Last time I was in my local public library I don't recall seeing Hustler in the periodical section. Is this censorship? I don't think so
Is it just me, or is there a difference between "We won't spend money on buying Hustler" and "We'll spend money preventing you from getting Hustler?" The first is a refusal to accomodate your request. Tough shit, that's not censorship. The second is an active attempt to prevent access to information, and that *is* censorship, and a public library shouldn't be in the censorship business. Period.
Furthermore, you've got good odds that your library has a copy of Playboy. Is that porn?
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement. You can look at your own porn all you want; I am not required to provide it for you. What the F$%%# is wrong with a PUBLIC library trying to keep 12 year olds from viewing hard-core pornography??
No, you don't have to provide it, but you damn well don't have the right to prevent me or my kids seeing it. What's wrong is that it's not YOUR decision what MY kid sees. In addition, public libraries are used by adults as well, and if they want to look at porn, that's their business. Finally, I have moral objections to public libraries spending my tax dollars on censorware. Why are your moral objections to porn valid enough to deserve consideration as public policy, but my equally heartfelt moral objections to censorware aren't? Why are your morals more important than mine?
Obviously the methods being used for this are imperfect. OK, then we can work to improve them; but to claim that this is censorship is missing the point, and degrading to those who are fighting real censorship in places like China and North Korea.
Mate, this IS real censorship. It may not be preventing access to information we take for granted here, but it's still preventing people access to information they want, and whether or not you like it, that's censorship. The only thing degrading to the people fighting to get censorship removed in China and North Korea is moral bigots like you trying to get it introduced in a "free" country like the US.
The primary market for these products is for parents to use in their homes, and for schools to use on their private computer systems. That's not really censorship, because the people using it are completely within their rights (Parents can decide what their kids see, same with the school system)
Uh, it may be within their rights, but it's still censorship. They are controlling other peoples access to information based on their own personal beliefs of what's appropriate, and that's censorship. You can argue that it's good, you can argue that they're right to do it, but you can't legitimately argue that it isn't censorship.
Furthermore, it may be within their legal rights, but many of us still consider it morally wrong to withhold information from others under any circumstances. If your kid gets at porn, don't deny it exists. Explain it to him. Tell him what sex is, explain what you think about it and why, but all suppressing his access to it is going to do is create an unhealthy interest in it which he has to go behind your back and lie to you about in order to satisfy, and make him as hung up on sex as the rest of this stupid country. If he gets at neo-nazi bullshit, explain to him why it's stupid. He won't have any defense against idiocy if he's never been exposed to it. If he starts talking to people online, make sure you know what he's telling them, and make sure he only meets them under your guidance and protection. Censorware is just another way for parents to abdicate their responsibility to educate, to spend time with, and to take an interest in their child.
Also, when we're talking schools, what gives YOU the right to determine what MY kid can't see? Don't I get to choose that he can see anything he wants? Are you going to say that the government should tell me how to raise my kid?
Of course the problem there is, who really gets to decide what filtering software you use? If you're using a terminal in a public library, for example, who picks which set of filters are used? What filter gets used in a public school? No matter how it gets decided, someone else is choosing what you get to view. And that's a problem.
If you step on a nail and puncture yourself, you don't sue Craftsman for making the nail sharp, do you? If you put your hand on a lit stove burner and burn your hand, you don't sue Whirlpool because the stove was too hot, do you? When you burn the roof of your mouth on a hot piece of pizza, you don't sue Domino's because they made the pizza too hot, do you?
Nope. Now if that nail was designed with special barbs to make it hold better, requiring extenisive surgery; if that stove heated the entire stovetop rather than just the burner; if that pizza burned its way completely through the roof of my mouth and burned out my sinuses, I might consider it. Why? Because I can't be reasonably expected to assume any of these circumstances. Similarly, the jury felt that the woman in the case shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that the coffee she buys at the drive-through window is undrinkably hot and will burn through to muscle before she can get her pants off.
And before you go off on a big legal reform kick, remember that the lawsuit is YOUR main protection as an individual against corporate abuse. The government doesn't have the money, the manpower, or the balls to go after Global Megacorp when they screw their customers or their employees. The courts, sometimes, do. While I'll agree we've got a lot of frivolous lawsuits in this country, be damn careful about what you throw out getting rid of these lawsuits.
FYI: "Sect" just means a group of people distinct within a larger one. It doesn't necessarily have to be used with regards to religion, though it generally is. Furthermore, Catholicism and Methodism are both sects of Christianity. The English usage of "sect" has no negative connotations, "cult"'s the word your looking for.
Suppose im starting a cult or sect or whatever tomorrow and call it "the followers of satan". Since i might not be the only one who likes to - say, rape maidens at full or something like that, i might find some followers. Does this make me the leader of a religion? No.
As a matter of fact, if you have articles of faith, you would be a religion. Don't expect your religious freedoms to protect when you commit illegal acts harming others, though. THAT's where the line should be drawn when it comes to seperation of church and state.
No. Simply because religions tend to have a history (sometimes of a few thousand years). Im not denying someones rights to express his own belive in public but Scientology simply is not a religion per definition. And thats it. In Germany religions have special rights. They get Taxes from their followers and dont have to pay taxes themself. Thats why Scientology is "outlawed" as a sect... Because the typical german John Doe doesn`t want to assist a sect with his tax-money. And they are viewed quiet closely by the german police because the tend to suppress their members. Did you know that the german chapter of S. is terrorising former members (by telefone) after they left? You have to distinguish between sects (or cults) and religions.
The definition of "cult," as far as I can tell: a religion, usually with a small group of followers, that I, personally, disagree with. It's just a convenient term used to deny people any religious freedoms their country recognizes. "Hey, it's a cult, not a religion! We can completely ignore the 1st Amendment here!" (Yes, I'm an Amurrican.) Bullshit. Religion is religion, it's *always* been used for mind control. Chrisianity, Islam, your name it; none of them has historically been any better than Scientology. Furthermore, there are plenty of Christian groups who will harass members who leave; Catholics who leave their church can definitely expect a certain degree of ostracision from friends, family, and associates who remain with their church. And yes, in some cases, that may extend to harassing phone calls.
Furthermore, isn't harassment illegal in Germany? Do you really need to pass additional laws to cover that? All that this constant "It's unpopular, so let's pass a law against it" crap leads to is the situation we have in the US today, where it's basically impossible to lead your life without violating any laws. Since everyone is a criminal, anyone can be legally persecuted at any time by the authorities for any reason. Thus anyone who holds views those in power don't like can be quickly, quietly, and legally supressed, and discredited in the process. Since everyone breaks the laws, of course the authorities need more power to stop it, so let's make more stuff illegal, thus perpetuating the cycle and leading the country straight towards a police state.
