Why should MS be punished? Microsoft - the group of thousands of employees - is not at fault here. Bill G, Stephen Ballmer (?) and other top executives are the ones who orchestrated and directed these abuses of monopoly power, while hiding behind the legal fiction that "it wasn't us, it was that [imaginary] guy over there: his name is 'Microsoft Corporation'".
Breaking MS up into separate companies will only increase costs to consumers who choose to purchase MS products; no more bundling of Office with Windows -- they must be purchased separately.
Levying a huge fine against MS will only increase costs to consumers who choose to purchase MS products; business costs are *always* passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. If this were not the case, then earnings would decline and the stockholders would get annoyed, and top brass would lose their cushy jobs. (Nice catch-22 here: "Let's punish MS for illegal monopolistic business practices that have increased consumers' costs" -- end result is even *higher* prices!!)
My solution: make Bill G and friends *personally* liable for the illegal business actions they have orchestrated. (Yes, illegal: Judge Jackson's findings of fact indicate that MS is a monopoly. Monopolies must abide by the regulations imposed by the Sherman Act. MS has not done so -- that's illegal)
Make Bill G and friends liable, then sit back and watch the fun: business lawsuits, class action suits, breach-of-contract suits...and the best part is, the only folks who get hurt are the inDUHviduals who have hindered competition, artificially inflated prices, stifled innovation, and plundered the wallets of the computing public for the past 15 years.
Dodja writes "Just as Kansas decides there's no reason to teach evolution, Aussie scientists are announcing signs of life a billion years older than previous findings."
Why does everyone assume that if we prove the earth is old, that proves evolution, and that creationism can only be applicable if the earth is young -- e.g. created at 9:15AM on March 4, 4004 B.C. (obviously absurd).
Just because the creationist-extremists who get on the news are all "young-earthers" does not mean that all people who believe that the universe itself and life on earth were created as the result of direct intervention of a higher being, share the young-earth view. In fact, the young-earth view is mainly promoted by one activist organization, the Creation Research Institute. If you're a lazy reporter, you'll go to one source with a recognizable name, and assume that you've done your job. Most reporters are lazy.
I thought Slashdot readers were more astute than to assume that the media stereotype of a group applies to all members of that group.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should MS be punished? Microsoft - the group of thousands of employees - is not at fault here. Bill G, Stephen Ballmer (?) and other top executives are the ones who orchestrated and directed these abuses of monopoly power, while hiding behind the legal fiction that "it wasn't us, it was that [imaginary] guy over there: his name is 'Microsoft Corporation'".
Breaking MS up into separate companies will only increase costs to consumers who choose to purchase MS products; no more bundling of Office with Windows -- they must be purchased separately.
Levying a huge fine against MS will only increase costs to consumers who choose to purchase MS products; business costs are *always* passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. If this were not the case, then earnings would decline and the stockholders would get annoyed, and top brass would lose their cushy jobs. (Nice catch-22 here: "Let's punish MS for illegal monopolistic business practices that have increased consumers' costs" -- end result is even *higher* prices!!)
My solution: make Bill G and friends *personally* liable for the illegal business actions they have orchestrated. (Yes, illegal: Judge Jackson's findings of fact indicate that MS is a monopoly. Monopolies must abide by the regulations imposed by the Sherman Act. MS has not done so -- that's illegal)
Make Bill G and friends liable, then sit back and watch the fun: business lawsuits, class action suits, breach-of-contract suits...and the best part is, the only folks who get hurt are the inDUHviduals who have hindered competition, artificially inflated prices, stifled innovation, and plundered the wallets of the computing public for the past 15 years.
yet.
Dodja writes "Just as Kansas decides there's no reason to teach evolution, Aussie scientists are announcing signs of life a billion years older than previous findings."
Why does everyone assume that if we prove the earth is old, that proves evolution, and that creationism can only be applicable if the earth is young -- e.g. created at 9:15AM on March 4, 4004 B.C. (obviously absurd).
Just because the creationist-extremists who get on the news are all "young-earthers" does not mean that all people who believe that the universe itself and life on earth were created as the result of direct intervention of a higher being, share the young-earth view. In fact, the young-earth view is mainly promoted by one activist organization, the Creation Research Institute. If you're a lazy reporter, you'll go to one source with a recognizable name, and assume that you've done your job. Most reporters are lazy.
I thought Slashdot readers were more astute than to assume that the media stereotype of a group applies to all members of that group.