Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 10, 2000)
Mondai- 4orul;i\. OPINION ay, April 10,2000 THE BATTALION Page 11 ief )ch, ers also areti /-TV es. Houston T" Arkansas’ foi ace coach, Dannyi re- an assistantfai to coach at Ark< ant and Dickey Ni 1 at Arkansas s head bast ’ )th- coach. RUBEN DELUNA/The Battalion Baby Bills L ast week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Jackson found that Mi crosoft, everyone’s favorite corpora tion to hate, was guilty of abusing its po sition in the personal computing business and using unfair tactics to maintain its advantage in the field. Jackson’s 43 page ruling follows an other issued by him last year that said Microsoft had applied undue pressure on its competitors in an attempt to stifle their product development. Although they will probably appeal the judge’s findings, Microsoft has basically been found guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The same legislation which broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard ©il and created the Baby Bells now threatens to do the same to the techno-empire of Bill Gates. Whether or not Microsoft is divided into smaller com panies, it is certain the company will face some sort of sanc tions for its behavior. But what does that mean for the average American? Ab solutely nothing. If history is a guide as to what will happen in the Microsoft affair, not much will change for the common computer user. Splitting Microsoft into several companies will just allow it to continue its market dominance under the guise of legality and fairness in two separate entities — one continuing to develop and market operating systems while the other would be limited to the realm of software applications. The prospect of the split has failed to earn any rounds of applause from Microsoft’s competitors. Is there any real chance that a Microsoft offspring devoted entirely to applica tion development would not cater to the Windows operating system? Microsoft’s successful competitors do. Even the competitors admit that due to the market dominance of Windows, creating applications to run on those platforms is the only way to stay in business. So in the end, the current Microsoft strategy of cre ating programs to run on its operating system will re main intact, even if the software has to come from an office in Boise, Idaho instead of Seattle. The only real difference the average computer user might notice is a hit in the pocketbook — unable to bundle the pro grams with the operating system like it does now, Even if split, Microsoft will continue to dominate Microsoft would have to charge for them separately. And do not forget that many of the companies that Microsoft has been accused of victimizing have only risen to prominence due to their associations with Microsoft. Having made it to the big time, they now also want to be able to make or break the emerging technology companies of the world. In doing so, they seem to have forgotten their own desperate scrambles to make partner ships and alliances with Microsoft just a few years ago. Although attempting to protect the consumers of the United States, the federal government has a bad habit of making things worse for the average taxpayer. The break up of AT&T and the subsequent creation of the “Baby Bells” created a system of miniature local telephone service monopolies throughout the United States. Only recently have a number of state govern ments stepped in to encourage competition in these areas, in cluding Texas. In attempt to head off possible monopolization, the airline in dustry was regulated by the federal government for a number of years to encourage the entry of new competitors and the general equity of the marketplace. Once again, consumers paid for it in extremely high air fares. When the government deregulated the industry in the late ’70s, ticket fares dropped dramatically overnight. Although air travel became much more accessible for the average citizen, competition was stilled as smaller airlines found it impossible to make into the larger markets which the larger, more established airlines con trolled. In recent years, the major airlines have formed an informal price cartel, matching each other’s fares in an attempt to maintain an even playing field amongst themselves. In all of this, con sumers have had no actual choice in the matter. Apparently, the federal government has no better idea how to regulate the dynamos of industry than the next guy. Yes, the evil empire of Microsoft might be split into several smaller kingdoms, but, in the end, each will remain the master of its particular domain. As long as Microsoft, or its successors, is able to create products which address the needs of the average consumer that are of equal or greater quality than its opponents’ products, its dominance will continue. The average consumer will not care. Nor will the average competitor, as long as they can con tinue to ride Microsoft’s coattails to huge profits. Nicholas Roznovsky is a junior political science major. ollege expenence empty