Oh only if the world was entirely black and white alas it's not so.
Sometimes the issues are more deep.
For one many people have a silly notion that if you bought things then you ought to be able to treat them like private property. This notion of private property is critical, in a larger context it in fact determines if people will starve or if evil violent tyranism will take root. Fighting to mod your tivo is fighting for your right to own private property and then to use, abuse, sell or trash your private property as you see fit.
Secondly the ability to communicate and to pass information from one generation ot next is what separates human beings from the animals. This one ability (along with the opposible thumb) took us as a species from the caves to the skyscrapers. All of a sudden the ability to transmit information is under attack from some of the most powerful people on this planet. If you don't think digital consumer rights are not important then you really need to get your head out of your ass. In the future all human communication will be done digitally. Let the govt or a handfull of corporations control that and you are done for.
These fight are not new nor are they unique. People fought for years to own private property and to be able to say what they want, when they want, and where they want. We had a revolution about it a few hundred years ago. Now there is a concentrated effort to take those rights away from us and the fight to stop them is one of the most important fights we will ever fight.
"What if, for example, someone operating a popular website included some Java Applet that openened a TCP/IP link to somewhere it received instructions from, and then, on the master's command, launched a DDoS attack on some site? "
I thought applets could only open up sockets to the server they were loaded from. Has this changed? If not then your scenario would never happen.
"Any company that has at least one profitable product can choose to pour money into development of other products."
Yes within reason. A company may be able to prop up an application for a year or so but MS can do this with dozens of products and for years.
"Every company can afford a few unproductive investments, and some can afford many."
MS has 40 billion in the bank and no debt. They are alone in that regard and that is due their monopoly.
"Microsoft's main distinction is being somewhat more successful in its core business than many, hence somewhat more able to lose money."
No Microsft's main distinction is that they are a monopoly charging monopoly prices.
"Most such investment in pro-consumer - competition between vast money-losing entities just means we get better products developed sooner than they otherwise would have been. This is something to be thankful for, not something to bemoan."
Unfortunately in this case it means quashing innovation and destroying innovative companies. What's worse is that many innovations don't even come into the market because very few people are crazy enough to compete with a monopoly especially if that monopoly is sleazy and rabid as microsoft.
The fact is that nobody can compete with a monoply. MS can develop competing products and dump them on the market for free or low cost indefinately. They have a history of doing this.
Quicken had already achieved market dominance before MS entered into it and that is the only reason they are still around.
On the other hand the fact that MS is able to pour billions into a program with little or no market penetration shows exactly how a monopoly can hang around waiting for the enemy to make a mistake. No other company in the world could afford to do that.
Having a monopoly allows MS to keep poring money down products that are not successful. A luxury no other software manufacturer can afford.
What is more important to point out is that they are able to subsidize other businesses with their monopoly profits. This makes it impossible for other companies to compete with MS in any market that MS enters.
"Relative to the value of a dollar, gasoline is cheaper in the USA now than it has been anywhere in the world, *ever*."
Well somehow I doubt the gasoline in the US is cheaper then in Quatar or Abu Dhabi.
Also remember that all the oil in the world actually belongs to us. We may let other countries sit on top of our oil reserves but we reserve the right to kill them anytime we want if they mess with our oil supply.
"The idea is fighting back, but doing it manner which is "honorable". Name-calling and shallow tactics isn't."
I don't know what country you are from but I am from the US. In the US we have a different conception of the word "honorable". To us honorable means using overwhelming force to kill our enemies while doing our absolute best not to get any americans killed. Take the last few wars for example. We bomb from the air out of reach of the enemy for as long as it takes to kill most of them and to wipe out their defenses. Then if we have fighters from other countries we arm them and send them to fight for us. Only after those two phases are done do we actually send our troops in to clean up.
To a third world person it may seem "shallow" or "cowardly" to bomb the enemy for a month before going in. To them bravery and honor is looking in the eyes of your enemy while you plunge your sword into their heart.
As a result of their warped sense of honor they die and we live.
As long as you hang on to your antiquated notions of honor and fighting fair you will suffer the same fate as the taliban, the serbs, the iraquis and the palestenians.
The American way is to fight to win, fight to kill. Bill Gates is an American and you can be sure he is fighting to kill no matter what the tactics involved.
