Your comment basically indicates that you don't know what you're talking about.
Hmmm... lemme see... well, I suppose I could have gone into more detail. But then, I don't think it would matter to you. You've made up you own little mind about what the answers are, and you certainly won't be changing them simply because there are facts in the way.
Give the credit to whomever you like. All I've been saying is that a lot of people were suckers for Microsoft PR. (And Mickeysoft PR, too, since Disney had a lot of paying customers back then.) So they bought PC machines with Windows on them. And discovered that they could play solitare and dial the internet. Which made them tell their friends, who were already falling for Microsoft PR. Who bought more PCs. Which made PC makers realize there was a lot of demand out there for PCs. So they started cutting prices to increase that demand and sell more machines and gain market share. And so on around the loop. As more users bought more machines - increasing the size of the market - more manufacturers entered the market, seeing an opportunity to snare market share before existing manufacturers expanded their own capacity. Which meant that old and new manufacturers had to lower their prices to get customers. And so on... and on... and on... and the loop is still running today.
If you look closely, Microsoft is only important to one step in there. The first one.
BTW, among adults, it's considered rude to make insulting comments without justification. Just a little tip to remember for after grade school.
Some of us were 'surfing the net' and 'sending email' when Microsoft was still pushing DOS3.
Certainly. I didn't mean to imply that Microsoft was Al Gore. (Although I've never seen Bill Gates and Al Gore at the same time...) But I don't recall anybody who was not either
A) A member of Arpanet B) A sysadmin C) A hard-core and extremely lucky computer geek
doing any of those things. There were bbses and even a few networks, but there were no instant-lookup movie ticket price sites, no free web-based email accounts, no average-Joe-Blow-ISPs ready to take your money and gingerly hold your hand through connecting to the net.
Microsoft did not create the PC clone market which gives us nice cheap (and quite often shoddy) PC's: Phoenix and Compaq did.
Wrong. Phoenix and Compaq built the IBM clones, along with Sperry and Panasonic and Sony. Microsoft created the market for the cheap clones by building "the OS for everyone." That it was imperfect was irrelevant; Windows (the original windows) was the OS that everyone could use, from the business man to the housewife to the kid down the street.
Microsoft did not create the home computer market: MITS and Apple did.
Wrong again. MITS and Apple created the hobbyist market and then abandoned it by welding the hood shut. By 1988, the average home user and hobbyist was using the PC because it was configurable, it was upgradeable, it had the illusion of support, and you could tinker with the damn thing.
Microsoft did not create ease of use computing or even push it into the marketplace: PARC and Apple did.
You expecting argument? I never said Microsoft was the best solution. I said they created the market. They made it look like Windows was easy to use and well supported. Which meant that average people thought they could use it. Apple seemed to just expect everyone to come to them without any effort.
Microsoft did not create ease of use Internet computing: the NCSA did.
But Microsoft marketed it. Name one print, radio, or TV advertisement not in a computer publication by the NCSA.
Microsoft is great at exploiting ideas once a map has been laid at their feet.
Exactly my point. They may be terrible at creating OSes, and I certainly wouldn't want to try competing against them myself - but they are great at exploiting ideas and marketing them.
People computed cheaper and easier DESPITE of Microsoft and did it a LONG time ago.
Agreed. A few. We're talking mass market here. Wozniak is a genius and a brilliant engineer. Would the Apple have gone anywhere beyond San Jose without Steve Jobs? No. Would the GUI have gone anywhere without Jobs and Gates marketing it? No.
Thus all of the frustration and flammage from Amiga users, Apple users and the odd Atarian.
You justify every bit of an Amigan angst.
I have never read a single line of justified Amigan angst. I liked the Amiga. Fine machine. Poorly supported, poorly marketed, and poorly received. Hmm. I sense a trend. Could those be connected?
For the last time:
I did not say even once that Microsoft was good at creating software. I said they were good at marketing and at business. They were. They still are. And without that skill at marketing, all you get is another Amiga. Microsoft proves that you don't even need a good product if you're good at marketing.
[Microeconomics d]eals primarily with supply and demand. You characterization of it is misleading. Microsoft still sucks, regardless of you rationalizations. (hotmail is a dead giveaway for Microsoft astroturfers)
I almost replied with a stream of vile invective. I didn't though, because I realized that I really don't care about your opinions, such as they are. So instead, I will make one last attempt to correct ignorance and stupidity.
I had a biology textbook that stated the human genome consists of 30 chromosomes. That don't make it so. Supply and Demand as a general topic is properly in the domain of Macroeconomics, unless you're discussing the specifics of it, such as actual price points for ratios of supply/demand. Neither of which has anything to do with what I was saying.
I never actually said Microsoft didn't "suck." I said I feel no need to destroy Microsoft. I still don't. Why should I? Their marketing techniques have caused damage to businesses not intelligent enough to avoid it, but they've also created a market for PCs among the general market, which caused PC makers to manufacture cheaper PCs. Which allows me to purchase a top-of-the-line PC for considerably less than a low-end PC could be purchased for 10 years ago. I may not like their OS or their products, but I feel no animosity towards them personally. I simply use better alternatives, such as Linux, and continue with my own business of engineering. The only reason I use Microsoft at all is to use AutoCad and to create native Word documents for clients.
In short, Microsoft has created a lot of problems for a lot of people. So did General Marks when he first started publishing his Mechanical Engineering handbook. Regardless, he still took hundreds of separate, individually expensive manuals, and combined them in one, relatively inexpensive handbook. Am I forced to use the handbook? No, there are now other handbooks available. But Marks was the first, and the one that created the market. Face it, like it or not, without Microsoft you wouldn't be able to surf the net, send email, or choose an OS, because computers would be something you might see on occaision but you'd never be able to use one the way you can now.
I can't resist, one last comment - I use Hotmail to filter unwanted mail. Not all of it comes from Spammers, you know...
