How does Microsoft leverage their monopolies to take control of the situation? Should they incorporate it directly into their operating system and browser or as a free addon to their office product?
Maybe they could tweak IIS so that it slows Flash down while optimizing the speed of their products?
Just being a business does not excuse Microsoft's behavior. Obviously we need to hold politicians who are overly influenced by corporate money accountable but we also need to hold the corporations accountable.
In a world where Microsoft holds a monopoly AND fights to prevent interoperability a comment about not having to use Microsoft products is a hollow statement at best.
And how long will it be until some religious zealots includes such films as "The Wizard of Oz" because you know the wicked Witch of the West was doing all sorts of things that might be considered "terrorism." Oh, and that Harry potter series THAT has got to go and...
Both what you said and what the parent post said is true. What Imus said was despicable and stupid. He got what he deserved.
However Al Sharpton and others deserve public outrage against them as well for being bigots of a different flavor. It's pretty obvious that in situations involving Blacks and Whites Sharpton always takes the side of the Blacks, facts be damned. So as much as he would like to claim the high road he's just another bigot and part of the problem not the solution.
If someone came up with really cheap energy and they didn't sell it to the oil industry they could expect the oil industry to protect its market any way it could. Even by making an unfortunate accident happen to that individual if they didn't think they could contain the threat through lobbying efforts.
When you're talking billions of dollars there are lots of people who will do anything.
"And no, please don't explain to me how those were "all completely different...""
Well you won't find me defending any political party. But... Some of those things were different.
I agree with you that we the people are no longer represented in our government. It is the corporate money that allows politicians to win the elections and that's what they care about most.
Politics is a dirty and complex game. The more I look at it the more I want to resign from the human race. At least with Bosnia we were stopping a genocide. I'm sure there was more to it than that but I could stomach a military conflict because it felt like we were really intervening in something horrid.
I feel like the war we have now was started by despicable people for despicable reasons. Not for the reasons they fed us.
If you go out to democracy.org and watch the video of the interview with Ret. Gen. Clark he states that he was at the pentagon about ten days after 9/11 and was told by one of his former staff that the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq. He goes on to state that some time later he was told that they plan on invading seven countries.
I don't like any political party but this Administration is out of control.
Hiring a RIAA shill (and I'm not sure if she is or isn't as I don't really know anything about her) does not even come close to what the Bush administration has done and really doesn't reflect much if anything on the Democrats.
You're creating a sort of straw man argument and not a very good one. I.E. According to you the Democrats put a former RIAA employee into a political position and the RIAA wants to do all these terrible things therefore the Democrats are evil because they must also want to do all these terrible. Talk about a jump in logic.
I would like to see SCO bite the big one AFTER they get annihilated in the courts. I don't want anyone to be able to say that the SCO case had merit and "If only they hadn't run out of money before winning."
I also believe that just crushing SCO the corporation isn't sufficient. There are people who made buckets of money because of the litigation strategy. No one should profit by leading a company down a slimy destructive path. For the sake of stockholders everywhere I hope the people responsible are held accountable.
the best solution to our energy problem in the long run would be some source that doesn't deplete anything on our planet. That pretty much leaves solar, wind, geothermal and tidal. And it could probably be argued that geothermal would cool the earth's core faster.
What I absolutely do not want, however, is the same greedy bastards that are raping us now for our energy to control the development of future energy. Think about it. If they have a choice of giving us near free energy or continuing to corn-hole us, which do you think they'll choose?
"Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted -- lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas..."
Can you say backup?? Sure you can...
I don't believe that there aren't backups of all that data. Go get 'em boys...
You're probably right that there isn't any ASAT weapons to date able to target it and I'm sure it would be an act of war to do so. What I'm worried about is that in a future war they will be targeted. I don't think it would be a good thing to depend too heavily on that route of communication.
I guess it just doesn't seem that hard to me to destroy a satellite with a nuke even if the nuke isn't well aimed.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that putting a satellite into space that will route critical information for our Defense Department is a bad idea after China made clear it is working on satellite killer technology?
"Rights exist, not because they are natural or God-given, but because they are concessions we have extracted from the Dude With The Big Stick."
This I guess is kind of true and kind of not. It all depends are what a "right" is. It's kind of an abstract concept. Some of our forefathers believed we had inalienable rights. It seems to me that they were implying that these were "God-given" rights to all people. I think they justified the revolution based on the premise that England was denying them these God-given rights.
I do agree with you about the dude with the big stick. when all is said and done, these are the only rights we are allowed to exercise.
If I say "I don't think it is right to kill people." that is expressing one of my moral beliefs. There is no "backing up" of that belief. It's just a belief. Some people may think it is perfectly fine to kill other people and that would be their moral belief.
