Oh, and to answer your question directly: Netscape, Word Perfect, and Digital Research. The first and the third WON court cases based on the evidence that Microsoft violated anti-trust law. I'm not sure about Word Perfect, but I believe there may have been a judgment in that as well.
The DR-DOS case should be ESPECIALLY familiar to a low ID guy like yourself, since the case and its aftermath, including the SCO debacle, have been chronicled here for years.
"I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything."
Nice try. While the proceedings were in a civil court, that does NOT mean that they did not violate the law. They were found to have violated United States anti-trust law and a judgement, including penalties, was granted. While the specific penalties were vacated on appeal, the judgement stood.
MS was found to have broken the law. Hours of testimony and reams of evidence were presented to a judge, which is how he made his decision. His remedy was overturned, but not his decision.
MS violated the law - you can't win your argument simply because your opponent said "convicted" instead of "there was a judgement for the plaintiff in a case where MS was the defendant".
So, what you are saying is that: - IBM chose MS over the competition - Businesses chose IBM over the competition - People chose MS over the competition
You will note that I said "chose" in my original post. You seem to think I used the word "better" or something like that. I didn't, specifically because, while they may have been ill-thought or unwise, people still CHOSE to use MS products.
"The issue isn't unfair competition. Its the failure to understand that the free market has chosen Microsoft...because no has a more compelling offering for the vast majority of people."
In operating systems, you are correct. Aside from some licensing shenanigans with PC manufacturers, MS came to dominates OS's the same way Google came to dominate search - people chose it more than the competition.
Which is wholly beside the point. Having gained a monopoly in one field (nominally) legally, they then used that monopoly to eliminate competition in other areas. That is the issue here.
Microsoft will no longer be legally able to keep changing their protocols to break access by non-Microsoft software.
How do you get that? The quote doesn't mention anything about stability or legacy.
"Microsoft shall ensure that third-party software products can interoperate with Microsoft's Relevant Software Products using the same Interoperability Information on an equal footing as other Microsoft Software Products."
Which means "Hey - sorry we broke your apps with SP1. Here's the new API. Have fun."
'I think this is a trustful deal we are making. There can't be a misunderstanding because it is the final result of a long discussion between Steve Ballmer and me.'
I don't know what's worse - the possibility that he could be so naive, or the probability that this is a backroom deal, and we are never going to know the whole story.
I believe 3x more errors is pretty damn significant, unless you want to adhere to the idea of that a very rare event happening 3 times as often is still very rare, relatively speaking.
I believe it depends on scale. If I buy 3 Lotto tickets instead of one, my odds of winning are 3x as much, or 200% larger. But I don't believe anyone would see a reduction from 1:195,249,054 to 1:65,083,018 as "significant" - for all practical purposes, your odds are still "1:a really big number, so don't buy that boat quite yet".
"I think that Mozilla and their millions of dollars in revenue would argue that the Netscape re-write (most of us call it "Firefox") is far from a business disaster."
Not if you were a Netscape shareholder. Netscape collapsed for 2 reasons: illegal actions by Microsoft, AND an excessive delay in releasing a new browser. It was definitely a business disaster for Netscape. And it wasn't that long ago that Mozilla was almost out of money, and signed an agreement with Google for big $$$ for being the default search engine. Mozilla was this close to becoming NeXT or Amiga - loyal fanbase, but otherwise irrelevant.
"BTW, does the FBI really do a stakeout by having a goon park outside the house? So sixties/Hoover."
No, they use a fleet of tiny remote helicopters, each one with a small low resolution camera and with a 10 minute flight time. A team of technicians and pilots sits in a van a block away and positions the helicopters far enough away so that the subject won't hear them, but close enough to get a good ID. They use at least 4 at a time - one observing, one in transit, one refueling, and a hot spare.
So, in order to replace 1 guy in a car, they use a team of people and equipment to get less data on a subject.
According to my doctor I had mono at some point in my life, and I didn't even know it. He asked me if there was ever point that I was tired for an extended period of time, and I said "Uh, college?"
It always baffled me how the French, who defined "fashion" for the WORLD at one time, could produce vehicles so singularly...odd. It would be like developing plus fours for women instead of the miniskirt.
I'm with you. I also took a course in science fiction in school. When we wrote our end of semester comments, mine was "Course title is misleading - should have been "Feminist Science Fiction".
I swear there wasn't a single book on the list with a male character that wasn't stupid or evil or both.
"Hell, be glad you have healthcare at all, that your government cares enough to make sure you can test your blood sugar as often as you need."
