Forcing everyone to use their product is not what a monopoly makes. Obviously everyone could have gone without railroads in the time of the robber barons, right? You don't really *need* a telephone right. Sure you can refrain from using windows when your entire network of suppliers, customers, government, bosses, etc. assume you use windows/office and communicate with you through that?
There's also nothing unfair about a monopoly per se. Many monopolies exist, and they're not neccessarily evil. Nor are monopolies per se illegal. In Microsoft's case, it was the leveraging of the monopoly that was deemed illegal, *not* the monopoly per se.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you get into the situation where you want to sell a product (a PC), and that without striking a deal with the supplier of a part of that product (the OS) you will go out of business, simply means that there's no competition and the supplier possesses a de fact monopoly.
Google has the data. The data is however free to be collected by anyone. Indexing isn't a big issue either for the likes of Microsoft. Just add that little MS-search toolbar in IE, and make a few 'adjustments' so that the google-bar doesn't link that well anymore between minor revisions of IE. Finally add a few links into MS-office to enable some search (if only to use MS-search to search the helpfiles), and voila, another market killed and gained.
If you are not putting together your own box (which I don't see many do in the case of laptops), whatever operating system you're installing on your pc, you have already paid for Windows. I think Ma Bell would also have been perfectly happy for you to use any telco, as long as you would pay Ma what was due to her regardless.
It might be a reasonable clause in the case of a competitive market where OEMs can pick any OS-vendor and strike a deal with them, but in the current world it doesn't work that way. If you sell PC-hardware, then you have to provide Windows. If you don't strike this deal, you go belly up. That's the nature of Microsofts monopoly, and that's why such deals should be illegal.
In all these cases, if Darl shows this evidence in court, before the next session of the lawsuit takes place there will be a completely clean kernel created by a squadron of raving penguins. At that point the question can be asked: why wasn't linux supposed to know this in May 2003, it would have taken the same amount to fix it?
However fucked the US legal system is, such a case in point should raise a few eyebrows about SCO's real motives.
Grandparent was referring to 'literally wrote the tool' that should refer to ink and paper. 'Writing' does literally mean doing some stuff with pen and paper. Except for writing with computers, as I think that I can say I literally wrote this post, or did I literally type it? Well, figuratively speaking, Linus literally wrote the tool. As I did this post.
On (3), that Bill Gates has the intelligence to figure out that owning 43 billion or 19 does not really affect his quality of life does not necessarily make him a role model. That the other sharks bite harder doesn't mean that the one that only took your hand is benevolent and should be awarded for that.
It's not just economic peril that drives the United States to go to war. The States has been at war since 1941. First it was Hitler/Japan, then communism, then drugs, and now terrorism. America has been at war continuously for more than 60 years now. What will be next?
It's easy to do new math. Calculate how much a person can reasonably spend on goods in a lifetime (the utility of that money). Then given how much someone has, calculate how much less he can spend in his lifetime given some donation he does. In the example of the guy earning $50,000 the $5 dollar donation means he's a bit poorer, there goes that burger. The sob that is spending $24 Billion out of $43 billion has lost nothing, nada, zilch. It just doesn't matter: there's only so many swimming pools someone can have before he runs out of time to swim in it. What on earth (again, in tangible goods) can you do with 2 billion that you can't do with 1(?)
If we're talking about billions and tangible goods, everything is capped out very early before you even reach that billion. My guess is that with 100 million you can do whatever you want, and you're not any poorer than Mr. Gates.
So, on an absolute scale the $24 Billion dollar is extremely valuable if spent on the right stuff. On a moral scale, the guy donating $5 bucks has given up something, and still wins.
Indeed. Maybe an idea to start hunting down spam-buyers? They're the ones (the few in a million) that are keeping the problem alive. We'll start sending out spam ourselves to sell the usual garbage, and anyone who responds (by, say, pressing the buy button on the fake vendor website), will get blacklisted/slashdotted/ddossed/mailbombed, so hard that they'll think twice to react again to unsollicited bulk email.
