Hey. Do not knock the little guys.
Amature radio proved it mettle (no relation) by providing the very first TV reception in space while in orbit. You think not?
Just ask NASA.
Sure, they send down the clips. But, the first time they "received" video via TV, it was on the amateur bands. Of course, anyone who knows anything about the astronauts knows that most of them are into amateur radio with some of the top permissions available.
Just for the record.
"And if you don't have the knowledge, skill, or desire to do this on your own, does it hurt you any to have the source available?"
Yes, it can.
Your ability to deal with the source does not restrict what others can do.
Worry about the inside guys too.
An article at BBC helps point out the risk from insiders. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2 053000/2053716.stm
Actually, nothing you have said can be taken as credible.
And, that includes the reason you refuse to use your own name.
Most likely you do not even beleive your own words. And, that is why you refuse to let anyone know your identity.
Being a whistle blower is one thing.
Insulting others in the name of Microsoft reflects poorly upon them and their morals. And, when you use a fake name, your post does reflect upon Microsoft.
I happen to have expertise in technology, economics and tbe law.
So, yes, I fully understand the harm caused to consumers and the industry.
And, I fully understand the economic conditions that can be used by monopolists to control the marketplace.
And, I understand all of the legal arguments made my Microsoft in order to maintain their power.
And, I understand how idiotic Microsoft looks when they lie about the basic technology issues.
So, is it serious?
Yes. They are serious idiots.
They lie about the technology, the economics and the law in order to maintain their monopoly. What the witnesses say in court is only restricted by possible charges of perjury. And, there have been some instances where that should be the result. What the lawyers say is priviledged. They are only restricted to what they think they can get away with. And, upon more than one occasion Microsoft lawyers have most likely insulted the federal bench.
But, in either case idiocy is not protected. Rather it is proven by what they do.
You can excuse that conduct if you want. But, since you have no name I doubt that even you do so. At least you will not admit it. Sometimes the "coward" label fits.
Yes. But, they were going to bill those hours even without saying stupid things.
Lawyers can say intelligent things and still charge, right?
The stupidity comes in when you tell the judge one day that your client will do everything in their power to comply with an order of the court and then the next ignore that same judge by refusing to answer a very appropriate question.
My dictionary says an idiot has the IQ of 25, about that of a two year old. Clearly that definition does not apply to anyone who can log on.
But, it also defines an idiot as "a foolish or stupid person".
And, many people who claim to have large amounts of money still qualify under that definition. Enron and Anderson are two other companies that have recently demonstrated their idiocy.
Making money illegally is just fine until you get caught. Then it depends. But, being very successful at making money by violating the law never qualifies anyone in my book to be anything but an idiot.
And, why is that?
The reason is that non-idiots do not need to rely upon illegal acts to earn money. They do it the legal way.
But, idiots just force the sale of products, collect the money and then lie to the judge. Just like the Microsoft lawyers did yesterday. And, just like the Microsoft lawyers have consistently done in this case.
You may not remember. But, back when the DOJ first finished up their part of the case during the liability portion, Microsoft lawyers actually got on the steps outside the courtroom and flat ass lied. They said that no admissible evidence has been brought forth by the DOJ. Sounds just like the lie they told the judge yesterday, not?
But, the lie has changed from "we do not have a monopoly" to "we do not want a monopoly". Both are lies. Microsoft's money rests upon having the monopoly and illegally maintaining it.
They are idiots for thinking anyone would respect them.
And, just about everyone who does go along with them qualifies as well.
Gates has money. So does organized crime. But, that does not cause me to buy illegal drugs off the street.
So if anyone wants to say Gates is not an idiot, look at all his money. That is fine.
But, lots of criminals have lots of money too.
I no more respect Gates than a common criminal. They both use the same morals, the same values and even lawyers. But, lawyers do not determine the morals of their clients unless they insist upon it.
By the way, it does not take much intelligence to know that illegally bundling a browser with your monopoly product will screw hundreds of millions and gain yourself another monopoly product.
But, it does take an idiot to think that others will actually believe the new monopoly was achieved legally or because of superior technology.
Gates is an idiot. And, he is an idiot because either he has failed to take his lawyers advice and stay clear of violating the antitrust laws or he failed to hire honest lawyers.
