Why don't you go back to making jewskin lampshades, you fucking nazi sympathizer!!!!
Look, I don't know what you heard about what my grandfather's company may or may not have done in the 1940's, or whom you heard it from, but I think it's time we put this kind of hatred to rest and concentrated on what really matters - uniting to defend freedom before it's too late.
I'm confused - when did I use the word "holocaust", and when did Slashdot become so censorial? Are we no longer allowed to criticize the President of the United States?
Oh, great, this nutcase gets +2 and they're modding ME down? Damn, sometime some media outlet is going to do a piece about racial prejudice on discussion boards, and Slashdot is going to get a real black eye.
That was not Offtopic! You know, right now we may be so upset over September 11th that we think we should blindly follow everything our leaders say if it will lead to victory over terrorism, but remember this: if we give up our freedoms to destroy terrorism, the terrorists will have won.
OH SHIT! HAHAHAHA! I am laughing so hard I'm crying. I can't breathe!
Shit, I need to take some deep breaths before I can read the rest of that. Shit, man. That was fucking funny.
HAHAHAHA! I started reading again because I wrote this post too fast for the lameness filter, and I got to "2001-01-05 12:13:30 "I am the Goatse.cx man," by CmdrTaco (books,slashdot) (rejected)" and I nearly choked....
I suspect that people who use such poor grammar are treated poorly because they come across as morons.
Read the top of the page again. The submitter didn't make the grammatical error, Cliff did. Cliff is the moron, but luckily he's found an employer that welcomes morons.
Yo, this sucks. Hemos.net is down so I can't find the picture of Sarcasta Fent where you see cleavage and I beat my dick and jizz all over the monitor but right when I'm coming my fucking piece of shit Linux browser switches to a JonKatz article so all I get to blow my load on is some shit about how video gamers are smarter than everyone else so does anyone know of a mirror of some good pictures of Sarcasta?
My point wasn't for or against Jews. I just wanted to point out that someone who talks about "Israeli Christians killing Palestinians" is not fit to be on such a fine site as Slashdot.
Which religion might that be? The Israeli Christian one that exterminates Palestinians?
HAHAHAHA! Yeah, you have to watch out for those "Israeli Christians". I hear they have formed their own branch of Christianity and they call themselves "Jews". You fucking moron.
How about Led Zeppelin's "The Battle of Evermore", or Notorious BIG's "Hypnotize"?
Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit
on
WinXP Security Flaw
·
· Score: -1
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 352 (PDF, 22 pgs, 124 Kb)
pork barrel missiles? is this some new threat to national security?
Yes it is. Muslims can't eat pork, and when they refuse to sell us oil, they have a surplus of barrels. So they put the pork in the barrels and aim it at New York.
Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit
on
al Qaeda Hacks XP?
·
· Score: -1
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 352 (PDF, 22 pgs, 124 Kb)
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 352 (PDF, 22 pgs, 124 Kb)
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I don't know what you heard about what my grandfather's company may or may not have done in the 1940's, or whom you heard it from, but I think it's time we put this kind of hatred to rest and concentrated on what really matters - uniting to defend freedom before it's too late.
I'm confused - when did I use the word "holocaust", and when did Slashdot become so censorial? Are we no longer allowed to criticize the President of the United States?
Oh, great, this nutcase gets +2 and they're modding ME down? Damn, sometime some media outlet is going to do a piece about racial prejudice on discussion boards, and Slashdot is going to get a real black eye.
Just as that kind of ethnic hatred has no place in the Kansas City Royals' front office, so does it not belong on Slashdot.
That was not Offtopic! You know, right now we may be so upset over September 11th that we think we should blindly follow everything our leaders say if it will lead to victory over terrorism, but remember this: if we give up our freedoms to destroy terrorism, the terrorists will have won.
3rd is mine, muddafucka!
This guy rules! Why can't HE be President instead of that thief Bush?!
OH SHIT! HAHAHAHA! I am laughing so hard I'm crying. I can't breathe!
Shit, I need to take some deep breaths before I can read the rest of that. Shit, man. That was fucking funny.
HAHAHAHA! I started reading again because I wrote this post too fast for the lameness filter, and I got to "2001-01-05 12:13:30 "I am the Goatse.cx man," by CmdrTaco (books,slashdot) (rejected)" and I nearly choked....
Read the top of the page again. The submitter didn't make the grammatical error, Cliff did. Cliff is the moron, but luckily he's found an employer that welcomes morons.
X10 equipment?! At last, I can see some naked chicks!
Yo, this sucks. Hemos.net is down so I can't find the picture of Sarcasta Fent where you see cleavage and I beat my dick and jizz all over the monitor but right when I'm coming my fucking piece of shit Linux browser switches to a JonKatz article so all I get to blow my load on is some shit about how video gamers are smarter than everyone else so does anyone know of a mirror of some good pictures of Sarcasta?
My point wasn't for or against Jews. I just wanted to point out that someone who talks about "Israeli Christians killing Palestinians" is not fit to be on such a fine site as Slashdot.
HAHAHAHA! Yeah, you have to watch out for those "Israeli Christians". I hear they have formed their own branch of Christianity and they call themselves "Jews". You fucking moron.
There must be a lot of niggers in Russia.
How about Led Zeppelin's "The Battle of Evermore", or Notorious BIG's "Hypnotize"?
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 352 (PDF, 22 pgs, 124 Kb)
You have been trolled.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 352 (PDF, 22 pgs, 124 Kb)
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 352 (PDF, 22 pgs, 124 Kb)
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 352 (PDF, 22 pgs, 124 Kb)
Welcome to the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wakeup call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself, a year into probably the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation.
Antitrust law aside, the principle of the matter is simple: Microsoft created its operating system and has a right to sell the system as it sees fit. But antitrust law pays little attention to such niceties as property rights. Instead, the reigning shibboleths are economic efficiency and consumer welfare. The antitrust questions, therefore, are whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it's misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn't worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, and no.
Microsoft is behaving not like a monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its prices are down and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an explosion of software innovation. Facing competition from new operating systems, consumer electronics, and Web-based servers, Microsoft now operates in a world where anyone running a browser will soon have the same capabilities as today's Windows user.
Meanwhile, antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market. It's time for our government to acknowledge that bankrupt antitrust doctrine is destructive of a modern Internet economy.
Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit
Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit
You're right! Freedom has been upheld! Take that, Osama!