Telling somebody to go out and read some FAQ or ask a question to a newsgroup isn't going to do much good, particularly if that person doesn't know what a FAQ or a newsgroup is.
The way I see it is that it's better for them to learn what a FAQ or newsgroup is than for them to have to blow 200 bucks for a support call to find the answer to some piddly question when all they need to do is fire up their browser and learn how to type some keywords into Google.
I like competition that creates better products. I like the fact that we have 2 good desktop environments to choose from. If you don't like having a choice, then just flip a coin to pick one and block the other one out of your mind. Ignore any articles that mention it. If a co-worker speaks the offending name, put your hand up in his face to silence him, then walk away. Before you know it, Linux will seem just like Windows to you. This method will work for most other situations in which you face a choice too.
This is something I've wondered about since I first saw the PFJ. It seems to be toothless. The only thing I could figure is that if/when infractions take place that Microsoft won't capitulate on, it'll go back to the judge who will either force them to capitulate, or impose some sort of penalty.
To me, it sounds like he's implying that either he, or someone else, would notice real quick if someone was dragging ass and not being useful, and act on that. I could be reading too much into it though.
Oh, and this story refers to the untangible "gameplay" factor. Congratulations, you're now going to hell where they'll have lots of "gameplay".
If it doesn't have good gameplay, why the hell would you play it? Some people know what makes a game fun. It isn't graphics. I agree that they can help make things more interesting sometimes, but depending on the game, they don't always make sense. I've played the demo, and I really don't think that more or better graphics are what this game needs. What it needs is less repetition and a bit more depth. It's not a bad game, it's just not a great game.
He's not an alarmist. There are many sites out there that are designed only to support IE. This is a bad thing. We already see that nothing of any significance will happen to Microsoft as a result of the anti-trust case. This just means that they'll be free to continue warping standards and bullying businesses into doing things their way.
Or maybe that's just a lot of Users expressing their freedom of choice...
Actually, that was kind of the point of the anti-trust case. Microsoft was convicted of illegally maintaining their monopoly. That means that users weren't really getting a choice to begin with.
Well, there is a criminal side to anti-trust as well, we just haven't seen it used against MS. Regardless though, they were found to have been illegally maintaining a monopoly, which cost the citizens of this country a LOT of money. Criminal or not, they should have to, at the very least, pay back A WHOLE LOT of money. Additionally, they should not be allowed to use similar tactics again to commit the same offense. Since there is nothing in the agreement to accomplish either of these things, it is simply a travesty. There is no justice.
Yeah, well they tried it in 1995. They got a settlement that time too, which Microsoft proceeded to laugh at and blatantly violate the intent of. If the settlement isn't airtight, it won't be effective. Microsoft has already illustrated that for us quite well.
Everyone should understand by now that there is no way you're going to be able to solve the Microsoft problem by forcing them to include this or exclude that from the OS. It just can't work. What this guy should be focusing on is Microsoft's business arrangements, contracts, and tactics. They should not be allowed to make exclusive deals with OEMs or anyone else. They should not be allowed to pressure OEMs into favoring their software with threats of revoking licenses or increasing costs and the like. They should not be allowed to charge per-processor, per-machine, or per-model fees for Windows, or use any other similar criteria for that purpose. OEMs should be allowed to ship PCs with no OS at all if that's what the customer wants. It should be entirely up to the seller, not Microsoft.
Then, if the DOJ isn't completely incompetent, the agreement should be modified to remove all the loopholes that allow Microsoft to get out of revealing their APIs and protocols and whatnot when they deem it to be a security risk. That's utter nonsense and needs to be fixed. If it isn't, then just watch them begin to consider everything a security risk. They blatantly violated the intent of the first consent decree in the same way, don't think they won't do it again if there is even a tiny loophole in the agreement. This guy needs to make sure they comply and that they actually reveal this information. If they don't, he should be able to give us a damn good reason why not.
I read the Cringely article, and I don't have any problem with this guy from what I know of him so far (which is admittedly still very little), so I'm hopefull that he could be a good person for the job. Now, I hear that Microsoft wants to be able to name 3 of the people on the overwatch committee. I don't see why they should get to name anyone for the job. Does this make sense to anyone else? That's like getting to pick one of your friends to be your parole officer.
