United States vs Microsoft :: United States v. Microsoft

â€Å"United States v. Microsoft was a court case filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice and twenty U.S. states. The plaintiff’s alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales†. (Wikipedia 1) Basically this means that Microsoft Corporation was accused of forming a monopoly against all other software corporations because Microsoft was selling its computers with Internet Explorer already installed on it. This way customers were getting a web browser for free almost and therefore. Microsoft sold more computers. This is known as bundling. Bundling them together is what gave Microsoft the victory in the so called â€Å"browser wars† because e very Windows user had a version of Internet Explorer installed on their computer upon purchase. Because of this advantage it was alleged to be unfair to other web browsers because it unfairly restricted the competing web browser market. The trial started in May 1998 with the US Justice Department and the Attorneys General of twenty US states suing Microsoft for illegally hindering competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly. They were later sued because they were forcing computer makers to install IE onto the computers they sold. They threatened PC manufacturers with revoking their license to distribute Windows if they removed the IE icon from the initial desktop. (WIkipedia) Videotapes were submitted as evidence during court procedures. Among these tapes was one that demonstrated that removing IE from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions. Viewers noticed that the tape had been altered because certain desktop icons would be present in once shot and then not present in another shot. Microsoft later submitted another tape which turned up to be faulty as well. The government produced its own tape of downloading other browsers onto the PC. This process was slow and the icon was not placed on the

Reliability of Human Memory

The reliability of human memory, though typically seen as quite accurate and trust- worthy, has been questioned by researchers in recent decades. In particular, one area of memory that has raised questioning is emotional memories that are extraordinarily vivid and detailed, which were first referred to as flashbulb memories' in 1977 by Roger Brown and James Kulak, which occur due to powerful events such as the death of Princess Diana, and the terrorist attacks on 9/1 1 . These memories are not as reliable as perceived, and do not provide accurate details of past events liable.This can be seen in the following two Journal articles; one which looks at memory recollection after 9/1 1 occurred over 3 different time periods, straight after, 1 year after and 3 years after, and the other looks at the flashbulb memories produced after the nuclear attacks in Japan in 1999. It is important to adopt the idea that flashbulb memories do not provide accurate details of past events reliably, and mo re so look at them Just like every other memory. The first Journal article examines long-term retention of memory from the tragedy hat is the terrorist attacks of September 1 1 .The study had over 3000 individuals from seven US cities report on their learning of the attacks, as well as details about the attack, one week, 11 months and 35 months after the assault. The following were focused on in the study: † (1) the long-term retention of flashbulb and event memories, (2) the comparative retention of emotional reactions with the retention of other features of a flashbulb event, (3) possible difference in the underlying processing associated with the formation and retention of flashbulb and event memories, and (4) the factors that shape long-term retention, including the role of memory practices. † (Hirsh W.Et al, 2009, Para. 3) The study was conducted simply through 3 similarly designed surveys for the different time periods, with the first 6 questions relating to develo ping consistency of flashbulb memories, the next 4 on the accuracy of event memories, and the remaining questions on predictors, with confidence levels recorded for each answer as well. Concluding the research study, it was found that the rate of forgetting for flashbulb memories and event memory lows after a year, the strong emotional reactions drawn out by flashbulb events are remember poorly, and that the content of flashbulb and event memories stabilizes after a year.The second Journal article consists of a study that looks at the nuclear accident that occurred in Japan, in 1999 and whether or not different aspects such as the source, place, activity or people have an effect on the accuracy of flashbulb memories. The study was conducted through a questionnaire which was distributed twice; 3 weeks and a year after the event occurred, to people that lived on the site of the bombing as ell as in the surrounding area. The questionnaire asked such questions as â€Å"from where did y ou receive the news? And, â€Å"how many times did you talk about it with other people? † at both time periods to see the consistency of answers, along side to see if there was any outside influence on the persons memory. The results from the study determined that only a small portion of participants indicated accurate flashbulb memories, alongside this, those that did have accurate flashbulb memories reported rehearsing the memory more than those that had inaccurate memories – his encourages the idea that flashbulb memories are formed through rehearsal, rather than at encoding. (Attain, h. , et al. , 2005, p. ) Like every study, the one regarding September 1 lath also has strengths and weaknesses when collecting and evaluating the data to come to a conclusion on the accuracy of flashbulb memories, however the strengths of the study outweigh that of the weaknesses. The first strength of the study is that it provides data not only from one time period from when the even t occurred, but from multiple so that it can not only look at how much is remembered over a certain period of time, but also to an extent at what rate memory retention declines, as well as stabilizes, which as mentioned earlier the rate of forgetting slows after a year.Another strength of the study is that by providing confidence levels, it also helps to show whether or not the person doing the survey was guessing to fill in the answers, or if they genuinely believed what their memory was telling them, which as a result showed on a whole that memory is not as trustworthy as perceived, with many people reporting different Tories several years later, with very high confidence levels. Weaknesses are also evident in the study, however not as weighted as the strengths for it.One weakness that is prominent in the study is that because the survey is not done in a controlled environment, and is rather sent in the mail to the person, when completing the survey there could be other factors in the persons home which may potentially affect what they are thinking at the time, and thus could provide inaccurate data in the long run. Another weakness in the study, although it does not have too large of an impact, s that health issues had not been accounted for, which in turn could potentially alter the overall data.Overall it can be seen that the strengths of the study outweigh that of the weaknesses, and therefore the study provides accurate data which in turn shows that flashbulb memories do not provide accurate details of past events reliably. The study conducted regarding the nuclear accident in Japan has numerous strengths and weaknesses involved in the collection and evaluation of the data, which ultimately affects the outcome of the study.In this study the strengths outweighed that of the weaknesses. The first noticeable strength in the study is that it looks at the four different aspects – the source, place, activity and people – which provides a broader understanding of what information, if any, is retained accurately. Though from the study it showed that each factor didn't have too large of an impact, and that flashbulb memory is not as accurate as first thought.Another strength of the study is that unlike in the first study, for this one the exact same questionnaire was used at both different time periods, so that it is a lot easier to compare insistence, rather than having different questions which potentially could be interpreted incorrectly. Alongside the strengths of the study, there are also weaknesses, one of which being that it does not look at lengthier time periods after the event happened, and it only looks at 2, unlike the other study which looked at 3.This could throw out the overall results of the study, however it still provides a general idea. Another weakness in the study is that Just like the first study, it does not take into account peoples health problems, or even age, which has a chance of providing incorrec t data. However, looking at the strengths of the study, they outweigh the weaknesses in the sense that they show that flashbulb memories do not provide accurate details of past events reliably.In conclusion, the human memory, is not reliably accurate in providing details of past events. This was shown specifically after analyzing different Journal articles that look at flashbulb memories. In conclusion to the Journal article that tested flashbulb memory against the 9/1 1 attacks, it was concluded that the strong emotional reactions drawn out by flashbulb events are remember poorly, and that the content f flashbulb and event memories stabilizes after a year.In the following study that was conducted after the nuclear accident that occurred in Japan in 1999 was analyses, it was concluded that the idea that flashbulb memories are formed through rehearsal, rather than at encoding. After analyzing the following articles, it has been concluded that flash bulb memory is not and has not been reliable for recollecting events accurately. For future research for each of the studies, the surveys should be consistent over the time period so that accurate information is collected.Also, health ND age should be taken into account to reduce risk for incorrect data.