Gates is also an idiot for insulting the intelligence of the federal judges.
If you continue to claim that organized criminals are not idiots because they are successful in their criminal endevors, that is fine with me.
Being successful in getting money from others does not prove you are not an idiot.
You can work for organized crime if you want to. That is up to you.
Just do not be so stupid as to suggest to others that they should adopt your corrupt morals or give credit to your crime boss.
Keep in mind that almost all common frauds and con-men are very intelligent. That does not prove they are not idiots for concluding that defrauding others is smart business.
Insulting a federal judge as Microsoft did yesterday shows just how stupid they really are.
If you want to think highly of criminals and others who think that defrauding others proves their worth, go ahead.
More than welcome. Sorry I only gave a link to a link.
By the way, CNet has taken to deleting posts that link to my site (even when submitted by others). It seems that CNet thinks my site is a competing service and therefore they trim out those posts.
And, this from a so-called "news" organization?
Not only do they defraud their readers but they also lie about their reasons for censorship.
I guess CNet thinks lying to the public and defrauding them benefits Microsoft Corporation. I have no idea what other reason they would have.
See my web site for the low down on the hearings today.
And, send an email off to CNet and let them know how you feel too. Either way.
You know as far as being repetative, you need to first decide whether the post is responsive. If it is responsive, then the "above post" is also repetitive and some do try to simply make you change your mind by suggesting the same responsive reply should be banned.
If a post is a non-sequitur, I fully agree. And, of course some posters use non-sequiturs simply to change the subject. Bringing it back on the topic should be welcomed.
It is extremely harmful for Microsoft to penalize OEMs for not selling Microsoft Products.
1. What Hpaq or Dell pays is the wholesale cost.
The wholesale cost has little or nothing to do what they gig you for it.
YOU pay the retail price. And, Microsoft's suggested retail price for XP is $200.
If you want to suggest HP charges something else you will have to get them to say so.
2. Agreements that only the monopolist can sign are inherently unfair and preclude competition.
Does Redhat get paid regardless of whether Redhat sells?
Does Redhat charge more if the OEMs sells a competitive product instead?
If not, then Microsoft should be restricted from such agreements as well.
The jerkheads currently violating federal law priviledges that others do not have is a primary problem and will have to be solved before fair and open competition can possibly exist.
There is no doubt that Microsoft uses illegal means to preclude competition. And, the agreements are only part of that process.
Xandros is also about to be released. That too will be a meaningful distribution.
HPaq also supplies Mandrake on some systems but charges just as much as for XP. And, that is too much.
Maybe when SUN brings out a desktop system with SUN Linux, Hpaq wakes up and IBM decides to help promote linux on the desktop instead of just taking orders; things will change.
Those corporations that can use StarOffice, OpenOffice, etc., but write their own custom applications need to seriously consider linux on the desktop. Java is a choice. And, Delphi/Kylix offers a good quality RAD system for development. Assuming that the GNU stuff is not up to your expectations.
Requiring IE now just help prove that Microsoft has illegally gained a second monopoly. And, those issues will be litigated in the AOL (Netscape) law suit.
Thanks for helping prove that AOL will win that law suit.
...to play well you need to smoke a cigar, sport a pop belly and be at least partly bald. Not too many robots can cover that.
I doubt a robot could ever catch a baseball either. Yet, kids and professionals master that with time. Assuming they have good eyesight and coordination.
I think similar skills and qualifications need to be mastered for pool as well. I can see a robot striking a ball with consistency. But, determining just how it should be struck may be left up to those who master the game. They are not good just because they are smart. They know because they are experienced and have developed a feel for the game. You could take lessons from a pool shark and hardly be any better at all. And, most pool sharks may not be able to tell you precisely what they did to make a certain shot anyway.
I have agree with those who claim there is more to pool than the angles.
It is hard to image a robot even being able to play the game. Although a robot could be consistently wrong. Not with the angles. But, with the other aspects of the using the stick (chalk, english, even play selection).
IE is not free when you pay cash for it as part of the bundle.
KDE is not free either when you buy a boxed linux distro.
Not knowing the price is not the same as free. Not knowing how much you pay is only that. Unknown.
