Generally.. Boo the American government for giving corporations so much power.
Correction. From your point of view, I would think that the problem is that the government hasn't restricted corporations enough, not that it has handed them anything.
These are different situations, since restricting corporations might not always be a good thing, yet giving them power is always decidedly bad.
And the whole government is not to blame for these issues; merely the USPTO and often the judicial branch.
It's pretty simple: you don't know the law. You can be excused for it, of course, because it's not your job (YANAL, I assume).
But what I said wasn't wrong because I don't know the law. More knowledge of the law would make me more inclined to make correct assertions, however look at what the parent said. He said that the Judges knew better than I did, and that I should just shut up and not question why they came to their decision.
No, "monopoly" under the legal or economic definition does not mean there is no choice. You just proved your ignorance of the law.
Read the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Specifically, the section that Microsoft has violated. I think you'll see what I mean.
As the parent pointed out, the economic definition of monopoly has to do with the power to set prices unaffected by the usual free market pressures. You can think of it roughly this way: what would happen if a company doubled their prices overnight? If they're not a monopoly (gas stations, WalMart, long distance providers), they would lose their business, because people would go somewhere else. If they are a monopoly (local power company, local phone company, MS), people would suck it up and pay because they (more-or-less) have to. That's the basic distinction.
Right. And I would argue that were Microsoft to double their prices overnight, Linux and Apple would also double their userbases overnight. Over time, more would switch. Of course, this is merely speculation, and I don't claim it as fact, but it certainly prevents your argument from swaying me.
Monopoly is both a legal and economic concept. In legal terms, this is settled.
So whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision, we must all agree? No thank you, Mr. Ashcroft.
You may know a lot about computers, but I think US Federal judges know more about the law.
Nice appeal to the authority. Care to tell my why I'm wrong?
The economic definition of monopoly is looser than the legal. Anyone with a dominant market position could qualify.
A monopoly means there is no choice. We have choice. Hence, no monopoly in my book.
Its nice that you use only Linux and avoid MS products. That is to be commended. But to extrapolate your experience market-wide is rank arrogance. Just because you personally haven't suffered because of their crimes is entirely irrelevant. If a bank gets robbed, but it wasn't your money, would you argue the robber should get off?
Bad analogy. Again, I don't care if Microsoft software kills people. If you don't have to use it, then you don't have to contribute. If you have to use it, then start by either donating time or money to the guys developing the alternative. Then, if all else fails, I concede that anti-trust laws are necessary.
Microsoft plays hard, and sometimes they play unfair, but they only have as much power over you as you let them.
As an avid Linux user who doesn't use any Microsoft products, allow me to play devil's advocate here: Is Microsoft a monopoly?
Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.
If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly? Some people need Windows to run certain critical applications, in fact almost all corporations do, but the alternative is there.
Microsoft is a powerful mega-giant corporation that has a bunch of power, but why don't we focus our attention on developing alternatives?
It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their products, then we won't need to resort to getting Washington to do it.
Corporations are starting to get royally pissed at Microsoft. They're using their corprorate dollars to fund alternatives and migrate away from Windows at least in the server room. Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.
I understood what he was saying. Trust me. The entire movie exudes that philosophy. However, I still thought that a machine would be able to say all that in less than twelve thousand pages of dialogue.
The machines are attacking tomorrow, lets have a Rave.
My lamest part was the freaking architect scene. A bunch of big words that, when spoken quickly and methodically, turn out to be much too long winded for a machine.
Instead of an essay, he could have just said "The first few Matrices failed, because humans needed to have a way out. Every few years, we let all the humans who've gotten out die, and that extra special human, with the help of the Oracle, will end up thinking he's won, but in reality he loses and has to go start a new Zion with a hot chick in leather pants."
Whether or not the headline here on slash was misleading doesn't chage what jc42 is trying to say. Downloads are becoming the new CD single without a doubt.
I agree, but what the grandparent is saying doesn't change the fact that the headline is misleading.
Sure, the submitter didn't really RTFA, but that doesn't make the article or jc42's point less interesting to me - just misrepresented (not a first here, for sure).
