Re:You know we don't live in a comic-book world...
on
Project Grizzly
·
· Score: 1
They'll tranq the bear long before that happens. He's planning to get the bear out of the den, not go in after it. Then he just has to let the bear use him as a chew-toy for 3-5 minutes until the tranquilizer takes effect.
Re:Child pronographer we all know...
on
Three on Munich
·
· Score: 1
Near as I can tell, he was busted for posession of child pornography, not being a child pornographer. Although, he aparently was an aspiring pedophile.
Re:Ratings are always censorship
on
Three on Munich
·
· Score: 1
That's the point of a ratings system, to provide a rating on material so someone doesn't have to sit though the movie first or whatever.... besides, what rational person could call a parent forbidding a child from seeing a movie censorship?
He didn't say that a parent forbidding a child from watching a movie was censorship. The censorship comes in when parents base their decisions about their child's viewing solely on the ratings given by some organization. That organization can now censor what certain groups of people will see simply by giving a certain rating. Whether the rating was deserved or not doesn't matter. People won't see it because of the rating it got. Combine this with laws such as "nobody under 17 can see a movie with an 'R' rating" and you get instant censorship.
Big deal, the slipperly slope argument is a bad argument in almost every case. Having computers that allow access to the internet allows this rating system to be implemented which may lead to censorship, so lets get rid of computers!
The slippery slope is not a bad argument in this case. It only sounds silly when someone takes it to an outlandish extreme. Computer networks have existed for decades without ratings. They are obviously not the problem. The web has existed for nearly a decade without ratings. It is not the problem. The first link in the chain that leads to censorship is not computers. It's ratings. Computers could lead to all sorts of things. Ratings lead to censorship.
If you take the time to read the proposal you will notice that this is voluntery, no something assigned by a group. Makes this case pretty hard to rationalize.
Hah. Try reading this:
To be effective, codes of conduct must be the product of and be enforced by self-regulatory agencies. Such agencies must be broadly representative and accessible to all relevant parties. Subject to a process of acquiescence by public au- thorities they should enjoy certain legal privileges enhanc- ing their functions.
Self-regulation cannot function without the support of pub- lic authorities, be it that they simply do not interfere with the self-regulatory process, be it that they endorse or ratify self-regulatory codes and give support through enforce- ment.
Yeah, this sounds really voluntary. Now that many people, and many children in particular, are on the web, someone decides that we need to have a v-chip for the web. This is to be done through ratings and a browser that can block certain ratings. The system will be touted as voluntary in order to get it accepted. Then, when it becomes obvious that some people will not want to be a part of it and will continue to try to make their message or content available to all. Then the ratings group will lobby to have the system be made mandatory so that it will work properly. That's when we all get screwed. It will happen. You can bet on it.
If parents would be parents instead of putting their kids in front of the tv or computer and depending on the machine to keep the kids from harm, we wouldn't have these problems. But people apparently want to have kids and not have to take any responsibility for what they see or hear. They don't want to explain things to their kids. They don't want to listen to their kids' questions. They just want something to babysit the kids while they are off doing what they want to do. People like this should have considered how children would impact their lives and how much time and responsibility it would require before they went and had kids. These kids who are getting messed up by things they watch on tv or in movies or on the net don't need a ratings system. They need real parents.
All Microsoft apparently did is find themselves a group of republican economist types that oppose anti-trust and do so under the benign banner of 'The Independent Institute'. They then gave them plenty of financial support and when these guys put their opposition to anti-trust, and specifically to the DOJ vs. MS trial, into words, they made very sure that those words were published far and wide. They then proceeded to hold these words up in court to demonstrate how even independent groups of economists believed that Microsoft had done nothing wrong.
It seems that they neglected to mention in court that they funded the ads. I don't think presenting ads that were funded by them in court is wrong. I just think that the judge might have assigned somewhat less weight to them had he known. I think it was deceptive of Microsoft to introduce the ad as evidence in court.
In short, I don't think Microsoft has done anything (really) illegal this time. I do think they were deliberately misleading about the nature of the ads. I do believe that they intended to mislead the court, as they attempted several times over the course of the trial. This could be considered illegal, but the judge has given them the benefit of the doubt every time so far, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't tossed any of the Microsoft attornies or witnesses in jail for perjury.
