Slashdot Mirror
Google Calls For More Limits On Microsoft
teh_commodore writes "Scientific American is reporting that Google is now asking a Federal judge to extend the government's anti-trust oversight of Microsoft, specifically with regard to desktop search software. Microsoft had already agreed to modify Vista to allow rival desktop search engines, but Google says that this remedy will come too late — specifically, after (most of) the anti-trust agreement expires in November. What makes this political maneuver interesting is that Google went over the heads of the Department of Justice and US state regulators, who had found Microsoft's compromise acceptable, to appeal directly to the Federal judge overseeing the anti-trust settlement." Update: 06/26 17:20 GMT by KD : The judge is unwilling to play along with Google; she said she will likely defer to an agreement on desktop search forged between Microsoft and the plaintiffs in the case: i.e. Justice and the states.
Im afraid with Google, we may be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I hate MS as much as the next guy (Linux user for quite a while now), but would Google really be any better as the 800 lb gorilla on the block? Oh, well, chalk it up to paranoia, but I really would hate to see one evil overlord replaced by another.
It is nice that Google is going to try to hold Microsoft to the antitrust agreement [for their benefit but still] but I also hope Google doesn't end up becoming the new Microsoft in doing so.
It's 100% certain that a new administration will be taking over in January of 2009. Best to get all of Microsoft's transgressions out in the open now so that by the time the new administration comes in, all the controversy will be hitting the new Attorney General's office in full force.
My blog
What makes this political maneuver interesting is that Google went over the heads of the Department of Justice
You are aware of who the head of the department of justice is, right? It would be more interesting if they actually went to the head of the dept. of justice expecting a competent handling of their position.
I know, Google is big and scary now as well, but I am pretty happy to see a new 300 pound gorilla in the room standing up to Microsoft.
The world is better with the dominant operating system open for competition. A court understood this once ( http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm ), but clearly the DOJ is not going to enforce it without Google (and others with the wherewithal to do so) being vocal about it.
Google went over the heads of justice department and state regulators to appeal directly to a federal judge to impose greater restrictions on the software company.
Does skipping steps in the legal process, (steps that the average small company would have to take) count as doing no evil?
--"insert clever quote here"
Why are they bothering trying to change the wreckage that is Vista, instead of releasing their own OS? Frankly at this rate I'm surprised GoogleOS hasn't already been announced.
;)
In all seriousness, I would not mind seeing some of the energy behind the ideas and innovation Google has come up with over the years put into a new OS, or at least, window manager. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with OSX
Limina.Log
...there's always a chance that they'll put each other out of business and thus save the world. Maybe.
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)
Why are they bothering trying to change the wreckage that is Vista, instead of releasing their own OS? Frankly at this rate I'm surprised GoogleOS hasn't already been announced.
They had better. The consent decree expires in November. If that means what I think it means, Vista is going to suck life more obviously than it already does. It's like they've ignored the consent decree, even while it's in effect. Normal people are unable to think of what M$ will do next.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I have to agree with the first poster. Google scares the hell out of me, and I use their webmail and search every day. They're not as "obvious" a target as Microsoft since they're not (at present) an OS vendor, which may mean that, should they choose to do more evil, they won't be as visible. And Google doesn't work on OSes, it works on *data.* Huge, collected masses of data that would be any social-engineering data miner's wet dream.
Put another way, they traffic in information. An OS is, when you get right down to it, nothing but information, and there are alternatives to Windows. What will happen when/if there becomes no alternative to Google for web searches?
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
This is a marketing tactic. Google knows that many people will respect this move.
;-) And, no, I don't like it, either.
But it brings into focus a new corporate strategy... the use of regulation over competition. Asking for regulation is against the traditional American business philosophy, which typically favours deregulation.
This could play out in favour of Microsoft who will likely ask that Google get regulated more heavily, which will result in some interesting news for the world, to come. And yes, I know something you don't.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Looks like we have some Microsoft moderators today. It is not unreasonable for Google to go over the heads of opposing counsel and address the court directly. The only "political maneuver interesting" here is that the DOJ would choose to represent the plaintiff and the defendant in the same case. It sounds suspiciously like a conflict of interest in the Department of Justice.
I think this is a good change, but does Google really have the high ground here? They are using an extremely dominant product to market their other products. They use their search engine to push everything from google maps to gmail.