Finally, what difference does it make if a religion has a history? NO religion had a history when it started. Are you going to say that it was perfectly legitimate for Rome to imprison (we'll leave torture and killing out of this argument) early Christians simply because they were cultists and were attempting to recruit others? Are you saying that all those martyrs that Christianity (or Catholicism, at least) reveres should actually be remembered as common criminals? Because according to your arguments, that's exactly what they were. After all, Rome had every moral right to declare the Christian cult illegal, didn't they? They were a small, unpopular cult with no history, after all.
ROTFL. Punk, hardcore, and industrial ARE top 40 pop music. What did you think they are? Top 40 pop music = any music which is disseminated by recordings. This includes rock, punk, industrial, hardcore, new age, ska, dance, techno, etc., etc., etc. Napster does not list any music beyond this extremely narrow segment of mass-consumed, mass-produced top 40 pop music such as the genres you list above.
Eh? Top 40's been pretty clearly accepted for several generations as songs/acts that are or have been on Billboard's Top 40 charts. While I'll grant there are some punk/hardcore/industrial/grindcore/ska/whatever bands that have made it onto those charts, the vast majority of the world--even those between 12-34--hasn't heard of bands like Bloodfeast, Skin Chamber, or Eyehategod. Therefore, they aren't on Top 40 charts. Therefore, your snobbery aside, they ain't Top 40 music. If Top 40 is anything disseminated by recordings, than name me one form of music--not band, form of music--that isn't Top 40.
Hmm. So those of us who actually strike out our own paths and find the best music, instead of listening to mass-produced, mass-consumed hardcore, industrial, and punk are at the mercy of what everbody else likes? So the whole purpose of Napster is to make everybody into little conformist listeners of mass-consumed top 40 pop music? How is this better than the current system where I can listen to whatever I want regardless of what "everybody else" likes? Why does Napster demand that I be like "everybody else"? That's bullshit.
This is new? As someone who doesn't like Top-40, I've been dealing with it for a couple decades now. The reason Napster "demands" you listen to what everybody else likes is because it's other people making their stuff available that determines what's out there. Apparently you don't understand how Napster works.
The reason it's better (MP3 distribution over the Internet in general, not Napster specifically) is that the costs of distribution by this method are much lower than traditional methods, therefore it's much easier for an act--especially a non-Top 40 act--to make their music available to those who want to hear it. That, and the fact that it's possible to distribute without dealing with the leeches of the RIAA.
Nope. Napster only lists top 40 pop music. I have a copy of "The Blackwell Guide to Recorded Contemporary Music" right here, and I entered the names into Napster (I'm logged on right now). Messiaen. Holmboe. Maconch. Matrinu. Egk. Hambraues. Eben. Xenakis. Jolivey. Takemitsu. Jolas. Sculthorpe. Denisov. Tredici. Schinttke. Rautavaara. Zwilich. Nope, Napster doesn't list ANY of these musicians; they only list top 40 pop music.
Ah. I see. Napster doesn't list some music that isn't Top 40 bullshit, therefore everything on Napster is Top 40 bullshit. Got some news for you, man. The stuff I like ain't exactly Top 40 (early '80s punk and hardcore, industrial, grindcore, etc) but I can find it on Napster no problem. Napster is driven by what people actually listen to. I get the impression "Blackwell"'s mostly about classical and chamber music, which isn't in particularly high demand these days. If no one who listens to that stuff uses Napster, then you're not going to find it out there. I suggest you stop being so narrow-minded about music and look at all the other stuff out there that's not on Top-40 charts.
It is their choice to make to persue electronic distribution or not. That is something so fundamental that I can't believe that I had to say it. It is my choice to publish pictures of myself on the Internet and it is my choice to not provide any pictures at all. The record companies have no obligation to provide mp3s of their songs or to allow massive mp3 distribution.
Which is part of the problem. Shouldn't it be the artists' choice? And actually, the officers of the RIAA companies do, in fact, have a legal obligation to pursue courses which will make their shareholders money.
Just a quick note about that - its THEFT - not sampling or borrowing or whatnot.
Nope, it's copyright infringement. Referring to it as theft is simply an appeal to emotions. Copyright infringement and theft are two very different things, legally and morally.
Music is Intellectual Property, and copyrighted material.
Intellectual property is a misnomer; copyrighted material isn't truly yours. In exchange for sharing it with the rest of us, we agree to allow you to control its distribution for a limited time. But don't try invoking property rights, because they don't apply.
Maybe instead of breaking these laws and watching these dreams crumble we could act on them, and things legally and ethically. Destryoing one immoral institution (RIAA or metillaca) etc does no good if you have to become evil to get there.
First off, there's a BIG difference between "evil" and "illegal." Breaking laws doesn't make someone evil, only harming someone else with malice aforethought makes someone evil. Second, pick your fights in order of importance. The record labels are keeping millions of dollars that by any ethical standards should be going to the artists; Napster's negative effect has not even been demonstrated to exist. Which do YOU think we should be attacking here?
I hope that Napster wins its case - but only if the DMCA is fatally flawed enough to allow it. The individual user ought to be tracked, brought to court, fined to the maximum extent, and then cut loose. Start making individuals pay a $5k fine for each song they steal and the piracy rate would go down.
Under copyright law, that's exactly what the RIAA should be doing. I, for one, would support them if that's what they were doing. The problem is, that's not what they're doing, because that might involve, like, work, and they're too used to free money to bother with that. Instead, they want to have the laws changed to gut fair use and privacy rights even more than they already have been, simply so they can protect their EVILLY gained profits.
I guess I didnt cover the points i wanted to make very well - but i honest to God cant understand how anyone could support Napster. I can understand why people dont want it to lose the case (i understand that services shouldnt be liable for users actions) - but in the general picture and I *like* to think that rationale minded people see how unethical personal use of Napster is.
Personal use of Napster is neither illegal nor unethical. Personal use of Napster to distribute copyrighted material without a distribution license is illegal, and possibly unethical. (I don't consider civil disobedience unethical, so the 2 or 3 people using it for civil disobedience rather than free beer aren't behaving unethically in my book). Since you obviously haven't bothered to actually research any of the issues involved, Napster's purpose is sharing MP3s. That's all. It's entirely possible for that sharing to be legal, despite RIAA propoganda.
Wasn't she holding the coffee cup between her legs and driving at the same time?
No and no. Her son was driving, he pulled away from the window and stopped, she opened the coffee to put cream and sugar in and ended up needing skin grafts.
But the corporate media didn't bother to tell you any of that, since product liability lawsuits are just *so inconvenient* for their parent corporations.
Uh, it's because a patent is, by definition, a monopoly. The government enforces your exclusive rights to your invention, for a limited time, in exchange for your publishing it for all to see. And it's no win for Gates, the M$ case had jack shit to do with patents.
