How do you feel about congestion pricing in cities such as New York or London?
I would be willing to accept congestion pricing if (and that is a BIG if here in the United States) a high-quality mass transportation option was available as an effective alternative for commuters. However, as you have pointed out the current situation in the most of the United States is anything but so I cannot support congestion pricing, in practice, until the deplorable situation with public transportation here in the United States is remedied. The details of how that might be done are for another discussion, but I do not believe that we can have higher gasoline taxes, congestion pricing, or any other government interventions to discourage or increase the cost of car trips until there are viable alternatives for commuters. To do otherwise would be extremely damaging to the economy in the short and medium terms.
I didn't say it would solve our climatic change problem. IMHO it's already too late for that.
So why consider carbon taxes at all if they will not change anything proportional to their costs? If we are all damned anyway by climate change then why not enjoy what we can while we still have it? Why should we make sacrifices in our economy, which cannot afford them, if those sacrifices will ultimately be in vain? Obama, for all of his glibness, will have a very difficult time selling austerity to the American people for in exchange for insubstantial or dubious benefits.
This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that doesn't tax its companies.
Which is why carbon taxes will never work, or at least not in any sort of timeframe that would make a difference and help us avoid the most severe environmental consequences. As long as China and India take the, "you in the west had your century of emissions and economic growth and now we want ours" approach anything that we do in the United States to mitigate greenhouse gases with a global effect will be completely nullified and canceled out by economic growth in China and India from new dirty coal fired plants (China was, before the economic slump, building a new coal fired power plant every few days now on average) and other 20th century "business as usual". Personally, I don't think that the world will be able to avoid any significant consequences from climate change by changing our ways (which we seem unable to do without violence). I think that at some point during this next century the population will stabilize at a new equilibrium after mass starvation, resource wars, and other nastiness brings the human population level back in line with what a hotter and more arid Earth can support. The Chinese especially will never agree to change their ways (especially if doing so would tamp down economic growth and prevent the bread and circuses situation from continuing) and if you doubt that then look at what happened the last time the people in China proposed a serious change (i.e. Tiananmen).
My fairly straightforward commute to work (25 minutes by car, basically on one road) took over 2 hours by bus.
Which is precisely why most working people cannot use the bus or any other public transportation for commuting purposes. The bottom line with public transportation is that it must make sense and be competitive on the merits (i.e. no government mandates that people cannot drive on certain days or similar bullshit) or the commuting public will stay in their cars. Personally, it would take a lot more than $5 per gallon gas to get me out of my car (which is fast, clean, fuel-efficient, and private) and especially if the alternative is our present public transportation fiasco. The greenies and the public transportation boosters spend too much time, IMHO, trying to make cars inconvenient (i.e. traffic calming, even/odd day bans on cars in urban areas, high petrol taxes, etc) instead of trying to improve public transportation and make it more appealing. This "hair shirt" approach to getting people to "choose" (is it really a "choice" if one is forced?) public transportation is a big part of what turns the car people off to the whole idea (among other undesirable attributes of public mass transit).
Perhaps the both of you could buy some shares and submit resolutions at the shareholder meetings? However, if you don't own or control shares then you really shouldn't have any say as an outsider to a private enterprise. I don't know about you two, but when I retire I would like to die someplace warm and how can I do that if the companies in which I invest do not concentrate on maximizing shareholder value? I want share price appreciation (i.e. corporate growth) and dividends not environmental reviews that cost money and do little or nothing to enhance profits. The environment is important (more to some than to others), but the corporate board room is the wrong venue and the law is wise to recognize this.
Even if they were doing it to annoy the defense it should only prove to be a minor hindrance. Consider that a successful defense of Jamie Thomas-Rasset against the RIAA, possibly winding its way to a spectacular conclusion with arguments before the Supreme Court, would boost the career of an enterprising pro-bono attorney tremendously. It could put them on the fast track to partnership in a big firm or, at the very least, increase their profile enough to attract new clients with similar cases and deeper pockets.
Which just goes to show that for all the supposed value of an MBA, people in business still routinely fail to apply even the simplest economics to their own worlds.
