Yeah, but none of them have six eyes or hard green skin with little nubs all over. Not to mention the fact that they look like accident victims that only have two legs left. I don't see how any alien could possibly find them attractive.
Following this path of reasoning leads to the conclusion that they should be found guilty this time, whether or not the facts warrant it, just because they meet the "killer" criteria.
"killer" criteria? They had a smoking gun! Witnesses. Fingerprints. The works. They had all the evidence they needed. That's why the consent decree happened in the first place. The difference is that a killer can't get off by promising not to do it again. A real killer would have to put up the best defense possible and accept/appeal the decision. Microsoft can just sign a decree saying that they won't do certain things anymore. There is such a thing as the spirit and the intent of the law. Microsoft disregarded these. Many of our laws are pretty well defined. You probably can't talk your way around them. Then again, many are not. Many dealing with issues such as anti-trust are intentionally vague so as to allow some flexibility due to changes in markets and technology. Microsoft took advantage of the wording of the decree to get around what they knew to be the intent.
The DOJ just didn't realize who they were dealing with. Bill wasn't appropriately scared into submission. He just got a few words changed here and there. Presto! A worthless consent decree. He walked away laughing. He bragged to the press. The DOJ looked like a pack of idiots.
THE FACTS DID WARRANT A CONVICTION. Unfortunately, the facts had nothing to do with the decisions made before. They got off because of a stupid loophole that the DOJ was clumsy enough to let them insert into the consent decree. The DOJ was stupid enough to let Microsoft reword the decree so that they were able to get around the intent of the decree. Then they defended the decree against Judge Sporkin, who said that it was not strong enough and that it would be ineffective. He was right. They were wrong.
Large corporations seem to be somewhat immune to the real effects of their actions. They can afford to put up all kinds of defenses against the law that normal people could never use. How many of us can afford to buy grass roots campaigns? How many of us have enough money that we can get political support? How many of us can afford a team of 20 lawyers? That tells me that the law is not the same deterrant to them that it is to regular people.
Doesn't that make it right to try them again from another angle? Why not? They are still pointing to at least some, if not all, of the real problems. They just needed something everyone could understand as the central point. It's certainly not the most important point. If I was making a case that I knew would be heard by someone who understood the technology involved, I probably would have left out the browser thing. It was tangential to the real case really. If they addressed and fixed the real problems, the browser issue would cease to exist anyway. Unfortunately, that's not the way our courts work. Lawyers can't count on the judge understanding everything involved in the case. Nor can they afford to get negative press because other people misinterpret or misunderstand their arguments. It's not just a legal battle. It's a public opinion battle. It's a political battle. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. As long as corporations can use these avenues to help their own case out, the prosecution must use them as well in order to keep their own case strong. So, the DOJ holds up Netscape as an example. Everybody knows Netscape. People can understand the arguments. The judge can understand the arguments. There was quite a bit of evidence showing the intent behind the integration of IE. It was a fairly decent case. But they didn't let that stand on its own. They piled on every other incident of Microsoft breaking the law or engaging in anti-competitive behavior. They needed to show the broad scope of abuses. The Netscape part seemed to be a show they put on. We probably won't get to seeMuch of the real meat of the case since it's all declared classified by Microsoft or one of the other parties. That information might have a bigger impact on the judge's decision than anything we heard in court. I think the case is worthwhile. I think the DOJ is doing the right thing. As soon as the consent decree was signed, Microsoft went right back to its old tricks. This is what was supposed to stop after the last case. It didn't. Therefore, Microsoft deserves to be prosecuted for its actions again.
It was unethical, it was immoral, and it was illegal. Yet they got a slap on the wrist and "don't do that again."
Right. The DOJ screwed up bigtime when they defended Microsoft against Judge Sporkin. Sporkin knew the agreement was bogus and would be completely ineffective. He got overruled by another court in which the DOJ defended their agreement. That showed that the DOJ didn't really know what it was doing. I would have expected better from people who supposedly know the law so well. You'd think they could write a consent decree without wide-open gaping holes in it. I guess not.