Wow, too right! This comment gives me the creeps. I'm no usian, but this kind of tactic might be coming to a cinema near you soon as well. When oh when will we get this IP thing right?
Interesting argument, though if I sell 1000 dollars worth of software and donate 1010 dollars of software (10$ to pay for pressing the CDs), I don't pay any tax. Sounds like a good deal.
How many times does this need to be said? There is no way that you convict someone to be a monopolist. Monopolies happen: what is illegal is abusing a monopoly to gain leverage in a new market. Microsoft is convicted of abusing its monopoly, not of being one.
As others said, 60 people can be enough for a meaningful statistical evaluation, it just depends on the outcome of the experiments. Just consider a situation where in group A 29 out of 30 display the behaviour and in the group B only 1 out of 30 displays it. That'll be significant. as all statistical tests measure is how likely this outcome would be if you would toss coins instead of doing the experiment.
If the ratios are closer, you need a bigger sample to discount the possibility of a coin-tosser operating in the background.
Nice to read this. In documentation I write, for API's or products written in any programming languague, but that need to be platform agnostic, I usually revert to giving examples in python. In my view its the most programming language independent programming language. The ultimate pseudo-code, pseudo-code that actually runs.
It's not really interpreted vs. compiled you're after here. Both java and python are compiled to bytecode and ran through a virtual machine. This is not why java is usually faster than python (especcially in the loop department). Also the JIT doesn't really matter, python got its own jit (psyco)
The reason that java is faster than python usually is because of compile-time typing. Java compilers (the ones that create the bytecode), know much more about the runtime behaviour of the code, while python compilers can only do runtime type checking (does this function that is called actually exist? if not, throw runtime error). Compiletime types does help compilers. Unfortunately some early attempts in python to mix runtime and compile time typechecking have been abandoned.
GUIs are not all that they are cracked up to be. In a sense they are a step backward from working with computers by commands, by language (how inadequate ls, rm etc. may be as a language) to working with computers with grunts and gestures. For specific purpose stuff grunts and gestures are fine, but once you run out of grunts, when you want something done that your application programming caveman hasn't anticipated, you're stuck. A language allows you to combine basic blocks into a meaningful whole that still makes sense, a thing you cannot do with grunts.
As languages go, the command line variant is fairly inadequate, but the GUI is not the answer.
It is simply not possible to provide *all* possible functionality for a complex piece of software in a unified GUI, a set of predetermined grunts. For people who just need limited functionality (like email/browsing the web), grunts are ok, but for people who take (general-purpose) computing seriously, it's a logical impossibility that grunt-based GUIs are the answer. The reality of getting stuff done is too complex to be enumerated in a set of menu items, you would need to be able to string things together. A command line does this, a run-off-the-mill GUI doesn't.
Funnily enough, most people don't realize this, not even when they need something their set of grunts does not provide. As the GUI paradigm makes sure that noone is aware of the greater functionality of language based communication, the user will simply succumb and live with his inability to get serious work done.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also nothing unfair about a monopoly per se. Many monopolies exist, and they're not neccessarily evil. Nor are monopolies per se illegal. In Microsoft's case, it was the leveraging of the monopoly that was deemed illegal, *not* the monopoly per se.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you get into the situation where you want to sell a product (a PC), and that without striking a deal with the supplier of a part of that product (the OS) you will go out of business, simply means that there's no competition and the supplier possesses a de fact monopoly.
Google has the data. The data is however free to be collected by anyone. Indexing isn't a big issue either for the likes of Microsoft. Just add that little MS-search toolbar in IE, and make a few 'adjustments' so that the google-bar doesn't link that well anymore between minor revisions of IE. Finally add a few links into MS-office to enable some search (if only to use MS-search to search the helpfiles), and voila, another market killed and gained.
Everyone has.