What makes you think that they don't understand this perfectly? There are people out there who are dishonest and want to receive a cut of whatever revenue stream looks good to them regardless of whether that is fair or not. This is just plain greed looking for a way to scam or con some revenue out of the used game market. The economists have a name for this sort of behavior too, when someone attempts to use the power of government and the law to extract uncompensated value from society: Rent Seeking.
Some is greater than None. You just showed yourself it does directly lead to more revenue. It's not the primary focus but there is revenue from each sale.
As has been pointed out by the other responders, it does NOT cost Apple nothing to run iTunes, a large commercial web site and download operation, so they are probably fortunate if the small percentage from the ongoing sales is enough to cover their costs. It is similar to the movie theater business model; there is no profit in the box office for the theater owner so the profit must be earned on snacks once they have the captive audience inside the theater. In the case of Apple there is probably no net profit in the music and video download sales so the profit must come from the captive audience purchasing iPods and iPhones to work with iTunes.
Which it still does even if you own a Pre.
Most customers will probably NOT purchase multiple devices to use with iTunes so a Pre sale probably equals a lost iPod or iPhone sale. The Pre is therefore in direct competition with the iPod and iPhone for use the iTunes service and, to add insult to injury, the Pre customers add to the cost of running iTunes by increasing the unprofitable portion of the user base.
It leads to more people buying things from iTunes after all
Which does not directly lead to more revenue for Apple because Apple receives a very low amount of each content sale on iTunes (i.e. think movie theater box office with high priced candy and sodas business model). Apple earns increased revenue when iTunes gives people added incentive to go out and purchase an iPod or an iPhone, it drives hardware sales where Apple makes the real money. If other devices free-ride on iTunes AND cut into iPod or iPhone sales then I do not believe that Apple can remain silent for long in the face of declining hardware sales and increased iTunes operating costs.
your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.
So don't deal with them if you can possibly avoid it. Clients like that are probably the demanding and cheap type who annoy the crap out of you and then pay half of what was agreed (after arguing about additions to the requirements or interpretation of same) and late. Leave those sorts of clients to your competitors, they mostly aren't worth the trouble anyway.
If people are concerned about their privacy then why don't they use Firefox, AdBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript? The truly paranoid can download and use Tor as well. Do people have a right to complain if they aren't willing to lift a finger to protect themselves?
Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong NYCL, but I was under the impression that the $750-$150,000 damages were specially established in the copyright laws as a special category of statutory damages for willful copyright infringements. However, it probably also true that copyright should NOT be a special case, or at least not so special when compared to other willful types of damages as to require 2,200+ times more damages. I hope that the Capitol vs Thomas case does eventually (although I do feel for Jammie and the tremendous stress that she must be under during that process) wind its way through to the Supreme Court so that a high precedent can be decided on the damages issue, among others. We shall see in any case.
So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not?
Well I don't know how the justices will choose to interpret the matter, but if I were hearing this case then I would have to say that "no, it is not" for the following reason:
If a particular program is loaded onto a "general purpose" machine, a computer in this case, thereby rendering it fit for a particular purpose that does NOT foreclose the possibility that one may install any number of additional programs with separate purposes on the same computer, up to the limits of the storage device, such that some combination of programs, subject to processing constraints, can be executed simultaneously. If the "general purpose" machine (i.e. the computer) remains capable of executing additional and arbitrary tasks depending upon what additional software is loaded then I would have to say that the computer remains "general purpose" even after software has been loaded. Thus the computer is never, by itself, rendered "particular" enough by loading any one program or even combination of programs since more, subject to the aforementioned constraints, could still be added. It would be necessary to have the computer controlling some external physical device which was NOT "general purpose" in order to qualify for patent protection and even then it would only protect the use of the specific external device in combination with the computer as part of the process but neither, by itself, the computer nor any software running on it.