What I expressed in my earlier posts were some of MY moral beliefs. It's not a cop out it is just the way it is. You obviously don't agree with what I have said and that is your moral belief and that's fine. You have nothing to back up your moral beliefs either.
I believe that there is an absolute right and wrong, you apparently do not. There is no "proving" either position. I really don't think I can explain the abstract concept of morality any better than that. So if you still don't get it that's okay. A lot of people in the world today don't.
Moral beliefs are not something that can be proven or need supporting evidence. And my moral beliefs are as valid as your's (or the lack there of) even if you don't agree with them.
Now if I were expressing a belief about a provable fact then the statement that it was "unfounded and unsupportable" might be true. For example, I believe that you're an asshole and not overly bright. This is not well supported as I don't actually know you. The only evidence that you're not very intelligent is your inability to discern a moral belief and belief in facts. The only evidence that you're an asshole is that you attempt to invalidate the moral beliefs of others.
So you could say that my belief that you're an insensitive moron was "unfounded and unsupportable" however the same can not be said of anyone's moral beliefs. You may disagree with other's moral beliefs and that's okay but it would be necessary to try to invalidate them.
Paul's premise for his conclusion that Microsoft isn't dangerous is expressed in the first paragraph of his article:
"A few days ago I suddenly realized Microsoft was dead. I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized he didn't understand. It was as if I'd told him how much girls liked Barry Manilow in the mid 80s. Barry who?"
Oh boy. As much as I would like it to be true, it's not. Microsoft still has a monopoly, still plays dirty by abusing its monopoly power and the Justice Department still has no balls. That means that Microsoft is still very dangerous.
They are now moving toward gaming the legal system with patent games and SCO like harassment lawsuits. Many believe that they indirectly and directly provided funding for the SCO fiasco. Yep, as long as they are both powerful and corporate thugs they're dangerous.
I would not suggest that the IT industry put down its guard even for one second just because one person is too young to have seen Microsoft's ugly side.
Maybe I should have said that I don't think we should give ALL human rights to a monkey.
We should consider a monkey to be a monkey but that doesn't mean we have the right to treat them with cruelty. Everything I said, I believe to be true but I also don't believe a monkey to be a human or a horse to be a dog. Monkeys shouldn't be allowed to vote etc.
"I think applying this human-oriented empathy to other animals is anthropomorphism at its finest, and needs to either be justified by hard evidence, or dismissed."
There are many of us that feel that there is a moral issue that needs to be addressed. What inherent right do we have to perform painful experiments on other life forms? The savage truth is that we have no such right. We get away with it because the life forms we hurt in the process are helpless.
Pretending that we are somehow so superior because we're smarter is really vanity. In the end you and I will be just as dead as the piss ant we step on. We will probably be the creatures that destroy all life on our planet. It's hard to claim superiority with that looming in our future.
Every creature developed from the Earth as part of an eco system and I am not denying that as part of that eco system animals kill one another in order to survive and we are nothing more than intelligent animals.
However, I also believe that our superior intelligence gives us superior responsibilities. Responsibilities like not destroying the planet. Not causing the mass extinction of other species in order to satisfy our wants. Not torturing creatures in painful experiments. In general the responsibility to be guardians of the eco system. The problem is that we are very intelligent but not too wise.
I can't claim that there is proof of a God but I do hope that in this vastly complex universe there are powers that will make accountable every act; good or bad, just or unjust, kind or cruel. I do believe that moral issues should not be trivialized for if there is anything that would make us superior to other animals it would be our ability to do what is morally right.
All that said, I don't think we should give human rights to a monkey.
"Of course, if you're using KDE on Windows as a migration step towards KDE on Linux, once you move to Linux the WIN32 API disappears along with the windows apps."
Wow! There really are no drawbacks to using KDE on windows!
Wow! Microsoft's PR group really goes the extra mile to analyze and try to control a situation. Under the "Expected Q & A" section where they give the questions that they think will be asked and supply the PR approved answers they seem to have forgotten one:
Q: Have your answers been scripted?
A: No, we here at Microsoft believe in spontaneity. It is the true source of our innovation.
"I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration..."
Right and elevate all doubt that mono violates Microsoft's patents.
This is EXACTLY why we should let the mono project die. Don't support it, don't use it. Find other ways to deliver active web pages. PHP, JAVA, etc...
Microsoft has shown in both word and deed that they are not interested in coexistence with open source. We should all work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. It won't be quick and it won't be easy but it really needs to be done.
This lawsuit makes perfect sense. How can any Diebold executive promise to deliver the State to the Republican party if that State refuses to use Diebold voting machines? The fact that the machines are verifiably flawed be damned!
Slashdot Mirror
that the browser wars have ended. And Microsoft will be decoupling IE from their monopoly OS when?
