"and then ask them why we have to pay taxes on our estates when we die"
You don't. Heck, how could you? You're dead. Sure, your heirs have to pay taxes on the money they inherit (after the first couple truckfulls), but they are not you. Republicans and others opposed to taxes whether they make sense or not clearly have trouble grasping this "seperate legal entities" concept. Hence their innacurate charachterisations of the "death tax" (it's an inheritance tax), and "double taxation" of dividends. Dividends are taxed once, corporate profits are taxed once, they are income for different legal entities; If you don't like it, you are free to form a partnership instead of a corporation. That's what they're for.
Bill generally says a lot of things, and says several in this interview, that reflect a point of view regarding Microsoft that you'd expect from, well, Bill Gates. For an obective viepoint on a company, its founder is just not a good choice.
But I think you (and others) are off base in your critsism of the "bet the company" comments:
"You bet on the 16-bit PC? 640k jokes aside, what other options were there at the time?"
8-bit, which most personal computer software customers owned. This wasn't today, where moving up from 32 to 64 bits is only a question of "when"; this was the first doubling. Plenty of MS customers probably didn't see the need for 16 bit. The "bet" wasn't supporting 16 bit, it was not supporting 8-bit.
"GUI? Xerox/Mac beat you to it, and it was popular before you did it." Sure, Mac had it, and a lot of people I knew derided it as a toy, and told Mac people to "get a real computer". Again, MS had a lot of customers who liked the command line. (I understand there are still fans of CLIs in existance, bizzare as it might seem). The "bet" was not on providing a GUI, it was on dropping the CLI.
"NT tech? Hello, you stabbed 32-bit OS/2 in the back" If by "stabbed in the back", you mean they decided it wasn't the way to, and that IBM was screwing it up (particularly the marketing), so they dropped it. They "bet" that NT could beat OS/2, despite OS/2 having a big head start, including a bunch of their own sunk costs.
"BG:..." "Is it just me, or was he struggling?..." No, he's not struggling. He says license costs are at most 3% of any IT project. MS based or not. I don't know where he gets that number, but it sounds reasonable to me (and I expect Bill has decent research on such things). He's saying he can't compete with linux on "price" (obviously), but he can compete on "cost" if he makes software that saves you that 3% (or more) in other areas.
"Very interesting that he seems to admit they might consider it at all" Of course they'd consider it. MS doesn't do the things they do (good, bad, or ugly), as part of some vendetta. They do them to make money. If they think they can make more money porting apps to Linux than not, they'll do it. The figure of speach here is "no consideration". Bill means "less than a minute of thought per year", which is all it should take anyone to figure out MS isn't going to make any money porting stuff to Linux given the current state of market shares, user bases, etc.
There is also a thing called "scheduled maintenance" where I bring my car in to the dealer and they do stuff to it (including changing the oil). I don't doubt that they open the hood to do these things, but I have never seen it first hand. Any day now my car will be due for an oil change, but the dealer won't have any other reason to touch it. At that point I suppose I'll find out whether my hood is welded shut, if I change it myself. Then again, I'll probably just assume the Jiffy Lube guy opened the hood, and still not know from first hand experience.
I call it probably misconfigured hardware, if not straight out bullshit. My XP box has never crashed, yet I pin the CPU regularly, so I don't think "load" is the issue. Anyway, the point is that if your software works for a particular task today, it is not going to eventually fail at that same task due to wear-and-tear.
I'm just saying it bugs me when OSS advocates say "Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" because my answer is "Yes, that would be great." In fact, I've had my current car for two years now, and as far as I know, the hood IS welded shut.
I hate that analogy. I'm not arguing against OSS here, just the analogy:
Cars, under normal use, eventually break down. Software does not. If my car could reasonably be expected to keep doing the same things it did on the test drive, forever, I would indeed not care if I could open the hood. I don't think I've ever gotten a "new feature" for my car, and a "bugfix" would be analagous to a recall for a faulty part: I expect the original manufaturer to handle it. Typical car repairs due to wear-and-tear just don't have an equivalent in software. I do not care if I can open the hood of my car for the same reason most people don't care if they have the source of their software. I know as little about car engines as they do about programming.
"Imagine if all song-swapping WAS shut down by the RIAA"
OK, I'm imagining it.
"who then had total control over both supply and pricing."
Which would make sense, since they own the product.