On the other hand, the DOJ did learn from the incident. They know now that they cannot give Microsoft an inch lest they take a mile. The DOJ guys got particularly offended that Microsoft laughed off the decree. It made him look like a buffoon, but it was their own ignorance that landed them in that situation. They decided to go after MS with a vengeance this time. They went after them on the only things they could understand well enough to explain to the court. If the court doesn't understand it, then you're not going to win your case.
The problem is that we don't have courts capable of dealing with complex technical issues. Sure, there are the expert witnesses, but who are the unbiased experts that the judge can refer to? Is there such a thing as an unbiased expert anyway? I don't know. Basically, the case seemed like it was dumbed down to me. They did hit on the important issues. Unfortunately, much of the testimony and evidence involved in those arguments is still under seal. It's all top secret agreements and stuff. That could well be some of the most damaging evidence in the case. We can't know though. As far as proving intent, I think they did a pretty good job of that just using Microsoft's internal email.
I don't know that I go along with any particular political way of thinking. What I'm sick of is the fact that Congress keeps passing these laws that will be selectively enforced (i.e. "we'll only prosecute the bad people for breaking this law"). That's complete BS and these sorts of laws should not be allowed to exist. Either the law applies to everyone or the law is nothing but a tyrannical tool of those in power.
Why should the rest of the world have to abide by the standards of our idiotic politicians? Especially when many of them are hypocrites anyway? Do you think we should just have one internet for America and not let anyone else in? You'd probably be in the minority... err.. well no.. you'd be with the majority of mindless tv drones that think the internet is just a cool way to find out what the weather will be like and download porn. The point is that you would be isolating the US and drastically limiting the usefulness of the net.
I think we've already hit the point of diminishing returns for our exchanges of freedom for security. Actually we've sailed on past it. Now we're limiting people's rights to even link to other information on the web. That's not helping anyone and it is going to hurt those who want information. There are lots of other examples of stupid laws that don't do much to help but do quite a bit to harm. I'm out of time though so maybe someone else can pick this one up.
Re:Free information, anyone?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
With all this said I have but one thing left to say...VOTE GADDAMMIT!
Ok, I'd love to vote. If there was only someone worth voting for, I would definitely cast my vote for them. I don't trust the senators from my state, Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), any farther than I can throw them. They're both into all sorts of screwed up deals. Gramm is chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, as well as being on the Budget Committee and Finance Committee. He knows where the money is. I've read some of his debates about the budget. This guy has some screwed up thinking. Until you realize that he's not really working for the voters.
Their Democratic opponents aren't any more appealing. Third party voting is practically hopeless. This is probably the reason we can't get a better election system set up. The current one strongly favors the two established parties. Running a campaign, getting on the ballot, getting into debates, etc. is all very difficult and costly. It will likely only become moreso.
I'd love to see someone else get elected. Someone who might actually stand up for people's rights and not play political games. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon unless things change though. You can't get anything done in Washington without playing their Congresscritter games.
You make some good points. There are plenty of problems with the government that are largely ignored and covered up whenever possible. That does not, however, mean that the software industry should be immune from the laws or regulation if certain companies are running amok and taking out smaller companies left and right. This isn't Wild Kingdom. It's not a no-holds-barred fight between these companies. There are rules. If MS broke those rules, they should be slapped down... hard.
The way I look at it is that Microsoft is like a killer who has gotten off on technicalities in the past. The evidence is overwhelming, but some stupid screwup let the killer get off scott free. Now, there is a new trial and the prosecution is going after whatever they can to put the killer behind bars. I realize the problem with precedents. Unfortunately, the legal system is littered with stupid precedents. This one might do more good than harm, or it might not. We won't know until it's been set. We do know that if Microsoft gets off again, they'll probably systematically start stomping everyone who had anything to do with helping the DOJ. It'll be payback time. Then nobody will dare challenge Microsoft, for we will all have seen the power they wield. If their lawyers (even when performing as poorly as they have) can get them off on any charge, they will be unstoppable.
