And right now. IE is still the dominant browser, and is still holding everyone else back.
If this was a case of simple monopoly, why isn't Apple getting sued for bundling Itunes with OSX? It's just as bad a monopoly as IE is.
Maybe, maybe not. In fact, antitrust authorities in various countries have actually looked at whether iTunes could be infringing competition law. But Mac OS X is not a dominant platform, unlike Windows. I can't believe people are still making these silly comparisons.
Ford and GM did exactly that in the 90s when they attached their climate controls directly to the stereos of some of their cars. If you removed the stereos, the heater didn't work anymore. Don't see no monopoly lawsuits there, but I do see aftermarket kits that allow you to add aftermarket stereos. Same thing goes for browsers. The original post still makes sense in this regard.
No it doesn't. Just because no antitrust case was raised doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been found guilty. However, I don't know the details, and only have your description to go by, so I'm not going to comment on this specific claim you are making.
IE is bleeding market share.
Maybe, maybe not. Browser statistics do lie. Net Applications in particular have been caught manipulating their own stats numerous times. But IE is still dominant. On that, all browser stats agree. But part of the reason IE might be losing users in the first place is that the courts have been used to force Microsoft to open up to competition. After the EU case was launched, Microsoft started doing all sorts of stuff like defaulting to standards mode in IE8, and so on, as a direct result of the EC looking at Microsoft's business practices.
On another note, Chrome had more market share then Opera after only being available for two months. That has nothing to do with Opera suing MS for antitrust.
Opera didn't sue anyone. Opera reported Microsoft's crimes to the EC. Google, Mozilla, and a large number of other software manufacturers joined.
As for the claim that Chrome has more market share than Opera, even Google doesn't agree there. A while ago, Opera reported having 30 million desktop users. At the same time, Google reported 10 million users for Chrome. And somehow, Net Applications's (yes, the ones you are basing your flawed claim on) stats showed Chrome with a higher market share than Opera. Yes, that's how reliable Net Applications is. And that's just one of many examples of their useless statistics.
Other more reliable statistics still show Opera ahead of Chrome, which is surprising considering the insane amount of advertising Google has been doing. When the world's most powerful advertising company is having problems getting its own product (Chrome) out there, you know there is something wrong with the (browser) market.
That big bag of MS settlement money is not compelling at all. They're doing it to save the browser market. Yep! They'll just donate that big bag of money to starving children because their so nice like that.
Actually, Opera, Google, Mozilla, Adobe and the others backing the EC antitrust case don't stand to make a single dime if Microsoft is found guilty.
As for Opera, they have a track record of actually supporting good causes, promoting open standards, putting real money behind their work on open standards, etc. Opera's CEO is also a guy with a vision, not just some random guy in a suit looking to make a quick buck. His father worked with disabled children, and he has picked up on that kind of work, and has a goal of bringing as many people as possible online and to tear down digital divides. I know it's impossible for someone brainwashed by Microsoft's grotesque business practices to understand that someone isn't just a money-grabbing b
There is no triple negative. Microsoft worried about some higher-ups not attending. None of them ever attend these hearings in the first place, and Microsoft knows it. They were just looking for an excuse to stall the whole thing and portray themselves as victims.
Anti-Americanism? Most of the "anti-whatever" comments I see here are Americans whining that the EU is enforcing its own laws, claiming that the EU is just "jealous of successful American companies" and similar nonsense.
I started having problems towards the end of Mario Galaxy, because I had until then almost completely avoided using the spin attack due to timing issues.
Really? I never had any problems what so ever. What kind if timing issues were you having?
So if its illegal why can Apple and most Linux builds do it?
Bundling a browser with an OS isn't illegal. It's illegall to use bundling with a dominant product (Windows) to destroy the competition in a different market (browsers). Apple and Linux definitely do not have the dominance in the market to do that, so they are free to bundle. Besides, Safari is actually a standards compliant browser.
continued for-profit browser wars likely would not have been for the better
There is a for-profit browser war as we speak. Many companies make money from browsers, including the Mozilla Corporation, Opera Software, Japanese Access, and so on. (Note that the Mozilla Corporation, although for-profit as a corporation, funnels the profits back to the Mozilla Foundation, but that's not really relevant here.)
In this case, reducing the cost spurred competitors to produce even better software in order to overcome an even greater obstacle.
