Let's suppose that I'm a rich kid. My Daddy owns the town. He owns more than half the real estate, he owns 3/4 of the businesses, he owns the bank. And, he happens to have leveraged all that into becoming the mayor. I have everything going for me.
I graduate from high school and/or college, and decide to go into business. One of my classmates wants to compete against me.
How much competition within the community do you really think there is going to be? My Daddy isn't going to do business with someone outside the family. Meaning, I have every business and property that he owns sewed up, my "competitor" can't touch any of that. The only "competition" is going to be for all those other people.
Things will be much much worse for my classmate, if Daddy decides that he wants to invest some money into my own venture. He can pay for advertising that I might not be able to afford. He can pay for the best tools and equipment. He can offer higher wages to anyone thinking of working for my classmate.
But - you wouldn't think of this situation as a "monopoly", would you? What exactly would you call it?
You may stick with strict interpretations of law. I'm looking at a larger picture, one which the DOJ should be looking at, instead of narrow and strict interpretations.
Microsoft OS's run on more than 90% of consumer computers. More than 90% of school age children for the past 15 years has been exposed to a Microsoft environment. In fact, most "computer science" classes have nothing to do with "science", instead being nothing more than learning how to navigate a Windows-centric business environment.
The monopoly is far more pervasive than the DOJ has ever stated - and it's not going away in the next year or two. Give it another decade, I think. Everything that Microsoft did in it's first ten years was intentionally designed to give them this monopolistic position today. It's slipping, and eventually, they will lose the position. But, not for years, yet.
Anytime a corporation has billions of dollars with which to leverage itself into a "new market", you are seeing abuse of monopoly. Walmart has done it again, and again, and again. Same thing with Microsoft.
Well - that worked, for long distance phone calls. If you were so indiscreet as to be calling outside the company's local calling area, at the same time incurring an expense for the company, then you deserved to be busted. But, calling Mom to wish her a Happy Birthday, then calling your spouse to discuss the evening plans was very unlikely to be noticed, unless a supervisor happened to pass by.
True enough, I suppose. While the two terms aren't exactly synonymous, they do have similarities. In this case, Microsoft is most assuredly a monopoly. Coming out with a "loss leader" may very well be "monopoly abuse". IMO, there is little if any difference. It's remotely possible that if I liked Microsoft, I might view this similarity in a different light. Since I despise Microsoft, I'll choose the light in which I view the matter, thank you.
How many companies, in 1980, had their own phone monitoring systems? Some pretty big companies, maybe, that had their own switchboards and operators. Of those, how many chose to actually monitor such things as Mabel calling home to check on her kids at lunchtime?
Jump forward to today, when any semi-competent IT guy can set up a very thorough monitoring system, with little more than a couple hours time invested. I don't think your parallel really works here.
It's an even better idea to not access personal bank accounts from any computer that you don't A: own and B: control. (I'm waiting for some lackwit to ask, "What's the difference between "own" and "control".)
I haven't figured out what dating experts know about neanderthals. Yeah, sure, some early "modern humans" may have dated some neanderthals. In fact, there have been a few reports that we all have neanderthal genes in our makeup. But, today's dating experts? What do they know about neanderthals? Maybe - just maybe - those dating experts know something about Spaniards, but forget the neanderthals.
Can't we just be grateful that Microsoft shills continue to post on/. so that we can all have something to bitch about? Next headline should be along the lines of, "Micorosoft saves the world - read the details here!"
Agreed. Sometimes, I read an article like the one above, and the critical thinking thing is slow to kick in. But, bottom line - no one has ever proven a real ability to predict the future. At best, an educated person makes deductions based on data about past performance. The problems with the predictions above begin with the fact that SSD prices are falling.
In 2016, why would ANYONE buy a comparatively slow hybrid, if he could get a comparatively sized SSD for only 5% more money? Or - what if the SSD is actually priced lower than the hybrid?