Deciding what features may or may not be included in any software product (whether an OS or an app) is not the rightful domain of the government.
No, it is not their rightful domain. However, they aren't in court to decide what features should be part of a browser or OS. They are in court to determine whether MS integrated their Browser to destroy the market for a competitor. If they can prove that that was the intent behind the integration, then they have a valid case.
Throughout the history of this country, competitors have driven one another out of business. It's intrinsic in the capitalist model, and no company has the "right" to be in business.
Driving another company out of business by creating a better product is one thing. Driving another company out of business by making customers buy the same product as a condition of getting another product is something else altogether. Make no mistake, we pay for IE. It's just another one of those "value added features" that ensures that the price of Windows never falls the way all other prices in the industry do. Our government set up the rules for business. Anti-trust laws were determined to be a necessary part of maintaining a balance between the interests of corporations and the interests of the people who give the corporations their power in the first place.
Staying in business depends (or should depend) on delivering a needed product at an attractive price, with an acceptable level of quality.
Sure, but what if you sold widgets. Everyone wanted to have a widget around the house. Then some huge corp comes along and declares that you must buy their widget if you want to buy their thingamajig, which is virtually a necessity for 90% of the country. Since nobody else is allowed to make thingamajigs, what choice do you have but to buy the widget from them?
People can rationalize what Microsoft has done 'til they're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that they have lied, cheated, and stolen from all of us. These are known facts that many people don't seem to care about. For some reason, companies are thought to be exempt from ethics and, in many cases, the law itself. When will people get tired of companies attempting to deceive them? Btw, the "but everybody does it" argument doesn't work here.
You can't be loyal to something you honestly don't see any direct or indirect value in.
You'd be amazed to know that people are often loyal to certain products without even knowing why. The product could be domonstrably inferior, but the person is "loyal" to the brand because they've always used it. Loyalty doesn't always make sense. Perhaps it could be chalked up to resistance to change.
If they don't stock a movie you want, they go and find it somewhere and call you when you can rent it. They carry foriegn films. They carry the NC-17 versions of movies.
See? You do find value in that store that you can't get from Blockbuster. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable for you to continue to give them your business.
It just is not fair that they can leverage themselve upon every community.
Actually, it's perfectly fair. That doesn't mean they will wipe out other businesses. I think it's just fine if Blockbuster wants to put a store on every streetcorner in the country. I don't, however, think it's ok for them to try to destroy local businesses by dropping prices there temporarily or using other anti-competitive tactics.
If there weren't some loyal people willing to expend the effort to fix and improve things, Linux would have been quickly abandoned.
That's not loyalty that keeps them there. At least not most of them. It's that Linux provides them with things that no other OS provides. These are not necessarily OS features. Some people stick with Linux because they understand that it's the best long-term choice. It doesn't encourage rampant abuses of consumers by big corporations. Surely there's value in that? It doesn't allow anyone to have ultimate control of the development direction or hi-jack the standards. Isn't there some value in that? It allows them to create new things and have those things used by others. It let's them add the things that are important to them. They don't have to get permission from anyone or beg for things to be added. Many people value that too? Control is a powerful feature.
You see, people find value in many things. That's why they stay with them even when other things appear to be superior. The superiority may be a superficial thing to them because they are concerned with larger issues. It's the value people see in things that makes them stay. Not just loyalty.
They carry less movies and charge about the same as the Blockbuster that opened down the street. I still go to my local place due to a sense of "loyalty." Loyalty is what lets a business thrive.
So you stay with the inferior business out of simple loyalty to that store or company? A dog wouldn't even do that, and people definitely shouldn't.