As an example can mapquest come along and demand that when a user searches for a street in google that their map be displayed prominantly as the first search item instead of google maps? This has a huge impact in the online maps business. Google has used a dominant product to gain a massive advantage in a new area. Not entirely unlike what the boys from Redmond like to do. Im not saying its evil, but it does seem kind of like a bully who starts crying when a bigger bully comes along.
To open up Windows to have a different default Kernel.
It is obviously an anti-trust matter when the OS in question doesn't allow for choice of kernel.
Sarcasm aside.... if they can prove the fact the search API is shitty and slows them down compared to Microsoft's internal search, then I say fine -- make Microsoft fix it. But to change the default search in an OS? Give me a break.
Searching and finding files and folders on a computer is something that is necessary to have in an operating system. If Google thinks they can do better, they have the option to make a version of Linux or a separate OS, and compete with Microsoft. But right now, to the victor go the spoils, and this is hardly a spoil of any war I've seen.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Windows is MS OS, I don't like it and don't use it, however it is *their* OS, not Google's not the consumer's not the regulators'. Using antitrust to attack competition destroys value, it's *evil*. Same goes for AMD: they lost technological ground, they switch to outsourcing their development to get cheaper products instead of investing in research and their desperate move is what: antitrust lawsuit against Intel. Shame shame on them all.
\u262D = \u5350
Wow, looks less biased than your posts!
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Google is one of the most evil companies around, the dark titans of information dominance. AKA the new monopoly on the block. Why Google should be able to tell Microsoft what to do is beyond me. What happened to "mind your own monopoly?".
I look out and see in Google a company that takes a lot from the open source world, but give nothing back. Well, a few worthless trinkets. Why so many people "love" Google is difficult to understand. The company is bad to the bone.
Given time, Google will make Microsoft look like nice guys. And a few people, probably rotting in Gitmo thanks to Google, will say "told you so".
Microsoft capitulated pretty quickly when it came to the search thing in Vista, but Google is looking more and more like a dominatrix that is just flogging her little bitch.
Ballmer tied to a slightly thrown chair....
Google: Who is your search queen slave?
Steve: You are mistress, may I please revamp my already released operating system search features for you?
load "$",8,1
Google, c'mon. Nobody likes a billion-dollar cry-baby. Take Paris Hilton, for example. (Mom!!!?!)
It appears to me that Google is really stretching the definition of its "don't be evil" mission by playing the "pull" card and trying to get an already over-reaching government to bitchslap Microsoft on their behalf. Ayn Rand, call your office.
Google, if you've given up on trying to make it on your ability and have decided instead to play the looter's game, please issue a press release to that effect so that I can be properly and officially disappointed in you, and switch my IE and Mozilla over to MS Live search just for spite.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
I'm a little out of the loop, but I just read through the final [amended] consent decree against Microsoft on the DOJ website. Can someone in the know point out what clause Google is claiming is being violated? I haven't seen it directly mentioned in any story posted yet.
I mean, the main problems addressed in the consent decree were twofold: 1) Microsoft was illegally leveraging OEMs for positioning, and 2) Microsoft was illegally leveraging it's "Middleware" market by including standalone products (such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, etc) in its Windows OS.
What's Google's ground, legally, for their complaint? According to the consent decree, the term "Middleware" was defined, basically, as either "IE, Java, Media Player, Messenger, Outlook Express" or "browsers, email clients, networked audio/video software, instant messaging software" or "any functionality provided by Microsoft software that is distributed separately within a year preceding a new commercial Windows release which is similar to a non-Microsoft middleware product".
That being the case, did Microsoft ever release the Instant Search option as a separate download from any Windows OS? I can't think of any time they ever did that to my recollection. In fact, as someone else pointed out, searching is not only integral to the file systems of an OS, but it's been included in Windows from quite a ways back (if not as efficiently as it currently is implemented in Vista.)
Just curious....
LondovirLondovir
How are you locked into using Microsoft software? You could format your PCs and switch to Ubuntu Linux. On the server side of things, Redhat isn't struggling either. However patents ARE a huge threat to competition and ARE a monopolistic anti-competitive method to kill competition. This is a true example of how one competitor can kill their competition, gaining a monopoly share of the market in the process.
And how many websites now rely on Google Maps, Google Search or other features for the site to work correctly? These Google features are good enough that competitors offerings are not used by anyone, so I guess you could say that Google is taking everyone into their system (killing competitors) before charging for the service? Or with Google Mail, what if they locked you out from accessing your email because they change to a "pay-for-email" service?
