Re:Picture of bills with US bill
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Following the successful introduction of the RFID, we now bring you--the talking Euro bill. Gently rub the bill and it will speak its value.
Hehehe... if they did this, it would definitely be a Good Thing there aren't portraits on the Euro... who knows how many things EuroH4X0rs could make (name European historical figure) say when gently rubbed?
InigoMontoya(tm)
Re:Advantages of a single currency (or not!)
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Only experience will tell. But one thing seems forgotten: the US has widely differing economic areas. How closely correlated are tobacco farming in Virginia, car manufacturing in Detroit, optical networking in San Francisco and investment banking in Wall Street? When car making is suffering from Japanese competition, it might seem to make sense to devalue the Detroit dollar - yet no-one has ever suggested breaking the US into regional currencies.
The big difference here is mobility. Despite the different economic areas in America, there are far more similarities between them than differences: a common language and culture, common systems of government and political parties (Reps, Dems, Libs, Greens) and common legal structures (the US court system and relatively uniform state court systems.) Mobility comes in where a person loses his/her job as a dot-commer in San Fran, and moves to Seattle/Atlanta/NY/Chicago to do something else there. You don't see quite as much mobility in Europe, because there is a stronger identification with nation (France, Germany, etc.) than with continent. In America, you don't have people who identify themselves primarily as Michiganders (stupid name, I know) or Californians or Ohioans, but as Americans. (With the exception, maybe, of Texans.)
Thus in America one can move to another state and retain one's identity as an American, suffer little to no change in culture or language (regional dialects and peculiarities aside) and remain under much the same system, with much the same options, as where one came from. That's just not quite as possible in Europe, where culturally one identifies oneself with the history of one's nation (perhaps because of the richness of national histories there as compared to the glorious history of, say, Indiana) rather than with all of Europe.
So you're saying that students should be allowed to share their papers?
Sure, if they turn them in with the original names on them. If I turn in someone else's paper with their name on it, I won't get a grade. If I turn in someone else's paper with my name on it, I'm guilty of plagiarism. And that's a different thing than merely "sharing" research - that's failure to attribute it properly.
I haven't heard of a single pirated copy of Office XP where someone claimed that they wrote it instead of MS. Nobody's acting like they invented Windows Me (which may be more a case of giving blame where it's due rather than credit.)
And why do you think the RIAA is going after them? Because they don't want you listening to "niche genres" or "independent radio." They want you to listen to what they tell you to listen to.... otherwise, there's a chance you might buy an album from an artist that isn't a member of the RIAA. And we can't have that, now can we?
If the RIAA had their way, there would be no independent radio.
Microsoft is trying to become the keyholders of the computer industry. They used to just be the gatekeepers, you had to write software for their operating system if you wanted to get to joe average. Now they want to be the keyholders too. Everything will have to be authorized by them. I'm not sure I trust them as keyholders to my system and to my data. If every operating system had to have some sort of DRM then LINUX and other operating systems would support it, the need would be met. So that's not really a problem...
The CAUSED them to go out of business by ILLEGALLY PREVENTING computer manufacturers from shipping computers with BeOS on them. It happened. The compter manufacturers were told that they would pay more for or lkose their Windows licenses if they did this. That's why there is a whole section of the "settlement" about how they cannot do this any more.
And so Microsoft now does not have the right to charge whatever they want for their product, or to sell it or not sell it to whomever they want? How dare they determine what they will charge people? Also, define "illegal." The OEM's signed a CONTRACT with Microsoft. It's not like MS put a gun to their heads and said "you have to buy our software." The OEM's CHOSE to use MS software, and that means meeting MS' conditions to sell their software, which includes that very contract. OEM's were free to not choose to use MS software, knowing those conditions, and they chose to do so anyway, and now they're B&Ming about how awful it is that they can't sell any other OS's. What's so illegal about Microsoft getting to sell their product for whatever price they want, to whomever they want, under whatever conditions they want? It's THEIR PRODUCT.
You have proven my point. The average consumer has no way to obtain a computer that has Windows and another OS on it. Only extremely tech-savvy geeks with access to the parts.
And how many non-geeks would actually buy a computer with BeOS on it? Why would Joe Enduser, when given the choice between an easy-to-use system with which he can share files with his friends and get on the Internet very easily or an OS where he has to compile programs himself and do all the work, choose the latter? Windows is not the most popular OS in the world just because of exclusive licensing deals... it's because it's just plain easy to use if you don't want to do any heavy lifting, and most Joe Endusers don't.
This is why Windows is now the largest single cost of a computer, and why MS Office is one of the larger expenses that a business faces.