No no no. The media industry is after much more than simply limiting our ability to copy digital works. They want all sorts of other types of control. They want to put time limits on how long we can view/hear a certain work. They want to put restrictions on where and when we can view/hear a particular work. They want to remove our ability to make personal copies and our ability to loan a book/movie/album to a friend. Hell, even making a copy for a friend is legal under copyright law. They are taking away our ability to exercise our fair use rights in many ways. Without access to tools that can decrypt a DVD, how is someone supposed to show a clip for a review or a class? This isn't even everything. As the previous post suggested, read Jessica Litman's book. I would add Lawrence Lessig's book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" as well. Both are excellent for bringing oneself up to date on exactly what is going on here, and where it is leading us.
I'm so sorry that music piracy doesn't top their list of concerns.
Don't be a jackass. There are serious problems with existing legislation regarding computers. Between 2600, Felton, and Sklyarov, we've got a real mess and some very real threats to our liberties. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with music piracy either.
They are wrong, of course. A.45 pistol or a 12-gauge shotgun is not going to make much of an impression on an Apache gunship or M-1 tank. If the common man wants to go to toe to TOW with the US military, the common man is a fool.
Actually, I think that the theory goes more like this. If/when the government stops being representative of the majority of people in this country and is quite obviously (to at least a majority) a tool of those with wealth/power to control the rest of the people, we won't necessarily have to deal with the US military. Many to most are just your average Joe/Jane. They would be as likely as the rest to see the need to remove the government from power. Much of the military may side with the populace. It could be bloodless, but it might not be. Without the threat of force, you have no power. Without people to pilot/drive/fire their weapons, the US military has no power. The big guns might not even come into play if nobody is willing to use them against the people of this country.
I'm sure there are a million and one ways that the whole thing could play out, but the bottom line is that it's better for the people to have at least some power than none at all. Whether that power will be enough to remove the government from power is something we'll never know until it happens (and it ALWAYS happens, sooner or later).
That said, the self-defense argument is good enough reason for me to want guns to remain legal. The right to defend yourself should never bbe taken away. Guns are the most effective self-ddefense tool we have.
If this stuff is so discernable early on, why aren't the parents aware of it? Are people afflicted with a higher default tension level just doomed to be violent people? Shouldn't parents raise them differently perhaps? Why do these toys need to be kept from everyone because a few people have a problem dealing with the difference between reality and fantasy?
They've already been found guilty in the DOJ case. Should it have to be proven all over again for every subsequent case? How many times do you think it needs to be proven?
It is. Capitalism assumes competition. If there is no real competition, then capitalism just doesn't work out.
True enough, but you can't mandate competition where there is none. Sometimes one solution is just better, and our IP laws help to make sure that there will be only one provider, or at least one provider will be the most efficient, for a period of 20 years where patents are involved. A monopoly can offer benefits to consumers. Efficiency, lower cost due to volume, and compatibility, and depending on the market there could be others. The problems really only arise when a monopoly abuses its position to prevent others from introducing new ways of doing things, or by charging consumers more for their product because they have no competition. When there are significant barriers to entry, these problems can be magnified.
One problem is that there is no such set of rules. Monopolies tend to have a lot of money and employ a lot of smart people trying to figure out how to work around the rules and still achieve their goals (read: harm consumers). In all cases I know of, they succeeded
The rules exist, they just aren't enforced very often or very well. Microsoft is a perfect illustration of this. The rules probably need updating and tweaking so that they actually have teeth, and a lot fewer loopholes. Microsoft, even after being convicted, will get off with hardly a scratch. This is the second time they've been prosecuted too.
You make some good points, but I think that given our system of regulated capitalism, monopolies are the goal of most companies. I don't think that it's necessarily bad that one company comes out on top, I just think that it ends up being bad for consumers because our government doesn't enforce the law properly to keep such companies from abusing their position.
That's what I thought you meant. I just think that what is more likely is that each suite will use its own set of file formats. However, we need to have MS formats completely open so that they can be read, written, and converted to other formats by other office suites. I wouldn't wish xls or doc formats on the other suites. If they have better ways, let them use them. As long as they know how to read the MS formats, everything will be fine.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're wrong.
I don't care what the stupid judge said -- Microsoft is not a monopoly. It does not have exclusive ownership of means of production or distribution channels or anything else, like AT&T or Standard Oil before them did. There are other companies out there that make OSes and office applications and internet browsers, which means there IS competition, and where's competition there's no monopoly.
There's this thing that's been talked about quite a bit since the first Microsoft case. It's called network effects. Basically it means that the value of something increases with the number of people who own and/or use that thing. Take the FAX machine as the classic example. Say you built one in your garage before anyone had ever thought of it. Great, you have a FAX machine. First one on your block to have one. What are you gonna do with it? Not much unless other people have them as well.