2 questions: Anyone know what happened to SLDRAM, and anyone know if SLDRAM would be run into problems with the Hitachi patents? I remember SLDRAM looking pretty promising a few years back.
Are you saying that M$ has been the only company ever to do this? If so, you need to take a long, serious look at computer history. Dozens of companies have done and are still doing similar or identical things.
Me, I'd rather see laws passed requiring that any protocols used by any product under consideration for purchase by the government be fully open and held by standards organizations. And I'd like to see the government start abiding by it's multiple-source and source code requirement policies. You can't argue that policies governing the government itself are in any way socialistic.
So? They've also continued to gut labor laws, environmental regulation, they've continued to lower taxes on the top 10%... And who the hell have they INCREASED regulation on? They've simply continued the Bush policy of marginally tightening regulations while gutting the budgets of the regulatory agencies themselves. SOP for conservative administrations; provide the opportunity to go after people we don't like while ignoring the legal violations of the people we do. It's a classic pattern of conservative hypocrisy in the proud history of unequally applied drug laws, Hoover giving McCarthy morphine, tax loopholes for the people who need them least, etc..
As I've said before, Clinton stands to the right of Nixon on practically any given issue except for a few such as gay rights and abortion rights. The man is most definitely a conservative, and Gore's not a hell of a lot better. (My favorite description of Gore is that no one gives better lip service to the environment than he does.) The corporate media's just managed to push the American view of liberal vs conservative massively to the right over the last 20 years or so. If Bob Dole is considered a moderate, then something's fucked up.
I tend to doubt it. Remember, the "high end" Intel chips are generally just consumer chips with different cache architectures. There aren't any substantive differences in the processor itself; it's cheaper that way.
The problem is that IBM is a major corporation, with the sole goal of making money. The "community" has the goal of writing decent free software. Currently, the two goals are aligned; but IBM would have no problem stabbing the "community" in the back if it'll make them a quick mill or two. They're our current allies, not our friends.
Yes, IBM has actually been being fairly cool for the last few years. However, that doesn't mean we should jump into bed with them. (They can stay in the guest room, though.:))
Wow, that was impressive. It's been a while since I've seen a post get every major point as wrong as yours did.
Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft. If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever. If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?
If RedHat (Debian's not a company) were dominating the OS market the way the M$ does, and were leveraging that monopoly into other markets the way M$ has, I flat out guarantee that 90% of the people who currently oppose M$ would be just as vociferously opposing them. I sure as hell would.
How many of you had for first computer experience to a non MS OS? Mine was an Apple IIe.. then Window 3.1. Microsoft made the computer more usable for the "average" computer user, much like what AOL has done for the internet. If the average computer user were stuck using linux, there would be a LOT let people using computers. Period.
Ah. You've never heard of the Mac, then? Ya know, was easier to use in '84 than Doze is today? Not to mention, if the average computer (l)user were stuck using Windows without help, he wouldn't be able to use his PC either. There's no good reason why Linux can't be set up today to be just as idiotproof as Doze. More idiotproof, given the user isn't always running as superuser. Finally, so what? What relation does that have to their violations of the law?
There are plenty of other companies hacking out programs for use with Windows, Symantec, Adobe, AOL, Qualcomm that are making money from Windows. Its not like the API's are totally closed and just about impossible to hack a program for the OS, if that was the case, then hell yes, torch the place. But its not.
And you know damn well that they're only making money until M$ decides that they want that market, too. (see Stac, Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, etc.)
Furthermore, we'd probably have less of a problem with them if they *were* totally closed. They're hypocrites who claim that everyone's got an equal chance on Windows, (as opposed to the Mac in the '80s), then they take special little privileges for themselves, without actually telling anyone.
I truly believe that most of the slashdot users are pissed just because it's Microsoft and the fact that it's (ack) closed source! So what? They created (or bought) the source, its' THEIRS, not OURS. If you hack out open source software, that's YOUR choice.
And it's OUR choice to not use non-free software; and our right to say WHY we choose not to use it; and, for those of us who choose it for ethical reasons, it's our responsibility to attempt to convince others.
Nobody is disputing the legality of closed source software. Nobody is attempting to make it illegal to produce. We're attempting to convince companies to voluntarily make what we consider the right choice. While many people advocated the open-sourcing of M$ software, they were advocating it as a remedial penalty for lawbreaking, which is a special case. Nobody is advocating the forced release of source for anyone who hasn't already broken the law. And you know it damn well. So you can knock off the damn grandstanding, already.
Yes, some of Microsoft's past actions are questionable, but the majority of them have been resolved. Microsoft Internet Explorer is installed on the machine by default, so what? You can go download Netscape and Uninstall IE. How would the average user go about downloading Netscape if IE wasn't installed? (yea there's ftp.exe, but the average user doesn't know that it exists...) Yea, MSN is installed on a typical install.. so are Prodigy, AT&T WorldNet, AOL + others) which can also be uninstalled. Face it, Microsoft has brought the computer industry to where it is today.
Knucklehead, the problem is you CAN'T uninstall it. It's bound too tightly to Windows, which is bloody stupid software design in addition to having been done for illegal reasons. Furthermore, a hell of a lot of people managed to download Nutscrape before Exploder was released, including a lot of AOL-using idiots. I suspect there wouldn't be any real problem. And I suspect you know it.
And the computer industry is where it is today in spite of M$, not because of it. They've never innovated anything; hell, they can't even copy other people's innovations in a timely fashion. (see the Mac, again.) And they can't even put together something stable but old-fashioned, ala Unix. M$ has done nothing but hold the industry back.
Linux brought the internet where it is today.. of course Microsoft had to adapt to the internet standards and create it's own internet programs. It had to keep up with linux in that aspect. Now that it has caught up (and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry.. 'They have a monopoly! It's bad!' Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?
Uh, Linux has kinda depended on the internet to get where it is, not the other way around. The internet was founded on Unix, VMS, and various other midrange/highend OS's. And the internet programs you're talking about were all originally written my others, but were bought out or stomped by M$.
And it matters because I'm sick of having to use Doze at work, of having to dual-boot to run games, of not being able to buy a PC without Windows (up until the antitrust trial, anyway), and of having companies that actually create innovative software get stomped out of existence by M$'s anticompetitive practices.
I do believe that we have to keep Microsoft in order, bastardizing standards that are worldwide accepted is wrong.. but split MS up.. no.
And tactics short of splitting them up *have already been tried.* M$ laughed at them, that's why they're where they are now. Had they actually followed the consent decree they signed five years ago, this case wouldn't have happened. If a criminal violates parole in spirit, even if not technically, shouldn't they be severely slapped for it? Same thing.
What liberal media? 90-odd-percent of the media in the US is owned by half a dozen or so right-wing corporations. The people you see on the idiot box may be center-left, but the companies that own them are definitely conservative, and they're the ones who decide what you see. The liberal media's an absolute myth.