at Online II. 01 g stories, rbook... off Building. an editor position! uld you Jo you have in to be on the staff? ince do you have )osition you are RIL 20 et’s take a peek into the future, magme a school ivhere the dress :ode is last ight’s pajamas, ivhere one would not face traffic or trains trying to get to class and where there is no way to be tardy — students would have class when they please. Just how far into the future (or dream land) does this school exist? Maybe Biotas far as most think. Software | billionaire Michael Saylor has been failing the seas off the coast of St. Jart’s recently, daydreaming ideas For an online college to be con structed in the very near future. Al though there have been ideas for an online college in the past — Say- dor’s plans are big and the money he has agreed to put up for the project • |s the biggest yet. Michael Saylor has pledged $100 lillion to create a nonprofit “Online ivy League quality University.” The Idea is that this institution would be I'ree to offer this opportunity to peo ple of all economic statuses. Al though this seems like a fair attempt p eliminate the economic barriers —'ll that divide our country, this “pre tend” college will only create an jeven bigger injustice than ever be fore. There is no way that the quality af academics can be the same online is it is in a classroom, and, even if it were, to compare online courses to the college experience is ludicrous. Saylor’s biggest idea is to devel op an "all-star” experienced group of individuals to serve as the instructors for these classes. Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger have been cited as arofessors in these plans. Just think, here could be an entire class on “Ly- ng to the American People,” “Adul- ery” or “How to Survive an Im peachment”. The problem with this dea is not that anyone doubts the oiowledge of President Clinton, but hat the experience of being Presi dent of the United States should not piake him more qualified than a pro fessor trained specifically for this duty. The idea that his authority overrules the training required for uch teaching positions is offensive |tomany current college professors. David Noble, a history professor t Toronto’s York University and a big critic of distance learning said that “Saylor’s naivete is breathtak ing.” Carole Fungaroli, an English professor at Georgetown University describes this idea as “the quintes- ence of counterfeit education.” The only argument worthy for supporting this “all-star” faculty idea is the importance of the lessons learned by experience. And this is precisely the argument against this online college. If four years of courses were all that col lege was about — then by all means let students do it in their pajamas. But this is not the purpose behind the college experience. Obviously, here at Texas A&M there is a great deal of focus on be coming an Aggie and developing the camaraderie that makes Aggieland famous. But even on campuses where Aggie Spirit does not fill the air, the relationships and activities in a college student’s daily life is the base of life’s greatest lessons. If all students had to do was go to class for 12 or 16 hours a week, life would be a lot easier. But it would be completely unhealthy and detri mental to their lives. Students need to interact with others, get involved in their schools, work together in group projects and learn how to deal with professors on a mature level. Has anyone ever heard of people skills and social skills? They are not usually learned by reading books. Everyone knows how much easier it is to write your best friend a letter telling them everything you do not have the courage to say, but where does that put you when you have to see them face to face? And that is just for a friend. Does anyone actually think that students can interact with profes sors by using chatrooms and emails for four years and gain the qualifications necessary to enable them to walk into an interview and successfully get a job? No way! All-star faculty or not these stu dents are not going to be well- rounded in any way. Saylor was inspired by his own experiences of receiving a full scholarship to college and “wants to make a comparable opportunity available to all.” Although this bil lionaire reaching out to “the little folks” is a nice fairy tale story, it does not really seem that this is a good solution to solve the monetary injustices that plague the world out side of his mansion. Technology can take us a long way but this idea might be better left on the drawing board for a while. Carole Fungaroli sums it up the best: “It’s the same as sex on the Internet. You can get it online, but it’s not as good as in per son.” Melissa Bedsole is a sophomore general studies major. Program aimed at non-existent problem CHRIS HUFFINES B ig Brother is wearing pink. In North Carolina, and coming soon to a school near you, the Pinkerton Security Agency has begun a for- profit program called W.A.V.E. (Working Against Vi olence Everywhere). W.A.V.E. pro poses a program to train junior high