Slashdot Mirror
Survey Says 63% of Americans Like MS the Way It Is
Sami writes "Americans for Technology Leadership (ATL) has released the results of their Nationwide Technology Survey (in PDF). It seems that the majority of Americans (63%) think that breaking up Microsoft would be a mistake. Guess who is one of the Founding Members of ATL."
The average person probably isn't bothered about whether or not microsoft has a monopoly. Not at the moment anyway, and they probably believe that Microsoft is responsible for the technology they use, and a great innovater. It's amazing what the marketing dollar can achieve.
Microsoft is all over the place. That doesn't mean they might have manipulated the data from this survey (ok, so they have a history of doing so ;).
I think the results stem from the fact that many people don't see how a break-up would be a good thing. MS would still be MS if broken in a couple of pieces. People just want an OS and software that doesn't require them to learn that scary computer stuff.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
It's time for some of us to wake up and realize that the rest of the world does not always think the same way the Slashdot community does.
If the results had come from a Linux company and indicated that 75% of Americans wanted Microsoft to be broken up into Baby Bills, would anyone be spouting claims of bias?
Powers&8^]
As soon as I mentioned this article to a friend he likened it to the abused wife syndrom.
People don't like what microsoft is doing, but they're afraid of what will happen if they try to leave...
The only thing this survey proves is that 63% of Americans can barely use Windows, and the only computer brand names they know about are Microsoft and Gateway.
Wrapping up a purported leadership strategy based on what the lowest common denominator managed to say yes or no to is pretty flawed.
Apparently Microsoft likes themselves just the way they are.
The survey is interesting, but the questions don't apply. I mean, "Microsoft's freedom to innovate"? They have that freedom, I'm just waiting for them to *use* it.
Also, half of America isn't really following the MS Trial. I'd be more interested in the opinions of the half that is... (Slashdot?)
Of course, the Republicans are favoring the big business, and the Democrats tend not to, with the Independents in the middle. But what else is new, eh?
Also, the implication that the DOJ would end up *increasing* the prices of Microsoft software is ludicrous. Microsoft does a fine job all by themselves, they aren't going to get any help in that department.
The argument for strong competitors was biased, considering they didn't state the argument *against* strong competitors: Microsoft currently owns the x86 operating system business. Those are the facts, look up the percentages. This might be starting to change, but it hasn't changed enough yet. Basically, Microsoft doesn't have enough competition where it counts, and it's not because their products are technically superior, either.
...and I guarantee you, 63% of Americans also don't know how to use those darn PDF thingies...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Perhaps the results are what they are because people have an innate fear of the unknown. Whatever it is, Micrrosofft does have the dominant OS, and many people are satisfied with it. Personally I dislike Microsoft, but I can see what people are thinking: it's not all that stable, but I can get what I need done.
Since this has worked for them in the past, and they _don't_know_ what would happen if M$ was broken up, they probably feel that breaking the company up is a little like trying to fix something that isn't broken. At least that's how I think I would feel if I were the average Windows user.
More interestingly, of these 63% who are against Microsoft being broken up, approximately 5% say they are following the trial very closely. So the other 95% are either not following it or "somewhat closely" (the lack of options would seem to put anyone who has heard of the trial into "somewhat closely". Seems an awful lot of people said they were against the break up without understanding what they were being asked.
I think the results stem from the fact that many people don't see how a break-up would be a good thing.
:) ), less than half the audience knew that "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" was Microsoft's slogan. (Given the choice of IBM, Dell, Compaq or Microsoft.) (The contestant had to burn his "ask the audience" lifeline on this seemingly easy question)
I don't think that most consumers are quite that saavy. In fact, on last night's "Who Wants to Be A Derrier...err...Millionaire?" (hey, I leave the TV on for noise while I code
Nay, I think that consumers just either don't know enough about it or they just don't care.
My journal has hot
A large portion of the /. population is, while often educated and knowledgeable, extremely narrowminded and biased.
Well, there's massaging the data and massaging the questions. Not that MS would have been able to get "Do you think the government should impose extreme penalties to break Microsoft's "supposed" monopoly?" on the quiz, but no doubt they could slant the questions so as to make people view the proposed governmental action in a negative light. Add to that the fact that 90% of people don't really know or care about "scary computer stuff," and you get that people aren't likely, on the whole, to want to break MS up. Add to that that many people own stock (or know and care for someone who owns stock) in MS and thus have self-interested reasons not to want to see MS broken up (not, of course, that a breakup of MS entails their stock would devalue, but as long as they believe it's likely, they'll have the motivation).