Four required semesters of Micro and Macroeconomics say you're wrong. Microeconomics deals with specific things, such as depreciation, taxation, and amortization. Macroeconomics is the opposite - the differences between capitalism and communism, the way market forces influence economic structures, and so on. Microeconomics may not say anything about power, but Macroeconomics does. And what it says is that monopolies that abuse their power - meaning that monopolies that provide good service, reasonable pricing, and adequate output are not susceptable to this - are always replaced by competition. Someone will eventually succeed in replacing Microsoft if they abuse their power.
As for "that monopoly may have access to laws to protect themselves from competition" - certainly, if we were talking about a managed economy. We aren't, to any real extent, so it doesn't apply. Microsoft can lobby for laws to protect their position all they like, it will not happen. If it had, do you really think they'd be in this lawsuit?
Try studying the subject a little bit before you try to attack your betters on it. You'll look like less of a fool, even on those occaisions when you're wrong.
My objective is not to destroy Microsoft. I simply wish to use a good, solid, stable operating system that serves all my needs. Linux does that. If Windows did it better than Linux, then I'd use Windows.
Hell, you owe a lot to Microsoft. Without them, there'd never have been the sub-$5000 computer, much less the sub-$1000. Not counting Apple products, of course, which don't count for those of us who like to tinker. Microsoft may do things I don't like, and they may have monopoly powers in a lot of areas. So what? There are alternatives that I like. I like the fact that government can interfere in the day-to-day operations of a private corporation a hell of a lot less than I like the idea of Microsoft having monopoly power. It's quite simple, really; basic economic theory states that if a monopoly (Microsoft) begins to abuse their power, competition will spring up to replace it. Hence Linux, BeOS, Macintosh, Caldera DOS, Amiga, and OS/2. Yes, I know, none of these have been successful yet (aside, perhaps, from Linux) but the point is that people keep trying. As soon as someone succeeds, the monopoly is broken. And we are talking about a very short timespan as markets and business go.
But LWN and LinuxToday only cover Linux. Slashdot covers BeOS, Mac, Windows, Science news, CDA and related laws, and other things not related to Linux, but interesting and/or important to most geeks. You don't care about that stuff? Fine, go modify your preferences to ignore that stuff. We don't mind.
Actually, from what I can see, most Anonymous Cowards are people who don't wish to attract attention from the lamers and the flamers. Judging from the sh*t said persons generally post and email at the slightest provocation, can you blame them?
Yes, giving the system a switched hub reduces this problem, but it's an expensive way to do it that shouldn't be necessary.
But still cheaper than your older-but-better. Since switched IP can provide the same service (and still be more expandable) for less cost than Token Ring, why use Token Ring?
Having played with it quite a bit, I'll admit they "improved" it, by adding more junk. It still can't be customized, it's even more bloated than NT4, and it's only good improvement is that it *seems* to be stable. On the other hand, on two different machines, both mainstream Dell servers, we had it crash and burn on installation and never got it to work right. So what's the deal?
Seriously, I agree with you that we can both find numbers to back ourselves up. I will, however, counter a few points you made:
To me, that sounds like a big price to pay for a symbol.
Is it? Men (and women) will often die for symbols but not for real, tangible goals. Nobody ever jumped off on an assault certain to bring heavy casualties shouting "A higher standard of living!" or "A better socio-economic landscape!" No, they charge into machine gun fire shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and reciting phrases like "Duty, Honor, Country."
No, I know that's not what you meant. There are, of course, costs associated with widespread gun ownership. There are also costs associated with freedom of religion - such as having to listen to evangelical "Christians" hounding me about my faith. (Now THERE's a use for a handgun!) As a matter of fact, there are costs for every single "right" and privelage we have.
I think that is bull, but both of us will have problems finding hard numbers to prove our points.
I think you're right, we will have a hard time finding hard numbers. I could show statistics from the US showing that crime rates rise every time guns are restricted; but then there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." Besides, I don't feel like it.;) Instead, I will simply state that the argument of removing guns from law-abiding citizens will reduce crime makes no sense to me or anyone who got a C+ or better in basic logic. My main reason for arguing against restricting guns is that no society, going back to ancient greece, has ever survived such a restriction. Sure, sure, modern times are different, this situation has never happened before, and this time it won't happen. Uh-huh. And I'm sure the Spartans argued the same point, and I'm sure they lost as thoroughly as I probably will. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. They weren't.
...you will just have to accept that I am right, damnit. You must!;-)
Hmmm... no. Although you remind me of someone... oh yeah, me!;)
If the victims didn't have guns, criminals would be less inclined to carry or use them as well since they didn't have to worry about having their heads blown off, ever consider that? It's a good circle!:-)
Stupid ones might. Smart ones would say "The more ability I have to threaten my victim, the less likely they will be to make a fuss. A gun is the greatest means at my disposal. Therefore I will use a gun." At least I would.
Besides, I believe manufacturing a good handgun is more difficult than you claim, especially if sales of ammo and gunpowder was limited as well. I would much prefer to face a criminal armed with some home made pipe gun than a state of the art semi-automatic military issue thingy.
I didn't say "good" nor did I say "handgun." I speak from experience; as a child I made a black-powder musket from information at the library. Ground my own powder, fired a ball-bearing through a lead pipe. Crude, yes, but it worked. I would never use one against someone armed with an assault rifle, but if the government took away all guns, I wouldn't need to worry about it, now would I?
No, but seriously. I might have been a bit careless. When I said "ban guns" above, I did not mean the complete banning of guns. I meant banning the sale of stuff like assault rifles and armour piercing bullets, strict background checks at all times (including gun shows), and bans against carrying firearms in public. That's my view. But we live on different continents, and if someone is in the position to limit anyones rights, its you who can harm me, so the point is moot anyway.
Good, point's moot, I win.;) Seriously, I would agree with the assualt rifles and armor-piercing rounds bans, although I would prefer restrictions. Levels, perhaps. Convicted felons - not so much as a pea shooter. Kids - likewise. Permitted to get a permit with their guardian's permission, provided the guardian accepts total responsibility. Adults - rifles, handguns, and so on, provided they pass firearms safety tests and background checks. And one other level, perhaps members of a militia such as the national guard, allowed to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.