And yet, other office solutions and other OS exist out there, and some are free. Companies still choose MS. Show me one company which is REQUIRED BY LAW to buy MS software on all their computers, and didn't put themselves in that situation through contract; you can't, because they don't exist. Therefore companies must be choosing to use it. Why? I'd say it's because the MS software is the best, or at least is perceived as such, or because everyone else uses it and so they want to use it to stay competitive and cooperative. We can't very well blame MS for making software that people think is better, or for lots of people using their software, can we? (Oh wait, this is/.. Rationality goes out the window (no pun intended) when MS or Linus Torvalds are mentioned.)
It is the result of ILLEGAL activities, and Microsoft should compensate the businesses they destroyed or coerced, and the public.
Again, why? Because those businesses were FORCED into doing business with Microsoft? Because they really were unable to not buy it? Because people bought MS software and not other people's? How dare MS actually try to make money? How dare they not operate as a nonprofit like all the good, pure Linux whitehats out there? They must be bad, for trying to make money.
What you want is akin to walking into a Ford dealership and telling them you want a Camaro with the normal chassis and transmission and leather interior, but without the engine because you have a Toyota Supra engine at home that you intend to transplant into the Camaro, and insisting that they deduct the engine cost from the cost of the car.
Which would be really funny, because Ford doesn't make Camaros. Chevy used to make them, but (IIRC) phased them out last year.
The metaphor you use is more like calling up Dell and asking them to sell you a Compaq without Windows installed.
How does this settlement help Be's stockholders? Microsoft was FOUND GUILTY of ILLEGALLY controlling the market - resulting in Be going out of business and Microsoft having, is it $26 or $36, BILLION in the bank.
Correlation != causation. If I weren't using Windows, I certainly wouldn't be using Be - nor would many others. How dare MS actually allow a competing company to go out of business? They should have floated Be a loan, to keep them around, because as we all know businesses like to have competition!
And the BIGGEST COST of some computers now is the cost of Windows. What about some penalty to be used to compensate all of us who have paid so much money to Microsoft because of this ILLEGAL monopoly?
I'm sorry to say this, but if you can't figure out how to acquire a computer without Windows on it, all it takes is a trip to your local library or to your local geek teenager's house to learn how to build a computer. Most people who buy computers with Windows preinstalled - WANT a computer with Windows preinstalled. They don't want to have to fuss with "what operating system should I use?" or "how is Debian different from Redhat?" They want to turn the computer on, type their letters to their families in Word, get on AOL, or play Half-life.
Not to mention that Microsoft, like any other company in the world, should be free to sell their product for whatever they want. This "Microsoft is a monopoly" stuff - despite the judgment of the court - is crap. They didn't count Macs, didn't count servers, and this was a few years ago, before the rise of linux. Basically, all they said was "Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating systems of all computers with Microsoft operating systems on them." If Microsoft's product is priced too high, people won't buy it. Really, they won't. (They'll probably just pirate it - even XP isn't pirate-proof.)
And they used this ILLEGAL monopoly to force us all into using their desktop applications, which now cost about FOUR TIMES what the would cost if there was competition.
Do you have any documentation here, any proof that we'd be paying 1/4 of the current costs for their applications? Was this a proven fact in court proceedings? How do we know that all applications of similar quality would not be priced just as high? Do you have some kind of "market clairvoyance" we're not aware of? And if so, can you give me stock tips?
What about compensating everyone who has had to fork over extra cash to pay for their products?
Define "had to." Did MS put a gun to your head and say "You have to buy Windows"? Were there not options - albeit a bit more difficult - to buy an OS-less machine? You have not been forced into anything - even the fact that you own a computer is YOUR CHOICE. Choosing to use MS products may have been the wiser thing for you to do, but you can't blame them for being the smarter choice.
And what about the companies that had competing products? What about compensating them?
Compensating them for what? Going out of business? Not being good at competing? Why does MS owe it to every competitor they have now to make sure they stay in business? Does MS owe their employees jobs? And who can honestly say that the competitors' products wouldn't have failed in the long run? If a company other than MS had come out with the IE browser - it would still be better than Netscape. Tell me, how was it bad for consumers to get a free web browser rather than having to pay for it? Tell me, how is it bad for consumers to be able to view movies in a single program that is built into the OS, flashy, and not have to worry about "I need this program for avi movies, and this program for mpg, et cetera."
The only people Microsoft owes anything to is their stockholders, and that is to create the most profit possible while staying within the law. If they break the law, they should be punished - but only for the damage their lawbreaking can be proven to have done. None of this "Microsoft is really big so they deserve to go down" crap.
In a libertarian system, companies are free to sell or not sell their products to whomever they wish.
