"It's just stupid that people steal government information for their own profit"
Is this a first? Authorized and legal duplication of information is being called "theft" here.
"Especially since GIS people put so much work in the converges, then see it taken and abused by the public."
And here is the other thing wrong with your statement. Government road crews put a lot of hard work into building and maintaining roads, don't they? And yet, if it is not a toll road, you will be shocked to find that there are businesses that actually have company cars and trucks using these roads. Such an abuse! And libraries? There are legions of nonfiction authors who research those free library books and then make a profit from the information when they sell their books. I bet you agree that it would be a great improvement if libraries charged $10 for each book checked out! Stop those profiteers from stealing information!
Court: "Bailiff?"
Balifff: "Yes?"
Court: "Judging from the name, Greenwich likely voted for Ralph Nader, and is a Satanist. Please take the prisoner to Gitmo."
Baliff: "Gladly, Worm, your honor!"
Court: "Now, call the schoolmaster!"
"The difference was that back then, Saddam DID have them, the Inspectors actually found huge stockpiles of them"
How did they vanish in the matter of a few years between the middle of the Clinton administration ("back then") and the early Bush administration? Is there any documentation of Saddam using them up, destroying them, or selling them to another?
Thanks. I was wondering why Morpheus was back in the game, but was now trying to sell everyone PSP's: "Free your mind by looking at this cool color screen!"
"I have even heard him say word for word some of the things you have said."
Are you referring to the stuff about the "non neo-cons" speaking of Iraq WMDs and the danger? I actually remember when these guys (especially Clinton) were making the claims. No doubt Rush was on the other side then...just because it was them.
I mean, come on, "does it run Linux" ???
on
How the Batsuit Works
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"...but does it run Linux?
Do you think for a minute he'd give The Penguin such satisfaction?
By the way...you earlier used the HuffingtonPost as an example of good media, and mentioned how the "corporations you do not like" big media cover up stories. I asked for an example. You gave the Downing Street Memo as the first one.
Lets look them up, and compare the results at huffingtonpost.com (your good media) and foxnews.com (big bad media)
Neither reports the DSM story on its main page (cover up!). But when you look on "downing street memo", you will find that Fox News indexes it in its search 39 times, compared to 31 times on Hufffingtonpress.com
This is kind of interesting, and turns claims of big-media coverup and "the people's blog exposing the real story!!!" on their head.
Then you can move on to other stories. tom delay scandal produces many times more hits/links on the Fox News site than Huffingtonpost does. This is Fox News, with its conservative edge. CNN (also big mainstream media) appears to turn up even more links
Not mentioned are some of the secret compartments in the Utility Belt, such as the one containing live radioactive spiders, just in case Batman finds the need to shoot goo from his wrists and "Swing the extra mile" over Gotham. Kryptonite is found in another compartment: never know when you need to reduce that overgrown boy scout to such a weak state that he can't cross the street himself (let alone help an old lady across it). Also found in a secret flat part of the belt buckle are those certain photos he took of Robin that he does not ever want anyone to find, but he can't bring himself to destroy them.
"You are nuts if you think that the DSM is not a major item. It is proof that the intelligence was a flat out lie."
Did the Downing Street Memo direct Senator Kerry, Bill Clinton, and the French Government to detail Saddam Hussein's WMD efforts and to warn of the danger posed by them before Bush was even (s)elected? Of course not. The intelligence was real. I guess if I am nuts for properly considering the DSM, discussing it and then dismissing it as irrelevant, than so is just about everyone else. It's just a pet project of a die-hard partisan fringe.
"I will not respond to the rest of your post because I am tired of hearing your ditto head responses"
If anything is tiring, it is seeing (even if for the first time) the idea that if someone is not a conspiracymonger, they are a ditto-head.
Well explained. However....if you read the references to Microsoft being a monopoly scattered all over Slashdot, it appears that much of what is being said is calling them a monopoly in the business sense, rather than in the legal sense. Those that occasionally say "convicted monopoly" are definitely sticking to the legal version.
The big question is, can it outfly Rodan? The Concorde of the past got around this by being designed to look just like Rodan, and thus discourage predatory attacks.
"Downing street. That story alone should have been huge and it was not reported on."
It is not huge, since it really does not matter (in the end, the intelligence was not fixed, and Bush gave Saddam plenty of chances to comply with the cease-fire requirements: something he would have never done if he really wanted war). However, CNN has reported on it. As has Fox News. Hard to get more mainstream than this. Got another one to try?
Ah. Tom Delay. The stories about him and the scandals in the big media are extremely numerous. Judiciary committee? Do you mean Arlen Spector? Which story?