Moreover: since when do we take polls on technical questions anyhow? ("63% of people say the sun is five million miles from earth") The degree of harm caused by MS is a matter to be decided by looking at evidence most people (including, I bet, you and me) don't really know that much about. So the poll results don't seem all that meaningful anyhow.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
In other news, MPAA is helping consumers by preventing copyright violations, SDMI is useful for consumer and music artists alike, and rich corporations are found to be the least arrogant of all commercial entities.
Yeah, and next we'll see cloned bulls from cloned bulls. Sure.
A scare campaign is the easiest campaign on earth to run- especially about things most people don't understand - computers, economics & law.
If that is the best MS can do they really need to worry.
Go grab the PDF file, and read for yourself how loaded these questions are. Here's a quick sample:
<RANT> Most regulations are not designed to specifically slow down technical innovation. How do we know a priori that a given regulation will slow down innovation? Sure, a regulation could be designed to do that specifically, but in most cases, regulations are meant to stimulate and guide industry, while curtailing harmful practices that hurt everyone in the long run. This question begs the person being asked to oppose this particular form of regulation (regulate to slow down innovation), and then tacitly extends the answer to cover all possible forms of regulation.</RANT>
*sigh*
Alot of the questions are of this form. Go read it.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
The site is inflamatory to say the least. After looking at the list of questions, it appears to my paranoid mind that the whole thing was meant to subtley fan the fears of 'guvment meddlin' in our affairs. As a consequence, all 1124 respondents were played like a fine violin, and so will a lot more people who read this 'report'. Unfortunately, the questions don't touch on the real issues, which are the brutal methods that Microsoft used to attain market dominance and thus get itself into this pickle in the first place. But them that controls the questions control the outcome to their own ends, not to the ends of truth.
def. Monopoly - A market that exists with only one vendor and barriers such that no other vendors may enter. Other companies have NO PROBLEM entering the market. Microsoft is the PREDOMINANT software vendor - not a monopolist. They are here for a reason, although not for long (break up or not, MS is going down). The only other company that could hang in the consumer market right now is Apple and they screw their customers all the time. With all the stock market madness right now, Linux is just beginning to see the kind of financial backing that it needs to replace Windows. Give it two years - Linux will replace Windows (and all their other MS apps - unless the giant bows and starts to support the free OS). The taste will be much sweeter if Microsoft is left as a whole.
More
Question 1: STATEMENT: Increased government regulation and litigation of the Technology industry will lead to consumers paying higher prices.
Loaded question number one. Litigation => lawyers. Higher costs are inevitable in this scenario, and not surprisingly, over half the respondents thought this was the case. Had they bothered to separate regulation from litigation it's not so clear what the answer would be.
Question 2: Do you think increased government regulation, including the regulation of software design, will have a negative or positive effect on the high tech industry and companies, like Microsoft, to innovate and bring new products to consumers?
This is another interesting slant. Regulation of software design? Wow. Just load those questions with negative impact - the idea of regulating software 'design' would have the whole of Slashdot up in arms faster than a DVD case. Funnily enough, over half the respondants felt this was a bad thing too.
Question 3: The U.S. Justice Department is currently suing Microsoft. How closely are you following the trial - very closely, somewhat closely, or not closely at all?
Now this is an interesting question. And the answer is very revealing - only 5% of the respondants were paying close attention to the trial. So this survey, even given it's headline claim of 63% Americans thought that breaking up MS was a bad thing, actually managed to pick a group of people who were split between having occassionally heard of the MS vs DOJ case and those who haven't followed the case at all.
I could go on. Most of the questions are too loaded to be worth discussing. If you are planning on spending money on a real survey, just remember that you must not lead the interviewee by loading up your questions one way. I would also suggest asking questions in random order. Once you find someone leaning one way at the start of a questionnaire, people tend to follow that path. So, had the questionnaire started with:
Question: If there were more alternatives to the Microsoft Windows platform available to you at lower cost, would you be interested?
... and ...
Question: If the MS vs DOJ trial results in Microsoft being broken up and you end up having a wider choice of quality software for your computer as a result of the increased competition in the software market, would you be interested?
... the results might just have been different :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
It wouldn't surprise me if something like that could form between a company and it's customers, under the sorts of conditions Microsoft has developed.
Certainly, the kinds of responses that are being reported by people shifting away from Microsoft (eg: SGI, IBM and the NSA) are far more dramatic and sudden than you would expect from just changing one program on a machine holding thousands. But it's -exactly- the sort of response you could expect from people who have experienced traumatic bonding.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Clearly, this was scientifically designed to get the desired answer. It's well known that things like word choices, associating things that don't necessarily go together, using hot-button words, and question order will skew the results of the following questions.