Why the Department of Homeland Security Was Created

The Department of Homeland Security is the primary agency in the U.S. government whose mission is to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. Homeland Security is a Cabinet-level department  that has its  origins in the nations response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when members of terrorist network al-Qaeda hijacked four American commercial airliners and intentionally crashed them into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania. Unified, Effective Response President George W. Bush  initially created Homeland Security as an office inside the White House  10 days after the terrorist attacks. Bush announced the creation of the office and his choice to lead it, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, on Sept. 21, 2001. Bush said of Ridge: He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come. Ridge reported directly to the president and was assigned the task of coordinating the 180,000 employees working in the nations  intelligence, defense and law  enforcement agencies to protect the homeland. Ridge described the daunting role of his agency in a 2004 interview with reporters: We have to be right a billion-plus times a year, meaning we have to make literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of decisions every year, or every day, and the terrorists only have to be right once. One lawmaker, citing the biblical story of Noah, described Ridges  monumental task as trying to build an ark after the rain has already started falling. Creation of Department Bushs creation of the White House office also marked the beginning of a debate in Congress to establish a Department of Homeland Security in the broader federal government. Bush initially resisted the idea of moving such an important responsibility into the Byzantine bureaucracy but signed onto the idea in 2002. Congress approved the creation of The Department of Homeland Security in November 2002, and Bush signed the legislation into law that same month. He also nominated Ridge to be the first-ever secretary of the department. The Senate confirmed Ridge in January 2003. 22 Agencies Absorbed Bushs intention in creating the Department of Homeland Security was to bring under one roof most  of the federal governments law-enforcement, immigration, and anti-terror-related agencies. The president moved 22 federal departments and agencies under Homeland Security, as one official told The Washington Post, so we are not doing things in stovepipes but doing it as a department. The move was portrayed at the time as the largest reorganization of the federal governments responsibilities since World War II. The 22 federal departments and agencies absorbed by  Homeland Security are: Transportation Security AdministrationCoast Guard  Federal  Emergency Management Agency  Secret Service  Customs and Border ProtectionImmigration and Customs EnforcementCitizenship and Immigration ServicesCritical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of CommerceNational Communications System of the Federal Bureau of InvestigationNational Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis CenterEnergy Assurance Office of the Department of Energy  Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services AdministrationFederal Protective Service  Office of Domestic PreparednessFederal Law Enforcement Training Center  Integrated Hazard Information System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Domestic Preparedness Office of the FBIDomestic Emergency Support Team of the Department of JusticeMetropolitan Medical Response System of the Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Disaster Medical System of the Department of Health and Human ServicesOffice of Emergency Preparedness and the Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human ServicesPlum Island Animal Disease Center of Department of Agriculture Evolving Role Since 2001 The Department of Homeland Security has been called on numerous times to handle catastrophes other than those caused by terrorism. They include cyber crimes, border security and immigration, and human trafficking and natural disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The department also plans security for major public events including the Super Bowl and the presidents State of the Union Address. Controversies  and Criticism The Department of Homeland Security came under scrutiny almost from the moment it was created. It has endured stinging criticism from lawmakers, terrorism experts and the public for issuing vague and confusing alerts over the years.   Terror alerts: Its color-coded alert system, developed under Ridge, was widely ridiculed and criticized for not being more specific about how the public should respond to elevated threats. The system used five colors—green, blue, yellow, orange, and red—to inform the public in real-time about the threat of terrorism.Appearing on  The Tonight Show  with Jay Leno in November 2002, Ridge was pressed by the comedian:  Im sitting at home in my underpants watching the game and, boop, were in yellow. What do I do now?  