The point is that as far as firearms go, there's a sharp and harsh curve where the stupid and foolish will inevitably cause problems. Which is not a sufficient argument for restricting them.
Do you think it's OK if only the kids of a rich elite gets a good education in the US? What good does it do if 5% are very intellectual if the remaining 95% are ignorant and easy to manipulate?
No, of course not. But that's not what happens. So far as grammar and high school goes, that is to the age of 18, most of the home-schooled children are middle-class. Rich kids are almost invariably sent to public schools, since they don't need intelligence to get ahead, or sent to expensive boarding schools. I would infinitely prefer for public schools to improve to the point that I would trust my child's education to them, but I don't see it happening. Therefore I value my right to avoid it.
Then we agree. Only not on the details.:-)
Basically. This is getting longer than I had planned, but I think we agree more than we disagree. The disagreements are important, but not critical.
I would like to make one last point. In the wake of the Littleton shootings, there has been a wave of anti-gun laws being rushed into legislation. Considering that the guns used were purchased illegally from someone who got them under conditions that would be legal even under the new laws, I fail to see the point. There will always be illegal weapons. There will always be murders. Trying to stop them is like trying to stop the tide with a broom; you get wet, tired, and a bad taste in your mouth, but you don't get anywhere.
OK, I don't think it's good if the government or big corporations or crazy lunatics use information about me to harm me. But isn't that what laws are for?
I'm scared of the police like anyone, but I feel that it's better and more productive to have laws that try to make sure the police behaves, rather than try to fight them (I know I'll lose).
Shall I explain the contradiction, or can you figure it out? Never mind, I'll explain it, you didn't catch it the first time.
Laws set the rules of behavior, according to you. OK. I can accept that. Who enforces those laws? The police. OK. With you so far.
But you say you are afraid of the police, and that we all are, implying that this is the normal state of affairs. That is a very good reason why laws alone will not work.
Another one is explained by the second contradiction. We already stated that police enforce the law. So what use are laws designed to restrict the police? Who enforces THOSE laws? And then who regulates THEM?
As for Open Source applying to everything; no. It never has, it never will. It can't. Some things will always be restricted, and private. I don't want you or my employer or anyone else to look up my medical history. That's private. My doctor needs it? Fine. I'll give it to him, and I'll have to trust him to keep it private.
I homeschool my children. They are reading, writing, and doing mathematics at a much higher grade level than other children their age. So I am better than the government at education.
Defense. The US last defended itself by bombing a country many of our citizens would have a hard time placing on a map. I am more concerned with defending myself from my own government at this point.
Ever ride a bus or taxi in the US? No thanks, I'll walk...
And you're damn right on the health and safety.
Too literal, of course. I have family I trust. Also friends. And even some people I pay to perform services and supply me with goods. My objection is not that I and others rely on other people for certain things. My objection is that I am FORCED to rely on other people not of my own selection. Even if I voted for the current president, representatives, and senators, I still did not choose to rely on them to this extent, and had this been part of their platform, they would never have been elected. Which is why it was never part of their platform.
As for changing it rather than getting rid of it; certainly. If you can. The problem is that through all history, it was possible to escape a government you disagreed with by leaving, heading out to the new world, the new territory, or even just to another tribe or country more to your liking. Didn't like England? Go to the Americas. You can't do that anymore. No matter where you go, you are within reach of the government, and no matter whose it is, you are subject to the whims of American government. There is no longer someplace else to go.
I don't know about the person you were asking, but I agree with him/her whole-heartadly, and I am no gun nut. In fact, I do not own a gun. The day the government outlaws them, I will go out and buy several, and lots of ammo, before the law goes into effect.
The cause/effect relationship between gun laws and government monitoring is very simple. When the Bill of Rights was originally instituted as a group of 10 amendments to the constitution, it was a sheer wall, a blanket guarantee of rights. That wall was so high, so sheer, and so strong, that you were safe behind it. You knew that the government would not take away your rights because they had themselves made it illegal. They had little choice; anyone who disagreed with the actions of the government could simply move West and outrun the cloying "protections" of government.
The first breach in the wall was unimportant to most people. Most people can't even remember it. But it was the first.
As time goes by, more rights are abridged and amended. Freedom of assembly? Not if you're a Communist, says McCarthy. Never mind that silly old Constitution, it's time we got rid of that, anyway. Guns? Why would a solid, upstanding citizen need a gun? Only criminals need those. Why, someone could get hurt with one of those things, and then where would we be? Tell you what, since we're sure you're not a criminal and we're sure you're not stupid, we'll take those away from you. You don't need them, after all. We'll let you have these tiny, safe guns instead. You can still hunt with them. You can still target shoot with them. That's all you need it for, right? You don't want to be a criminal, do you? CRACK goes the wall, and big chunks fall out of it. There's now a hole, a breach. Crime rates climb astronomically as criminals now have a marked advantage over their victims. Aha! The government says. Crime is out of control. Obviously, the problem is that the criminals have guns. Well, we can fix that. We should never have let you have those hunting rifles. They're dangerous, you know. Hand 'em over. No, no, can't have you protesting, we know what's best, you know.
CRACK goes the wall.
Crime now climbs even higher. The criminals know that the victims are helpless, now, they can get away with anything because they have all the guns. Cops and police need assault rifles and heavy weapons to be safe on the job, because the criminals are so bold that the police do not frighten them anymore. Law-abiding citizens don't trust the police because they have these weapons, and well, mistakes will happen. Innocent people get gunned down because the police can't afford to wait for proof that the person is dangerous. Citizens stop respecting or helping police. Police stop protecting citizens.
CRACK goes the wall.
Now, the government says, we need to monitor you all 24 hours a day. We're sorry, but we have to, we need to find these criminals. You're not a criminal, right? You've got nothing to hide, right? We won't persecute anyone or any group, we're just after the criminals and the terrorists. As soon as we got all of them, we'll stop. We promise.