", or doing a quick report on it in the 30 minute news briefs on a cable news channel is NOT reporting these events."
Yes it is. The fact that you don't care about it as much as the rest of the public is the real matter. At least you are backing off from your claim that this stuff is not reported on. Do you want links to the mainstream media widely reporting these stories?
"This is stuff that effects ALL US citizens in a large way"
In your view. The Downing Street memo means little. Getting rid of Tom Delay will change nothing in how Congress does things.
"If Watergate had gone down today in this environment, I doubt there would have even been an investigation."
There probably would have been a big investigation, and a Special Counsel spending $40 million on it.
"How many of them could afford to be in business if it wasn't for people working for them for free, pray?"
Find any definition that says anything like "it is a monopoly if the business model of the competitors includes people working them for free".
"Take away the open source developers and it's dead in the water"
Again, the reliance on open source does not make the competitors any less real, and it does not mean that the definition of "monopoly" is met.
"It's a bit like claiming that my electricy company isn't a monopoly because...."
Very in-apt analogy. Besides, hardly anyone does that, leaving the electric co's 100% share intact, even if it the resulting of rounding from 99.94%. Nothing like the huge numbers of non-Windows OS users on the PC platform. There are so many ways your analogy has nothing to do with anything. I bet you'd have a huge percentage "installing solar panels" on their roof if it they could do it for free (like *nux/*nix users can have their OS for free instead of paying for Windows). Instead, it costs MORE to do this.
Probably the 800,000th to bother to look up the definition of the word, which gets in the way when you have not. www.dictionary.com, miriam webster, and the vast majority all refer to "sole supplier", "exclusive" control, "only one" provider.
The Wikipedia one is of interest: "Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide". While it is obvious to anyone that a sole supplier lacks competitors, the Wikipedia definition brings it right out there. The Wikipedia definition is a typical definition for the word "monopoly"
My assertion that "is a monopoly" contradicts "has competitors" is entirely consistent with the vast majority of definitions of the word "monopoly", including the relevant large dictionaries and collegiate sources.
Your second explanation makes a lot more sense than the first one, (which glossed over a lot in the way to the "You are an idiot!" zinger). I'll shut up, however, since I think you said it well here.
"Large media corporations are the ones that are not willing to report on these things in the US."
Yet, they are. Most of the "Project Censored" stories were actually reported on on the "large media" before being placed on the (heh) "Censored" list. Can you name a few stories that the "Large Media" never reported on?
"While someone with 100% market share is certainly a monopoly, there are other cases where 90%, 80%, or even 65% market share is sufficient to find monopoly power."
Since you said "in the US", I figured I'd try the definitive American dictionary: Mirriam-Webster. Their definitions of monopoly all include "exclusive control" or "exclusive possession". The definition of "monopolist" does not deviate from this. Having from 10% to 35% controlled by someone else negates the idea of "exclusivity" doesn't it? Another source. allwords.com, mentions "only supplier".
This isn't to deny that Microsoft is an 800 lbs. gorilla or does bad things. However, as bad as they are, they are not a monopoly. Nor did the dump a tanker-load of oil in Prince William Sound.
"Horsepucky. If they have a monopoly on PC operating systems"
Yet, they do not. Perhaps the rest of your argument does not work since you started out with a false premise.
"The allegation is that they're using their monopoly in one industry"
Except for this fact: they have competitors in this "one industry" as well, and are thus not a monopoly (as they are not a "Sole Supplier": look up the word)
"Anyway: no contradiction whatsoever"
There is a contradiction between having a monopoly situation (sole supplier) and there being competitors (aha! other suppliers).
Every definition of "monopoly" refers to "exclusive", "sole supplier", "single seller". None of the definitions mean "one of many". Check the meanings of "single" or "sole" or "exclusive" if you still have a problem. Even the business specific definition refers to "sole supplier".
"No, the point is, they don't really *make* a choice at all because they don't even understand the reasons for the "crippled" product."
Or maybe they understand the reasons, and do not agree with them or the whole process.
"you have just outed yourself as yet another "cheap is good and I don't care what it means to my freedom of choice in the long run""
Actually, it is the idea of "better is good", with full awareness of what it means in the long run.
"so you obviously don't care if a company with a quasi monopoly is able to eliminate its competition by adding all the "free" stuff into the operating system"
If this were true, you would not have Firefox coming on strong.
" as long as you get it cheap"
It is not "cheap" as much as it is paying the price that is as close as possible to the real value of the product.