I don't think that is a fair statement. There are certainly some financial instruments which have a rather dubious value, but it is hard to prove that a particular instrument has no value to any buyers or sellers. The name of the game is credit because without credit there is greatly diminished economic output and growth (since the people with the means and the people with the ability to use them productively are often not the same people in practice). The goal is to distribute just the right amount of credit to the people who can use it most productively by the most efficient means possible. The tools of finance enable us to do this, but like many tools created by man they can be used or abused depending upon who is using them and for what purpose.
Actually, under GPL you are only required to give your changes back if you distribute the modified program to others. You are perfectly free to make changes, keep them private, and enjoy the modified program privately as long as you do NOT distribute. It is the act of distribution that triggers the share and share alike clauses.
It is not so much Obama that we are concerned about, but rather his Vice President, Joe Biden, who has a long history of close and loyal support of entertainment industry interests and presently holds an office which, at least historically, doesn't have too many responsibilities (he breaks tie votes in the Senate). We are concerned that someone like Biden, who has time on his hands to introduce legislation and has the ear of the President, might use his position and the fact that the President is preoccupied with more pressing business to push through some really awful legislation. This is not an illegitimate or merely theoretical concern.
they want a new free, useless desktop widget or application or game produced by a company no one's heard of
You mean like the guy who registered a company name of "ClickYesToContinue" and then got VeriSign to issue him a certificate for active-x control signing?
Thanks for staying with me on this thread and putting up with me btw, I really do appreciate it.
I should put you up against a certain bean counter(s) that I know. If I was an independent dev with clients then I probably would pay for the tools out of pocket, but it is often the case at a small company (of say 10 devs or less) that asking for anything, whether it be a few hundred or few thousand dollars, takes so many steps and has to be approved by the head bean counter (who is in the habit of denying IT purchase requests simply because he doesn't understand them and thinks IT is just a massive cost center) that many devs prefer to find open source or freebies instead since it allows them to cut through the red tape surrounding purchasing.
They tend to have no interest in selling you anything, are disinterested and view your purchases with comtempt
It is interesting to hear you say that because apparently the Comic Book Guy was at least partly inspired by a clerk at the Los Angeles Amok book shop who often: "[Sat] on the high stool, kind of lording over the store with that supercilious attitude and eating behind the counter a big Styrofoam container full of fried clams with a lot of tartar sauce."
How do all of these VCs actually plan to monetize their investments in those cool Web 2.0 names? Do those social networking sites actually make any substantial non-advertising money? In an age when the American consumer is broke and the national credit card is maxed out how can money continue to pour into advertising? Besides, even if the social networking web 2.0 sites do start doing advertising or requiring subscriptions then someone will start up ZigZagZoodilyDoo with no Ads (at least to start) and pull away all of those fickle customers who don't have anything to spend anyway. The whole thing seems almost completely stupid to me. Who can possibly have 1,000+ "friends"? It doesn't make sense ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
Perhaps it could simply be a matter of geography? Although I have not been there personally, I have heard that Norway can be a very cold place for much of the year with even the Springs and Summers being a bit brisk. Now one might expect that hobbies which can be enjoyed indoors might be more widely shared in a country like Norway than say Southern California where there really is no Winter and there are many warm and sunny days all year round which do not favor as many indoor hobbies (or relegate them instead to a more hard core audience).
Yes, I know that, but in order to get a really usable set of core features AND the ability to have add-ons (which are NOT allowed in the express additions, which TestDriven.net learned in their dispute with Microsoft's attorneys) one really has to shell out for the "professional" edition of visual studio which is priced at ~$650 dollars or so. I simply stated that in my opinion, the same combination of features should be available for a lower price. In fact, I would probably be enough if Microsoft changed their policy on add-ons for the Express editions.
Your complaint about Team System is also unfounded, as it is available as an add in for VS 2005/2008, and it functions as a standalone browser if you don't have the IDE.
That is fair enough. I have not used team system nor have I seen it being used in the relatively small companies where I have worked. My experience has been with NAnt, Subversion, and CruiseControl.NET for those types of needs. However, I was under the impression that if one wanted the team system functionality then it was necessary to purchase the "team system development edition" of Visual Studio, but I guess that is wrong? Again it seems that much time must be spent on MSDN digging through all of the whitepapers and product descriptions to find out what actually needs to be downloaded or purchased whereas I rarely seem to have that problem with open source projects.
