UI = "User Interface". They don't care about what's underneath. They are using the product as a tool to achieve some other objective. As a developer, one of my primary focuses is keeping changes as hidden as possible. Many people however, I think, take pride in change for the sake of change. And that does nothing but waste time. Even one minute of a user having to relearn to use something that worked fine yesterday is a minute wasted. The primary goal isn't the product you are developing (I know most developers like to believe that is the case) , but rather to produce tools to achieve other goals quickly and efficiently.
the price of proprietary software will necessarily fall to the price that it is worth and not a penny more
I have yet to find the great book written by God, listing each object and it's actual worth. By the way, do those numbers magically change with inflation?
rather than artificially inflated by monopolistic practices/lack of choice
First, I disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly...whatever the courts say, but I digress.
Second, lack of choice is hardly an artificial inflator, it's a real factor that determines the elasticity of a good. IP laws on the other hand, can (and do) artificially create fewer choices, but that is perhaps a discussion for another time...
Mircosoft has done a really good job ignoring consumers and doing what they feel will be the best for their market share
Isn't this a contradiction? If microsoft ignores consumers, then market share decreases. If market share increases, then it must be because they delived what consumers wanted...right? Or, if microsoft takes a move they believe will increase market share (sure, they might make a bad guess) then doesn't that imply they are trying to delivef what they believe people (consumers) want?
"...it relates to Microsoft using money obtained from one monopoly and using it to crush competition in another which is illegal under the sherman anti trust act..."
I think you should attend a different law school. This one obviously isn't working for you...
What makes something a "PC game" or a "console game"? Perhaps it's where it is first released? Since Halo was released on a console, that kinda makes it not a "PC game" right?
A company having a monopoly in one industry does not make it a monopoly in ALL industries.
You people are freaks. Any mention of Microsoft brings some kind of "...yep, it's a monopoly.." post faster than my dog can find the raw chicken at the bottom of the trash.
Out of curiosity, do you even have the foggiest idea what Microsoft did that was against the law?
They are trained to know when a contractual agreement has been breached, which is what happened. As much as this may hurt your ego, a binding contract takes precedence over your technical opinion.
I have no technical opinion on wether Java should ship with Windows. Mainly because I admit to not knowing anything about Java or the business of Os's. Unlike the Judge who seems to think he knows what's best for all people...
You see a problem with a judge forcing a remedy for a company's illegal actions, but you can't see a problem with a company acting illegally in the first place.
I don't see a problem with acting illegaly when the law is unjust. Unlike most people (apparently you included) I don't base my ethics/morals on what Uncle Sam tells me they should be. I think for myself.
This is rather typical. Rather than actually present an argument counter to a point I made (that would require thoughtful consideration) about government interference, you would rather regurgitate something your parents, teachers, government, etc. have been telling you your whole life.
The analogy is fine if depending on how you look at the situation. Most people either consider:
1) This is a technically good move (because Java is really good...or some such reason).
OR
2) Something about the supposed monopoly that Microsoft has, and how bad monopolies are, so this one should be broken as much as possible.
OR
3) Anything that happens to Microsoft is just good.
Most people don't consider that governments just should not be deciding which technology should be included with what...just on principle.
Furthermore, fault for any semblence of a monopoly that MS has can be laid directly at the feet of the very people that claim to be doing all this good work breaking up monopolies. IP protection is what essentially created this mess to begin with, now we supposedly need more legislation and regulation to fix a problem created (and propogated) by the very people trying to (supposedly) fix the problem.
One thing is for sure. It's a huge mess. And we should never be happy about government micromanaging daily business of either citizens or companies.
Since when are judges trained enough to know what should be shipped with an OS?
I guess I'm the only one (or one of few) that sees a problem with ignorant government officials/beureacrats deciding which products should include which technology.
Ah, I see your point now, although I'm not sure if you mean what you say in a legal sense ("this is how it currently, legally is"), or a philosophical sense (a "this is how it should be" kind of thing). While I certainly disagree with your stance on a philosophical level, technically(legally) speaking you are wrong. Corporations are legal entities (just as humans are considered legal entities). They have certain sets of rights and restrictions, and are punishable according to established laws.