Supporting organizations that promote ideas that are beneficial to the company is something that many companies do. It's not illegal. It can be deceptive. It should probably be watched more closely than it is. People normally don't have the ability to discover who is providing the financial muscle to get these opinions out. This can be important information. I'd like to see it become much more readily available.
Re:Technology will obsolete this within 5-10 years
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
By allowing them to tap everything, it won't be long before they outlaw encryption too. It gets in the way. They'll grant special permission for banks and other institutions to use it for certain purposes, but that's probably about it. If we let them do that, then remailers will be seen as the tool of the criminal and it'll be a snap for them to be outlawed as well. That presents more of a problem because of international issues, but don't doubt that they'll be gung ho to get every other government on the bandwagon.
Re:Searching Serendipity
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... I guess that means a smart cop will always put something small on his list of stuff to search for. I'm sure they could think of something in nearly every circumstance.
Re:Encrypt encrypt encrypt
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
This is just a first step. They had to backpedal on crypto a bit. Now they're going for the tapping capabilities. People will say "I don't care if they can tap the lines. I encrypt my transmissions so they can't read them." The government isn't stupid. They know you have encryption. They'll get the whole tapping issue out of the way and into law first since people aren't as opposed to it. THEN, after the dust settles a bit, they'll go back and outlaw any encryption that doesn't include key escrow. That's when we're all good and screwed.
He's not giving it all (or even most) away. That was something that got spit out into the news and Bill has already stated that he didn't say that. He gives away a fair amount, and gets hefty tax breaks for it too. Note that he started really getting into giving to charity right about the time the trial got going. His money makes more and more money. I doubt he could give it all away if he tried. The money isn't the important thing. He already has more than he or his decendants will ever be able to spend (unless they each decide to buy their own countries). He's in it for the power. He can give away a couple billion here and there and it won't diminish him a bit. He's got plenty more coming in. It will help his public image and make it easier for him to get away with things though.
Open standards are good, but non-voluntary compliance??
Right. I don't think compliance should be mandatory. I think that companies should be able to make what they like. I DO, however, think that the government should not contribute to the proliferation of closed standards. Closed standards are not in the best interests of everyone. We, as a people, should have full access to our government's information without being required to purchase software from a specific company. Nor should the government use our tax dollars to purchase software from a single source when other sources are available and more in line with our interests. (i.e. the other choices are much cheaper and allow the government to contribute something back to the community rather than take from all of us to give to a very small group of companies). Purchasing from a single source actually is illegal for government agencies unless they give a justification for doing so. There have been several cases lately where a government agency has purchased software from Microsoft for their entire agency (or certain sites) without providing a "Sole-Source Justification." They would take their entire existing network and replace it with all Microsoft software. They got a little hand-slapping by Congress and everyone went about their business. That's not the way it should be.
If the government would just mandate that all government agencies (or anyone using government funding) must use only open-source software when such software is available and suitable to the task, we might have less trouble with proprietary standards running rampant. The language they use would probably have to go into much more detail, as the words I used could be interpreted in wildly different ways.
Exactly. Which doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. It simply means that they have a legal monopoly. Now, unfortunately for Microsoft, it doesn't matter how you got the monopoly, once you have it, you play by a different set of rules. These rules are designed to make it possible for competing products to gain access to the market. Microsoft has used every trick in their book to prevent competitors from gaining any access to customers. They did this through contracts with the major OEMs preventing them from selling their hardware without paying Microsoft for the software, whether the customer wanted it or not. They did it by buying up some of these companies and quietly disposing of the technology or incorporating it into Windows. They did it by spreading FUD to make people fear the other options. They did it by giving away products they had formerly charged for, simply to run competitors out of business (otherwise known as dumping). They did it by duplicating others' technology and tying it to their monopoly product.
I know there are other methods that I can't list off the top of my head. The point is that even though Microsoft gained their monopoly legally (though this is still a debated point for many), they are in court because they used that monopoly in illegal ways.
Dell is offering Linux on server machines. Not desktops. Microsoft doesn't have a lock on the server market. Compaq, IBM, and others have always offered other OSes on their servers. Microsoft *DOES* have a lock on the desktop market. You don't see Linux, Beos, OS/2 or anyone else getting onto desktop machines at any of the top-tier OEMs without Microsoft still getting its cut.