Microsoft did not threaten OEM's with fiscal violence. The OEM's had the option of not buying an MS operating system... had they wanted to, they were free to make that choice. Despite the fact that it would be stupid of an OEM not to sell MS products, they were not forced to do anything. Microsoft required certain conditions out of companies in order to buy their products; those who did not want to abide by those conditions were free to look elsewhere. There is no Microsoft Law: only contracts, freely and legally signed by companies, saying they would sell MS products. And contracts are not illegal.
That being said, libertarians are allowed to oppose MS and their arguably-unethical business practices. The libertarian viewpoint, however, is that the use of coercive force by the government to stop MS is not an acceptable thing - merely the exercising of our freedoms to support alternative products and to advise others to do likewise.
Putting your profits ahead of the life, health, and freedom from pain of any number of others? *That's* evil.
Okay, then, show me one - just one - example of Microsoft's having taken anybody's life, health, and freedom.
Let me clarify a little here, before you *nix-freaks breathe down my throat.
By "life," I mean just that. How many people have died as a direct result of anything Microsoft has ever done? I can't think of any.
By "health," I mean physical health. How many people have gotten physically sick (and I'm not talking about hand injuries from smacking the computer from the latest BSOD) from MS? Again, I can't think of any.
And finally, "freedom from pain." First off, I don't think that this is a valid freedom - pain is and must be a part of life. But even still, show me one person who has been physically harmed as a direct result of MS's actions. Show me just one.
Calling Microsoft evil because they want to make money is ridiculous. Calling them evil because they drove a few competitors out of business is also ridiculous... perhaps they have acted unethically, but "evil" is another step up.
Putting Jews in concentration camps, or killing thousands of innocent farmers in purges - that's evil. But driving one's competitors out of business by making a better product available at a lower cost, or even by the arguably-unethical act of packaging it with the newest version of your OS - that's business. That's not evil, that's profit.
I'll agree with you when you show me an example of someone whom Microsoft has deliberately killed, or deprived of their health.
Ah, the classic "it doesn't happen to me"... Just because you dont see serious abuses of a persons human rights does not mean its not happening out in the rest of the world. The same goes for computer issues. Also, I would say I fault Microsoft for a system that allows 3rd party developers to write code that CAN bring down the whole system.
First, despite what you may think of Microsoft, I think we can agree that comparing their "abuses" to human rights abuses is hardly fair. Microsoft bundling WMP7 with XP is hardly on a scale with bombing innocent Afghans or denying women the ability to travel freely.
Second, you're complaining that the third party developers shouldn't be able to code things that can bring down the whole system... so you're saying that you want MS to close their operating system even more? You want the only software with access to any kind of computing power to be MS software?
Why invest in a system that will be EOL'd while you are using it. As a Debian user that uses the Debian system to keep up to date as well as my own independant compiling, I cannot not imagine this.
So what are you saying here...
(a) that we should still be able to use Win3.1 and be able to do everything we do on our XP boxes, or...
(b) that nobody should use MS because, like all other software in the world, it eventually goes obsolete, and that we should all, even my grandmother, be using and continually recompiling Linux kernels and all that? Sorry, I like my OS to be the thing I don't have to worry about, and XP has pretty much done that.
(c) that MS should have provided free upgrades to 95, 98, etc.?
Ummmm, unlike Linux (which is, despite the fact that there are several businesses selling it, a "non-profit service") Microsoft is a BUSINESS. Meaning that they have to make MONEY. And the best way to make MONEY is to sell PRODUCTS. And if you're giving your products away for free to anyone who has the cheaper, earlier version of your product, you won't make any money selling them the newer, shinier version of the product. Whenever Hoover makes a newer version of their vacuum, do they owe it to you to give it to you for free? Yes, your old vacuum still works, just like Win3.1 still works (and it fits on four 1.44MB floppies.) But if you want the newest features (and I don't know what features one would add to a vacuum, so it's probably a poor metaphor) you can't expect to have them on your Hoover from the mid-70's.
Okay, I will. Gaul was the old Roman name for the area that includes much of modern-day France, Germany, and the areas in between (all those piddly little countries like Luxembourg and Belgium). It was inhabited by barbarians. The name still lives on as French culture is sometimes known as Gallic culture.
Now, gall on the other hand... that's a different story.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Making fun of word-choice errors on/. for, well, a day or two now.
Imagine you were a martian focusing your telescope on Earth. You can't say much about its life except that there is a lot of monospectral green (chlorophyll) down there. Debating how many kinds of green critters live there, until you can get a closer look, is best left to your martian science fiction writers.
I don't know about that. Ever see those pictures of the earth at night, with all the lights concentrated around the major cities? There's more evidence of life visible from space than you think.
