What are you talking about? Your analogy is weak and irrelevant. Do you have any clue about how capitalism works? There are a number of viable choices for office software that companies can choose from. Microsoft Office is a product with enough features and compatibility that almost everybody is willing to pay a premium price for it. If the features were not worth the price, I can guarantee you that people would not buy it.
Now, to use your weak analogy, if the price of bread suddenly went up to a level where it was no longer worth it to purchase, people would not complain about it still pay for it. They will switch to something else, like rice or something. If nothing else were available, I can guarantee you that some enterpising businessperson would swoop in and offer a bread substitute for less and steal the entire bread market. The breadmakers would stand to gain nothing and loose everything.
Microsoft may have a "monopoly", but its only because they make products that everybody wants. If people suddenly decide that they like the alternatives better, rest assured that the price on Microsoft Office would drop like a rock.
Funny. What has Microsoft ever done that would come anywhere close to being considered "evil". Just because they make a product that most computer users are willing to buy and use, but you don't want to, that makes them "evil"?
I'm sorry, but as much as you may dislike "clippy the paper clip" and a blue screen of death, don't you think its a bit of a stretch to call them "evil"?
In the business world, Microsoft's behavior would be considered business smarts, but in the real world, which is filled with morals and people with feelings, Microsoft is being a jerk, being hostile to people.
Sorry to burst your utopian bubble, but to every business out there the business world is the real world. People start a company to make money, not to make people feel warm and fuzzy.
regular Office is already ludicrously expensive.
Office is priced as high as people are willing to pay for it. Despite what a typical slashdotter thinks, people are willing to pay for the features that Office offers. You can't honestly say that any of the office alternatives are nearly as good as Office. If you do, you in a minority. There is a reason why 95% of business users (including myself) prefer Microsoft Office.
this is predictable old Microsoft behavior - overlooking almost all morals
What? Would it be more "moral" for them not to offer any donations to schools at all?
I think you need to take your idiot glasses off and read what he said. If people stop buying from telemarketers, the telemarketing stops. Period. There is no way around that. All he was saying is that public awareness is a more attractive route than the Government deciding what is and is not "annoying". Unfortunately for you, we do live an a free country. It is insane to think that a law should be passed against anything that anybody considers annoying.
Besides, all you have to do is politely tell the telemarketer to put your number on the "do not call" list. Ever since I started doing this, telemarketing calls have gone from several per day to maybe one per week.
Wishful thinking on your part here. The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is quite well known... The average global temperature started to increase in the 1920's.
The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is only well "known" among the environmentalist extreemists and the uninformed. Nobody is claiming that CO2 levels are decreasing in the atmosphere, but there is no evidence scientific or otherwise that can conclusively link a rise in C02 to a rise in global temperature.
Yes, global surface temperatures rose an average of 0.053 degrees C per decade in the 20th century, but at the same time atmospheric temperatures decreased, particularly in the latter half of the century.
It is a historical fact that global temperatures have fluctuated as much as 10 degrees C. The Ice Ages alone prove that global temperatures vary regardless of human involvement. Why is this any different?
Because CFC's were cut out (think back to the Montreal Protocol)
Again, if you check the facts you can see that this is easily disputed. Here is a graph showing the size of the ozone layer since 1980. The 2002 datapoint of about 15 million km^2 isn't even on there (a little more than 1/2 of the 2000 size). CFC aerosol cans were banned in 1976 and the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1989. Can you see any kind of link in the ozone size to this reduction on "greenhouse" gases? Are you honestly trying to convince me that these two are somehow related? Why would the hole in the ozone reach its peak a full 11 years after the Montreal Protocol was signed?
can you name a single peer reviewed scientific publication from that time period which is about this global freezing
I'm sorry, I let my subscriptions to all the 1970's scientific publications run out. I guess that means this is propoganda. Actually, Peter Singer (one of the more lefty whacko's out there) has written several books on a variety of subjects, including the "global freezing" scare of the 1970's.
the simple fact is that the vast majority of the worlds climatical scientists support this theory
Give me a list of scientists that support this theory, and I'll show you a list that don't. Its just plain bad science, and the only reason people think it is supported by a majority of scientists is because it isn't politically correct to argue it. For example, here is the CNN writeup of the shrinking ozone hole this month. The size of the hole reaches a 12 year low, and the only scientific opinion expressed is: "Scientists caution that the data are insufficient to conclude that the fragile ozone layer is on the mend. "
Do you believe that greenhouse gases are effecting our environment? I predict that you will say no.
Give me a break. The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is ambiguous at best. Why did the average global temperature go DOWN between 1920 and 1987 despite a 40% increase in "greenhouse gas" emissions at the turn of the century? Do you want to ignore the fact that the "hole" in the ozone has shrunk to half the size it was 2 years ago? Do you not remember that 40 years ago, environmentalists like yourself were more concerned about global freezing than they were about global warming?