And the walls come tumbling down.
And it doesn't end there. Hillary Clinton is running for the Senate, and after that, I bet she'll be after the Presidency. Ever read her book? Ever listen to her speeches? She wants to take away your freedom to teach your children, because, after all, there are some bad parents out there. We need to protect those children, and so we'll just take away your right to raise your children. Surely you were already doing it the right way, right? So it won't matter then, right? Right?
And if you want to look at other countries as relates to crime and guns, OK, let's look at Israel. Lowest violent crime rate in the world, practically. Why? Because at any given time, three or four of those people walking down the street have a loaded sub-machine gun or assault rifle, on their way to or from an army reservist meeting. Who's safer? You, walking alone through Central Park unarmed, or the citizens of Israel, surrounded by assault rifles? Statistics say they are. Wonder why that is?
Roughly, "Who will guard the guardians?" The problem is that there is no way to do what you suggest. How in the hell are we supposed to monitor the use of the government's power? The only way would be a watchdog comittee. Ooooo, now there's a good idea. Half of these groups are as bad as the government, and the other half are worse. The only person I trust with my secrets is me. And that's the only person who's going to get the chance.
I think we need SSL encryption for/. We also need a forum for encryption techniques. Perhaps even discussion of the best means of protecting our privacy in spite of government controls.
If you actually believe that tripe you're spouting, then go bleat with the other sheep.
Oh, there's no doubt that it will be used against terrorists. After all, terrorists communicate every day by unencrypted, plain text email. And of course, there's no doubt that we can trust our dear friends in the government to only use that power for those purposes, and of course they will cease and desist as soon as the "Troubles" are over. Just like automatic tax deductions from American paychecks. "Temporarily" instituted by Congress during WWII. For the duration of the war, only. Gee, I didn't know the war was still going on, but it must be, since they're still taking money from my paycheck. Hmmm. Wonder why that is...
Re:Smirk...the special friendship between the nati
on
Interception in the UK
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I wonder when my fellow Americans are going to wake up and realize that the government "of the People, for the People, and by the People" is no longer of, for, or by the People.
I have no problems with you. You have no problems with me. Our governments are acting like spoiled children, yes. So, let's solve that. There's a reference up above to oceania.org; it is, in fact, defunct/bankrupt. At any rate, no one is doing anything with the page or with anything else. So, let's do it ourselves.
The fact that this instance of the law will only apply to domestic UK communications does not cause me to roll over and say "oh, well, that's OK then." Freedom is freedom, liberty is liberty, and what one nation gets away with against its citizens another will try shortly. Anyone read Hillary Clinton's statements on child care and other social issues? That woman scares me...
I hadn't thought of that particular instance. You're right, of course. They did exactly as I said - Picked their time, their weapons, and their battlefield. And they won.
Certainly, guns are not useful at melee ranges. The trouble to the soldier/warrior armed only with a sword, regardless of type, is surviving to get that close.
I know I'm not who you're responding to, but that's OK.
The mistake you're making, and that many others make, is that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the ability to overthrow the government. That was proven @200 years ago, with John Brown and the Whiskey Rebellion. The weapons John Brown and his associates used were the same weapons as the military had, and all were trained. They still lost; the military had more men, more ammunition, and more supplies. John Brown knew this going in; at his trial, shortly before hanging, he made it clear that he never planned to survive, nor even to win a battle.
So what did it prove?
It proved that the last, true right that every man (and woman) has is the right to fight for your beliefs. And die for them. Alright, so he was fighting against the taxation of liquor. The point is, at that time, it was your right, guaranteed in the Constitution, to protest the actions of the US government by any means at your disposal, including armed rebellion, on the principle that by drawing attention to your cause, the government would be forced to change the rules or face the possibility of a general uprising.
Today, the government has taken away almost everything else. The Montana Freemen faced the same problem; so, in their way, did David Koresh and his followers. With less success, thanks to the vagaries of modern government, the illiteracy of the people and the stupidity or ignorance of the media. As of this week, Congress is (once again) trying to remove the right to physically desecrate the American flag. One more form of political protest gone.
And don't be so sure that modern weaponry makes a fight against an army pointless. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. People have been making your assumptions since the Greeks fought the Persians; they were wrong then. You still are. A single, lone fighter, fighting for his home, with only a knife, can be as dangerous and as important as a platoon of soldiers with every weapon known to man.
And your second argument; that proves my point. Rebellion was possible because it wasn't worth the effort to try and hold the colonies; the war with France was more important, much closer to home. That's why we won, certainly. The British thought they could easily reconquer the territory later, say about 1812; it didn't prove to be so easy. The revolution did not succeed so much because Britain didn't fight; it succeeded because the Rebels picked their time, picked their tactics, and picked their battlefield. The same tacts would work today.
The version I heard, I believe by Oliver Wendell Holmes (I am unsure of the attribution) was this: (Only really applies to US)
"When they took the Second Amendment, I said nothing because I had no guns.
"When they took the Fifth Amendment, I said nothing because I was not on trial.
"When they took the Fourth Amendment, I said nothing because I was not guilty.
"When they took the First Amendment, I couldn't say anything."
Get the point?
For the British and others who may not know, 2nd Amendment - right to keep and bear arms. Currently under debate due to Littleton.
5th Amendment - right to refuse to answer at trial. Currently worthless because the media declares you guilty for its use. And so do the courts.
4th Amendment - Protection unless unlawful persecution from law enforcement (search & siezure, writ of habeus corpus, etc.) See today's newspapers regarding NYPD or LAPD or FBI.
1st Amendment - Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, movement, etc., etc. Contrary to popular opinion, this one never existed. Don't believe me? Try burning a flag, being an atheist, loitering with "suspected gang members," or leaving the country.
I would agree with your rant, except for one thing:
You're wrong.