Not to mention the highly-detectable methane (from bovine flatulation, no less) present in our atmosphere. I think I read somewhere that that would be evidence of life on our planet. Maybe it was Sagan or something.
Humans really have left their mark on the world. (Not to say whether that is a good or bad thing, because I honestly don't know.)
Cowboy Bebop also gets little well-earned respect b/c of the title, in my experience.
That's because, at least for those of us who lived through the late '80's in America, the name "Bebop" immediately brings to mind a certain warthog-esque henchman of the Shredder...
...and we don't like picturing him as a cowboy. Or much anything else, for that matter.
If you're paying monthly, isn't that like renigging on a business contract...
I think the word you're looking for there is "reneging," from the same root as the word "renegade" and the verb "renege." "Renigging" isn't a word, and could potentially offend members of certain demographics.
That may be something you would want to keep in mind for the future... the word you used could get you into trouble (and with a little less justification than the teacher who used the actual legitimate word "niggardly" and got canned. Anyone know what happened to that teacher?)
Just thought I'd help you avoid any future legal trouble.
Problem: This is happening in Australia. No DMCA there. Yet.
Could this happen in America? Something tells me that something like this wouldn't hold up in the American courts. Just like you have a reasonable expectation that Ameritech (or whomever) won't be listening in on your phone conversations listening for you to spell out the DeCSS code, I think (and IANAL) you have the same expectation from an Internet provider. In turn for the protection of your privacy, the government won't hold them responsible for anything you do (just like you don't see them hauling up Ameritech on charges every time a bomb threat is phoned in somewhere.)
Again, IANAL. Take what I say with numerous grains of salt.
Press Release:
NASA today announced that it will be sending balls to Mars. These balls will be named after the project director and designer, Dr. Ralph Schwetty.
NASA has expressed interest in putting its Schwetty balls on another planet, saying "here is a planet we haven't had our balls bouncing on yet." NASA's Schwetty Balls will roam free, bouncing about, rolling, and blowing freely in the wind.
The Coalition of Intelligent Beings on Mars also released a statement, saying: "We are excited to hear that NASA's Schwetty Balls will be coming to our planet. We are looking forward to getting up close and personal with these Balls, and may even taste one or two of NASA's Schwetty Balls to see what they're like."
Far be it for me to sound cynical, but I wonder how much of that $100 million "in cash and software" is software licenses?
2 Computers - $2,000
2 Windows liscenses - $300
1 Lost windows liscence - $97,700
Watching another kid smash the keyboard because a Blue Screen of Death killed his Word document - priceless.
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's Microsoft.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Re:Tech support load varies with configuration cou
on
Dorm Storm?
·
· Score: 1
At the school I work at (medium-sized liberal arts school, about 2000 on campus) we have solved this issue by drawing a distinct line between connection and support. We will allow anyone or anything to connect, so long as they don't hurt our network in any way (i.e. setting up rogue DHCP) or use too much (arbitrarily determined) bandwidth. Use Linux, Unix, Win3.1, we don't care.
The line is drawn at support. We'll let anything connect, but we won't send someone out to help or provide support over the phone (unless there is a jack problem, and once we've tested that the jack works, we're hands-off) unless they meet our rather stringent minimum requirements. These requirements are OS (Windows 9x+ or Mac 8.6+ only), hardware, NIC (we only support three brands) and general workability - in other words, the computer has to work. We only support problems relating to the user's connection to the network.
I've been working here three years now, and aside from a few pissed-off students and parents, we've had no problems. When someone does get pissed off, we point them to the documentation we sent out well before the school year outlining our minimum support requirements, and they usually shut up pretty quickly. We do have our "problem users," but their numbers are steadily decreasing proportional to the nunber of PackBells and older Win95A machines we work with.
When two people play chess, it's the person playing who moves the pieces. The pieces themselves are incapable of affecting the outcome at all. I've never seen a chess game where a bishop tried to take a pawn, moved to the same square, and was blocked or something.
In football, there is the human equation with regards to the carrying out of strategy; i.e. one can have the greatest coach in history but if he's coaching the Detroit Lions they're still going to suck. Thus, when a team wins something like the Super Bowl, it is the team that wins it, not just the coach. Whereas in chess, one does not refer to "the white team, with coach Garry Kasparov" and about how King's Bishop's Pawn came out with a clutch block on the 47th turn, but rather about the players - "Garry Kasparov" winning rather than "the white team."
In summing up, football is a clash of players - where two coaches doing the exact same thing twice may have very different results. There is the human equation - plans can go awry due to circumstance, the skill of the other player, the crowd, etc. In chess, there is no barrier between thought and action - so long as any given move is allowed within the game, it will be executed as planned, without fail (unless, of course, the player's arms don't work right.)