The SERVER, however, is a different product than the IDE. Complaining about that is similar to asking why Mozilla doesn't ship release Apache, that's how loosely coupled MS feels.
There has always been a clear separation, both conceptually and through project naming, between the Apache and Mozilla projects or at least that is how I have perceived it. As you have said, people tend to treat Microsoft as a single entity even though there are many separate groups within Microsoft, but really can you blame them for being on the outside looking in? It also seems that Microsoft uses marketing to deliberately create confusion concerning the products of their competitors and even their own products. MS may feel loosely coupled if you are working there, but that is not how it seems to us outsiders.
One hundred dollars may seem a large amount to you, but it's trivial for any company that produces and sells professional-level software
What about individuals and independent developers? Most people in the United States, and that includes developers, don't work for large companies like Microsoft. We work in small shops and companies where there may be less than 100 total headcount and I can assure you that $100 is certainly not trivial to small companies and especially not now with the economy in the tank.
Moreover, this ignores the other options for professional teams - MSDN subscriptions that provide not only software, but operating systems, tools, et cetera, at minimum marginal costs.
Again, that is fine for larger companies, but what about small shops and independent developers who do not enjoy those economies of scale? Should the independent developer be compelled shell out $1,600 for an MSDN subscription? Also, consider this: most software developers are NOT engaged in producing packaged software for re-sale, but rather custom development work designed to reduce costs over the long run. If there are large upfront costs, then it makes development projects less feasible and more risky for many small companies who may then choose not to do them, even though they desperately need the sorts of benefits that software and automation can provide. This is true whether they write something from scratch or customize existing software to meet their needs.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you feel about congestion pricing in cities such as New York or London?
I would be willing to accept congestion pricing if (and that is a BIG if here in the United States) a high-quality mass transportation option was available as an effective alternative for commuters. However, as you have pointed out the current situation in the most of the United States is anything but so I cannot support congestion pricing, in practice, until the deplorable situation with public transportation here in the United States is remedied. The details of how that might be done are for another discussion, but I do not believe that we can have higher gasoline taxes, congestion pricing, or any other government interventions to discourage or increase the cost of car trips until there are viable alternatives for commuters. To do otherwise would be extremely damaging to the economy in the short and medium terms.
I didn't say it would solve our climatic change problem. IMHO it's already too late for that.
So why consider carbon taxes at all if they will not change anything proportional to their costs? If we are all damned anyway by climate change then why not enjoy what we can while we still have it? Why should we make sacrifices in our economy, which cannot afford them, if those sacrifices will ultimately be in vain? Obama, for all of his glibness, will have a very difficult time selling austerity to the American people for in exchange for insubstantial or dubious benefits.
This has to be done globally otherwise it is tremendously unfair for companies that are in a country that taxes its companies compared with those that are in a country that doesn't tax its companies.
Which is why carbon taxes will never work, or at least not in any sort of timeframe that would make a difference and help us avoid the most severe environmental consequences. As long as China and India take the, "you in the west had your century of emissions and economic growth and now we want ours" approach anything that we do in the United States to mitigate greenhouse gases with a global effect will be completely nullified and canceled out by economic growth in China and India from new dirty coal fired plants (China was, before the economic slump, building a new coal fired power plant every few days now on average) and other 20th century "business as usual". Personally, I don't think that the world will be able to avoid any significant consequences from climate change by changing our ways (which we seem unable to do without violence). I think that at some point during this next century the population will stabilize at a new equilibrium after mass starvation, resource wars, and other nastiness brings the human population level back in line with what a hotter and more arid Earth can support. The Chinese especially will never agree to change their ways (especially if doing so would tamp down economic growth and prevent the bread and circuses situation from continuing) and if you doubt that then look at what happened the last time the people in China proposed a serious change (i.e. Tiananmen).
My fairly straightforward commute to work (25 minutes by car, basically on one road) took over 2 hours by bus.