As for Buchanan, he's taken seriously by the media, he's won states in primaries, I know multiple people who have/would like to vote for him... He may be a fascistic idiot, but there are a lot of fascistic idiots in the US today, so yeah, he's a serious candidate.
Actually, given the Clinton stands to the right of *Nixon* on taxes, labor, the environment, civil rights, corporate welfare, etc... basically everything except abortion and gay rights, I don't really think he can be described as anything but a conservative. It's just that there's been a concerted effort in the corporate media to push the political scale in the US to the right, and the widespread belief that Clinton is a liberal shows just how successful it's been.
Clinton is a liberal, Bob Dole is a moderate (and no, he hasn't exactly moved to the left since the '70s.), Rush Limbaugh is a serious political commentator, and Pat Buchanan is a serious political candidate. Face it, if good 'ol Tricky Dick, McCarthy's sidekick, were running for office these days, he'd be lambasted as a flaming commie.
Man, try actually reading what he wrote. He didn't say don't post, he said don't post stuff as absolute fact in an area where you're not qualified to do so. You didn't say "I THINK Barbie and The Barbies are two seperate and distinct trademarks," you said they are. No IANAL disclaimer, nothing. You're giving what can be construed as legal advice here, and you're not qualified to do so.
It's fine to post if you don't have dead trees on your wall, just let people know that you don't. THAT's what he was saying.
Antitrust remedies are NOT punitive, they are remedial.
Incorrect. They are supposed to be both remedial AND punitive. Why else does the Sherman Anti-Trust act provide for fines of up to $10,000,000 for corporations, a HUGE amount in the 1890s?
I suggest you don't call others "fools" or "ignorant" unless you're right, knucklehead.
What pisses the DOJ off so much is that Microsoft isn't lying down quietly and taking it.
Actually, what pissed the DOJ off so much was M$ obeying the letter of the consent decree while raping the hell out of the spirit. M$ made them look like fools, arrogantly neglecting to consider that doing that to the DOJ--who ARE the law of the land--might not be the brightest idea they could possibly come up with.
Hmm... You mean like Netscape? Or Linux? Or Mac OS X? Seems to me that those are all doing just fine
If Netscape is doing just fine, than why the FUCK did they have to accept a buyout to stay in business? *Netscape the corporation was destroyed by M$'s anticompetitive tactics.*
As for Linux... Are you telling me that all you have to do to compete with M$ around is distribute your OS AND the source for your OS for free on the internet, get thousands of people to put in millions of man-hours, again, for free, and after 10 years or so, you can expect a market share 1/50th that of M$? Sure, that's doing REALLY well.
And Apple... Excuse my while I put my ass back on, I just laughed it off. Oh yeah, there's competition for M$. Even after a huge comeback, they've got a tiny market share, and they run on a different hardware platform. Oh yeah, they're competition for M$!
Microsoft comes along and buys them out, or they produce a better implementation in some cases, but so what? If our concern is for the wellbeing of consumers rather than of corporations, why does it matter what happens to the companies that introduce those products, if the products themselves are still available?
That may work in the short term, but it's disastrous in the long term. Say I come up with some brilliant, revolutionary piece of software. Barring antitrust action agains M$, I have 3 choices:
Sell my innovation to M$, probably for less than it's worth, and lose control of the product of my imagination
Watch M$ come up with a product for the same market, ship it for free, and be forced to sell my company anyway
Hope my market stays small enough that M$ isn't interested.
Those choices suck. So why should I even bother trying to come up with some interesting, innovative piece of software?
Antitrust law has never been about protecting consumers from the bad effects of monopolies. It's always been a means of protecting companies from "unfair" competition by other companies. I reject that standard. Whenever you go into business, you run the risk that a larger and better-financed firm will beat you in the marketplace. That's a risk you take.
Actually, a much more important reason for antitrust law is to protect the government itself from being ruled by a company. A company with a monopoly can exert control not only over markets and consumers, but the government as well. It can do this in several ways. It can threaten to cut off shipments of its product to the government, ie "As long as this law/regulation/antitrust trial is in effect, we're not certain that we can remain in business long enough to fulfill our contract to you." So the government has a choice between dropping the law/lawsuit, or watching the billions of dollars invested in a M$ infrastructure swirl down the toilet. Second, they can use monopoly profits to buy legislators. I seem to recall a small flap a little while ago where a certain company was attempting to bribe legislators to reduce funding for the DOJ's antitrust division?
The US government is and should be the single most powerful force in the country, short of the collective will of a majority of the citizens, as it is, at least nominally, responsible to that collective will. A corporation is legally responsible only to its major shareholders, and thus should not have effective political power. A monopoly has a great deal of effective political power.
So, how exactly does Microsoft prevent hot new technologies from coming to market? And if Microsoft subsequently drives some of those companies out of business by providing a better product at a lower price, how is that a bad thing?
First answered above, the second: they don't. They provide a product which is, at best, equivalent to their competitor, then use their monopoly power in various ways to ensure their product gets adopted.
As for the apps company developing for Linux or *BSD, I suggest you hand an average computer user a copy of Red Hat and ask him to install it. He'll be using it as a coaster within the hour.
First off, make up your mind. Is Linux a viable competitor to M$ or isn't it?
I suggest you hand an average computer user a copy of Windows 2000 and ask him to install it. He'll be using it as a coaster within an hour. The fact is, given two blank PCs, Linux is no harder to install than Windows (assuming you don't use Debian.:)) It's just that, due to their anticompetitive tactics, Windows comes by default on ninety-odd-percent of the world's systems, and the only reason companies like IBM, Compaq, and Gateway are exploring shipping systems with Linux pre-installed is that M$ can't strong-arm them with an antitrust trial in progress.
Have you actually been reading the news on Linux at any time in the last 3 years? Because almost every point in your little anti-Linux rant has been addressed. Furthermore, if your milestone for usability is that an average (l)user can use it without help, then Windows isn't ready for prime time either! Have you worked in tech support for Windows desktops? I've met people who can't figure out how to change their desktop resolution! So what do these people do? They find someone to set up and administer their PC for them. Care to explain why someone couldn't do that just as easily for them with a Linux box? The only objections they're going to raise come down to "it doesn't look like Windows." Sit these people down behind a Mac, and they'll claim that system's too hard to use, too.
As for the lack of apps, Corel's *at least* as good as office, we've got more games coming out every day, and the system management tools stomp all over M$'s. I suggest you do some research before you make yourself look dumber than you already have.
That said, until Linux gains sufficient market share to get pre-installed on a lot more systems than it currently is, it won't gain much market share. And no, that wasn't a typo.