If you are not putting together your own box (which I don't see many do in the case of laptops), whatever operating system you're installing on your pc, you have already paid for Windows. I think Ma Bell would also have been perfectly happy for you to use any telco, as long as you would pay Ma what was due to her regardless.
It might be a reasonable clause in the case of a competitive market where OEMs can pick any OS-vendor and strike a deal with them, but in the current world it doesn't work that way. If you sell PC-hardware, then you have to provide Windows. If you don't strike this deal, you go belly up. That's the nature of Microsofts monopoly, and that's why such deals should be illegal.
However fucked the US legal system is, such a case in point should raise a few eyebrows about SCO's real motives.
Now where's my dictionary?
Sensors that are able to group items in carts? You mean a transaction at the counter?
Simple, fine them 10% of worldwide revenue this year. If they don't comply, fine them another 10% next year. Continue until broke.
ftp
Or faintly related (at least to the totalitarion rule bit): do you also consider Bill Gates to be the most evil person of the last few decades?
I would glady donate 3/4 of my liquid wealth if that leaves me 8 billion dollars to spend for, say food and clothing, and another 8 sitting in stock.
On (3), that Bill Gates has the intelligence to figure out that owning 43 billion or 19 does not really affect his quality of life does not necessarily make him a role model. That the other sharks bite harder doesn't mean that the one that only took your hand is benevolent and should be awarded for that.
It's not just economic peril that drives the United States to go to war. The States has been at war since 1941. First it was Hitler/Japan, then communism, then drugs, and now terrorism. America has been at war continuously for more than 60 years now. What will be next?
If we're talking about billions and tangible goods, everything is capped out very early before you even reach that billion. My guess is that with 100 million you can do whatever you want, and you're not any poorer than Mr. Gates.
So, on an absolute scale the $24 Billion dollar is extremely valuable if spent on the right stuff. On a moral scale, the guy donating $5 bucks has given up something, and still wins.
Highly illegal but tempting, very tempting.
Wow, too right! This comment gives me the creeps. I'm no usian, but this kind of tactic might be coming to a cinema near you soon as well. When oh when will we get this IP thing right?
Interesting argument, though if I sell 1000 dollars worth of software and donate 1010 dollars of software (10$ to pay for pressing the CDs), I don't pay any tax. Sounds like a good deal.
How many times does this need to be said? There is no way that you convict someone to be a monopolist. Monopolies happen: what is illegal is abusing a monopoly to gain leverage in a new market. Microsoft is convicted of abusing its monopoly, not of being one.
Nice to read this. In documentation I write, for API's or products written in any programming languague, but that need to be platform agnostic, I usually revert to giving examples in python. In my view its the most programming language independent programming language. The ultimate pseudo-code, pseudo-code that actually runs.
SWIG is nice, but you might also want to checkout Boost.python. This combined with Pyste truly make for some tight and clean integration.
The reason that java is faster than python usually is because of compile-time typing. Java compilers (the ones that create the bytecode), know much more about the runtime behaviour of the code, while python compilers can only do runtime type checking (does this function that is called actually exist? if not, throw runtime error). Compiletime types does help compilers. Unfortunately some early attempts in python to mix runtime and compile time typechecking have been abandoned.
You don't use the service. If you would such a service, it would be complete and utter madness, bordering on criminal neglect.
As languages go, the command line variant is fairly inadequate, but the GUI is not the answer. It is simply not possible to provide *all* possible functionality for a complex piece of software in a unified GUI, a set of predetermined grunts. For people who just need limited functionality (like email/browsing the web), grunts are ok, but for people who take (general-purpose) computing seriously, it's a logical impossibility that grunt-based GUIs are the answer. The reality of getting stuff done is too complex to be enumerated in a set of menu items, you would need to be able to string things together. A command line does this, a run-off-the-mill GUI doesn't.
Funnily enough, most people don't realize this, not even when they need something their set of grunts does not provide. As the GUI paradigm makes sure that noone is aware of the greater functionality of language based communication, the user will simply succumb and live with his inability to get serious work done.