And, the quality of IE does not matter.
If 100% of all consumer OS buyers were forced to buy Opera, Opera would have the lion's share of use on the internet. And, everyone would have a copy.
IE has a monopoly now because it was illegally bundled with the OS. Any other reason simply does not matter much.
Do not worry. The AOL (Netscape) law suit will take up both the attempted monopolization of the browser market and product tying. At the time of the DOJ case, IE only had about a 50% share of the market. It is fair to conclude that is not sufficent for an attempted monopolization charge. And, it clear is not a monopoly product. But, 95%+ is.
And, those are the facts that will be handled by a jury in the AOL case.
Once IE is unbundled from the OS, then like almost any other product, competition can resurface and most likely will. And, that is particularly true when linux establishes itself on the desktop.
Just today or yesterday, Wal-mart began to sell PCs preloaded with Lindows. And, Xandros will be releasing its distro before much longer. Both will do wonders for linux on the desktop. And, that will help open the competition for browsers too.
AOL (Netscape) has filed their private law suit against Microsoft.
And, unlike the current action by the States, the AOL law suit does charge Microsoft will attempted monpolization and tying of the browser to the OS.
In the States' action, those two issues were either not resolved (remanded) or pre-mature (only 50% market share achieved). That will not be the case for the AOL law suit.
Now, no doubt that AOL wants a hefty damage award and that could reach over 10 billion dollars. But, they are also asking for injunctive relief and could require Microsoft to sell the browser separately.
Keep in mind that the States' proposed remedy would only require Microsoft to either unbind the browser or sell two versions (one bound, one not bound). The proposal currently before the court does not require the OS to be sold separately.
The AOL (Netscape) law suit will be significant. Not only could AOl pick up some spare change, but injunctive relief could require the browser to be sold separately. Or, in the alternative require Microsoft to offer an OS sans browser so that Netscape or Opera could be packaged with the OS going out the door. That is not necessarily the case in the currently proposed remedies.
Microsoft (even under the remedies proposed by the States) could just unbind them, permit OEMs or end users to delete IE but still force all consumers to buy it. And, in all likelihood that is what Microsoft will do.
After all, forcing consumers to buy key products is the primary objective anyway. Integrating it or claiming it is integrated was just a legal excuse. Besides, integration does not require the bundling of the sale of the products anyway. Excell and MS Word are integated. But, you do not have to buy both of them.
But, the planet earth is a very nice life friendly place. We have plants and animals growing all over the place. And, we find life in some of the most inhospitable places. But, that life is not going to be walking around anytime soon.
Now it may be that many planets either have now or once had some form of life. But, how many planets will we have to survey before we find another "class M"? I guess class M means that man can survive on it? We may use up most of Carl Sagan's billions of worlds just to find a place similar to our own. And, if you remember in Carl's day, he was not sure we would not blow ourselves up before we get anywhere past our own world. And, now we only know of a couple of dozen planets in total?
And, today we know that an asteroid could all but wipe us out if our number comes up. So, we could be long gone before we amass enough intelligence to even know if we are alone. That asteroid that hit Jupiter could have had our address. And, we barely saw that one coming. We all saw it land. And, it made one hell of a mess.
And, of course, our stellar risk is the same risk that any other planet and its inhabitants would face. So, if you conclude that our odds of lasting very long are not good, the same would be true for them too.
There may be a reason SETI is not receiving any interesting messages? Of course, there is a reason. We just do not know what it is. It could be our own ignorance.
It might be that giving typewriters to a bunch of monkeys would make them more intelligent. Maybe some university could try that in their monkey labs. They could pass out typewriters to one bunch, laptops to another and of course a few old or broken ones to a control group. Of course, the laptops would have to have a word processor or maybe and old copy of Turbo Pascal for a fair test.
The real problem is that we have no idea what really caused the human species to become intelligent. One can assume that between a dumb ape and a smart ape, the smart one figured out how to survive. But, what made him smarter in the first place?
And, of course the real problem is that on this planet we have thousands if not millions of animal species. And, only one of them became aware of their own existence. What is that term that Star Trek shows always use? You know. That status they were not even sure Data the android achieved?
