Not sure about you, but Slashdot doesn't quite make up a majority of the electorate. The majority of our country wouldn't care less. In fact, they'd probably trust the corporations, ESPECIALLY Disney, over some "hackers on the EVIL Internet."
I never said that Slashdot was and quite a large group of people have been making noise about the arrests.
Uh huh, just like the DMCA was, right? You seen anything on the 6 o'clock news lately about the DMCA or the recent arrest?
It was and I have.
It is much, MUCH better to be proactive than reactive...
You are correct. However, you need something to be proactive against and I'm skeptical about this being factual.
I log in today and start browsing through, and what do I find? A lot of people up in arms and ready to fire the entire congress (not that that would be all that bad of an idea mind you) over something that hasn't even been introduced yet, if it is even real.
Let's think about this logically now, shall we? What is the most important thing to most politicians? Making lots of money and having lots of power. To accomplish that, they need to keep their jobs in Washington. Now, a politician doesn't keep his job by pissing off the majority of his electorate and after the backlash that is happenning over the famed arrest under the DMCA, I highly doubt that any congressman that wants to keep his job is going to vote for this. On top of that, I don't know too many politicians that would actually be ballsy enough to even intorduce the bill. Yes, quite a few industries would pay big money to push this through but that money would most likely be the last bit of money that the congressmen and women would see and therefore would not be good politically no matter how you look at it.
Let us not forget, something like this would be reported until you got sick of hearing about it in the mainstream media the minute any word it broke, which has not occurred. For some reason I highly doubt that Wired News is going to find out about something like this without any of the big guys.
I would suggest for now, we all take a deep breath, sit back, and relax.
I'd really like to know when the US became a communist state. You're proposing to remedy "illegal acts" with other "illegal acts".
Granted, most people hate Microsoft. I think we can all agree that their software leaves a lot to be desired and they could make it much better. However, this one simple fact remains. We live in a free market society and have had other options on OS and Internet browsers for years before this suit was ever brought, and yet people kept paying money for it. No wait, I take that back. In many situations, you didn't because it came free with your computer. So can you explain to me how, as a consumer, Microsoft providing something to you for free (Oh and btw, you can also get Linux for free if you so choose and have been able to for years now) Microsoft has hurt the consumer in any way? Did you lose your freedom of choice? No you didn't. Did you end up having prices driven up? No you didn't (especially when you consider most times you don't lay out a single penny for it).
Now before you go up in arms saying what they did was illegal and despicable, take a deep breath. Yes, I agree their methods have been shady, underhanded, and despicable. I also agree that their actions border on the criminal. However, let's look at some other anti-trust suits that ended in break ups and such shall we. Around 20 years ago, there was a giant telephone company loving refered to as Ma Bell. There was no competition to Ma and as such the consumer was hurt by high prices and no choices. An anti-trust suit was brought that broke the company up as a penalty and then the whole system fell into regulation by the government. There was also then long distance competition that caused prices to fall, which we can all agree is a good thing for consumers.
Here's the thing, the suit did what it should have. It benefitted the consumer by spurning competition and lowering prices. It also gave people the option of picking and chosing the company they wanted to do business with.
That, my friends, is the explicit difference here. First, we as consumers already had choices long before this suit was even thought of. Second, I would consider free an EXTREMELY good price.
So go ahead and break up Microsoft or fine them or restrict them from coming out with new software for years to come. I'm sure the entire nation is yearning to have one of their choices taken away and possibly pay higher prices for the software that they by.
By the way, has anyone yet noticed that if you are an AOL customer, you don't have a choice in which browser to use?
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure about you, but Slashdot doesn't quite make up a majority of the electorate. The majority of our country wouldn't care less. In fact, they'd probably trust the corporations, ESPECIALLY Disney, over some "hackers on the EVIL Internet."
I never said that Slashdot was and quite a large group of people have been making noise about the arrests.
Uh huh, just like the DMCA was, right? You seen anything on the 6 o'clock news lately about the DMCA or the recent arrest?
It was and I have.
It is much, MUCH better to be proactive than reactive...
You are correct. However, you need something to be proactive against and I'm skeptical about this being factual.I think you missed the point of what I was saying to begin with. I don't totally believe that this is in fact an actual planned piece of legislation.
I agree it wouldn't be a good thing, however, think about what you just said. Why are you informing them?
I log in today and start browsing through, and what do I find? A lot of people up in arms and ready to fire the entire congress (not that that would be all that bad of an idea mind you) over something that hasn't even been introduced yet, if it is even real.
Let's think about this logically now, shall we? What is the most important thing to most politicians? Making lots of money and having lots of power. To accomplish that, they need to keep their jobs in Washington. Now, a politician doesn't keep his job by pissing off the majority of his electorate and after the backlash that is happenning over the famed arrest under the DMCA, I highly doubt that any congressman that wants to keep his job is going to vote for this. On top of that, I don't know too many politicians that would actually be ballsy enough to even intorduce the bill. Yes, quite a few industries would pay big money to push this through but that money would most likely be the last bit of money that the congressmen and women would see and therefore would not be good politically no matter how you look at it.
Let us not forget, something like this would be reported until you got sick of hearing about it in the mainstream media the minute any word it broke, which has not occurred. For some reason I highly doubt that Wired News is going to find out about something like this without any of the big guys.
I would suggest for now, we all take a deep breath, sit back, and relax.
I'd really like to know when the US became a communist state. You're proposing to remedy "illegal acts" with other "illegal acts".
Granted, most people hate Microsoft. I think we can all agree that their software leaves a lot to be desired and they could make it much better. However, this one simple fact remains. We live in a free market society and have had other options on OS and Internet browsers for years before this suit was ever brought, and yet people kept paying money for it. No wait, I take that back. In many situations, you didn't because it came free with your computer. So can you explain to me how, as a consumer, Microsoft providing something to you for free (Oh and btw, you can also get Linux for free if you so choose and have been able to for years now) Microsoft has hurt the consumer in any way? Did you lose your freedom of choice? No you didn't. Did you end up having prices driven up? No you didn't (especially when you consider most times you don't lay out a single penny for it).
Now before you go up in arms saying what they did was illegal and despicable, take a deep breath. Yes, I agree their methods have been shady, underhanded, and despicable. I also agree that their actions border on the criminal. However, let's look at some other anti-trust suits that ended in break ups and such shall we. Around 20 years ago, there was a giant telephone company loving refered to as Ma Bell. There was no competition to Ma and as such the consumer was hurt by high prices and no choices. An anti-trust suit was brought that broke the company up as a penalty and then the whole system fell into regulation by the government. There was also then long distance competition that caused prices to fall, which we can all agree is a good thing for consumers.
Here's the thing, the suit did what it should have. It benefitted the consumer by spurning competition and lowering prices. It also gave people the option of picking and chosing the company they wanted to do business with.
That, my friends, is the explicit difference here. First, we as consumers already had choices long before this suit was even thought of. Second, I would consider free an EXTREMELY good price.
So go ahead and break up Microsoft or fine them or restrict them from coming out with new software for years to come. I'm sure the entire nation is yearning to have one of their choices taken away and possibly pay higher prices for the software that they by.
By the way, has anyone yet noticed that if you are an AOL customer, you don't have a choice in which browser to use?