So in this case, breaking the law was good? I disagree. Microsoft illegally cornered the market, and illegally raised the cost for everyone else by forcing other browser vendors to emulate proprietary and undocumented bugs and features in order to compete. But doing this takes a lot longer than implementing it in the first place, so Microsoft else was at a huge advantage, meaning that they got do basically eliminate the web as a threat to their dominance in the OS market, leading to the development pace of the web slowing to a crawl.
As a result, the other browser software had to get so much better than the truly "free" browser (it's already installed!) that users could justify that cost of change. And that's what Opera did, it's what the Mozilla team did, the Google team have done it.
If Microsoft hadn't illegally destroyed the market, there might have been multiple competitors at an earlier stage, and we would have been much better off now. Remember, Microsoft basically disbanded its browser team, and held the progress of the web back for several years.
I won't lie to you, Microsoft probably killed the business of making money from browsers irrevocably.
No. People are making money from browsers today. Sadly, Microsoft's illegal actions means that other browser vendors have to spend a lot of time working around Microsoft's nonsense to get things working.
I think making other browsers have to be truly so much superior to IE in order to convince them to switch was necessary for the fundamental shift toward more advanced and more standardized web capabilities.
With real competition, there would have been several competitors, and IE6 would not have been able to hold back the web for many years. We could have progressed much more if Microsoft hadn't put the brakes on the web.
Your evidence and the EU is too vague and bullshitish to even constitute Anti-trust violation.
My evidence? I'm merely stating some facts. If you want the actual evidence, perhaps you should look it up for yourself. Here is a good place to start if you wish to educate yourself.
You can bundle any products you want and MS did. The nature of the bundle was not violating anti-trust laws in any way shape or form. A company is not legally obligated to support their competitors and this judgment does just that.
Actually, you can't bundle any products you want if you are in a dominant position like Microsoft is. The nature of the bundle was likely violating antitrust law (the ruling has not yet been made, mind you), because Microsoft has definitely undermined competition in the browser market by abusing its dominance in the OS market.
It forces MS to ensure their competitors safety, because they made bad choices.
So what you are saying is that there should be no consequences if you break the law?
All this nonsense over a so called bundle, when the average consumer can barely operate a computer is moot.
So-called bundle? Are you denying that IE is bundled with Windows? And how is the average consumer's computer skills relevant?
The EC didn't take into account all factors and made a premature judgment.
What factors? The EC has not made a ruling yet, but did state its preliminary view that it does look like Microsoft broke the law. After issuing the statement where they found there was ground for further followup on the issue, they started gathering more data. This includes responses from Microsoft.
If the average person was capable of using linux or knew wtf a library was, then use, abuse of dominance could be shown.
This case is about browsers, not operating systems.
If you wanted Netscape, then ask them to manage better instead of mismanaging. A company can not and should not be responsible for its competitors survival, it goes against the very nature of business.
Netscape is not the only victim of Microsoft's illegal actions.
The only "free" one I found was Opera Mini, AKA Opera Please-Trust-Us-Not-To-Steal-All-Your-Personal-Data-That-Is-Being-Proxied-And-Modified-By-Our Servers-Including-HTTPS-Traffic.
Are you claiming that Opera can't be trusted? Opera's HQ is located in Norway, which has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. It's definitely a trustworthy company as well. Has been around for 10-15 years, and has never done anything to comprise user privacy.
If you are arrested, you'd get a fair trial. Same goes for Microsoft. You say they broke the law, but if Microsoft thinks otherwise, they have the right to prove they are not guilty. This (now canceled) hearing is one of the ways Microsoft can use to show they are not guilty.
No, this hearing was nothing like a trial. Even Microsoft admitted that the hearing had no legal implications. It was purely an opportunity for Microsoft to do some lobbying before the real case actually starts.
Also, it was Microsoft which canceled the hearing. They claim it's because of the competition law meeting at the same time, meaning that higher level officials would attend the meeting rather than the hearing. But Microsoft is lying again, because they know very well that these hearing are usually only attended by staff level personell, in addition to the competition commissioner. And the competition commissioner was scheduled to be there until Microsoft canceled.
Read more about Microsoft's dishonesty in this comment.
The browser 'market?' How can you have a market for something that is free?