Ridges response: Change shorts. Nonetheless, the color-coded alerts were a source of frustration among Americans who were being told  to be on alert but werent sure about what to look for.Duct tape: So, too, was the departments 2003 directive that Americans stock up on  duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal the windows and doors of their home in the event of a terrorist attack.Harold Schaitberger, general president of the  International Associatio n of Fire Fighters, told the  Chicago Tribune: Most of the suggestions, I dont believe, are effective at all in really helping to protect anyone from many of these biological and chemical threats.  I mean, duct tape and plastic? Wheres the good air coming from? Hows it going to be recirculated? Beyond the fact that we already know, for nerve gas and other elements, the plastic is totally ineffective.Quipped Leno: This means the only people who are going to survive an attack are serial killers. Who else has duct tape and plastic sheeting in their car?Going global: Homeland Security has also caused friction between the United States and some European countries for deploying about 2,000 special agents and immigration workers to more than 70 countries, as The New York Times reported in late 2017. The United States under President Donald Trump was accused of trying to export its immigration laws, the newspaper reported.Hurricane Katrina: Homeland Security came under the most intense fire, however, for its response to and handling of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the costliest natural disaster in American history. The agency was hammered for not developing a national response plan until two days after the storm hit.If our government failed so utterly in preparing for, and responding to, a disaster that had been long predicted and was imminent for days, we must wonder how much more profound the failure would be if a disaster were to take us by complete surprise, said Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who called Homeland Securitys response  alarming and unacceptable.   Department History Here is a timeline of key moments in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security: Sept. 11, 2001: Members of the terrorist network al-Qaeda, acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden, orchestrate a series of attacks on the United States after hijacking four airplanes. The attacks kill nearly 3,000 people.Sept. 22, 2001: President George W. Bush creates the Office of Homeland Security in the White House, and chooses then-Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to lead it.  Nov. 25, 2002: Bush signs the Congress-passed bill creating the Department of Homeland Security in the federal government. We are taking historic action to defend the United States and protect our citizens against the dangers of a new era, Bush says at the ceremony. He nominates Ridge to be secretary.Jan. 22, 2003:  The U.S. Senate, in a  unanimous, 94-0 vote, confirms Ridge as the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Bush issues a prepared statement afterward reading With todays historic vote, the Senate has demonstrated our shared commitment to doing everything we can to secure our homeland. The department initially has about 170,000 employees.Nov. 30, 2004: Ridge announces he plans to step down as secretary of Homeland Security, citing personal reasons. I just want to step back and pay a little more attention to personal matters,  he tells reporters. Ridge serves in the position through Feb. 1, 2005.Feb. 15, 2005: Michael Chertoff, a federal appeals court judge and former assistant U.S. attorney general credited with helping investigators link the terrorist attacks to al-Qaeda, takes over as the second Homeland Security secretary under Bush. He departs at the end of Bushs second term.Jan. 20, 2009: Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona, is tapped by incoming President Barack Obama to serve as Homeland Security secretary in his administration. She resigns in July 2013 to become the head of the University of California system after becoming embroiled in the debate over immigration; she is accused both of being too harsh in deporting those living in t he United States illegally and not acting forcefully enough to secure the nations borders.Dec. 23, 2013: Jeh Johnson, a former general counsel to the Pentagon and the Air Force, takes over as the fourth Homeland Security secretary. He serves through the remainder of Obamas tenure in the White House.Jan. 20, 2017: John F. Kelly, a retired Marine general,  and incoming President Donald Trumps pick, becomes the fifth Homeland Security secretary. He serves in the position through July 2017 until becoming chief of staff to Trump.Dec. 5, 2017: Kirstjen Nielsen, a  cybersecurity expert  who worked in the Bush administration and as a deputy to Kelly, is confirmed as Homeland Security secretary to replace her former boss. The department has grown to 240,000 employees, according to published reports. Nielsen comes under fire for enforcing Trumps policy of separating children and parents who had crossed the U.S.-Mexican border illegally. She resigns in April 2019 amid clashes with Trump that she was not being tough enough on immigration.April 8, 2019: Trump names Kevin McAleenan acting Homeland Security secretary following Nielsens resignation. As commissioner of  U.S. Customs and Border Protection,  McAleenan supported Trumps tough stance on the southern border. McAleenan was never elevated above the status of acting secretary and turns in his resignation in October 2019.