I think we just assume that if some life can exist that intelligent life would follow. I doubt that is true. How long do you think it would take on this planet for "another" species to be become sufficiently intelligent to get even close to the human race? There are some that we consider to be very intelligent. Some even have forms of communication among themselves. Perhaps they are even fairly sophisticated. But, do they know who we are? Do they know who they are?
One can even imagine finding a planet someone else that has an ocean and even has a population of whales. But, we can not talk to our own whales. So how we are going to talk to "their" whales is beyond me. And, "their" whales are not like to be sending out any signals that SETI will pick up either.
I like Carl Sagan's theory about billions and billions of other suns and worlds. But, we simply have no idea how rare we may be. The SETI project has been listening for radio messages for some time now. And, to date nothing has been announced that would suggest anyone else exists anywhere. Now, maybe we are listening in the wrong place. And, for the most part we only listen although all of those radio signals that get picked up by satellite continue on out into space. So, if they are listening they could pick up a run of the "I love Lucy" show. Or, "All in the Family". Or, perhaps a speech by Bin Laden? Or, maybe a re-run of "Star Trek IV". Now, that would really confuse them. But, SETI hears nothing.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, after awhile...
Maybe no one is out there. Or, maybe those monkeys have not figured out how to use their typewriters yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey. Do not knock the little guys. Amature radio proved it mettle (no relation) by providing the very first TV reception in space while in orbit. You think not? Just ask NASA. Sure, they send down the clips. But, the first time they "received" video via TV, it was on the amateur bands. Of course, anyone who knows anything about the astronauts knows that most of them are into amateur radio with some of the top permissions available. Just for the record.
"And if you don't have the knowledge, skill, or desire to do this on your own, does it hurt you any to have the source available?" Yes, it can. Your ability to deal with the source does not restrict what others can do. Worry about the inside guys too. An article at BBC helps point out the risk from insiders. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2 053000/2053716.stm
Actually, nothing you have said can be taken as credible.
And, that includes the reason you refuse to use your own name.
Most likely you do not even beleive your own words. And, that is why you refuse to let anyone know your identity.
Being a whistle blower is one thing.
Insulting others in the name of Microsoft reflects poorly upon them and their morals. And, when you use a fake name, your post does reflect upon Microsoft.
Idiots prove themselves by what they do.
I happen to have expertise in technology, economics and tbe law.
So, yes, I fully understand the harm caused to consumers and the industry.
And, I fully understand the economic conditions that can be used by monopolists to control the marketplace.
And, I understand all of the legal arguments made my Microsoft in order to maintain their power.
And, I understand how idiotic Microsoft looks when they lie about the basic technology issues.
So, is it serious?
Yes. They are serious idiots.
They lie about the technology, the economics and the law in order to maintain their monopoly. What the witnesses say in court is only restricted by possible charges of perjury. And, there have been some instances where that should be the result. What the lawyers say is priviledged. They are only restricted to what they think they can get away with. And, upon more than one occasion Microsoft lawyers have most likely insulted the federal bench.
But, in either case idiocy is not protected. Rather it is proven by what they do.
You can excuse that conduct if you want. But, since you have no name I doubt that even you do so. At least you will not admit it. Sometimes the "coward" label fits.
Yes. But, they were going to bill those hours even without saying stupid things.
Lawyers can say intelligent things and still charge, right?
The stupidity comes in when you tell the judge one day that your client will do everything in their power to comply with an order of the court and then the next ignore that same judge by refusing to answer a very appropriate question.
My dictionary says an idiot has the IQ of 25, about that of a two year old. Clearly that definition does not apply to anyone who can log on.
But, it also defines an idiot as "a foolish or stupid person".
And, many people who claim to have large amounts of money still qualify under that definition. Enron and Anderson are two other companies that have recently demonstrated their idiocy.
Making money illegally is just fine until you get caught. Then it depends. But, being very successful at making money by violating the law never qualifies anyone in my book to be anything but an idiot.
And, why is that?
The reason is that non-idiots do not need to rely upon illegal acts to earn money. They do it the legal way.
But, idiots just force the sale of products, collect the money and then lie to the judge. Just like the Microsoft lawyers did yesterday. And, just like the Microsoft lawyers have consistently done in this case.