They ain't gonna move. For one thing, if they do, they all of a sudden become subject to laws against dumping. Which means they can no longer destroy competing companies by releasing products for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I was in my local public library I don't recall seeing Hustler in the periodical section. Is this censorship? I don't think so
Is it just me, or is there a difference between "We won't spend money on buying Hustler" and "We'll spend money preventing you from getting Hustler?" The first is a refusal to accomodate your request. Tough shit, that's not censorship. The second is an active attempt to prevent access to information, and that *is* censorship, and a public library shouldn't be in the censorship business. Period.
Furthermore, you've got good odds that your library has a copy of Playboy. Is that porn?
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement. You can look at your own porn all you want; I am not required to provide it for you. What the F$%%# is wrong with a PUBLIC library trying to keep 12 year olds from viewing hard-core pornography??
No, you don't have to provide it, but you damn well don't have the right to prevent me or my kids seeing it. What's wrong is that it's not YOUR decision what MY kid sees. In addition, public libraries are used by adults as well, and if they want to look at porn, that's their business. Finally, I have moral objections to public libraries spending my tax dollars on censorware. Why are your moral objections to porn valid enough to deserve consideration as public policy, but my equally heartfelt moral objections to censorware aren't? Why are your morals more important than mine?
Obviously the methods being used for this are imperfect. OK, then we can work to improve them; but to claim that this is censorship is missing the point, and degrading to those who are fighting real censorship in places like China and North Korea.
Mate, this IS real censorship. It may not be preventing access to information we take for granted here, but it's still preventing people access to information they want, and whether or not you like it, that's censorship. The only thing degrading to the people fighting to get censorship removed in China and North Korea is moral bigots like you trying to get it introduced in a "free" country like the US.
--
The primary market for these products is for parents to use in their homes, and for schools to use on their private computer systems. That's not really censorship, because the people using it are completely within their rights (Parents can decide what their kids see, same with the school system)
Uh, it may be within their rights, but it's still censorship. They are controlling other peoples access to information based on their own personal beliefs of what's appropriate, and that's censorship. You can argue that it's good, you can argue that they're right to do it, but you can't legitimately argue that it isn't censorship.
Furthermore, it may be within their legal rights, but many of us still consider it morally wrong to withhold information from others under any circumstances. If your kid gets at porn, don't deny it exists. Explain it to him. Tell him what sex is, explain what you think about it and why, but all suppressing his access to it is going to do is create an unhealthy interest in it which he has to go behind your back and lie to you about in order to satisfy, and make him as hung up on sex as the rest of this stupid country. If he gets at neo-nazi bullshit, explain to him why it's stupid. He won't have any defense against idiocy if he's never been exposed to it. If he starts talking to people online, make sure you know what he's telling them, and make sure he only meets them under your guidance and protection. Censorware is just another way for parents to abdicate their responsibility to educate, to spend time with, and to take an interest in their child.
Also, when we're talking schools, what gives YOU the right to determine what MY kid can't see? Don't I get to choose that he can see anything he wants? Are you going to say that the government should tell me how to raise my kid?
--
Of course the problem there is, who really gets to decide what filtering software you use? If you're using a terminal in a public library, for example, who picks which set of filters are used? What filter gets used in a public school? No matter how it gets decided, someone else is choosing what you get to view. And that's a problem.
--
If you step on a nail and puncture yourself, you don't sue Craftsman for making the nail sharp, do you? If you put your hand on a lit stove burner and burn your hand, you don't sue Whirlpool because the stove was too hot, do you? When you burn the roof of your mouth on a hot piece of pizza, you don't sue Domino's because they made the pizza too hot, do you?
Nope. Now if that nail was designed with special barbs to make it hold better, requiring extenisive surgery; if that stove heated the entire stovetop rather than just the burner; if that pizza burned its way completely through the roof of my mouth and burned out my sinuses, I might consider it. Why? Because I can't be reasonably expected to assume any of these circumstances. Similarly, the jury felt that the woman in the case shouldn't be reasonably expected to assume that the coffee she buys at the drive-through window is undrinkably hot and will burn through to muscle before she can get her pants off.
And before you go off on a big legal reform kick, remember that the lawsuit is YOUR main protection as an individual against corporate abuse. The government doesn't have the money, the manpower, or the balls to go after Global Megacorp when they screw their customers or their employees. The courts, sometimes, do. While I'll agree we've got a lot of frivolous lawsuits in this country, be damn careful about what you throw out getting rid of these lawsuits.
--
Of course that's quite a bit cheaper upgrade, then from NT3-W2k
Uh, that was kinda the point. You don't have to *pay* to upgrade Linux. Repeatedly.
--
FYI: "Sect" just means a group of people distinct within a larger one. It doesn't necessarily have to be used with regards to religion, though it generally is. Furthermore, Catholicism and Methodism are both sects of Christianity. The English usage of "sect" has no negative connotations, "cult"'s the word your looking for.
Suppose im starting a cult or sect or whatever tomorrow and call it "the followers of satan". Since i might not be the only one who likes to - say, rape maidens at full or something like that, i might find some followers. Does this make me the leader of a religion? No.
As a matter of fact, if you have articles of faith, you would be a religion. Don't expect your religious freedoms to protect when you commit illegal acts harming others, though. THAT's where the line should be drawn when it comes to seperation of church and state.
No. Simply because religions tend to have a history (sometimes of a few thousand years).
Im not denying someones rights to express his own belive in public but Scientology simply is not a religion per definition.
And thats it. In Germany religions have special rights. They get Taxes from their followers and dont have to pay taxes themself. Thats why Scientology is "outlawed" as a sect... Because the typical german John Doe doesn`t want to assist a sect with his tax-money. And they are viewed quiet closely by the german police because the tend to suppress their members. Did you know that the german chapter of S. is terrorising former members (by telefone) after they left?
You have to distinguish between sects (or cults) and religions.
The definition of "cult," as far as I can tell: a religion, usually with a small group of followers, that I, personally, disagree with. It's just a convenient term used to deny people any religious freedoms their country recognizes. "Hey, it's a cult, not a religion! We can completely ignore the 1st Amendment here!" (Yes, I'm an Amurrican.) Bullshit. Religion is religion, it's *always* been used for mind control. Chrisianity, Islam, your name it; none of them has historically been any better than Scientology. Furthermore, there are plenty of Christian groups who will harass members who leave; Catholics who leave their church can definitely expect a certain degree of ostracision from friends, family, and associates who remain with their church. And yes, in some cases, that may extend to harassing phone calls.
Furthermore, isn't harassment illegal in Germany? Do you really need to pass additional laws to cover that? All that this constant "It's unpopular, so let's pass a law against it" crap leads to is the situation we have in the US today, where it's basically impossible to lead your life without violating any laws. Since everyone is a criminal, anyone can be legally persecuted at any time by the authorities for any reason. Thus anyone who holds views those in power don't like can be quickly, quietly, and legally supressed, and discredited in the process. Since everyone breaks the laws, of course the authorities need more power to stop it, so let's make more stuff illegal, thus perpetuating the cycle and leading the country straight towards a police state.