One of the biggest things they could do to make Microsoft play fair is to make them publish a price list for all OEMs. There should be no cash changing hands for the various marketing agreements and such. There should be no discounts or other price changing factors allowed. They give Microsoft way too much leverage over everyone else. Example: One company won't agree to ship only Windows on their machines. So, Microsoft raises prices by 30% across the board on their OEM pricelist. They then proceed to give all the OEMs, except the rogue OEM, a 30% discount on everything. They've effectively raised the price for just that one OEM.
Making Microsoft stop using their financial clout to destroy the competition and harm any company who would make competing products available would go a long way towards bringing competition back into the OS market. I don't think this is the only remedy that is needed, but I think it would be a good start.
The real issue, is what market are we talking about?
The flaw in your argument is that you consider the "OS market" (whatever you mean by that) and the "browser market" to be separate markets.
Microsoft was able to define these markets just fine. They spelled it out in some of their internal documents. They knew who the competition was (what little there was of it anyway) and they knew what the markets were. Microsoft referred many times to a "browser market" and an "OS market." They have been contesting this in court, with their pet economist stating that you can't define the markets. This after he just got finished defining those markets in another case in which he was testifying for Microsoft (they won that case, btw). He got around this little problem by simply stating that he had realized that he was mistaken. Well, gee, who could argue with that? Too bad he didn't realize his error until after he had mislead another court into buying into his crap. I'm sure he sleeps well at night though, comforted by Microsoft's significant compensation for being their mercenary economist.
I find you and the poster you were responding to to both be lacking in evidence. He/she made allegations without offering even a single example or shred of evidence. You attempt to shoot down his claims by saying you have looked for proof and didn't find any. Where did you look? What did you find? How long did you pursue the matter? Seems rather pointless to discuss the whole thing without even basic information.
During the trial, Microsoft actually tried to claim that it faced competition from its own products. They must really believe us to be buffoons. When Windows 98 came out, they raised the price of Windows 95 to a point substantially higher than that of Windows 98. It's not too hard to compete with a product when you can control its price. That would be like Coke being able to make Pepsi charge $1.00 per can while Coke charges $.50. They call that competition? The same thing was done with Win 3.1 and Windows 95, as well as with DOS and early versions of Windows before that.
This argument is flawed. If in 18 months one can create reasonable competition and bring down a monopoly, it probably never was one!
There isn't reasonable competition yet. Just a couple of OEMs that have managed to shake some of the chains off. You still can't buy a computer from most of the top OEMs without paying for Windows.
Secondly, it is unjust to say that linux or any other OS somehow became viable because of the DOJ proceedings...
Why is it unjust to say that? I think the DOJ suit is the primary reason why any of the major OEMs are even considering offering another OS on their machines. Surely, if Microsoft didn't have to curtail its anti-competitive behavior during the trial, the OEMs who dared to offer a competing product would have been slapped down hard.
First off, one has been able to buy a personal computer without Windows or MSDOS on it since...umm...personal computers came out.
I believe he was talking about x86 "PCs", not just personal computers in general. The PC is the standard and has been so for quite a while. Yes, you could buy a mac, but then you get a proprietary OS AND proprietary hardware.
Choices included Apple, Amiga, Commadore, etc.
None of these are "PC compatible." They are all proprietary and 2 of the three are basically defunct.
Hell, you could of gotten OS/2 from IBM.
You still can get OS/2 from IBM when you buy a system from them. You simply can't get it pre-installed and you still have to buy Windows whether you intend to use it or not.
What you could not buy -- and still can not buy -- is a Windows-based PC without Windows. Nor will you ever be able to. Because that simply does not make sense.
Sure it makes sense. I want to buy a PC with an Intel processor from one of the top ten OEMs in the country. I plan to run Linux on it. Therefore, I don't need to purchase any OS with the machine. Can I buy it without paying for Windows? Well, I can now... from a couple of them anyway. But at the time the trial was beginning, I couldn't have bought a system from any of those companies without paying for Windows. Even if I didn't have any intention of running Windows on that machine.
Neither you nor you and any number of others (e.g., government) have any right whatsoever to force me to build a PC the way you want it.