Even if Nostradamus had made the predictions in TFA - I wouldn't bet any money on them.
Perhaps, my friend, you might remember, and tell us all, how the earth came to have a moon.
If my recollection is collecting properly, I think that a giant asteroid DID strike the earth. The sumbitch was so massive, and moving so fast, that it sorta kept on going, after striking the earth, then wobbled into an almost stable orbit. I say "almost stable" because that big bastard is supposed to fall back to earth in - ohhh - I can't remember now, maybe a billion years. Maybe only a couple hundred million years.
So - question is - how "habitable" was the earth, in the first couple millenia after that big bastard did it's billiard ball act on us?
I realize that no one was around to take measurements of seismic activity, global warming (or cooling) or atmospheric properties and conditions. But, I strongly suspect that in those millenia, the earth could not support advanced life forms. I'm quite sure that it was all given over to single celled life forms, and maybe some plankton.
Now - here's a "What if" for you. Suppose that another asteroid, somewhat smaller than the moon - hell, even 10% of the moon's mass, should happen along, and hit the moon head on? A ten percent loss in the moon's orbital momentum would likely result the in the moon falling out of the sky much sooner than predicted.
Now - want to take bets on the habitability of the earth after that happening? How deep a cave do you think that it would take to protect the remnants of humanity from conditions above?
I'm afraid that, like most people, you simply think on to small a scale. The earth can be rendered less habitable than any of the frozen planets, which are all less habitable than Mars.
I believe that you are wrong. We have the technology to put a living man on the moon. So far, we simply have not engineered the mechanism with which to do it. We have the same sort of rockets that landed men on the moon, repeatedly. Said rockets, beefed up to deal with Martian gravity, could certainly do the job. Not to mention, parachutes and/or wings will work on Mars. The atmosphere is different, but there is an atmosphere. The glide ratio may suck, but there is a glide available. We have the tech, we just need some engineering.
How much does Apple have, in liquid assets alone? Yes, Sir, you are right on target with your post. The rich (both individuals and corporate) have an obligation to reinvest all that money, to provide for the next generation.
If they aren't smart enough to figure that out, then eventually, one of the upcoming generations will strip all that wealth from them, and re-invest in whatever fashion that they see fit. Unfortunately, during such a violent upheaval, there will be other crooked, dishonest SOB's trying to take a cut of the newly redistributed wealth.
To bad you're an anonymous coward. I'd like to know something. If Ralph owns a red car, would it be Ralphs car, or would it be Ralph's car? I always thought that a possessive pronoun should have an apostrophe. Could be that I am wrong here . . . Oh, wait. The spell checker agrees with me! Ralphs is a mis-spelled word, while Ralph's is not! Whoot!
Bingo. You've said it all. Mr. ongelovigehond appears ready to give up, roll over and die at the first sign of adversity.
"Oh, my home has been destroyed by (fire, flood, war, famine, global warming, giant asteroid, invasion of yucky viruses from Andromeda - any or all of these) so I'll just roll over and die, and tell my children to do the same!"
I am pretty sure that "no realistic way" only means that "I can't imagine how we might accomplish this".
By "realistic way", are you referring to the technological status of the tenth century, the fifteenth, the twentieth, or the twenty fifth centuries? Personally, I'm here in the 21st century, and today's technology seems to be up to the task of putting men anywhere in the solar system, if we choose to put them there. What's lacking is the desire, the drive, to put them out there.
You will note, please, that I did not say that we could put men anywhere in the solar system, and at the same time make them comfortable, happy, wealthy, or even guarantee a return trip. I merely say that we can put men there.
But, that is really beside the point, right now. There are a number of missions that are better done via robotics, before we actually get serious about colonies, anywhere beyond the moon. And, we're at least 50 years away from giving serious consideration to a colony anywhere beyond Mars.
What's needed is, a sense of mission. The longest journey begins with a single step, and we've not yet taken that first step.
