I disagree that they are irrelevant to this discussion. The only source you have directly cited and the only source I am responding to is the Cato Institute.
Even if your cigarette example were accurate it is irrelevant.
I dare you to prove that it's inaccurate. Come on, do it. I double dare you.
Second, your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view.
This is nonsense. I have posted evidence showing that the Cato Institute fits the very definition of a shill. (As it applies in this context.) You can't prove otherwise, because it's the documented truth. You might choose to argue that even though they are shills (overall), they are right in this instance and this would at least be a respectable stance, but to ignore the evidence staring you in the face is just silly.
To actually go yet another step and imply that the source I quoted is lying is really going over the top. The quote is right here.The financial ties are also easily proven.
Actually your definition of corporate shill does not agree with mine. Unlike you, I don't automatically consider anyone who argues that the government made an error to be a shill,
See this is your problem, you completely ignore reality. I've given links to examples where the Cato Institute has been shown to fit the EXACT definition of a shill.
Uh, "published by" refers to the "Policy Analysis" journal
Which is the document you posted a link to. It is the document I am discussing. It is from the Cato institute.
Please do so, please equate using Mac/AppleWorks/etc and Linux/OpenOffice/etc with writing your own OS and apps.
This is obviously dishonest on your part. I have not done this.
Attempting to attack the messenger is a pretty weak rebuttal
You posted information from a known corporate shill as your rebuttal. I was hoping you didn't know that, but it seems like you do and just don't care.
even more so when you pick the wrong target. This was not Cato research
From the link you posted: Richard McKenzie is a professor in the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Irvine; author of Trust on Trial: How the Microsoft Case Is Reframing the Rules of Competition (Boston: Perseus, 2000); and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
and also from the PDF: Published by the Cato Institute
So obviously this has nothing to do with the Cato Institute (sarcasm).
The professor replaced "that many" with "70,000" since he was not including the *preceeding line* and he properly cited the change with brackets.
I'll admit that I was incorrect here but not about the spirt of the discussion. Arguing the exactness of the 70,000 number is not the same as rebutting the judge's point.
That is simply rebut by the fact that the majority of home users do very simple things. They could do those things with a Mac, they could do those things with Linux, but they choose not too.
This is not a simple rebut as it's a complex issue. In a similar vein I can say that consumers "choose" not to write all their own operating systems and applications. Of course, the actual reality is that most consumers lack the resources to do this. Many lack the resource to do anything but run Windows.
The judge's arguments are weak and at times non-sensical. You seem to confuse legally binding with factually correct. The judge's writing are only "facts" in a legal ruling sense, not in the absolute sense of being correct. Judges are often found to be wrong in their fact and overruled by other courts.
Whereas the Cato Institute is not subject to the same scrutiny.
Those exclusive deals were the mechanism by which MS did not "charge enough". Those deals were pretty sweet from a pricing point of view.
That might be your viewpoint, but it neglects things like the hidden cost of *not* being able to sell anything but Windows.
Consumers can, and will, replace MS whenever they feel like it.
In the same way that we can go to Mars any time we want. In absolutist terms, both statements are true, but functionally they aren't. There is a HUGE cost assosciated.
Not true. You may not like the actual facts I'm presenting, but at least I'm bothing to present actual facts.
Sampling the cars at a few different WalMarts in different neighborhoods should be more accurate than bulk census info.
If by "accurate" you mean more biased in the direction of your opinion but having vastly less confidence in the results. (I'm sure the Cato Institute would oblige.) I don't think you have a good concept of the number of varibles here. I also think you don't actually want to since you're ignoring obvious issues like poor people taking the bus or riding with a friend.
It's also the surface area, this is why Champagne classes are skinny. The more extreme the aspect ratio of the glass in the skinny/tall direction, the longer your bubbly will stay bubbly and the longer it will take for the head on your beer to settle.
Tilting the glass not only reduces the turbulence of the liquid, but also increases the exposed surface area.
Funny anecdote - a graduate student here asked a prof for a good hangout, and he recommended a place right across our research lab. Dude took his girlfriend there, only to realize that it's a strip club. Hilarity ensued.
If you think only the poor shop at WalMart you have obviously not taken a census of the cars in the parking lots.
1) Maybe you live somewhere more affluent than me, but the cars at my local Walmart aren't that nice. (It might suprise you to learn that people in some areas have more money than others.)
2) It may also suprise you to learn that some people don't own cars, especially poor people.
3) I posted real census information overturning your claim that the poor in America are "few" and your response is "look at the cars". LOOK AT THE ACTUAL CENSUS. It's real statistical data, not a bunch of idle talk.
(1) You conveniently ignore the rise to dominance.
Ah but I don't. It's not as if these two antitrust convictions were in the last two years. This has been going on for quite some time, as have Microsoft's illegal tactics.
You equate an anti-trust conviction with the existence of a monopolist market, the former does not imply the later.
From the findings of fact:
" Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
In response to the particular sections you quoted:
-The first quote is nonsensical. First it tells me that 70,000 appilcations dependant on windows represent a barrier to entry for other operating systems which do not have this library of applications. This is essentailly true. Next it says that a competing operating system would need a similar suite of applications in order to compete. I think we can agree that this is also true.
