[...] but the evidence seems to be that if you turn off JavaScript, you turn off the vulnerability.
Wouldn't you also not be vulnerable if you turn off Java? Personally, I need JavaScript a lot more often than I need Java. (Within the context of a web browser.)
This acceptance of USB2 shows a willingness to accept standards, no matter how wrong they are.
While USB2 may not be "wrong", I don't see how accepting standards despite them being wrong could be considered a good thing. Apple has always been admired precisely because they don't accept standards they don't agree with.
After it got privatised, things improved significantly for customers, but that's because they were so bad, they had no place to go but up (improvement). With private capital infussion, Telmex modernized its technology, hired more and more competent staff, and started offering new services. This sounds good, however it's really not.
So, the service improved, the technology improved, and the staff improved. But this is bad?
With 95% market share for land lines, over 50% long-distance, and 70% cell phone share, all competitors face an uphill battle, plus they also have to depend on Telmex's infrastructure to provide their services.
New competitors always face an uphill battle -- by definition. They have to earn the trust of new customers, and the only way they can do it is by being better than the current offering. A business does not have a right to customers -- they are a privilege.
As for "anticompetitive behavior" -- that is what any healthy business is supposed to do -- fight its competition.
As for incentive to innovate and keep up good service, a business always has that incentive -- the money from customers. Unlike a government, that gets its money through coercion, a business only has one (legal) option -- its customers voluntarily paying it money.
Microsoft can be punished. I, personally, don't like their software. Therefore, I don't buy it. I am punishing them by not giving them my money.
If enough people do this, then Microsoft, like any business, will no longer have a source of income.
If they are still around, it is because they still have a source of income. Since they're not a government and cannot legally rob, that means their income comes from people and businesses voluntarily giving them money in return for something they consider to be worth that money.
Evidently, you missed the point entirely. The main reason a free society allows gun ownership is so that a law-abiding citizen is able to protect herself from an assault by a criminal. (Even the possibility of a potential victim being armed is a deterrent.)
I'll quote Thomas Jefferson on this one, because I couldn't possibly say it better myself. (Emphasis mine.)
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Let's not forget that most of the land these companies are logging does not belong to them. A lot of logging occurs on "public" state/national forest land. And this is where most of the damage happens, because the companies have no interest in the long-term value of this land.
My dad has private property out in Idaho. Got a gate and fence, but it didn't stop someone from coming over his property line and cutting down a couple of his trees to sell to the local lumber yard. I'm sure the Eastern Islanders would have felt better knowing that the owner of the last tree was able to take the guy who cut his tree down to court after the fact.
This is what guns are for. (Perfectly serious, and not trolling.) Guns enable any individual to protect themself, and a property owner to protect their property.
It's my opinion that the absence of individual property rights is the exact reason all of these disasters occur.
The essay presents one example of the civilization that wiped out all of the trees it depended on. If that civilization allowed for the ownership of pieces of land, the individuals with a little more foresight could conserve the trees on their plots of land. On the other hand, if every tree belongs to the person who cut it down, then even if the majority of the society is conscious of the problem, the nearsighted minority is still able to cut down the last tree.
The problem with any kind of "public" resource is that it doesn't belong to everyone -- it belongs to noone. Noone cares enough about it to protect or conserve it. Everyone just wants to grab as big a piece as possible.
Here's a paragraph from my Internet Service Agreement. (Emphasis mine.)
9. MONITORING THE SERVICES
EarthLink has no obligation to monitor the Services, but may do so and disclose information regarding use of the Services for any reason if EarthLink, in its sole discretion, believes that it is reasonable to do so, including to: satisfy laws, regulations, or governmental or legal requests; operate the Service properly; or protect itself and its subscribers. Please see our Privacy Policy. EarthLink may immediately remove your material or information from EarthLink's servers, in whole, or in part, which EarthLink, in its sole and absolute discretion, determines to infringe another's property rights or to violate our Acceptable Use Policy.
I'm sorry, but I cannot negotiate anyone else's work contracts except for my own. I can tell people what I think and give them ideas, but solving their problems is up to them. What in the world made you think that anyone can solve a problem like this except for the individual himself or herself?
I also like having every executable in the path. This may be a bit power-userish, but it's sometimes a lot faster and easier to hit "ALT-F2" (to bring up the "Run" dialog) and type in "opera" than wasting time reaching for the mouse and hunting out where the link to the program is. I wish that I could type Win-R and "opera" on this Win2k machine, but it would simply take forever to put every single applicable directory into the file path.
It's is precisely when there is not a monopoly that we see competition forcing improvement. Given a monopoly situation, we have stagnation.
There is no law or contract that prevents SBC's competitors from building and maintaining their own lines. That is what real competition would be. Forcing SBC to lease their lines to competitors at a loss is not a free market -- it is the exact opposite.
SBC still makes plenty of money and can compete as much as they want.