I don't know... those guys at Home Depot do it with a hair dryer in like three minutes. That could actually be interesting, so long as it was full-contact.
Slashdot Mirror
Following the successful introduction of the RFID, we now bring you--the talking Euro bill. Gently rub the bill and it will speak its value.
Hehehe... if they did this, it would definitely be a Good Thing there aren't portraits on the Euro... who knows how many things EuroH4X0rs could make (name European historical figure) say when gently rubbed?
InigoMontoya(tm)
Only experience will tell. But one thing seems forgotten: the US has widely differing economic areas. How closely correlated are tobacco farming in Virginia, car manufacturing in Detroit, optical networking in San Francisco and investment banking in Wall Street? When car making is suffering from Japanese competition, it might seem to make sense to devalue the Detroit dollar - yet no-one has ever suggested breaking the US into regional currencies.
The big difference here is mobility. Despite the different economic areas in America, there are far more similarities between them than differences: a common language and culture, common systems of government and political parties (Reps, Dems, Libs, Greens) and common legal structures (the US court system and relatively uniform state court systems.) Mobility comes in where a person loses his/her job as a dot-commer in San Fran, and moves to Seattle/Atlanta/NY/Chicago to do something else there. You don't see quite as much mobility in Europe, because there is a stronger identification with nation (France, Germany, etc.) than with continent. In America, you don't have people who identify themselves primarily as Michiganders (stupid name, I know) or Californians or Ohioans, but as Americans. (With the exception, maybe, of Texans.)
Thus in America one can move to another state and retain one's identity as an American, suffer little to no change in culture or language (regional dialects and peculiarities aside) and remain under much the same system, with much the same options, as where one came from. That's just not quite as possible in Europe, where culturally one identifies oneself with the history of one's nation (perhaps because of the richness of national histories there as compared to the glorious history of, say, Indiana) rather than with all of Europe.
InigoMontoya(tm)
So you're saying that students should be allowed to share their papers?
Sure, if they turn them in with the original names on them. If I turn in someone else's paper with their name on it, I won't get a grade. If I turn in someone else's paper with my name on it, I'm guilty of plagiarism. And that's a different thing than merely "sharing" research - that's failure to attribute it properly.
I haven't heard of a single pirated copy of Office XP where someone claimed that they wrote it instead of MS. Nobody's acting like they invented Windows Me (which may be more a case of giving blame where it's due rather than credit.)
It's a completely different argument.
InigoMontoya(tm)
No, it's "never go in with a Sicilian when death is on the line."
The first, of course, is to never get involved in a land war in Asia.
InigoMontoya(tm)
And why do you think the RIAA is going after them? Because they don't want you listening to "niche genres" or "independent radio." They want you to listen to what they tell you to listen to.... otherwise, there's a chance you might buy an album from an artist that isn't a member of the RIAA. And we can't have that, now can we?
If the RIAA had their way, there would be no independent radio.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Cue Rick Moranis.
"Are you the keymaster?"
InigoMontoya(tm)
The CAUSED them to go out of business by ILLEGALLY PREVENTING computer manufacturers from shipping computers with BeOS on them. It happened. The compter manufacturers were told that they would pay more for or lkose their Windows licenses if they did this. That's why there is a whole section of the "settlement" about how they cannot do this any more.
/.. Rationality goes out the window (no pun intended) when MS or Linus Torvalds are mentioned.)
And so Microsoft now does not have the right to charge whatever they want for their product, or to sell it or not sell it to whomever they want? How dare they determine what they will charge people? Also, define "illegal." The OEM's signed a CONTRACT with Microsoft. It's not like MS put a gun to their heads and said "you have to buy our software." The OEM's CHOSE to use MS software, and that means meeting MS' conditions to sell their software, which includes that very contract. OEM's were free to not choose to use MS software, knowing those conditions, and they chose to do so anyway, and now they're B&Ming about how awful it is that they can't sell any other OS's. What's so illegal about Microsoft getting to sell their product for whatever price they want, to whomever they want, under whatever conditions they want? It's THEIR PRODUCT.
You have proven my point. The average consumer has no way to obtain a computer that has Windows and another OS on it. Only extremely tech-savvy geeks with access to the parts.
And how many non-geeks would actually buy a computer with BeOS on it? Why would Joe Enduser, when given the choice between an easy-to-use system with which he can share files with his friends and get on the Internet very easily or an OS where he has to compile programs himself and do all the work, choose the latter? Windows is not the most popular OS in the world just because of exclusive licensing deals... it's because it's just plain easy to use if you don't want to do any heavy lifting, and most Joe Endusers don't.