Now here comes sentence number four. It's a quote from the judge with the number 70,000 inserted. It's true, but the number is not actually part of the quote and it's inclusion is dishonest. Which we'll come back to later.
Sentence five is a doozy. It's a classic misdirection. The conjecture is the 70,000 applications means that there IS competition in the software industry. This is true, but not in the market we're talking about. It's referring to a different business, similar to the difference between a screw and a screwdriver. Interrelated yes, the same no. This is dishonest. It's garbage.
Next they move on to attack the 70,000 number. The argument is that because there aren't actually 70,000 applications out there I can go out and buy individually, there is no significant barrier. But the thing is, the judge never actually claimed that a competitior needed 70,000 applications. Just like the Cato institute, the judge knows that one doesn't actually need 70,000 applications and never actually claimed that they do. What he did say was that the cost to develop the applications necessary to compete would be high. This they have not managed to rebut.
-The second quote is even worse. The first sentence is just plain false. Section 2 subsection 45 of the findings of fact specfically recognizes these other operating systems.
The rest of the argument doesn't even really make sense. The claim is that MS is not charging enough for their OS therfore the alternatives have not managed to become commercailly viable. This argument does not acknowedge the known facts of the case such as MS forcing OEM vendors to sign exclusive deals in order to get a good price on Windows.
1. Sorry, but drugs are the choice of date rapists
I covered this. If they're not 21, they're not getting that drink from a bartender. This makes it easier to slip something in. Besides everyone being deliberately distant from any sort of police authority, so physical force might just be used as well.
2. Fake IDs? How does teenagers buying fake IDs make it easier for criminals to get fake IDs? That doesn't even make sense.
This is mind-numbingly simple. A machine to make fake IDs costs X dollars. Y people want fake IDs. If you increase Y, then X can be amortized over a greater number of people.
I assume that you're talking about the US here? Since the majority of Americans do not live within walking distance of a bar (I couldn't find a link to the statistic on that one, but I see it all the time from the MADD and SADD people) this arguement is invalid as it applies to underage and legal drinking.
You couldn't find any statistics yet you're declaring the argument completely invaid! That doesn't even make sense. The number within walking distance to a bar is easily in the millions. I have one word for you here: College.
3. BS rationalizations? Actually the number of vehicular accidents involving intoxicated people under 21 dropped significantly in the US when the laws were put in.
A) While the number of deaths at age 18 has decreased, the number of deaths at age 21 has increased.
B) Obviously, the number of accidents caused people people who don't drive has stayed the same, yet they are now crimnals for no good reason.
4. Get in trouble for drinking? What does that have to do with drinking before the age of 21?
It's simple. If someone is drunk, they're less likely to call for help in a situation where they might need it.
5. OK, back to the previous reason, how would changing the legal age affect a school that is "dry"?
You can't really treat this as a seperate issue. It's easier to get away with policies like this with the 21 drinking age.
Double standard? You obviously have not bothered looking up the punishments for the crimes.
Actually, in my state, NY, I am spot-on. We have "zero tolerance" if you're under 21. It's not a "posession" law as you seem to think, but an extra charge that can be thrown at someone who is under 21.
I was going to add in an arguement about that rare pituitary gland/alcohol caused disease that only affects 21>, but I couldn't find any good scientific links for it.
Seems like one could make an equally good argument with peanuts...
Do I think that the current law has a detrimental effect on teenagers? Definitely not, what a silly idea.
One has to wonder on what experience you're basing this opinion. I have personal experience in this area. I have friends who are dead, beat-up or raped. I can say for sure that it has within the circle of people that I know.
What, exactly, could a terrorist do with GPS technology? They don't have access to cruise missiles or ICBMs.
The thing you need to understand is that the guidance system is the hard part.
Any determined and well-financed individual can get 1000 lbs of explosives and a small airplane to transport them. It would cost less than 100,000 USD per bomb. The hard part is not ending up miles off course.
Without some sort of GPS-like external correction factor, the error in your guidance system integrates over time.
Keep in mind that the V1 and V2 rockets are 1940s tech.
People are building things of that caliber today for fun. They aren't being built for military purposes because it's well known that the US can flip the switch on the GPS system at any second and all their bombs would go crashing into the ground.
It is important for Galileo to have simlar functionality for this very reason.
That is inaccurate. The people that are truly in that situation are few.
According to the most recent statistics I could find 12.7% of Americans live BELOW the poverty line. 15.2% do not have health insurance.
If you're black, the numbers are 24.7% and 19.7%.
That is NOT a small number of people, and it's certanly not small in comparison to Walmart's market share.
Most shoppers choose the lower prices on basics so that they can afford *more* luxury items. A middle class wage allowing some upper middle class lifestyle. They choose individual luxuries and convenience over local economies.
This shows that you have some sort of belief that the "middle class" is actually determining the market. The actual fact it that there is a very large (and increasing) income inequality in this country. The bottom 20% of people in this country account for a mere 3.4% of household income. The next 20% account for only 8.7%. Following that it's 14.7%.