The right to keep and bear arms is a symbol. It means that the government has the right to take your life, if you have done something to require it, but they do not have the right to make you lie down and take it like a good boy or girl.
Banning guns does not prevent violent crime. It expands it, because criminals know that all law-abiding citizens are now unarmed. The criminals can still get guns of a sort - they are not difficult to make, even without buying one - and now, they don't have to worry about the victim producing a shotgun and blowing their head off. If you think differently, then it's quite simple; don't keep guns. DO NOT tell me not to. The US was founded on this principle; it was a sad, sad day when we forgot it.
As for education, you're quite right. The US public school system sucks rocks. Which proves MY point, not yours. Here, we have the right to simply pull our children from the school system and teach them at home, or in smaller private schools. And if you compare those homeschool and private school children to your schools, we've got YOU beat, not the other way around. Pity you don't have the right to force the same concession, isn't it?
The reason we say it will happen here is that the government is continually trying to force more controls. Remove those freedoms. To the detriment of us all.
"Is it freedom if your cage is larger than the distance you wish to fly?" "When a place is so crowded as to require IDs and traffic cops, it is time to go elsewhere." The problem being that there is nowhere else to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... lemme see... well, I suppose I could have gone into more detail. But then, I don't think it would matter to you. You've made up you own little mind about what the answers are, and you certainly won't be changing them simply because there are facts in the way.
Give the credit to whomever you like. All I've been saying is that a lot of people were suckers for Microsoft PR. (And Mickeysoft PR, too, since Disney had a lot of paying customers back then.) So they bought PC machines with Windows on them. And discovered that they could play solitare and dial the internet. Which made them tell their friends, who were already falling for Microsoft PR. Who bought more PCs. Which made PC makers realize there was a lot of demand out there for PCs. So they started cutting prices to increase that demand and sell more machines and gain market share. And so on around the loop. As more users bought more machines - increasing the size of the market - more manufacturers entered the market, seeing an opportunity to snare market share before existing manufacturers expanded their own capacity. Which meant that old and new manufacturers had to lower their prices to get customers. And so on... and on... and on... and the loop is still running today.
If you look closely, Microsoft is only important to one step in there. The first one.
BTW, among adults, it's considered rude to make insulting comments without justification. Just a little tip to remember for after grade school.
This is a large part of what I was trying to say. Thank you.
Certainly. I didn't mean to imply that Microsoft was Al Gore. (Although I've never seen Bill Gates and Al Gore at the same time...) But I don't recall anybody who was not either
A) A member of Arpanet
B) A sysadmin
C) A hard-core and extremely lucky computer geek
doing any of those things. There were bbses and even a few networks, but there were no instant-lookup movie ticket price sites, no free web-based email accounts, no average-Joe-Blow-ISPs ready to take your money and gingerly hold your hand through connecting to the net.
Microsoft did not create the PC clone market which gives us nice cheap (and quite often shoddy) PC's: Phoenix and Compaq did.
Wrong. Phoenix and Compaq built the IBM clones, along with Sperry and Panasonic and Sony. Microsoft created the market for the cheap clones by building "the OS for everyone." That it was imperfect was irrelevant; Windows (the original windows) was the OS that everyone could use, from the business man to the housewife to the kid down the street.
Microsoft did not create the home computer market: MITS and Apple did.
Wrong again. MITS and Apple created the hobbyist market and then abandoned it by welding the hood shut. By 1988, the average home user and hobbyist was using the PC because it was configurable, it was upgradeable, it had the illusion of support, and you could tinker with the damn thing.
Microsoft did not create ease of use computing or even push it into the marketplace: PARC and Apple did.
You expecting argument? I never said Microsoft was the best solution. I said they created the market. They made it look like Windows was easy to use and well supported. Which meant that average people thought they could use it. Apple seemed to just expect everyone to come to them without any effort.
Microsoft did not create ease of use Internet computing: the NCSA did.
But Microsoft marketed it. Name one print, radio, or TV advertisement not in a computer publication by the NCSA.
Microsoft is great at exploiting ideas once a map has been laid at their feet.
Exactly my point. They may be terrible at creating OSes, and I certainly wouldn't want to try competing against them myself - but they are great at exploiting ideas and marketing them.
People computed cheaper and easier DESPITE of Microsoft and did it a LONG time ago.
Agreed. A few. We're talking mass market here. Wozniak is a genius and a brilliant engineer. Would the Apple have gone anywhere beyond San Jose without Steve Jobs? No. Would the GUI have gone anywhere without Jobs and Gates marketing it? No.
Thus all of the frustration and flammage from Amiga users, Apple users and the odd Atarian.
You justify every bit of an Amigan angst.
I have never read a single line of justified Amigan angst. I liked the Amiga. Fine machine. Poorly supported, poorly marketed, and poorly received. Hmm. I sense a trend. Could those be connected?
For the last time:
I did not say even once that Microsoft was good at creating software. I said they were good at marketing and at business. They were. They still are. And without that skill at marketing, all you get is another Amiga. Microsoft proves that you don't even need a good product if you're good at marketing.
I almost replied with a stream of vile invective. I didn't though, because I realized that I really don't care about your opinions, such as they are. So instead, I will make one last attempt to correct ignorance and stupidity.
I had a biology textbook that stated the human genome consists of 30 chromosomes. That don't make it so. Supply and Demand as a general topic is properly in the domain of Macroeconomics, unless you're discussing the specifics of it, such as actual price points for ratios of supply/demand. Neither of which has anything to do with what I was saying.
I never actually said Microsoft didn't "suck." I said I feel no need to destroy Microsoft. I still don't. Why should I? Their marketing techniques have caused damage to businesses not intelligent enough to avoid it, but they've also created a market for PCs among the general market, which caused PC makers to manufacture cheaper PCs. Which allows me to purchase a top-of-the-line PC for considerably less than a low-end PC could be purchased for 10 years ago. I may not like their OS or their products, but I feel no animosity towards them personally. I simply use better alternatives, such as Linux, and continue with my own business of engineering. The only reason I use Microsoft at all is to use AutoCad and to create native Word documents for clients.