What's the very first question that they ask?
STATEMENT: Increased government regulation and litigation of the
Technology industry will lead to consumers paying higher prices.
Right off the bat, they are trying to color the results of the rest of the survey. They are trying to get the respondent in the mindset of thingking about frivolous lawsuits and intrusive regulation. Furthermore, everyone knows its more sophisticated to be a cynic, so they crafted the question to take advantage of that.
What if we crafted the question so the cynical position was on the other side of the fence? What if they asked this, more or less equivalent question:
STATEMENT: If the government reduces its efforts to stop abuse of monopoly power in the technology industry, then the technology industry will pass its savings on to consumers.
Really, these two questions are asking pretty much the same thing, but putting a different light on the question.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Surprise surprise. A newsbit is released where someone doesn't bash Microsoft, and they're automaticly labeled by Slashdot as sellouts and fakers.
Of course if they released a survey making Linux look "leet" then they would be praised for singing the holy truth.
Please, give me a break, get a clue. Not everyone sees the world black and white like you. If you wish to report news, at least make an attempt to do so in a mildly unbiased manner. Post an article, write a summary about it, but don't include idiotic comments to herd readers into one particular direction.
Unless of course you believe Slashdot readers are incapable of forming their own opinion.
Open source. Closed minds. We are Slashdot.
I'm don't understand how you turned 1124 registered voters into 1124 registered employees of MSFT but I do understand that such senseless zealotry is probably not healthy. If I ever started hallucinating and seeing the word Microsoft in every pro-MSFT article I read I'd go see a doctor before the talking penguins come and get me.
That said why is anybody on slashdot surprised? American voters are the same people who voted in a suspected criminal (whitewater) , known philanderer and liar into a second term of presidency. American voters gave Clinton the highest approval rating in 6 years when it turned out he had been lying about a sexual indiscretion as well as obstructing justice to prevent the disclosure of said indiscretion. This is the same group of people that surveys have shown [a significant portion i.e. over 25%] have difficulty understanding the entire contents of the average newspaper (even though newspapers are written at a 6th grade level) and cannot properly fill out a job application due to lack of understanding. This group of people are the ones who have come to take it for granted that computers crash, consider linux users as geeks and freaks with a major case of sour grapes and believe BillG is the reason they are on the Internet (after all without MSFT there would be no Windows(tm) or Internet Explorer(tm) and everyone one knows you need them to get on the web).
My suggestion to slashdot readers is to calm down and realize that the average citizen actually believes ads, marketing and spin thus just because you are informed or intelligent enough to seperate the fact from the BS does not mean everyone else can or does.
67% of Americans like MS as it is.
/. is probably the top-most technically savvy 1%-10% of the online community. We see these issues from a different perspective than most 'computer users', and certainly different than most Americans.
More than that do not understand technology any farther than they can throw a 21" monitor. It intimidates them, and makes their couch-potato heads hurt. So if a single company were to keep them safe from all dem goddanged teknikal details then that would be just honkey-dorey..
You'd probably get similar numbers if you asked if MS and AOL should merge.
We have to remember that the readership on
67% of Americans like MS as it is. Jerry Springer is the most popular day-time talk show. Coincidence? I think not!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
note 2 I'll try to be impartial here (wrt the survey))
Here is the survey:
"Regulation" and "ligitation" will most likely be percieved as bad things just as "Higher prices" It is very likely that the respondant will link the two Government regulation of software design is not exacly what the monopoly case is about is it? I'll just note this for now. Tricky one. But the two are *not* mutually exclusive. I benefit from Windows, even though I might be hurt by MS business practices. This is a valid question. Keep in mind, though that 44% said that they did not follow the case at all Duh! Mesa want chepa missosoft thingyThat question is bogus. Ditto How many slashdotters would want government code in windows? Again, Who wants more bureaucracy? Why did they not mention GM as well?
To summarize: That survey said *nothing*
Also they fail to say wether knowledge of the case had any impact. And just calling registered voters creates a bias too (even if that probably does not matter here).
I actually *tried* not to be partial here, but that was one of the most crappy surveys I'vs seen (and i've seen some)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Well, in a democracy, the laws should me made by the people. If the people decide that a law is wrong then it should be repealed.
Fine. Was that a question on the survey? I believe the only questions regarding regulation were whether people think there should be more regulation by the government, not whether the existing laws are wrong. Furthermore, the antitrust laws came from somewhere. True they didn't come directly from the people, but at least to the same extent as most other laws in a representative democracy.