Which is precisely why most working people cannot use the bus or any other public transportation for commuting purposes. The bottom line with public transportation is that it must make sense and be competitive on the merits (i.e. no government mandates that people cannot drive on certain days or similar bullshit) or the commuting public will stay in their cars. Personally, it would take a lot more than $5 per gallon gas to get me out of my car (which is fast, clean, fuel-efficient, and private) and especially if the alternative is our present public transportation fiasco. The greenies and the public transportation boosters spend too much time, IMHO, trying to make cars inconvenient (i.e. traffic calming, even/odd day bans on cars in urban areas, high petrol taxes, etc) instead of trying to improve public transportation and make it more appealing. This "hair shirt" approach to getting people to "choose" (is it really a "choice" if one is forced?) public transportation is a big part of what turns the car people off to the whole idea (among other undesirable attributes of public mass transit).
Perhaps the both of you could buy some shares and submit resolutions at the shareholder meetings? However, if you don't own or control shares then you really shouldn't have any say as an outsider to a private enterprise. I don't know about you two, but when I retire I would like to die someplace warm and how can I do that if the companies in which I invest do not concentrate on maximizing shareholder value? I want share price appreciation (i.e. corporate growth) and dividends not environmental reviews that cost money and do little or nothing to enhance profits. The environment is important (more to some than to others), but the corporate board room is the wrong venue and the law is wise to recognize this.
Even if they were doing it to annoy the defense it should only prove to be a minor hindrance. Consider that a successful defense of Jamie Thomas-Rasset against the RIAA, possibly winding its way to a spectacular conclusion with arguments before the Supreme Court, would boost the career of an enterprising pro-bono attorney tremendously. It could put them on the fast track to partnership in a big firm or, at the very least, increase their profile enough to attract new clients with similar cases and deeper pockets.
Which just goes to show that for all the supposed value of an MBA, people in business still routinely fail to apply even the simplest economics to their own worlds.
What makes you think that they don't understand this perfectly? There are people out there who are dishonest and want to receive a cut of whatever revenue stream looks good to them regardless of whether that is fair or not. This is just plain greed looking for a way to scam or con some revenue out of the used game market. The economists have a name for this sort of behavior too, when someone attempts to use the power of government and the law to extract uncompensated value from society: Rent Seeking.
Some is greater than None. You just showed yourself it does directly lead to more revenue. It's not the primary focus but there is revenue from each sale.
As has been pointed out by the other responders, it does NOT cost Apple nothing to run iTunes, a large commercial web site and download operation, so they are probably fortunate if the small percentage from the ongoing sales is enough to cover their costs. It is similar to the movie theater business model; there is no profit in the box office for the theater owner so the profit must be earned on snacks once they have the captive audience inside the theater. In the case of Apple there is probably no net profit in the music and video download sales so the profit must come from the captive audience purchasing iPods and iPhones to work with iTunes.
Which it still does even if you own a Pre.
Most customers will probably NOT purchase multiple devices to use with iTunes so a Pre sale probably equals a lost iPod or iPhone sale. The Pre is therefore in direct competition with the iPod and iPhone for use the iTunes service and, to add insult to injury, the Pre customers add to the cost of running iTunes by increasing the unprofitable portion of the user base.
It leads to more people buying things from iTunes after all
Which does not directly lead to more revenue for Apple because Apple receives a very low amount of each content sale on iTunes (i.e. think movie theater box office with high priced candy and sodas business model). Apple earns increased revenue when iTunes gives people added incentive to go out and purchase an iPod or an iPhone, it drives hardware sales where Apple makes the real money. If other devices free-ride on iTunes AND cut into iPod or iPhone sales then I do not believe that Apple can remain silent for long in the face of declining hardware sales and increased iTunes operating costs.
your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.
So don't deal with them if you can possibly avoid it. Clients like that are probably the demanding and cheap type who annoy the crap out of you and then pay half of what was agreed (after arguing about additions to the requirements or interpretation of same) and late. Leave those sorts of clients to your competitors, they mostly aren't worth the trouble anyway.