In short, Microsoft has created a lot of problems for a lot of people. So did General Marks when he first started publishing his Mechanical Engineering handbook. Regardless, he still took hundreds of separate, individually expensive manuals, and combined them in one, relatively inexpensive handbook. Am I forced to use the handbook? No, there are now other handbooks available. But Marks was the first, and the one that created the market. Face it, like it or not, without Microsoft you wouldn't be able to surf the net, send email, or choose an OS, because computers would be something you might see on occaision but you'd never be able to use one the way you can now.
I can't resist, one last comment - I use Hotmail to filter unwanted mail. Not all of it comes from Spammers, you know...
As for "that monopoly may have access to laws to protect themselves from competition" - certainly, if we were talking about a managed economy. We aren't, to any real extent, so it doesn't apply. Microsoft can lobby for laws to protect their position all they like, it will not happen. If it had, do you really think they'd be in this lawsuit?
Try studying the subject a little bit before you try to attack your betters on it. You'll look like less of a fool, even on those occaisions when you're wrong.
Hell, you owe a lot to Microsoft. Without them, there'd never have been the sub-$5000 computer, much less the sub-$1000. Not counting Apple products, of course, which don't count for those of us who like to tinker. Microsoft may do things I don't like, and they may have monopoly powers in a lot of areas. So what? There are alternatives that I like. I like the fact that government can interfere in the day-to-day operations of a private corporation a hell of a lot less than I like the idea of Microsoft having monopoly power. It's quite simple, really; basic economic theory states that if a monopoly (Microsoft) begins to abuse their power, competition will spring up to replace it. Hence Linux, BeOS, Macintosh, Caldera DOS, Amiga, and OS/2. Yes, I know, none of these have been successful yet (aside, perhaps, from Linux) but the point is that people keep trying. As soon as someone succeeds, the monopoly is broken. And we are talking about a very short timespan as markets and business go.
But still cheaper than your older-but-better. Since switched IP can provide the same service (and still be more expandable) for less cost than Token Ring, why use Token Ring?
But who's counting?
Having played with it quite a bit, I'll admit they "improved" it, by adding more junk. It still can't be customized, it's even more bloated than NT4, and it's only good improvement is that it *seems* to be stable. On the other hand, on two different machines, both mainstream Dell servers, we had it crash and burn on installation and never got it to work right. So what's the deal?
Seriously, I agree with you that we can both find numbers to back ourselves up. I will, however, counter a few points you made:
To me, that sounds like a big price to pay for a symbol.
Is it? Men (and women) will often die for symbols but not for real, tangible goals. Nobody ever jumped off on an assault certain to bring heavy casualties shouting "A higher standard of living!" or "A better socio-economic landscape!" No, they charge into machine gun fire shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and reciting phrases like "Duty, Honor, Country."
No, I know that's not what you meant. There are, of course, costs associated with widespread gun ownership. There are also costs associated with freedom of religion - such as having to listen to evangelical "Christians" hounding me about my faith. (Now THERE's a use for a handgun!) As a matter of fact, there are costs for every single "right" and privelage we have.
I think that is bull, but both of us will have problems finding hard numbers to prove our points.
I think you're right, we will have a hard time finding hard numbers. I could show statistics from the US showing that crime rates rise every time guns are restricted; but then there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." Besides, I don't feel like it. ;) Instead, I will simply state that the argument of removing guns from law-abiding citizens will reduce crime makes no sense to me or anyone who got a C+ or better in basic logic. My main reason for arguing against restricting guns is that no society, going back to ancient greece, has ever survived such a restriction. Sure, sure, modern times are different, this situation has never happened before, and this time it won't happen. Uh-huh. And I'm sure the Spartans argued the same point, and I'm sure they lost as thoroughly as I probably will. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. They weren't.
Hmmm... no. Although you remind me of someone... oh yeah, me! ;)
If the victims didn't have guns, criminals would be less inclined to carry or use them as well since they didn't have to worry about having their heads blown off, ever consider that? It's a good circle! :-)
Stupid ones might. Smart ones would say "The more ability I have to threaten my victim, the less likely they will be to make a fuss. A gun is the greatest means at my disposal. Therefore I will use a gun." At least I would.
Besides, I believe manufacturing a good handgun is more difficult than you claim, especially if sales of ammo and gunpowder was limited as well. I would much prefer to face a criminal armed with some home made pipe gun than a state of the art semi-automatic military issue thingy.
I didn't say "good" nor did I say "handgun." I speak from experience; as a child I made a black-powder musket from information at the library. Ground my own powder, fired a ball-bearing through a lead pipe. Crude, yes, but it worked. I would never use one against someone armed with an assault rifle, but if the government took away all guns, I wouldn't need to worry about it, now would I?
No, but seriously. I might have been a bit careless. When I said "ban guns" above, I did not mean the complete banning of guns. I meant banning the sale of stuff like assault rifles and armour piercing bullets, strict background checks at all times (including gun shows), and bans against carrying firearms in public. That's my view. But we live on different continents, and if someone is in the position to limit anyones rights, its you who can harm me, so the point is moot anyway.
Good, point's moot, I win. ;) Seriously, I would agree with the assualt rifles and armor-piercing rounds bans, although I would prefer restrictions. Levels, perhaps. Convicted felons - not so much as a pea shooter. Kids - likewise. Permitted to get a permit with their guardian's permission, provided the guardian accepts total responsibility. Adults - rifles, handguns, and so on, provided they pass firearms safety tests and background checks. And one other level, perhaps members of a militia such as the national guard, allowed to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.
The point is that as far as firearms go, there's a sharp and harsh curve where the stupid and foolish will inevitably cause problems. Which is not a sufficient argument for restricting them.
Do you think it's OK if only the kids of a rich elite gets a good education in the US? What good does it do if 5% are very intellectual if the remaining 95% are ignorant and easy to manipulate?
