Oh, but maybe you'd just opt out, and pay a doctor directly for his services. BZZZT! Sorry, that's *illegal*!
I won't defend the Canadian healthcare system in general, but that's incorrect. As an anarchist who refuses to benefit from goverment stolen lute, (whenever posible -- I use public roads etc.) I openly pay my doctor in cash. At first they made a fuss over it, but eventually he and the receptionists got used to it.
What is illegal is for doctors to refuse OHIP (Canada's universal Medicare-like insurance system) payments. That means completely private hospitals and such are not permitted.
That is patently rediculous. What a bunch of tards. Are they too damn stupid to see that breaking up MS is a great thing to do?
A break-up may well be a good thing for consumers in general, but I can't help but feel it's a bad thing for the open-source movement.
Linux and/or the free-*BSD's were (IMNSHO) about 2-3 years away from complete domination of the desktop and server markets. That, of course, will still happen, but if the U.S. government succeeds, it will take most of the credit, and proprietary software companies will wholeheartedly concur.
Oh.. on another note.. this doesn't save them from the US courts at all. I mean, the US courts can just as easily forbid the import of MS stuff.
I don't believe the courts have that power, but a Gore administration (at least) might push for that, though they'd have to find some hole in NAFTA to be able to get away with in.
The 'bloat' being?? Features you dont use? How can you make decisions on what features other people use? How typical it is that people slam or become so vocal of what they don't use. It's cyber peer pressure.
Of course, with open-source software, memory and/or CPU-expensive features that large groups of people might not be interested in can often be disabled via compile time options. Mozilla, for example, can be built without the mail and NNTP clients by passing the --disable-mailnews flag to./configure.
Or maybe you didn't know that because M$ forbids its covert-PR stooges from using open-source programs?
Slashdot Mirror
I won't defend the Canadian healthcare system in general, but that's incorrect. As an anarchist who refuses to benefit from goverment stolen lute, (whenever posible -- I use public roads etc.) I openly pay my doctor in cash. At first they made a fuss over it, but eventually he and the receptionists got used to it.
What is illegal is for doctors to refuse OHIP (Canada's universal Medicare-like insurance system) payments. That means completely private hospitals and such are not permitted.
A break-up may well be a good thing for consumers in general, but I can't help but feel it's a bad thing for the open-source movement.
Linux and/or the free-*BSD's were (IMNSHO) about 2-3 years away from complete domination of the desktop and server markets. That, of course, will still happen, but if the U.S. government succeeds, it will take most of the credit, and proprietary software companies will wholeheartedly concur.
I don't believe the courts have that power, but a Gore administration (at least) might push for that, though they'd have to find some hole in NAFTA to be able to get away with in.
Of course, with open-source software, memory and/or CPU-expensive features that large groups of people might not be interested in can often be disabled via compile time options. Mozilla, for example, can be built without the mail and NNTP clients by passing the --disable-mailnews flag to ./configure.
Or maybe you didn't know that because M$ forbids its covert-PR stooges from using open-source programs?