But, once the laws have been passed the popularity of one defendant being tried under those laws is irrelevant. This is especially true when the defendant is helping to gather the information on his popularity.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Well, if anybody checks, if you go to their home page, the "about us" they are FUNDED by Microsoft and CompUSA. They were the last folks on the microphone on C-SPAN when Jackson issued his dissent (sic) decree. Mostly a bunch of irreverent jerks. That's JMHO...
The average person will believe on faith any statement attributed to a scientist, a recent study showed.
Scientists reported that 93% of those surveyed believed all statements prefaced with "Scientists say", "Studies show", "Other findings include", or "According to recent research". According to this research, even when very few details of the study are given, and no controls are mentioned, 43% of respondents believe any random statistic given.
Among their other findings, these scientists have concluded that the gullibility effect is increased if unrelated vague future applications are presented. "A direct quote from someone involved in the project also has a measurable impact" said Dr. J. J. Charfman, leader of this effort. Dr. Charfman further added that a note of dissent from a random other party with no obvious qualifications actually increased the gullibility effect, contrary to expectations.
However, not all agree with Dr. Charfman's findings. "This research drastically overestimates the number of people who can read, and therefore the number of people who will be affected by reading articles of the type mentioned" pointed out Dr. C. Rackpot.
Dr. Charfman and his group believe that therapy based on their research could one day lead to a cure for cancer.
{From SegFault archives}
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I took this poll. I posted about it on /. at the time, but noone believed me, and claimed I was spreading FUD.. That's okay, I probably would have said the same thing.
Anyway, someone called me at my house and asked these exact questions (plus a lot more). But what strikes me as odd is that these results claim to have been taken on January 20-23, 2000. When someone running a survey asking me these exact same questions, it was well before that. Still in 1999, as a matter of fact.
So, I'm forced to wonder. Did they just do enough surveys until they got the results they wanted? I'm not entirely sure the same people called me as conducted this survey, but the questions are _exactly_ the same.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Well, how about the barriers against entry which Microsoft created? MS used secret OS calls in its own spreadsheet, creating barriers for other spreadsheets. MS altered MS-Windows to complain about DR-DOS, creating a barrier against using DR-DOS. MS repeatedly alters file formats, creating barriers for compatible applications (even barriers for past customers, forcing them to update and buy new versions).
Who think they know everything often find their way here, too... in fact, they are the very ones who moderate based on unfounded opinions on stories they know nothing about. (-2; Offtopic Flamebait).
But really, the 5% who think they know what they are doing are just as likely to be the ones who don't turn on the printer...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Well, in a democracy, the laws should me made by the people. If the people decide that a law is wrong then it should be repealed.
Then it's a good thing we don't live in a democracy :) . Seriously, the United States is not a democracy, has never been a democracy, and was never intented to be a democracy. We are a Republic, and the people who claim otherwise have listened to too much of Ross Perot's "direct electronic referenda" rhetoric.
The founders of this country were well aware of the problems attendant with democracy as a form of government, they were classically educated and had all read their Plutarch (democracy will invariably degenerate to mob rule). Consequently, they adopted a system based on elected representation, where the people, who in the course of their daily lives as farmers or bankers or whatever could not be troubled to know enough to make intelligent decisions about every issue confronting the country, would instead elect representatives, whose jobs it would be to make the intelligent and informed decisions. We can lament about how the republic has degenerated in its own way, but the reality is that the current system, with all its faults, is still the best there is -- we can work to improve it, but the last thing we need (for example) is a system whereby people vote to prevent the government from breaking up Microsoft because they like the fact that a 4-year-old can use Excel competently. In fact, if you read the Constitution, Article 4 Section 4 states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," indicating that the founders' commitment against democracy extended beyond just the Federal government, down into the states as well.
The fact is, the public doesn't generally think things through very well, study issues, and understand the ramifications of its decisions. If you were to conduct a poll, I'm quite sure that most people would oppose milk price supports; what they don't realize is that without those supports, most dairy farmers would go out of business, the industry would be controlled by a handful of mega-producers, and they'd be paying twice as much for milk as they do otherwise. Unpopular government exercises generally do serve a purpose, and in many instances it involves getting the government we need rather than the government we say we want.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Okay, this is going to come out sounding like elitist flamebait, but I don't care. I'm sick and tired of people posing loaded questions to other people who don't have the necessary intellectual capital to be able to meaningfully answer the questions in the first place.
I remember reading somewhere that 30 or 40-some percent of Americans believe that the entire universe was poofed into existence by an omnipotent diety no more than 10,000 years ago in pretty much its current state (never minding things like dinosaurs, distant galaxies, etc.) I think that we should keep this in mind before attempting to assign any meaning to the results of this survey (or indeed, any other survey.) Surveying "average Americans" about technology is like surveying kindergarteners to find out where the best grad schools are at.