The whole issue to begin with in this article, is wether one right in particular should be extended to corporations, that is, the right to free speech. And how does extending that right then introduce situations where excercise of that right may conflict with "truth in advertising" laws.
Then should corporations also not be susceptable to punishments under the law for the same reason? Would you suggest that an entity is legal responsible to act in a manner as legislated by the US government (in this case), but not be protected by similar legislations?
I said before (maybe not under this parent....) that the underlying problem here is the exsitance of corporations (they should not exist at all as legal entities). However, if they are going to be allowed to exist, it doesn't seem at all fair they they be punishable under the law, but not be granted basic rights such as free speech.
As an extention then, can you show how a corporation can formulate a thought, much less express it in any manner considered to be speech?
The existance of a corporation is (in my mind) a seperate problem. Practically, a corporation should not exist, only indiviudals (or groups of individuals) engaged in transactions. If that were the case, this would not be an issue. However, since the government has deemed to allow the seperation of a corporation, it seems hypocritical to say that corporations can't partake in speech (because of obvious physical limitations) and to simultaneously say that "corporate speech" isn't protected...it's counter-intuitive, and arguably hypocritical.
"The big question is: are corporations citizens? Do they deserve the same rights that are accorded to real people?"
Perhaps when corporations grow mouths (with which to speak), this will become an important question. Until that time however, perhaps the question is: are indiviual people who happen to be paid employees of a corporation allowed free speech on issues of public importance without the speech (ideas/opinions) they provide being applied as official commercial speech to the corporation itself?
So, if I work for Nike, and I say that some particular factory (or group of factories) is NOT a "sweat shop", or is not slave labor, when is the corporation liable for that speech (assuming the statement is even false, which seems a difficult proof itself).
Further, since there is such a division on the definition of the term "sweat shop" (even as far as whether or not a sweat shop can exist if the individuals working in said shop do so voluntarily), then how can such prohibition (against such opionative speech by corporations) be applied? If we can't agree on what the term means, how can we possibly (rationally) agree on wether someone has lied about stating that a thing is (or is not) a sweat shop?
If this is an issue, maybe those people shouldn't be IN the reserves?
Sounds to me like you are pissed at finding out, after joining the reserves or National Guard, you might actually have to go to war. Maybe you should have thought about that before. The purpose of the reserves is not to just provide you with additional monthly income.
I think "domain" in this context refers to the date range (in november...I don't recall the exact dates). Since they delete logs daily, they wouldn't have anything in the "covered domain".
The inability for all sides to agree on what is good or evil, does not eliminate the possibility of an absolute good or evil. So, your entire argument is moot.
Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Nasa can't argue with what? That eating plants is more efficient than eating meat? Or that it is possible to live as a vegan?
It may be true that eating plants only is more efficient (I don't know first hand, but it makes sense to me), but it is certainly unnecessary in any sense...there is still plenty of food to go around.
It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...
It seems like more and more, any attempt to make money becomes an *evil conspiracy*.
If you don't want to eat it, don't. Just because someone has decided this is a good business venture doesn't mean they have taken some action against you personally (or anyone else).
To follow your argument, why then AREN'T the phone companies selling the extra bandwidth? It isn't the demand - I would like some cheap bandwidth.
Why then DON'T I come mow your lawn for $5? It isn't the demand -- You would certainly like a cheap lawn mowing, I certainly have plenty of free time when I'm sitting around doing nothing better.
No, the reason I won't mow your lawn for $5 is that it would not benefit me to do so (just as the phone companies don't see themselves as benefitting from lighting up all that fiber).
Slashdot Mirror
UI = "User Interface". They don't care about what's underneath. They are using the product as a tool to achieve some other objective. As a developer, one of my primary focuses is keeping changes as hidden as possible. Many people however, I think, take pride in change for the sake of change. And that does nothing but waste time. Even one minute of a user having to relearn to use something that worked fine yesterday is a minute wasted. The primary goal isn't the product you are developing (I know most developers like to believe that is the case) , but rather to produce tools to achieve other goals quickly and efficiently.
