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