IMO this isn't a problem, as competitors CAN exist alongside Google given that it doesn't take much time and effort to create an alternative to whatever proprietary systems Microsoft/Google can come up with. Silverlight took 21 days to port to Linux. Building a new open source Google search engine wouldn't be all that difficult either.
With patents, competitors CAN'T exist alongside Google/Microsoft. Everyone is locked into using Google/Microsoft because these companies have a legal right to a monopoly on their "inventions" and can charge ridiculous/non-viable amounts for patent licensing (hence blocking all competition).
Let me summarize what I understand so far: Google wants Microsoft to allow the option to switch default search programs, and is browbeating Microsoft over it. Now, I have a few questions about this situation...
One, isn't desktop search part of the operating system? I can see, vaguely, how bundling Internet Explorer could cause an antitrust complaint if Microsoft was an asshole in other ways (which they were). However, desktop search? Why does the ability to find files on your computer need competition? IE was a case of an external product being bundled in to compete on a completely different playing field outside the OS you just bought. Desktop search, however, is a case of using that OS to figure out what you did with that file you edited a few months ago, which is definitely an integral part of the OS. What's next, Google filing antitrust complaints that Microsoft doesn't allow a built-in option to switch to the GoogleOS they reveal next year or something?
(and yes, I am wondering if that analogy is flawed. however, I honestly can't pin down a reason. if it is, someone please correct me)
As I see it, MS allowing other search engines would be nice, but hardly necessary, and hardly something to get the government involved over. I'm not even sure *why* google wants to get it's own search engine in there anyways. I don't have any prior experience with google desktop and am unsure of the features, but the only way google could make money off this is to somehow link it to advertising or a paid service (either directly or including "features" that link to such a webpage). The search itself is quite useless in that regard... Really, from where I stand, this looks like a moneygrab/brand recognition thing that plays off everyone's "omg hate microsoft!" feelings.
However, given that I'm writing this without much thought on the matter, don't take me too seriously.
from U2 who stole it back from Charles Manson who stole it from the Beatles .."When I get to bottom I go back to the top of the slide...."
-Xen
Does it severely irriate anyone else that Google is relentless in trying to nerf what is undoubtably the best feature in vista?
Sure, i used Google Desktop Search on XP, but what exactly is the big problem with me NOT having to download a bunch of junk just to search my files? Lets travel back in time and prevent MS from including web browsers, note pads, and painting programs too!
I speak for myself when I say I expect a complete product when i buy an OS, not some featureless chunk of harddrive.
is that it's being broken by Scientific American. Since when did they even have a newsdesk, let alone one capable of breaking mainstream tech stories ahead of any other source?
Which company in their right mind would stop demanding random stuff from their competition that benefits them. Especially if it seems to work. None.
And in this light, the fact Google is never happy, they're just maximizing their luck with the entire "Microsoft locked Windows down" inertia.
I just see how many of your are trying to read into this "if Google does it, then it's the right thing for everyone". No, you idiots. It's the right thing for Google. It's completely irrelevant if it's the right thing for everyone.
Do you really trust M$? Their search engine sucked before, as documented by the story linked above. They lie to their customers, to the government, their developers and to their own employees. What makes you think you can trust them?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I think that they should do the same to Google ... just because Fair Is Fair!
signature is pants
n/t
From Microsoft's idea of capitulation (or of a snow job on the DOJ): "...And third, it will "inform" software makers, computer makers and users that "the desktop search index in Vista is designed to run in the background and cede precedence over computing resources to any other software product, including third-party desktop search products and their respective search indices."
If I read that quote correctly, the MS indexer cannot be disabled. It can be made to run at a low priority, but it'll still be there in the background dragging your disk heads all over the place, reading every file on your system and generally slowing your system down, even if you've chosen to use a different indexer (Google's or someone else's). There is no good reason for this, except that MS wants you to use their indexer and search - mainly to deal with their perceived competitive threat from Google. It's entirely equivalent to their saying "IE is part of the OS and can't be removed". There was one and only one reason for that one (as shown in court) - to kill Netscape. And this is not any different.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
First, let me say that I'm evil. I'm a corporate code tool for Microsoft, because they pay me money to play with lots and lots of their servers. Flame away, I've heard it all before.
I always find the reaction to stories like this one interesting... I know all about what my camp thinks and how we see these issues. I wasn't present for the netscape/IE thing, and during school I was a pretty serious linux user for four or five years (as a freshman, the ability to play half life was more important). I use Firefox because IE7 still sucks. Google search was my home page for a long time, and frankly their search still does a great job... it's not what I use every day, but it is where I go when Live is being slow or I want to get a different view of the same search.