You let other people dictate to you the terms upon which you're allowed to do things
No, it's a negotiation by free human being. You can choose to say "no", or approve the check. It's your choice.
the price of proprietary software will necessarily fall to the price that it is worth and not a penny more
I have yet to find the great book written by God, listing each object and it's actual worth. By the way, do those numbers magically change with inflation?
rather than artificially inflated by monopolistic practices/lack of choice
First, I disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly...whatever the courts say, but I digress.
Second, lack of choice is hardly an artificial inflator, it's a real factor that determines the elasticity of a good. IP laws on the other hand, can (and do) artificially create fewer choices, but that is perhaps a discussion for another time...
Mircosoft has done a really good job ignoring consumers and doing what they feel will be the best for their market share
Isn't this a contradiction? If microsoft ignores consumers, then market share decreases. If market share increases, then it must be because they delived what consumers wanted...right? Or, if microsoft takes a move they believe will increase market share (sure, they might make a bad guess) then doesn't that imply they are trying to delivef what they believe people (consumers) want?
"...it relates to Microsoft using money obtained from one monopoly and using it to crush competition in another which is illegal under the sherman anti trust act..."
I think you should attend a different law school. This one obviously isn't working for you...
"PC games like Halo"
What makes something a "PC game" or a "console game"? Perhaps it's where it is first released? Since Halo was released on a console, that kinda makes it not a "PC game" right?
A company having a monopoly in one industry does not make it a monopoly in ALL industries.
You people are freaks. Any mention of Microsoft brings some kind of "...yep, it's a monopoly.." post faster than my dog can find the raw chicken at the bottom of the trash.
Out of curiosity, do you even have the foggiest idea what Microsoft did that was against the law?
For MMORPG, AC2 (Asherons Call 2) is pretty decent. The story is interesting at the least, and as an MMORPG, it's obviously open ended play...
They are trained to know when a contractual agreement has been breached, which is what happened. As much as this may hurt your ego, a binding contract takes precedence over your technical opinion.
I have no technical opinion on wether Java should ship with Windows. Mainly because I admit to not knowing anything about Java or the business of Os's. Unlike the Judge who seems to think he knows what's best for all people...
You see a problem with a judge forcing a remedy for a company's illegal actions, but you can't see a problem with a company acting illegally in the first place.
I don't see a problem with acting illegaly when the law is unjust. Unlike most people (apparently you included) I don't base my ethics/morals on what Uncle Sam tells me they should be. I think for myself.
This is rather typical. Rather than actually present an argument counter to a point I made (that would require thoughtful consideration) about government interference, you would rather regurgitate something your parents, teachers, government, etc. have been telling you your whole life.
Actually, this sounds extrememly competitive. How did that phrase "anti-competitive" get started anyway?
When did playing "hardball" become anti-competitive?
The analogy is fine if depending on how you look at the situation. Most people either consider:
1) This is a technically good move (because Java is really good...or some such reason).
OR
2) Something about the supposed monopoly that Microsoft has, and how bad monopolies are, so this one should be broken as much as possible.
OR
3) Anything that happens to Microsoft is just good.
Most people don't consider that governments just should not be deciding which technology should be included with what...just on principle.
Furthermore, fault for any semblence of a monopoly that MS has can be laid directly at the feet of the very people that claim to be doing all this good work breaking up monopolies. IP protection is what essentially created this mess to begin with, now we supposedly need more legislation and regulation to fix a problem created (and propogated) by the very people trying to (supposedly) fix the problem.
One thing is for sure. It's a huge mess. And we should never be happy about government micromanaging daily business of either citizens or companies.
Since when are judges trained enough to know what should be shipped with an OS?
I guess I'm the only one (or one of few) that sees a problem with ignorant government officials/beureacrats deciding which products should include which technology.
Ah, I see your point now, although I'm not sure if you mean what you say in a legal sense ("this is how it currently, legally is"), or a philosophical sense (a "this is how it should be" kind of thing). While I certainly disagree with your stance on a philosophical level, technically(legally) speaking you are wrong. Corporations are legal entities (just as humans are considered legal entities). They have certain sets of rights and restrictions, and are punishable according to established laws.
