The first time I tried playing a burned CD made from mp3s, I was deeply, deeply disapointed.
In my 2002 Golf, I have a JVC KD-SH99 MP3 CD reciever that plays disks burned using the VBR LAME help offered here. I run no other aftermarket stereo parts in the car and have marginally minimal problems with the sound quality.
Of course, what constitutes "excellent" sound is subjective. I will say that after hauling my friends around, they never complain, they always compliment, and the few times where I was reminded I was listening to MP3 were when the source material overwhelmed my stock car speakers - four tweeters and four woofers on factory crossovers. I'm certainly no textbook audiophile, but when I'm listening to music, I am anal about it being clear and clean. And it is, 99.95% of the time. That JVC deck was the best $400 I've gotten my dad to spend on me for Christmas. =)
The picture on his website looks very close to a guy I saw on a cable access show a few weeks ago...but the guy I saw on TV was decidedly unhinged, smoking pot, and ranting about alien conspiracies, government coverups, and generally spazzing out and speaking in tongues near the end. The people sitting next to him weren't much better. This wouldn't be what you're talking about, would it? It was frankly frightening to see an overweight beared man drooling and screaming unintelligibly.
That Kenwood component costs $1,800 and the user manual doesn't mention that the 20 gig HD can be upgraded. Everything else looks pretty nifty, though.
First time I've been modded as "flamebait" and first time I've been called a troll. First times for everything, I suppose. =)
have you even looked up the definition of a monopoly?
Yes, I have. And Microsoft does not fit the definition. I can, right this very minute, go out and get any number of alternatives to their products for a wide variety of prices. The only thing stopping me is laziness and a lack of a reason to do so. Microsoft does not have "exclusive" ownership of the operating system, internet browser, or office suite markets. I do not dispute the 800 lb.-gorilla-effect Microsoft has on the some software markets. They earned most of that through creating products that consumers want and that other businesses support. The rest they earned through business-to-business deals that promoted their products more than other competitors could do. I do not believe they create the best products (not by a longshot, I despise Word), but they apparently have done many things right...just look at their dominance. Using exclusive contracts and binding OEMs to license argreements may sound odious, but those companies didn't have to sign them. They could have taken their business elsewhere. Why didn't they? Because more people use and want to use what Microsoft produces. It's a snowball effect and will continue to snowball until the market grows tired of what they offer or when a better alternative becomes palatable for consumers.
Far from it. (antitrust laws being unobjective)
The article I linked to spells it out much better than I can.
The "actions" that antitrust laws prohibit are vague, contradictory, undefined. For instance, antitrust laws prohibit companies from engaging in "restraint of trade." But what specific actions constitute "restraint of trade"? If, as is done repeatedly in the business world, a company signs an exclusive distribution agreement with another company, is that "restraint of trade" because now other potential competitors are excluded from that area of the market? Or if a company sells a computer to individual X, is that "restraint of trade" because competing computer companies can no longer sell X a computer since he has need for only one? No--the courts have declared to businessmen--only those "restraints" that are "unreasonable" are illegal. But which specific "restraints" are "unreasonable"? No definition is to be found in the law, so no company can know before it acts which actions are in law legal and which are not.
More paragraphs and examples are there for the curious to peruse. The point is, how do you define "unfair," "predatory pricing" and other unobjective antitrust terms in a free market where the goal of every company is to gain more customers than its competitors?
This is, as others below me have pointed out, another example of Microsoft's competitors taking the easy way out and ligitgating their way into success, rather than earning it and convincing a larger share of the public to buy their products. No matter how you frame it, the consumer has the ultimate choice in the matter...to buy or not to buy. If the majority of consumers cared about this, they'd change their buying habits.
Dismiss my opinions as you will, but please give this article some thought. Antitrust laws are unobjective and arbitrary, punishing successful companies for the "crime" of being better than their competitors.
Code may be speech, because it is saying something in a real (machine) language. Money is not speech, it is property.
I think you are characterizing it incorrectly. Money itself isn't speech, of course, but it's the effect of spending it that is. Just like a word isn't speech, but saying it is. By spending money, you can exercise your freedom of speech in a more efficent manner. It's a better idea to buy TV ad time for a few thousand bucks compared to standing on a street corner broadcasting your message with just your voice. Therefore, by restricting a person's right to spend money, you restrict their freedom of speech.
This site has PDFs of the Boyd Company's other industry studies of comparative cost analysis. I'm sure the "Call Centers" and "Help Desks" files will be the most interesting reading. =)
If the RIAA and record labels keep getting bad press maybe one day we'll watch their profits get cut in half to under $7 billion. That's still $7 billion above and beyond the cost of producing those CDs and paying off their artists.