"... not fighting back, it fighting back where you don't look as shallow and idiotic as "the enemy".
Don't like his tactics? So why adopt them as your own?"
I thought I made myself clear. Not fighting back simply encourages bullying and predetory behaviour. The best way to deal with a bully is to hit them back. If you simply lie down then maybe you can whine about being a victim but if you fight back you can at least hold on to your pride even if the bully beats the shit out of you.
This is exactly what is happening. Bill Gates is beating shit out of everybody in his way but some people at least try to fight back. You apparently are not one of those people.
Some people turn the other cheek when hit other people hit back.
I believe that the people who turn the other cheek are in the minority and that turning the other cheek simply encourages bullying and predatory behaviour.
" I wish to read where Bill Gates called "charitable work by open source developers" "communist" and "cancer". Please provide a reference to the quote so I can better understand your point of view."
He himself did not but other top level executives at MS have. I know you have read about them and a simple search on google would find you the resources you are looking for.
I gather what you are implying is that Bill Gates has no responsibility for anything his footsoldiers do or say. If that is your point then I disagree completely. Bill Gates and the head of MS, the most visible part of MS, the founder of MS, and the richest man in the world has to carry the responsiblity for what his corporation does and anything his top level executives say or print. I can understand if some low level joe said those things but it wasn't some low level programmer it was people holding VP level titles. The fact that Bill never punished them or even publicly rebuked them can only means that he agrees fully or that he put those words in their mouths.
"He doesn't. I do. I have this code of conduct, or morality, that seems hard to get rid of. I by default attempt to stick up for people being attacked. I try to lay out facts when I see someone being smeared by unqualified "truts". "
Really? Let me check to see if you defended open source developers when they are attacked by MS. Let me see if you defended any company when some MS FUD campaign was launched against them. If in fact you tried to defend people being smeared by unqualified truths you'd spend your entire like reading MS press releases, bought benchmarks and such and working hard to point out all their lies. Also you would hang out at ZDNET and gotdotnet to try and counter all the MS FUD there.
Why do I suspect that you haven't done any of the above?
If the US caused massive starvation and disease by bombing critical infrastucture like water treatment plants, roads, bridges and power generation plants does that make us evil?
If Saddam then rebuilt all those facilities so that his people could live is he good?
If we bomb them again ten years later are we even more evil?
"Are you trying to draw a parallel between open source code and truly massive amounts of money given to charitable causes?"
Why yes I am. Open source saves (or at least has the potential to save) billions of dollars for poor third world countries. Those countries can use the money they saved on MS products and spend them on feeding their people and to educate their young.
Not only that but open source also fights to preserve your freedom of thought and communication while MS is the foremost proponent of restricting your right to freely exchange information.
Considering that the only thing that separates you from the animals is your ability communicate and preserve information for your progeny I say that open source is pretty damned important.
"but you certainly don't have to belittle his philanthropic work. "
Why not? If he calls charitable work by open source developers "communist" and "cancer" why should he be immune from the same kind of criticism? Besides he is the richest man in the world what the fuck does he care what anybody on slashdot says about him?
Sorry to disapoint you but this is not a MS pr firm like ZDNET is. If you want a web site to read MS press releases please wander along to zdnet.com where they will not only present MS press releases as news they will also editorilize about how wonderful MS products are and how you should never buy a product from an MS competitor because MS will bury them soon.
" Yep, GWB graduated from Harvard Business School, too, with an MBA,"
Once again it only proves that harvard is a crappy school. Any school who would admit GW while turning away obviously more qualified people does not deserve to call itself an educational institution.
BTW along with G.W they also graduated Kenneth Lay. I guess the ethics classes were thought by the devil that year.
Remeber that George W. Bush not only got into yale with a dismal GPA he also graduated despite heavy drinking and partying. How good a school could it possibly be.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux does not pretend to be something it's not. MS does.
You really should have given objective-C a shot. It's damn nice and much much much much much better then C#. Plus webobjects is a tour de force.
I thought .NET was an open system. That's what the MS press releases seem to indicate.
Ah take a quote out of context, spew a non sequitor, make an idiotic analogy. The essense of slashdot troll behaviour.
Oh only if the world was entirely black and white alas it's not so.