How does Microsoft leverage their monopolies to take control of the situation? Should they incorporate it directly into their operating system and browser or as a free addon to their office product?
Maybe they could tweak IIS so that it slows Flash down while optimizing the speed of their products?
So many dirty tricks and so little time...
Just being a business does not excuse Microsoft's behavior. Obviously we need to hold politicians who are overly influenced by corporate money accountable but we also need to hold the corporations accountable.
In a world where Microsoft holds a monopoly AND fights to prevent interoperability a comment about not having to use Microsoft products is a hollow statement at best.
And how long will it be until some religious zealots includes such films as "The Wizard of Oz" because you know the wicked Witch of the West was doing all sorts of things that might be considered "terrorism." Oh, and that Harry potter series THAT has got to go and...
Both what you said and what the parent post said is true. What Imus said was despicable and stupid. He got what he deserved.
However Al Sharpton and others deserve public outrage against them as well for being bigots of a different flavor. It's pretty obvious that in situations involving Blacks and Whites Sharpton always takes the side of the Blacks, facts be damned. So as much as he would like to claim the high road he's just another bigot and part of the problem not the solution.
If someone came up with really cheap energy and they didn't sell it to the oil industry they could expect the oil industry to protect its market any way it could. Even by making an unfortunate accident happen to that individual if they didn't think they could contain the threat through lobbying efforts.
When you're talking billions of dollars there are lots of people who will do anything.
As soon as the certificates become less expensive than toilet paper...
"And no, please don't explain to me how those were "all completely different...""
Well you won't find me defending any political party. But... Some of those things were different.
I agree with you that we the people are no longer represented in our government. It is the corporate money that allows politicians to win the elections and that's what they care about most.
Politics is a dirty and complex game. The more I look at it the more I want to resign from the human race. At least with Bosnia we were stopping a genocide. I'm sure there was more to it than that but I could stomach a military conflict because it felt like we were really intervening in something horrid.
I feel like the war we have now was started by despicable people for despicable reasons. Not for the reasons they fed us.
If you go out to democracy.org and watch the video of the interview with Ret. Gen. Clark he states that he was at the pentagon about ten days after 9/11 and was told by one of his former staff that the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq. He goes on to state that some time later he was told that they plan on invading seven countries.
I don't like any political party but this Administration is out of control.
Hiring a RIAA shill (and I'm not sure if she is or isn't as I don't really know anything about her) does not even come close to what the Bush administration has done and really doesn't reflect much if anything on the Democrats.
You're creating a sort of straw man argument and not a very good one. I.E. According to you the Democrats put a former RIAA employee into a political position and the RIAA wants to do all these terrible things therefore the Democrats are evil because they must also want to do all these terrible. Talk about a jump in logic.
I would like to see SCO bite the big one AFTER they get annihilated in the courts. I don't want anyone to be able to say that the SCO case had merit and "If only they hadn't run out of money before winning."
I also believe that just crushing SCO the corporation isn't sufficient. There are people who made buckets of money because of the litigation strategy. No one should profit by leading a company down a slimy destructive path. For the sake of stockholders everywhere I hope the people responsible are held accountable.
the best solution to our energy problem in the long run would be some source that doesn't deplete anything on our planet. That pretty much leaves solar, wind, geothermal and tidal. And it could probably be argued that geothermal would cool the earth's core faster.
What I absolutely do not want, however, is the same greedy bastards that are raping us now for our energy to control the development of future energy. Think about it. If they have a choice of giving us near free energy or continuing to corn-hole us, which do you think they'll choose?
"Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted -- lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas..."
Can you say backup?? Sure you can...
I don't believe that there aren't backups of all that data. Go get 'em boys...
You're probably right that there isn't any ASAT weapons to date able to target it and I'm sure it would be an act of war to do so. What I'm worried about is that in a future war they will be targeted. I don't think it would be a good thing to depend too heavily on that route of communication.
I guess it just doesn't seem that hard to me to destroy a satellite with a nuke even if the nuke isn't well aimed.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that putting a satellite into space that will route critical information for our Defense Department is a bad idea after China made clear it is working on satellite killer technology?
I agree with most of what you say.
"Rights exist, not because they are natural or God-given, but because they are concessions we have extracted from the Dude With The Big Stick."
This I guess is kind of true and kind of not. It all depends are what a "right" is. It's kind of an abstract concept. Some of our forefathers believed we had inalienable rights. It seems to me that they were implying that these were "God-given" rights to all people. I think they justified the revolution based on the premise that England was denying them these God-given rights.
I do agree with you about the dude with the big stick. when all is said and done, these are the only rights we are allowed to exercise.
You really don't get it do you?
If I say "I don't think it is right to kill people." that is expressing one of my moral beliefs. There is no "backing up" of that belief. It's just a belief. Some people may think it is perfectly fine to kill other people and that would be their moral belief.