While I can think of lots of reasons why I would want to stay with a smaller store rather than Blockbuster, you didn't give any of them so I have to assume that you were just staying with the smaller company out of pure loyalty as you said. Now, if there is some intangible reason you stay with them, i.e. they know you by name and you like the personal service, or they cater to a specific interest of yours, then that is something that they offer that Blockbuster doesn't. This could tip the scales in favor of the smaller store.
However, just staying with them because that's where you've always rented is not what makes business work. Competition makes business work. May the best company win and all that. If Blockbuster provides everything the other store provides, and has a larger variety of movies as well (assuming you value that variety), then they deserve the business because they have built the better store. To stick with the store that offers less for the same money is to encourage mediocre businesses to continue to survive while the superior ones don't do as well as they deserve.
I'm not saying that small businesses are necessarily mediocre. As I said earlier, I could come up with many reasons why I'd prefer the smaller store. I'm just talking about a particular set of circumstances.
In this so called democracy of ours, we, the minority, have to bend to the will of the majority. That works ok in many cases, but shouldn't there be a limit on what the majority can impose on the minority? Taking someone's privacy away crosses that line I would think.
Must be nice to be able to argue without ever making an argument. Simply label someone and assume that it automatically voids their argument. Nice and neat and totally devoid of any meaning.
Well, Amazon.com didn't ship my books by email either. I give them my card# over the net and they have UPS send me the books. Just like this guy's example. They give him the number over the net, and he sends them the car by some other method.
Restrictions on investments based on how much money you have are wrong. If I want to invest the few thousand I have in the bank, that should be my right. Otherwise we have an elitist, "for the wealthy only", market. It's not open. There is obviously no opportunity for those who were born without money.
I'm an adult. I can make my own financial decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions. I refuse to be treated like a child who must be protected from himself. I refuse to allow others to tell me that I cannot avail myself of the opportunities available in the stock market, and especially in participating in an IPO, simply because they feel that I can't deal with the possible consequences since I don't have as much money as they do. Horseshit. I've lived all my life with a lot less money than they have. Who are they to tell me I can't risk the money I have in exchange for a chance to make more money. Should the opportunities only be open to those who have more money than they need? If all was done legally, and I lose my investment, I can blame nobody but myself.
Rich people often don't get the whole idea that the stock market is a risk that they're taking. They seem to think they should be allowed to increase their bank accounts forever with no risk to them. Banks and other financial institutions make stupid financial decisions all the time. The end up getting bailed out by the government with OUR TAX MONEY. Otherwise it would cause a chain reaction and put lots of companies and individuals who were banking on these investments in the poor house. Well, we can't have that, so instead of changing the way we do things, we bail them out. They obviously aren't held responsible or accountable for their actions.
Those of us who understand the value of money also understand the risks to our money. We aren't used to having people bail us out. At least not since our parents stopped doing it. If you invest in a mutual fund, you should know that it could go bad and you could lose it all. Other investments are similar. They carry risks that you must weigh in comparison with the possible rewards. In the end, it's a judgement call. The very wealthy seem to be immune from the effects of bad judgement. There are plenty of laws dealing with the way you can invest and the way investments must be presented to people. If you sign your money away on an investment, you acknowledge the risks. As long as the company follows the rules about disclosure of information to you, you will have the information you need to monitor your investment. If something totally unforseen happens.... well... you took that risk and lost. It happens.
Don't invest money you don't have. Don't invest money you can't afford to lose. Those should be the only rules that should be deciding whether or not someone is allowed to make an investment.
The point here is that the old saying, "It takes money to make money" is becoming more and more true. It won't be very long before we have a permanently established ruling class in this country. Oh, it may not say as much in writing, but they'll be the ones with the power to make the rules. Who could stop them?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but none of them have six eyes or hard green skin with little nubs all over. Not to mention the fact that they look like accident victims that only have two legs left. I don't see how any alien could possibly find them attractive.
Why does no one in a place to actually have an effect on this (Congress, Legislatures, Courts) ask this?
Simple. They're either stupid or corrupt.