For me, if I go out and pay an arm and a leg for Vista (don't like the pricing, but they don't ask me about these things), it should be great out of the box, and it should have all the basics (a browser to get online, a file system I can use to store and browse, the ability to play a CD, etc). I'm not paying for a skeleton system that's only done enough to let me DIY the rest... when it's finished installing, I should be able to reasonably use my computer right away. It's like buying a new car... I should be able to drive it off the lot, not need to go buy tires that aren't included (because I might develop a bias towards those tires?). For the average users out there (ahem, my computer hating mom), who want their computer for every day, uncomplicated tasks, it's even more important that it just works.
So in a nutshell, I guess what I see day to day is that if there are features a user will reasonably expect out of the product, and we have time and budget, shouldn't we build them in? It seems more evil to me to leave them out.
MS does have to play by difference rules, of course, because we're all evil, money hording devil worshipers who eat babies (delicious with a nice cayenne hot sauce), etc, etc. But I'm really curious for you on the outside world, do you design your products with defenses against users becoming biased toward them? Or were you us, and it's your product that people say is unfair, how would you balance "justice" with usability? Especially for something as basic-functionality as searching a file system? If it becomes jammed with ad-supported semi-functional competing products (by which I mean parties other than, and less scrupulous and skilled than Google), because competitors need the right to install random crazy software that will run under the name of your-product-name-here, did you make a good choice?
"What makes this political maneuver interesting is that Google went over the heads of the Department of Justice and US state regulators, who had found Microsoft's compromise acceptable, to appeal directly to the Federal judge overseeing the anti-trust settlement."
Thats engineering, you go to the guy who has the most knowledge about the bug report.
Duh.
Helter Skelter : A Pat Benatar Tune c. 1981. The B side was: Hell is for Children, a fun song for all.
What does any of this have to do with My Rights Online? As between Google and Microsoft, and which outfit gains a couple of points of market share as opposed to the other, I care about as much as I care about Darfur or Paris Hilton.
How about if those tires you mention can only be purchased from the auto maker (for the lifetime of your vehicle)?
Does the Vista search tool link to online content in any way? If it does, I would have to agree with google on this one.
As far as I understand, Google is having problems because Microsoft has agreed to allow alternative searching but not enabled a way to turn off Microsoft's own searching to the third party program (i.e. not the user, but the program such as Google's own search). This of course is problematic because two indexing programs on the same system usually behave in a naughty fashion and in such an event, any standard end user would think that it is the newly installed google program causing problems.
As a user of multiple OS's (XP, Vista and various *nix) I'm quite happy with Vista. Removed it within 24hrs for Ubuntu before factory restoring my system as I couldn't get all my new shiny hardware to work with Linux (ok, Linux fanboys... I could have tried harder but I was in my last month of University and needed a system that worked now. First time Linux has let me down though).
;-) ). Why are Microsoft getting slapped for improving part of their product and improving its prominence in line with user demand? If market research didn't show users wanted a search feature, MS wouldn't have implemented it and Google wouldn't care.
/. so any pro/non-anti MS posts are against the law so, let the flames commence...
This gave me the opportunity to give Vista a try out before a reinstall of Linux, which now isn't going to happen without some changes (more targetted exploits for example). Only mistake I think MS made with Vista was to allow the new security features (UAC etc.) to be turned off by the user (leaving the 'pretty XP' arguement people keep making), although I've got to ask: wtf is up with the 'show text' option for password fields? sheer madness....
With regard to search, unless I'm mistaken Windows has had a search feature since forever (win3.1 I think, possibly earlier I'm not that old
In regards to the fairness arguement, why should MS have to give fair access to THEIR software to a competitor?
Now I know this is
Then it's a poorly designed vehicle and you shouldn't buy it in the first place. That is your right as a consumer, I assure you there are other companies who'd love to sell you their versions, find one that suits you. And remember, the issue being discussed isn't impossible to replace functionality, it's that somehow one of these other companies thinks the ability to replace, or the way it's replaced, or something (the info is a bit vague) should be made more to their needs.
But to turn it around and be equally extreme, if the car is just an engine and some axles, because you must choose the rest, and the auto-maker can't provide defaults (people might just use them, and not look at competitors), do you really want every buyer to cobble together their own regardless of skill level and needs? Is that honestly how you'd build your system for users?