I read yesterday that the major labels, in order to break even on their average album, have to sell upwards of 500,000 copies. Only 110 +/- albums sold better than that last year, but they were the Top 40 stars whole went platinum. The record companies rely on these massive hits in order to subsidize the other artists who can barely manage to break 10,000. Something like 6,200 different CD albums were released last year and only something like 20% sold more than 250,000. I wish I had a link to provide, but the Wall Street Journal's online edition requires a subscription.
I have all of the information I could possibly need at my fingertips through a combination of Google, Lexis-Nexis and sites like Everything2 and the Guerilla News Network.
Let's net be mean and leave out the esteemed Cecil Adams. "Fighting Ignorance Since 1973." =)
That way they can know what we record, and possibly what we watch.
*an Austinite inserts a DVD and begins playback*
Worker: "Sir! Johnson-34as-22mk7-78741 is online again. He's got cat# xxx-2891j and this is the fifth time today he's played it."
Corporate Marketer: "Onscreen."
*loud female moaning*
Worker: "Note and track useage, Sir?" *coughcough*
Corporate Marketer: "...this guy really likes that DVD..."
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have cleared the Taliban out of the way so that a slew of united aid agencies could go in? Or that we shouldn't have reopened lines of commerce and travel so that their job becomes easier? Yeah, it's pretty lame that after we moved in thousands of metric tons of seed can now be transported in to help with the next growing season. It also sucks that now four countries can go in and begin clearing land mines. Man, the job Bush and Blair have done is so terrible and immoral that they've been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. We should place more trust in the ever-trustworthy estimates the Taliban gave us concerning the numbers of refugees. Damn us, damn us meddling capitalistic, selfish, and arrogant Americans who value nothing more than our own lives.
...we have a 50 year history of trying to make weapons that dont kill civilians, yet, if we use this technology, the only way an enemy would have to fight back is via terrorism. What have we gotten ourselves into?
What's preferable...the tens of thousands of deaths and casualties that are the result of a full-scale war, or the comparatively minimal number of deaths and casualties that are the result of terrorism? Utopia isn't possible, so we have to make reality as best as we can. What I think we've done is reduce the international threat we face down to the few percent of people who won't listen to reason anyway. Those few percent (or fractions thereof) would use violence against us anyway, so I'd say we've improved things pretty well.
The content providers are listening. Freerepublic.comwas sued by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post over the whole-article copying that went on.
Because I see religious faith and objective science as mutally exclusive endeavors. In my mind, faith implies emotional belief without provable evidence, while science implies logical belief with provable evidence. While it is arguable that I have faith in science, I will say that any faith I have in it is supported by the conclusions science offers and constantly refines. You can't prove faith. You can prove gravity exists and Earth is spherical.
And the fact of the matter is, regardless of how sophisiticated your weather prediction science is, you don't know what's going to happen to you tomorrow.
Which is true. But with what we have learned from science, I can make better decisions in the future regarding outdoor plans. If you had the choice of simply guessing what the weather were to be like tomorrow verses learning there is a 75% chance of thunderstorms, which would you choose? I'd go with the guys in the building who devoted their lives to learning about weather patterns.
But how can you say, how can you unbiasedly (now I'm making up words) determine what is wrong and what is right from some kind of an independent position? Are you God?
Everyone is biased to some degree or another. However, I have the ability to determine what is right or wrong, because I have my own set of ethics. Therefore, I have no need for a higher authority to determine them for me. Are YOU Gawd? My position is independant. I think for myself, and I'm not implying you do not.
Isn't it funny how that bible states that the earth is round? and this was written in the bible when the earth was still considered to be flat.
Could you cite the scriptures this is in? And in any case, what's your point? It's not as if people couldn't observe the world around them and draw their own conclusions about Nature. For example, you can see the tops of a ship's sails before you see the rest of the vessel. Gazing out to the sea, you can observe a slight curve to the horizon. I hope you aren't implying that the Bible predicted or introduced the idea of a spherical world. If anything, the Church flat-out rejected the idea of a spherical planet for hundreds of years.
People are so gullable these days. Because some scientist somehere says something, everyone believes it, without question. Especially when he says something that supports evolution.
I'd say something nasty about religion here, but I won't. Let's just say that I think faith requires more gullibility than scientific reasoning. However, I do agree that when a scientist publishes a study, it generally gets more attention than some random Joe publishing one on his own. Of course, that's because science is more empirical and objective, something I don't believe religion is associated with much.
