the thing that bothers me most is microsoft's self-righteousness with regard to the case. especially stuff like the Freedom to Innovate Network that microsoft is trying to pass of as "grass-roots."
does it strike anyone else as odd that microsoft is continually spouting its "they're crushing innovation" argument in the same breath with its "breakup proposal is unprecedented" argument? please... "their new (deteriorated) legal approach is hampering our new (progressive) products!"
basically, microsoft is trying to pull the same type of illogical arguments that have worked on software users to sway public opinion on the court case.
the worst part is it will probably work, because non-geeks will form opinions on word-of-mouth info instead of reading the facts - all microsoft has to do is make its arguments easy to remember and repeat!
Wow, and I thought I would find a bunch of stupid comments under this article. But this guy hit the nail on the head. Language is evolutionary.
More specifically, evidence suggests that language co-evolved with the human brain; that the brain is specifically engineered to learn, use, and adapt language. It's a behavioral adaptation. (evidence: No human culture has ever existed without language. Pidgens - where speakers of different languages develop broken "hybrids" between their languages to communicate - become creoles - languages with full nuance of meaning - when children grow up in the environment of a pidgen.)
That means that language has no "right" or "wrong." Whatever is in use is right. And what's more, languages which were created, like Esperanto, are bound to fail, because they attempt to reverse-engineer a part of the human brain (and evolution is one top-notch engineer).
Basically, I think the internet will have a great impact on both written ("31337") and spoken ("fyi") language in EVERY language, but I highly doubt that languages will begin to evolve into one. A new language with multiple bases can really only be formed when children grow up speaking only that language, and obviously in this case they will be raised into a native language first.
For more info on language and the brain, I recommend MIT's Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct or Words and Rules.
The have been playing the schollyard bully for years now, but none of the things they have done are illegal. Even Jackson agreed with that.
I beg to differ. What exactly did you read? Can you cite a source? Jackson did say that they did something illegal. He said it in Findings of Fact (in the Microsoft Antitrust Trial) and in Conclusions of Law.
Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act on two counts. It obtained and protected a monopoly using "anti-competetive" and "predatory" tactics. (It singled out the distribution of other products rather than improving its own products.)
It also "tied" products - required that you purchase one product if you want another. Specifically, it required that Windows always be sold with Internet Explorer on the desktop. It enforced this by bartering heavily enough with PC distributers to demonstrate that the motivation was to preserve a monopoly rather than to obtain revenue (especially since MS isn't making money off of IE).
Slashdot Mirror
does it strike anyone else as odd that microsoft is continually spouting its "they're crushing innovation" argument in the same breath with its "breakup proposal is unprecedented" argument? please... "their new (deteriorated) legal approach is hampering our new (progressive) products!"
basically, microsoft is trying to pull the same type of illogical arguments that have worked on software users to sway public opinion on the court case.
the worst part is it will probably work, because non-geeks will form opinions on word-of-mouth info instead of reading the facts - all microsoft has to do is make its arguments easy to remember and repeat!
More specifically, evidence suggests that language co-evolved with the human brain; that the brain is specifically engineered to learn, use, and adapt language. It's a behavioral adaptation. (evidence: No human culture has ever existed without language. Pidgens - where speakers of different languages develop broken "hybrids" between their languages to communicate - become creoles - languages with full nuance of meaning - when children grow up in the environment of a pidgen.)
That means that language has no "right" or "wrong." Whatever is in use is right. And what's more, languages which were created, like Esperanto, are bound to fail, because they attempt to reverse-engineer a part of the human brain (and evolution is one top-notch engineer).
Basically, I think the internet will have a great impact on both written ("31337") and spoken ("fyi") language in EVERY language, but I highly doubt that languages will begin to evolve into one. A new language with multiple bases can really only be formed when children grow up speaking only that language, and obviously in this case they will be raised into a native language first.
For more info on language and the brain, I recommend MIT's Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct or Words and Rules.
I beg to differ. What exactly did you read? Can you cite a source? Jackson did say that they did something illegal. He said it in Findings of Fact (in the Microsoft Antitrust Trial) and in Conclusions of Law.
Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act on two counts. It obtained and protected a monopoly using "anti-competetive" and "predatory" tactics. (It singled out the distribution of other products rather than improving its own products.)
It also "tied" products - required that you purchase one product if you want another. Specifically, it required that Windows always be sold with Internet Explorer on the desktop. It enforced this by bartering heavily enough with PC distributers to demonstrate that the motivation was to preserve a monopoly rather than to obtain revenue (especially since MS isn't making money off of IE).
That is defined as breaking the law.