This is why Windows is now the largest single cost of a computer, and why MS Office is one of the larger expenses that a business faces.
And yet, other office solutions and other OS exist out there, and some are free. Companies still choose MS. Show me one company which is REQUIRED BY LAW to buy MS software on all their computers, and didn't put themselves in that situation through contract; you can't, because they don't exist. Therefore companies must be choosing to use it. Why? I'd say it's because the MS software is the best, or at least is perceived as such, or because everyone else uses it and so they want to use it to stay competitive and cooperative. We can't very well blame MS for making software that people think is better, or for lots of people using their software, can we? (Oh wait, this is
It is the result of ILLEGAL activities, and Microsoft should compensate the businesses they destroyed or coerced, and the public.
Again, why? Because those businesses were FORCED into doing business with Microsoft? Because they really were unable to not buy it? Because people bought MS software and not other people's? How dare MS actually try to make money? How dare they not operate as a nonprofit like all the good, pure Linux whitehats out there? They must be bad, for trying to make money.
Hell, for $30 million, I'll do it in whatever they want to clothe me in, including nothing at all.
What you want is akin to walking into a Ford dealership and telling them you want a Camaro with the normal chassis and transmission and leather interior, but without the engine because you have a Toyota Supra engine at home that you intend to transplant into the Camaro, and insisting that they deduct the engine cost from the cost of the car.
Which would be really funny, because Ford doesn't make Camaros. Chevy used to make them, but (IIRC) phased them out last year.
The metaphor you use is more like calling up Dell and asking them to sell you a Compaq without Windows installed.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Oh, goody, another anti-MS rant.
How does this settlement help Be's stockholders? Microsoft was FOUND GUILTY of ILLEGALLY controlling the market - resulting in Be going out of business and Microsoft having, is it $26 or $36, BILLION in the bank.
Correlation != causation. If I weren't using Windows, I certainly wouldn't be using Be - nor would many others. How dare MS actually allow a competing company to go out of business? They should have floated Be a loan, to keep them around, because as we all know businesses like to have competition!
And the BIGGEST COST of some computers now is the cost of Windows. What about some penalty to be used to compensate all of us who have paid so much money to Microsoft because of this ILLEGAL monopoly?
I'm sorry to say this, but if you can't figure out how to acquire a computer without Windows on it, all it takes is a trip to your local library or to your local geek teenager's house to learn how to build a computer. Most people who buy computers with Windows preinstalled - WANT a computer with Windows preinstalled. They don't want to have to fuss with "what operating system should I use?" or "how is Debian different from Redhat?" They want to turn the computer on, type their letters to their families in Word, get on AOL, or play Half-life.
Not to mention that Microsoft, like any other company in the world, should be free to sell their product for whatever they want. This "Microsoft is a monopoly" stuff - despite the judgment of the court - is crap. They didn't count Macs, didn't count servers, and this was a few years ago, before the rise of linux. Basically, all they said was "Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating systems of all computers with Microsoft operating systems on them." If Microsoft's product is priced too high, people won't buy it. Really, they won't. (They'll probably just pirate it - even XP isn't pirate-proof.)
And they used this ILLEGAL monopoly to force us all into using their desktop applications, which now cost about FOUR TIMES what the would cost if there was competition.
Do you have any documentation here, any proof that we'd be paying 1/4 of the current costs for their applications? Was this a proven fact in court proceedings? How do we know that all applications of similar quality would not be priced just as high? Do you have some kind of "market clairvoyance" we're not aware of? And if so, can you give me stock tips?
What about compensating everyone who has had to fork over extra cash to pay for their products?
Define "had to." Did MS put a gun to your head and say "You have to buy Windows"? Were there not options - albeit a bit more difficult - to buy an OS-less machine? You have not been forced into anything - even the fact that you own a computer is YOUR CHOICE. Choosing to use MS products may have been the wiser thing for you to do, but you can't blame them for being the smarter choice.
And what about the companies that had competing products? What about compensating them?
Compensating them for what? Going out of business? Not being good at competing? Why does MS owe it to every competitor they have now to make sure they stay in business? Does MS owe their employees jobs? And who can honestly say that the competitors' products wouldn't have failed in the long run? If a company other than MS had come out with the IE browser - it would still be better than Netscape. Tell me, how was it bad for consumers to get a free web browser rather than having to pay for it? Tell me, how is it bad for consumers to be able to view movies in a single program that is built into the OS, flashy, and not have to worry about "I need this program for avi movies, and this program for mpg, et cetera."
The only people Microsoft owes anything to is their stockholders, and that is to create the most profit possible while staying within the law. If they break the law, they should be punished - but only for the damage their lawbreaking can be proven to have done. None of this "Microsoft is really big so they deserve to go down" crap.