No, of course not. But that's not what happens. So far as grammar and high school goes, that is to the age of 18, most of the home-schooled children are middle-class. Rich kids are almost invariably sent to public schools, since they don't need intelligence to get ahead, or sent to expensive boarding schools. I would infinitely prefer for public schools to improve to the point that I would trust my child's education to them, but I don't see it happening. Therefore I value my right to avoid it.
Then we agree. Only not on the details. :-)
Basically. This is getting longer than I had planned, but I think we agree more than we disagree. The disagreements are important, but not critical.
I would like to make one last point. In the wake of the Littleton shootings, there has been a wave of anti-gun laws being rushed into legislation. Considering that the guns used were purchased illegally from someone who got them under conditions that would be legal even under the new laws, I fail to see the point. There will always be illegal weapons. There will always be murders. Trying to stop them is like trying to stop the tide with a broom; you get wet, tired, and a bad taste in your mouth, but you don't get anywhere.
I'm scared of the police like anyone, but I feel that it's better and more productive to have laws that try to make sure the police behaves, rather than try to fight them (I know I'll lose).
Shall I explain the contradiction, or can you figure it out? Never mind, I'll explain it, you didn't catch it the first time.
Laws set the rules of behavior, according to you. OK. I can accept that. Who enforces those laws? The police. OK. With you so far.
But you say you are afraid of the police, and that we all are, implying that this is the normal state of affairs. That is a very good reason why laws alone will not work.
Another one is explained by the second contradiction. We already stated that police enforce the law. So what use are laws designed to restrict the police? Who enforces THOSE laws? And then who regulates THEM?
As for Open Source applying to everything; no. It never has, it never will. It can't. Some things will always be restricted, and private. I don't want you or my employer or anyone else to look up my medical history. That's private. My doctor needs it? Fine. I'll give it to him, and I'll have to trust him to keep it private.
I homeschool my children. They are reading, writing, and doing mathematics at a much higher grade level than other children their age. So I am better than the government at education.
Defense. The US last defended itself by bombing a country many of our citizens would have a hard time placing on a map. I am more concerned with defending myself from my own government at this point.
Ever ride a bus or taxi in the US? No thanks, I'll walk...
And you're damn right on the health and safety.
Too literal, of course. I have family I trust. Also friends. And even some people I pay to perform services and supply me with goods. My objection is not that I and others rely on other people for certain things. My objection is that I am FORCED to rely on other people not of my own selection. Even if I voted for the current president, representatives, and senators, I still did not choose to rely on them to this extent, and had this been part of their platform, they would never have been elected. Which is why it was never part of their platform.
As for changing it rather than getting rid of it; certainly. If you can. The problem is that through all history, it was possible to escape a government you disagreed with by leaving, heading out to the new world, the new territory, or even just to another tribe or country more to your liking. Didn't like England? Go to the Americas. You can't do that anymore. No matter where you go, you are within reach of the government, and no matter whose it is, you are subject to the whims of American government. There is no longer someplace else to go.
The cause/effect relationship between gun laws and government monitoring is very simple. When the Bill of Rights was originally instituted as a group of 10 amendments to the constitution, it was a sheer wall, a blanket guarantee of rights. That wall was so high, so sheer, and so strong, that you were safe behind it. You knew that the government would not take away your rights because they had themselves made it illegal. They had little choice; anyone who disagreed with the actions of the government could simply move West and outrun the cloying "protections" of government.
The first breach in the wall was unimportant to most people. Most people can't even remember it. But it was the first.
As time goes by, more rights are abridged and amended. Freedom of assembly? Not if you're a Communist, says McCarthy. Never mind that silly old Constitution, it's time we got rid of that, anyway. Guns? Why would a solid, upstanding citizen need a gun? Only criminals need those. Why, someone could get hurt with one of those things, and then where would we be? Tell you what, since we're sure you're not a criminal and we're sure you're not stupid, we'll take those away from you. You don't need them, after all. We'll let you have these tiny, safe guns instead. You can still hunt with them. You can still target shoot with them. That's all you need it for, right? You don't want to be a criminal, do you? CRACK goes the wall, and big chunks fall out of it. There's now a hole, a breach. Crime rates climb astronomically as criminals now have a marked advantage over their victims. Aha! The government says. Crime is out of control. Obviously, the problem is that the criminals have guns. Well, we can fix that. We should never have let you have those hunting rifles. They're dangerous, you know. Hand 'em over. No, no, can't have you protesting, we know what's best, you know.
CRACK goes the wall.
Crime now climbs even higher. The criminals know that the victims are helpless, now, they can get away with anything because they have all the guns. Cops and police need assault rifles and heavy weapons to be safe on the job, because the criminals are so bold that the police do not frighten them anymore. Law-abiding citizens don't trust the police because they have these weapons, and well, mistakes will happen. Innocent people get gunned down because the police can't afford to wait for proof that the person is dangerous. Citizens stop respecting or helping police. Police stop protecting citizens.
CRACK goes the wall.
Now, the government says, we need to monitor you all 24 hours a day. We're sorry, but we have to, we need to find these criminals. You're not a criminal, right? You've got nothing to hide, right? We won't persecute anyone or any group, we're just after the criminals and the terrorists. As soon as we got all of them, we'll stop. We promise.
And the walls come tumbling down.
And it doesn't end there. Hillary Clinton is running for the Senate, and after that, I bet she'll be after the Presidency. Ever read her book? Ever listen to her speeches? She wants to take away your freedom to teach your children, because, after all, there are some bad parents out there. We need to protect those children, and so we'll just take away your right to raise your children. Surely you were already doing it the right way, right? So it won't matter then, right? Right?
And if you want to look at other countries as relates to crime and guns, OK, let's look at Israel. Lowest violent crime rate in the world, practically. Why? Because at any given time, three or four of those people walking down the street have a loaded sub-machine gun or assault rifle, on their way to or from an army reservist meeting. Who's safer? You, walking alone through Central Park unarmed, or the citizens of Israel, surrounded by assault rifles? Statistics say they are. Wonder why that is?
