Well, this was returned, but I am looking for some other way to send this to Microsoft just to let them know how I feel as a shareholder.
Dear Mr. Weston:
I am a Microsoft shareholder, and have been one for the last four years. I have been happy with the return on my investment, and have been unsympathetic with the frequently held argument that Microsoft's monopoly has had a negative impact on consumers.
My viewpoint changed on May 2, when I first heard of Microsoft's attempts to hijack the public Kerberos networking standard, in an attempt to prevent interoperability between machines that use Windows 2000 and other machines. It now appears to me that Microsoft is using its dominant position to destroy the Kerberos standard, by "embracing and extending" with proprietary nonsense.
I would like to hear why these kinds of shennanigans should be considered anything but harmful to consumers. I would also entertain explanations of how anything other than Microsoft's monopoly makes this sort of technological vandalism possible. In the absence of any response from Microsoft on these matters, I am forced to conclude that Microsoft is using its status as a monopoly to harm consumers.
It is now clearer to me in retrospect that Microsoft's critics have been, for the most part, in the right. It is particularly troubling that this behavior continues even after it has been found to be illegal, as we await the penalty which will face Microsoft for its previous transgressions.
I am therefore forced to conclude not only that Microsoft has engaged in illegal business practices in the past, but that the company is unreformable. Their inability to recognize the corrosive effect of their business practices on consumers and the U. S. software industry as a whole suggests that they are a company with no moral sense.
In light of this conclusion, I find it is no longer possible for me to continue to own Microsoft shares. I intend to sell them next week.
We perceive ourselves to have free will simply because the entity we attribute it to ("I"/ourselves) is our internal causal *explanation* for our actions.
Perhaps some people perceive that they do not have free will simply because the entity they attribute will to ("the inescapable laws of physics") is their own internal explanation for their actions.
Your argument seems to ask us to presume that physical laws are the source of what we percieve as will. Given this presumption, it is not surprising that your conclusion is that we do not have free will.
Can you provide any physical evidence or rational argument to ground your premise? Maybe you could recommend a good book that covers this satisfactorily?
We therefore percieve/believe that "I" *decided* to take the action, when in fact really the action was taken by our neural circuitry,
Why are these two possibilities assumed to be mutually exclusive? Must either I decide or my neural circuitry decides? Perhaps I lack a clear understanding of how we can divide the "I" from the "neural circuitry."
a high level phenomenon that has arisen though evolution
How? Millions of random mutations and the long steady beat of natural selection? I am not saying that this is not true, but there are still some aspects of the theory of evolution that could use some clarification. How do we *know* that all of our personalities, desires, abilities, loves, fears, hopes, and dreams are part of us because if our great-great-great-great...great grandparents did not have them they would have been unable to make babies. How do we know that there is not something else?
My point is that if you start with the assumption that we are entirely products of a materialist and deterministic universe, it is no surprise that you will come to the conclusion that we do not have free will. Back up a few steps and *convince* me that this is so.
I hope that this is in no way perceived as a flame. Thanks for a post worth responding to.
It is not accurate to describe the open source development model as "communist" instead of just "community" or "communal." Sometimes it makes sense for people to gather together and help one another. Acknowledgement of this fact is not an endorsement of communism.
Open source development, rather than adopting a communistic model with a "state"-like entity acquiring the means of production and parceling out work and resources to its citizens/vassals, is actually better described as "anarchist" or "communitarian."
Maybe when the Chinese governement realizes that their official OS is the product of an anarchist system, they will decide that the brutal, top-down, and highly centralized Microsoft development model is a better fit for their regime.
Two items: 1. I don't want to get too off-topic here, but I am not clear what you see as the difference between a religion and a philosophy, in general.
2. I am sure this is not what you mean to say, but your reasoning seems to be as follows:
A. If a person believes in God, then they will never sin.
B. Everybody sins.
Therefore religion is not worthy of being tolerated.
I accept item B, but reject both A and the validity of the argument that leads to the conclusion.
I can understand that you don't like to see hypocrisy. But does hypocrisy necessarily have anything to do with religion?
What I mean is, a non-Christian or non-religious person has their own value system and their own morality. Everytime they do something that is counter to this system, they are being a hypocrite.
The world would be a better place if religious and non-religious would all live up to the best of their beliefs. But neither of these groups are succesful in this regard. Everybody is a hypocrite. Anyone who is honest with themselves will realize this.
On the other hand, while we don't always live up to our highest expectations for ourselves, sometimes we do. Christian, non-christian, and atheist alike.