How can you predict what happend some 12 billion years ago? The weather is bearly accurate to more than one day, and yet evolutionists claim they know what was in the earths atmosphere billions of years ago.
Through evidence left behind and through an understanding of how things work now. Are you saying that our estimates of the sun's age are wrong? That we can't date rock? We can, with an ever-increasing degree of accuracy, uncover more and more detail about the past. Predicting the future is also becoming more and more accurate. Your example of the weather is pointless, because weather is about as chaotic and unpredictable as you can get. You will notice, though, that our predictions are...for the most part...accurate to the point where we can plan our schedules out to a week. That is, unless you live in Texas.;)
People dont want to believe that there is a being somwhere in the heavens that is superior to them, a being that created them and the universe. This being is able to create the universe, and all that is in it, from giant starts, to microscopic life in six days.
Maybe some people can't fathom the notion that their religion may be wrong. Just a thought.;)
...what do you think it should be called? Super Pete's OS/2 BugTrack Emporium? It focuses on Windows, so it's concievable it should be named accordingly.
I think your perspective is valid, but unfortunately there is very little choice available to unsophisticated computer users, and this is a direct result of Microsoft's business practices.
I think your intentions are valid, but ultimately unneeded. Do we now have to come to the rescue of the innocent and ignorant MS user and kindly remind him other options exist? Must we nanny him/her and guide him/her to something else because we feel another product is better? If users are unhappy with their property and the things they buy, they find replacements. If people really hated WinME enough, they'd find something else to use. If they really hated IE, they'd download another browser.
After MS built IE into the Windows GUI, you must run IE.
Alright, I will concede that point. That still does not mean you, random_Joe, or myself have no other choice in the market of web browsers. If MS wants to integrate the same system of exploring data on the Net as it does with the way it explores data on you hard drive, so what? I actually like how I can go directly from my folders to a web site. I'm sure many other people do as well. The user doesn't know any different and couldn't care less. You and I and other techies do know the difference so we change our plans accordingly, but that's because we hold software to different standards than the general population does.
As long as IE is a somewhat decent browser, there is not much point in wasting memory, drive space, and CPU cycles by running another one, no matter how good it is. I personally think Opera and Mozilla are both better browsers than IE, but they will never gain market share on Windows boxes, for the aformentioned reason, even if they both develop into absolutely perfect browsers.
Let's look at this objectively. Most computer users don't need absolutely perfect web browsers. They want one that works with little fuss. It's a shame they don't know much (if anything) about quality browsers like Opera, which I use both at work and at home. However, the needs of the average consumer are met, met cheaply, and met without hassle. Just as they are in other markets. Why should we force companies to shoot themselves in the foot by not pushing their product as hard as possible or by offering a competitor's product? It doesn't make any sense. Why go to all the trouble to create something when you are forced to offer it alongside other competing products or when you are forced to give their products an advantage by not getting it to consumers as easily as possible? To save the consumer for his/her own choices? That is insulting to all consumers and to all companies, in my opinion.
You assume that IF a company could sustain itself long enough to reap the oft-repeated premise of screwing every customer it gets its hands on, that this monopoly would remain in power for the forseeable future.
First of all, the economically-accepted definition of a monopoly is a business that can charge whatever it wants for its products, and the consumers have no choice but to buy them at that price. Exclusive control of a market and the prices for the products in it. That is clearly not the case with Microsoft and the operating systems, internet browsers, office suites, or whatever markets. No one would buy WinXP or Word if it cost $25,000 per license for consumers. Neither would businesses buy Access or Win2000 if they cost $75,000 each, which is what the allegedly monopolistic Microsoft should be able to do. And it can't, because it simply has a huge market share and is subject to varying market forces. A monopoly has an unrelenting grip on 100% of market share. There hasn't been a REAL capitalistic monopoly in the USA, ever. And market forces will keep it that way. AT&T is an example of a monopoly, but that's because it was government-granted, which is the only real way an economic monopoly can exist.
For a business can get too big for it's own good...just look at AOL-TW. This was supposed to be some hugely innovative, insanely efficient, blah blah company after the merger...and now it hardly looks healthy.
Consider this: governments can't force you to do anything either! The customer --- er, citizen --- decides on his/her own to live in the country. If you don't like the laws that come bundled with the country, you can look around for another one.
