anti competitive business practices? are you talking about "bundling a web browser?" granted IE was shit but giving away something for free should not be against the law
Intentionally breaking compatibility with DR-DOS, anti-Linux FUD, the difficulty in getting back the MS tax, countless instances of embrace, extend, extinguish, threatening OEMs with what is effectively a kiss of death if they didn't only ship MS software. That you think it was about bundling a browser suggests you have a very limited background here.
not that I disagree with you in principle, but i just dont get all the jealousy against rich people. one day I hope to be one. perhaps if more people thought that way (like americans did until the past 20 years) we would be better off
Actually, that's exactly how we got here in the first place. We put up with a lot of bullshit because we were told that one day we might be rich, and we thought that it would be us.
Actually, they got off very light for the harm their business practices caused. That you can't easily point to a simple direct effect it has on you is irrelevant. They are good at tricking you in these things because our brains don't really work on the kind of scale in place here, but it's a real stretch to claim that Gates' ledger is in the black, especially since a lot of the practices of B&MGF are themselves harmful or of limited utility.
And that's a moot point if he's done more harm than most. If I steal a thousand dollars from you and buy you a case a beer, it doesn't put them in a better position than a friend who buys you a single beer but didn't rob you.
You are ignoring the harm that he has done through anti-competitive business practices. What he's giving to charity is chump change in comparison, and his charity is of questionable efficacy (other than being a tax shelter and being good PR). There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich, but at a certain level of wealth, you will find little other than robber barons.
And if someone is on record as supporting something, then clearly they actually support it. Also, it's funny how the ploy of thinking that they are great people by giving money to charity worked on you.
The difference is that in a certain strict sense, Congress made the loopholes on the rich, thus Congress deserves blame. The people who influenced Congress to make those changes and the people that take advantage of those loopholes are pretty much the same set, though.
And the loopholes are there because of the influence the rich have over the government. You can be mad at the people who made a loophole and the people who abuse it simultaneously.
No, too big to fail banks are incredibly myopic, instead opting for 'get rich quick' plans. Regardless of the financial soundness of the Amazon strategy, this is pretty much the polar opposite of what the banks did.
The law itself should be considered unconstitutional. I can sort of get seizing property that is acquired by criminal means, but this was just a car that was incidentally used in a particular non-violent act.
First of all, most retail stores sell loss leaders, which is what Amazon did there with books. As for competing, the answer is simple. Other stores should attempt to obtain similarly generous investors. Most investors should be like Amazon's investors. Short sighted investment is a huge problem, and having investors not be short sighted is the best solution. Complaining about that element is basically complaining that Amazon isn't shooting itself in the foot.
There are lots of people that genuinely oppose big government, but nobody likes Comcast. If given a choice, the people would prevent Comcast from having fast lanes, and unleash the rancor and krakken upon them simultaneously.
This isn't about quality, it's about whether or not the parts are genuinely from a specific manufacturer. Being a 'knock-off' doesn't inherently mean it's low quality, although I will admit that it can be the case. However, it can also be the case that the knock-offs are actually higher quality than the genuine material, especially if a business is effectively resting on its laurels. As others have pointed out, there are several places in the supply chain where somebody could be making a switch, and potentially screwing over the customers of anybody who doesn't treat a USB-to-serial chip like it's being used to protect nuclear secrets.
Why the hell would I care about that? I would however, care, that they are bricking devices, and if possible, avoid anything that even might be made by them.
ISPs are for all practical purposes natural monopolies, so competition doesn't make sense. Also, why the hell does everyone bring up 'innovation' in regards to internet service? You don't need to innovate, just lay down infrastructure and upgrade from time to time. It's a task that requires no originality at all.
I don't think most people really even differentiate between phone and cable companies, seeing them instead of two sides of the same coin, and both are hated beyond measure.
They made the law apply when content was obscene, but that means it has to fail all three prongs of the Miller test, which is very difficult to do, and would be arguably impossible for any drawing to be without any artistic value (prong three) and be patently offensive (prong two) at the same time.
Salt and tocopherol also have important biological functions, so while it is isn't strictly true that they have no preservatives, they have no preservatives that function only as preservatives. By your standard, a raw ear of corn has preservatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Intentionally breaking compatibility with DR-DOS, anti-Linux FUD, the difficulty in getting back the MS tax, countless instances of embrace, extend, extinguish, threatening OEMs with what is effectively a kiss of death if they didn't only ship MS software. That you think it was about bundling a browser suggests you have a very limited background here.