This restaurant down the street from my house makes plenty of money, so it's OK for me to rob them for a few hundred of it -- they still make plenty of money.
If they decide to not move forward in broadband, they are hurting themselves as well as the consumer.
If Kansas government, influenced by lobbying efforts from SBC's competitors, decide to put SBC into a position where there is no incentive for them to "move forward" in broadband, they are hurting the consumer, as well as SBC.
Extortion, "Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage." When one party (the extortionist) uses its power to affect another party's (the victim) decisions and actions -- usually with the intentions of the second party giving up their own property.
Example: Forcing a business to allow its competitors to use property that business owns.
Bad example: That business refusing to cooperate with extortionists.
Slashdot Mirror
When you steal CDs from a store, the store loses those CDs. When you copy music, the original remains.
It might be a copyright violation, but it's certainly not "theft".
Industry Offers a Carrot in Online Music Fight
In Battle Over Online Music, Industry Offers A Carrot
While USB2 may not be "wrong", I don't see how accepting standards despite them being wrong could be considered a good thing. Apple has always been admired precisely because they don't accept standards they don't agree with.
As for "anticompetitive behavior" -- that is what any healthy business is supposed to do -- fight its competition.
As for incentive to innovate and keep up good service, a business always has that incentive -- the money from customers. Unlike a government, that gets its money through coercion, a business only has one (legal) option -- its customers voluntarily paying it money.
"Dude! I have a girlfriend!"
If enough people do this, then Microsoft, like any business, will no longer have a source of income.
If they are still around, it is because they still have a source of income. Since they're not a government and cannot legally rob, that means their income comes from people and businesses voluntarily giving them money in return for something they consider to be worth that money.
Sorry, but I can't find the URL of the page where I originally read this...
And that is why the word personalized has quotation marks around it.
Evidently, you missed the point entirely. The main reason a free society allows gun ownership is so that a law-abiding citizen is able to protect herself from an assault by a criminal. (Even the possibility of a potential victim being armed is a deterrent.)
And that is why, today, we have the government to protect our rights, and guns for when the government isn't there to do it for us.
I'll quote Thomas Jefferson on this one, because I couldn't possibly say it better myself. (Emphasis mine.)
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
-- Thomas JeffersonLet's not forget that most of the land these companies are logging does not belong to them. A lot of logging occurs on "public" state/national forest land. And this is where most of the damage happens, because the companies have no interest in the long-term value of this land.
The essay presents one example of the civilization that wiped out all of the trees it depended on. If that civilization allowed for the ownership of pieces of land, the individuals with a little more foresight could conserve the trees on their plots of land. On the other hand, if every tree belongs to the person who cut it down, then even if the majority of the society is conscious of the problem, the nearsighted minority is still able to cut down the last tree.
The problem with any kind of "public" resource is that it doesn't belong to everyone -- it belongs to noone. Noone cares enough about it to protect or conserve it. Everyone just wants to grab as big a piece as possible.
I think it's pretty obvious that this is a troll...
The only reasons anyone is interested in buying senators is because they have the power to spend the taxpayers' money on corporations.
No, big government is a useless appendage to the free market.
Here's a paragraph from my Internet Service Agreement. (Emphasis mine.)
9. MONITORING THE SERVICES
EarthLink has no obligation to monitor the Services, but may do so and disclose information regarding use of the Services for any reason if EarthLink, in its sole discretion, believes that it is reasonable to do so, including to: satisfy laws, regulations, or governmental or legal requests; operate the Service properly; or protect itself and its subscribers. Please see our Privacy Policy. EarthLink may immediately remove your material or information from EarthLink's servers, in whole, or in part, which EarthLink, in its sole and absolute discretion, determines to infringe another's property rights or to violate our Acceptable Use Policy.
I'm sorry, but I cannot negotiate anyone else's work contracts except for my own. I can tell people what I think and give them ideas, but solving their problems is up to them. What in the world made you think that anyone can solve a problem like this except for the individual himself or herself?
Try AppPaths
Cap the account at 50 or 100 e-mails per day, but allow the user to change this if he really wants to.
There is no law or contract that prevents SBC's competitors from building and maintaining their own lines. That is what real competition would be. Forcing SBC to lease their lines to competitors at a loss is not a free market -- it is the exact opposite.
SBC still makes plenty of money and can compete as much as they want.
This restaurant down the street from my house makes plenty of money, so it's OK for me to rob them for a few hundred of it -- they still make plenty of money.
If they decide to not move forward in broadband, they are hurting themselves as well as the consumer.
If Kansas government, influenced by lobbying efforts from SBC's competitors, decide to put SBC into a position where there is no incentive for them to "move forward" in broadband, they are hurting the consumer, as well as SBC.
Example: Forcing a business to allow its competitors to use property that business owns.
Bad example: That business refusing to cooperate with extortionists.