So 60% of Americans receive only 26.8% of America's income.
The reality is that the "middle class" of which you speak, barely exists.
It is your own viewpoint that is inaccurate.
The comment you're replying to represent's the economic state of a typical American. The census numbers prove it.
It might be more convenient for you to believe that people like him are a tiny minority, but the reality is otherwise.
MS achieved dominance through the market, through consumer choices, by consumers choosing...
The free market created Microsoft's position, you are gratuitously ignoring this.
This is simply not true. THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED TWICE OF ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS.
Your statements here are provably false. Go read the findings of fact.
It is especially egregious that you believe consumers are responsible for their continued dominanace.
It's also worth pointing out that you have failed to address ANY argument against your position. You're simply stating what you believe and ignoring actual facts that show otherwise.
MS is not a monopoly like Standard Oil was (buys all the gas stations in a region).
Microsoft has not created the problem, *consumers* have created the problem. Consumers chose DOS over Mac and OS/2 1.x. Consumers chose Windows over OS/2 2.x. Consumers have voted with their wallet
What you are saying is simply not true. I'm not sure whether you're just amazingly ignorant or distoring the issue deliberately. (I suspect it's the latter.)
Microsoft has been convicted on multiple occasions of illegal market manipulation. They are NOT simply giving consumers what they want, they have used ILLEGAL tactics to gain the market share they currently have.
*This is not my personal opinion this is a finding of fact by a US district court.
To continue with the "consumers are doing it to themselves theme"
You state this as if it's self evident, but the above statement can is only so if no player in the market is big enough to manipulate the market. If I have significantly more resources and influnce that you, I can fuck both you and the consumer. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE LAWS THAT BUSINESSES MUST FOLLOW.
When you have a law-breaking monopolist, YOU DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. STOP INSINUATING THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS THE RESULT OF FREE MARKET EFFECTS WHEN IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FREE MARKET.
... otherwise, this law would have burst into hellish flames of contradiction when signed by the lead in Conan, Commando, Eraser, Predator, Red Heat, Running Man, Terminator 1/2/3, Total Recall, True Lies and (Not) The Last Action Hero.
It's not irony, it's trying to muscle out his competitors. You'll note that it didn't apply to movies.
Movies like that are now competing for audience with games like "Splinter Cell". If he can pass laws to make it difficult to produce and sell games that are after his market, he can keep a bigger share of it.
So what do you suggest - that we remove any such limitations? allow tobacco companies to target children?
We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either. Shall we go ahead and repeal those as well?
Exactly how your comment got modded as "Interesting" baffles me!
The laws making the drinking age 21 are a GREAT example here.
Completely unfair. I had to send in my damn draft card at 18 but I can't buy a beer? I'm adult enough to be sent off to a war or to be executed for crimes I might commit but not to have a frickin drink!
Unintended consequences:
It makes date rape a hell of a lot easier. Now your 18 year old daughter is getting drunk somewhere that people have made damn sure no authority figures will be coming by. And if you're under 18 you're not getting that drink from a bartender so who knows what just got put in it.
It instanly throws millions of dollars at breaking every state's ID system. All the real criminals get their IDs subsidized by college students.
High school kids driving out to the middle of nowhere to party. I know a couple who've died this way. They were over 18. In a sane society they could have walked down the street to the bar and walked home. Sure the blame falls partly with them, but you could say the same thing about the date rape victims. People are people. As prohibition as proven, they're going to drink no matter what you do.
If you drink too much you better not call for a ride home or you'll get in troble just for drinking.
Same thing with going to the police or hospital for anything that someone might do to you while you were drinking. An example case would be a guy how got the shit kicked out of him on a "dry campus" and couldn't get help because he would have been kicked out of school.
Bullshit rationalizations. So the theory was that it would reduce DWI. What about people who don't own and have no access to a car? What if they can prove they don't even have a driver's liscense. You're punishing people for no freakin reason at all.
Double standard. I sure as hell would rather have a 20 year old guy driving with one beer in him than a 21 year old with five, but thanks to these laws it's the 20 year old that would get in more trouble.
I'm sure I could keep going but a reasonable person should get the point by now.
AIG has restated their earnings for the last 5 years (which is a massively big deal, for those of you who don't know), and in doing so, changed their estimated net worth from about 81 billion to 79 billion. Whooo-fucking-hooo.
Hey dumbass, that's TWO BILLION DOLLARS.
I know if I was a shareholder of AIG I would be rightfully pissed.
Lying about the worth of the company is one step away from actually stealing two billion dollars.
I think he was hoping AIG was the next Enron, and when it turned out it wasn't even close, he got vicious and couldn't let it go, despite the fact he is hurting a lot of innocent people in the process.
If these people are innocent, then why is AIG restating their earnings? The actual facts you've present run completely counter to your accusations of trying to ruin people's lives for no reason.
Of course, I am a bit biased, since I personally know some of the people whose careers he has ruined and finances he has messed up.