Software works in a similar way. If I have MS Office, and so does everyone I work with, then I can exchange files with them and we can communicate. Now, What if I go out and buy some other office suite that isn't compatible (and when it comes to MS Office, nothing is 100% compatible), all my co-workers and collegues suddenly can't open the files I send them, nor can I open the files they send me. I become a pariah, get fired, wife leaves me, takes the dog with her, and I end up scrounging for food in the dumpsters outside of Burger King. You see why this is a tough situation? Unless you can get a majority of users to switch virtually all at once, you can't ever switch to an alternative, no matter how appealing it is. You simply can't afford to lose access to your existing documents, and you can't afford to not be able to exhange documents with others.
Now, this is why Microsoft is a monopoly. Not because there are absolutely no alternatives. It's because there are very high barriers to entry in the OS market. It's not just that Windows has 90% of the market, it's that 90% of software written by practically any company is written for Windows. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. It doesn't matter whether they got where they are because they made a good product or not. The rules exist to protect the public from getting screwed. When a company gets to the point where it is utterly dominant in a market, and especially when there are huge barriers to entry in that market, it is considered a monopoly.
That, alone, is not a bad thing really. The problem is that once you become a monopoly, you have to play by a different set of rules to ensure that you don't use your power to harm consumers. Microsoft broke those rules bigtime. Many times over, knowing full well that they were doing it. They have alternately lied about it, joked about it, and claimed that they will continue to do it, regardless of what happens. Face it. We don't have unfettered capitalism in this country (or any other that I'm aware of). You can bet that Microsoft doesn't want unfettered capitalism either. We have laws that govern our commerce. Microsoft broke those laws, plain and simple. They were warned repeatedly. They did it willfully. They deserve a LOT worse than the pathetic settlement they'll get.
Gimme a break. You have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd actually done any real reading on the subject, you'd know that your arguments have been rebutted many times in many places. Quit wasting our time with this crap. Would someone mod this inane rant down to -1 where it belongs, please?
They wouldn't even store things the same. Opening up the MS formats would just allow other office suites to reliably read, write, and convert MS Office files.
Slashdot Mirror
Telling somebody to go out and read some FAQ or ask a question to a newsgroup isn't going to do much good, particularly if that person doesn't know what a FAQ or a newsgroup is.
The way I see it is that it's better for them to learn what a FAQ or newsgroup is than for them to have to blow 200 bucks for a support call to find the answer to some piddly question when all they need to do is fire up their browser and learn how to type some keywords into Google.
I like competition that creates better products. I like the fact that we have 2 good desktop environments to choose from. If you don't like having a choice, then just flip a coin to pick one and block the other one out of your mind. Ignore any articles that mention it. If a co-worker speaks the offending name, put your hand up in his face to silence him, then walk away. Before you know it, Linux will seem just like Windows to you. This method will work for most other situations in which you face a choice too.
This is something I've wondered about since I first saw the PFJ. It seems to be toothless. The only thing I could figure is that if/when infractions take place that Microsoft won't capitulate on, it'll go back to the judge who will either force them to capitulate, or impose some sort of penalty.
IBM seemed to be indestructible at the beginning of the 80 and now they are just one major player among others.
Maybe you didn't notice the 13 year long anti-trust case against IBM?
To me, it sounds like he's implying that either he, or someone else, would notice real quick if someone was dragging ass and not being useful, and act on that. I could be reading too much into it though.
This is the most ignorant, worthless post I've read in a while.
Mod me down for flaming (I've got more karma than I know what to do with anyway), but at least mod the parent down too. That was just plain dumb.
Oh, and this story refers to the untangible "gameplay" factor. Congratulations, you're now going to hell where they'll have lots of "gameplay".
If it doesn't have good gameplay, why the hell would you play it? Some people know what makes a game fun. It isn't graphics. I agree that they can help make things more interesting sometimes, but depending on the game, they don't always make sense. I've played the demo, and I really don't think that more or better graphics are what this game needs. What it needs is less repetition and a bit more depth. It's not a bad game, it's just not a great game.
Problem is, many of the same people that want to outlaw abortions also try to keep sex education out of our schools. Can't win with these people.
He's not an alarmist. There are many sites out there that are designed only to support IE. This is a bad thing. We already see that nothing of any significance will happen to Microsoft as a result of the anti-trust case. This just means that they'll be free to continue warping standards and bullying businesses into doing things their way.
Or maybe that's just a lot of Users expressing their freedom of choice...
Actually, that was kind of the point of the anti-trust case. Microsoft was convicted of illegally maintaining their monopoly. That means that users weren't really getting a choice to begin with.