What I expressed in my earlier posts were some of MY moral beliefs. It's not a cop out it is just the way it is. You obviously don't agree with what I have said and that is your moral belief and that's fine. You have nothing to back up your moral beliefs either.
I believe that there is an absolute right and wrong, you apparently do not. There is no "proving" either position. I really don't think I can explain the abstract concept of morality any better than that. So if you still don't get it that's okay. A lot of people in the world today don't.
Moral beliefs are not something that can be proven or need supporting evidence. And my moral beliefs are as valid as your's (or the lack there of) even if you don't agree with them.
Now if I were expressing a belief about a provable fact then the statement that it was "unfounded and unsupportable" might be true. For example, I believe that you're an asshole and not overly bright. This is not well supported as I don't actually know you. The only evidence that you're not very intelligent is your inability to discern a moral belief and belief in facts. The only evidence that you're an asshole is that you attempt to invalidate the moral beliefs of others.
So you could say that my belief that you're an insensitive moron was "unfounded and unsupportable" however the same can not be said of anyone's moral beliefs. You may disagree with other's moral beliefs and that's okay but it would be necessary to try to invalidate them.
Paul's premise for his conclusion that Microsoft isn't dangerous is expressed in the first paragraph of his article:
"A few days ago I suddenly realized Microsoft was dead. I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized he didn't understand. It was as if I'd told him how much girls liked Barry Manilow in the mid 80s. Barry who?"
Oh boy. As much as I would like it to be true, it's not. Microsoft still has a monopoly, still plays dirty by abusing its monopoly power and the Justice Department still has no balls. That means that Microsoft is still very dangerous.
They are now moving toward gaming the legal system with patent games and SCO like harassment lawsuits. Many believe that they indirectly and directly provided funding for the SCO fiasco. Yep, as long as they are both powerful and corporate thugs they're dangerous.
I would not suggest that the IT industry put down its guard even for one second just because one person is too young to have seen Microsoft's ugly side.
This is not about proving a fact. It is a moral belief.
Maybe I should have said that I don't think we should give ALL human rights to a monkey.
We should consider a monkey to be a monkey but that doesn't mean we have the right to treat them with cruelty. Everything I said, I believe to be true but I also don't believe a monkey to be a human or a horse to be a dog. Monkeys shouldn't be allowed to vote etc.
"I think applying this human-oriented empathy to other animals is anthropomorphism at its finest, and needs to either be justified by hard evidence, or dismissed."
There are many of us that feel that there is a moral issue that needs to be addressed. What inherent right do we have to perform painful experiments on other life forms? The savage truth is that we have no such right. We get away with it because the life forms we hurt in the process are helpless.
Pretending that we are somehow so superior because we're smarter is really vanity. In the end you and I will be just as dead as the piss ant we step on. We will probably be the creatures that destroy all life on our planet. It's hard to claim superiority with that looming in our future.
Every creature developed from the Earth as part of an eco system and I am not denying that as part of that eco system animals kill one another in order to survive and we are nothing more than intelligent animals.
However, I also believe that our superior intelligence gives us superior responsibilities. Responsibilities like not destroying the planet. Not causing the mass extinction of other species in order to satisfy our wants. Not torturing creatures in painful experiments. In general the responsibility to be guardians of the eco system. The problem is that we are very intelligent but not too wise.
I can't claim that there is proof of a God but I do hope that in this vastly complex universe there are powers that will make accountable every act; good or bad, just or unjust, kind or cruel. I do believe that moral issues should not be trivialized for if there is anything that would make us superior to other animals it would be our ability to do what is morally right.
All that said, I don't think we should give human rights to a monkey.
"Of course, if you're using KDE on Windows as a migration step towards KDE on Linux, once you move to Linux the WIN32 API disappears along with the windows apps."
Wow! There really are no drawbacks to using KDE on windows!
Wow! Microsoft's PR group really goes the extra mile to analyze and try to control a situation. Under the "Expected Q & A" section where they give the questions that they think will be asked and supply the PR approved answers they seem to have forgotten one:
Q: Have your answers been scripted?
A: No, we here at Microsoft believe in spontaneity. It is the true source of our innovation.
"I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration..."
Right and elevate all doubt that mono violates Microsoft's patents.
This is EXACTLY why we should let the mono project die. Don't support it, don't use it. Find other ways to deliver active web pages. PHP, JAVA, etc...
Microsoft has shown in both word and deed that they are not interested in coexistence with open source. We should all work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. It won't be quick and it won't be easy but it really needs to be done.
This lawsuit makes perfect sense. How can any Diebold executive promise to deliver the State to the Republican party if that State refuses to use Diebold voting machines? The fact that the machines are verifiably flawed be damned!