The whole issue to begin with in this article, is wether one right in particular should be extended to corporations, that is, the right to free speech. And how does extending that right then introduce situations where excercise of that right may conflict with "truth in advertising" laws.
Then should corporations also not be susceptable to punishments under the law for the same reason? Would you suggest that an entity is legal responsible to act in a manner as legislated by the US government (in this case), but not be protected by similar legislations?
I said before (maybe not under this parent....) that the underlying problem here is the exsitance of corporations (they should not exist at all as legal entities). However, if they are going to be allowed to exist, it doesn't seem at all fair they they be punishable under the law, but not be granted basic rights such as free speech.
As an extention then, can you show how a corporation can formulate a thought, much less express it in any manner considered to be speech?
The existance of a corporation is (in my mind) a seperate problem. Practically, a corporation should not exist, only indiviudals (or groups of individuals) engaged in transactions. If that were the case, this would not be an issue. However, since the government has deemed to allow the seperation of a corporation, it seems hypocritical to say that corporations can't partake in speech (because of obvious physical limitations) and to simultaneously say that "corporate speech" isn't protected...it's counter-intuitive, and arguably hypocritical.
"The big question is: are corporations citizens? Do they deserve the same rights that are accorded to real people?"
Perhaps when corporations grow mouths (with which to speak), this will become an important question. Until that time however, perhaps the question is: are indiviual people who happen to be paid employees of a corporation allowed free speech on issues of public importance without the speech (ideas/opinions) they provide being applied as official commercial speech to the corporation itself?
So, if I work for Nike, and I say that some particular factory (or group of factories) is NOT a "sweat shop", or is not slave labor, when is the corporation liable for that speech (assuming the statement is even false, which seems a difficult proof itself).
Further, since there is such a division on the definition of the term "sweat shop" (even as far as whether or not a sweat shop can exist if the individuals working in said shop do so voluntarily), then how can such prohibition (against such opionative speech by corporations) be applied? If we can't agree on what the term means, how can we possibly (rationally) agree on wether someone has lied about stating that a thing is (or is not) a sweat shop?
...are married with kids, etc
If this is an issue, maybe those people shouldn't be IN the reserves?
Sounds to me like you are pissed at finding out, after joining the reserves or National Guard, you might actually have to go to war. Maybe you should have thought about that before. The purpose of the reserves is not to just provide you with additional monthly income.
"Too bad we don't get to directly charge our clients for our services"
Maybe when your services become:
1) optional
and
2) competative
Otherwise, it's just a glorified mafia. (which is what we already have, but this would make it even worse...)
"cover the domain "
I think "domain" in this context refers to the date range (in november...I don't recall the exact dates). Since they delete logs daily, they wouldn't have anything in the "covered domain".
The inability for all sides to agree on what is good or evil, does not eliminate the possibility of an absolute good or evil. So, your entire argument is moot.
Nasa can't argue with what? That eating plants is more efficient than eating meat? Or that it is possible to live as a vegan?
It may be true that eating plants only is more efficient (I don't know first hand, but it makes sense to me), but it is certainly unnecessary in any sense...there is still plenty of food to go around.
It seems like more and more corporations are putting profit margins before people...
It seems like more and more, any attempt to make money becomes an *evil conspiracy*.
If you don't want to eat it, don't. Just because someone has decided this is a good business venture doesn't mean they have taken some action against you personally (or anyone else).
But these activists are trying to save trees...not prevent mining. Sheesh, get it straight.
To follow your argument, why then AREN'T the phone companies selling the extra bandwidth? It isn't the demand - I would like some cheap bandwidth.
:(
Why then DON'T I come mow your lawn for $5? It isn't the demand -- You would certainly like a cheap lawn mowing, I certainly have plenty of free time when I'm sitting around doing nothing better.
No, the reason I won't mow your lawn for $5 is that it would not benefit me to do so (just as the phone companies don't see themselves as benefitting from lighting up all that fiber).
I guess I'm evil too.