Finally, what difference does it make if a religion has a history? NO religion had a history when it started. Are you going to say that it was perfectly legitimate for Rome to imprison (we'll leave torture and killing out of this argument) early Christians simply because they were cultists and were attempting to recruit others? Are you saying that all those martyrs that Christianity (or Catholicism, at least) reveres should actually be remembered as common criminals? Because according to your arguments, that's exactly what they were. After all, Rome had every moral right to declare the Christian cult illegal, didn't they? They were a small, unpopular cult with no history, after all.
--
ROTFL. Punk, hardcore, and industrial ARE top 40 pop music. What did you think they are? Top 40 pop music = any music which is disseminated by recordings. This includes rock, punk, industrial, hardcore, new age, ska, dance, techno, etc., etc., etc. Napster does not list any music beyond this extremely narrow segment of mass-consumed, mass-produced top 40 pop music such as the genres you list above.
Eh? Top 40's been pretty clearly accepted for several generations as songs/acts that are or have been on Billboard's Top 40 charts. While I'll grant there are some punk/hardcore/industrial/grindcore/ska/whatever bands that have made it onto those charts, the vast majority of the world--even those between 12-34--hasn't heard of bands like Bloodfeast, Skin Chamber, or Eyehategod. Therefore, they aren't on Top 40 charts. Therefore, your snobbery aside, they ain't Top 40 music. If Top 40 is anything disseminated by recordings, than name me one form of music--not band, form of music--that isn't Top 40.
Hmm. So those of us who actually strike out our own paths and find the best music, instead of listening to mass-produced, mass-consumed hardcore, industrial, and punk are at the mercy of what everbody else likes? So the whole purpose of Napster is to make everybody into little conformist listeners of mass-consumed top 40 pop music? How is this better than the current system where I can listen to whatever I want regardless of what "everybody else" likes? Why does Napster demand that I be like "everybody else"? That's bullshit.
This is new? As someone who doesn't like Top-40, I've been dealing with it for a couple decades now. The reason Napster "demands" you listen to what everybody else likes is because it's other people making their stuff available that determines what's out there. Apparently you don't understand how Napster works.
The reason it's better (MP3 distribution over the Internet in general, not Napster specifically) is that the costs of distribution by this method are much lower than traditional methods, therefore it's much easier for an act--especially a non-Top 40 act--to make their music available to those who want to hear it. That, and the fact that it's possible to distribute without dealing with the leeches of the RIAA.
--
Nope. Napster only lists top 40 pop music. I have a copy of "The Blackwell Guide to Recorded Contemporary Music" right here, and I entered the names into Napster (I'm logged on right now). Messiaen. Holmboe. Maconch. Matrinu. Egk. Hambraues. Eben. Xenakis. Jolivey. Takemitsu. Jolas. Sculthorpe. Denisov. Tredici. Schinttke. Rautavaara. Zwilich. Nope, Napster doesn't list ANY of these musicians; they only list top 40 pop music.
Ah. I see. Napster doesn't list some music that isn't Top 40 bullshit, therefore everything on Napster is Top 40 bullshit. Got some news for you, man. The stuff I like ain't exactly Top 40 (early '80s punk and hardcore, industrial, grindcore, etc) but I can find it on Napster no problem. Napster is driven by what people actually listen to. I get the impression "Blackwell"'s mostly about classical and chamber music, which isn't in particularly high demand these days. If no one who listens to that stuff uses Napster, then you're not going to find it out there. I suggest you stop being so narrow-minded about music and look at all the other stuff out there that's not on Top-40 charts.
--
It is their choice to make to persue electronic distribution or not. That is something so fundamental that I can't believe that I had to say it. It is my choice to publish pictures of myself on the Internet and it is my choice to not provide any pictures at all. The record companies have no obligation to provide mp3s of their songs or to allow massive mp3 distribution.
Which is part of the problem. Shouldn't it be the artists' choice? And actually, the officers of the RIAA companies do, in fact, have a legal obligation to pursue courses which will make their shareholders money.
--
Just a quick note about that - its THEFT - not sampling or borrowing or whatnot.
Nope, it's copyright infringement. Referring to it as theft is simply an appeal to emotions. Copyright infringement and theft are two very different things, legally and morally.
Music is Intellectual Property, and copyrighted material.
Intellectual property is a misnomer; copyrighted material isn't truly yours. In exchange for sharing it with the rest of us, we agree to allow you to control its distribution for a limited time. But don't try invoking property rights, because they don't apply.
Maybe instead of breaking these laws and watching these dreams crumble we could act on them, and things legally and ethically. Destryoing one immoral institution (RIAA or metillaca) etc does no good if you have to become evil to get there.
First off, there's a BIG difference between "evil" and "illegal." Breaking laws doesn't make someone evil, only harming someone else with malice aforethought makes someone evil. Second, pick your fights in order of importance. The record labels are keeping millions of dollars that by any ethical standards should be going to the artists; Napster's negative effect has not even been demonstrated to exist. Which do YOU think we should be attacking here?
I hope that Napster wins its case - but only if the DMCA is fatally flawed enough to allow it. The individual user ought to be tracked, brought to court, fined to the maximum extent, and then cut loose. Start making individuals pay a $5k fine for each song they steal and the piracy rate would go down.
Under copyright law, that's exactly what the RIAA should be doing. I, for one, would support them if that's what they were doing. The problem is, that's not what they're doing, because that might involve, like, work, and they're too used to free money to bother with that. Instead, they want to have the laws changed to gut fair use and privacy rights even more than they already have been, simply so they can protect their EVILLY gained profits.
I guess I didnt cover the points i wanted to make very well - but i honest to God cant understand how anyone could support Napster. I can understand why people dont want it to lose the case (i understand that services shouldnt be liable for users actions) - but in the general picture and I *like* to think that rationale minded people see how unethical personal use of Napster is.
Personal use of Napster is neither illegal nor unethical. Personal use of Napster to distribute copyrighted material without a distribution license is illegal, and possibly unethical. (I don't consider civil disobedience unethical, so the 2 or 3 people using it for civil disobedience rather than free beer aren't behaving unethically in my book). Since you obviously haven't bothered to actually research any of the issues involved, Napster's purpose is sharing MP3s. That's all. It's entirely possible for that sharing to be legal, despite RIAA propoganda.
--
Wasn't she holding the coffee cup between her legs and driving at the same time?
No and no. Her son was driving, he pulled away from the window and stopped, she opened the coffee to put cream and sugar in and ended up needing skin grafts.
But the corporate media didn't bother to tell you any of that, since product liability lawsuits are just *so inconvenient* for their parent corporations.
--
Uh, it's because a patent is, by definition, a monopoly. The government enforces your exclusive rights to your invention, for a limited time, in exchange for your publishing it for all to see. And it's no win for Gates, the M$ case had jack shit to do with patents.
