was given column inches the front page of Canada's second national paper. It was given treatment historically in journalism restricted to news, to fact.

But this bias is not limited only to the private corporate press. The CBC, particularly the National, is also susceptible to attempting to over compensate right wing pundit coverage in the foolish attempt to appear "balanced", instead of attempting to be accurate in their coverage. As just one example, on the day Belinda Stronach crossed over to the Liberals, three out of the four pundits on the CBC National, talking over the defection with Peter Mansbridge were right wing ideologues, specifically Andrew Coyne, another a professor from the college of Lethbridge (who's name I don't recall) who had written a book about the Reform party, and a former Mulroney era political operator. The other pundit, hardly a Liberal sympathizer, was well know Liberal critic Chantel Hebert. Balance? Not even close. The vituperative nature of the attacks on Stronach by Coyne and the college prof even got Mansbridge's back up.

But what I find most disgusting about the conserted attack on our system of parliment by these right wing pundits is their repeated efforts to over exaggerate and how bad these problems are. They refuse to provide time for lawful investigation and would rather bring down the government at a time when separatists have most to gain from the failure of the current minority, and a summer election.

They seem to have forgotten about the interests of the nation and its citizens, and would rather engage in what ever rhetorical attacks and conflations their sad little imaginations can devise to prompt enough outrage to bring down the Liberal government and see elected their ideological friends in the Conservative Party of Canada. It is a truly sickening form of toadyism that is remarkable in it's ability to ignore the misdeeds of one side over the other, and blindly follow a course of action, specifically a summer election, that would all too likely benefit the separatist Bloq Quebecious over any gain of seats on the part of the Conservatives.

"The Man Behind Stephen Harper"

In the October 2004 issue of Walrus Magazine, Marci MacDonald wrote an excellent, and wonderfully researched article, "The Man Behind Stephen Harper".

Now Harper certainly made an appearance in the piece, but the focus was on Tom Flanagan, a political science professor at the University of Calagary, and Harper's national campaign director during last June's election.

The implications of the article, which you can read in full by clicking the link below, is that Flanagan, and his clique at the University of Calgary poli-sci department, are the intellectual driving force behind the neo-conservative movement in Canada, now embodied by the Conservative party. The "Calgary School", as it has come to be known, is also the location of Harper's academic roots.

MacDonald takes the time to shed light on the dark underbelly of the of the current Conservative party's intellectual masters, and the sight isn't a pretty one. Their academic publishing history is riddled with attacks on progressive policies through the exploitation of closeted bias. In particular, the rights of Canadian Aboriginals seems to be something of a Flanagan specialty. Flanagan has directed a huge amount of his intellectual effort into creating the academic foundation for denying aboriginal peoples land claim rights, and it seems he has been rewarded handsomely for his efforts through generous goverment research grants and consulting contracts.

But Flanagan's views wouldn't have raised more than eyebrows if his telephone hadn't rung on a June afternoon in 1986. The Justice Department offered him a $103,000 contract as its chief historical consultant on one of the biggest land-claims cases before the federal courts: a suit by the Manitoba Metis Federation for 1.4 million acres promised to Riel and his followers in 1870.

Flanagan has gone on to reprise that role in a half-dozen other federal aboriginal disputes, including Victor Buffalo, et. al. vs. The Queen -- a landmark claim for more than $1 billion in damages by the Samson Cree Nation at Hobbema, near Edmonton, over Ottawa's handling of its oil and gas royalties. The Manitoba and Alberta governments have also hired him for their own battles over treaty rights. "What he's become is a very convenient tool for the government," says David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Metis Federation.

MacDonald also takes the time to research into the academic background of the Calgary School's members. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they seem to have been heavily influenced by the writings of Leo Strauss:

But Shadia Drury, a member of the U of C department until last year, accuses her former colleagues of harbouring a more sinister mission. An expert on Leo Strauss, the philosophical father of the neo-conservative movement, Drury paints the Calgary School as a home-grown variation of American Straussians like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who share their teacher's deep suspicion of liberal democracy. Strauss argued that a ruling elite often had to resort to deception -- a noble lie -- to protect its citizens from themselves. To that end, he recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would in fact restrict rights. Drury warned the Globe's John Ibbitson that the members of the Calgary School "want to replace the rule of law with the populism of the majority," and labelled Stephen Harper 'their product.'

The noble lie, an interesting concept given the confusion most Canadians have over Conservative party policy, or the lack thereof. Free votes in the house, private members bills, it all fits rather handily into the push to "replace the rule of law with populism of the majority".

But perhaps the most interesting comments are also the most chilling, and they come from the Albertan God-father of social conservatism, Ted Byfield.

But back in Alberta, Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School's professors were pups, sees it another way -- in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. "All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group people in Calgary -- Flanagan most prominent among them," Byfield says. "I don't think he knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we're moving to the left when we're not?"

To those who are unnerved by that prospect, Byfield offers no cheer. "Those people who said they're dangerous -- they're right!" he says. "People with ideas are dangerous. If Harper gets elected, he'll make a helluva change in this country."

For the full "The Man Behind Stephen Harper" article, click here.

Bush Charged in Canada with Torture

On November 30th, in Vancouver, Canada charges of criminal torture were laid against U.S. President George W. Bush.