Hope he gets enough to keep things running. I'm in for $10. Just have to make a stop on the way home today.
Following this path of reasoning leads to the conclusion that they should be found guilty this time, whether or not the facts warrant it, just because they meet the "killer" criteria.
"killer" criteria? They had a smoking gun! Witnesses. Fingerprints. The works. They had all the evidence they needed. That's why the consent decree happened in the first place. The difference is that a killer can't get off by promising not to do it again. A real killer would have to put up the best defense possible and accept/appeal the decision. Microsoft can just sign a decree saying that they won't do certain things anymore. There is such a thing as the spirit and the intent of the law. Microsoft disregarded these. Many of our laws are pretty well defined. You probably can't talk your way around them. Then again, many are not. Many dealing with issues such as anti-trust are intentionally vague so as to allow some flexibility due to changes in markets and technology. Microsoft took advantage of the wording of the decree to get around what they knew to be the intent.
The DOJ just didn't realize who they were dealing with. Bill wasn't appropriately scared into submission. He just got a few words changed here and there. Presto! A worthless consent decree. He walked away laughing. He bragged to the press. The DOJ looked like a pack of idiots.
THE FACTS DID WARRANT A CONVICTION. Unfortunately, the facts had nothing to do with the decisions made before. They got off because of a stupid loophole that the DOJ was clumsy enough to let them insert into the consent decree. The DOJ was stupid enough to let Microsoft reword the decree so that they were able to get around the intent of the decree. Then they defended the decree against Judge Sporkin, who said that it was not strong enough and that it would be ineffective. He was right. They were wrong.
Large corporations seem to be somewhat immune to the real effects of their actions. They can afford to put up all kinds of defenses against the law that normal people could never use. How many of us can afford to buy grass roots campaigns? How many of us have enough money that we can get political support? How many of us can afford a team of 20 lawyers? That tells me that the law is not the same deterrant to them that it is to regular people.
Doesn't that make it right to try them again from another angle? Why not? They are still pointing to at least some, if not all, of the real problems. They just needed something everyone could understand as the central point. It's certainly not the most important point. If I was making a case that I knew would be heard by someone who understood the technology involved, I probably would have left out the browser thing. It was tangential to the real case really. If they addressed and fixed the real problems, the browser issue would cease to exist anyway. Unfortunately, that's not the way our courts work. Lawyers can't count on the judge understanding everything involved in the case. Nor can they afford to get negative press because other people misinterpret or misunderstand their arguments. It's not just a legal battle. It's a public opinion battle. It's a political battle. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. As long as corporations can use these avenues to help their own case out, the prosecution must use them as well in order to keep their own case strong. So, the DOJ holds up Netscape as an example. Everybody knows Netscape. People can understand the arguments. The judge can understand the arguments. There was quite a bit of evidence showing the intent behind the integration of IE. It was a fairly decent case. But they didn't let that stand on its own. They piled on every other incident of Microsoft breaking the law or engaging in anti-competitive behavior. They needed to show the broad scope of abuses. The Netscape part seemed to be a show they put on. We probably won't get to seeMuch of the real meat of the case since it's all declared classified by Microsoft or one of the other parties. That information might have a bigger impact on the judge's decision than anything we heard in court. I think the case is worthwhile. I think the DOJ is doing the right thing. As soon as the consent decree was signed, Microsoft went right back to its old tricks. This is what was supposed to stop after the last case. It didn't. Therefore, Microsoft deserves to be prosecuted for its actions again.
It was unethical, it was immoral, and it was illegal. Yet they got a slap on the wrist and "don't do that again."
Right. The DOJ screwed up bigtime when they defended Microsoft against Judge Sporkin. Sporkin knew the agreement was bogus and would be completely ineffective. He got overruled by another court in which the DOJ defended their agreement. That showed that the DOJ didn't really know what it was doing. I would have expected better from people who supposedly know the law so well. You'd think they could write a consent decree without wide-open gaping holes in it. I guess not.