You may now moderate me into the ground.
That's the same way many political polls are run. I remember answering the phone one afternoon and getting polled about NAFTA. One of the 20+ questions was like "Do you think that opening the borders to Mexico will increase unemployment or decrease employment?" O.k. maybe I can't remember the exact questions, but all of them were long and leading. Remember 42% of statistics are made up on the spot (or biased so much in their gathering as to mean nothing, which amounts to the same thing)
+&x
The responses to the question, "The U.S. Justice Department is currently suing Microsoft. How closely are you following the trial - very closely, somewhat closely, or not closely at all?" went as follows:
5% said that they were following it closely.
51% said they were somewhat following it.
44% said that they didn't follow it at all.
Ok, if you're not following it or only partly following it, how do you know if a breakup is too extreme a punishment? If the populace is ignorant of the details, why should saying that 65% of them are against the breakup have any relavence whatsoever?
And the breakdowns on the answers- why the breakdowns by pollitical party affiliation?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
They are not just founding memebers of the ATL but also the Assocation for Competitive Technology, a founding group of the ATL! Double Dipping! Also it's supported by the Clarity Group whcih if you look at their web site is enamored wiht Microsoft. Some of these groups have an obvious vested interest in keep Microsoft together, how can we believe this poll then? I wonder why there hasn't been a truly impartial poll, one with no finacial support to groups doing the poll, about whether Microsoft should break up. Perhaps the answer would be unsavory?
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
Survey says 63% of Americans are Dumb as a Sack of Hammers.
Seriously folks, with the stats on things like highschool graduation, college acceptance, etc, do you really care what 63% of americans think?
Do you ever wonder why this is a Republic and not a direct democracy? I believe the words were "Your people, sir, are a great beast"
Heck, I'm almost willing to help fund a survey to call thousands of lonely housewives and ask them if, in their opinion, should the American People have to pay to bail us out of our national debt, or should the US Government have to pay for it?
On a more relivant note, does anybody have access to historical data re: the AT&T breakup? Did they pull any stunts like this?
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
As Mr. Z's comment points out, the survey questions were of the unfair "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" variety.
Back in the spring of 1998 Microsoft attempted to orchestrate a "Grassroots" movement, in which they staged a phony letter writing campaign to the press. Here's a little article about the incident, from the Detroit News, "Microsoft may try to orchestrate grassroots support":
"...The Los Angeles Times, in an article Friday, disclosed plans for a media strategy that includes opinion pieces and letters to the editor that appear to be local testimonials but are written by Microsoft's publicity machine..."
"...The documents reported by the Los Angeles Times, some labeled as draft copies and carrying [MS Spokesman] Shaw's name, stated that the media blitz was "geared to generating leverageable tools for the company's state-based lobbyists" and positive press clippings that "state political consultants can use to bolster the case..."
I'll bet this latest survey will be used as part of their "Freedom to Innovate" program. Here's a little quote from that page:
"...Contact Your Elected Officials Think your public officials need to hear from real consumers about Microsoft and the industry? Send them an e-message..."
"...We formed the Freedom to Innovate Network (FIN) as a response to the overwhelming amount of correspondence we received from around the U.S. and overseas regarding the trial with the Department of Justice and other public policy issues. The FIN is a non-partisan, grassroots network of citizens and businesses who have a stake in the success of Microsoft and the high-tech industry..."
So let's all do as they suggest, and "Contact Your Elected Officials" and let them "hear from real consumers about Microsoft and the industry." And then let's see just exactly what our congressmen think of MS's tactics.
What was it that Benjamin Disraeli (already then!) used to complain about? Oh yes:
--
``Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même chose.''
Of course, the classic loaded question is:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
( ) Yes
( ) No
Some people say Microsoft has strong competition - AOL/TW, IBM, Sony, Sun & Apple ---- could be reworded to read "If you wanted to buy an open hardware system such as an IBM compatible PC, do you feel you have a choice of operating system software to run on it?"
( ) yes
( ) no
( ) oh, I just use whatever the 'experts' tell me to!
No alter ego today
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Actually the US is based on common law, which means in a sense that the judges get to make it up as they go along depending on the current thinking in legal circles and the current sentiment of the american public. Thus, the current wishy-washy state of things like abortion law or death penalty law.
We don't have slavery, Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement because a strong willed minority in our government imposed their ethics on an unruly mob; we have these things because the unruly mob by and large wanted them, dispite a vocal minority. And we only have gotten these things recently--while the american Civil War settled the notion of slavery by turning it into a succession question, these other things have only been around with any meaning since the 60's, dispite the efforts of a few for at least a hundred and fifty years.