What this statement does not say is that you personally know that these people are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Bullshit like this is a big drain on our economy. Why would you invest in any company only to find out you just paid too much because they lied in their legally required disclosures?
Not so easy to write an automated parser if there's a few thousand variations to cope with.
How are you creating the variations?
Your scheme fails because the level of effort to create a variation or to defeat one is about the same.
Whatever re-wording algorithm you write, will be subject to a similar "solving" algorithm, and the system doesn't provide any order of magnitude advantages for the goods guys like crypto does.
A potential solution might be to ask questions that a computer simply cannot answer "Will this code halt?" ...but the problem then shifts from an individual's physical abilities to their mental abilities.
This is not true, because the vast majority of users do not know how to install a new browser on their PC. In fact, Firefox could even *give* people money to install - it still wouldn't help when users don't know HOW to install.
This doesn't make sense. For your point to be valid you have to make the argument that not only do they not know, they can't learn and for some magical reason aren't allowed to get someone else to do it for them. (Most people don't know how to put a tire on a rim, yet most cars have tires.)
FF is up to about 10% market share and has been holding steady.
I'd like to see a source for this as all the studies I see show that FF is still growing and IE is decreasing.
All the people who know how to install a new browser have done so.
This is a ridiculius claim because all I have to do to disprove it is find one guy who can install software yet uses IE. It so happens that I do know a guy like that, so your statement is false.
You've been making unsupported arguments, and putting forth some really wild statements.
And 10% is NOT widespread.
Yes it is. You seem to have a hard time with the concept that something doesn't have to push all its competitors out of the market to be widespread.
If 10% is widespread wtf is 90%?
A monopoly. Monopolies are a bad thing and we don't want them. You argument seems to be that Firefox will never monopolize web browsing therefore it's a "niche". It's silly.
The Ford F series trucks are the best selling vehicles in America, but they haven't come anywhere close to monopolizing the road. This doesn't make them a niche.
It's the way markets work. People want different things.
Firefox is a superior browser and it is FREE! Why isn't the other 90% clamoring to download it?
People ARE downloading it. Market share for Firefox is going up and IE is going down.
So like "Toby The Economist" said (correctly), Firefox will never catch up because IE comes packaged with Windows.
This is NOT a self-validating argument. It's perfectly possible that people will use something besides what comes on their pc. The burden of proof is really on you with this because you're saying that something will never happen.
Still, here's an obvious example of why this argument is a load of crap: Internet Service Providers. MSN comes with windows. MSN does not have most subscribers. Therefore, just because something "comes with windows" does not mean automatic market dominanace.
Heck MSN only has 10% of the subscribers AOL has so they're just a tiny niche right?:P
It may look small compared to a monopoly, but that doesn't make it a niche. Say you control 10% of the market for eggs, milk or bread... you're a pretty big player.
Anybody would be insane to say that Firefox has gained widespread usage.
This is a ridiculous statement. They haven't monopolized the market, but 10% is certainly "widespread usage".
In addition, does MS even seem to be nervous at all? Nope.
This statement is made completely unsupported.
They know that as soon as they release the next version of IE they'll probably get 5% of that back instantly.
As is this one.
Expecially since most of the people who would be interested in a non-IE browser already are using Firefox by now.
And this one too.
The facts of the issue as as follows:
Firefox/Mozilla's share is growing
IE's share is falling
It's is possible to argue that this will change but it is silly to state that this situation poses no threat. The simple fact that they are losing market share shows that there IS a threat.
Now it's just a distraction. The Mac is a niche market and always will be and Firefox isn't a real threat to IE - nothing is, or can be, because IE is bundled with Windows.
With a nick like "Toby The Economist" you should know better than to say things like that.
As long as the cost (virtually nil) of getting an alternate browser is exceeded by the benfit, then it is a "threat".
MS is LOSING market share WRT web browsing. Your comments simply don't reflect reality.
If you are not protected by MEGACORP(TM) with lots of money to burn in legal battles, forget standing up to your rights. It really does not matter if you got there (and tried to patent) first, all your ideas belong to the ones with the deepest pockets.
Isn't this a wonderful word?
Sheesh. All this guy did was patent the IDEA of making something that ALREADY EXISTED smaller.
That's bullshit.
Patent's are there to protect legitimate investment into ground-breaking R&D. The aren't there to serve as a lottery for those who come up with an obvious idea and rush to the patent office.
Linux may be cool on a Treo like it is on other things but it isn't useful.
As someone who:
1) Actually owns a Treo
and
2) Owns a Zaurus SL5500
I say that linux on the Treo is definately useful.
The Zaurus murders the Treo in terms of usefulness.
Unfortunately, it lacks a phone (for always on net access) and has a lousy battery life.
Linux on the Treo would give the best of both worlds.
In addition it would fix problems you obviously know nothing about, like Verizon locking out use as a bluetooth modem for your laptop.
Really, you obviously don't have a Treo, so what's the point of saying that this makes something you didn't think was useful enough to buy, not anymore useful?
Slashdot Mirror
Cato is irrelevant
I disagree that they are irrelevant to this discussion. The only source you have directly cited and the only source I am responding to is the Cato Institute.