On the other hand, the DOJ did learn from the incident. They know now that they cannot give Microsoft an inch lest they take a mile. The DOJ guys got particularly offended that Microsoft laughed off the decree. It made him look like a buffoon, but it was their own ignorance that landed them in that situation. They decided to go after MS with a vengeance this time. They went after them on the only things they could understand well enough to explain to the court. If the court doesn't understand it, then you're not going to win your case.
The problem is that we don't have courts capable of dealing with complex technical issues. Sure, there are the expert witnesses, but who are the unbiased experts that the judge can refer to? Is there such a thing as an unbiased expert anyway? I don't know. Basically, the case seemed like it was dumbed down to me. They did hit on the important issues. Unfortunately, much of the testimony and evidence involved in those arguments is still under seal. It's all top secret agreements and stuff. That could well be some of the most damaging evidence in the case. We can't know though. As far as proving intent, I think they did a pretty good job of that just using Microsoft's internal email.
I'd like to see Homeworld, C&C 2, and Jagged Alliance 2 for Linux.
I don't know that I go along with any particular political way of thinking. What I'm sick of is the fact that Congress keeps passing these laws that will be selectively enforced (i.e. "we'll only prosecute the bad people for breaking this law"). That's complete BS and these sorts of laws should not be allowed to exist. Either the law applies to everyone or the law is nothing but a tyrannical tool of those in power.
Why should the rest of the world have to abide by the standards of our idiotic politicians? Especially when many of them are hypocrites anyway? Do you think we should just have one internet for America and not let anyone else in? You'd probably be in the minority... err.. well no.. you'd be with the majority of mindless tv drones that think the internet is just a cool way to find out what the weather will be like and download porn. The point is that you would be isolating the US and drastically limiting the usefulness of the net.
I could swear it did.
I think we've already hit the point of diminishing returns for our exchanges of freedom for security. Actually we've sailed on past it. Now we're limiting people's rights to even link to other information on the web. That's not helping anyone and it is going to hurt those who want information. There are lots of other examples of stupid laws that don't do much to help but do quite a bit to harm. I'm out of time though so maybe someone else can pick this one up.
With all this said I have but one thing left to say...VOTE GADDAMMIT!
Ok, I'd love to vote. If there was only someone worth voting for, I would definitely cast my vote for them. I don't trust the senators from my state, Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), any farther than I can throw them. They're both into all sorts of screwed up deals. Gramm is chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, as well as being on the Budget Committee and Finance Committee. He knows where the money is. I've read some of his debates about the budget. This guy has some screwed up thinking. Until you realize that he's not really working for the voters.
Their Democratic opponents aren't any more appealing. Third party voting is practically hopeless. This is probably the reason we can't get a better election system set up. The current one strongly favors the two established parties. Running a campaign, getting on the ballot, getting into debates, etc. is all very difficult and costly. It will likely only become moreso.
I'd love to see someone else get elected. Someone who might actually stand up for people's rights and not play political games. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon unless things change though. You can't get anything done in Washington without playing their Congresscritter games.
You make some good points. There are plenty of problems with the government that are largely ignored and covered up whenever possible. That does not, however, mean that the software industry should be immune from the laws or regulation if certain companies are running amok and taking out smaller companies left and right. This isn't Wild Kingdom. It's not a no-holds-barred fight between these companies. There are rules. If MS broke those rules, they should be slapped down... hard.
The way I look at it is that Microsoft is like a killer who has gotten off on technicalities in the past. The evidence is overwhelming, but some stupid screwup let the killer get off scott free. Now, there is a new trial and the prosecution is going after whatever they can to put the killer behind bars. I realize the problem with precedents. Unfortunately, the legal system is littered with stupid precedents. This one might do more good than harm, or it might not. We won't know until it's been set. We do know that if Microsoft gets off again, they'll probably systematically start stomping everyone who had anything to do with helping the DOJ. It'll be payback time. Then nobody will dare challenge Microsoft, for we will all have seen the power they wield. If their lawyers (even when performing as poorly as they have) can get them off on any charge, they will be unstoppable.