So what gives Microsoft the right to pressure these companies into limiting my purchasing options? They fear Microsoft because Microsoft happens to own the most-used OS in existance today. They need to be able to offer it because many customers DO want it. That shouldn't have to mean that their other customers have to get the shaft. Microsoft allows them to offer it providing they get paid for every desktop system that ships, regardless of whether or not the customer actually wants the OS. This means that the OEMs can't offer systems running competing OSes at a competitive price. This severely limits competition, which in turn harms consumers. We have anti-trust laws to protect consumers in situations such as this. That is why Microsoft is being prosecuted. They wouldn't allow their products to compete solely on merit. They had to do everything possible to kill the competition. That's bad for everybody except them. That's not the way our system was designed to operate. The DOJ will hopefully fix the problem.
MY point is that consoles fit better into the "microwave/VCR" category than into the "end user programmable general purpose computer" category.
Not really. VCRs and microwaves are designed to do one thing (well... a couple things). VCRs let you play or record a VHS tape (and you can record your own movies and play them on the VCR if you like). Microwaves let you heat something up. Beyond that, they can't do much.
Consoles, on the other hand, can play all sorts of games, and the newer ones could go even further by including modems and other communication capabilities. They could do many of the things that computers do, but they are geared specifically for games, and are a hell of a lot cheaper than a decent pc gaming rig. It would actually make sense to write programs for a console. Unfortunately the price of admission is very steep.
As a programming novice, I am just now learning about OO programming. Sure, I've read about the concepts behind OO design, but actually designing an OO program is a whole different ballgame for me. After reading your discussion here, I think a lot of what you said makes sense and perhaps I could benefit by getting a better understanding of good OO programming techniques before I end up going down the path of poor OO design. Any good books to recommend? Any tips for beginners?
IANAL, but there is a considerable difference between something saying "We've invented virtual people" and "We've invented a way of having virtual people"; this patent is claiming the latter.
This patent is so vague that it's hard to believe that it was granted. Well... no, I guess it's not all that hard to believe, given the USPTO's track record. The point is that it seems like it would cover ANY computer-based system that attempts to recreate the likeness and speech of a deceased person. It doesn't go into any real detail about how this is done. Given this information, it seems likely that this was an attempt to patent the idea of simulating communication with the deceased on a computer, not just to patent one specific method of doing so. In that case, I believe any prior art that shows that this is not a new idea should be enough to invalidate the patent, or at least require them to include a lot more specific detail.
As far as I'm concerned, you're a kid 'til you hit 21. At least that's the way the government looks at you, when it suits them anyway. If they limit your rights based on age, then they are treating you like a child. When you have the same rights as everyone else and are allowed to make your own decisions about what you should or should not do, then you're an adult and should be made responsible for all of your actions as well. It's no big wonder that so many of these teenagers act so immature. The government is trying to play parent to them and make decisions that should be left up to their real parents. It's not designed to do that and it fails miserably.
I agree with your last point, but isn't that just what Chad did. He declared war on a group he didn't like.
I believe the FBI caused much of the problem here in the first place. They call anyone who can run a script a hacker. They violate the rights of the people they charge with hacking. They demonize every stupid stunt some kid pulls as if it was a major threat to national security. It's no wonder they've pissed off a lot of people. The fact remains that what he did was only minor electronic vandalism.
I don't dig crackers who try and boost their own ego by defacing other peoples property.
I don't agree with what he did any more than you do. I'm just saying that there needs to be some perspective here. Throwing some kid in jail for a relatively long time for a relatively harmless, albeit stupid, stunt is not the answer. He did something that is done every day by thousands of kids across the country. He vandalised something that didn't belong to him. Unfortunately, since he fits the FBI's description of a "hacker", and since the "war on computer crime" is the FBI's latest crusade, he's going to be treated MUCH more harshly than any other vandal in the country. Where's the justice in that? Equal crime should get equal time. That's not going to happen in this case though. They're going to blow it way out of proportion and get the media in on the act. Make the kid out to be some kind of anti-American troublemaker who was out to screw up the governments computers and cause general chaos. He'll be tried and convicted in the media before he ever sees a judge.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll tranq the bear long before that happens. He's planning to get the bear out of the den, not go in after it. Then he just has to let the bear use him as a chew-toy for 3-5 minutes until the tranquilizer takes effect.