Even if your cigarette example were accurate it is irrelevant.
I dare you to prove that it's inaccurate. Come on, do it. I double dare you.
Second, your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view.
This is nonsense. I have posted evidence showing that the Cato Institute fits the very definition of a shill. (As it applies in this context.) You can't prove otherwise, because it's the documented truth. You might choose to argue that even though they are shills (overall), they are right in this instance and this would at least be a respectable stance, but to ignore the evidence staring you in the face is just silly.
To actually go yet another step and imply that the source I quoted is lying is really going over the top. The quote is right here. The financial ties are also easily proven.
Actually your definition of corporate shill does not agree with mine. Unlike you, I don't automatically consider anyone who argues that the government made an error to be a shill,
See this is your problem, you completely ignore reality. I've given links to examples where the Cato Institute has been shown to fit the EXACT definition of a shill.
Uh, "published by" refers to the "Policy Analysis" journal
Which is the document you posted a link to. It is the document I am discussing. It is from the Cato institute.
Please do so, please equate using Mac/AppleWorks/etc and Linux/OpenOffice/etc with writing your own OS and apps.
This is obviously dishonest on your part. I have not done this.
Attempting to attack the messenger is a pretty weak rebuttal
You posted information from a known corporate shill as your rebuttal. I was hoping you didn't know that, but it seems like you do and just don't care.
even more so when you pick the wrong target. This was not Cato research
From the link you posted:
Richard McKenzie is a professor in the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Irvine; author of Trust on Trial: How the Microsoft Case Is Reframing the Rules of Competition (Boston: Perseus, 2000); and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
and also from the PDF:
Published by the Cato Institute
So obviously this has nothing to do with the Cato Institute (sarcasm).
The professor replaced "that many" with "70,000" since he was not including the *preceeding line* and he properly cited the change with brackets.
I'll admit that I was incorrect here but not about the spirt of the discussion. Arguing the exactness of the 70,000 number is not the same as rebutting the judge's point.
That is simply rebut by the fact that the majority of home users do very simple things. They could do those things with a Mac, they could do those things with Linux, but they choose not too.
This is not a simple rebut as it's a complex issue. In a similar vein I can say that consumers "choose" not to write all their own operating systems and applications. Of course, the actual reality is that most consumers lack the resources to do this. Many lack the resource to do anything but run Windows.
The judge's arguments are weak and at times non-sensical. You seem to confuse legally binding with factually correct. The judge's writing are only "facts" in a legal ruling sense, not in the absolute sense of being correct. Judges are often found to be wrong in their fact and overruled by other courts.
Whereas the Cato Institute is not subject to the same scrutiny.
Those exclusive deals were the mechanism by which MS did not "charge enough". Those deals were pretty sweet from a pricing point of view.
That might be your viewpoint, but it neglects things like the hidden cost of *not* being able to sell anything but Windows.
Consumers can, and will, replace MS whenever they feel like it.
In the same way that we can go to Mars any time we want. In absolutist terms, both statements are true, but functionally they aren't. There is a HUGE cost assosciated.
Actually your posts are entirely idle talk,
Not true. You may not like the actual facts I'm presenting, but at least I'm bothing to present actual facts.
Sampling the cars at a few different WalMarts in different neighborhoods should be more accurate than bulk census info.
If by "accurate" you mean more biased in the direction of your opinion but having vastly less confidence in the results. (I'm sure the Cato Institute would oblige.) I don't think you have a good concept of the number of varibles here. I also think you don't actually want to since you're ignoring obvious issues like poor people taking the bus or riding with a friend.
It's also the surface area, this is why Champagne classes are skinny. The more extreme the aspect ratio of the glass in the skinny/tall direction, the longer your bubbly will stay bubbly and the longer it will take for the head on your beer to settle.
Tilting the glass not only reduces the turbulence of the liquid, but also increases the exposed surface area.
Funny anecdote - a graduate student here asked a prof for a good hangout, and he recommended a place right across our research lab. Dude took his girlfriend there, only to realize that it's a strip club. Hilarity ensued.
Was the Prof's name Richard Feynman?
If you think only the poor shop at WalMart you have obviously not taken a census of the cars in the parking lots.
1) Maybe you live somewhere more affluent than me, but the cars at my local Walmart aren't that nice. (It might suprise you to learn that people in some areas have more money than others.)
2) It may also suprise you to learn that some people don't own cars, especially poor people.
3) I posted real census information overturning your claim that the poor in America are "few" and your response is "look at the cars". LOOK AT THE ACTUAL CENSUS. It's real statistical data, not a bunch of idle talk.
(1) You conveniently ignore the rise to dominance.
Ah but I don't. It's not as if these two antitrust convictions were in the last two years. This has been going on for quite some time, as have Microsoft's illegal tactics.
You equate an anti-trust conviction with the existence of a monopolist market, the former does not imply the later.