Well, there is a criminal side to anti-trust as well, we just haven't seen it used against MS. Regardless though, they were found to have been illegally maintaining a monopoly, which cost the citizens of this country a LOT of money. Criminal or not, they should have to, at the very least, pay back A WHOLE LOT of money. Additionally, they should not be allowed to use similar tactics again to commit the same offense. Since there is nothing in the agreement to accomplish either of these things, it is simply a travesty. There is no justice.
Yeah, well they tried it in 1995. They got a settlement that time too, which Microsoft proceeded to laugh at and blatantly violate the intent of. If the settlement isn't airtight, it won't be effective. Microsoft has already illustrated that for us quite well.
Everyone should understand by now that there is no way you're going to be able to solve the Microsoft problem by forcing them to include this or exclude that from the OS. It just can't work. What this guy should be focusing on is Microsoft's business arrangements, contracts, and tactics. They should not be allowed to make exclusive deals with OEMs or anyone else. They should not be allowed to pressure OEMs into favoring their software with threats of revoking licenses or increasing costs and the like. They should not be allowed to charge per-processor, per-machine, or per-model fees for Windows, or use any other similar criteria for that purpose. OEMs should be allowed to ship PCs with no OS at all if that's what the customer wants. It should be entirely up to the seller, not Microsoft.
Then, if the DOJ isn't completely incompetent, the agreement should be modified to remove all the loopholes that allow Microsoft to get out of revealing their APIs and protocols and whatnot when they deem it to be a security risk. That's utter nonsense and needs to be fixed. If it isn't, then just watch them begin to consider everything a security risk. They blatantly violated the intent of the first consent decree in the same way, don't think they won't do it again if there is even a tiny loophole in the agreement. This guy needs to make sure they comply and that they actually reveal this information. If they don't, he should be able to give us a damn good reason why not.
I read the Cringely article, and I don't have any problem with this guy from what I know of him so far (which is admittedly still very little), so I'm hopefull that he could be a good person for the job. Now, I hear that Microsoft wants to be able to name 3 of the people on the overwatch committee. I don't see why they should get to name anyone for the job. Does this make sense to anyone else? That's like getting to pick one of your friends to be your parole officer.
What does a secure version of Linux have to do with DRM? Totally different things as far as I can tell.
No no no. The media industry is after much more than simply limiting our ability to copy digital works. They want all sorts of other types of control. They want to put time limits on how long we can view/hear a certain work. They want to put restrictions on where and when we can view/hear a particular work. They want to remove our ability to make personal copies and our ability to loan a book/movie/album to a friend. Hell, even making a copy for a friend is legal under copyright law. They are taking away our ability to exercise our fair use rights in many ways. Without access to tools that can decrypt a DVD, how is someone supposed to show a clip for a review or a class? This isn't even everything. As the previous post suggested, read Jessica Litman's book. I would add Lawrence Lessig's book, "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" as well. Both are excellent for bringing oneself up to date on exactly what is going on here, and where it is leading us.
I'm so sorry that music piracy doesn't top their list of concerns.
Don't be a jackass. There are serious problems with existing legislation regarding computers. Between 2600, Felton, and Sklyarov, we've got a real mess and some very real threats to our liberties. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with music piracy either.
They are wrong, of course. A .45 pistol or a 12-gauge shotgun is not going to make much of an impression on an Apache gunship or M-1 tank. If the common man wants to go to toe to TOW with the US military, the common man is a fool.
Actually, I think that the theory goes more like this. If/when the government stops being representative of the majority of people in this country and is quite obviously (to at least a majority) a tool of those with wealth/power to control the rest of the people, we won't necessarily have to deal with the US military. Many to most are just your average Joe/Jane. They would be as likely as the rest to see the need to remove the government from power. Much of the military may side with the populace. It could be bloodless, but it might not be. Without the threat of force, you have no power. Without people to pilot/drive/fire their weapons, the US military has no power. The big guns might not even come into play if nobody is willing to use them against the people of this country.
I'm sure there are a million and one ways that the whole thing could play out, but the bottom line is that it's better for the people to have at least some power than none at all. Whether that power will be enough to remove the government from power is something we'll never know until it happens (and it ALWAYS happens, sooner or later).
That said, the self-defense argument is good enough reason for me to want guns to remain legal. The right to defend yourself should never bbe taken away. Guns are the most effective self-ddefense tool we have.
If this stuff is so discernable early on, why aren't the parents aware of it? Are people afflicted with a higher default tension level just doomed to be violent people? Shouldn't parents raise them differently perhaps? Why do these toys need to be kept from everyone because a few people have a problem dealing with the difference between reality and fantasy?
People die due to gross negligence and/or stupidity all the time. Why ban the darts?