"Supply goes down, but demand is likely to stay the same, therefore it becomes profitable to charge high prices for files"
You have a good grasp of the economics, assuming demand stays the same (unlikely if they raise prices).
"more than the market would bear, were free files still available"
'What the market would bear, if the product were available free'... Let me think about what that value might be... give me a minute... OK, I'm going with 'nothing'.
"That may indeed be part of what they have in mind."
Trying to set the price for their own product, those nefarious dogs.
Look, the RIAA does not own all music. To prove it, I'm singing a little tune while I write this. (Since this is a text medium, you can't hear it, but given my singing, that's actually a good thing) The RIAA (or rather its members) have made legal contracts with a bunch of artists. They own the rights to the songs. The artists may have been stupid when they signed up. (they probably were; The major labels only make real money on the ones who make it mega-big, so naturally they set up their contracts so that they get paid first if you only make it kinda-big. Most artists want to make it mega-big, and against logic believe they will.) None the less, the members of the RIAA have every right to set whatever prices they want on products they own. You have every right to not buy at that price. You have no right to take it for free because you feel like it.
Right. Well, I did read his post, dumbass, and if you had bothered to think while reading mine, you'd understand that I am saying, "What the hell does a hypothetical that never has happened or will happen have to do with anything?" See, he was claiming some sort of authority because he was a "former grunt", and I was calling that into question by pointing out that his silly concocted example had no relationship to anything he, or any other grunt, had had to deal with. Next time I'll spell it out in a long boring paragraph full of small words so you'll understand. And I'll be sure to emphasize every other word with asterisks.
Nobody is "hacking" in a foxhole under fire. If anyone is using a computer under those conditions at all, it's to glance briefly at some app displaying tactical info. Maybe. The Army does a lot of things bass-ackwards, but one thing they're pretty good with is what you should be doing in a foxhole while being shot at. Using a keyboard is not on the list.
Are these questions really meant to be a rebuttal?
"Why should a company that sells an operating system package whatever programs they want onto it?" Because they want to.
"Why should a company that sells an operating system package their programs onto it?" Because it makes good business sense.
"With their ISP on it." Definitely makes good business sense.
"Go to Best Buy/Frys/Compusa and find me a single computer with JUST windows on it." Why?
"It should be sold stand alone, and not bundled." So start a company selling an OS, and have at it.
"I still find software on my pc I didn't know that I had (read: paid for)" You decided to pay the asked for price for the pc, not knowing that software was there. I'd say you didn't pay for it.
Providing a bunch of software you'd like people to use along with the OS isn't wrong any more than other sensible business practices are wrong. You, the customer, can consider those programs when deciding whether to buy or not, depending on their value (if any) to you. Heck, I'd say it's not even wrong to be such a successful company that you dominate your market. Which is not to say that the government shouldn't step in and attempt to restore competition...
"I won't deny that the efforts to stop smoking have been more effective than those used to stop illegal drug use, but they're hardly the same sort of market. Unless you legalize the drugs... "
Bingo! They are exactly the same sort of market, except that drugs are illegal. If we were serious about reducing drug use, the sensible thing to do would be to legalize, regulate and tax them. Which is what I advocate.
As far as your other comments, should we try to address other activities/substances that are harmful to public health? Probably. And in many cases we do. Caffiene levels are regulated. Emissions levels are regulated and taxed (or at least, I got a pretty decent tax rebate because my car has very low emmisions, which amounts to the same thing). As hazards to public health though, the other things you mention don't compare to cigarettes; not even all together.
Actually, I was comparing tactics used regarding cigarettes to those used regarding illegal drugs. This thread went off the RIAA topic several levels back, but each reply was legitimately on-topic relative to it's parent, so the whiner who didn't bother to read the whole thread should definitely get a life.
Anyway, I think my assertion that the tactics used to reduce smoking (education, taxation, regulation) have been far more effective than those used to curb illegal drug use (outright prohibition) can hardly be called "woefully inaccurate". Despite an expolding prison population and the expenditure of billions a year, about the only effect on the illegal drug trade is that it is more violent; usage rates are unaffected. By contrast, cigarette smoking is way down, without throwing anyone in jail. Is it unfair to tax a product people are addicted to? Does it cause a possible conflict of interest for the government agencies recieving the funds? Maybe. But I'd rather be dealing with those issues than throwing cigarette sellers and smokers in jail without reducing smoking. And the same goes for pot sellers and smokers.