Near as I can tell, he was busted for posession of child pornography, not being a child pornographer. Although, he aparently was an aspiring pedophile.
That's the point of a ratings system, to provide a rating on material so someone doesn't have to sit though the movie first or whatever.... besides, what rational person could call a parent forbidding a child from seeing a movie censorship?
He didn't say that a parent forbidding a child from watching a movie was censorship. The censorship comes in when parents base their decisions about their child's viewing solely on the ratings given by some organization. That organization can now censor what certain groups of people will see simply by giving a certain rating. Whether the rating was deserved or not doesn't matter. People won't see it because of the rating it got. Combine this with laws such as "nobody under 17 can see a movie with an 'R' rating" and you get instant censorship.
Big deal, the slipperly slope argument is a bad argument in almost every case. Having computers that allow access to the internet allows this rating system to be implemented which may lead to censorship, so lets get rid of computers!
The slippery slope is not a bad argument in this case. It only sounds silly when someone takes it to an outlandish extreme. Computer networks have existed for decades without ratings. They are obviously not the problem. The web has existed for nearly a decade without ratings. It is not the problem. The first link in the chain that leads to censorship is not computers. It's ratings. Computers could lead to all sorts of things. Ratings lead to censorship.
If you take the time to read the proposal you will notice that this is voluntery, no something assigned by a group. Makes this case pretty hard to rationalize.
Hah. Try reading this:
To be effective, codes of conduct must be the product of and be enforced by self-regulatory agencies. Such agencies must be broadly representative and accessible to all relevant parties. Subject to a process of acquiescence by public au- thorities they should enjoy certain legal privileges enhanc- ing their functions.
Self-regulation cannot function without the support of pub- lic authorities, be it that they simply do not interfere with the self-regulatory process, be it that they endorse or ratify self-regulatory codes and give support through enforce- ment.
Yeah, this sounds really voluntary. Now that many people, and many children in particular, are on the web, someone decides that we need to have a v-chip for the web. This is to be done through ratings and a browser that can block certain ratings. The system will be touted as voluntary in order to get it accepted. Then, when it becomes obvious that some people will not want to be a part of it and will continue to try to make their message or content available to all. Then the ratings group will lobby to have the system be made mandatory so that it will work properly. That's when we all get screwed. It will happen. You can bet on it.
If parents would be parents instead of putting their kids in front of the tv or computer and depending on the machine to keep the kids from harm, we wouldn't have these problems. But people apparently want to have kids and not have to take any responsibility for what they see or hear. They don't want to explain things to their kids. They don't want to listen to their kids' questions. They just want something to babysit the kids while they are off doing what they want to do. People like this should have considered how children would impact their lives and how much time and responsibility it would require before they went and had kids. These kids who are getting messed up by things they watch on tv or in movies or on the net don't need a ratings system. They need real parents.
All Microsoft apparently did is find themselves a group of republican economist types that oppose anti-trust and do so under the benign banner of 'The Independent Institute'. They then gave them plenty of financial support and when these guys put their opposition to anti-trust, and specifically to the DOJ vs. MS trial, into words, they made very sure that those words were published far and wide. They then proceeded to hold these words up in court to demonstrate how even independent groups of economists believed that Microsoft had done nothing wrong.
It seems that they neglected to mention in court that they funded the ads. I don't think presenting ads that were funded by them in court is wrong. I just think that the judge might have assigned somewhat less weight to them had he known. I think it was deceptive of Microsoft to introduce the ad as evidence in court.
In short, I don't think Microsoft has done anything (really) illegal this time. I do think they were deliberately misleading about the nature of the ads. I do believe that they intended to mislead the court, as they attempted several times over the course of the trial. This could be considered illegal, but the judge has given them the benefit of the doubt every time so far, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't tossed any of the Microsoft attornies or witnesses in jail for perjury.
Supporting organizations that promote ideas that are beneficial to the company is something that many companies do. It's not illegal. It can be deceptive. It should probably be watched more closely than it is. People normally don't have the ability to discover who is providing the financial muscle to get these opinions out. This can be important information. I'd like to see it become much more readily available.