There are several browser vendors out there. They are making money. And they were making money before Microsoft started breaking the law and undermining competition. The browser market existed before Microsoft. Microsoft was betting on their Microsoft Network thing for a long time, remember?
Just cause something is against the law doesn't mean I can't have an opinion either.
Well, you clearly weren't even informed about the law. Shouldn't you at least educate yourself before commenting?
Basically, if I get into business x, and I do so well (cry all you want, microsoft did THE BEST cause of their business strategy whether you like it or not)
So when someone uses illegal performance-enhancing drugs to win at sports, the competitors can cry all they want because the winner did best because of his strategy?
in that business that I'm the top dog by far, I'm not allowed to offer new services and such exclusively with my product? How the hell does that work? I get fucked in the ass for being successful?
No, you get "fucked in the ass" for breaking the law.
I thought Obama was only elected a couple of months ago, that's not enough time to get such laws on the books.
In case you didn't notice, this is a case in the EU. In case you didn't notice, the US has had antitrust laws for ages. Antitrust laws exists all over the world. Perhaps you should educate yourself before being all opinionated over something you clearly don't understand?
There's a difference between bundling a browser because an OS needs a layout engine, and killing the competition.
I'm sure. However, that does not change the fact that Microsoft used its dominant position in the OS market in combination with illegal methods like lock-in, bullying of OEMs, etc. to undermine competition in the browser market.
Just get over the fact that HTML is an integral language that OSes need to be able to read out of the box, and many programs need to call Trident's DLLs to perform various functions.
Yes, the tight coupling with Windows is another problems.
Microsoft is not blocking you from downloading and installing any browser you care to choose. Grow up, please.
Many sites still require IE to work at all. But the fact that Microsoft doesn't actively prevent me from downloading another browser does not change the fact that they illegally used their dominant position to undermine competition.
Honestly, I feel this particular argument against Microsoft is flawed. You say steal a car, but it's more like they put a radio in the car they were selling of their own.
No it isn't. Microsoft broke the law. It's that simple.
Can radio companies sue car manufacturers for giving the consumer what they expect?
If a car manufacturer breaks antitrust laws and prevents competition in the radio market, sure. But they didn't.
This kind of thing would never happen if the product was a physical one.
Nonsense. Antitrust laws are turned on all sorts of companies all the time.
If software companies want people to use their product, then make a better product.
So Firefox, Safari and Opera are not better than IE?
Netscape failed because it wasn't good enough.
Then why didn't Microsoft fail, considering the low quality of many or most of their products? Windows Me? Windows Vista? MS-DOS?
Yeah or the EC has decided they want more money. Hmm, our coffers are looking a little low, I know lets sue MS again, hmm which product to chose..
Actually, it wasn't the EU who initiated this case. Opera, backed by Mozilla, Google, and others, got the EU to investigate what they argued were actions that violated antitrust law.
While I don't always agree with MS's practices, having a competition hearing at a time when the regional experts are unavailable is stupid.
Actually, none of the people Microsoft claimed to be worried about not attending never attend these hearings anyway. Hearings are usually attended by staff level personell in the first place. The hearing would also be attended by the European Commissioner for Competition.
I think a reasonable request has been turned down for political reasons.
A reasonable request for something no one else gets granted. Right. You are buying into Microsoft's bullshit.
Instead of blindly believing Microsoft's lies, check out the comments by Thomas Vinje and commission spokesman Jonathan Todd. It turns out that Microsoft is just lying and stalling, probably hoping for the current competition commissioner to retire later this year and have a more Microsoft-friendly person appointed.
Forcing them to unbundle the browser is retarded, but punitive measures were the best thing the EU could imagine, so that's what they came up with.
What, the verdict has already been announced? The EU has already decded that IE must be unbundled? News to me.
Microsoft is clearly going to argue that the unfair advantage didn't exist since IE's market share is dropping anyway.
Does that change Microsoft's past illegal actions? If you rob a bank and the bank makes enough money to make up for the loss, does that mean that you won't get punished?
If MS didn't have such a lion's share of the market, this would not be any more of an issue that it is with Apple.
Probably not. That's the nature of competition law. Dominant players don't play by the same rules as everyone else. Microsoft ignored that, abused their position to undermine competition, and thus broke the law.
The reason it's an issue is because we've forgotten sportsmanship. If you're losing in a game, you don't (or shouldn't) cry UNFAIR!