"Yeah, I never went past the 2.8 Winamp anyways, never did like the 3 or greater versions. I knew that AOL owned them"
Not only that, they stuffed Winamp with spyware. A couple of months ago, they crippled it so it would not run with useful plugins. The only Winamp I find useful has a version number less than 2 !
"Do you care if by taking the full gallon, you actually support someone's anticompetitive behaviour?"
If they are providing me a better deal, they are being very competitive.
"How is the average consumer supposed to know why there even is a stripped down version of Windows?"
In this example, I would not care. It is bass-ackwards for the government to force a company to cripple a product like this, anyway. It is all about limiting customer choice. Just because one customer makes a choice that you do not like does not mean that this choice in is their own interest. Leave it up to each one.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a first? Authorized and legal duplication of information is being called "theft" here.
"Especially since GIS people put so much work in the converges, then see it taken and abused by the public."
And here is the other thing wrong with your statement. Government road crews put a lot of hard work into building and maintaining roads, don't they? And yet, if it is not a toll road, you will be shocked to find that there are businesses that actually have company cars and trucks using these roads. Such an abuse! And libraries? There are legions of nonfiction authors who research those free library books and then make a profit from the information when they sell their books. I bet you agree that it would be a great improvement if libraries charged $10 for each book checked out! Stop those profiteers from stealing information!
Court: "Bailiff?"
Balifff: "Yes?"
Court: "Judging from the name, Greenwich likely voted for Ralph Nader, and is a Satanist. Please take the prisoner to Gitmo."
Baliff: "Gladly, Worm, your honor!"
Court: "Now, call the schoolmaster!"
Will they end up making it available, but charge stiff "processing" fees like some governments do for accessing public property and court records?
How did they vanish in the matter of a few years between the middle of the Clinton administration ("back then") and the early Bush administration? Is there any documentation of Saddam using them up, destroying them, or selling them to another?
If this becomes to successful, we might get lawsuits in the future to prevent a browser company from shipping a free OS add-in!
Thanks. I was wondering why Morpheus was back in the game, but was now trying to sell everyone PSP's: "Free your mind by looking at this cool color screen!"
Are you referring to the stuff about the "non neo-cons" speaking of Iraq WMDs and the danger? I actually remember when these guys (especially Clinton) were making the claims. No doubt Rush was on the other side then...just because it was them.
Do you think for a minute he'd give The Penguin such satisfaction?
Lets look them up, and compare the results at huffingtonpost.com (your good media) and foxnews.com (big bad media)
Neither reports the DSM story on its main page (cover up!). But when you look on "downing street memo", you will find that Fox News indexes it in its search 39 times, compared to 31 times on Hufffingtonpress.com
This is kind of interesting, and turns claims of big-media coverup and "the people's blog exposing the real story!!!" on their head.
Then you can move on to other stories. tom delay scandal produces many times more hits/links on the Fox News site than Huffingtonpost does. This is Fox News, with its conservative edge. CNN (also big mainstream media) appears to turn up even more links
Not mentioned are some of the secret compartments in the Utility Belt, such as the one containing live radioactive spiders, just in case Batman finds the need to shoot goo from his wrists and "Swing the extra mile" over Gotham. Kryptonite is found in another compartment: never know when you need to reduce that overgrown boy scout to such a weak state that he can't cross the street himself (let alone help an old lady across it). Also found in a secret flat part of the belt buckle are those certain photos he took of Robin that he does not ever want anyone to find, but he can't bring himself to destroy them.
Did the Downing Street Memo direct Senator Kerry, Bill Clinton, and the French Government to detail Saddam Hussein's WMD efforts and to warn of the danger posed by them before Bush was even (s)elected? Of course not. The intelligence was real. I guess if I am nuts for properly considering the DSM, discussing it and then dismissing it as irrelevant, than so is just about everyone else. It's just a pet project of a die-hard partisan fringe.
"I will not respond to the rest of your post because I am tired of hearing your ditto head responses"
If anything is tiring, it is seeing (even if for the first time) the idea that if someone is not a conspiracymonger, they are a ditto-head.
Well explained. However....if you read the references to Microsoft being a monopoly scattered all over Slashdot, it appears that much of what is being said is calling them a monopoly in the business sense, rather than in the legal sense. Those that occasionally say "convicted monopoly" are definitely sticking to the legal version.
The big question is, can it outfly Rodan? The Concorde of the past got around this by being designed to look just like Rodan, and thus discourage predatory attacks.
It is not huge, since it really does not matter (in the end, the intelligence was not fixed, and Bush gave Saddam plenty of chances to comply with the cease-fire requirements: something he would have never done if he really wanted war). However, CNN has reported on it. As has Fox News. Hard to get more mainstream than this. Got another one to try?