So you've found yourself trying to hack into a computer (controlling the power grid presumably?) while under fire in order to turn the lights off so you won't be seen by someone who is already shooting at you? I find this unlikely. If true, I'm wondering why a grenade thrown at a transformer (or even the guy shooting at you), or a bullet at the light bulb (or even the guy shooting at you), would not have been more expeditious?
There's pretty much always been a tax-evading black market for pretty much anything taxed. But it's nothing like the black market for drugs. People will deal with scary criminals with guns if it's the only way to get their fix. But to save a buck on a pack of cigarettes? For legal, but taxed and regulated products, the profits for dealing them illegaly are strictly limited.
As well they should (IMO). Cigarette smoking is a huge public health problem, and the costs of that problem are borne by society via the government.
If you want to reduce the level of an economic activity (selling cigarettes or drugs), the effective things you can do are reduce demand (through education and increased prices due to taxation), and introduce artificial inefficiencies (taxation again). Cigarrette smoking is way down, without throwing anyone in jail.
Trying to reduce supply just makes the remaining suppliers more profitable. Making the activity illegal removes your ability to regulate and tax it, and means all the profits go to those willing to break the law (and presumably more willing to break other laws, such as the one about drive by shootings as a competitive strategy).
"However, for drugs, I can perfectly understand it is illegal to sell them. Basically you make someone addicted to your product, and than increase the price."
I've noticed that's a big problem with Alchohol and Caffiene...
The P2P "dealers" aren't getting paid. They're just doing it for the hell of it, so it's not necessarily likely others will step in to fill their shoes. So the analogy with drug dealers is flawed. Which is good.
The rest of this is OT, but I can't help myself:
"You don't target the users, you target the dealers"
That's the conventional wisdom certainly. It's also incredibly stupid. Level of drug use is unaffected; the demand is still there, but supply is down, so dealing becomes more profitable. Dealing is taken over by those with less to lose and/or greater desperation. Haven't had a lot of violent gang wars over alchohol selling turf since the end of prohibition have we? Nor did prohibition put any dent in alchoholism (expansion of treatment programs has).
Well, you touched a nerve justifying anything by analogy with US drug enforcement; you'd want to look to the drug war only if you want a model of how to spend millions of dollars every year, and imprison huge numbers of people, all while making the problem worse.
"Of course, one has to question the logic of 'We're going to sue them so that they'll buy our CDs.'"
Flawed or not, I think their logic is: "We're going to sue those P2P users who host large collections of copy protected music, so they'll stop. We think this means that the vast majority of P2P users, who mostly just download, will buy more CDs."
I don't think they are right in their conclusion, but from what I've seen, they probably are right in their premise: P2P users are not all the same. Most just download, some host a few files. A small number host enormous collections, and it is from these that most downloads happen. They want to sue the distributors, so the recipients will buy more CDs.
"who am I to tell them, I am the person, that might or might not buy there stuff."
So don't buy their stuff. If you want to read reviews, ask friends, listen to the radio, no one has a problem with that. If you want to download it illegally, they say no, and it is their stuff.
Yes, of course. The original poster phrased it wrong, and I didn't feel like correcting him. My point remains: If shareholders dividends aren't going to be taxed, the shareholders should be considered part of the same leagl entity, as in a partnership instead of a corporation; so the shareholders should be liable for the companies actions. I guess that would do a good job on cleaning up corporate scandals, but I suppose scaring away every last scrap of capital from the stock market wouldn't be worth it...
"corporations are granted lability exemptions by the government only because they supposedly provide benefit to the public"
They benefit the public because as a legal entity seperate from the individuals holding shares, they must pay taxes seperately, and in addition to those paid by the individuals. Except that Bush is trying to do away with that. Not sure why he thinks corporations should get liability protection in that case...
Even if I buy a new house, it will probably come with a bunch of stuff that isn't quite the way I'd like. I wouldn't call that a tax. Rather it is the price of not going through the hassle of buying an empty lot and building the house myself. Most vendors include a modem, which I don't need. I don't call that a "modem tax".
Your parents Dell HD broke down due to an incompatibility with windows? The poster was saying Dell might use shoddier parts than you, but they do make sure they work with windows.