Top dog, big dog, yellow dog, black dog. Every dog is just a son of a bitch - unless it's the bitch. This is why I never wanted to run with the "Big Dogs", at the wheel of a truck, on a motorcycle, aboard ship, or wherever. That big dog is just a son of a bitch.
"Jobs do not create wealth. Jobs are a cost. If you think jobs create wealth, you should be eliminating all technology and promoting a Pol Pot-style 'back to the land' movement."
You probably have the same degree in economics that the top bankers have. You know, those bankers who bankrupted the entire banking industry just a few years ago. Those bankers who are still, today, making insane gambles on derivatives and speculation.
Without jobs, there is no wealth. You breakfast wasn't produced by magic, nor was it donated to you for free because some hands out on the farms wanted to see you enjoy your breakfast. Your ignorance is astounding. Even more amazing, is the fact that so many morons in government and big business think the same way. In my post above, I mentioned that mankind has it's collective head up it's collective ass. Your statement helps to prove my own statement.
Drowning in debt? Well - let's put people to work, building spacecraft, building colonies, producing oxygen, water, and food - etc ad nauseum. Let's go to the moon, and the economic problems will begin to cure themselves. There's JOBS out there!
Yes, Mars. But, the moon is closer, cheaper, easier. The moon also provides a staging point from which to launch to Mars, and points beyond. Unless I am seriously mistaken, infrastructure and assets on the Moon won't degrade, or at least will degrade very slowly compared with infrastructure and assets built on earth.
The moon is a very valuable resource, and development of that real estate should commence immediately. The moon is no longer a "goal", but a "waypoint".
The only reason we don't have multiple bases on the moon now, is that mankind has it's collective head up it's collective ass. My nation, which actually put men on the moon, wastes more resources on the invasion of other nations than it would have taken to build and maintain a base capable of housing 1000 personnel. Of that much, I'm certain. I suspect that said base could be much larger, and that maybe a few satellite bases might have been built with all the money wasted in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Some of our lesser actions could probably have paid for one of those small satellite bases.
Oh yeah. Read my third sentence again. Points beyond. To me, Mars should just be considered a practice mission. Plant a real colony, close to home, for practice, so that we can do the same further out. We NEED to spread out, so that a single epidemic, or a catastrophic event doesn't wipe us out!
'K - I'll agree that KDE might be the best of the mix, in that the menu is available, while the others work hard to hide the menu.
But, from my point of view, there is little to choose from between one set of icons or widgets, or another. Even my old "dumb phone" (actually, a pretty new "dumb phone") gives me some limited menu options. I simply don't WANT a bunch of icons filling my screen. As a guy with crap color vision, and poor vision in general, I've spent my life learning to read the English language, and to recognize the printed word in many formats, including my various computer screens. No matter how slick a set of icons or widgets might be - I simply don't see what everyone else sees when they look at the screen.
When I bought my phone, I searched an searched for some tool or other - saved voice mails - and couldn't find it. My boss, who has the very same phone, looked at mine, and exclaimed, "How could you miss that little red icon, right there?" All I could do was glare at her - that red icon was invisible to me.
Ya know - I'm not especially reverent of the dead. But, bashing a dead guy in this manner? Hmmmm. Rather tasteless. And - NO, I'm not an Apple fan, or a Jobs fan. My worst enemy finally died a few years ago. When he died, I pretty much quit cursing him. In fact, I've never even pissed on his grave, like I told him that I would do. I don't have a lot of taste, but come on guy. Jobs is dead, time to move on. Bash Apple's current owners, management, lackeys, etc. Let Steve molder in his grave.
Well - to be fair, Gnome, KDE, and Ubuntu are all trying to be Metro-sexual on the desktop as well. Hopefully, it's just a fad that will fade in a year or two.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's suppose that I'm a rich kid. My Daddy owns the town. He owns more than half the real estate, he owns 3/4 of the businesses, he owns the bank. And, he happens to have leveraged all that into becoming the mayor. I have everything going for me.