InigoMontoya(tm)
I'm not sure you understand libertarianism.
In a libertarian system, companies are free to sell or not sell their products to whomever they wish.
Microsoft did not threaten OEM's with fiscal violence. The OEM's had the option of not buying an MS operating system... had they wanted to, they were free to make that choice. Despite the fact that it would be stupid of an OEM not to sell MS products, they were not forced to do anything. Microsoft required certain conditions out of companies in order to buy their products; those who did not want to abide by those conditions were free to look elsewhere. There is no Microsoft Law: only contracts, freely and legally signed by companies, saying they would sell MS products. And contracts are not illegal.
That being said, libertarians are allowed to oppose MS and their arguably-unethical business practices. The libertarian viewpoint, however, is that the use of coercive force by the government to stop MS is not an acceptable thing - merely the exercising of our freedoms to support alternative products and to advise others to do likewise.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Putting your profits ahead of the life, health, and freedom from pain of any number of others? *That's* evil.
Okay, then, show me one - just one - example of Microsoft's having taken anybody's life, health, and freedom.
Let me clarify a little here, before you *nix-freaks breathe down my throat.
By "life," I mean just that. How many people have died as a direct result of anything Microsoft has ever done? I can't think of any.
By "health," I mean physical health. How many people have gotten physically sick (and I'm not talking about hand injuries from smacking the computer from the latest BSOD) from MS? Again, I can't think of any.
And finally, "freedom from pain." First off, I don't think that this is a valid freedom - pain is and must be a part of life. But even still, show me one person who has been physically harmed as a direct result of MS's actions. Show me just one.
Calling Microsoft evil because they want to make money is ridiculous. Calling them evil because they drove a few competitors out of business is also ridiculous... perhaps they have acted unethically, but "evil" is another step up.
Putting Jews in concentration camps, or killing thousands of innocent farmers in purges - that's evil. But driving one's competitors out of business by making a better product available at a lower cost, or even by the arguably-unethical act of packaging it with the newest version of your OS - that's business. That's not evil, that's profit.
I'll agree with you when you show me an example of someone whom Microsoft has deliberately killed, or deprived of their health.
InigoMontoya(tm)
First, despite what you may think of Microsoft, I think we can agree that comparing their "abuses" to human rights abuses is hardly fair. Microsoft bundling WMP7 with XP is hardly on a scale with bombing innocent Afghans or denying women the ability to travel freely.
Second, you're complaining that the third party developers shouldn't be able to code things that can bring down the whole system... so you're saying that you want MS to close their operating system even more? You want the only software with access to any kind of computing power to be MS software?
So what are you saying here...
(a) that we should still be able to use Win3.1 and be able to do everything we do on our XP boxes, or...
(b) that nobody should use MS because, like all other software in the world, it eventually goes obsolete, and that we should all, even my grandmother, be using and continually recompiling Linux kernels and all that? Sorry, I like my OS to be the thing I don't have to worry about, and XP has pretty much done that.
(c) that MS should have provided free upgrades to 95, 98, etc.?
Ummmm, unlike Linux (which is, despite the fact that there are several businesses selling it, a "non-profit service") Microsoft is a BUSINESS. Meaning that they have to make MONEY. And the best way to make MONEY is to sell PRODUCTS. And if you're giving your products away for free to anyone who has the cheaper, earlier version of your product, you won't make any money selling them the newer, shinier version of the product. Whenever Hoover makes a newer version of their vacuum, do they owe it to you to give it to you for free? Yes, your old vacuum still works, just like Win3.1 still works (and it fits on four 1.44MB floppies.) But if you want the newest features (and I don't know what features one would add to a vacuum, so it's probably a poor metaphor) you can't expect to have them on your Hoover from the mid-70's.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Absurd isnt it...talk about gaul.
/. for, well, a day or two now.
Okay, I will. Gaul was the old Roman name for the area that includes much of modern-day France, Germany, and the areas in between (all those piddly little countries like Luxembourg and Belgium). It was inhabited by barbarians. The name still lives on as French culture is sometimes known as Gallic culture.
Now, gall on the other hand... that's a different story.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Making fun of word-choice errors on
Imagine you were a martian focusing your telescope on Earth. You can't say much about its life except that there is a lot of monospectral green (chlorophyll) down there. Debating how many kinds of green critters live there, until you can get a closer look, is best left to your martian science fiction writers.
I don't know about that. Ever see those pictures of the earth at night, with all the lights concentrated around the major cities? There's more evidence of life visible from space than you think.