The one thing that distinguishes a government from all other social instiutions, is that it is granted a monoploy on the initation of force. No other entity in a civil democratic society has this right. Therefore, yes, the government does force you to do things, such as pay taxes, file environmental impact statements, install catalytic converters on your cars, set aside x number of parking spaces for hadnicapped people, etc. You are right that a disgruntled citizen who has utterly had it with his/her government can simply renounce his/her citizenship and go elsewhere. What bearing that has on this discussion, I don't know. It proves my point that it is ultimately up to the individual to decided for him/herself what is best. Not what an angry business competitor or self-righteous poltician or regulator thinks is best.
That does not explain how MS is "forcing" a consumer to use it's product. I am forced to do something when there is a direct negative physical consequence to my actions imposed by an outside entity. The difficulty in ridding one's PC of IE does not constitute force. Neither does a OEM exclusively bundling IE with their product. No one is forcing the cosumer to use it, that person decides on his/her own. If MS is banking on consumer laziness, then that is a perfectly fine tactic. The computer users want a web browser on their computers, and Microsoft is giving them one that fullfills their needs. If they don't like it, they can look around for another one.
This lawsuit is simply one company's way of complaining that another has bested them. As others here have said, if the owners of Netscape really wanted to compete, they would have put more effort and innovation into their product. And whatever level of effort and innovation they did put in obviously wasn't enough to sway the masses, who found IE to serve their needs fine.
Explain how it was "forced" on anyone. No MS rep came to my house and pointed a gun at my face and demanded I use IE. I made that choice voluntarily. So did every other consumer on the planet. No matter what business tactics MS used, there was never a time where a consumer had no other choice but to use IE.
Re:"Outside activities"
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Do you seriously think that the average peasant from 300 years ago cared about gaining as much money/material as possible over music?
I would assume that three hundred years ago, the average peasant would do anything in his/her power to gain as much wealth as possible in order to better his or her life and to elevate it above abject poverty. Art back then, as I see it, was mostly an outlet for expression during the few periods of free time one had.
Our technology is allowing us to be more anti-social than ever.
I disagree, because I don't consider face-to-face interactivity to be the only valid form of socializing. I was a very quiet and withdrawn kid in school. I kept to myself and I didn't bother getting involved with the various groups and cliques on campus. I had three or four very good friends and the rest were aquaintences. I did not grow up stunted, or maladjusted, or socially inept. I can handle idle chit-chat with strangers as easily as discussing politics with my father. I just choose not to socialize as often as everyone else apparently felt compelled to.
These days, I am still essentially the same. I'd rather stay home and read or browse the Net and post in online forums than go out to a party. My audience is better-suited this way. I can express myself the way I prefer, at my leisure, and in whatever manner I choose. I help moderate an anime forum (down for upgrades at the moment) and have discussed hundreds of topics, issues, and events with thousands of people in over a year's time. I would never have gotten that exposure or interaction without the reach of technology and the Net. The discussions I have had are, in my opinion, far more detailed, interesting, and thought-provoking than the mundane "let's spit out a few bland clichès and sound cool" discussions I find myself in while out in the real world. Discussions backed up with credible references, multiple global opinions, and varying insight. It is my opinion that the kinds of people willing to seriously take the time to sit down and verbally knock around an issue are few and far between. That translates into a lot of legwork on my (and his/her) part, which means time wasted while I could be interacting with someone.
Technology just makes that process of finding those people you like to talk to (who you'd be looking for and filtering for anyway in the real world) more efficient. For example, I seriously doubt that I'd ever have a discussion like this one with someone face-to-face and be able to articulate my point like this. I'd get a few sentances in edgewise, and then it'd be the other person's "turn." Our words are set in stone for future reference and we can fully flesh out our thoughts in one communication without having to worry about the physical constraints of face-to-face interaction.
As for the life expectancy thing, thats you're value, bub. It's another example of technology empowering us to a degree that damages social patters (in this case, people who die of old age are doing so alone at a nursing home, in greater numbers than ever before. Good thing we can keep ourselves alive for so long!)
The elderly who are dying of old age are probably damn grateful to have lived to see their kids grow up to raise children of their own, and in the most heartening situations, see those children get married and have children. The elderly may suffer disproportionately as they get older, but that's a consequence of their actions they are fully aware of. Would they choose to die at 40? Would they choose to die at 35? I think not. Technology has given us the ability to live longer to enjoy the fruits of our labor and to enjoy the families and friends we have over a longer period of time.
Damaging social patterns? You spoke earlier about the verbal tradition of story-telling. You must be forgetting that the elderly have a wealth of advice, wisdom, and tips to tell the people they know. The older they get, the more they accumulate. Certainly, after a point, their mental capacities fade, but that is no reason to imply that we should prefer an early death to a longer life.