Public opinion matters when new law is settled on; that's why public opinion is asked for in this case. And in the case of Microsoft, this is one of those rare occassions where we are charting untested waters. (This will be the first time a non-government sanctioned technology monopoly will be dismantled.) So the judges want to know what informed people think.
... if the questions are as loaded as that. It means that at least 37% of the people polled have a strong enough negative opinion to answer "no" in spite of the large bias of the question. That means that with a bit of two-sided reporting, there's probably a big majority in *favour* of MS being split up.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
... except that Microsoft still hasn't learned the art of being subtle in playing politics--probably because they have such contept for anyone outside the Redmond campus.
I get these sorts of surveys all the time. They're used to manipulate politicians--or at least the stupid ones, as any politician with the IQ of a house plant knows these sorts of surveys are always loaded.
But typical questions on the surveys I get are things like "should Americans keep their God given right to bare arms as was granted to us by our Founding Fathers, or should the government take their cue from athiest God-hating communist countries and take our rights away." (Gun Control) Or "should Women have control over their reproductive selves or should government be able to inprison women for attempting to control their fate in light of an unwanted pregnancy?" (Abortion).
These sorts of questionares are always loaded, and it's not a supprise that Microsoft is trying to play the same game. Too bad they're too arrogant to play it well.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if this survey were totally fair and the results were as accurate as the best surverys are (I know it's neither, but hear me out here). That's part of the biggest problem, not necessarily with M$, but with computing in general today: people don't know what's going on.
MS has always been good at hiding the things they're really doing. You'd be surprised at just how few people really understand the issue (most Slashdotters do, I realize, but we're a comparatively tiny minority). The DOJ trials have helped raise awareness (I know several people who thought before the trial that I was just taking things a bit too far when I tried to explain about M$, but now they're quite firmly on our side). But they're not enough, what with Microsoft (who's in this for personal gain) and many Objectivists (most of whom don't yet seem to realize that the things M$ has done actually go against their philosophy, not in agreement with it) spreading FUD.
In the end, the only real way to fight M$ will be education (it's odd, just how many things can only be fought by that). That's also where the problem comes in; convicing people that Microsoft really isn't everything it claims to be is not an easy task. But I'd say it has to be done. It's hard to believe that a company that's only ever produced one decent program (Excel) and one decent hardware innovation (the mouse wheel, if that was even their idea to start with; I don't know) has risen to power. But if you don't know just how bad their software really is, or where the rest of their so-called "innovations" really came from, then it becomed easier, and that's what needs to change.
See, you obviously missed it, the guy was trying to be funny, did you not note the comment about the x-rays zapping your feet.
No accually it was right when the sputnik went up, that the American school system started teaching kids about how to "duck and cover" when they saw the flash. Yep, we sure need those times again, like we need a hole in our head.
Not only is M$ a founding member of ATL itself, but they're behind some of the other ATL members too, e.g., ACT. They're heavily involved in others, e.g., Clarity.
There's more (but I don't think I can stomach any more right-wing conservative propaganda. Yikes.
-- This
The only Republic like facility we still share is the famed electoral college which also does not operate as intended.
I disagree. Your arguments about direct election of Senators are a good indication that the United States has ceased to become as Federal as it once was, but don't bear on the fact that it's a republic and not a democracy. It doesn't matter that the extra tier was removed between the people and their elected senators (that tier being the state legislatures which used to designate senators), the senators are still delegated representatives whose responsibility is to make decisions on behalf of the public; that is, by its very nature, a republic. Nor does it matter how taxes are collected, or whether they are collected from the people are the states. You've effectively confused federalism with republicanism....
Like I said in my earlier post, the only people who are seriously discussing democracy in the US are the Perot groupies with their rhetoric about "direct electronic referenda". Just because we've effectively eliminated through constitutional amendement an extra layer between the people and some of their representatives does not mean we've fallen down the slippery slope into democracy. If you want to be particular about areas where we have, there are a number of conservatives I know who have real issues with the "Oregon System" (statewide ballot initiatives) adopted by a number of states, because it (1) does trample down that slippery slope and (2) appears to be unconstitutional under Article 4 Section 4 that I discussed previously.
Not that I disagree with you entirely in philosophy, however: the break from federalism that we have made has had fairly substantial consequences, many of which are negative. Like you said, the ability of the federal calf to wean itself off the tax teat of the states with the income tax has resulted in a far-less-restrained federal government than was originally envisioned. On the other hand, the relative drop in importance of the states has helped forge more of a national identity in the last several years, where people consider themselves "Americans" more than "Nutmeggers" or "Hoosiers," and that is in-and-of-itself arguably an improvement; I myself have lived in five different states during the last five years, migrating as my needs progressed, something I'm quite sure would have been unthinkable had I perceived myself as a fiercely committed and patriotic "Idahoan."