--
2 questions: Anyone know what happened to SLDRAM, and anyone know if SLDRAM would be run into problems with the Hitachi patents? I remember SLDRAM looking pretty promising a few years back.
--
Are you saying that M$ has been the only company ever to do this? If so, you need to take a long, serious look at computer history. Dozens of companies have done and are still doing similar or identical things.
Me, I'd rather see laws passed requiring that any protocols used by any product under consideration for purchase by the government be fully open and held by standards organizations. And I'd like to see the government start abiding by it's multiple-source and source code requirement policies. You can't argue that policies governing the government itself are in any way socialistic.
--
So? They've also continued to gut labor laws, environmental regulation, they've continued to lower taxes on the top 10%... And who the hell have they INCREASED regulation on? They've simply continued the Bush policy of marginally tightening regulations while gutting the budgets of the regulatory agencies themselves. SOP for conservative administrations; provide the opportunity to go after people we don't like while ignoring the legal violations of the people we do. It's a classic pattern of conservative hypocrisy in the proud history of unequally applied drug laws, Hoover giving McCarthy morphine, tax loopholes for the people who need them least, etc..
As I've said before, Clinton stands to the right of Nixon on practically any given issue except for a few such as gay rights and abortion rights. The man is most definitely a conservative, and Gore's not a hell of a lot better. (My favorite description of Gore is that no one gives better lip service to the environment than he does.) The corporate media's just managed to push the American view of liberal vs conservative massively to the right over the last 20 years or so. If Bob Dole is considered a moderate, then something's fucked up.
--
I tend to doubt it. Remember, the "high end" Intel chips are generally just consumer chips with different cache architectures. There aren't any substantive differences in the processor itself; it's cheaper that way.
--
The problem is that IBM is a major corporation, with the sole goal of making money. The "community" has the goal of writing decent free software. Currently, the two goals are aligned; but IBM would have no problem stabbing the "community" in the back if it'll make them a quick mill or two. They're our current allies, not our friends.
:))
Yes, IBM has actually been being fairly cool for the last few years. However, that doesn't mean we should jump into bed with them. (They can stay in the guest room, though.
--
Wow, that was impressive. It's been a while since I've seen a post get every major point as wrong as yours did.
Splitting up Mickeysoft is a bad idea... I can guarantee that most of the slashdot users are for the split just because it is Microsoft. If it were RedHat or Debian, those same people would be up in arms saying that they shouldn't be split or whatever. If Microsoft hadn't become a company, honestly, how many of you people would be using a computer?
If RedHat (Debian's not a company) were dominating the OS market the way the M$ does, and were leveraging that monopoly into other markets the way M$ has, I flat out guarantee that 90% of the people who currently oppose M$ would be just as vociferously opposing them. I sure as hell would.
How many of you had for first computer experience to a non MS OS? Mine was an Apple IIe.. then Window 3.1. Microsoft made the computer more usable for the "average" computer user, much like what AOL has done for the internet. If the average computer user were stuck using linux, there would be a LOT let people using computers. Period.
Ah. You've never heard of the Mac, then? Ya know, was easier to use in '84 than Doze is today? Not to mention, if the average computer (l)user were stuck using Windows without help, he wouldn't be able to use his PC either. There's no good reason why Linux can't be set up today to be just as idiotproof as Doze. More idiotproof, given the user isn't always running as superuser. Finally, so what? What relation does that have to their violations of the law?
There are plenty of other companies hacking out programs for use with Windows, Symantec, Adobe, AOL, Qualcomm that are making money from Windows. Its not like the API's are totally closed and just about impossible to hack a program for the OS, if that was the case, then hell yes, torch the place. But its not.
And you know damn well that they're only making money until M$ decides that they want that market, too. (see Stac, Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, etc.)
Furthermore, we'd probably have less of a problem with them if they *were* totally closed. They're hypocrites who claim that everyone's got an equal chance on Windows, (as opposed to the Mac in the '80s), then they take special little privileges for themselves, without actually telling anyone.
I truly believe that most of the slashdot users are pissed just because it's Microsoft and the fact that it's (ack) closed source! So what? They created (or bought) the source, its' THEIRS, not OURS. If you hack out open source software, that's YOUR choice.
And it's OUR choice to not use non-free software; and our right to say WHY we choose not to use it; and, for those of us who choose it for ethical reasons, it's our responsibility to attempt to convince others.
Nobody is disputing the legality of closed source software. Nobody is attempting to make it illegal to produce. We're attempting to convince companies to voluntarily make what we consider the right choice. While many people advocated the open-sourcing of M$ software, they were advocating it as a remedial penalty for lawbreaking, which is a special case. Nobody is advocating the forced release of source for anyone who hasn't already broken the law. And you know it damn well. So you can knock off the damn grandstanding, already.
Yes, some of Microsoft's past actions are questionable, but the majority of them have been resolved. Microsoft Internet Explorer is installed on the machine by default, so what? You can go download Netscape and Uninstall IE. How would the average user go about downloading Netscape if IE wasn't installed? (yea there's ftp.exe, but the average user doesn't know that it exists...) Yea, MSN is installed on a typical install.. so are Prodigy, AT&T WorldNet, AOL + others) which can also be uninstalled. Face it, Microsoft has brought the computer industry to where it is today.
Knucklehead, the problem is you CAN'T uninstall it. It's bound too tightly to Windows, which is bloody stupid software design in addition to having been done for illegal reasons. Furthermore, a hell of a lot of people managed to download Nutscrape before Exploder was released, including a lot of AOL-using idiots. I suspect there wouldn't be any real problem. And I suspect you know it.
And the computer industry is where it is today in spite of M$, not because of it. They've never innovated anything; hell, they can't even copy other people's innovations in a timely fashion. (see the Mac, again.) And they can't even put together something stable but old-fashioned, ala Unix. M$ has done nothing but hold the industry back.
Linux brought the internet where it is today.. of course Microsoft had to adapt to the internet standards and create it's own internet programs. It had to keep up with linux in that aspect. Now that it has caught up (and modified standards, which *I* do believe is unacceptable) slashdotters are angry.. 'They have a monopoly! It's bad!' Do you use windows? No. Why do you care?
Uh, Linux has kinda depended on the internet to get where it is, not the other way around. The internet was founded on Unix, VMS, and various other midrange/highend OS's. And the internet programs you're talking about were all originally written my others, but were bought out or stomped by M$.
And it matters because I'm sick of having to use Doze at work, of having to dual-boot to run games, of not being able to buy a PC without Windows (up until the antitrust trial, anyway), and of having companies that actually create innovative software get stomped out of existence by M$'s anticompetitive practices.
I do believe that we have to keep Microsoft in order, bastardizing standards that are worldwide accepted is wrong.. but split MS up.. no.