Slashdot Mirror
From the PDF:
The flexCD is non-toxic and may be used with food items.
Strikes me as odd. Gives a new meaning to the term, "embedded media"...
...in a few years when CDs go the way of the dinosaur, is their replacement going to be worse? It sure looks like it from my end.
This is assuming that MP3 replaces the CD. DVD-Audio and Super Audio CDs are more likely to replace our standard CDs than anything else.
The first time I tried playing a burned CD made from mp3s, I was deeply, deeply disapointed.
In my 2002 Golf, I have a JVC KD-SH99 MP3 CD reciever that plays disks burned using the VBR LAME help offered here. I run no other aftermarket stereo parts in the car and have marginally minimal problems with the sound quality.
Of course, what constitutes "excellent" sound is subjective. I will say that after hauling my friends around, they never complain, they always compliment, and the few times where I was reminded I was listening to MP3 were when the source material overwhelmed my stock car speakers - four tweeters and four woofers on factory crossovers. I'm certainly no textbook audiophile, but when I'm listening to music, I am anal about it being clear and clean. And it is, 99.95% of the time. That JVC deck was the best $400 I've gotten my dad to spend on me for Christmas. =)
The picture on his website looks very close to a guy I saw on a cable access show a few weeks ago...but the guy I saw on TV was decidedly unhinged, smoking pot, and ranting about alien conspiracies, government coverups, and generally spazzing out and speaking in tongues near the end. The people sitting next to him weren't much better. This wouldn't be what you're talking about, would it? It was frankly frightening to see an overweight beared man drooling and screaming unintelligibly.
That Kenwood component costs $1,800 and the user manual doesn't mention that the 20 gig HD can be upgraded. Everything else looks pretty nifty, though.
have you even looked up the definition of a monopoly?
Yes, I have. And Microsoft does not fit the definition. I can, right this very minute, go out and get any number of alternatives to their products for a wide variety of prices. The only thing stopping me is laziness and a lack of a reason to do so. Microsoft does not have "exclusive" ownership of the operating system, internet browser, or office suite markets. I do not dispute the 800 lb.-gorilla-effect Microsoft has on the some software markets. They earned most of that through creating products that consumers want and that other businesses support. The rest they earned through business-to-business deals that promoted their products more than other competitors could do. I do not believe they create the best products (not by a longshot, I despise Word), but they apparently have done many things right...just look at their dominance. Using exclusive contracts and binding OEMs to license argreements may sound odious, but those companies didn't have to sign them. They could have taken their business elsewhere. Why didn't they? Because more people use and want to use what Microsoft produces. It's a snowball effect and will continue to snowball until the market grows tired of what they offer or when a better alternative becomes palatable for consumers.
Far from it. (antitrust laws being unobjective)
The article I linked to spells it out much better than I can.
More paragraphs and examples are there for the curious to peruse. The point is, how do you define "unfair," "predatory pricing" and other unobjective antitrust terms in a free market where the goal of every company is to gain more customers than its competitors?
What crimes?
This is, as others below me have pointed out, another example of Microsoft's competitors taking the easy way out and ligitgating their way into success, rather than earning it and convincing a larger share of the public to buy their products. No matter how you frame it, the consumer has the ultimate choice in the matter...to buy or not to buy. If the majority of consumers cared about this, they'd change their buying habits.
Dismiss my opinions as you will, but please give this article some thought. Antitrust laws are unobjective and arbitrary, punishing successful companies for the "crime" of being better than their competitors.
Code may be speech, because it is saying something in a real (machine) language. Money is not speech, it is property.
I think you are characterizing it incorrectly. Money itself isn't speech, of course, but it's the effect of spending it that is. Just like a word isn't speech, but saying it is. By spending money, you can exercise your freedom of speech in a more efficent manner. It's a better idea to buy TV ad time for a few thousand bucks compared to standing on a street corner broadcasting your message with just your voice. Therefore, by restricting a person's right to spend money, you restrict their freedom of speech.
Mmm, British Columbia...with it's Marijuana Party, large cannabis clubs, and high pot tolerance, not to mention everything else.
I've always liked that part of the continent...
This site has PDFs of the Boyd Company's other industry studies of comparative cost analysis. I'm sure the "Call Centers" and "Help Desks" files will be the most interesting reading. =)
If the RIAA and record labels keep getting bad press maybe one day we'll watch their profits get cut in half to under $7 billion. That's still $7 billion above and beyond the cost of producing those CDs and paying off their artists.