Regarding raindrops and floods, you'd be surprised. Work some weekends because partners need help, or because someone dropped the ball and Ops needs support. Yell at the architects until they listen and look at your results to build into the next version, push for features because they're what you want in your product when you use it. You get that responsibility feeling as a matter of course, if you're doing the job right. Of course, I can't speak for the company overall, maybe it's different over in Windows. But hey, evil, remember? I'm eating babies for you*, the end users!
* - given /., maybe not. Feel free to replace the you* with a competing word of your choice
... do the Romans?
[...] although I've got to ask: wtf is up with the 'show text' option for password fields? sheer madness....
Not everyone has the motor control necessary to type accurately, be that either due to simple inexperience or something more significant like a medical problem.
and it comes up first.
If you're going to change the search terms to get your situation valid, it isn't a valid situation, is it.
Unless the ONLY wat ANYONE will search for online maps is by NOT PUTTING IN "online maps"....
What a macaroon...!
Google isn't the evil company that we know Microsoft as. Google focusing on the development of a great search engine, instead of taking the money and selling out for media development(Yahoo), is why they have grown to such heights. The fact that a fresh and legit force is now bossing evil Microsoft around, is quite refreshing for the tech world, and should be applauded instead of demeaned.
Google is *not* a search engine company. Google does not develop the search engine to make access to information more efficient and make the world a better place. Google develops the search engine to profile its users so that they can be a provider of targeted advertising. Google *is* in the targeted advertising business. A search engine is just one method of profiling you to determine your needs and wants. The same for gmail. Now some out there mistakenly believe that the advertising is simply what is shown next to your searches, no, it is far more than that. Google helps websites determine which ads to show you on their site. What is being fought over between Microsoft and Google is who will websites turn to in order to purchase targeted ad info.
But all of the roads are Designed for MaxiSarf Vehicle 2001 and later! There are all these weird quirks that the Linnos guys eventually work around, but it takes some time (and there are a lot of potholes on those roads!)
Besides, whenever I go buy a new house, I am forced to buy a MaxiSarf car!
Actually, it is. Namely, you can't completely remove the Microsoft search functionality from Vista, nor is it possible to integrate competing offerings as well (e.g. the search pane in Explorer).--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
So is using your large companies power for the greater good doing (or being) evil?
Google gave up that at China. Now if they used their clout against China, similarly setup countries, and those who front both of those groups, then they'd be doing good by using their power to entice the government to make the necessary changes. However, it's not like we're going to get much cooperation short of a Congress that has backbone enough to Say No (and resist any urge by economists to abandon the effort).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Why can't google create its own o/s ?
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
Why cant we bundle a database? The user needs this? Im sure the usere needs a spreadsheet - lets bundle that. Users need ERP! We bundle it, because the poor users gets confused when he has to choose. Lets eradicate choice! Its our right because its our software!
Given that you work for a company with 15+ years of repeatedly abusing its position, your arguments rings hollow. At best.
Google has lost its way if they are are crazy enough to think that Microsoft has to make their OS support google's search in the same manner as vista's own search.
There is nothing to keep you from installing google's desktop search on vista (other than it sucking). It just wont intergrate with the OS as Microsoft's search. Well thats the nice benefit of being the developer of an OS, you can stream line your ui to a workflow.
I suppose Adobe should be forced to open up photoshop so you can install Corel Painter's brush tool into Adobe's program? The fact that Photoshop has plugins is nice, but they didnt need to open up photoshop to outside developed plugins.
Gmail should intergrate with MSN Messenger. Why doesnt gmail automatically notify me when MSN users are logged in? Why cant i IM them from my Gmail window?
Hmmmm.
Grow up Google, you're too big for your own good. You've lost your way.
Ah yes, the good old Slashdot principle that if you don't have any actual wrongdoing of Microsoft's to point out, you can just make some shit up.
/snip/ but there are a lot of problems in the world bigger than microsoft's monopoly, like famine, disease, communism...Communism isn't a problem. Dictatorship can be, if the dictator is a ruthless brute. Communism can theoretically very well go hand in hand with democracy *Gasp*
Communism is a social and corporate structure. Democracy and dictatorship is a political structure.
I don't care much for communism myself, but I get sick and tired of brainwashed people stating that communism is the worst of the worst problems out there. It infact is a very social structure. So social that many people actually use it small scale themselves, within their family or community. For some reason though people are less social towards people they don't know, and this brings the problems within this structure when applied country-wide.
So, repeat after me: Communism ain't bad. Dictatorship can be bad. (doesn't necessarily need to be, if the dictator has a good sense of right and wrong and such.)