In fact, it is arguable that we are, by creating communities in the virtual realm that are forged out of common interest rather than common geography, effectively rendering irrelevant governments themselves which are predicated on common geography. Do I, for example, have more in common, in terms of political interests, with the people who live three miles away on the other side of my current town, or with the people three thousand miles away on the other coast who practice the same profession I do and have remarkably similar social and economic interests? In my case, it is quite clearly the latter, yet my voice is heavily diluted by having the intermediary layers of our republic divided along geographic boundaries. Will states ever be completely obsolete? No, somebody has to collect the garbage and franchise electric utilities. But in twenty-first century America, has their relative importance diminished? Certainly, and that is not altogether inappropriate, for the reason I described above.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
You're forgetting to comment on the certain style that the questions are presented in:
"Some say that Bill Gates is a pedophile, that he routinely eats spotted owls for breakfast, that he doubleparks on busy streets, that he doesn't give generous tips, that he keeps all his money in a so-called 'money bin' and swims through it like Scrooge MacDuck, that he doesn't call his mother, that he keeps his children in the basement for medical experiments, and that he advocates the violent overthrow of the American government in favor of a New International World Order where he, as fuhrer, reigns over the newly enslaved American populace. Others say he doesn't do those things. What do you think?"
You really can't get much more leading than some of the questions here. People who don't know any better usually choose the side with more words and more clauses. It's human-nature == stupidity.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
It is simple my friend.
slashdot.org is a Linux news site, and so linux oriented news is the major thing reported here. Of course, it would be nice if the nuevo-wealthy maintainers of this site would practice some unbiassed journalism. By that I mean not focusing on anti-MS news and ignoring anything about Linux that is slightly negative.
And before trolls start with the "Slashdot isn't all about Linux", I suggest you read some of the press releases by andover.net and va linux as well as some of the details regarding slashdot.org in the andover SEC filings.
No one seems to realize that the money people spend on things isn't infinite. If someone pirates win2k because microsofts *decent* OS's cost an arm and a leg, who's to say that person won't take that 300 bucks and buy a Dreamcast with it? And most of all, if that person COULDN'T pirate win2k because of some uber leet encryption method, who says he/she wouldn't just give up and run linux? Slightyly off topic I know, but kind of relevant I guess... I just had to get it of my chest.
---
Oh, that's good! Give yourself a cookie for that one.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
This doesn't surprise me, and not because I'm cynical about the U.S. population or MS propaganda.
.
But there is a 'problem' with human intuition. People can only see what is, and they rarely consider what could be. People tend not to think economically, the think like accountants; they fail to consider opportunity costs.
Consider the claim that war is good for business. This is probably true if your business is munitions or reconstruction or if it relies on slave labor. But what really happens is that resources are reallocated to compensate for losses. This reallocation appears like a great boon to the economy as a whole because people do no think of for what those resources could have been used if there had not been a war.
That example isn't really analagous to MS, but the principle is the same. People see that MS has made life better in some way. They do not see how much better it could have been otherwise. If the only historical fact that you change is the existence of MS without considering the effects of that absence, we are better of with MS than without it.
So these results are probably true - i.e., people really believe what is reported. (I've had people ask me, knowing that I dislike MS, why MS is being persecuted for doing a good thing.) Are they right? That's another issue.
Microsoft has been a good thing in some ways. They've also been a bad thing in some ways. On the level of accounting, I think MS has been good (as I indicated above). I suspect that a consideration of economic costs puts society in the red, but I really can't be certain because I simply don't know enough.
Ever notice . .
Microsoft and its allies assume everyone is stupid.
I agree that a motivator is necessary. The previous poster was thinking too narrowly there. The motivator doesn't need to be fear of the Russians gaining technological superiority during a time when we could have gone to war with them at any moment. It could be something much more benign, but it must be something that people will respond to. People respond to fear and patriotism, which motivated things back in the 50s. People also tend to respond positively to a challenge if they feel that there is something to be proven. If we could come up with some suitable goal, perhaps we could motivate kids and adults alike by challenging them to help us meet some goal. Just a thought.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Everyone who is even considering whether the consumer would be better off if Microsoft is regulated/broken up/forced to open source windows is completely missing the point. Microsoft should be allowed to develop, license, and market it's products in any way it pleases(*) NOT because it is what is best for the consumer, but because of the precident it would set. Whether it is best for the consumers is irrelevant. It is probably the case that forcing Microsoft to open source windows would have a positive short term effect on consumers. But imagine software 5 years from now. No one will be interested in writing software that needs to be extremely widely used to be useful. Look at Acrobat, Real Player, ICQ -- all of these need to be widely used before they are of significant benefit to the consumer (what use was it to the first person to get on ICQ?). If Microsoft is punished for succeeding at what everyone else tried to do, people will be more reluctant to enter these markets.