and high school students to recognize the signs of violence in the schools and allow them to call a toll-free hot line to report incidences of possible violence. These reports will then be forwarded to the schools. Hopefully, this setting of student against student will prevent another Columbine inci dent. Unfortunately, this program is not only based on pseudo-science and political correctness gone awry, it is unconstitutional and too easy to abuse. First, this program’s premise is only one study short of nonexistent, and even then, W.A.V.E. takes the findings of the study significantly oirt of context. The study is by the Depart ment of Education and the Department of Justice, and strongly notes that stereotyping behavior is detrimental to violence prevention. While the study is certainly complete, there are several reservations expressed in the study that W.A.V.E. completely ignores. W.A.V.E., however, ignores this. In addition to some rather stereotypical language, such as “feeling disrespect ed” as a warning sign for violence, W.A.V.E. stereotypes the violent teen. Those with potential for violence ap parently enjoy hurting animals, an nounce plans for hurting others, are members of gangs, or increase drug or alcohol use. Of course, all of these are completely out of context. For exam ple, one of the warning signs of others is failing to acknowledge the feelings or rights of others. Tragically for the teen who cracks a racially insensitive joke in a moment of bad judgment, he or she has now been labeled as violent and can be turned in, according to W.A.V.E. guidelines. Even worse, W.A.V.E.’s entire premise for existing, that there is an epidemic of violence in the schools today, is flawed. According to the FBI reports, violence by teens, espe cially Columbine-style violence, is actually decreasing. The problem is minimizing. Just because a few inci dents of violence happened and then spawned hysteria across the country, there is no proof of a wave of vio lence descending on the schools. W.A.V.E. is not necessary. In addition to weak justification, W.A.V.E. is blatantly unconstitutional. In operating as it does, being taught and operating in conjunction with the schools, this program violates not only freedom of speech and association, but it also violates privacy rights. First, in allowing students to turn in other students for their words and their friends, the government entity here (the school) is allowing others to be punished for saying things and for meeting with a group of people. This same level of oppression was used against the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and the United States’ Founding Fathers. It is a wonder that Gandhi especially did not open fire in his high school. In ad dition, W.A.V.E. violates the right to privacy, by allowing others to peer into the lives, of fellow students, with government approval. That, in and of itself, perhaps violates the fourth amendment also. In addition to constitutional viola tions, the system set up by W.A.V.E. lends itself to abuse. The phone sys tem is a L-800 number that routes callers to a worker who takes down information and then anonymously transfers to report to the appropriate school. The progress of abuse will probably be as follows. First, only the “different” kids will be reported. Then they will he reported to excess, no doubt because of the stereotypes and lack of con text. Then, the popular kids will be- to not only the law, but the common sense of the American people. W.A.V.E. is based on faulty premises, and will pass even faultier premises on to the students it is supposedly training. Even then, the execution of the program is unconstitutional and will gin to be turned in, anonymously, of course, as revenge for offenses either real or imagined. Eventually, every one will begin turning in everyone else, and the system will break down. The anonymity of the system, sup posedly a benefit, is actually the biggest liability. This system is an atrocious affront ROBERT HYNECEK/The Battalion 1 be abused into ineffectiveness. Amer ica is reducing the violence on its own. This country does not need Pinkertons and does not need to set students spying on their classmates to eliminate violence in its schools. Chris Huffines is a senior speech communications major. MAIL CALL Ends not able to justify means in FDA tobacco regulation issue In response to David Lee’s April 6 column. - “the rather A disturbing comment was made in Lee’s column Supreme Court should have concentrated on the ‘ends’ than the ‘means.’” In solving various situations, the questionably beneficial “ends” have never been able to justify any “means” of a doubt ful nature. The court was justified in waiting for an explicit statement of the FDA’s role, just like the pro-choicers are justified in calling for a more specific bill banning paHial birth abortions. Besides, caffeine and alcohol also alter the structure of the body, so are we to expect the FDA to save us from ourselves with regards to those substances as well? Kristin Luthringer Class of '01