Sometimes the issues are more deep.
For one many people have a silly notion that if you bought things then you ought to be able to treat them like private property. This notion of private property is critical, in a larger context it in fact determines if people will starve or if evil violent tyranism will take root. Fighting to mod your tivo is fighting for your right to own private property and then to use, abuse, sell or trash your private property as you see fit.
Secondly the ability to communicate and to pass information from one generation ot next is what separates human beings from the animals. This one ability (along with the opposible thumb) took us as a species from the caves to the skyscrapers. All of a sudden the ability to transmit information is under attack from some of the most powerful people on this planet. If you don't think digital consumer rights are not important then you really need to get your head out of your ass. In the future all human communication will be done digitally. Let the govt or a handfull of corporations control that and you are done for.
These fight are not new nor are they unique. People fought for years to own private property and to be able to say what they want, when they want, and where they want. We had a revolution about it a few hundred years ago. Now there is a concentrated effort to take those rights away from us and the fight to stop them is one of the most important fights we will ever fight.
"What if, for example, someone operating a popular website included some Java Applet that openened a TCP/IP link to somewhere it received instructions from, and then, on the master's command, launched a DDoS attack on some site? "
I thought applets could only open up sockets to the server they were loaded from. Has this changed? If not then your scenario would never happen.
"Any company that has at least one profitable product can choose to pour money into development of other products."
Yes within reason. A company may be able to prop up an application for a year or so but MS can do this with dozens of products and for years.
"Every company can afford a few unproductive investments, and some can afford many."
MS has 40 billion in the bank and no debt. They are alone in that regard and that is due their monopoly.
"Microsoft's main distinction is being somewhat more successful in its core business than many, hence somewhat more able to lose money."
No Microsft's main distinction is that they are a monopoly charging monopoly prices.
"Most such investment in pro-consumer - competition between vast money-losing entities just means we get better products developed sooner than they otherwise would have been. This is something to be thankful for, not something to bemoan."
Unfortunately in this case it means quashing innovation and destroying innovative companies. What's worse is that many innovations don't even come into the market because very few people are crazy enough to compete with a monopoly especially if that monopoly is sleazy and rabid as microsoft.
The fact is that nobody can compete with a monoply. MS can develop competing products and dump them on the market for free or low cost indefinately. They have a history of doing this.
Quicken had already achieved market dominance before MS entered into it and that is the only reason they are still around.
On the other hand the fact that MS is able to pour billions into a program with little or no market penetration shows exactly how a monopoly can hang around waiting for the enemy to make a mistake. No other company in the world could afford to do that.
Having a monopoly allows MS to keep poring money down products that are not successful. A luxury no other software manufacturer can afford.
What is more important to point out is that they are able to subsidize other businesses with their monopoly profits. This makes it impossible for other companies to compete with MS in any market that MS enters.
How about ten cents each for all emails, first 100 free. Bingo problem solved.
"Relative to the value of a dollar, gasoline is cheaper in the USA now than it has been anywhere in the world, *ever*."
Well somehow I doubt the gasoline in the US is cheaper then in Quatar or Abu Dhabi.
Also remember that all the oil in the world actually belongs to us. We may let other countries sit on top of our oil reserves but we reserve the right to kill them anytime we want if they mess with our oil supply.
"The idea is fighting back, but doing it manner which is "honorable". Name-calling and shallow tactics isn't."
I don't know what country you are from but I am from the US. In the US we have a different conception of the word "honorable". To us honorable means using overwhelming force to kill our enemies while doing our absolute best not to get any americans killed. Take the last few wars for example. We bomb from the air out of reach of the enemy for as long as it takes to kill most of them and to wipe out their defenses. Then if we have fighters from other countries we arm them and send them to fight for us. Only after those two phases are done do we actually send our troops in to clean up.
To a third world person it may seem "shallow" or "cowardly" to bomb the enemy for a month before going in. To them bravery and honor is looking in the eyes of your enemy while you plunge your sword into their heart.
As a result of their warped sense of honor they die and we live.
As long as you hang on to your antiquated notions of honor and fighting fair you will suffer the same fate as the taliban, the serbs, the iraquis and the palestenians.