Deciding what features may or may not be included in any software product (whether an OS or an app) is not the rightful domain of the government.
No, it is not their rightful domain. However, they aren't in court to decide what features should be part of a browser or OS. They are in court to determine whether MS integrated their Browser to destroy the market for a competitor. If they can prove that that was the intent behind the integration, then they have a valid case.
Throughout the history of this country, competitors have driven one another out of business. It's intrinsic in the capitalist model, and no company has the "right" to be in business.
Driving another company out of business by creating a better product is one thing. Driving another company out of business by making customers buy the same product as a condition of getting another product is something else altogether. Make no mistake, we pay for IE. It's just another one of those "value added features" that ensures that the price of Windows never falls the way all other prices in the industry do. Our government set up the rules for business. Anti-trust laws were determined to be a necessary part of maintaining a balance between the interests of corporations and the interests of the people who give the corporations their power in the first place.
Staying in business depends (or should depend) on delivering a needed product at an attractive price, with an acceptable level of quality.
Sure, but what if you sold widgets. Everyone wanted to have a widget around the house. Then some huge corp comes along and declares that you must buy their widget if you want to buy their thingamajig, which is virtually a necessity for 90% of the country. Since nobody else is allowed to make thingamajigs, what choice do you have but to buy the widget from them?
People can rationalize what Microsoft has done 'til they're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that they have lied, cheated, and stolen from all of us. These are known facts that many people don't seem to care about. For some reason, companies are thought to be exempt from ethics and, in many cases, the law itself. When will people get tired of companies attempting to deceive them? Btw, the "but everybody does it" argument doesn't work here.
You can't be loyal to something you honestly don't see any direct or indirect value in.
You'd be amazed to know that people are often loyal to certain products without even knowing why. The product could be domonstrably inferior, but the person is "loyal" to the brand because they've always used it. Loyalty doesn't always make sense. Perhaps it could be chalked up to resistance to change.
If they don't stock a movie you want, they go and find it somewhere and call you when you can rent it. They carry foriegn films. They carry the NC-17 versions of movies.
See? You do find value in that store that you can't get from Blockbuster. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable for you to continue to give them your business.
It just is not fair that they can leverage themselve upon every community.
Actually, it's perfectly fair. That doesn't mean they will wipe out other businesses. I think it's just fine if Blockbuster wants to put a store on every streetcorner in the country. I don't, however, think it's ok for them to try to destroy local businesses by dropping prices there temporarily or using other anti-competitive tactics.
From reading the other posts, it sounds like it's an automatic shutdown, not a crash. Therefore it's a feature :)
Not to mention that even when NT 3.51 was certified on 3 hardware platforms, it was only secure if it didn't have a floppy drive or network access.
If there weren't some loyal people willing to expend the effort to fix and improve things, Linux would have been quickly abandoned.
That's not loyalty that keeps them there. At least not most of them. It's that Linux provides them with things that no other OS provides. These are not necessarily OS features. Some people stick with Linux because they understand that it's the best long-term choice. It doesn't encourage rampant abuses of consumers by big corporations. Surely there's value in that? It doesn't allow anyone to have ultimate control of the development direction or hi-jack the standards. Isn't there some value in that? It allows them to create new things and have those things used by others. It let's them add the things that are important to them. They don't have to get permission from anyone or beg for things to be added. Many people value that too? Control is a powerful feature.
You see, people find value in many things. That's why they stay with them even when other things appear to be superior. The superiority may be a superficial thing to them because they are concerned with larger issues. It's the value people see in things that makes them stay. Not just loyalty.
They carry less movies and charge about the same as the Blockbuster that opened down the street. I still go to my local place due to a sense of "loyalty." Loyalty is what lets a business thrive.