If the other guy is cheating at a game and winning (breaking the law), why shouldn't there be any consequences for the cheater?
If people think that a crappy browser being too is too integrated into a mediocre OS is unfair, then WRITE AN OS THAT PEOPLE WANT
So to compete in the browser market, all browser vendors should be required to create their own OS?
It's just too easy to blame failure (in this case, failure to gain a majority market share) on unfair play.
It's wrong because they used bundling with their dominant OS to kill the competition in the browser market. It's illegal to use bundling combined with a dominant position in the market to screw the competition. It's called antitrust law, and I suggest you look that up before getting all opinionated over this. The same antitrust laws exist in the US.
No, Adobe can't say in one breath that PDF is an open standard, then in the next prevent Microsoft from releasing PDF-capable software.
Considering Microsoft's history of embrace-extend-extinguish, Adobe may have done us all a huge favor. Remember how the destroyed Java? Browsers? What if Adobe had allowed Microsoft to destroy PDF as well?
Opera preaches standards left and right, but the real problem is nobody follows then except Opera.
Apart from Webkit and Gecko, of course.
Therefore Opera doesn't work like all the other browsers.
Oh, but it does. There are bugs in all browsers, but if you write a standards compliant page, it will mostly work in Opera, Safari and Firefox. You may have to tweak some things, but Opera is no worse than the other two here. IE is of course a lost cause.
I would only use Opera, except for the fact that so many websites don't function properly in Opera. (Mostly javascript and css are the issue)
Really? In my experience, browser sniffing is mostly the problem. If they just stopped sending broken content to Opera and sent it what they are sending to Firefox and Safari, it would have worked fine.
Once Opera functions like all other browsers, I will listen to what Jon has to say.
It works like Safari and Firefox. And actually, Opera was created with broken sites in mind, including a quirks mode and lots of non-standard extensions to JavaScript and such.
Insanely stupid IMO! I personally because I want browser space, totally remove every toolbar
It's instanely stupid to do this because you have some weird usage pattern? Why should Firefox be made for you specifically, and not for as many people as possible?
If my insurance carrier wants to penalize me for a being a fatass then all the power to them.
And what happesn when they penalize you by taking away everything you own? You come crying to the government, asking them to help you out... Yeah, it's great to be all anti-government when you are doing well. But things can change quickly, and you may find youself out of options.
Slashdot Mirror
And right now. IE is still the dominant browser, and is still holding everyone else back.
Maybe, maybe not. In fact, antitrust authorities in various countries have actually looked at whether iTunes could be infringing competition law. But Mac OS X is not a dominant platform, unlike Windows. I can't believe people are still making these silly comparisons.
No it doesn't. Just because no antitrust case was raised doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been found guilty. However, I don't know the details, and only have your description to go by, so I'm not going to comment on this specific claim you are making.
Maybe, maybe not. Browser statistics do lie. Net Applications in particular have been caught manipulating their own stats numerous times. But IE is still dominant. On that, all browser stats agree. But part of the reason IE might be losing users in the first place is that the courts have been used to force Microsoft to open up to competition. After the EU case was launched, Microsoft started doing all sorts of stuff like defaulting to standards mode in IE8, and so on, as a direct result of the EC looking at Microsoft's business practices.
Opera didn't sue anyone. Opera reported Microsoft's crimes to the EC. Google, Mozilla, and a large number of other software manufacturers joined.
As for the claim that Chrome has more market share than Opera, even Google doesn't agree there. A while ago, Opera reported having 30 million desktop users. At the same time, Google reported 10 million users for Chrome. And somehow, Net Applications's (yes, the ones you are basing your flawed claim on) stats showed Chrome with a higher market share than Opera. Yes, that's how reliable Net Applications is. And that's just one of many examples of their useless statistics.
Other more reliable statistics still show Opera ahead of Chrome, which is surprising considering the insane amount of advertising Google has been doing. When the world's most powerful advertising company is having problems getting its own product (Chrome) out there, you know there is something wrong with the (browser) market.
Actually, Opera, Google, Mozilla, Adobe and the others backing the EC antitrust case don't stand to make a single dime if Microsoft is found guilty.