The simple fact is that "global warming" is nothing more than a hypothesis that is backed up by ambiguous and contrary facts. There has been no conclusive evidence proving this idea, so why to you treat it as a proven theory?
Do you believe that our planet has finite resources and that we are exhausting them?
No, I definitely do not believe that we are exhausting a finite amount of natural resources. The earth was designed to support people living on it, and there are countless examples of resources renewing themselves through natural means. I live in oil country, and recently an abandoned oil well was revisited only to find that it had replenished itself! Nobody could explain it, but the oil company turned the rigs back on and started pumping oil out of it. Now, if we suddenly suck all oil wells in the world dry, oil prices would skyrocket (basic supply and demand economics). This rise in oil prices would suddenly make oil shale development economically feasible. Oil shale deposits have been conservatively estimated to hold several hundred years worth of the worlds oil supply. Oil is one thing we are going to have around for a LONG time.
Do you believe that the Earth has an overpopulation problem?
No, but maybe that is because I just got off a road trip where I drove through several hundred mile stretches of absolutely nothing -- land hardly touched by mankind. Try it sometime. You'll see what I mean. While your at it, next time somebody tells you that we are running out of trees, take a road trip up to the pacific northwest and take a look a the millions upon millions of trees they have up there.
Perhaps you don't believe we have a polution problem?
Sure I do. However, I also know that the nastiest pollution I have ever seen had nothing to do with humans. If you are ever in Hawaii while the volcano is erupting, check out the windward side of the big island. Volcano emissions contain some of the most toxic pollutants -- far worse than anything else I have ever seen. In fact, a single volcano eruption emits several times what a man made factory does in an entire year. Should we legislate against volcanoes now?
But I don't seriously believe that you are interested in the real facts
Let me explain to you the scientific method, because it seems you are having a hard time grasping reality. First, you start with an idea, or theory. This postulation can only be considered as "fact" if it meets these 2 requirements:
1) Supporting data is observed, either in the real world or through valid experiment, to solidify and prove your assertion.
2) There is no observation or data that disproves your theory.
Now, tell me if your "supporting" links meet these criteria. All I see are emotionally and politically charged accusations with ambiguous, unproven, and sometimes contrary observations to back them up. Real facts? Hardly. Now tell me who is keeping their head in the sand.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything Microsoft does is designed to destroy some form of competition.
You sir are an idiot. Why don't you start up a company and design everything you do to HELP your competition. Lets see how long your business lasts.
The point of running a business for everybody, including Microsoft, is to destroy your competition. If you don't, you loose.
What are you talking about? Your analogy is weak and irrelevant. Do you have any clue about how capitalism works? There are a number of viable choices for office software that companies can choose from. Microsoft Office is a product with enough features and compatibility that almost everybody is willing to pay a premium price for it. If the features were not worth the price, I can guarantee you that people would not buy it.
Now, to use your weak analogy, if the price of bread suddenly went up to a level where it was no longer worth it to purchase, people would not complain about it still pay for it. They will switch to something else, like rice or something. If nothing else were available, I can guarantee you that some enterpising businessperson would swoop in and offer a bread substitute for less and steal the entire bread market. The breadmakers would stand to gain nothing and loose everything.
Microsoft may have a "monopoly", but its only because they make products that everybody wants. If people suddenly decide that they like the alternatives better, rest assured that the price on Microsoft Office would drop like a rock.
Funny. What has Microsoft ever done that would come anywhere close to being considered "evil". Just because they make a product that most computer users are willing to buy and use, but you don't want to, that makes them "evil"?
I'm sorry, but as much as you may dislike "clippy the paper clip" and a blue screen of death, don't you think its a bit of a stretch to call them "evil"?
In the business world, Microsoft's behavior would be considered business smarts, but in the real world, which is filled with morals and people with feelings, Microsoft is being a jerk, being hostile to people.
Sorry to burst your utopian bubble, but to every business out there the business world is the real world. People start a company to make money, not to make people feel warm and fuzzy.
regular Office is already ludicrously expensive.
Office is priced as high as people are willing to pay for it. Despite what a typical slashdotter thinks, people are willing to pay for the features that Office offers. You can't honestly say that any of the office alternatives are nearly as good as Office. If you do, you in a minority. There is a reason why 95% of business users (including myself) prefer Microsoft Office.
this is predictable old Microsoft behavior - overlooking almost all morals
What? Would it be more "moral" for them not to offer any donations to schools at all?
I think you need to take your idiot glasses off and read what he said. If people stop buying from telemarketers, the telemarketing stops. Period. There is no way around that. All he was saying is that public awareness is a more attractive route than the Government deciding what is and is not "annoying". Unfortunately for you, we do live an a free country. It is insane to think that a law should be passed against anything that anybody considers annoying. Besides, all you have to do is politely tell the telemarketer to put your number on the "do not call" list. Ever since I started doing this, telemarketing calls have gone from several per day to maybe one per week.