So now recall your history, and decide if he's making a reference to the "Pax Romanus". Yes, of course it literally meant "Roman Peace", but you only had to look at Britain, Gaul, etc. to see that "Globulus Dominatus Romanus" would have been a better term.
There's this thing called "irony". You may wish to look it up, lest you critisize those who are making your very point, but more effectively.
The reason I don't find hardware compelling is that you can spend a lot of time and money carefully piecing together your home brew system that's hot stuff for the latest games, and I can wait a year and buy something better off the shelf for the same money.
"Piecing toghether your own system with carefully selected components is very geeky. Buying a standard Compaq is not."
I agree, but just because I'm a geek doesn't mean I have to be geeky in all respects. Still, I prefer not to be stupid. Buying the Compaq was stupid. Next time I'll go with something less proprietary, but I'll still let someone else put it together.
"I agree that software is just as important but the hardware makes all the difference in the world"
A very short time in the future, the difference between your hardware and mine will look trivial.
I do actually like playing with hardware, but I like to do it with a soldering iron in hand. Otherwise I'm just sticking together someone elses prefab, stock components. What's the fun in that? Dealing with compatibility hassles? No thanks. I'm not about to solder together a PC, or even any significant component of one, so at that point, why not let some one else stick the cards in the slots? Sure, if you want to get that last few percent closer to the cutting edge. But that looks to me like a losing game, the edge will leave you behind faster than I at least can pay to keep up.
"Well, it does. Move to Chicago. It's so good you won't mind the commute"
Too late, I moved to Boulder. It's really good, but I still hate commuting. I mean, sometimes there's a couple strollers walking abreast on the bike path, and it takes me 12 minutes to get to work instead of ten.:) Seriously, people here complain about bad traffic, and they're talking about 20 minutes to drive across town. As a former resident of the DC area (bad traffic = half of waking hours in car), I just smile sympathetically.
I've never lived in California, and it's a big place to say it sucks categorically. I've also never lived in Chicago, though I hear it's nice. But I'll take a place where I can sleep, work, shop, in short live, without wasting hours driving in between.
Slashdot Mirror
"and then ask them why we have to pay taxes on our estates when we die"
You don't. Heck, how could you? You're dead. Sure, your heirs have to pay taxes on the money they inherit (after the first couple truckfulls), but they are not you. Republicans and others opposed to taxes whether they make sense or not clearly have trouble grasping this "seperate legal entities" concept. Hence their innacurate charachterisations of the "death tax" (it's an inheritance tax), and "double taxation" of dividends. Dividends are taxed once, corporate profits are taxed once, they are income for different legal entities; If you don't like it, you are free to form a partnership instead of a corporation. That's what they're for.
Bill generally says a lot of things, and says several in this interview, that reflect a point of view regarding Microsoft that you'd expect from, well, Bill Gates. For an obective viepoint on a company, its founder is just not a good choice.
..." ..."
But I think you (and others) are off base in your critsism of the "bet the company" comments:
"You bet on the 16-bit PC? 640k jokes aside, what other options were there at the time?"
8-bit, which most personal computer software customers owned. This wasn't today, where moving up from 32 to 64 bits is only a question of "when"; this was the first doubling. Plenty of MS customers probably didn't see the need for 16 bit. The "bet" wasn't supporting 16 bit, it was not supporting 8-bit.
"GUI? Xerox/Mac beat you to it, and it was popular before you did it."
Sure, Mac had it, and a lot of people I knew derided it as a toy, and told Mac people to "get a real computer". Again, MS had a lot of customers who liked the command line. (I understand there are still fans of CLIs in existance, bizzare as it might seem). The "bet" was not on providing a GUI, it was on dropping the CLI.
"NT tech? Hello, you stabbed 32-bit OS/2 in the back"
If by "stabbed in the back", you mean they decided it wasn't the way to, and that IBM was screwing it up (particularly the marketing), so they dropped it. They "bet" that NT could beat OS/2, despite OS/2 having a big head start, including a bunch of their own sunk costs.
"BG:
"Is it just me, or was he struggling?
No, he's not struggling. He says license costs are at most 3% of any IT project. MS based or not. I don't know where he gets that number, but it sounds reasonable to me (and I expect Bill has decent research on such things). He's saying he can't compete with linux on "price" (obviously), but he can compete on "cost" if he makes software that saves you that 3% (or more) in other areas.
