But a bad law is still a bad law. If the problem is public medical records, then you legislate specifically to keep medical records private. If the problem is libelous claims, then you legislate specifically to address them. You do not go and make an attempt to censor the entire Internet. You do not attempt to kill a mosquito with a cannon.
A lack of lawyers is no excuse. Of course, I'm just saying that because lawyers happen to be the US's #1 export to Japan.
Section One of the Sherman Act reads: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." Strangely, "tying" does not appear anywhere in the document, let alone in section one.
The very first offense listed in the Clayton Act is "to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them." Again, this is not tying.
Tying refers to forcing a customer to purchase one product in order to be able to purchase another product, often a product that the company has a monopoly on. As long as the tying product is available independent of the purchase of the tied product, there is no illegality. As IE is freely available, as is Firefox, Netscape, Opera, and others, we get into a bit of a grey area, considering one does not really purchase something that is free (although Microsoft's initial entry into a marketplace where every other product DID have a price was a pretty good case of tying). However, if you read the court ruling against Microsoft, you will see that the court believed that simply giving OEMs the option to remove bundled software and provide their own alternatives was sufficient to bring Microsoft into compliance with the law. Microsoft was NOT required to unbundle any of its programs, however. Hence, my point that as long as Microsoft is not using its monopoly to bully OEMs into not using Firefox that there is no basis for a blaming Firefox's meger market share on Microsoft. Firefox simply needs more buisness savy people. Despite assertions to the contrary, in a world where everyone plays fairly, the emergence of a better product will not magically spread to dominate inferior products. If that were the case, we could simply outlaw marketing. But alas, people need information, and as not every person can take the time to research every purchase, they rely on reputation. Microsoft's reputation may not be good, but for many it beats going with some strange company that you never heard before that is named after a gigantic destructive radioactive lizard. Plus, browsers are free, so there is little visible monetary value at stake to prompt these people into bothering to look at alternatives.
BTW, you can also look at the ruling from the Microsoft case and see what Microsoft was slapped with. I already read it, but I may have missed something. If you happen to find something in there about banning Microsoft from using its advantage as a monopoly from entering other markets, please let me know.
Final Judgement
I really do look forward to you educating me further on this matter.
Bundling is NOT an anti-trust violation. There is nothing illegal about having an advantage. The illegality comes when you use your monopoly to threaten others if they do not play by your rules.
But hey, I could be wrong. The law is a complicated thing that changes everyday. But, if it is such a "clear case of anti-trust law violation," you should have absolutely no trouble finding the statute. For instance, here is the statute I was refering to in my post: Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor. I'll even give you a starting point: Bureau of Competition
I try not to celebrate my own brilliance, I really do, but then I see that there are people such as yourself and I just can't help being thankful for my gifts. It's that whole light under the basket thing.
As long as MS does not prevent OEMs from also installing Firefox on their machines, then Microsoft should damn well be able to keep IE bundled with its OS without cries of unfair buisness practices. Firefox could then maybe get some better buisness minds and actually sell itself to Dell, Gateway, HP, or whatever. The problem is not that Microsoft is giving stuff away for free with its monopolistic product, it was that Microsoft was not giving its clients a choice in what they could install. I'm not up on the latest doings with Microsoft, for all I know it still has the OEMs by the balls, but if MS is no longer engaging in that anti-competitive buisness practice, then the only one to blame for Firefox's low share would be Firefox, regardless of whether or not its product was better.
Great. Let them waste time throwing rocks. In the meantime the troops now know where the enemy is and can send an appropriate response. Either way, tank is undamaged and crew remains safe, while you can't say the same about the enemy.
First, you have a large pool of identified telepaths, living openly in society. Those with psychic ability are registered with the Psi-Corps, which is supposed to function as a police force regarding telepath law. You have a much smaller pool of psychokineticists. If one of these psychokineticists were to commit one of those unique acts of violence, the authorities would know exactly who to look for, simply because there's probably only a handful of people actually capable of the crime in the system, and all but one will likely have excellent alibies. That's why, the psychokineticist does not go for those dramatic kills. Instead, the goal is to make it look like a stroke or a heart attack. You simply psychicly pinch a blood vessel shut.
Of course, Jefferson also wanted the US to remain an agrarian society and hated institutions that would threaten his vision (such as Hamilton's financial institutions). Do you think inventions might be seen as a threat in this context?
Repulsion doesn't even have to enter the equation. Apathy is enough to kill it, because the only reason to see Brokeback Mountain was if you cared about gay relationships. Guess what? While a sizable minority are surely repulsed by homosexuality, a sizable majority couldn't care less about it. Thus, Brokeback failed.