By allowing them to tap everything, it won't be long before they outlaw encryption too. It gets in the way. They'll grant special permission for banks and other institutions to use it for certain purposes, but that's probably about it. If we let them do that, then remailers will be seen as the tool of the criminal and it'll be a snap for them to be outlawed as well. That presents more of a problem because of international issues, but don't doubt that they'll be gung ho to get every other government on the bandwagon.
Hmmm... I guess that means a smart cop will always put something small on his list of stuff to search for. I'm sure they could think of something in nearly every circumstance.
This is just a first step. They had to backpedal on crypto a bit. Now they're going for the tapping capabilities. People will say "I don't care if they can tap the lines. I encrypt my transmissions so they can't read them." The government isn't stupid. They know you have encryption. They'll get the whole tapping issue out of the way and into law first since people aren't as opposed to it. THEN, after the dust settles a bit, they'll go back and outlaw any encryption that doesn't include key escrow. That's when we're all good and screwed.
He's not giving it all (or even most) away. That was something that got spit out into the news and Bill has already stated that he didn't say that. He gives away a fair amount, and gets hefty tax breaks for it too. Note that he started really getting into giving to charity right about the time the trial got going. His money makes more and more money. I doubt he could give it all away if he tried. The money isn't the important thing. He already has more than he or his decendants will ever be able to spend (unless they each decide to buy their own countries). He's in it for the power. He can give away a couple billion here and there and it won't diminish him a bit. He's got plenty more coming in. It will help his public image and make it easier for him to get away with things though.
Open standards are good, but non-voluntary compliance??
Right. I don't think compliance should be mandatory. I think that companies should be able to make what they like. I DO , however, think that the government should not contribute to the proliferation of closed standards. Closed standards are not in the best interests of everyone. We, as a people, should have full access to our government's information without being required to purchase software from a specific company. Nor should the government use our tax dollars to purchase software from a single source when other sources are available and more in line with our interests. (i.e. the other choices are much cheaper and allow the government to contribute something back to the community rather than take from all of us to give to a very small group of companies). Purchasing from a single source actually is illegal for government agencies unless they give a justification for doing so. There have been several cases lately where a government agency has purchased software from Microsoft for their entire agency (or certain sites) without providing a "Sole-Source Justification." They would take their entire existing network and replace it with all Microsoft software. They got a little hand-slapping by Congress and everyone went about their business. That's not the way it should be.
If the government would just mandate that all government agencies (or anyone using government funding) must use only open-source software when such software is available and suitable to the task, we might have less trouble with proprietary standards running rampant. The language they use would probably have to go into much more detail, as the words I used could be interpreted in wildly different ways.
Exactly. Which doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. It simply means that they have a legal monopoly. Now, unfortunately for Microsoft, it doesn't matter how you got the monopoly, once you have it, you play by a different set of rules. These rules are designed to make it possible for competing products to gain access to the market. Microsoft has used every trick in their book to prevent competitors from gaining any access to customers. They did this through contracts with the major OEMs preventing them from selling their hardware without paying Microsoft for the software, whether the customer wanted it or not. They did it by buying up some of these companies and quietly disposing of the technology or incorporating it into Windows. They did it by spreading FUD to make people fear the other options. They did it by giving away products they had formerly charged for, simply to run competitors out of business (otherwise known as dumping). They did it by duplicating others' technology and tying it to their monopoly product.
I know there are other methods that I can't list off the top of my head. The point is that even though Microsoft gained their monopoly legally (though this is still a debated point for many), they are in court because they used that monopoly in illegal ways.
Dell is offering Linux on server machines. Not desktops. Microsoft doesn't have a lock on the server market. Compaq, IBM, and others have always offered other OSes on their servers. Microsoft *DOES* have a lock on the desktop market. You don't see Linux, Beos, OS/2 or anyone else getting onto desktop machines at any of the top-tier OEMs without Microsoft still getting its cut.
One of the biggest things they could do to make Microsoft play fair is to make them publish a price list for all OEMs. There should be no cash changing hands for the various marketing agreements and such. There should be no discounts or other price changing factors allowed. They give Microsoft way too much leverage over everyone else. Example: One company won't agree to ship only Windows on their machines. So, Microsoft raises prices by 30% across the board on their OEM pricelist. They then proceed to give all the OEMs, except the rogue OEM, a 30% discount on everything. They've effectively raised the price for just that one OEM.