Actually, that's exactly how we got here in the first place. We put up with a lot of bullshit because we were told that one day we might be rich, and we thought that it would be us.
Actually, they got off very light for the harm their business practices caused. That you can't easily point to a simple direct effect it has on you is irrelevant. They are good at tricking you in these things because our brains don't really work on the kind of scale in place here, but it's a real stretch to claim that Gates' ledger is in the black, especially since a lot of the practices of B&MGF are themselves harmful or of limited utility.
And that's a moot point if he's done more harm than most. If I steal a thousand dollars from you and buy you a case a beer, it doesn't put them in a better position than a friend who buys you a single beer but didn't rob you.
You are ignoring the harm that he has done through anti-competitive business practices. What he's giving to charity is chump change in comparison, and his charity is of questionable efficacy (other than being a tax shelter and being good PR). There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich, but at a certain level of wealth, you will find little other than robber barons.
Giving a pittance to the poor doesn't really compare.
And who do you think tells the politicians what to do? Hint: it's not the general public.
If it's not that much to Ballmer, I'll gladly take just a month of that. 5 million is plenty to me.
It's fine to hate the player that rigs the game as well as the game.
And if someone is on record as supporting something, then clearly they actually support it. Also, it's funny how the ploy of thinking that they are great people by giving money to charity worked on you.
The difference is that in a certain strict sense, Congress made the loopholes on the rich, thus Congress deserves blame. The people who influenced Congress to make those changes and the people that take advantage of those loopholes are pretty much the same set, though.
And the loopholes are there because of the influence the rich have over the government. You can be mad at the people who made a loophole and the people who abuse it simultaneously.
The fact that the party bringing up this case wasn't immediately laughed out of court indicates there is a problem.
No, too big to fail banks are incredibly myopic, instead opting for 'get rich quick' plans. Regardless of the financial soundness of the Amazon strategy, this is pretty much the polar opposite of what the banks did.
The law itself should be considered unconstitutional. I can sort of get seizing property that is acquired by criminal means, but this was just a car that was incidentally used in a particular non-violent act.
First of all, most retail stores sell loss leaders, which is what Amazon did there with books. As for competing, the answer is simple. Other stores should attempt to obtain similarly generous investors. Most investors should be like Amazon's investors. Short sighted investment is a huge problem, and having investors not be short sighted is the best solution. Complaining about that element is basically complaining that Amazon isn't shooting itself in the foot.
I'm not sure if I see the reason to crack down on a business not being driven by short term profits. That would seem to be a desirable quality.
There are lots of people that genuinely oppose big government, but nobody likes Comcast. If given a choice, the people would prevent Comcast from having fast lanes, and unleash the rancor and krakken upon them simultaneously.
This isn't about quality, it's about whether or not the parts are genuinely from a specific manufacturer. Being a 'knock-off' doesn't inherently mean it's low quality, although I will admit that it can be the case. However, it can also be the case that the knock-offs are actually higher quality than the genuine material, especially if a business is effectively resting on its laurels. As others have pointed out, there are several places in the supply chain where somebody could be making a switch, and potentially screwing over the customers of anybody who doesn't treat a USB-to-serial chip like it's being used to protect nuclear secrets.
Why the hell would I care about that? I would however, care, that they are bricking devices, and if possible, avoid anything that even might be made by them.
ISPs are for all practical purposes natural monopolies, so competition doesn't make sense. Also, why the hell does everyone bring up 'innovation' in regards to internet service? You don't need to innovate, just lay down infrastructure and upgrade from time to time. It's a task that requires no originality at all.
I don't think most people really even differentiate between phone and cable companies, seeing them instead of two sides of the same coin, and both are hated beyond measure.
They made the law apply when content was obscene, but that means it has to fail all three prongs of the Miller test, which is very difficult to do, and would be arguably impossible for any drawing to be without any artistic value (prong three) and be patently offensive (prong two) at the same time.
Nice strawman, there. A free market would have no patents at all. Also, this is the government and corporations cooperating to screw the people.
Switzerland would actually be a decent place for that, as neutrality is their primary export.
Salt and tocopherol also have important biological functions, so while it is isn't strictly true that they have no preservatives, they have no preservatives that function only as preservatives. By your standard, a raw ear of corn has preservatives.