Vancouver lawyer, Gail Davidson, co-chair of the Canadian based group Lawyers Against the War (LAW) filed the charges with the British Columbia Provincial Court, under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Copies of the charges filed are available for download on the LAW website (page 1, page 2), and they include seven counts of counselling, aiding and abetting torture of prisoners by the U.S. military at both the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

LAW's argument for the charges stem from the well documented cases of abuse at both prisons, and they cite Canadian and American ratification of the U.N. Convention against Torture as the basis for their claim. In their press release LAW declared, "Canada has a duty under the Convention Against Torture to 'take effective measures to prevent torture'."

As of December 2nd, LAW applied to have the charges against Bush placed before a judge, who would determine if a warrant or summons should be issued against the U.S. President.

As Bush is not a Canadian citizen, the Canadian Attorney General, Irwin Cotler, is required, within eight days of the charges being filed, to provide consent for the proceedings to continue. Should the proceedings be allowed to continue the Canadian court will also have to resolve issues of Bush's diplomatic immunity.

This story has an interesting parallel to a complaint concurrently filed in Germany by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, against U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Those charges also involved the incidents of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. (click here for more on that story)

While it is unlikely that either Bush or Rumsfeld will actually have to face these charges in court, if the cases do proceed it will send a powerful message that even close U.S. allies are not looking kindly on what appears to be the Bush Administration's sanction of torture by the U.S. Military.

The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear

The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear is a recent BBC documentary first broadcast in the UK around the US election. This should be required viewing. It takes the best traditions of documentary filmmaking and investigative journalism and uses them to place US neoconservatives, radical islamists and the war on terror under the harsh light of reality.

The documentary follows the historical rise of the both the neoconservative movement within the United States, and the rise of radical islam, which interestingly enough also had its genesis in America. The documentary argues that both groups, were founded on a disgust with liberal sentiment; particularly for liberal willingness to compromise, and what both those groups of fundamentalists saw as the liberal lack of belief in strictly defined black and white notions of good and evil.

The documentary is in three parts. Here are links to the BBC that describe each part in detail:
Part 1: Baby It's Cold Outside
Part 2: The Phantom Victory
Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave

If you live in North America, getting to see this documentary will take some doing. You're going to need a high speed internet connection, bittorrent software, and a fairly large hard drive. Each part is about 600 MB in size. (NOTE: There are probably other ways of getting a hold of this documentary, but I doubt it will be available for sale or rent in North America for at least a few months)

To download bittorrent click here.

To download the three parts of the documentary you will have to sign up (for free) at www.uknova.com. After you confirm your registration, do a search on their website for "The Power of Nightmares".

I don't expect this documentary to convince those firmly in the neoconservative camp (although I can always hope). It would be far too damaging to their sense of purpose and their fantasies. But for everyone else it provides a realistic look at the political use of fear in the world today.

Liberating Iraq

Just in time for Friday prayers the US military has conducted a surprise raid on a Baghdad mosque. Unfortunately for the US military's war PR machine, there was an eyewitness who contacted reporters during the raid.

”Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying INGs entered,” Abu Talat told IPS on phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. ”Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened.

Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!” Talat said he was among a crowd of worshippers being held back at gunpoint by U.S. soldiers. Loud chanting of 'Allahu Akbar' could be heard in the background during his call. Women and children were sobbing, he said.

”They have just shot and killed at least four of the people praying,” he said in a panicked voice. ”At least 10 other people are wounded now. We are on our bellies and in a very bad situation.”

Talat gave his account over short phone calls. He said he was witnessing a horrific scene.

”We were here praying and now there are 50 here with their guns on us,” he said. ”They are holding our heads to the ground, and everyone is in chaos. This is the worst situation possible. They cannot see me talking to you. They are roughing up a blind man now.” He evidently could talk no further then.

The soldiers later released women and children along with men who were related to them. Abu Talat was released because a boy told him to pretend to be his father.
(click here for the full article)

I'm sure we'll hear justification for this particular incident. Hunting down and executing "terrorists" has to be accomplished even in their place of worship or some such excuse. But I guess that is how the Bush Administration promotes peace and freedom around the world.

Vanunu Continues To Be Harassed

As reported by both Haaretz (click here) and the Guardian (click here), Mordechai Vanunu has been detained by Israeli authorities for allegedly leaking national secrets.

In 1986 Vanunu, a former technician at the Israeli nuclear facility Dimona, released information to the press in London about Israel's secret nuclear weapons program; a program which in 1986 had already stockpiled 200 nuclear warheads. Vanunu was later lured from London to Rome by a romantic liaison with a woman working for the Mossad. There he was drugged and kidnapped, and returned to Israel. He was sentenced to 18 years in jail, 11 of which he spent in solitary confinement. (for more information see the website Free Vanunu)

Given Israel's concern over the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Arab states, it seems both ironic and more than a little hypocritical that they insist on such secrecy over their own nuclear weapons program. It is also laughable to watch Israeli politicians twist themselves into knots when refusing to acknowledge the existence of their nuclear arsenal.

All nations have a responsibility to deal in an open and honest manner over possession of nuclear weapons. The reasons aren't simply for the benefit of their own population, who should have a right to debate the efficacy of such weapons, but also because nuclear weapons, if used, could drag the world into a nuclear conflagration.

Israel's continued confinement and harassment of Vanunu not only underlines a clearly flawed policy of paranoid secrecy, but it also demonstrates an official and unseemly thirst for revenge that far outstrips Vanunu's so-called crime. After 18 years in an Israeli prison it is also something that Vanunu has paid in full many times over.