Well then, you could argue that their opinion isn't very relevant, if they only scraped the surface of the game. Reviews are for those who want to shell out their hard-earned cash on a game, and they probably want to go a little deeper.
That is not chaos. That is evil order, evil but stable. Someone more blunt would perhaps name it "natural state of affairs".
You mean the talibans will just get back into power?
That's quite possible. I was thinking of a situation where the USA leaves Afghanistan with a government which is fairly benign, but unable to stop all the terrorist recruiting and training going on under its nose. Much like the situation in Iraq.
You could make that case, but there's one vital difference: Microsoft isn't *actively* taking steps to prevent their office suite from being used on other hand-held devices. They have no obligation to port their office suite to other platforms.
In the case of the browser wars, Microsoft did actively take steps to prevent other browsers from being used on Windows, by making it impossible to uninstall IE, and contractually preventing retailers from bundling other browsers.
And there hasn't been. The lawsuit was ten years ago, where Microsoft was found guilty of, among other things, preventing computer retailers from installing competing browsers. To waive their fines, Microsoft suggested to the court that they'd make a "ballot box" where users where given a choice of web browsers.
That "ballot box" may have been a meaningless gesture, but if so, the court's error lies in being too lenient on Microsoft.
1) Ubuntu does not have a dominant market position to use as leverage against competitors 2) Ubuntu hasn't been convicted of anti-competitive behaviour 3) Ubuntu hasn't made a deal with the court to present a choice of browsers, in order to waive the fines for said anti-competitive behaviour
To make it even clearer: There's no general rule that says a manufacturer needs to inform their users about their choices. It's a specific company (Microsoft) that has made a deal with the court to atone for their previous anti-competitive behaviour. If they don't like the deal, they should have objected ten years ago, and just paid the fine the court gave them in the first place.
Actually, Microsoft's license agreement with the computer retailers prevented them from bundling other browsers. Why would Microsoft do that if they weren't afraid of the competition?
Plus, Microsoft's license agreement with retailers said they were not allowed to bundle other browsers. That's pretty unambigious anti-competitive behaviour.
For one thing, they integrated their own browser into the dominating desktop OS on the market (Windows) and made it impossible for users to uninstall it.
It is at the very least disingenuous, I think, to claim that the only purpose of the ballot was to serve the interests of the people and not to give a leg up to Microsoft's political rivals and competitors,
Even the people who do not use Opera, Chrome or Firefox benefit from having competition in the marketplace, becuase it forces Internet Explorer to become better.
Remember the years when IE had surpassed Netscape, and there was no serious contender on the browser market? During those years, very little improvement was done to IE. Then came Firefox, and suddenly Microsoft was in a rush to develop IE again.
Or take the time during the 90's, when Cyrix had withered away, and Intel had no real competition in the market for CPUs for desktop PCs. Then along came AMD, and made affordable CPUs in the low-end market segment. Suddenly, Intel lowerd their prices for low-end CPUs to a fraction of what they were before (and still managed to make a profit), but kept their high prices in the high-end segment.
Furthermore does anyone really believe it was a "mistake"?
It may very well be a mistake, but they should still be fined for it. They have a responsibility to make sure their operations comply with the deal they made with the court.
Except for example Chrome which I'm using to reply on my iPad. Which won't let me use it as a default. Don't try to defend Apple - they are worse in every way than MS ever was in terms of behaviour. It's just that people *like* getting shafted by Apple
No, it's that Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so the consequences of their anti-copetitive behaviour are not as severe.
The grandparent was talking about the boot loader issue. It's not just a matter of product quality. It prevents the buyer from purchasing the hardware from one supplier, and the operating system from another supplier, which in turn prevents competition on the market, which usually leads to more expensive products and less innovations.
If there are natural reasons you can't run a different operating system on a computer (for example, there's no other OS written for that CPU), so be it, but we don't have to allow artificial barriers to competition.
We should also have a Calculator ballot screen and a Text Editor ballot screen and an Email ballot screen and a Sound Recorder ballot screen and a Media Player ballot screen, etc... in fact if it's not the kernel you should force the user to choose! But only Microsoft, everyone else can do whatever they want.
It's because Microsoft has been found to, quite deliberately, use their near-monopoly in one market (desktop operating systems) to gain an advantage in another market (web browsers), in breach of antitrust laws.
Think of it as a probationary sentence. If you're found guilty of, say, repeteadly disturbing the order at concerts, you may be banned from going to any concert during your probation.
The practical reality of copyright compliance lies far, far from that.