It's similar to someone suggesting forcing biotech companies to sell their drugs at a reasonable price. In the short term it sounds like a good idea, but in the long term all it means is that you aren't going to have any new drugs.
The United States heavily taxes what are called "Windfall Profits", which just means really high returns on investment. Never mind that someone may have invested in 10 extremely risky businesses, 9 of them went belly-up, and only one returned "windfall profits". The effect is that even if the expected return given the risk is really good, people won't make the investment, because in the 1 in 100 chance the company does make money, it will all be taken in the form of taxes.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And once the government starts thinking it needs to keep an eye on software developers, you can kiss innovation and profits goodbye.
--Kevin
* I said "any way it pleases", but I would exclude a few clearly monopolistic practices: prohibiting computer manufacturers from including non-microsoft software (Word Perfect installed on a Windows machine, some computers sold with linux instead) as a condition of their licensing; and also tying of sales in a way that putting one product (e.g. windows) on a computer is more expense if you don't also put another product on the computer (e.g. IIS).
Yes, and 63% of Americans saw Elvis last year. So what? This is the "wishing makes it so" implicit in all polling and reporting on polls. Quite apart from the fact that this is a "study" from the lobbying organization that Microsoft founded when it began having Justice Department problems, there is the basic fact that what a large cross-section of America thinks about anything probably has no connection with the truth.
You see, the question of whether or not breaking up Microsoft would be "good" or "bad" is an unanswerable question. Two people you ask will not only have a different idea of what is "good," but will also have totally different levels of knowledge about the issues behind the question.
Taking a complex question and putting a precise-seeming number on doesn't mean a damned thing.
I remember a poll during the Gulf War that reported something like "72% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the Gulf Crisis." My reaction was, who the hell cares? More interesting would have been a series of poll results:
What percentage of:
Mothers of American Soldiers
American Military Leaders
Iraqui citizens
Iraqui Military Leaders
Kuwaiti citizens
Kuwaiti Military Leaders
Families of Killed American Soldiers
Oil company executives
VFW members
etc.
approved of Bush's handling of the Gulf Crisis?
I would bet you would get radically different numbers. When you try to reduce a complex question to a single simple number, it looks like information, but it is not.
As a student of history, I would have to say that the question of whether the Gulf War was a "good" thing or not will be open for quite some time.
I'm not taking a position here, I tend to think all the parties involved did what they felt they had to do for reasons that seemed good at the time. You can't ask them to do anything more than that. But that 72% approval number doesn't mean a thing. Futhermore, if the number had been 12% or 85% it would not have changed anything about the real effect of the war on the people, the region, or the outcome (except to the extent that the American government must respond to the popular will -- the war would not have happened in quite the same way if the American people were so against it that it would have brought down the government).
In fact, my parenthesized point is perhaps the central point. We are so used to polls affecting decisions that we now mistake our collective will as collective power. The problem is that if 87% of Americans don't believe in gravity, we still remain earthbound. Some things are not governed by the popular will.
Some things are only influenced by the popular will.
Some things are totally determined by the popular will.
Until we learn to tell these cases apart, we will continue to over-simplify, misunderstand, and make poor decisions.
Wishing does not always make it so.
Look at how slashdot mininterprets the poll information, the poll says that 63% of Americans believe that breaking up Microsoft is too extreme. I am not so sure that it is either, but in any case this is definately not the same as the slashdot headline that "Survey Says 63% of Americans Like MS the Way It Is." Hopefully other newspapers won't report it like this. (Of course with only 5% of the population paying close attention to the anti-trust trial, I don't think it matters too much).
63 % of americans (or any other country probably) also have no idea of what the implications of Microsoft's business practices have been/could be.
Sure they like it just the way it is.. it doesn't concern them.
99% of informed technical people who have 5+ years of experience in the network computing environment, and who are skilled at more platforms than just MS Windows do *not* like the way MS works at all.
In my mind [rigged survey] == [crap]
From a professional point of view that just means that survey institutes gets an even worse name. That means that friends of mine in that business who actually try to do honest surveys, will have a harder time competing with those that are not.
All opinions are my own - until criticized