Roughly, "Who will guard the guardians?" The problem is that there is no way to do what you suggest. How in the hell are we supposed to monitor the use of the government's power? The only way would be a watchdog comittee. Ooooo, now there's a good idea. Half of these groups are as bad as the government, and the other half are worse. The only person I trust with my secrets is me. And that's the only person who's going to get the chance.
I think we need SSL encryption for /. We also need a forum for encryption techniques. Perhaps even discussion of the best means of protecting our privacy in spite of government controls.
If you actually believe that tripe you're spouting, then go bleat with the other sheep.
Oh, there's no doubt that it will be used against terrorists. After all, terrorists communicate every day by unencrypted, plain text email. And of course, there's no doubt that we can trust our dear friends in the government to only use that power for those purposes, and of course they will cease and desist as soon as the "Troubles" are over. Just like automatic tax deductions from American paychecks. "Temporarily" instituted by Congress during WWII. For the duration of the war, only. Gee, I didn't know the war was still going on, but it must be, since they're still taking money from my paycheck. Hmmm. Wonder why that is...
I have no problems with you. You have no problems with me. Our governments are acting like spoiled children, yes. So, let's solve that. There's a reference up above to oceania.org; it is, in fact, defunct/bankrupt. At any rate, no one is doing anything with the page or with anything else. So, let's do it ourselves.
The fact that this instance of the law will only apply to domestic UK communications does not cause me to roll over and say "oh, well, that's OK then." Freedom is freedom, liberty is liberty, and what one nation gets away with against its citizens another will try shortly. Anyone read Hillary Clinton's statements on child care and other social issues? That woman scares me...
I hadn't thought of that particular instance. You're right, of course. They did exactly as I said - Picked their time, their weapons, and their battlefield. And they won.
Certainly, guns are not useful at melee ranges. The trouble to the soldier/warrior armed only with a sword, regardless of type, is surviving to get that close.
The mistake you're making, and that many others make, is that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the ability to overthrow the government. That was proven @200 years ago, with John Brown and the Whiskey Rebellion. The weapons John Brown and his associates used were the same weapons as the military had, and all were trained. They still lost; the military had more men, more ammunition, and more supplies. John Brown knew this going in; at his trial, shortly before hanging, he made it clear that he never planned to survive, nor even to win a battle.
So what did it prove?
It proved that the last, true right that every man (and woman) has is the right to fight for your beliefs. And die for them. Alright, so he was fighting against the taxation of liquor. The point is, at that time, it was your right, guaranteed in the Constitution, to protest the actions of the US government by any means at your disposal, including armed rebellion, on the principle that by drawing attention to your cause, the government would be forced to change the rules or face the possibility of a general uprising.
Today, the government has taken away almost everything else. The Montana Freemen faced the same problem; so, in their way, did David Koresh and his followers. With less success, thanks to the vagaries of modern government, the illiteracy of the people and the stupidity or ignorance of the media. As of this week, Congress is (once again) trying to remove the right to physically desecrate the American flag. One more form of political protest gone.
And don't be so sure that modern weaponry makes a fight against an army pointless. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. People have been making your assumptions since the Greeks fought the Persians; they were wrong then. You still are. A single, lone fighter, fighting for his home, with only a knife, can be as dangerous and as important as a platoon of soldiers with every weapon known to man.
And your second argument; that proves my point. Rebellion was possible because it wasn't worth the effort to try and hold the colonies; the war with France was more important, much closer to home. That's why we won, certainly. The British thought they could easily reconquer the territory later, say about 1812; it didn't prove to be so easy. The revolution did not succeed so much because Britain didn't fight; it succeeded because the Rebels picked their time, picked their tactics, and picked their battlefield. The same tacts would work today.
"When they took the Second Amendment, I said nothing because I had no guns.
"When they took the Fifth Amendment, I said nothing because I was not on trial.
"When they took the Fourth Amendment, I said nothing because I was not guilty.
"When they took the First Amendment, I couldn't say anything."
Get the point?
For the British and others who may not know, 2nd Amendment - right to keep and bear arms.
Currently under debate due to Littleton.
5th Amendment - right to refuse to answer at trial.
Currently worthless because the media declares you guilty for its use. And so do the courts.
4th Amendment - Protection unless unlawful persecution from law enforcement (search & siezure, writ of habeus corpus, etc.)
See today's newspapers regarding NYPD or LAPD or FBI.
1st Amendment - Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, movement, etc., etc.
Contrary to popular opinion, this one never existed. Don't believe me? Try burning a flag, being an atheist, loitering with "suspected gang members," or leaving the country.
Say "baaaaa" like a good little sheep and provide more wool for the government to pull over your eyes.
You're wrong.
The right to keep and bear arms is a symbol. It means that the government has the right to take your life, if you have done something to require it, but they do not have the right to make you lie down and take it like a good boy or girl.
Banning guns does not prevent violent crime. It expands it, because criminals know that all law-abiding citizens are now unarmed. The criminals can still get guns of a sort - they are not difficult to make, even without buying one - and now, they don't have to worry about the victim producing a shotgun and blowing their head off. If you think differently, then it's quite simple; don't keep guns. DO NOT tell me not to. The US was founded on this principle; it was a sad, sad day when we forgot it.
As for education, you're quite right. The US public school system sucks rocks. Which proves MY point, not yours. Here, we have the right to simply pull our children from the school system and teach them at home, or in smaller private schools. And if you compare those homeschool and private school children to your schools, we've got YOU beat, not the other way around. Pity you don't have the right to force the same concession, isn't it?
The reason we say it will happen here is that the government is continually trying to force more controls. Remove those freedoms. To the detriment of us all.
"Is it freedom if your cage is larger than the distance you wish to fly?"
"When a place is so crowded as to require IDs and traffic cops, it is time to go elsewhere." The problem being that there is nowhere else to go.