The American way is to fight to win, fight to kill. Bill Gates is an American and you can be sure he is fighting to kill no matter what the tactics involved.
"... not fighting back, it fighting back where you don't look as shallow and idiotic as "the enemy".
Don't like his tactics? So why adopt them as your own?"
I thought I made myself clear. Not fighting back simply encourages bullying and predetory behaviour. The best way to deal with a bully is to hit them back. If you simply lie down then maybe you can whine about being a victim but if you fight back you can at least hold on to your pride even if the bully beats the shit out of you.
This is exactly what is happening. Bill Gates is beating shit out of everybody in his way but some people at least try to fight back. You apparently are not one of those people.
Some people turn the other cheek when hit other people hit back.
I believe that the people who turn the other cheek are in the minority and that turning the other cheek simply encourages bullying and predatory behaviour.
" I wish to read where Bill Gates called "charitable work by open source developers" "communist" and "cancer". Please provide a reference to the quote so I can better understand your point of view."
He himself did not but other top level executives at MS have. I know you have read about them and a simple search on google would find you the resources you are looking for.
I gather what you are implying is that Bill Gates has no responsibility for anything his footsoldiers do or say. If that is your point then I disagree completely. Bill Gates and the head of MS, the most visible part of MS, the founder of MS, and the richest man in the world has to carry the responsiblity for what his corporation does and anything his top level executives say or print. I can understand if some low level joe said those things but it wasn't some low level programmer it was people holding VP level titles. The fact that Bill never punished them or even publicly rebuked them can only means that he agrees fully or that he put those words in their mouths.
"He doesn't. I do. I have this code of conduct, or morality, that seems hard to get rid of. I by default attempt to stick up for people being attacked. I try to lay out facts when I see someone being smeared by unqualified "truts". "
Really? Let me check to see if you defended open source developers when they are attacked by MS. Let me see if you defended any company when some MS FUD campaign was launched against them. If in fact you tried to defend people being smeared by unqualified truths you'd spend your entire like reading MS press releases, bought benchmarks and such and working hard to point out all their lies. Also you would hang out at ZDNET and gotdotnet to try and counter all the MS FUD there.
Why do I suspect that you haven't done any of the above?
If the US caused massive starvation and disease by bombing critical infrastucture like water treatment plants, roads, bridges and power generation plants does that make us evil?
If Saddam then rebuilt all those facilities so that his people could live is he good?
If we bomb them again ten years later are we even more evil?
"Are you trying to draw a parallel between open source code and truly massive amounts of money given to charitable causes?"
Why yes I am. Open source saves (or at least has the potential to save) billions of dollars for poor third world countries. Those countries can use the money they saved on MS products and spend them on feeding their people and to educate their young.
Not only that but open source also fights to preserve your freedom of thought and communication while MS is the foremost proponent of restricting your right to freely exchange information.
Considering that the only thing that separates you from the animals is your ability communicate and preserve information for your progeny I say that open source is pretty damned important.
"but you certainly don't have to belittle his philanthropic work. "
Why not? If he calls charitable work by open source developers "communist" and "cancer" why should he be immune from the same kind of criticism? Besides he is the richest man in the world what the fuck does he care what anybody on slashdot says about him?
Sorry to disapoint you but this is not a MS pr firm like ZDNET is. If you want a web site to read MS press releases please wander along to zdnet.com where they will not only present MS press releases as news they will also editorilize about how wonderful MS products are and how you should never buy a product from an MS competitor because MS will bury them soon.
" I don't see why they'd change tactics at this point. "
Why not? Now that they own the govt what will prevent them from doing it?
Historically the pro microsft comments on slashdot are always rated up very high.
Verry funny.
Bush got into yale with those scores? How many people did yale reject that year even though they had higher scores?
" Yep, GWB graduated from Harvard Business School, too, with an MBA,"
Once again it only proves that harvard is a crappy school. Any school who would admit GW while turning away obviously more qualified people does not deserve to call itself an educational institution.
BTW along with G.W they also graduated Kenneth Lay. I guess the ethics classes were thought by the devil that year.
"* Yale Professor of Computer Science
Yup, Yale sure is CS central"
Remeber that George W. Bush not only got into yale with a dismal GPA he also graduated despite heavy drinking and partying. How good a school could it possibly be.