And tactics short of splitting them up *have already been tried.* M$ laughed at them, that's why they're where they are now. Had they actually followed the consent decree they signed five years ago, this case wouldn't have happened. If a criminal violates parole in spirit, even if not technically, shouldn't they be severely slapped for it? Same thing.
--
What liberal media? 90-odd-percent of the media in the US is owned by half a dozen or so right-wing corporations. The people you see on the idiot box may be center-left, but the companies that own them are definitely conservative, and they're the ones who decide what you see. The liberal media's an absolute myth.
As for Buchanan, he's taken seriously by the media, he's won states in primaries, I know multiple people who have/would like to vote for him... He may be a fascistic idiot, but there are a lot of fascistic idiots in the US today, so yeah, he's a serious candidate.
--
Actually, I'm probably voting for Jello Biafra.
--
Actually, given the Clinton stands to the right of *Nixon* on taxes, labor, the environment, civil rights, corporate welfare, etc... basically everything except abortion and gay rights, I don't really think he can be described as anything but a conservative. It's just that there's been a concerted effort in the corporate media to push the political scale in the US to the right, and the widespread belief that Clinton is a liberal shows just how successful it's been.
Clinton is a liberal, Bob Dole is a moderate (and no, he hasn't exactly moved to the left since the '70s.), Rush Limbaugh is a serious political commentator, and Pat Buchanan is a serious political candidate. Face it, if good 'ol Tricky Dick, McCarthy's sidekick, were running for office these days, he'd be lambasted as a flaming commie.
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
--
Man, try actually reading what he wrote. He didn't say don't post, he said don't post stuff as absolute fact in an area where you're not qualified to do so. You didn't say "I THINK Barbie and The Barbies are two seperate and distinct trademarks," you said they are. No IANAL disclaimer, nothing. You're giving what can be construed as legal advice here, and you're not qualified to do so.
It's fine to post if you don't have dead trees on your wall, just let people know that you don't. THAT's what he was saying.
--
Antitrust remedies are NOT punitive, they are remedial.
Incorrect. They are supposed to be both remedial AND punitive. Why else does the Sherman Anti-Trust act provide for fines of up to $10,000,000 for corporations, a HUGE amount in the 1890s?
I suggest you don't call others "fools" or "ignorant" unless you're right, knucklehead.
--
Actually, what pissed the DOJ off so much was M$ obeying the letter of the consent decree while raping the hell out of the spirit. M$ made them look like fools, arrogantly neglecting to consider that doing that to the DOJ--who ARE the law of the land--might not be the brightest idea they could possibly come up with.
Hmm... You mean like Netscape? Or Linux? Or Mac OS X? Seems to me that those are all doing just fine
If Netscape is doing just fine, than why the FUCK did they have to accept a buyout to stay in business? *Netscape the corporation was destroyed by M$'s anticompetitive tactics.*
As for Linux... Are you telling me that all you have to do to compete with M$ around is distribute your OS AND the source for your OS for free on the internet, get thousands of people to put in millions of man-hours, again, for free, and after 10 years or so, you can expect a market share 1/50th that of M$? Sure, that's doing REALLY well.
And Apple... Excuse my while I put my ass back on, I just laughed it off. Oh yeah, there's competition for M$. Even after a huge comeback, they've got a tiny market share, and they run on a different hardware platform. Oh yeah, they're competition for M$!
Microsoft comes along and buys them out, or they produce a better implementation in some cases, but so what? If our concern is for the wellbeing of consumers rather than of corporations, why does it matter what happens to the companies that introduce those products, if the products themselves are still available?
That may work in the short term, but it's disastrous in the long term. Say I come up with some brilliant, revolutionary piece of software. Barring antitrust action agains M$, I have 3 choices:
Those choices suck. So why should I even bother trying to come up with some interesting, innovative piece of software?
Antitrust law has never been about protecting consumers from the bad effects of monopolies. It's always been a means of protecting companies from "unfair" competition by other companies. I reject that standard. Whenever you go into business, you run the risk that a larger and better-financed firm will beat you in the marketplace. That's a risk you take.
Actually, a much more important reason for antitrust law is to protect the government itself from being ruled by a company. A company with a monopoly can exert control not only over markets and consumers, but the government as well. It can do this in several ways. It can threaten to cut off shipments of its product to the government, ie "As long as this law/regulation/antitrust trial is in effect, we're not certain that we can remain in business long enough to fulfill our contract to you." So the government has a choice between dropping the law/lawsuit, or watching the billions of dollars invested in a M$ infrastructure swirl down the toilet. Second, they can use monopoly profits to buy legislators. I seem to recall a small flap a little while ago where a certain company was attempting to bribe legislators to reduce funding for the DOJ's antitrust division?
The US government is and should be the single most powerful force in the country, short of the collective will of a majority of the citizens, as it is, at least nominally, responsible to that collective will. A corporation is legally responsible only to its major shareholders, and thus should not have effective political power. A monopoly has a great deal of effective political power.
So, how exactly does Microsoft prevent hot new technologies from coming to market? And if Microsoft subsequently drives some of those companies out of business by providing a better product at a lower price, how is that a bad thing?
First answered above, the second: they don't. They provide a product which is, at best, equivalent to their competitor, then use their monopoly power in various ways to ensure their product gets adopted.
As for the apps company developing for Linux or *BSD, I suggest you hand an average computer user a copy of Red Hat and ask him to install it. He'll be using it as a coaster within the hour.
First off, make up your mind. Is Linux a viable competitor to M$ or isn't it?
I suggest you hand an average computer user a copy of Windows 2000 and ask him to install it. He'll be using it as a coaster within an hour. The fact is, given two blank PCs, Linux is no harder to install than Windows (assuming you don't use Debian.
Have you actually been reading the news on Linux at any time in the last 3 years? Because almost every point in your little anti-Linux rant has been addressed. Furthermore, if your milestone for usability is that an average (l)user can use it without help, then Windows isn't ready for prime time either! Have you worked in tech support for Windows desktops? I've met people who can't figure out how to change their desktop resolution! So what do these people do? They find someone to set up and administer their PC for them. Care to explain why someone couldn't do that just as easily for them with a Linux box? The only objections they're going to raise come down to "it doesn't look like Windows." Sit these people down behind a Mac, and they'll claim that system's too hard to use, too.
As for the lack of apps, Corel's *at least* as good as office, we've got more games coming out every day, and the system management tools stomp all over M$'s. I suggest you do some research before you make yourself look dumber than you already have.
That said, until Linux gains sufficient market share to get pre-installed on a lot more systems than it currently is, it won't gain much market share. And no, that wasn't a typo.
--
They ain't gonna move. For one thing, if they do, they all of a sudden become subject to laws against dumping. Which means they can no longer destroy competing companies by releasing products for free.
--