So you stay with the inferior business out of simple loyalty to that store or company? A dog wouldn't even do that, and people definitely shouldn't.
While I can think of lots of reasons why I would want to stay with a smaller store rather than Blockbuster, you didn't give any of them so I have to assume that you were just staying with the smaller company out of pure loyalty as you said. Now, if there is some intangible reason you stay with them, i.e. they know you by name and you like the personal service, or they cater to a specific interest of yours, then that is something that they offer that Blockbuster doesn't. This could tip the scales in favor of the smaller store.
However, just staying with them because that's where you've always rented is not what makes business work. Competition makes business work. May the best company win and all that. If Blockbuster provides everything the other store provides, and has a larger variety of movies as well (assuming you value that variety), then they deserve the business because they have built the better store. To stick with the store that offers less for the same money is to encourage mediocre businesses to continue to survive while the superior ones don't do as well as they deserve.
I'm not saying that small businesses are necessarily mediocre. As I said earlier, I could come up with many reasons why I'd prefer the smaller store. I'm just talking about a particular set of circumstances.
Watched something about him on VH-1 a while back. He also got a bachelors in architecture while he was starting his music career on the side.
In this so called democracy of ours, we, the minority, have to bend to the will of the majority. That works ok in many cases, but shouldn't there be a limit on what the majority can impose on the minority? Taking someone's privacy away crosses that line I would think.
Must be nice to be able to argue without ever making an argument. Simply label someone and assume that it automatically voids their argument. Nice and neat and totally devoid of any meaning.
Well, Amazon.com didn't ship my books by email either. I give them my card# over the net and they have UPS send me the books. Just like this guy's example. They give him the number over the net, and he sends them the car by some other method.
Restrictions on investments based on how much money you have are wrong. If I want to invest the few thousand I have in the bank, that should be my right. Otherwise we have an elitist, "for the wealthy only", market. It's not open. There is obviously no opportunity for those who were born without money.
I'm an adult. I can make my own financial decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions. I refuse to be treated like a child who must be protected from himself. I refuse to allow others to tell me that I cannot avail myself of the opportunities available in the stock market, and especially in participating in an IPO, simply because they feel that I can't deal with the possible consequences since I don't have as much money as they do. Horseshit. I've lived all my life with a lot less money than they have. Who are they to tell me I can't risk the money I have in exchange for a chance to make more money. Should the opportunities only be open to those who have more money than they need? If all was done legally, and I lose my investment, I can blame nobody but myself.
Rich people often don't get the whole idea that the stock market is a risk that they're taking. They seem to think they should be allowed to increase their bank accounts forever with no risk to them. Banks and other financial institutions make stupid financial decisions all the time. The end up getting bailed out by the government with OUR TAX MONEY. Otherwise it would cause a chain reaction and put lots of companies and individuals who were banking on these investments in the poor house. Well, we can't have that, so instead of changing the way we do things, we bail them out. They obviously aren't held responsible or accountable for their actions.
Those of us who understand the value of money also understand the risks to our money. We aren't used to having people bail us out. At least not since our parents stopped doing it. If you invest in a mutual fund, you should know that it could go bad and you could lose it all. Other investments are similar. They carry risks that you must weigh in comparison with the possible rewards. In the end, it's a judgement call. The very wealthy seem to be immune from the effects of bad judgement. There are plenty of laws dealing with the way you can invest and the way investments must be presented to people. If you sign your money away on an investment, you acknowledge the risks. As long as the company follows the rules about disclosure of information to you, you will have the information you need to monitor your investment. If something totally unforseen happens.... well... you took that risk and lost. It happens.
Don't invest money you don't have. Don't invest money you can't afford to lose. Those should be the only rules that should be deciding whether or not someone is allowed to make an investment.
The point here is that the old saying, "It takes money to make money" is becoming more and more true. It won't be very long before we have a permanently established ruling class in this country. Oh, it may not say as much in writing, but they'll be the ones with the power to make the rules. Who could stop them?