They've already been found guilty in the DOJ case. Should it have to be proven all over again for every subsequent case? How many times do you think it needs to be proven?
It is. Capitalism assumes competition. If there is no real competition, then capitalism just doesn't work out.
True enough, but you can't mandate competition where there is none. Sometimes one solution is just better, and our IP laws help to make sure that there will be only one provider, or at least one provider will be the most efficient, for a period of 20 years where patents are involved. A monopoly can offer benefits to consumers. Efficiency, lower cost due to volume, and compatibility, and depending on the market there could be others. The problems really only arise when a monopoly abuses its position to prevent others from introducing new ways of doing things, or by charging consumers more for their product because they have no competition. When there are significant barriers to entry, these problems can be magnified.
One problem is that there is no such set of rules. Monopolies tend to have a lot of money and employ a lot of smart people trying to figure out how to work around the rules and still achieve their goals (read: harm consumers). In all cases I know of, they succeeded
The rules exist, they just aren't enforced very often or very well. Microsoft is a perfect illustration of this. The rules probably need updating and tweaking so that they actually have teeth, and a lot fewer loopholes. Microsoft, even after being convicted, will get off with hardly a scratch. This is the second time they've been prosecuted too.
You make some good points, but I think that given our system of regulated capitalism, monopolies are the goal of most companies. I don't think that it's necessarily bad that one company comes out on top, I just think that it ends up being bad for consumers because our government doesn't enforce the law properly to keep such companies from abusing their position.
That's what I thought you meant. I just think that what is more likely is that each suite will use its own set of file formats. However, we need to have MS formats completely open so that they can be read, written, and converted to other formats by other office suites. I wouldn't wish xls or doc formats on the other suites. If they have better ways, let them use them. As long as they know how to read the MS formats, everything will be fine.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're wrong.
I don't care what the stupid judge said -- Microsoft is not a monopoly. It does not have exclusive ownership of means of production or distribution channels or anything else, like AT&T or Standard Oil before them did. There are other companies out there that make OSes and office applications and internet browsers, which means there IS competition, and where's competition there's no monopoly.
There's this thing that's been talked about quite a bit since the first Microsoft case. It's called network effects. Basically it means that the value of something increases with the number of people who own and/or use that thing. Take the FAX machine as the classic example. Say you built one in your garage before anyone had ever thought of it. Great, you have a FAX machine. First one on your block to have one. What are you gonna do with it? Not much unless other people have them as well.
Software works in a similar way. If I have MS Office, and so does everyone I work with, then I can exchange files with them and we can communicate. Now, What if I go out and buy some other office suite that isn't compatible (and when it comes to MS Office, nothing is 100% compatible), all my co-workers and collegues suddenly can't open the files I send them, nor can I open the files they send me. I become a pariah, get fired, wife leaves me, takes the dog with her, and I end up scrounging for food in the dumpsters outside of Burger King. You see why this is a tough situation? Unless you can get a majority of users to switch virtually all at once, you can't ever switch to an alternative, no matter how appealing it is. You simply can't afford to lose access to your existing documents, and you can't afford to not be able to exhange documents with others.
Now, this is why Microsoft is a monopoly. Not because there are absolutely no alternatives. It's because there are very high barriers to entry in the OS market. It's not just that Windows has 90% of the market, it's that 90% of software written by practically any company is written for Windows. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. It doesn't matter whether they got where they are because they made a good product or not. The rules exist to protect the public from getting screwed. When a company gets to the point where it is utterly dominant in a market, and especially when there are huge barriers to entry in that market, it is considered a monopoly.
That, alone, is not a bad thing really. The problem is that once you become a monopoly, you have to play by a different set of rules to ensure that you don't use your power to harm consumers. Microsoft broke those rules bigtime. Many times over, knowing full well that they were doing it. They have alternately lied about it, joked about it, and claimed that they will continue to do it, regardless of what happens. Face it. We don't have unfettered capitalism in this country (or any other that I'm aware of). You can bet that Microsoft doesn't want unfettered capitalism either. We have laws that govern our commerce. Microsoft broke those laws, plain and simple. They were warned repeatedly. They did it willfully. They deserve a LOT worse than the pathetic settlement they'll get.
Gimme a break. You have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd actually done any real reading on the subject, you'd know that your arguments have been rebutted many times in many places. Quit wasting our time with this crap. Would someone mod this inane rant down to -1 where it belongs, please?
They wouldn't even store things the same. Opening up the MS formats would just allow other office suites to reliably read, write, and convert MS Office files.
LOL :) Where are the moderators when you need them. That was funny as hell :)