And, in one sentence, you have encapsulated all of the fears of a large number of people in the US.
Some suspect the idea that a government is capable of "caring".
Some suspect that the government, having determined a level of "need" in general, will not be flexible enough to recognize an individual's needs
Some suspect that "your government cares enough to make sure you will test your blood sugar as often as the government believes you need."
The US was founded on the concept that the Government is not a friend of the individual, and populated largely by immigrants whose governments had failed them. And cultures have long memories.
"There are already a few available continuous blood glucose meters [diabetesnet.com] available and last time I checked at least a few of them were approved by the FDA (thus covered by medical insurance in the USA).
Being a type 1 diabetic myself, I have fought to get one of these myself but the powers-that-be here in Norway seem to think there are no advantages to having your blood glucose measured every 1-2 to 5 minutes for 3-7 days (depending on which monitor you get), at least not compared to the price of these gadgets. Pretty insanely ignorant, as having this info available would let me easily have perfect blood glucose levels at all times. Hell, some of these meters even come with an optional automatic insulin pump!"
And I said:
"Wait a minute - are you saying that there's some aspect of the US health care system that's better than some other country's?"
And the best part is, your reflexive reaction is EXACTLY the kind of response I was hoping to get, therefor reinforcing the point I was trying to make. Thanks!
Actually, I read what you wrote very carefully. It was a question directed toward the parent poster on whether he protested Bush's actions. From the level of vitriol in your writing, one could logically assume that it was a rhetorical question and that you already knew the answer, and it was "no". Therefor, you believed that the parent poster agreed with Bush's actions and statements, based simply on the fact that he said something you disagreed with. You used a generalization to fit him into a certain category, and that category must be pretty large, since it seems so easy to put him there.
And let me just ask, when Bush decided to invade Iraq, were you up in arms about a lunatic who was now head of the United States on the back of suspected voter fraud, and claimed he was doing it because he saw "Gog and Magog at work" in the Middle East, and that "The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled... This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins"?
And from this post:
Iran does not deny the holocaust took place. That's just pure propaganda bullshit. That idiot Ahmadinejad denied it took place. I'm sure there are some others who agree with him, but there are plenty who accept the holocaust took place.
So, when the leader of the US says something, it is representative of the people's beliefs, but when the leader of Iran says something, he's a wackjob who doesn't speak for anyone else?
I'd say you were a hypocrite, but would it really make any difference?
You have 2 good points, but fail to make the connection. While the regime in Iran may be stable right now, they have no problem supporting organizations that make their neighbors unstable. They may not use one themselves, but they'd have no problem selling/giving a nuke to an organization that will.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and to answer your question directly: Netscape, Word Perfect, and Digital Research. The first and the third WON court cases based on the evidence that Microsoft violated anti-trust law. I'm not sure about Word Perfect, but I believe there may have been a judgment in that as well.
The DR-DOS case should be ESPECIALLY familiar to a low ID guy like yourself, since the case and its aftermath, including the SCO debacle, have been chronicled here for years.
"I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything."
Nice try. While the proceedings were in a civil court, that does NOT mean that they did not violate the law. They were found to have violated United States anti-trust law and a judgement, including penalties, was granted. While the specific penalties were vacated on appeal, the judgement stood.
MS was found to have broken the law. Hours of testimony and reams of evidence were presented to a judge, which is how he made his decision. His remedy was overturned, but not his decision.
MS violated the law - you can't win your argument simply because your opponent said "convicted" instead of "there was a judgement for the plaintiff in a case where MS was the defendant".
So, what you are saying is that:
- IBM chose MS over the competition
- Businesses chose IBM over the competition
- People chose MS over the competition
You will note that I said "chose" in my original post. You seem to think I used the word "better" or something like that. I didn't, specifically because, while they may have been ill-thought or unwise, people still CHOSE to use MS products.
In operating systems, you are correct. Aside from some licensing shenanigans with PC manufacturers, MS came to dominates OS's the same way Google came to dominate search - people chose it more than the competition.
Which is wholly beside the point. Having gained a monopoly in one field (nominally) legally, they then used that monopoly to eliminate competition in other areas. That is the issue here.
Whoops - somehow thought Neelie was a last name.
Probably a dyke anyway.
[/ducks]
How do you get that? The quote doesn't mention anything about stability or legacy.
Which means "Hey - sorry we broke your apps with SP1. Here's the new API. Have fun."