You may not remember. But, back when the DOJ first finished up their part of the case during the liability portion, Microsoft lawyers actually got on the steps outside the courtroom and flat ass lied. They said that no admissible evidence has been brought forth by the DOJ. Sounds just like the lie they told the judge yesterday, not?
But, the lie has changed from "we do not have a monopoly" to "we do not want a monopoly". Both are lies. Microsoft's money rests upon having the monopoly and illegally maintaining it.
They are idiots for thinking anyone would respect them.
And, just about everyone who does go along with them qualifies as well.
Gates has money. So does organized crime. But, that does not cause me to buy illegal drugs off the street.
So if anyone wants to say Gates is not an idiot, look at all his money. That is fine.
But, lots of criminals have lots of money too.
I no more respect Gates than a common criminal. They both use the same morals, the same values and even lawyers. But, lawyers do not determine the morals of their clients unless they insist upon it.
By the way, it does not take much intelligence to know that illegally bundling a browser with your monopoly product will screw hundreds of millions and gain yourself another monopoly product.
But, it does take an idiot to think that others will actually believe the new monopoly was achieved legally or because of superior technology.
Gates is an idiot. And, he is an idiot because either he has failed to take his lawyers advice and stay clear of violating the antitrust laws or he failed to hire honest lawyers.
Gates is also an idiot for insulting the intelligence of the federal judges.
If you continue to claim that organized criminals are not idiots because they are successful in their criminal endevors, that is fine with me.
Being successful in getting money from others does not prove you are not an idiot.
You can work for organized crime if you want to. That is up to you.
Just do not be so stupid as to suggest to others that they should adopt your corrupt morals or give credit to your crime boss.
It will never happen.
Absolutely nothing disproves idiocy.
If you do stupid things then you are one.
Keep in mind that almost all common frauds and con-men are very intelligent. That does not prove they are not idiots for concluding that defrauding others is smart business.
Insulting a federal judge as Microsoft did yesterday shows just how stupid they really are.
If you want to think highly of criminals and others who think that defrauding others proves their worth, go ahead.
But, Gates is a proven idiot.
More than welcome. Sorry I only gave a link to a link.
By the way, CNet has taken to deleting posts that link to my site (even when submitted by others). It seems that CNet thinks my site is a competing service and therefore they trim out those posts.
And, this from a so-called "news" organization?
Not only do they defraud their readers but they also lie about their reasons for censorship.
I guess CNet thinks lying to the public and defrauding them benefits Microsoft Corporation. I have no idea what other reason they would have.
Take a look at my web site.
I do provide a link there. And, I can thank The Register for digging it up.
..fair comment...
See my web site for the low down on the hearings today.
And, send an email off to CNet and let them know how you feel too. Either way.
You know as far as being repetative, you need to first decide whether the post is responsive. If it is responsive, then the "above post" is also repetitive and some do try to simply make you change your mind by suggesting the same responsive reply should be banned.
If a post is a non-sequitur, I fully agree. And, of course some posters use non-sequiturs simply to change the subject. Bringing it back on the topic should be welcomed.
And let organized crime harm consumers and the industry.
No way.
Those idiots insulted the federal judge today.
Anyone knows the power of a monopolist.
Acting immoral or in violation of the law does not disprove idiocy at all.
Maintaining a monopoly is easy is you just lie and ignore the laws.
Gates is an idiot for concluding that everyone is as dumb as he takes them for.
And, as long as he is willing to violate the law to maintain his monopoly and screw consumers, he will continue doing precisely that.
And, since he obviously thinks he can turn the screws tighter on consumers, he raised the prices and tightened the license conditions.
That is a give away that he thinks his customers are idiots too.
And, if you buy Microsoft products, you do quality to some extent. Unless you had no choice. And, for some that is the case.
Having a large selection of software permits Microsoft to screw you. And, they know it. And, that is why they do so.
It is extremely harmful for Microsoft to penalize OEMs for not selling Microsoft Products.
1. What Hpaq or Dell pays is the wholesale cost.
The wholesale cost has little or nothing to do what they gig you for it.
YOU pay the retail price. And, Microsoft's suggested retail price for XP is $200.
If you want to suggest HP charges something else you will have to get them to say so.