First, every copyrighted work potientially has a different license agreement, that specifies how many copies you may make, which geographic region you may distribute them in, for what purpose you may do it, during which time period you may do it, how and when you're allowed to display the work publicly, etc.
Second, different countries have different copyright terms, different rules for fair use, and so on.
Third, a work may have several creators, and it may not be clear which of them have a claim to the copyright, and which of them you need to get permission from. This is frequently the case with film and music.
Fourth, a single work may consist of a large number of works by other authors. In the case of documentaries, there may be hundreds of phographs and film clips from different sources, all of which you have to get the realease rights for.
It's not strange that even the anti-piracy origanisations sometimes slip up and think they have "permission to copy" something, just because at one time they paid the creator for it.
True, if copyright was removed, a lot of the traditional Hollywood studios might disappear, and a lot of people could be out of jobs.
But you're forgetting that people still have a need for entertainment, and the money they don't spend on Hollywood films would be spent on something else. Like low- and medium-budget films. Or live performances. Or tv shows distributed directly over the Internet. And those also require writers, actors, sound tecnicians and so on.
In the end, it'd be like when horse carriages were replaced by automobiles. All the people who made buggy whips were out of a job, but they got jobs in the automobile industry instead. In the end, just as many people were employed, but they were making more useful products.
With most ideas, the money isn't coming in because someone came up with a good idea, but because someone sat down and worked out the details, came up with a business plan, invested capital, hired the right people, laid down many hours of hard work organising it all, etc.
Ideas are over-rated -- even the non-obvious ones.
I can't speak for the GP, but the idea that a small, secret group of people can and should manipulate history "for the good of mankind" may be seen as distasteful, regardless of what political ideology you read into it.
I enjoyed the books when I read them in my teens, though, and I still think they raise many interesting questions, despite how naive the answers may seem by today's standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then, you could argue that their opinion isn't very relevant, if they only scraped the surface of the game. Reviews are for those who want to shell out their hard-earned cash on a game, and they probably want to go a little deeper.
I agree, I think your (the GPs) scale sounds sensible.
That is not chaos. That is evil order, evil but stable. Someone more blunt would perhaps name it "natural state of affairs".
You mean the talibans will just get back into power?
That's quite possible. I was thinking of a situation where the USA leaves Afghanistan with a government which is fairly benign, but unable to stop all the terrorist recruiting and training going on under its nose. Much like the situation in Iraq.
You could make that case, but there's one vital difference: Microsoft isn't *actively* taking steps to prevent their office suite from being used on other hand-held devices. They have no obligation to port their office suite to other platforms.
In the case of the browser wars, Microsoft did actively take steps to prevent other browsers from being used on Windows, by making it impossible to uninstall IE, and contractually preventing retailers from bundling other browsers.
And there hasn't been. The lawsuit was ten years ago, where Microsoft was found guilty of, among other things, preventing computer retailers from installing competing browsers. To waive their fines, Microsoft suggested to the court that they'd make a "ballot box" where users where given a choice of web browsers.
That "ballot box" may have been a meaningless gesture, but if so, the court's error lies in being too lenient on Microsoft.
Because
1) Ubuntu does not have a dominant market position to use as leverage against competitors
2) Ubuntu hasn't been convicted of anti-competitive behaviour
3) Ubuntu hasn't made a deal with the court to present a choice of browsers, in order to waive the fines for said anti-competitive behaviour
To make it even clearer: There's no general rule that says a manufacturer needs to inform their users about their choices. It's a specific company (Microsoft) that has made a deal with the court to atone for their previous anti-competitive behaviour. If they don't like the deal, they should have objected ten years ago, and just paid the fine the court gave them in the first place.
Google hasn't tried to contractually force cellphone and tablet makers to exclude other browsers, though.
Why do all these claims about "only American companies" keep popping up all the time, when it is so easily disproven by official statistics?
Because they assume everything that happens is in American news.
Actually, Microsoft's license agreement with the computer retailers prevented them from bundling other browsers. Why would Microsoft do that if they weren't afraid of the competition?
Plus, Microsoft's license agreement with retailers said they were not allowed to bundle other browsers. That's pretty unambigious anti-competitive behaviour.
For one thing, they integrated their own browser into the dominating desktop OS on the market (Windows) and made it impossible for users to uninstall it.
It is at the very least disingenuous, I think, to claim that the only purpose of the ballot was to serve the interests of the people and not to give a leg up to Microsoft's political rivals and competitors,
Even the people who do not use Opera, Chrome or Firefox benefit from having competition in the marketplace, becuase it forces Internet Explorer to become better.