If people are concerned about their privacy then why don't they use Firefox, AdBlock, Flashblock, and NoScript? The truly paranoid can download and use Tor as well. Do people have a right to complain if they aren't willing to lift a finger to protect themselves?
Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong NYCL, but I was under the impression that the $750-$150,000 damages were specially established in the copyright laws as a special category of statutory damages for willful copyright infringements. However, it probably also true that copyright should NOT be a special case, or at least not so special when compared to other willful types of damages as to require 2,200+ times more damages. I hope that the Capitol vs Thomas case does eventually (although I do feel for Jammie and the tremendous stress that she must be under during that process) wind its way through to the Supreme Court so that a high precedent can be decided on the damages issue, among others. We shall see in any case.
So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not?
Well I don't know how the justices will choose to interpret the matter, but if I were hearing this case then I would have to say that "no, it is not" for the following reason:
If a particular program is loaded onto a "general purpose" machine, a computer in this case, thereby rendering it fit for a particular purpose that does NOT foreclose the possibility that one may install any number of additional programs with separate purposes on the same computer, up to the limits of the storage device, such that some combination of programs, subject to processing constraints, can be executed simultaneously. If the "general purpose" machine (i.e. the computer) remains capable of executing additional and arbitrary tasks depending upon what additional software is loaded then I would have to say that the computer remains "general purpose" even after software has been loaded. Thus the computer is never, by itself, rendered "particular" enough by loading any one program or even combination of programs since more, subject to the aforementioned constraints, could still be added. It would be necessary to have the computer controlling some external physical device which was NOT "general purpose" in order to qualify for patent protection and even then it would only protect the use of the specific external device in combination with the computer as part of the process but neither, by itself, the computer nor any software running on it.
I hear they have drugs for that now.
Just smile and say "yes", its better that way...
I don't think that is a fair statement. There are certainly some financial instruments which have a rather dubious value, but it is hard to prove that a particular instrument has no value to any buyers or sellers. The name of the game is credit because without credit there is greatly diminished economic output and growth (since the people with the means and the people with the ability to use them productively are often not the same people in practice). The goal is to distribute just the right amount of credit to the people who can use it most productively by the most efficient means possible. The tools of finance enable us to do this, but like many tools created by man they can be used or abused depending upon who is using them and for what purpose.
Actually, under GPL you are only required to give your changes back if you distribute the modified program to others. You are perfectly free to make changes, keep them private, and enjoy the modified program privately as long as you do NOT distribute. It is the act of distribution that triggers the share and share alike clauses.
It is not so much Obama that we are concerned about, but rather his Vice President, Joe Biden, who has a long history of close and loyal support of entertainment industry interests and presently holds an office which, at least historically, doesn't have too many responsibilities (he breaks tie votes in the Senate). We are concerned that someone like Biden, who has time on his hands to introduce legislation and has the ear of the President, might use his position and the fact that the President is preoccupied with more pressing business to push through some really awful legislation. This is not an illegitimate or merely theoretical concern.
they want a new free, useless desktop widget or application or game produced by a company no one's heard of
You mean like the guy who registered a company name of "ClickYesToContinue" and then got VeriSign to issue him a certificate for active-x control signing?
Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?
The guys with the guns? Governments are in the business of violence or did you think that they maintained sovereign power by being nice?
Thanks for staying with me on this thread and putting up with me btw, I really do appreciate it.
I should put you up against a certain bean counter(s) that I know. If I was an independent dev with clients then I probably would pay for the tools out of pocket, but it is often the case at a small company (of say 10 devs or less) that asking for anything, whether it be a few hundred or few thousand dollars, takes so many steps and has to be approved by the head bean counter (who is in the habit of denying IT purchase requests simply because he doesn't understand them and thinks IT is just a massive cost center) that many devs prefer to find open source or freebies instead since it allows them to cut through the red tape surrounding purchasing.