2. Agreements that only the monopolist can sign are inherently unfair and preclude competition.
Does Redhat get paid regardless of whether Redhat sells?
Does Redhat charge more if the OEMs sells a competitive product instead?
If not, then Microsoft should be restricted from such agreements as well.
The jerkheads currently violating federal law priviledges that others do not have is a primary problem and will have to be solved before fair and open competition can possibly exist.
There is no doubt that Microsoft uses illegal means to preclude competition. And, the agreements are only part of that process.
The suggested retail price for Ms XP is $200.
That is a stiff item at the low end.
OEMs like Hpaq, IBM, DELL and Gateway should begin to offer PCs sans OS as an alternative.
If they all get together and just tell the idiot to stuff it, they could do business on their own terms.
Idiots like Gates do not deserve to be in business. They are a leach on society, harmful to all consumers and harmful to the industry as well.
Wal-Mart is helping to show the way.
Offering Mandrake and Lindows is a good move.
Xandros is also about to be released. That too will be a meaningful distribution.
HPaq also supplies Mandrake on some systems but charges just as much as for XP. And, that is too much.
Maybe when SUN brings out a desktop system with SUN Linux, Hpaq wakes up and IBM decides to help promote linux on the desktop instead of just taking orders; things will change.
Those corporations that can use StarOffice, OpenOffice, etc., but write their own custom applications need to seriously consider linux on the desktop. Java is a choice. And, Delphi/Kylix offers a good quality RAD system for development. Assuming that the GNU stuff is not up to your expectations.
"Competition" is the correct word.
And, it can never occur as long as Microsoft illegally bundles IE.
Requiring IE now just help prove that Microsoft has illegally gained a second monopoly. And, those issues will be litigated in the AOL (Netscape) law suit.
Thanks for helping prove that AOL will win that law suit.
...to play well you need to smoke a cigar, sport a pop belly and be at least partly bald. Not too many robots can cover that.
I doubt a robot could ever catch a baseball either. Yet, kids and professionals master that with time. Assuming they have good eyesight and coordination.
I think similar skills and qualifications need to be mastered for pool as well. I can see a robot striking a ball with consistency. But, determining just how it should be struck may be left up to those who master the game. They are not good just because they are smart. They know because they are experienced and have developed a feel for the game. You could take lessons from a pool shark and hardly be any better at all. And, most pool sharks may not be able to tell you precisely what they did to make a certain shot anyway.
I have agree with those who claim there is more to pool than the angles.
It is hard to image a robot even being able to play the game. Although a robot could be consistently wrong. Not with the angles. But, with the other aspects of the using the stick (chalk, english, even play selection).
IE is not free when you pay cash for it as part of the bundle.
KDE is not free either when you buy a boxed linux distro.
Not knowing the price is not the same as free. Not knowing how much you pay is only that. Unknown.
And, the quality of IE does not matter.
If 100% of all consumer OS buyers were forced to buy Opera, Opera would have the lion's share of use on the internet. And, everyone would have a copy.
IE has a monopoly now because it was illegally bundled with the OS. Any other reason simply does not matter much.
Do not worry. The AOL (Netscape) law suit will take up both the attempted monopolization of the browser market and product tying. At the time of the DOJ case, IE only had about a 50% share of the market. It is fair to conclude that is not sufficent for an attempted monopolization charge. And, it clear is not a monopoly product. But, 95%+ is.
And, those are the facts that will be handled by a jury in the AOL case.
Once IE is unbundled from the OS, then like almost any other product, competition can resurface and most likely will. And, that is particularly true when linux establishes itself on the desktop.
Just today or yesterday, Wal-mart began to sell PCs preloaded with Lindows. And, Xandros will be releasing its distro before much longer. Both will do wonders for linux on the desktop. And, that will help open the competition for browsers too.
AOL (Netscape) has filed their private law suit against Microsoft.
And, unlike the current action by the States, the AOL law suit does charge Microsoft will attempted monpolization and tying of the browser to the OS.
In the States' action, those two issues were either not resolved (remanded) or pre-mature (only 50% market share achieved). That will not be the case for the AOL law suit.
Now, no doubt that AOL wants a hefty damage award and that could reach over 10 billion dollars. But, they are also asking for injunctive relief and could require Microsoft to sell the browser separately.