Yes, in fact, his point is the only interesting point that can possibly be derived from the article. I'm pretty pissed at BBC for taking an otherwise boring article, and slapping on a ridiculous headline to grab people's attention.
And yet the headline still reads, Legal US Music Downloads Beat CD Sales.
BBC chose the name of the headline, not Hemos, and they chose it to hype up the story to more than it is. Legit downloads beating CD single sales after the discontinuation recording companies even releasing the damn things is not newsworthy. hence the article spun the title around to make the casual reader think that suddenly a new revolution in the music industry was taking place.
When I wrote this, the other posts that said the same thing weren't up yet.
It's not my fault that the story has such a patently false and misleading title that will cause instant uproar. Mod me back down, but don't take it below that. Given how many folks don't read the article, how was I supposed to know fifty other people would pipe in with the same thing?
Consider the headline, Legal US Music Downloads Beat CD Sales. Come on, even if legit downloads go on to replace CDs, it's not like they have already, which is what both the headline and the article imply with the title.
Some 7.7 million tracks were bought and downloaded since the end of June - compared with four million CD singles sold, Billboard magazine reported.
If I recall correctly, CD singles usually are bundled with a few other miscellaneous tracks, AND cost more than a dollar to purchase. Suppose a CD single costs 2$. In which case the record companies have made 7.7 million dollars off of legit downloading (99 cents a pop), and eight million dollars off of CD singles.
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
As an American who uses while all the time, I think "whilst" makes "while" unambiguous.
A: I carry weights around while I walk, and get strenght training at the same tame as a good cardio workout.
B: Whilst you do get an added bonus of strenght training, the increased difficulty forces your cells to work anaerobically, and thus you lose some of the cardio workout.
So "while" is supposed to mean "at the same time," and "whilst" is supposed to mean "although." At least that's what I think. I may be completely wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction. From your point of view, I would think that the problem is that the government hasn't restricted corporations enough, not that it has handed them anything.
These are different situations, since restricting corporations might not always be a good thing, yet giving them power is always decidedly bad.
And the whole government is not to blame for these issues; merely the USPTO and often the judicial branch.
Still not working? I think there must be a bug...I thought I enabled them in the first place.
Thx
Dark City is my repsonse to people who claim that The Matrix is the best sci-fi philosophic movie :)
By the way, why would the machines agree to free mankind when they rely on them being hooked up to the Matrix for battery power?
Bush sounds fake, but I guess it's not because of the accent :)
He actually grew up in Maine. It's a fake Texas accent.
But what I said wasn't wrong because I don't know the law. More knowledge of the law would make me more inclined to make correct assertions, however look at what the parent said. He said that the Judges knew better than I did, and that I should just shut up and not question why they came to their decision.
No, "monopoly" under the legal or economic definition does not mean there is no choice. You just proved your ignorance of the law.
Read the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Specifically, the section that Microsoft has violated. I think you'll see what I mean.
As the parent pointed out, the economic definition of monopoly has to do with the power to set prices unaffected by the usual free market pressures. You can think of it roughly this way: what would happen if a company doubled their prices overnight? If they're not a monopoly (gas stations, WalMart, long distance providers), they would lose their business, because people would go somewhere else. If they are a monopoly (local power company, local phone company, MS), people would suck it up and pay because they (more-or-less) have to. That's the basic distinction.
Right. And I would argue that were Microsoft to double their prices overnight, Linux and Apple would also double their userbases overnight. Over time, more would switch. Of course, this is merely speculation, and I don't claim it as fact, but it certainly prevents your argument from swaying me.
So whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision, we must all agree? No thank you, Mr. Ashcroft.
You may know a lot about computers, but I think US Federal judges know more about the law.
Nice appeal to the authority. Care to tell my why I'm wrong?
The economic definition of monopoly is looser than the legal. Anyone with a dominant market position could qualify.
A monopoly means there is no choice. We have choice. Hence, no monopoly in my book.