I read yesterday that the major labels, in order to break even on their average album, have to sell upwards of 500,000 copies. Only 110 +/- albums sold better than that last year, but they were the Top 40 stars whole went platinum. The record companies rely on these massive hits in order to subsidize the other artists who can barely manage to break 10,000. Something like 6,200 different CD albums were released last year and only something like 20% sold more than 250,000. I wish I had a link to provide, but the Wall Street Journal's online edition requires a subscription.
I have all of the information I could possibly need at my fingertips through a combination of Google, Lexis-Nexis and sites like Everything2 and the Guerilla News Network.
Let's net be mean and leave out the esteemed Cecil Adams. "Fighting Ignorance Since 1973." =)
That way they can know what we record, and possibly what we watch.
*an Austinite inserts a DVD and begins playback*
Worker: "Sir! Johnson-34as-22mk7-78741 is online again. He's got cat# xxx-2891j and this is the fifth time today he's played it."
Corporate Marketer: "Onscreen."
*loud female moaning*
Worker: "Note and track useage, Sir?" *coughcough*
Corporate Marketer: "...this guy really likes that DVD..."
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have cleared the Taliban out of the way so that a slew of united aid agencies could go in? Or that we shouldn't have reopened lines of commerce and travel so that their job becomes easier? Yeah, it's pretty lame that after we moved in thousands of metric tons of seed can now be transported in to help with the next growing season. It also sucks that now four countries can go in and begin clearing land mines. Man, the job Bush and Blair have done is so terrible and immoral that they've been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. We should place more trust in the ever-trustworthy estimates the Taliban gave us concerning the numbers of refugees. Damn us, damn us meddling capitalistic, selfish, and arrogant Americans who value nothing more than our own lives.
...we have a 50 year history of trying to make weapons that dont kill civilians, yet, if we use this technology, the only way an enemy would have to fight back is via terrorism. What have we gotten ourselves into?
What's preferable...the tens of thousands of deaths and casualties that are the result of a full-scale war, or the comparatively minimal number of deaths and casualties that are the result of terrorism? Utopia isn't possible, so we have to make reality as best as we can. What I think we've done is reduce the international threat we face down to the few percent of people who won't listen to reason anyway. Those few percent (or fractions thereof) would use violence against us anyway, so I'd say we've improved things pretty well.
The content providers are listening. Freerepublic.com was sued by the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post over the whole-article copying that went on.
Why do you have to contrast faith with science?
Because I see religious faith and objective science as mutally exclusive endeavors. In my mind, faith implies emotional belief without provable evidence, while science implies logical belief with provable evidence. While it is arguable that I have faith in science, I will say that any faith I have in it is supported by the conclusions science offers and constantly refines. You can't prove faith. You can prove gravity exists and Earth is spherical.
And the fact of the matter is, regardless of how sophisiticated your weather prediction science is, you don't know what's going to happen to you tomorrow.
Which is true. But with what we have learned from science, I can make better decisions in the future regarding outdoor plans. If you had the choice of simply guessing what the weather were to be like tomorrow verses learning there is a 75% chance of thunderstorms, which would you choose? I'd go with the guys in the building who devoted their lives to learning about weather patterns.
But how can you say, how can you unbiasedly (now I'm making up words) determine what is wrong and what is right from some kind of an independent position? Are you God?
Everyone is biased to some degree or another. However, I have the ability to determine what is right or wrong, because I have my own set of ethics. Therefore, I have no need for a higher authority to determine them for me. Are YOU Gawd? My position is independant. I think for myself, and I'm not implying you do not.
Isn't it funny how that bible states that the earth is round? and this was written in the bible when the earth was still considered to be flat.
;)
;)
Could you cite the scriptures this is in? And in any case, what's your point? It's not as if people couldn't observe the world around them and draw their own conclusions about Nature. For example, you can see the tops of a ship's sails before you see the rest of the vessel. Gazing out to the sea, you can observe a slight curve to the horizon. I hope you aren't implying that the Bible predicted or introduced the idea of a spherical world. If anything, the Church flat-out rejected the idea of a spherical planet for hundreds of years.
People are so gullable these days. Because some scientist somehere says something, everyone believes it, without question. Especially when he says something that supports evolution.
I'd say something nasty about religion here, but I won't. Let's just say that I think faith requires more gullibility than scientific reasoning. However, I do agree that when a scientist publishes a study, it generally gets more attention than some random Joe publishing one on his own. Of course, that's because science is more empirical and objective, something I don't believe religion is associated with much.