I graduate from high school and/or college, and decide to go into business. One of my classmates wants to compete against me.
How much competition within the community do you really think there is going to be? My Daddy isn't going to do business with someone outside the family. Meaning, I have every business and property that he owns sewed up, my "competitor" can't touch any of that. The only "competition" is going to be for all those other people.
Things will be much much worse for my classmate, if Daddy decides that he wants to invest some money into my own venture. He can pay for advertising that I might not be able to afford. He can pay for the best tools and equipment. He can offer higher wages to anyone thinking of working for my classmate.
But - you wouldn't think of this situation as a "monopoly", would you? What exactly would you call it?
You may stick with strict interpretations of law. I'm looking at a larger picture, one which the DOJ should be looking at, instead of narrow and strict interpretations.
Microsoft OS's run on more than 90% of consumer computers. More than 90% of school age children for the past 15 years has been exposed to a Microsoft environment. In fact, most "computer science" classes have nothing to do with "science", instead being nothing more than learning how to navigate a Windows-centric business environment.
The monopoly is far more pervasive than the DOJ has ever stated - and it's not going away in the next year or two. Give it another decade, I think. Everything that Microsoft did in it's first ten years was intentionally designed to give them this monopolistic position today. It's slipping, and eventually, they will lose the position. But, not for years, yet.
Anytime a corporation has billions of dollars with which to leverage itself into a "new market", you are seeing abuse of monopoly. Walmart has done it again, and again, and again. Same thing with Microsoft.
Well - that worked, for long distance phone calls. If you were so indiscreet as to be calling outside the company's local calling area, at the same time incurring an expense for the company, then you deserved to be busted. But, calling Mom to wish her a Happy Birthday, then calling your spouse to discuss the evening plans was very unlikely to be noticed, unless a supervisor happened to pass by.
True enough, I suppose. While the two terms aren't exactly synonymous, they do have similarities. In this case, Microsoft is most assuredly a monopoly. Coming out with a "loss leader" may very well be "monopoly abuse". IMO, there is little if any difference. It's remotely possible that if I liked Microsoft, I might view this similarity in a different light. Since I despise Microsoft, I'll choose the light in which I view the matter, thank you.
How many companies, in 1980, had their own phone monitoring systems? Some pretty big companies, maybe, that had their own switchboards and operators. Of those, how many chose to actually monitor such things as Mabel calling home to check on her kids at lunchtime?
Jump forward to today, when any semi-competent IT guy can set up a very thorough monitoring system, with little more than a couple hours time invested. I don't think your parallel really works here.
It's an even better idea to not access personal bank accounts from any computer that you don't A: own and B: control. (I'm waiting for some lackwit to ask, "What's the difference between "own" and "control".)
"Dating experts working in Spain"
I haven't figured out what dating experts know about neanderthals. Yeah, sure, some early "modern humans" may have dated some neanderthals. In fact, there have been a few reports that we all have neanderthal genes in our makeup. But, today's dating experts? What do they know about neanderthals? Maybe - just maybe - those dating experts know something about Spaniards, but forget the neanderthals.
"Loss leader" sounds a lot like "monopoly abuse" to me.
Can't we just be grateful that Microsoft shills continue to post on /. so that we can all have something to bitch about? Next headline should be along the lines of, "Micorosoft saves the world - read the details here!"
Henry Ford would have agreed with you. Obviously, some Anonymous Coward disagrees with you. Interesting.
Agreed. Sometimes, I read an article like the one above, and the critical thinking thing is slow to kick in. But, bottom line - no one has ever proven a real ability to predict the future. At best, an educated person makes deductions based on data about past performance. The problems with the predictions above begin with the fact that SSD prices are falling.
In 2016, why would ANYONE buy a comparatively slow hybrid, if he could get a comparatively sized SSD for only 5% more money? Or - what if the SSD is actually priced lower than the hybrid?
Even if Nostradamus had made the predictions in TFA - I wouldn't bet any money on them.