I don't know what's worse - the possibility that he could be so naive, or the probability that this is a backroom deal, and we are never going to know the whole story.
Anyone besides me hear Deep Purple when they read "super-massive black hole"?
From what I understand, it was the app that sucked. Why is this then a stinging indictment of the platform?
I believe it depends on scale. If I buy 3 Lotto tickets instead of one, my odds of winning are 3x as much, or 200% larger. But I don't believe anyone would see a reduction from 1:195,249,054 to 1:65,083,018 as "significant" - for all practical purposes, your odds are still "1:a really big number, so don't buy that boat quite yet".
"I think that Mozilla and their millions of dollars in revenue would argue that the Netscape re-write (most of us call it "Firefox") is far from a business disaster."
Not if you were a Netscape shareholder. Netscape collapsed for 2 reasons: illegal actions by Microsoft, AND an excessive delay in releasing a new browser. It was definitely a business disaster for Netscape. And it wasn't that long ago that Mozilla was almost out of money, and signed an agreement with Google for big $$$ for being the default search engine. Mozilla was this close to becoming NeXT or Amiga - loyal fanbase, but otherwise irrelevant.
No, they use a fleet of tiny remote helicopters, each one with a small low resolution camera and with a 10 minute flight time. A team of technicians and pilots sits in a van a block away and positions the helicopters far enough away so that the subject won't hear them, but close enough to get a good ID. They use at least 4 at a time - one observing, one in transit, one refueling, and a hot spare.
So, in order to replace 1 guy in a car, they use a team of people and equipment to get less data on a subject.
Your tax dollars at work.
"Except the whole point of Windows 7 is that it's being re-written from scratch to compete with the iPhone (and other multitouch phones.)"
Hmmm, lets see.
Netscape re-write? disaster (in a business sense)
Palm re-write? Disaster
I'm sensing a pattern here...
According to my doctor I had mono at some point in my life, and I didn't even know it. He asked me if there was ever point that I was tired for an extended period of time, and I said "Uh, college?"
"Needless to say, about the only thing they have in common is the chevron badge... and front-wheel drive."
And their hideous countenance.
And they're both fucking ugly.
It always baffled me how the French, who defined "fashion" for the WORLD at one time, could produce vehicles so singularly...odd. It would be like developing plus fours for women instead of the miniskirt.
"A quick solution would be to just have less secrets."
fewer secrets, or
less secrecy
Sorry, had to. Just had this conversation with my daughter.
I'm with you. I also took a course in science fiction in school. When we wrote our end of semester comments, mine was "Course title is misleading - should have been "Feminist Science Fiction".
I swear there wasn't a single book on the list with a male character that wasn't stupid or evil or both.
"Ender's Game."
You mean the novelette, right? Because the novel sucked donkey balls.
"Hell, be glad you have healthcare at all, that your government cares enough to make sure you can test your blood sugar as often as you need."
And, in one sentence, you have encapsulated all of the fears of a large number of people in the US.
Some suspect the idea that a government is capable of "caring".
Some suspect that the government, having determined a level of "need" in general, will not be flexible enough to recognize an individual's needs
Some suspect that "your government cares enough to make sure you will test your blood sugar as often as the government believes you need."
The US was founded on the concept that the Government is not a friend of the individual, and populated largely by immigrants whose governments had failed them. And cultures have long memories.
He said:
And I said:
And the best part is, your reflexive reaction is EXACTLY the kind of response I was hoping to get, therefor reinforcing the point I was trying to make. Thanks!
Wait a minute - are you saying that there's some aspect of the US health care system that's better than some other country's?
Sorry - you can't post here anymore.
Actually, I read what you wrote very carefully. It was a question directed toward the parent poster on whether he protested Bush's actions. From the level of vitriol in your writing, one could logically assume that it was a rhetorical question and that you already knew the answer, and it was "no". Therefor, you believed that the parent poster agreed with Bush's actions and statements, based simply on the fact that he said something you disagreed with. You used a generalization to fit him into a certain category, and that category must be pretty large, since it seems so easy to put him there.
From another one of your posts:
And from this post:
So, when the leader of the US says something, it is representative of the people's beliefs, but when the leader of Iran says something, he's a wackjob who doesn't speak for anyone else?
I'd say you were a hypocrite, but would it really make any difference?
You have 2 good points, but fail to make the connection. While the regime in Iran may be stable right now, they have no problem supporting organizations that make their neighbors unstable. They may not use one themselves, but they'd have no problem selling/giving a nuke to an organization that will.