From the findings of fact:
" Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
You might enjoy the PDF from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-380es.html:
You might enjoy this bit of reading about the integrity of the Cato institute. In general it's important to realize that a group like the Cato institute doesn't have anywhere close to the integrity that a federal court does. Here's another choice gem on those guys:
"Not surprisingly, the Cato Institute has been a fierce defender of the tobacco industry, in publications such as 1998's "Lies, Damn Lies and 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths." which claims that tobacco is "far less pernicious than Americans are led to believe. . . . The government should stop lying and stop pretending that smoking-related deaths are anything but a statistical artifact.""
If you want people to take you seriously, I do not reccommend using them as a source.
In response to the particular sections you quoted:
-The first quote is nonsensical. First it tells me that 70,000 appilcations dependant on windows represent a barrier to entry for other operating systems which do not have this library of applications. This is essentailly true. Next it says that a competing operating system would need a similar suite of applications in order to compete. I think we can agree that this is also true.
Now here comes sentence number four. It's a quote from the judge with the number 70,000 inserted. It's true, but the number is not actually part of the quote and it's inclusion is dishonest. Which we'll come back to later.
Sentence five is a doozy. It's a classic misdirection. The conjecture is the 70,000 applications means that there IS competition in the software industry. This is true, but not in the market we're talking about. It's referring to a different business, similar to the difference between a screw and a screwdriver. Interrelated yes, the same no. This is dishonest. It's garbage.
Next they move on to attack the 70,000 number. The argument is that because there aren't actually 70,000 applications out there I can go out and buy individually, there is no significant barrier. But the thing is, the judge never actually claimed that a competitior needed 70,000 applications. Just like the Cato institute, the judge knows that one doesn't actually need 70,000 applications and never actually claimed that they do. What he did say was that the cost to develop the applications necessary to compete would be high. This they have not managed to rebut.
-The second quote is even worse. The first sentence is just plain false. Section 2 subsection 45 of the findings of fact specfically recognizes these other operating systems.
The rest of the argument doesn't even really make sense. The claim is that MS is not charging enough for their OS therfore the alternatives have not managed to become commercailly viable. This argument does not acknowedge the known facts of the case such as MS forcing OEM vendors to sign exclusive deals in order to get a good price on Windows.
1. Sorry, but drugs are the choice of date rapists
I covered this. If they're not 21, they're not getting that drink from a bartender. This makes it easier to slip something in. Besides everyone being deliberately distant from any sort of police authority, so physical force might just be used as well.
2. Fake IDs? How does teenagers buying fake IDs make it easier for criminals to get fake IDs? That doesn't even make sense.
This is mind-numbingly simple. A machine to make fake IDs costs X dollars. Y people want fake IDs. If you increase Y, then X can be amortized over a greater number of people.
I assume that you're talking about the US here? Since the majority of Americans do not live within walking distance of a bar (I couldn't find a link to the statistic on that one, but I see it all the time from the MADD and SADD people) this arguement is invalid as it applies to underage and legal drinking.
You couldn't find any statistics yet you're declaring the argument completely invaid! That doesn't even make sense. The number within walking distance to a bar is easily in the millions. I have one word for you here: College.
3. BS rationalizations? Actually the number of vehicular accidents involving intoxicated people under 21 dropped significantly in the US when the laws were put in.
A) While the number of deaths at age 18 has decreased, the number of deaths at age 21 has increased.
B) Obviously, the number of accidents caused people people who don't drive has stayed the same, yet they are now crimnals for no good reason.
4. Get in trouble for drinking? What does that have to do with drinking before the age of 21?
It's simple. If someone is drunk, they're less likely to call for help in a situation where they might need it.
5. OK, back to the previous reason, how would changing the legal age affect a school that is "dry"?
You can't really treat this as a seperate issue. It's easier to get away with policies like this with the 21 drinking age.
Double standard? You obviously have not bothered looking up the punishments for the crimes.
Actually, in my state, NY, I am spot-on. We have "zero tolerance" if you're under 21. It's not a "posession" law as you seem to think, but an extra charge that can be thrown at someone who is under 21.
I was going to add in an arguement about that rare pituitary gland/alcohol caused disease that only affects 21>, but I couldn't find any good scientific links for it.
Seems like one could make an equally good argument with peanuts...
Do I think that the current law has a detrimental effect on teenagers? Definitely not, what a silly idea.
One has to wonder on what experience you're basing this opinion. I have personal experience in this area. I have friends who are dead, beat-up or raped. I can say for sure that it has within the circle of people that I know.
What, exactly, could a terrorist do with GPS technology? They don't have access to cruise missiles or ICBMs.
The thing you need to understand is that the guidance system is the hard part.
Any determined and well-financed individual can get 1000 lbs of explosives and a small airplane to transport them. It would cost less than 100,000 USD per bomb. The hard part is not ending up miles off course.
Without some sort of GPS-like external correction factor, the error in your guidance system integrates over time.
Keep in mind that the V1 and V2 rockets are 1940s tech.
People are building things of that caliber today for fun. They aren't being built for military purposes because it's well known that the US can flip the switch on the GPS system at any second and all their bombs would go crashing into the ground.
It is important for Galileo to have simlar functionality for this very reason.