Of course, there was the recent announcement that plants produce large quantities of methane, and that therefore planting trees may make global warming worse. Following global warming predictions is like following diet fads and nutritional advice, what kills you today is good for you tomorrow, and vice-versa.
Actually, change "decades" to "centuries."
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi3.htm
So the Wright brothers were the ones who moved flight out of the Middle-Ages.
Especially the Good Eats page. The FDA wants to make sure our military personel do not find out about carpaccio or unpasturized dairy products, or be tempted to brew their own beer. It's bad enough that the FCC allows this bacteriological propaganda on the air.
Well, the military is also against food, as here are some other sites that are rumored to be blocked:
All Recipies Epicurious.com FoodTV.com Top Secret Recipies
Of course, I started that rumor, just this minute, but from the reaction of the parent, that shouldn't matter. Now go you slashdot minions! Jump to conspiratorial conclusions on the word of a single, unverified source!
The GATT says that? I thought the GATT was based entirely on reciprocity. I would imagine the WTO would be the one that has other countries going to the World Court.
Why we fully expect the New York Times to call for an independent council to figure out who in the CIA leaked this information naturally. As per their standard for the Valerie Plame story, whoever leaked it should be fired, prosecuted, and hopefully imprisoned, plus perjury charges for any CIA official who is not 100% accurate in his statements to the investgators.
I'm sure New York Times editorialists are penning their missives calling for this as we speak.
Don't need an energy field. All you need are good sensors (be it RADAR or whatever) and either a hit-to-kill or explode-to-kill interception system or directed energy weapon. Either one and that nuclear device ain't getting close enough to do damage. This is all stuff that we either have already developed or are close (within decades) to having in the field.
Having experience with the "Not Interested" button, it is not factored into your preferences. I have to do this for books as well, as after buying the hardcover they like to recommend the paperback.
In the 19th and 18th century, there wasn't the idea of professionalism we have today. Newspapers back then were generally unabashidly partisan. Since professionalism was really a 20th century phenomena, I limited it to that century.
But it's especially in diplomatic and wartime environments that this technology would most likely be used, not something that your ordinary citizen is likely to be carrying around with himself on a daily basis.
Slashdot Mirror
But a bad law is still a bad law. If the problem is public medical records, then you legislate specifically to keep medical records private. If the problem is libelous claims, then you legislate specifically to address them. You do not go and make an attempt to censor the entire Internet. You do not attempt to kill a mosquito with a cannon.
A lack of lawyers is no excuse. Of course, I'm just saying that because lawyers happen to be the US's #1 export to Japan.
Section One of the Sherman Act reads: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." Strangely, "tying" does not appear anywhere in the document, let alone in section one.
The very first offense listed in the Clayton Act is "to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them." Again, this is not tying.
Tying refers to forcing a customer to purchase one product in order to be able to purchase another product, often a product that the company has a monopoly on. As long as the tying product is available independent of the purchase of the tied product, there is no illegality. As IE is freely available, as is Firefox, Netscape, Opera, and others, we get into a bit of a grey area, considering one does not really purchase something that is free (although Microsoft's initial entry into a marketplace where every other product DID have a price was a pretty good case of tying). However, if you read the court ruling against Microsoft, you will see that the court believed that simply giving OEMs the option to remove bundled software and provide their own alternatives was sufficient to bring Microsoft into compliance with the law. Microsoft was NOT required to unbundle any of its programs, however. Hence, my point that as long as Microsoft is not using its monopoly to bully OEMs into not using Firefox that there is no basis for a blaming Firefox's meger market share on Microsoft. Firefox simply needs more buisness savy people. Despite assertions to the contrary, in a world where everyone plays fairly, the emergence of a better product will not magically spread to dominate inferior products. If that were the case, we could simply outlaw marketing. But alas, people need information, and as not every person can take the time to research every purchase, they rely on reputation. Microsoft's reputation may not be good, but for many it beats going with some strange company that you never heard before that is named after a gigantic destructive radioactive lizard. Plus, browsers are free, so there is little visible monetary value at stake to prompt these people into bothering to look at alternatives.
BTW, you can also look at the ruling from the Microsoft case and see what Microsoft was slapped with. I already read it, but I may have missed something. If you happen to find something in there about banning Microsoft from using its advantage as a monopoly from entering other markets, please let me know. Final Judgement I really do look forward to you educating me further on this matter.
Bundling is NOT an anti-trust violation. There is nothing illegal about having an advantage. The illegality comes when you use your monopoly to threaten others if they do not play by your rules.