Not to mention the highly-detectable methane (from bovine flatulation, no less) present in our atmosphere. I think I read somewhere that that would be evidence of life on our planet. Maybe it was Sagan or something.
Humans really have left their mark on the world. (Not to say whether that is a good or bad thing, because I honestly don't know.)
InigoMontoya(tm)
Cowboy Bebop also gets little well-earned respect b/c of the title, in my experience.
That's because, at least for those of us who lived through the late '80's in America, the name "Bebop" immediately brings to mind a certain warthog-esque henchman of the Shredder...
...and we don't like picturing him as a cowboy. Or much anything else, for that matter.
InigoMontoya(tm)
If you're paying monthly, isn't that like renigging on a business contract...
I think the word you're looking for there is "reneging," from the same root as the word "renegade" and the verb "renege." "Renigging" isn't a word, and could potentially offend members of certain demographics.
That may be something you would want to keep in mind for the future... the word you used could get you into trouble (and with a little less justification than the teacher who used the actual legitimate word "niggardly" and got canned. Anyone know what happened to that teacher?)
Just thought I'd help you avoid any future legal trouble.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Problem: This is happening in Australia. No DMCA there. Yet.
Could this happen in America? Something tells me that something like this wouldn't hold up in the American courts. Just like you have a reasonable expectation that Ameritech (or whomever) won't be listening in on your phone conversations listening for you to spell out the DeCSS code, I think (and IANAL) you have the same expectation from an Internet provider. In turn for the protection of your privacy, the government won't hold them responsible for anything you do (just like you don't see them hauling up Ameritech on charges every time a bomb threat is phoned in somewhere.)
Again, IANAL. Take what I say with numerous grains of salt.
InigoMontoya(tm)
NASA today announced that it will be sending balls to Mars. These balls will be named after the project director and designer, Dr. Ralph Schwetty.
NASA has expressed interest in putting its Schwetty balls on another planet, saying "here is a planet we haven't had our balls bouncing on yet." NASA's Schwetty Balls will roam free, bouncing about, rolling, and blowing freely in the wind.
The Coalition of Intelligent Beings on Mars also released a statement, saying: "We are excited to hear that NASA's Schwetty Balls will be coming to our planet. We are looking forward to getting up close and personal with these Balls, and may even taste one or two of NASA's Schwetty Balls to see what they're like."
Okay, I think this joke is dead now.
-1 Not Quitting While He's Ahead
InigoMontoya(tm)
2 Computers - $2,000
2 Windows liscenses - $300
1 Lost windows liscence - $97,700
Watching another kid smash the keyboard because a Blue Screen of Death killed his Word document - priceless.
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's Microsoft.
InigoMontoya(tm)
The line is drawn at support. We'll let anything connect, but we won't send someone out to help or provide support over the phone (unless there is a jack problem, and once we've tested that the jack works, we're hands-off) unless they meet our rather stringent minimum requirements. These requirements are OS (Windows 9x+ or Mac 8.6+ only), hardware, NIC (we only support three brands) and general workability - in other words, the computer has to work. We only support problems relating to the user's connection to the network.
I've been working here three years now, and aside from a few pissed-off students and parents, we've had no problems. When someone does get pissed off, we point them to the documentation we sent out well before the school year outlining our minimum support requirements, and they usually shut up pretty quickly. We do have our "problem users," but their numbers are steadily decreasing proportional to the nunber of PackBells and older Win95A machines we work with.
InigoMontoya(tm)
Who should we send the wormsign spotting bonus to?
Dammit, where are those carryalls??!?!?!
InigoMontoya(tm)
When two people play chess, it's the person playing who moves the pieces. The pieces themselves are incapable of affecting the outcome at all. I've never seen a chess game where a bishop tried to take a pawn, moved to the same square, and was blocked or something.
In football, there is the human equation with regards to the carrying out of strategy; i.e. one can have the greatest coach in history but if he's coaching the Detroit Lions they're still going to suck. Thus, when a team wins something like the Super Bowl, it is the team that wins it, not just the coach. Whereas in chess, one does not refer to "the white team, with coach Garry Kasparov" and about how King's Bishop's Pawn came out with a clutch block on the 47th turn, but rather about the players - "Garry Kasparov" winning rather than "the white team."
In summing up, football is a clash of players - where two coaches doing the exact same thing twice may have very different results. There is the human equation - plans can go awry due to circumstance, the skill of the other player, the crowd, etc. In chess, there is no barrier between thought and action - so long as any given move is allowed within the game, it will be executed as planned, without fail (unless, of course, the player's arms don't work right.)
InigoMontoya(tm)
InigoMontoya(tm)
Colonel Sanders, prepare to transform the International Space Station into..... Mega Maid!
InigoMontoya(tm)