Remember the years when IE had surpassed Netscape, and there was no serious contender on the browser market? During those years, very little improvement was done to IE. Then came Firefox, and suddenly Microsoft was in a rush to develop IE again.
Or take the time during the 90's, when Cyrix had withered away, and Intel had no real competition in the market for CPUs for desktop PCs. Then along came AMD, and made affordable CPUs in the low-end market segment. Suddenly, Intel lowerd their prices for low-end CPUs to a fraction of what they were before (and still managed to make a profit), but kept their high prices in the high-end segment.
Furthermore does anyone really believe it was a "mistake"?
It may very well be a mistake, but they should still be fined for it. They have a responsibility to make sure their operations comply with the deal they made with the court.
Except for example Chrome which I'm using to reply on my iPad. Which won't let me use it as a default.
Don't try to defend Apple - they are worse in every way than MS ever was in terms of behaviour. It's just that people *like* getting shafted by Apple
No, it's that Apple doesn't have a monopoly, so the consequences of their anti-copetitive behaviour are not as severe.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Actually, I agree with you in the case of Google.
In the case of Apple, I'm not sure it's sufficiently dominant in a market to be subject to antitrust violations.
The grandparent was talking about the boot loader issue. It's not just a matter of product quality. It prevents the buyer from purchasing the hardware from one supplier, and the operating system from another supplier, which in turn prevents competition on the market, which usually leads to more expensive products and less innovations.
If there are natural reasons you can't run a different operating system on a computer (for example, there's no other OS written for that CPU), so be it, but we don't have to allow artificial barriers to competition.
We should also have a Calculator ballot screen and a Text Editor ballot screen and an Email ballot screen and a Sound Recorder ballot screen and a Media Player ballot screen, etc... in fact if it's not the kernel you should force the user to choose! But only Microsoft, everyone else can do whatever they want.
It's because Microsoft has been found to, quite deliberately, use their near-monopoly in one market (desktop operating systems) to gain an advantage in another market (web browsers), in breach of antitrust laws.
Think of it as a probationary sentence. If you're found guilty of, say, repeteadly disturbing the order at concerts, you may be banned from going to any concert during your probation.
Unfortunately, this was in the Netherlands, so different laws apply.
On the other hand, downloading copyrighted material for personal use is legal there.
That's different, because if you keep the tractor, you're depriving the tractor company of one tractor.
On the other hand, if you COPIED the tractor, the tractor company would be no worse off than before, and you'd be richer by one tractor.
The practical reality of copyright compliance lies far, far from that.
First, every copyrighted work potientially has a different license agreement, that specifies how many copies you may make, which geographic region you may distribute them in, for what purpose you may do it, during which time period you may do it, how and when you're allowed to display the work publicly, etc.
Second, different countries have different copyright terms, different rules for fair use, and so on.
Third, a work may have several creators, and it may not be clear which of them have a claim to the copyright, and which of them you need to get permission from. This is frequently the case with film and music.
Fourth, a single work may consist of a large number of works by other authors. In the case of documentaries, there may be hundreds of phographs and film clips from different sources, all of which you have to get the realease rights for.
It's not strange that even the anti-piracy origanisations sometimes slip up and think they have "permission to copy" something, just because at one time they paid the creator for it.
True, if copyright was removed, a lot of the traditional Hollywood studios might disappear, and a lot of people could be out of jobs.
But you're forgetting that people still have a need for entertainment, and the money they don't spend on Hollywood films would be spent on something else. Like low- and medium-budget films. Or live performances. Or tv shows distributed directly over the Internet. And those also require writers, actors, sound tecnicians and so on.
In the end, it'd be like when horse carriages were replaced by automobiles. All the people who made buggy whips were out of a job, but they got jobs in the automobile industry instead. In the end, just as many people were employed, but they were making more useful products.
With most ideas, the money isn't coming in because someone came up with a good idea, but because someone sat down and worked out the details, came up with a business plan, invested capital, hired the right people, laid down many hours of hard work organising it all, etc.
Ideas are over-rated -- even the non-obvious ones.
Statistically, yes. But history may take very different paths depending on if a moron crosses the border tomorrow, or if it takes ten years.
I can't speak for the GP, but the idea that a small, secret group of people can and should manipulate history "for the good of mankind" may be seen as distasteful, regardless of what political ideology you read into it.
I enjoyed the books when I read them in my teens, though, and I still think they raise many interesting questions, despite how naive the answers may seem by today's standards.
But surely there are cases when the market acts irrationally and speculation leads to grossly over-inflated prices (which eventually collapse)?