The question that remains is whether the appropriate answer is to throw up our hands and damn not only all religion but all non-religious morality, because they both lead to hypocrisy.
Do people really think this will be an improvement?
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mr. Weston:
I am a Microsoft shareholder, and have been one for the last four years. I have been happy with the return on my investment, and have been unsympathetic with the frequently held argument that Microsoft's monopoly has had a negative impact on consumers.
My viewpoint changed on May 2, when I first heard of Microsoft's attempts to hijack the public Kerberos networking standard, in an attempt to prevent interoperability between machines that use Windows 2000 and other machines. It now appears to me that Microsoft is using its dominant position to destroy the Kerberos standard, by "embracing and extending" with proprietary nonsense.
I would like to hear why these kinds of shennanigans should be considered anything but harmful to consumers. I would also entertain explanations of how anything other than Microsoft's monopoly makes this sort of technological vandalism possible. In the absence of any response from Microsoft on these matters, I am forced to conclude that Microsoft is using its status as a monopoly to harm consumers.
It is now clearer to me in retrospect that Microsoft's critics have been, for the most part, in the right. It is particularly troubling that this behavior continues even after it has been found to be illegal, as we await the penalty which will face Microsoft for its previous transgressions.
I am therefore forced to conclude not only that Microsoft has engaged in illegal business practices in the past, but that the company is unreformable. Their inability to recognize the corrosive effect of their business practices on consumers and the U. S. software industry as a whole suggests that they are a company with no moral sense.
In light of this conclusion, I find it is no longer possible for me to continue to own Microsoft shares. I intend to sell them next week.
Yours sincerely, shilo
Perhaps some people perceive that they do not have free will simply because the entity they attribute will to ("the inescapable laws of physics") is their own internal explanation for their actions.
Your argument seems to ask us to presume that physical laws are the source of what we percieve as will. Given this presumption, it is not surprising that your conclusion is that we do not have free will.
Can you provide any physical evidence or rational argument to ground your premise? Maybe you could recommend a good book that covers this satisfactorily?
Why are these two possibilities assumed to be mutually exclusive? Must either I decide or my neural circuitry decides? Perhaps I lack a clear understanding of how we can divide the "I" from the "neural circuitry."
How? Millions of random mutations and the long steady beat of natural selection? I am not saying that this is not true, but there are still some aspects of the theory of evolution that could use some clarification. How do we *know* that all of our personalities, desires, abilities, loves, fears, hopes, and dreams are part of us because if our great-great-great-great...great grandparents did not have them they would have been unable to make babies. How do we know that there is not something else?
My point is that if you start with the assumption that we are entirely products of a materialist and deterministic universe, it is no surprise that you will come to the conclusion that we do not have free will. Back up a few steps and *convince* me that this is so.
I hope that this is in no way perceived as a flame. Thanks for a post worth responding to.
shilo
It is not accurate to describe the open source development model as "communist" instead of just "community" or "communal." Sometimes it makes sense for people to gather together and help one another. Acknowledgement of this fact is not an endorsement of communism.
Open source development, rather than adopting a communistic model with a "state"-like entity acquiring the means of production and parceling out work and resources to its citizens/vassals, is actually better described as "anarchist" or "communitarian."
Maybe when the Chinese governement realizes that their official OS is the product of an anarchist system, they will decide that the brutal, top-down, and highly centralized Microsoft development model is a better fit for their regime.
1. I don't want to get too off-topic here, but I am not clear what you see as the difference between a religion and a philosophy, in general.
2. I am sure this is not what you mean to say, but your reasoning seems to be as follows:
A. If a person believes in God, then they will never sin. B. Everybody sins. Therefore religion is not worthy of being tolerated.I accept item B, but reject both A and the validity of the argument that leads to the conclusion.
I can understand that you don't like to see hypocrisy. But does
hypocrisy necessarily have anything to do with religion?
What I mean is, a non-Christian or non-religious person has
their own value system and their own morality. Everytime they do
something that is counter to this system, they are being a
hypocrite.
The world would be a better place if religious and
non-religious would all live up to the best of their beliefs. But
neither of these groups are succesful in this regard. Everybody
is a hypocrite. Anyone who is honest with themselves will realize
this.
On the other hand, while we don't always live up to our highest
expectations for ourselves, sometimes we do. Christian,
non-christian, and atheist alike.
The question that remains is whether the appropriate answer is to
throw up our hands and damn not only all religion but all non-religious
morality, because they both lead to hypocrisy.
Do people really think this will be an improvement?