Wishful thinking on your part here. The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is quite well known... The average global temperature started to increase in the 1920's.
The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is only well "known" among the environmentalist extreemists and the uninformed. Nobody is claiming that CO2 levels are decreasing in the atmosphere, but there is no evidence scientific or otherwise that can conclusively link a rise in C02 to a rise in global temperature.
Yes, global surface temperatures rose an average of 0.053 degrees C per decade in the 20th century, but at the same time atmospheric temperatures decreased , particularly in the latter half of the century.
It is a historical fact that global temperatures have fluctuated as much as 10 degrees C. The Ice Ages alone prove that global temperatures vary regardless of human involvement. Why is this any different?
Because CFC's were cut out (think back to the Montreal Protocol)
Again, if you check the facts you can see that this is easily disputed. Here is a graph showing the size of the ozone layer since 1980. The 2002 datapoint of about 15 million km^2 isn't even on there (a little more than 1/2 of the 2000 size). CFC aerosol cans were banned in 1976 and the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1989. Can you see any kind of link in the ozone size to this reduction on "greenhouse" gases? Are you honestly trying to convince me that these two are somehow related? Why would the hole in the ozone reach its peak a full 11 years after the Montreal Protocol was signed?
can you name a single peer reviewed scientific publication from that time period which is about this global freezing
I'm sorry, I let my subscriptions to all the 1970's scientific publications run out. I guess that means this is propoganda. Actually, Peter Singer (one of the more lefty whacko's out there) has written several books on a variety of subjects, including the "global freezing" scare of the 1970's.
the simple fact is that the vast majority of the worlds climatical scientists support this theory
Give me a list of scientists that support this theory, and I'll show you a list that don't. Its just plain bad science, and the only reason people think it is supported by a majority of scientists is because it isn't politically correct to argue it. For example, here is the CNN writeup of the shrinking ozone hole this month. The size of the hole reaches a 12 year low, and the only scientific opinion expressed is: "Scientists caution that the data are insufficient to conclude that the fragile ozone layer is on the mend. "
Do you believe that greenhouse gases are effecting our environment? I predict that you will say no.
Give me a break. The relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature is ambiguous at best. Why did the average global temperature go DOWN between 1920 and 1987 despite a 40% increase in "greenhouse gas" emissions at the turn of the century? Do you want to ignore the fact that the "hole" in the ozone has shrunk to half the size it was 2 years ago? Do you not remember that 40 years ago, environmentalists like yourself were more concerned about global freezing than they were about global warming?
The simple fact is that "global warming" is nothing more than a hypothesis that is backed up by ambiguous and contrary facts. There has been no conclusive evidence proving this idea, so why to you treat it as a proven theory?
Do you believe that our planet has finite resources and that we are exhausting them?
No, I definitely do not believe that we are exhausting a finite amount of natural resources. The earth was designed to support people living on it, and there are countless examples of resources renewing themselves through natural means. I live in oil country, and recently an abandoned oil well was revisited only to find that it had replenished itself! Nobody could explain it, but the oil company turned the rigs back on and started pumping oil out of it. Now, if we suddenly suck all oil wells in the world dry, oil prices would skyrocket (basic supply and demand economics). This rise in oil prices would suddenly make oil shale development economically feasible. Oil shale deposits have been conservatively estimated to hold several hundred years worth of the worlds oil supply. Oil is one thing we are going to have around for a LONG time.
Do you believe that the Earth has an overpopulation problem?
No, but maybe that is because I just got off a road trip where I drove through several hundred mile stretches of absolutely nothing -- land hardly touched by mankind. Try it sometime. You'll see what I mean. While your at it, next time somebody tells you that we are running out of trees, take a road trip up to the pacific northwest and take a look a the millions upon millions of trees they have up there.
Perhaps you don't believe we have a polution problem?
Sure I do. However, I also know that the nastiest pollution I have ever seen had nothing to do with humans. If you are ever in Hawaii while the volcano is erupting, check out the windward side of the big island. Volcano emissions contain some of the most toxic pollutants -- far worse than anything else I have ever seen. In fact, a single volcano eruption emits several times what a man made factory does in an entire year. Should we legislate against volcanoes now?
But I don't seriously believe that you are interested in the real facts
Let me explain to you the scientific method, because it seems you are having a hard time grasping reality. First, you start with an idea, or theory. This postulation can only be considered as "fact" if it meets these 2 requirements:
1) Supporting data is observed, either in the real world or through valid experiment, to solidify and prove your assertion.
2) There is no observation or data that disproves your theory.
Now, tell me if your "supporting" links meet these criteria. All I see are emotionally and politically charged accusations with ambiguous, unproven, and sometimes contrary observations to back them up. Real facts? Hardly. Now tell me who is keeping their head in the sand.