Manuals are your last resort only
My way would be to force all the developers at MS to use custom built (Frankenstein) vanilla PC's with odd, noname component manufacturers, 512MB of ram, a P4 1.2 Ghz system, 4 year old graphics card and a FULL install of Vista.
If that does not force some pairing down of their software to run less bloated and buggy nothing will.
as you do with Google. With the same OS and same machine. This allows you to use the other programs that run on that machine and OS to do the same tasks.
There is no MS Windows work-a-like that allows you to run the same programs on the same hardware. MS are the only ones who can provide this.
This is because copyright and closed source allow this to happen.
This is known as a mandated monopoly.
MS has a monopoly on OS's because theirs is the only OS that works with the programs widely written for the monopoly OS.
google is an advertising company that pimps their advertisements via a search engine
never forget.
I suppose I should go into my Armageddon bunker; there are actual Slashdotters taking up for Microsoft and bashing something Google-related.
Ok, Google launches anti-trust claims vs Microsoft, but what if in the end when they more or less own the information market everyone starts to do the same against them?
.. ?
I guess it's ok for us, but for them? How would they feel to share their data / get split up /
You're just a natural resource.
Google *does*, in fact, have a strong network effect with respect to their actual customers. It's just an indirect one.
And lest you say that you don't care what happens to advertisers... justice doesn't change just because you're not the one being screwed.
why are you worried about it [Vista] "sucking life" again?
It pains me to see people robbed of choice and freedom. Eventually, it threatens my own.
It would further pain me to see M$ "Fucking Kill Google". Google is a great American company that's creating a considerable amount of wealth for themselves and others.
Finally, I never said I cared. What I said was that Google had better take M$ on in the OS space. If Vista catches on, they are just as screwed as Digital Research, OS/2, Word Perfect, Netscape and a host of other worthy companies and applications. They don't really have to release their own OS, they just have to support and encourage the others. They are doing a good job.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you think most companies play nice then you're dreaming. Most if not all are evil to a certain extent and the degree to which they are is the only variable. After all, isn't that the nature of just about anything that focuses solely on the bottom line? In a capitalistic market almost everyone is bending the rules, at times breaking them and always playing hard ball. If you thought this was "beneath" Google then ask Scotty to beam you back onboard as you're that extra dude on the away mission that's going to get whacked!
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
(On a serious note, you seem to be following the same argument there as C. S. Lewis - re: Horse and his boy - but it is unclear from any doctrine of any faith I know of that this holds up, with the possible exception of some remarks by James that get largely ignored by most religions of the Judeo-Christian branch. Even the identity of the Saviour is questioned - the remnants of the followers of John the Baptist have a very different interpretation of events, and it would seem foolish to ignore the writings of the group who actually recorded what happened at the time. I'm not saying X is right, Y is wrong, but rather that the picture is very very complicated and that what seems so simple is confusing and unclear. Beliefs are prone to start flamewars, rarely because of the beliefs and much more because all frames of reference are contrary.)
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)
Dedicated M$ fan and life sucker dedazo tops himself with this one. His adherence to six or seven M$ applications has clearly blinded him to the real world of computing.
your idea of "choice" is "whatever I happen to think is right for you and me".
My idea of what's wrong for you excludes a small collection of expensive and inferior software. It's inferior because it's not free. Not only does it not respect your rights and ownership of your computer, it's can't compete in quality, ease of use or documentation. My idea of what's good for you includes tens of thousands of excellent applications that run on dozens of computer hardware platforms. They have been compiled and collected into hundreds of competent and complete distributions, using a variety of toolchains and kernels.
Wake up dedazo, there's a whole world waiting outside of Bill Gates basement.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
ROFL, you sound just like the "M$" PR you hate so much.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
I gather then that your response to your zealot wet dream that Google is so much better than M$ will not be forthcoming? That's too bad. I was looking forward to it.
I'm aware of what communism is...
Practically speaking, communism denotes those governments that say they subscribe to communism... all of which happen to be horrible dictatorships. The reason for this is that a horrible dictatorship is necessary to make communism happen on a large scale.
So... I'm not sure what the distinction is between communism and a dictatorship... it seems like communism is a kind of dictatorship if communism implies dictatorship. There is no exception to this rule in the real world, and it is even difficult to imagine one in which it could arise.
Now, almost all democratic countries, including the united states, implement what are known as "socialist policies." However, notions such as personal property and a free market economy are still the foundation of *all* free societies of significant scale.
So, maybe Marx envisioned communism differently, but this is how it turned out.
*shrug*