How can you predict what happend some 12 billion years ago? The weather is bearly accurate to more than one day, and yet evolutionists claim they know what was in the earths atmosphere billions of years ago.
Through evidence left behind and through an understanding of how things work now. Are you saying that our estimates of the sun's age are wrong? That we can't date rock? We can, with an ever-increasing degree of accuracy, uncover more and more detail about the past. Predicting the future is also becoming more and more accurate. Your example of the weather is pointless, because weather is about as chaotic and unpredictable as you can get. You will notice, though, that our predictions are...for the most part...accurate to the point where we can plan our schedules out to a week. That is, unless you live in Texas.
People dont want to believe that there is a being somwhere in the heavens that is superior to them, a being that created them and the universe. This being is able to create the universe, and all that is in it, from giant starts, to microscopic life in six days.
Maybe some people can't fathom the notion that their religion may be wrong. Just a thought.
...what do you think it should be called? Super Pete's OS/2 BugTrack Emporium? It focuses on Windows, so it's concievable it should be named accordingly.
I dunno, but...
Do laboratory studies indicate that power-frequency fields can cause cancer? Short answer, no. There's a ton of good info on that site.
I think your perspective is valid, but unfortunately there is very little choice available to unsophisticated computer users, and this is a direct result of Microsoft's business practices.
/her and guide him/her to something else because we feel another product is better? If users are unhappy with their property and the things they buy, they find replacements. If people really hated WinME enough, they'd find something else to use. If they really hated IE, they'd download another browser.
I think your intentions are valid, but ultimately unneeded. Do we now have to come to the rescue of the innocent and ignorant MS user and kindly remind him other options exist? Must we nanny him
After MS built IE into the Windows GUI, you must run IE.
Alright, I will concede that point. That still does not mean you, random_Joe, or myself have no other choice in the market of web browsers. If MS wants to integrate the same system of exploring data on the Net as it does with the way it explores data on you hard drive, so what? I actually like how I can go directly from my folders to a web site. I'm sure many other people do as well. The user doesn't know any different and couldn't care less. You and I and other techies do know the difference so we change our plans accordingly, but that's because we hold software to different standards than the general population does.
As long as IE is a somewhat decent browser, there is not much point in wasting memory, drive space, and CPU cycles by running another one, no matter how good it is. I personally think Opera and Mozilla are both better browsers than IE, but they will never gain market share on Windows boxes, for the aformentioned reason, even if they both develop into absolutely perfect browsers.
Let's look at this objectively. Most computer users don't need absolutely perfect web browsers. They want one that works with little fuss. It's a shame they don't know much (if anything) about quality browsers like Opera, which I use both at work and at home. However, the needs of the average consumer are met, met cheaply, and met without hassle. Just as they are in other markets. Why should we force companies to shoot themselves in the foot by not pushing their product as hard as possible or by offering a competitor's product? It doesn't make any sense. Why go to all the trouble to create something when you are forced to offer it alongside other competing products or when you are forced to give their products an advantage by not getting it to consumers as easily as possible? To save the consumer for his/her own choices? That is insulting to all consumers and to all companies, in my opinion.
You assume that IF a company could sustain itself long enough to reap the oft-repeated premise of screwing every customer it gets its hands on, that this monopoly would remain in power for the forseeable future.
First of all, the economically-accepted definition of a monopoly is a business that can charge whatever it wants for its products, and the consumers have no choice but to buy them at that price. Exclusive control of a market and the prices for the products in it. That is clearly not the case with Microsoft and the operating systems, internet browsers, office suites, or whatever markets. No one would buy WinXP or Word if it cost $25,000 per license for consumers. Neither would businesses buy Access or Win2000 if they cost $75,000 each, which is what the allegedly monopolistic Microsoft should be able to do. And it can't, because it simply has a huge market share and is subject to varying market forces. A monopoly has an unrelenting grip on 100% of market share. There hasn't been a REAL capitalistic monopoly in the USA, ever. And market forces will keep it that way. AT&T is an example of a monopoly, but that's because it was government-granted, which is the only real way an economic monopoly can exist.
For a business can get too big for it's own good...just look at AOL-TW. This was supposed to be some hugely innovative, insanely efficient, blah blah company after the merger...and now it hardly looks healthy.
Consider this: governments can't force you to do anything either! The customer --- er, citizen --- decides on his/her own to live in the country. If you don't like the laws that come bundled with the country, you can look around for another one.