I'd have to agree with the court on this one. Are you suggesting that geeks lack the imagination to think of any words other than "illustrator"?
Why on earth would you think that "illustrator" is a fair trademark to use for an application used to do illustrations?
It's like trademarking "Wheels" brand tires. It's not a proper trademark.
I suspect Adobe won beacuse they had much better lawyers and polical connections, not because of the merits of their case.
Pentium Processor Extreme 955
Price: $1,112.37 - $1,393.49
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz, Toledo, Dual-Core, 2x1MB L2
Cache, Socket 939, 64-bit Processor
Price: $780.74 - $1,185.00
Which makes me wonder how this chip would perform against an equally expensive AMD offering like the dual-core Opterons.
That is inaccurate. The people that are truly in that situation are few.
According to the most recent statistics I could find 12.7% of Americans live BELOW the poverty line. 15.2% do not have health insurance.
If you're black, the numbers are 24.7% and 19.7%.
That is NOT a small number of people, and it's certanly not small in comparison to Walmart's market share.
Most shoppers choose the lower prices on basics so that they can afford *more* luxury items. A middle class wage allowing some upper middle class lifestyle. They choose individual luxuries and convenience over local economies.
This shows that you have some sort of belief that the "middle class" is actually determining the market. The actual fact it that there is a very large (and increasing) income inequality in this country. The bottom 20% of people in this country account for a mere 3.4% of household income. The next 20% account for only 8.7%. Following that it's 14.7%.
So 60% of Americans receive only 26.8% of America's income.
The reality is that the "middle class" of which you speak, barely exists.
It is your own viewpoint that is inaccurate.
The comment you're replying to represent's the economic state of a typical American. The census numbers prove it.
It might be more convenient for you to believe that people like him are a tiny minority, but the reality is otherwise.
MS achieved dominance through the market, through consumer choices, by consumers choosing...
The free market created Microsoft's position, you are gratuitously ignoring this.
This is simply not true. THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED TWICE OF ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS.
Your statements here are provably false. Go read the findings of fact.
It is especially egregious that you believe consumers are responsible for their continued dominanace.
It's also worth pointing out that you have failed to address ANY argument against your position. You're simply stating what you believe and ignoring actual facts that show otherwise.
MS is not a monopoly like Standard Oil was (buys all the gas stations in a region).
Here's another example of you having no clue at all what you're talking about. Microsft has bought out TONS of competitiors. When that didn't work they created a competing product and bundled it with their operating system.
Microsoft has not created the problem, *consumers* have created the problem. Consumers chose DOS over Mac and OS/2 1.x. Consumers chose Windows over OS/2 2.x. Consumers have voted with their wallet
What you are saying is simply not true. I'm not sure whether you're just amazingly ignorant or distoring the issue deliberately. (I suspect it's the latter.)
Microsoft has been convicted on multiple occasions of illegal market manipulation.
They are NOT simply giving consumers what they want, they have used ILLEGAL tactics to gain the market share they currently have.
*This is not my personal opinion this is a finding of fact by a US district court.
To continue with the "consumers are doing it to themselves theme"
You state this as if it's self evident, but the above statement can is only so if no player in the market is big enough to manipulate the market. If I have significantly more resources and influnce that you, I can fuck both you and the consumer. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE LAWS THAT BUSINESSES MUST FOLLOW.
When you have a law-breaking monopolist, YOU DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. STOP INSINUATING THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION IS THE RESULT OF FREE MARKET EFFECTS WHEN IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FREE MARKET.
... otherwise, this law would have burst into hellish flames of contradiction when signed by the lead in Conan, Commando, Eraser, Predator, Red Heat, Running Man, Terminator 1/2/3, Total Recall, True Lies and (Not) The Last Action Hero.
It's not irony, it's trying to muscle out his competitors. You'll note that it didn't apply to movies.
Movies like that are now competing for audience with games like "Splinter Cell". If he can pass laws to make it difficult to produce and sell games that are after his market, he can keep a bigger share of it.
We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either. Shall we go ahead and repeal those as well?
Exactly how your comment got modded as "Interesting" baffles me!
The laws making the drinking age 21 are a GREAT example here.
I'm sure I could keep going but a reasonable person should get the point by now.
AIG has restated their earnings for the last 5 years (which is a massively big deal, for those of you who don't know), and in doing so, changed their estimated net worth from about 81 billion to 79 billion. Whooo-fucking-hooo.
Hey dumbass, that's TWO BILLION DOLLARS.
I know if I was a shareholder of AIG I would be rightfully pissed.
Lying about the worth of the company is one step away from actually stealing two billion dollars.
I think he was hoping AIG was the next Enron, and when it turned out it wasn't even close, he got vicious and couldn't let it go, despite the fact he is hurting a lot of innocent people in the process.
If these people are innocent, then why is AIG restating their earnings? The actual facts you've present run completely counter to your accusations of trying to ruin people's lives for no reason.
Of course, I am a bit biased, since I personally know some of the people whose careers he has ruined and finances he has messed up.
What this statement does not say is that you personally know that these people are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Bullshit like this is a big drain on our economy. Why would you invest in any company only to find out you just paid too much because they lied in their legally required disclosures?