Making Microsoft stop using their financial clout to destroy the competition and harm any company who would make competing products available would go a long way towards bringing competition back into the OS market. I don't think this is the only remedy that is needed, but I think it would be a good start.
The real issue, is what market are we talking about?
The flaw in your argument is that you consider the "OS market" (whatever you mean by that) and the "browser market" to be separate markets.
Microsoft was able to define these markets just fine. They spelled it out in some of their internal documents. They knew who the competition was (what little there was of it anyway) and they knew what the markets were. Microsoft referred many times to a "browser market" and an "OS market." They have been contesting this in court, with their pet economist stating that you can't define the markets. This after he just got finished defining those markets in another case in which he was testifying for Microsoft (they won that case, btw). He got around this little problem by simply stating that he had realized that he was mistaken. Well, gee, who could argue with that? Too bad he didn't realize his error until after he had mislead another court into buying into his crap. I'm sure he sleeps well at night though, comforted by Microsoft's significant compensation for being their mercenary economist.
No wonder it has only been tried 3 times in 70 years previously, and actually executed only once.
Thought it had been used to good effect at least twice. Once with Standard Oil, and once with AT&T.
I find you and the poster you were responding to to both be lacking in evidence. He/she made allegations without offering even a single example or shred of evidence. You attempt to shoot down his claims by saying you have looked for proof and didn't find any. Where did you look? What did you find? How long did you pursue the matter? Seems rather pointless to discuss the whole thing without even basic information.
During the trial, Microsoft actually tried to claim that it faced competition from its own products. They must really believe us to be buffoons. When Windows 98 came out, they raised the price of Windows 95 to a point substantially higher than that of Windows 98. It's not too hard to compete with a product when you can control its price. That would be like Coke being able to make Pepsi charge $1.00 per can while Coke charges $.50. They call that competition? The same thing was done with Win 3.1 and Windows 95, as well as with DOS and early versions of Windows before that.
This argument is flawed. If in 18 months one can create reasonable competition and bring down a monopoly, it probably never was one!
There isn't reasonable competition yet. Just a couple of OEMs that have managed to shake some of the chains off. You still can't buy a computer from most of the top OEMs without paying for Windows.
Secondly, it is unjust to say that linux or any other OS somehow became viable because of the DOJ proceedings...
Why is it unjust to say that? I think the DOJ suit is the primary reason why any of the major OEMs are even considering offering another OS on their machines. Surely, if Microsoft didn't have to curtail its anti-competitive behavior during the trial, the OEMs who dared to offer a competing product would have been slapped down hard.
First off, one has been able to buy a personal computer without Windows or MSDOS on it since...umm...personal computers came out.
I believe he was talking about x86 "PCs", not just personal computers in general. The PC is the standard and has been so for quite a while. Yes, you could buy a mac, but then you get a proprietary OS AND proprietary hardware.
Choices included Apple, Amiga, Commadore, etc.
None of these are "PC compatible." They are all proprietary and 2 of the three are basically defunct.
Hell, you could of gotten OS/2 from IBM.
You still can get OS/2 from IBM when you buy a system from them. You simply can't get it pre-installed and you still have to buy Windows whether you intend to use it or not.
What you could not buy -- and still can not buy -- is a Windows-based PC without Windows. Nor will you ever be able to. Because that simply does not make sense.
Sure it makes sense. I want to buy a PC with an Intel processor from one of the top ten OEMs in the country. I plan to run Linux on it. Therefore, I don't need to purchase any OS with the machine. Can I buy it without paying for Windows? Well, I can now... from a couple of them anyway. But at the time the trial was beginning, I couldn't have bought a system from any of those companies without paying for Windows. Even if I didn't have any intention of running Windows on that machine.
Neither you nor you and any number of others (e.g., government) have any right whatsoever to force me to build a PC the way you want it.