The one thing that distinguishes a government from all other social instiutions, is that it is granted a monoploy on the initation of force. No other entity in a civil democratic society has this right. Therefore, yes, the government does force you to do things, such as pay taxes, file environmental impact statements, install catalytic converters on your cars, set aside x number of parking spaces for hadnicapped people, etc. You are right that a disgruntled citizen who has utterly had it with his/her government can simply renounce his/her citizenship and go elsewhere. What bearing that has on this discussion, I don't know. It proves my point that it is ultimately up to the individual to decided for him/herself what is best. Not what an angry business competitor or self-righteous poltician or regulator thinks is best.
That does not explain how MS is "forcing" a consumer to use it's product. I am forced to do something when there is a direct negative physical consequence to my actions imposed by an outside entity. The difficulty in ridding one's PC of IE does not constitute force. Neither does a OEM exclusively bundling IE with their product. No one is forcing the cosumer to use it, that person decides on his/her own. If MS is banking on consumer laziness, then that is a perfectly fine tactic. The computer users want a web browser on their computers, and Microsoft is giving them one that fullfills their needs. If they don't like it, they can look around for another one.
This lawsuit is simply one company's way of complaining that another has bested them. As others here have said, if the owners of Netscape really wanted to compete, they would have put more effort and innovation into their product. And whatever level of effort and innovation they did put in obviously wasn't enough to sway the masses, who found IE to serve their needs fine.
Explain how it was "forced" on anyone. No MS rep came to my house and pointed a gun at my face and demanded I use IE. I made that choice voluntarily. So did every other consumer on the planet. No matter what business tactics MS used, there was never a time where a consumer had no other choice but to use IE.
Do you seriously think that the average peasant from 300 years ago cared about gaining as much money/material as possible over music?
I would assume that three hundred years ago, the average peasant would do anything in his/her power to gain as much wealth as possible in order to better his or her life and to elevate it above abject poverty. Art back then, as I see it, was mostly an outlet for expression during the few periods of free time one had.
Our technology is allowing us to be more anti-social than ever.
I disagree, because I don't consider face-to-face interactivity to be the only valid form of socializing. I was a very quiet and withdrawn kid in school. I kept to myself and I didn't bother getting involved with the various groups and cliques on campus. I had three or four very good friends and the rest were aquaintences. I did not grow up stunted, or maladjusted, or socially inept. I can handle idle chit-chat with strangers as easily as discussing politics with my father. I just choose not to socialize as often as everyone else apparently felt compelled to.
These days, I am still essentially the same. I'd rather stay home and read or browse the Net and post in online forums than go out to a party. My audience is better-suited this way. I can express myself the way I prefer, at my leisure, and in whatever manner I choose. I help moderate an anime forum (down for upgrades at the moment) and have discussed hundreds of topics, issues, and events with thousands of people in over a year's time. I would never have gotten that exposure or interaction without the reach of technology and the Net. The discussions I have had are, in my opinion, far more detailed, interesting, and thought-provoking than the mundane "let's spit out a few bland clichès and sound cool" discussions I find myself in while out in the real world. Discussions backed up with credible references, multiple global opinions, and varying insight. It is my opinion that the kinds of people willing to seriously take the time to sit down and verbally knock around an issue are few and far between. That translates into a lot of legwork on my (and his/her) part, which means time wasted while I could be interacting with someone.
Technology just makes that process of finding those people you like to talk to (who you'd be looking for and filtering for anyway in the real world) more efficient. For example, I seriously doubt that I'd ever have a discussion like this one with someone face-to-face and be able to articulate my point like this. I'd get a few sentances in edgewise, and then it'd be the other person's "turn." Our words are set in stone for future reference and we can fully flesh out our thoughts in one communication without having to worry about the physical constraints of face-to-face interaction.
As for the life expectancy thing, thats you're value, bub. It's another example of technology empowering us to a degree that damages social patters (in this case, people who die of old age are doing so alone at a nursing home, in greater numbers than ever before. Good thing we can keep ourselves alive for so long!)
The elderly who are dying of old age are probably damn grateful to have lived to see their kids grow up to raise children of their own, and in the most heartening situations, see those children get married and have children. The elderly may suffer disproportionately as they get older, but that's a consequence of their actions they are fully aware of. Would they choose to die at 40? Would they choose to die at 35? I think not. Technology has given us the ability to live longer to enjoy the fruits of our labor and to enjoy the families and friends we have over a longer period of time.
Damaging social patterns? You spoke earlier about the verbal tradition of story-telling. You must be forgetting that the elderly have a wealth of advice, wisdom, and tips to tell the people they know. The older they get, the more they accumulate. Certainly, after a point, their mental capacities fade, but that is no reason to imply that we should prefer an early death to a longer life.