Its nice that you use only Linux and avoid MS products. That is to be commended. But to extrapolate your experience market-wide is rank arrogance. Just because you personally haven't suffered because of their crimes is entirely irrelevant. If a bank gets robbed, but it wasn't your money, would you argue the robber should get off?
Bad analogy. Again, I don't care if Microsoft software kills people. If you don't have to use it, then you don't have to contribute. If you have to use it, then start by either donating time or money to the guys developing the alternative. Then, if all else fails, I concede that anti-trust laws are necessary.
Microsoft plays hard, and sometimes they play unfair, but they only have as much power over you as you let them.
That was funny, man.
Since I'm sitting here typing this on my Linux machine, my response is no.
If there is a viable alternative to a product, then how can said product have a monopoly? Some people need Windows to run certain critical applications, in fact almost all corporations do, but the alternative is there.
Microsoft is a powerful mega-giant corporation that has a bunch of power, but why don't we focus our attention on developing alternatives?
It is my strong belief that if we the people can stop Microsoft by tying our need to their products, then we won't need to resort to getting Washington to do it.
Corporations are starting to get royally pissed at Microsoft. They're using their corprorate dollars to fund alternatives and migrate away from Windows at least in the server room. Come on, folks, let's take care of this the American way.
Specifically what are you referring to?
I think he was trying to confuse the hell out of him personally.
I find alternative energy sources to be fascinating. I'll be sure and drop by on my next visit.
1) Up in Smoke
2) Half Baked
3) The Wall
4) Reefer Madness
5) Homegrown
Oh wait...
That's a particularly arrogant stance.
I understood what he was saying. Trust me. The entire movie exudes that philosophy. However, I still thought that a machine would be able to say all that in less than twelve thousand pages of dialogue.
As a former resident of Alaska, I must say that had me in stitches.
Alaska is a pretty cool state though...very libertarian.
My lamest part was the freaking architect scene. A bunch of big words that, when spoken quickly and methodically, turn out to be much too long winded for a machine.
Instead of an essay, he could have just said "The first few Matrices failed, because humans needed to have a way out. Every few years, we let all the humans who've gotten out die, and that extra special human, with the help of the Oracle, will end up thinking he's won, but in reality he loses and has to go start a new Zion with a hot chick in leather pants."
I agree, but what the grandparent is saying doesn't change the fact that the headline is misleading.
Sure, the submitter didn't really RTFA, but that doesn't make the article or jc42's point less interesting to me - just misrepresented (not a first here, for sure).
Yes, in fact, his point is the only interesting point that can possibly be derived from the article. I'm pretty pissed at BBC for taking an otherwise boring article, and slapping on a ridiculous headline to grab people's attention.
The submitter just copied BBC's headline.
BBC chose the name of the headline, not Hemos, and they chose it to hype up the story to more than it is. Legit downloads beating CD single sales after the discontinuation recording companies even releasing the damn things is not newsworthy. hence the article spun the title around to make the casual reader think that suddenly a new revolution in the music industry was taking place.
It's not my fault that the story has such a patently false and misleading title that will cause instant uproar. Mod me back down, but don't take it below that. Given how many folks don't read the article, how was I supposed to know fifty other people would pipe in with the same thing?
Consider the headline, Legal US Music Downloads Beat CD Sales. Come on, even if legit downloads go on to replace CDs, it's not like they have already, which is what both the headline and the article imply with the title.
If I recall correctly, CD singles usually are bundled with a few other miscellaneous tracks, AND cost more than a dollar to purchase. Suppose a CD single costs 2$. In which case the record companies have made 7.7 million dollars off of legit downloading (99 cents a pop), and eight million dollars off of CD singles.
As an American who uses while all the time, I think "whilst" makes "while" unambiguous.
A: I carry weights around while I walk, and get strenght training at the same tame as a good cardio workout.
B: Whilst you do get an added bonus of strenght training, the increased difficulty forces your cells to work anaerobically, and thus you lose some of the cardio workout.
So "while" is supposed to mean "at the same time," and "whilst" is supposed to mean "although." At least that's what I think. I may be completely wrong.