"Very interesting that he seems to admit they might consider it at all"
Of course they'd consider it. MS doesn't do the things they do (good, bad, or ugly), as part of some vendetta. They do them to make money. If they think they can make more money porting apps to Linux than not, they'll do it. The figure of speach here is "no consideration". Bill means "less than a minute of thought per year", which is all it should take anyone to figure out MS isn't going to make any money porting stuff to Linux given the current state of market shares, user bases, etc.
There is also a thing called "scheduled maintenance" where I bring my car in to the dealer and they do stuff to it (including changing the oil). I don't doubt that they open the hood to do these things, but I have never seen it first hand. Any day now my car will be due for an oil change, but the dealer won't have any other reason to touch it. At that point I suppose I'll find out whether my hood is welded shut, if I change it myself. Then again, I'll probably just assume the Jiffy Lube guy opened the hood, and still not know from first hand experience.
I call it probably misconfigured hardware, if not straight out bullshit. My XP box has never crashed, yet I pin the CPU regularly, so I don't think "load" is the issue. Anyway, the point is that if your software works for a particular task today, it is not going to eventually fail at that same task due to wear-and-tear.
I'm just saying it bugs me when OSS advocates say "Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" because my answer is "Yes, that would be great." In fact, I've had my current car for two years now, and as far as I know, the hood IS welded shut.
I hate that analogy. I'm not arguing against OSS here, just the analogy:
Cars, under normal use, eventually break down. Software does not. If my car could reasonably be expected to keep doing the same things it did on the test drive, forever, I would indeed not care if I could open the hood. I don't think I've ever gotten a "new feature" for my car, and a "bugfix" would be analagous to a recall for a faulty part: I expect the original manufaturer to handle it. Typical car repairs due to wear-and-tear just don't have an equivalent in software.
I do not care if I can open the hood of my car for the same reason most people don't care if they have the source of their software. I know as little about car engines as they do about programming.
"Imagine if all song-swapping WAS shut down by the RIAA"
OK, I'm imagining it.
"who then had total control over both supply and pricing."
Which would make sense, since they own the product.
"Supply goes down, but demand is likely to stay the same, therefore it becomes profitable to charge high prices for files"
You have a good grasp of the economics, assuming demand stays the same (unlikely if they raise prices).
"more than the market would bear, were free files still available"
'What the market would bear, if the product were available free'... Let me think about what that value might be... give me a minute... OK, I'm going with 'nothing'.
"That may indeed be part of what they have in mind."
Trying to set the price for their own product, those nefarious dogs.
Look, the RIAA does not own all music. To prove it, I'm singing a little tune while I write this. (Since this is a text medium, you can't hear it, but given my singing, that's actually a good thing) The RIAA (or rather its members) have made legal contracts with a bunch of artists. They own the rights to the songs. The artists may have been stupid when they signed up. (they probably were; The major labels only make real money on the ones who make it mega-big, so naturally they set up their contracts so that they get paid first if you only make it kinda-big. Most artists want to make it mega-big, and against logic believe they will.) None the less, the members of the RIAA have every right to set whatever prices they want on products they own. You have every right to not buy at that price. You have no right to take it for free because you feel like it.
Right. Well, I did read his post, dumbass, and if you had bothered to think while reading mine, you'd understand that I am saying, "What the hell does a hypothetical that never has happened or will happen have to do with anything?" See, he was claiming some sort of authority because he was a "former grunt", and I was calling that into question by pointing out that his silly concocted example had no relationship to anything he, or any other grunt, had had to deal with. Next time I'll spell it out in a long boring paragraph full of small words so you'll understand. And I'll be sure to emphasize every other word with asterisks.
Nobody is "hacking" in a foxhole under fire. If anyone is using a computer under those conditions at all, it's to glance briefly at some app displaying tactical info. Maybe. The Army does a lot of things bass-ackwards, but one thing they're pretty good with is what you should be doing in a foxhole while being shot at. Using a keyboard is not on the list.
Are these questions really meant to be a rebuttal?
"Why should a company that sells an operating system package whatever programs they want onto it?"
Because they want to.
"Why should a company that sells an operating system package their programs onto it?"
Because it makes good business sense.
"With their ISP on it."
Definitely makes good business sense.
"Go to Best Buy/Frys/Compusa and find me a single computer with JUST windows on it."
Why?
"It should be sold stand alone, and not bundled."