Not so easy to write an automated parser if there's a few thousand variations to cope with.
...but the problem then shifts from an individual's physical abilities to their mental abilities.
How are you creating the variations?
Your scheme fails because the level of effort to create a variation or to defeat one is about the same.
Whatever re-wording algorithm you write, will be subject to a similar "solving" algorithm, and the system doesn't provide any order of magnitude advantages for the goods guys like crypto does.
A potential solution might be to ask questions that a computer simply cannot answer "Will this code halt?"
This is not true, because the vast majority of users do not know how to install a new browser on their PC. In fact, Firefox could even *give* people money to install - it still wouldn't help when users don't know HOW to install.
This doesn't make sense. For your point to be valid you have to make the argument that not only do they not know, they can't learn and for some magical reason aren't allowed to get someone else to do it for them. (Most people don't know how to put a tire on a rim, yet most cars have tires.)
FF is up to about 10% market share and has been holding steady.
I'd like to see a source for this as all the studies I see show that FF is still growing and IE is decreasing.
All the people who know how to install a new browser have done so.
This is a ridiculius claim because all I have to do to disprove it is find one guy who can install software yet uses IE. It so happens that I do know a guy like that, so your statement is false.
You enjoy arguing from generalities, don't you?
:P
You've been making unsupported arguments, and putting forth some really wild statements.
And 10% is NOT widespread.
Yes it is. You seem to have a hard time with the concept that something doesn't have to push all its competitors out of the market to be widespread.
If 10% is widespread wtf is 90%?
A monopoly. Monopolies are a bad thing and we don't want them. You argument seems to be that Firefox will never monopolize web browsing therefore it's a "niche". It's silly.
The Ford F series trucks are the best selling vehicles in America, but they haven't come anywhere close to monopolizing the road. This doesn't make them a niche.
It's the way markets work. People want different things.
Firefox is a superior browser and it is FREE! Why isn't the other 90% clamoring to download it?
People ARE downloading it. Market share for Firefox is going up and IE is going down.
So like "Toby The Economist" said (correctly), Firefox will never catch up because IE comes packaged with Windows.
This is NOT a self-validating argument. It's perfectly possible that people will use something besides what comes on their pc. The burden of proof is really on you with this because you're saying that something will never happen.
Still, here's an obvious example of why this argument is a load of crap: Internet Service Providers. MSN comes with windows. MSN does not have most subscribers. Therefore, just because something "comes with windows" does not mean automatic market dominanace.
Heck MSN only has 10% of the subscribers AOL has so they're just a tiny niche right?
No, "Toby The Economist" is correct.
About what? Be specfic.
10% is only a niche.
It may look small compared to a monopoly, but that doesn't make it a niche. Say you control 10% of the market for eggs, milk or bread... you're a pretty big player.
Anybody would be insane to say that Firefox has gained widespread usage.
This is a ridiculous statement. They haven't monopolized the market, but 10% is certainly "widespread usage".
In addition, does MS even seem to be nervous at all? Nope.
This statement is made completely unsupported.
They know that as soon as they release the next version of IE they'll probably get 5% of that back instantly.
As is this one.
Expecially since most of the people who would be interested in a non-IE browser already are using Firefox by now.
And this one too.
The facts of the issue as as follows:
Firefox/Mozilla's share is growing
IE's share is falling
It's is possible to argue that this will change but it is silly to state that this situation poses no threat. The simple fact that they are losing market share shows that there IS a threat.
Now it's just a distraction. The Mac is a niche market and always will be and Firefox isn't a real threat to IE - nothing is, or can be, because IE is bundled with Windows.
With a nick like "Toby The Economist" you should know better than to say things like that.
As long as the cost (virtually nil) of getting an alternate browser is exceeded by the benfit, then it is a "threat".
MS is LOSING market share WRT web browsing. Your comments simply don't reflect reality.
If you are not protected by MEGACORP(TM) with lots of money to burn in legal battles, forget standing up to your rights. It really does not matter if you got there (and tried to patent) first, all your ideas belong to the ones with the deepest pockets. Isn't this a wonderful word?
Sheesh. All this guy did was patent the IDEA of making something that ALREADY EXISTED smaller.
That's bullshit.
Patent's are there to protect legitimate investment into ground-breaking R&D. The aren't there to serve as a lottery for those who come up with an obvious idea and rush to the patent office.
This guy's victory shows a failure of our system.
Linux may be cool on a Treo like it is on other things but it isn't useful.
As someone who:
1) Actually owns a Treo
and
2) Owns a Zaurus SL5500
I say that linux on the Treo is definately useful.
The Zaurus murders the Treo in terms of usefulness.
Unfortunately, it lacks a phone (for always on net access) and has a lousy battery life.
Linux on the Treo would give the best of both worlds.
In addition it would fix problems you obviously know nothing about, like Verizon locking out use as a bluetooth modem for your laptop.
Really, you obviously don't have a Treo, so what's the point of saying that this makes something you didn't think was useful enough to buy, not anymore useful?