They tend to have no interest in selling you anything, are disinterested and view your purchases with comtempt
It is interesting to hear you say that because apparently the Comic Book Guy was at least partly inspired by a clerk at the Los Angeles Amok book shop who often: "[Sat] on the high stool, kind of lording over the store with that supercilious attitude and eating behind the counter a big Styrofoam container full of fried clams with a lot of tartar sauce."
So what's the new branding going to be after this one fails? Bong?
Well, it does explain what the marketing people were smoking during the brainstorming sessions.
How do all of these VCs actually plan to monetize their investments in those cool Web 2.0 names? Do those social networking sites actually make any substantial non-advertising money? In an age when the American consumer is broke and the national credit card is maxed out how can money continue to pour into advertising? Besides, even if the social networking web 2.0 sites do start doing advertising or requiring subscriptions then someone will start up ZigZagZoodilyDoo with no Ads (at least to start) and pull away all of those fickle customers who don't have anything to spend anyway. The whole thing seems almost completely stupid to me. Who can possibly have 1,000+ "friends"? It doesn't make sense ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
Perhaps it could simply be a matter of geography? Although I have not been there personally, I have heard that Norway can be a very cold place for much of the year with even the Springs and Summers being a bit brisk. Now one might expect that hobbies which can be enjoyed indoors might be more widely shared in a country like Norway than say Southern California where there really is no Winter and there are many warm and sunny days all year round which do not favor as many indoor hobbies (or relegate them instead to a more hard core audience).
For one, Visual studio is add on based.
Yes, I know that, but in order to get a really usable set of core features AND the ability to have add-ons (which are NOT allowed in the express additions, which TestDriven.net learned in their dispute with Microsoft's attorneys) one really has to shell out for the "professional" edition of visual studio which is priced at ~$650 dollars or so. I simply stated that in my opinion, the same combination of features should be available for a lower price. In fact, I would probably be enough if Microsoft changed their policy on add-ons for the Express editions.
Your complaint about Team System is also unfounded, as it is available as an add in for VS 2005/2008, and it functions as a standalone browser if you don't have the IDE.
That is fair enough. I have not used team system nor have I seen it being used in the relatively small companies where I have worked. My experience has been with NAnt, Subversion, and CruiseControl.NET for those types of needs. However, I was under the impression that if one wanted the team system functionality then it was necessary to purchase the "team system development edition" of Visual Studio, but I guess that is wrong? Again it seems that much time must be spent on MSDN digging through all of the whitepapers and product descriptions to find out what actually needs to be downloaded or purchased whereas I rarely seem to have that problem with open source projects.
The SERVER, however, is a different product than the IDE. Complaining about that is similar to asking why Mozilla doesn't ship release Apache, that's how loosely coupled MS feels.
There has always been a clear separation, both conceptually and through project naming, between the Apache and Mozilla projects or at least that is how I have perceived it. As you have said, people tend to treat Microsoft as a single entity even though there are many separate groups within Microsoft, but really can you blame them for being on the outside looking in? It also seems that Microsoft uses marketing to deliberately create confusion concerning the products of their competitors and even their own products. MS may feel loosely coupled if you are working there, but that is not how it seems to us outsiders.
One hundred dollars may seem a large amount to you, but it's trivial for any company that produces and sells professional-level software
What about individuals and independent developers? Most people in the United States, and that includes developers, don't work for large companies like Microsoft. We work in small shops and companies where there may be less than 100 total headcount and I can assure you that $100 is certainly not trivial to small companies and especially not now with the economy in the tank.
Moreover, this ignores the other options for professional teams - MSDN subscriptions that provide not only software, but operating systems, tools, et cetera, at minimum marginal costs.
Again, that is fine for larger companies, but what about small shops and independent developers who do not enjoy those economies of scale? Should the independent developer be compelled shell out $1,600 for an MSDN subscription? Also, consider this: most software developers are NOT engaged in producing packaged software for re-sale, but rather custom development work designed to reduce costs over the long run. If there are large upfront costs, then it makes development projects less feasible and more risky for many small companies who may then choose not to do them, even though they desperately need the sorts of benefits that software and automation can provide. This is true whether they write something from scratch or customize existing software to meet their needs.