As for Opera, they have a track record of actually supporting good causes, promoting open standards, putting real money behind their work on open standards, etc. Opera's CEO is also a guy with a vision, not just some random guy in a suit looking to make a quick buck. His father worked with disabled children, and he has picked up on that kind of work, and has a goal of bringing as many people as possible online and to tear down digital divides. I know it's impossible for someone brainwashed by Microsoft's grotesque business practices to understand that someone isn't just a money-grabbing b
There is no triple negative. Microsoft worried about some higher-ups not attending. None of them ever attend these hearings in the first place, and Microsoft knows it. They were just looking for an excuse to stall the whole thing and portray themselves as victims.
Anti-Americanism? Most of the "anti-whatever" comments I see here are Americans whining that the EU is enforcing its own laws, claiming that the EU is just "jealous of successful American companies" and similar nonsense.
Really? I never had any problems what so ever. What kind if timing issues were you having?
Bundling a browser with an OS isn't illegal. It's illegall to use bundling with a dominant product (Windows) to destroy the competition in a different market (browsers). Apple and Linux definitely do not have the dominance in the market to do that, so they are free to bundle. Besides, Safari is actually a standards compliant browser.
There is a for-profit browser war as we speak. Many companies make money from browsers, including the Mozilla Corporation, Opera Software, Japanese Access, and so on. (Note that the Mozilla Corporation, although for-profit as a corporation, funnels the profits back to the Mozilla Foundation, but that's not really relevant here.)
So in this case, breaking the law was good? I disagree. Microsoft illegally cornered the market, and illegally raised the cost for everyone else by forcing other browser vendors to emulate proprietary and undocumented bugs and features in order to compete. But doing this takes a lot longer than implementing it in the first place, so Microsoft else was at a huge advantage, meaning that they got do basically eliminate the web as a threat to their dominance in the OS market, leading to the development pace of the web slowing to a crawl.
If Microsoft hadn't illegally destroyed the market, there might have been multiple competitors at an earlier stage, and we would have been much better off now. Remember, Microsoft basically disbanded its browser team, and held the progress of the web back for several years.
No. People are making money from browsers today. Sadly, Microsoft's illegal actions means that other browser vendors have to spend a lot of time working around Microsoft's nonsense to get things working.
With real competition, there would have been several competitors, and IE6 would not have been able to hold back the web for many years. We could have progressed much more if Microsoft hadn't put the brakes on the web.
Oh dear. Looks like I'm either talking to a Microsoft shill or an ignorant kid. Bye, it was nice being trolled by you.
My evidence? I'm merely stating some facts. If you want the actual evidence, perhaps you should look it up for yourself. Here is a good place to start if you wish to educate yourself.
Actually, you can't bundle any products you want if you are in a dominant position like Microsoft is. The nature of the bundle was likely violating antitrust law (the ruling has not yet been made, mind you), because Microsoft has definitely undermined competition in the browser market by abusing its dominance in the OS market.
So what you are saying is that there should be no consequences if you break the law?
So-called bundle? Are you denying that IE is bundled with Windows? And how is the average consumer's computer skills relevant?
What factors? The EC has not made a ruling yet, but did state its preliminary view that it does look like Microsoft broke the law. After issuing the statement where they found there was ground for further followup on the issue, they started gathering more data. This includes responses from Microsoft.
This case is about browsers, not operating systems.
Netscape is not the only victim of Microsoft's illegal actions.
Are you claiming that Opera can't be trusted? Opera's HQ is located in Norway, which has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. It's definitely a trustworthy company as well. Has been around for 10-15 years, and has never done anything to comprise user privacy.
Opera is from Norway. And Norway has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world.
No, this hearing was nothing like a trial. Even Microsoft admitted that the hearing had no legal implications. It was purely an opportunity for Microsoft to do some lobbying before the real case actually starts.
Also, it was Microsoft which canceled the hearing. They claim it's because of the competition law meeting at the same time, meaning that higher level officials would attend the meeting rather than the hearing. But Microsoft is lying again, because they know very well that these hearing are usually only attended by staff level personell, in addition to the competition commissioner. And the competition commissioner was scheduled to be there until Microsoft canceled.
Read more about Microsoft's dishonesty in this comment.
There are several browser vendors out there. They are making money. And they were making money before Microsoft started breaking the law and undermining competition. The browser market existed before Microsoft. Microsoft was betting on their Microsoft Network thing for a long time, remember?