So start a company selling an OS, and have at it.
"I still find software on my pc I didn't know that I had (read: paid for)"
You decided to pay the asked for price for the pc, not knowing that software was there. I'd say you didn't pay for it.
Providing a bunch of software you'd like people to use along with the OS isn't wrong any more than other sensible business practices are wrong. You, the customer, can consider those programs when deciding whether to buy or not, depending on their value (if any) to you. Heck, I'd say it's not even wrong to be such a successful company that you dominate your market. Which is not to say that the government shouldn't step in and attempt to restore competition...
"I won't deny that the efforts to stop smoking have been more effective than those used to stop illegal drug use, but they're hardly the same sort of market. Unless you legalize the drugs... "
Bingo! They are exactly the same sort of market, except that drugs are illegal. If we were serious about reducing drug use, the sensible thing to do would be to legalize, regulate and tax them. Which is what I advocate.
As far as your other comments, should we try to address other activities/substances that are harmful to public health? Probably. And in many cases we do. Caffiene levels are regulated. Emissions levels are regulated and taxed (or at least, I got a pretty decent tax rebate because my car has very low emmisions, which amounts to the same thing). As hazards to public health though, the other things you mention don't compare to cigarettes; not even all together.
Actually, I was comparing tactics used regarding cigarettes to those used regarding illegal drugs. This thread went off the RIAA topic several levels back, but each reply was legitimately on-topic relative to it's parent, so the whiner who didn't bother to read the whole thread should definitely get a life.
Anyway, I think my assertion that the tactics used to reduce smoking (education, taxation, regulation) have been far more effective than those used to curb illegal drug use (outright prohibition) can hardly be called "woefully inaccurate". Despite an expolding prison population and the expenditure of billions a year, about the only effect on the illegal drug trade is that it is more violent; usage rates are unaffected. By contrast, cigarette smoking is way down, without throwing anyone in jail. Is it unfair to tax a product people are addicted to? Does it cause a possible conflict of interest for the government agencies recieving the funds? Maybe. But I'd rather be dealing with those issues than throwing cigarette sellers and smokers in jail without reducing smoking. And the same goes for pot sellers and smokers.
So you've found yourself trying to hack into a computer (controlling the power grid presumably?) while under fire in order to turn the lights off so you won't be seen by someone who is already shooting at you? I find this unlikely. If true, I'm wondering why a grenade thrown at a transformer (or even the guy shooting at you), or a bullet at the light bulb (or even the guy shooting at you), would not have been more expeditious?
This might be true in other government departments, but year after year Congress gives the Pentagon more money than they ask for.
There's pretty much always been a tax-evading black market for pretty much anything taxed. But it's nothing like the black market for drugs. People will deal with scary criminals with guns if it's the only way to get their fix. But to save a buck on a pack of cigarettes? For legal, but taxed and regulated products, the profits for dealing them illegaly are strictly limited.
As well they should (IMO). Cigarette smoking is a huge public health problem, and the costs of that problem are borne by society via the government.
If you want to reduce the level of an economic activity (selling cigarettes or drugs), the effective things you can do are reduce demand (through education and increased prices due to taxation), and introduce artificial inefficiencies (taxation again). Cigarrette smoking is way down, without throwing anyone in jail.
Trying to reduce supply just makes the remaining suppliers more profitable. Making the activity illegal removes your ability to regulate and tax it, and means all the profits go to those willing to break the law (and presumably more willing to break other laws, such as the one about drive by shootings as a competitive strategy).
"However, for drugs, I can perfectly understand it is illegal to sell them. Basically you make someone addicted to your product, and than increase the price."
I've noticed that's a big problem with Alchohol and Caffiene...
The P2P "dealers" aren't getting paid. They're just doing it for the hell of it, so it's not necessarily likely others will step in to fill their shoes. So the analogy with drug dealers is flawed. Which is good.
The rest of this is OT, but I can't help myself:
"You don't target the users, you target the dealers"
That's the conventional wisdom certainly. It's also incredibly stupid. Level of drug use is unaffected; the demand is still there, but supply is down, so dealing becomes more profitable. Dealing is taken over by those with less to lose and/or greater desperation. Haven't had a lot of violent gang wars over alchohol selling turf since the end of prohibition have we? Nor did prohibition put any dent in alchoholism (expansion of treatment programs has).