Keep in mind that the States' proposed remedy would only require Microsoft to either unbind the browser or sell two versions (one bound, one not bound). The proposal currently before the court does not require the OS to be sold separately.
The AOL (Netscape) law suit will be significant. Not only could AOl pick up some spare change, but injunctive relief could require the browser to be sold separately. Or, in the alternative require Microsoft to offer an OS sans browser so that Netscape or Opera could be packaged with the OS going out the door. That is not necessarily the case in the currently proposed remedies.
Microsoft (even under the remedies proposed by the States) could just unbind them, permit OEMs or end users to delete IE but still force all consumers to buy it. And, in all likelihood that is what Microsoft will do.
After all, forcing consumers to buy key products is the primary objective anyway. Integrating it or claiming it is integrated was just a legal excuse. Besides, integration does not require the bundling of the sale of the products anyway. Excell and MS Word are integated. But, you do not have to buy both of them.
Forgot all about that. You are right.
:-)
And, since the monkey got smart we upgraded the monolith to an ATM kit.
Oh no doubt.
Finding any form of life would be incredible.
But, the planet earth is a very nice life friendly place. We have plants and animals growing all over the place. And, we find life in some of the most inhospitable places. But, that life is not going to be walking around anytime soon.
Now it may be that many planets either have now or once had some form of life. But, how many planets will we have to survey before we find another "class M"? I guess class M means that man can survive on it? We may use up most of Carl Sagan's billions of worlds just to find a place similar to our own. And, if you remember in Carl's day, he was not sure we would not blow ourselves up before we get anywhere past our own world. And, now we only know of a couple of dozen planets in total?
And, today we know that an asteroid could all but wipe us out if our number comes up. So, we could be long gone before we amass enough intelligence to even know if we are alone. That asteroid that hit Jupiter could have had our address. And, we barely saw that one coming. We all saw it land. And, it made one hell of a mess.
And, of course, our stellar risk is the same risk that any other planet and its inhabitants would face. So, if you conclude that our odds of lasting very long are not good, the same would be true for them too.
There may be a reason SETI is not receiving any interesting messages? Of course, there is a reason. We just do not know what it is. It could be our own ignorance.
It might be that giving typewriters to a bunch of monkeys would make them more intelligent. Maybe some university could try that in their monkey labs. They could pass out typewriters to one bunch, laptops to another and of course a few old or broken ones to a control group. Of course, the laptops would have to have a word processor or maybe and old copy of Turbo Pascal for a fair test.
...
The real problem is that we have no idea what really caused the human species to become intelligent. One can assume that between a dumb ape and a smart ape, the smart one figured out how to survive. But, what made him smarter in the first place?
And, of course the real problem is that on this planet we have thousands if not millions of animal species. And, only one of them became aware of their own existence. What is that term that Star Trek shows always use? You know. That status they were not even sure Data the android achieved?
I think we just assume that if some life can exist that intelligent life would follow. I doubt that is true. How long do you think it would take on this planet for "another" species to be become sufficiently intelligent to get even close to the human race? There are some that we consider to be very intelligent. Some even have forms of communication among themselves. Perhaps they are even fairly sophisticated. But, do they know who we are? Do they know who they are?
One can even imagine finding a planet someone else that has an ocean and even has a population of whales. But, we can not talk to our own whales. So how we are going to talk to "their" whales is beyond me. And, "their" whales are not like to be sending out any signals that SETI will pick up either.
I like Carl Sagan's theory about billions and billions of other suns and worlds. But, we simply have no idea how rare we may be. The SETI project has been listening for radio messages for some time now. And, to date nothing has been announced that would suggest anyone else exists anywhere. Now, maybe we are listening in the wrong place. And, for the most part we only listen although all of those radio signals that get picked up by satellite continue on out into space. So, if they are listening they could pick up a run of the "I love Lucy" show. Or, "All in the Family". Or, perhaps a speech by Bin Laden? Or, maybe a re-run of "Star Trek IV". Now, that would really confuse them. But, SETI hears nothing.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, after awhile
Maybe no one is out there. Or, maybe those monkeys have not figured out how to use their typewriters yet.