Well, you clearly weren't even informed about the law. Shouldn't you at least educate yourself before commenting?
So when someone uses illegal performance-enhancing drugs to win at sports, the competitors can cry all they want because the winner did best because of his strategy?
No, you get "fucked in the ass" for breaking the law.
In case you didn't notice, this is a case in the EU. In case you didn't notice, the US has had antitrust laws for ages. Antitrust laws exists all over the world. Perhaps you should educate yourself before being all opinionated over something you clearly don't understand?
I'm sure. However, that does not change the fact that Microsoft used its dominant position in the OS market in combination with illegal methods like lock-in, bullying of OEMs, etc. to undermine competition in the browser market.
Yes, the tight coupling with Windows is another problems.
Many sites still require IE to work at all. But the fact that Microsoft doesn't actively prevent me from downloading another browser does not change the fact that they illegally used their dominant position to undermine competition.
Except Microsoft also broke the law by abusing their dominant position to lock people into IE (actively preventing interoperability).
No it isn't. Microsoft broke the law. It's that simple.
If a car manufacturer breaks antitrust laws and prevents competition in the radio market, sure. But they didn't.
Nonsense. Antitrust laws are turned on all sorts of companies all the time.
So Firefox, Safari and Opera are not better than IE?
Then why didn't Microsoft fail, considering the low quality of many or most of their products? Windows Me? Windows Vista? MS-DOS?
Actually, it wasn't the EU who initiated this case. Opera, backed by Mozilla, Google, and others, got the EU to investigate what they argued were actions that violated antitrust law.
Actually, none of the people Microsoft claimed to be worried about not attending never attend these hearings anyway. Hearings are usually attended by staff level personell in the first place. The hearing would also be attended by the European Commissioner for Competition.
A reasonable request for something no one else gets granted. Right. You are buying into Microsoft's bullshit.
Instead of blindly believing Microsoft's lies, check out the comments by Thomas Vinje and commission spokesman Jonathan Todd. It turns out that Microsoft is just lying and stalling, probably hoping for the current competition commissioner to retire later this year and have a more Microsoft-friendly person appointed.
What, the verdict has already been announced? The EU has already decded that IE must be unbundled? News to me.
Does that change Microsoft's past illegal actions? If you rob a bank and the bank makes enough money to make up for the loss, does that mean that you won't get punished?
Probably not. That's the nature of competition law. Dominant players don't play by the same rules as everyone else. Microsoft ignored that, abused their position to undermine competition, and thus broke the law.
If the other guy is cheating at a game and winning (breaking the law), why shouldn't there be any consequences for the cheater?
So to compete in the browser market, all browser vendors should be required to create their own OS?
Breaking the law is not "unfair play"?
It's wrong because they used bundling with their dominant OS to kill the competition in the browser market. It's illegal to use bundling combined with a dominant position in the market to screw the competition. It's called antitrust law, and I suggest you look that up before getting all opinionated over this. The same antitrust laws exist in the US.
Considering Microsoft's history of embrace-extend-extinguish, Adobe may have done us all a huge favor. Remember how the destroyed Java? Browsers? What if Adobe had allowed Microsoft to destroy PDF as well?
Apart from Webkit and Gecko, of course.
Oh, but it does. There are bugs in all browsers, but if you write a standards compliant page, it will mostly work in Opera, Safari and Firefox. You may have to tweak some things, but Opera is no worse than the other two here. IE is of course a lost cause.
Really? In my experience, browser sniffing is mostly the problem. If they just stopped sending broken content to Opera and sent it what they are sending to Firefox and Safari, it would have worked fine.
It works like Safari and Firefox. And actually, Opera was created with broken sites in mind, including a quirks mode and lots of non-standard extensions to JavaScript and such.
Not sure what you mean by "Opera is busted".
I think you were joking, but just in case: It's "Döner kebab" ("Doner kebab") :)
Have you checked out Opera's dev tool, Dragonfly? It's still an alpha, but...
It's instanely stupid to do this because you have some weird usage pattern? Why should Firefox be made for you specifically, and not for as many people as possible?
And what happesn when they penalize you by taking away everything you own? You come crying to the government, asking them to help you out... Yeah, it's great to be all anti-government when you are doing well. But things can change quickly, and you may find youself out of options.