Well, you touched a nerve justifying anything by analogy with US drug enforcement; you'd want to look to the drug war only if you want a model of how to spend millions of dollars every year, and imprison huge numbers of people, all while making the problem worse.
"Of course, one has to question the logic of 'We're going to sue them so that they'll buy our CDs.'"
Flawed or not, I think their logic is: "We're going to sue those P2P users who host large collections of copy protected music, so they'll stop. We think this means that the vast majority of P2P users, who mostly just download, will buy more CDs."
I don't think they are right in their conclusion, but from what I've seen, they probably are right in their premise: P2P users are not all the same. Most just download, some host a few files. A small number host enormous collections, and it is from these that most downloads happen. They want to sue the distributors, so the recipients will buy more CDs.
"who am I to tell them, I am the person, that might or might not buy there stuff."
So don't buy their stuff. If you want to read reviews, ask friends, listen to the radio, no one has a problem with that. If you want to download it illegally, they say no, and it is their stuff.
Yes, of course. The original poster phrased it wrong, and I didn't feel like correcting him. My point remains: If shareholders dividends aren't going to be taxed, the shareholders should be considered part of the same leagl entity, as in a partnership instead of a corporation; so the shareholders should be liable for the companies actions. I guess that would do a good job on cleaning up corporate scandals, but I suppose scaring away every last scrap of capital from the stock market wouldn't be worth it...
"corporations are granted lability exemptions by the government only because they supposedly provide benefit to the public"
They benefit the public because as a legal entity seperate from the individuals holding shares, they must pay taxes seperately, and in addition to those paid by the individuals. Except that Bush is trying to do away with that. Not sure why he thinks corporations should get liability protection in that case...
Even if I buy a new house, it will probably come with a bunch of stuff that isn't quite the way I'd like. I wouldn't call that a tax. Rather it is the price of not going through the hassle of buying an empty lot and building the house myself. Most vendors include a modem, which I don't need. I don't call that a "modem tax".
Your parents Dell HD broke down due to an incompatibility with windows? The poster was saying Dell might use shoddier parts than you, but they do make sure they work with windows.
So now recall your history, and decide if he's making a reference to the "Pax Romanus". Yes, of course it literally meant "Roman Peace", but you only had to look at Britain, Gaul, etc. to see that "Globulus Dominatus Romanus" would have been a better term.
There's this thing called "irony". You may wish to look it up, lest you critisize those who are making your very point, but more effectively.
And so your comments are relevant to a discussion of HOV lanes because...
You misquoted me:
"From a geeks perspective"
I said:
"From this geeks perspective"
The reason I don't find hardware compelling is that you can spend a lot of time and money carefully piecing together your home brew system that's hot stuff for the latest games, and I can wait a year and buy something better off the shelf for the same money.
"Piecing toghether your own system with carefully selected components is very geeky. Buying a standard Compaq is not."
I agree, but just because I'm a geek doesn't mean I have to be geeky in all respects. Still, I prefer not to be stupid. Buying the Compaq was stupid. Next time I'll go with something less proprietary, but I'll still let someone else put it together.
"I agree that software is just as important but the hardware makes all the difference in the world"
A very short time in the future, the difference between your hardware and mine will look trivial.
I do actually like playing with hardware, but I like to do it with a soldering iron in hand. Otherwise I'm just sticking together someone elses prefab, stock components. What's the fun in that? Dealing with compatibility hassles? No thanks. I'm not about to solder together a PC, or even any significant component of one, so at that point, why not let some one else stick the cards in the slots? Sure, if you want to get that last few percent closer to the cutting edge. But that looks to me like a losing game, the edge will leave you behind faster than I at least can pay to keep up.
You mean derogatory as in, "California sucks?"
:) Seriously, people here complain about bad traffic, and they're talking about 20 minutes to drive across town. As a former resident of the DC area (bad traffic = half of waking hours in car), I just smile sympathetically.
Well, yeah.
"Well, it does. Move to Chicago. It's so good you won't mind the commute"
Too late, I moved to Boulder. It's really good, but I still hate commuting. I mean, sometimes there's a couple strollers walking abreast on the bike path, and it takes me 12 minutes to get to work instead of ten.
I've never lived in California, and it's a big place to say it sucks categorically. I've also never lived in Chicago, though I hear it's nice. But I'll take a place where I can sleep, work, shop, in short live, without wasting hours driving in between.