Perhaps, my friend, you might remember, and tell us all, how the earth came to have a moon.
If my recollection is collecting properly, I think that a giant asteroid DID strike the earth. The sumbitch was so massive, and moving so fast, that it sorta kept on going, after striking the earth, then wobbled into an almost stable orbit. I say "almost stable" because that big bastard is supposed to fall back to earth in - ohhh - I can't remember now, maybe a billion years. Maybe only a couple hundred million years.
So - question is - how "habitable" was the earth, in the first couple millenia after that big bastard did it's billiard ball act on us?
I realize that no one was around to take measurements of seismic activity, global warming (or cooling) or atmospheric properties and conditions. But, I strongly suspect that in those millenia, the earth could not support advanced life forms. I'm quite sure that it was all given over to single celled life forms, and maybe some plankton.
Now - here's a "What if" for you. Suppose that another asteroid, somewhat smaller than the moon - hell, even 10% of the moon's mass, should happen along, and hit the moon head on? A ten percent loss in the moon's orbital momentum would likely result the in the moon falling out of the sky much sooner than predicted.
Now - want to take bets on the habitability of the earth after that happening? How deep a cave do you think that it would take to protect the remnants of humanity from conditions above?
I'm afraid that, like most people, you simply think on to small a scale. The earth can be rendered less habitable than any of the frozen planets, which are all less habitable than Mars.
I believe that you are wrong. We have the technology to put a living man on the moon. So far, we simply have not engineered the mechanism with which to do it. We have the same sort of rockets that landed men on the moon, repeatedly. Said rockets, beefed up to deal with Martian gravity, could certainly do the job. Not to mention, parachutes and/or wings will work on Mars. The atmosphere is different, but there is an atmosphere. The glide ratio may suck, but there is a glide available. We have the tech, we just need some engineering.
How much does Apple have, in liquid assets alone? Yes, Sir, you are right on target with your post. The rich (both individuals and corporate) have an obligation to reinvest all that money, to provide for the next generation.
If they aren't smart enough to figure that out, then eventually, one of the upcoming generations will strip all that wealth from them, and re-invest in whatever fashion that they see fit. Unfortunately, during such a violent upheaval, there will be other crooked, dishonest SOB's trying to take a cut of the newly redistributed wealth.
To bad you're an anonymous coward. I'd like to know something. If Ralph owns a red car, would it be Ralphs car, or would it be Ralph's car? I always thought that a possessive pronoun should have an apostrophe. Could be that I am wrong here . . . Oh, wait. The spell checker agrees with me! Ralphs is a mis-spelled word, while Ralph's is not! Whoot!
Bingo. You've said it all. Mr. ongelovigehond appears ready to give up, roll over and die at the first sign of adversity.
"Oh, my home has been destroyed by (fire, flood, war, famine, global warming, giant asteroid, invasion of yucky viruses from Andromeda - any or all of these) so I'll just roll over and die, and tell my children to do the same!"
His monkey ancestors would be ashamed.
I am pretty sure that "no realistic way" only means that "I can't imagine how we might accomplish this".
By "realistic way", are you referring to the technological status of the tenth century, the fifteenth, the twentieth, or the twenty fifth centuries? Personally, I'm here in the 21st century, and today's technology seems to be up to the task of putting men anywhere in the solar system, if we choose to put them there. What's lacking is the desire, the drive, to put them out there.
You will note, please, that I did not say that we could put men anywhere in the solar system, and at the same time make them comfortable, happy, wealthy, or even guarantee a return trip. I merely say that we can put men there.
But, that is really beside the point, right now. There are a number of missions that are better done via robotics, before we actually get serious about colonies, anywhere beyond the moon. And, we're at least 50 years away from giving serious consideration to a colony anywhere beyond Mars.
What's needed is, a sense of mission. The longest journey begins with a single step, and we've not yet taken that first step.