Ah. Tom Delay. The stories about him and the scandals in the big media are extremely numerous. Judiciary committee? Do you mean Arlen Spector? Which story?
", or doing a quick report on it in the 30 minute news briefs on a cable news channel is NOT reporting these events."
Yes it is. The fact that you don't care about it as much as the rest of the public is the real matter. At least you are backing off from your claim that this stuff is not reported on. Do you want links to the mainstream media widely reporting these stories?
"This is stuff that effects ALL US citizens in a large way"
In your view. The Downing Street memo means little. Getting rid of Tom Delay will change nothing in how Congress does things.
"If Watergate had gone down today in this environment, I doubt there would have even been an investigation."
There probably would have been a big investigation, and a Special Counsel spending $40 million on it.
Find any definition that says anything like "it is a monopoly if the business model of the competitors includes people working them for free".
"Take away the open source developers and it's dead in the water"
Again, the reliance on open source does not make the competitors any less real, and it does not mean that the definition of "monopoly" is met.
"It's a bit like claiming that my electricy company isn't a monopoly because...."
Very in-apt analogy. Besides, hardly anyone does that, leaving the electric co's 100% share intact, even if it the resulting of rounding from 99.94%. Nothing like the huge numbers of non-Windows OS users on the PC platform. There are so many ways your analogy has nothing to do with anything. I bet you'd have a huge percentage "installing solar panels" on their roof if it they could do it for free (like *nux/*nix users can have their OS for free instead of paying for Windows). Instead, it costs MORE to do this.
The Wikipedia one is of interest: "Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide". While it is obvious to anyone that a sole supplier lacks competitors, the Wikipedia definition brings it right out there. The Wikipedia definition is a typical definition for the word "monopoly" My assertion that "is a monopoly" contradicts "has competitors" is entirely consistent with the vast majority of definitions of the word "monopoly", including the relevant large dictionaries and collegiate sources.
Your second explanation makes a lot more sense than the first one, (which glossed over a lot in the way to the "You are an idiot!" zinger). I'll shut up, however, since I think you said it well here.
Yet, they are. Most of the "Project Censored" stories were actually reported on on the "large media" before being placed on the (heh) "Censored" list. Can you name a few stories that the "Large Media" never reported on?
Since you said "in the US", I figured I'd try the definitive American dictionary: Mirriam-Webster. Their definitions of monopoly all include "exclusive control" or "exclusive possession". The definition of "monopolist" does not deviate from this. Having from 10% to 35% controlled by someone else negates the idea of "exclusivity" doesn't it? Another source. allwords.com, mentions "only supplier".
This isn't to deny that Microsoft is an 800 lbs. gorilla or does bad things. However, as bad as they are, they are not a monopoly. Nor did the dump a tanker-load of oil in Prince William Sound.
Yet, there is competition in the OS area. No monopoly there, either. So where is it?
Yet, they do not. Perhaps the rest of your argument does not work since you started out with a false premise. "The allegation is that they're using their monopoly in one industry"
Except for this fact: they have competitors in this "one industry" as well, and are thus not a monopoly (as they are not a "Sole Supplier": look up the word)
"Anyway: no contradiction whatsoever"
There is a contradiction between having a monopoly situation (sole supplier) and there being competitors (aha! other suppliers).
Every definition of "monopoly" refers to "exclusive", "sole supplier", "single seller". None of the definitions mean "one of many". Check the meanings of "single" or "sole" or "exclusive" if you still have a problem. Even the business specific definition refers to "sole supplier".
Or maybe they understand the reasons, and do not agree with them or the whole process.
"you have just outed yourself as yet another "cheap is good and I don't care what it means to my freedom of choice in the long run""
Actually, it is the idea of "better is good", with full awareness of what it means in the long run.
"so you obviously don't care if a company with a quasi monopoly is able to eliminate its competition by adding all the "free" stuff into the operating system"
If this were true, you would not have Firefox coming on strong.
" as long as you get it cheap"
It is not "cheap" as much as it is paying the price that is as close as possible to the real value of the product.
Not only that, they stuffed Winamp with spyware. A couple of months ago, they crippled it so it would not run with useful plugins. The only Winamp I find useful has a version number less than 2 !
If they are providing me a better deal, they are being very competitive.
"How is the average consumer supposed to know why there even is a stripped down version of Windows?"
In this example, I would not care. It is bass-ackwards for the government to force a company to cripple a product like this, anyway. It is all about limiting customer choice. Just because one customer makes a choice that you do not like does not mean that this choice in is their own interest. Leave it up to each one.