So what gives Microsoft the right to pressure these companies into limiting my purchasing options? They fear Microsoft because Microsoft happens to own the most-used OS in existance today. They need to be able to offer it because many customers DO want it. That shouldn't have to mean that their other customers have to get the shaft. Microsoft allows them to offer it providing they get paid for every desktop system that ships, regardless of whether or not the customer actually wants the OS. This means that the OEMs can't offer systems running competing OSes at a competitive price. This severely limits competition, which in turn harms consumers. We have anti-trust laws to protect consumers in situations such as this. That is why Microsoft is being prosecuted. They wouldn't allow their products to compete solely on merit. They had to do everything possible to kill the competition. That's bad for everybody except them. That's not the way our system was designed to operate. The DOJ will hopefully fix the problem.
Scary thing is that you're probably right. This could be solved by using .reg or .tm instead of .r for registered trademarks.
I fail to see how putting a positive spin on a negative act will help anyone.
MY point is that consoles fit better into the "microwave/VCR" category than into the "end user programmable general purpose computer" category.
Not really. VCRs and microwaves are designed to do one thing (well... a couple things). VCRs let you play or record a VHS tape (and you can record your own movies and play them on the VCR if you like). Microwaves let you heat something up. Beyond that, they can't do much.
Consoles, on the other hand, can play all sorts of games, and the newer ones could go even further by including modems and other communication capabilities. They could do many of the things that computers do, but they are geared specifically for games, and are a hell of a lot cheaper than a decent pc gaming rig. It would actually make sense to write programs for a console. Unfortunately the price of admission is very steep.
As a programming novice, I am just now learning about OO programming. Sure, I've read about the concepts behind OO design, but actually designing an OO program is a whole different ballgame for me. After reading your discussion here, I think a lot of what you said makes sense and perhaps I could benefit by getting a better understanding of good OO programming techniques before I end up going down the path of poor OO design. Any good books to recommend? Any tips for beginners?
IANAL, but there is a considerable difference between something saying "We've invented virtual people" and "We've invented a way of having virtual people"; this patent is claiming the latter.
This patent is so vague that it's hard to believe that it was granted. Well... no, I guess it's not all that hard to believe, given the USPTO's track record. The point is that it seems like it would cover ANY computer-based system that attempts to recreate the likeness and speech of a deceased person. It doesn't go into any real detail about how this is done. Given this information, it seems likely that this was an attempt to patent the idea of simulating communication with the deceased on a computer, not just to patent one specific method of doing so. In that case, I believe any prior art that shows that this is not a new idea should be enough to invalidate the patent, or at least require them to include a lot more specific detail.
As I get older, I keep wondering what motivated our parents' generation to screw things up as badly as they did.
Same things that always screw things up. Greed, arrogance, paranoia, and fear.
As far as I'm concerned, you're a kid 'til you hit 21. At least that's the way the government looks at you, when it suits them anyway. If they limit your rights based on age, then they are treating you like a child. When you have the same rights as everyone else and are allowed to make your own decisions about what you should or should not do, then you're an adult and should be made responsible for all of your actions as well. It's no big wonder that so many of these teenagers act so immature. The government is trying to play parent to them and make decisions that should be left up to their real parents. It's not designed to do that and it fails miserably.
I agree with your last point, but isn't that just what Chad did. He declared war on a group he didn't like.
I believe the FBI caused much of the problem here in the first place. They call anyone who can run a script a hacker. They violate the rights of the people they charge with hacking. They demonize every stupid stunt some kid pulls as if it was a major threat to national security. It's no wonder they've pissed off a lot of people. The fact remains that what he did was only minor electronic vandalism.
I don't dig crackers who try and boost their own ego by defacing other peoples property.
I don't agree with what he did any more than you do. I'm just saying that there needs to be some perspective here. Throwing some kid in jail for a relatively long time for a relatively harmless, albeit stupid, stunt is not the answer. He did something that is done every day by thousands of kids across the country. He vandalised something that didn't belong to him. Unfortunately, since he fits the FBI's description of a "hacker", and since the "war on computer crime" is the FBI's latest crusade, he's going to be treated MUCH more harshly than any other vandal in the country. Where's the justice in that? Equal crime should get equal time. That's not going to happen in this case though. They're going to blow it way out of proportion and get the media in on the act. Make the kid out to be some kind of anti-American troublemaker who was out to screw up the governments computers and cause general chaos. He'll be tried and convicted in the media before he ever sees a judge.