But hey, I could be wrong. The law is a complicated thing that changes everyday. But, if it is such a "clear case of anti-trust law violation," you should have absolutely no trouble finding the statute. For instance, here is the statute I was refering to in my post: Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor. I'll even give you a starting point: Bureau of Competition
I try not to celebrate my own brilliance, I really do, but then I see that there are people such as yourself and I just can't help being thankful for my gifts. It's that whole light under the basket thing.
As long as MS does not prevent OEMs from also installing Firefox on their machines, then Microsoft should damn well be able to keep IE bundled with its OS without cries of unfair buisness practices. Firefox could then maybe get some better buisness minds and actually sell itself to Dell, Gateway, HP, or whatever. The problem is not that Microsoft is giving stuff away for free with its monopolistic product, it was that Microsoft was not giving its clients a choice in what they could install. I'm not up on the latest doings with Microsoft, for all I know it still has the OEMs by the balls, but if MS is no longer engaging in that anti-competitive buisness practice, then the only one to blame for Firefox's low share would be Firefox, regardless of whether or not its product was better.
You're the kind of person who still has all the clocks on his appliances set to 12:00, am I right?
Great. Let them waste time throwing rocks. In the meantime the troops now know where the enemy is and can send an appropriate response. Either way, tank is undamaged and crew remains safe, while you can't say the same about the enemy.
Babylon 5 handles this well.
First, you have a large pool of identified telepaths, living openly in society. Those with psychic ability are registered with the Psi-Corps, which is supposed to function as a police force regarding telepath law. You have a much smaller pool of psychokineticists. If one of these psychokineticists were to commit one of those unique acts of violence, the authorities would know exactly who to look for, simply because there's probably only a handful of people actually capable of the crime in the system, and all but one will likely have excellent alibies. That's why, the psychokineticist does not go for those dramatic kills. Instead, the goal is to make it look like a stroke or a heart attack. You simply psychicly pinch a blood vessel shut.
Come into contact with something such as, oh, let's say, the air?
Of course, Jefferson also wanted the US to remain an agrarian society and hated institutions that would threaten his vision (such as Hamilton's financial institutions). Do you think inventions might be seen as a threat in this context?
Hey! If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need 'em!
Repulsion doesn't even have to enter the equation. Apathy is enough to kill it, because the only reason to see Brokeback Mountain was if you cared about gay relationships. Guess what? While a sizable minority are surely repulsed by homosexuality, a sizable majority couldn't care less about it. Thus, Brokeback failed.
Of course, there was the recent announcement that plants produce large quantities of methane, and that therefore planting trees may make global warming worse. Following global warming predictions is like following diet fads and nutritional advice, what kills you today is good for you tomorrow, and vice-versa.
Actually, change "decades" to "centuries." http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi3.htm So the Wright brothers were the ones who moved flight out of the Middle-Ages.
Especially the Good Eats page. The FDA wants to make sure our military personel do not find out about carpaccio or unpasturized dairy products, or be tempted to brew their own beer. It's bad enough that the FCC allows this bacteriological propaganda on the air.
Well, the military is also against food, as here are some other sites that are rumored to be blocked:
All Recipies
Epicurious.com
FoodTV.com
Top Secret Recipies
Of course, I started that rumor, just this minute, but from the reaction of the parent, that shouldn't matter. Now go you slashdot minions! Jump to conspiratorial conclusions on the word of a single, unverified source!
The GATT says that? I thought the GATT was based entirely on reciprocity. I would imagine the WTO would be the one that has other countries going to the World Court.
Where are Dubya's defenders now?
Why we fully expect the New York Times to call for an independent council to figure out who in the CIA leaked this information naturally. As per their standard for the Valerie Plame story, whoever leaked it should be fired, prosecuted, and hopefully imprisoned, plus perjury charges for any CIA official who is not 100% accurate in his statements to the investgators.
I'm sure New York Times editorialists are penning their missives calling for this as we speak.
Dear New England Journal of Medicine,
I never believed it could happen to me...
So it's an improvement over regular Bud then?
Don't need an energy field. All you need are good sensors (be it RADAR or whatever) and either a hit-to-kill or explode-to-kill interception system or directed energy weapon. Either one and that nuclear device ain't getting close enough to do damage. This is all stuff that we either have already developed or are close (within decades) to having in the field.
Having experience with the "Not Interested" button, it is not factored into your preferences. I have to do this for books as well, as after buying the hardcover they like to recommend the paperback.
In the 19th and 18th century, there wasn't the idea of professionalism we have today. Newspapers back then were generally unabashidly partisan. Since professionalism was really a 20th century phenomena, I limited it to that century.
But it's especially in diplomatic and wartime environments that this technology would most likely be used, not something that your ordinary citizen is likely to be carrying around with himself on a daily basis.