Top dog, big dog, yellow dog, black dog. Every dog is just a son of a bitch - unless it's the bitch. This is why I never wanted to run with the "Big Dogs", at the wheel of a truck, on a motorcycle, aboard ship, or wherever. That big dog is just a son of a bitch.
"Jobs do not create wealth. Jobs are a cost. If you think jobs create wealth, you should be eliminating all technology and promoting a Pol Pot-style 'back to the land' movement."
You probably have the same degree in economics that the top bankers have. You know, those bankers who bankrupted the entire banking industry just a few years ago. Those bankers who are still, today, making insane gambles on derivatives and speculation.
Without jobs, there is no wealth. You breakfast wasn't produced by magic, nor was it donated to you for free because some hands out on the farms wanted to see you enjoy your breakfast. Your ignorance is astounding. Even more amazing, is the fact that so many morons in government and big business think the same way. In my post above, I mentioned that mankind has it's collective head up it's collective ass. Your statement helps to prove my own statement.
Drowning in debt? Well - let's put people to work, building spacecraft, building colonies, producing oxygen, water, and food - etc ad nauseum. Let's go to the moon, and the economic problems will begin to cure themselves. There's JOBS out there!
Yes, Mars. But, the moon is closer, cheaper, easier. The moon also provides a staging point from which to launch to Mars, and points beyond. Unless I am seriously mistaken, infrastructure and assets on the Moon won't degrade, or at least will degrade very slowly compared with infrastructure and assets built on earth.
The moon is a very valuable resource, and development of that real estate should commence immediately. The moon is no longer a "goal", but a "waypoint".
The only reason we don't have multiple bases on the moon now, is that mankind has it's collective head up it's collective ass. My nation, which actually put men on the moon, wastes more resources on the invasion of other nations than it would have taken to build and maintain a base capable of housing 1000 personnel. Of that much, I'm certain. I suspect that said base could be much larger, and that maybe a few satellite bases might have been built with all the money wasted in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Some of our lesser actions could probably have paid for one of those small satellite bases.
Oh yeah. Read my third sentence again. Points beyond. To me, Mars should just be considered a practice mission. Plant a real colony, close to home, for practice, so that we can do the same further out. We NEED to spread out, so that a single epidemic, or a catastrophic event doesn't wipe us out!
'K - I'll agree that KDE might be the best of the mix, in that the menu is available, while the others work hard to hide the menu.
But, from my point of view, there is little to choose from between one set of icons or widgets, or another. Even my old "dumb phone" (actually, a pretty new "dumb phone") gives me some limited menu options. I simply don't WANT a bunch of icons filling my screen. As a guy with crap color vision, and poor vision in general, I've spent my life learning to read the English language, and to recognize the printed word in many formats, including my various computer screens. No matter how slick a set of icons or widgets might be - I simply don't see what everyone else sees when they look at the screen.
When I bought my phone, I searched an searched for some tool or other - saved voice mails - and couldn't find it. My boss, who has the very same phone, looked at mine, and exclaimed, "How could you miss that little red icon, right there?" All I could do was glare at her - that red icon was invisible to me.
Gimme the printed menus and dialogues, please. ;^)
Ya know - I'm not especially reverent of the dead. But, bashing a dead guy in this manner? Hmmmm. Rather tasteless. And - NO, I'm not an Apple fan, or a Jobs fan. My worst enemy finally died a few years ago. When he died, I pretty much quit cursing him. In fact, I've never even pissed on his grave, like I told him that I would do. I don't have a lot of taste, but come on guy. Jobs is dead, time to move on. Bash Apple's current owners, management, lackeys, etc. Let Steve molder in his grave.
Well - to be fair, Gnome, KDE, and Ubuntu are all trying to be Metro-sexual on the desktop as well. Hopefully, it's just a fad that will fade in a year or two.
But - I quote: "Windows 8 will make touch interfaces possible"
To summarize, the world has been waiting on Windows to enable us to have touch interfaces. So, what is this "Apple" to which you refer?