Which is why I've tried to qualify most of what I say with was/is, etc. I'm sure there are those on/. who can fill us in, however. I believe these practices have changed, primarily, if not exclusively, due to the Justice anti-monopoly suit.
However, what happened in 1988 does still have a bearing on what happens in 2005, although in the computer business this is less true than in other businesses. That's the whole reason that some companies sell below cost (illegally). Once you've driven your competitors out of business you can raise the prices higher than they were with those pesky competitors around.
They are not breaking the law because they are not charging you for Windows without giving you Windows. They were passing on the cost of having Windows on that computer, whether or not you want Windows. It's a subtle difference, but a legal one.
Microsoft was breaking the law (in Justice's opinion) because they were forcing vendors to pay this cost whether or not the computer had Windows installed on it. That takes the "free" out of "free market".
Btw, if you're a fan of a truly free market (as in Microsoft should be allowed to coerce their vendors), then you probably would have been a fan of the lat 19th century economics before all of those pesky anti-monopoly (and anti-cartel) laws were passed.
You could just stay home and cook your own food. The point is that this practice is/was anti-competitive. For people who actually were selling other operating systems, they were definitely out of luck. If you're not familiar with anti-monopoly laws, and the history behind them, I'd strongly recommend it. It helps put Microsoft's practices in an interesting light.
I'm not completely anti-Microsoft, btw. I'm just pointing out how forcing vendors to pay for a copy of MS Windows for every PC they sell, regardless of whether the customer wants Windows on that PC or even whether the PC has Windows, falls into the category of anti-competitive.
It explains why this isn't profitable - or at least why it didn't use to be profitable. (Things might have changed with the Justice suite.) In essence, if you want to sell PCs without MS Windows, you'd better be prepared to not sell any PCs with MS Windows! So, you can either lock yourself into a 5% market, or be allowed to deal with the 95% market. There are people who deal with the 5%, naturally, but this kind of practice makes it harder on them.
In 1988, Microsoft offered manufacturers of personal computers a considerable discount on the licensing fees they pay to install MS-DOS and Windows operating system on new PCs prior to their leaving the factory. In exchange it required manufacturers to pay for each computer they make, whether or not it included MS-DOS. Microsoft now requires PC manufacturers to either install their Internet Explorer (IE) Web browser icon as an integrated part of Windows or lose their licenses to sell these operating systems on their computers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, executives from Compaq, Gateway 2000 and Micron, among others, testified on how Microsoft warned them it will revoke their licenses if they in any way modify Windows or remove their IE icon from the desktop start-up screen.
The problem here is the strong-arm tactics being used against the OEM. Again, things might have changed since the Justice suit, but these tactics are partially responsible for the quasi-Monopoly that MS now has.
Make sure you read that blurb carefully - MS charged (and maybe still does charge) the vendors for every machine the vendor sold, whether or not the vendor put MS on it. That cost is naturally passed on to the consumer. The OEM is not charging you for Windows directly, but they are charging you indirectly.
Actually, it's more like going to a restaurant and asking for a water. The waiter says, sorry we must charge you for a Coke (or Pepsi). If you want to then dump out the Coke and fill it with water, we will allow you to do that.
The point is that most OEM's still charge you the cost of MS Windows @%, whether or not you want it. Sure, you're free to wipe the hard-drive and install Linux, but it seems silly to pay that much money for software you have no intention of using. The reason that the OEM's do this is that they get a discount from MS on the base price of the OS if they do this. (Although perhaps this practice has been changed now due to pressure from the justice system.) Now, you can find some OEM's who will not do this, and I recommend doing so if all you want is Linux (or BSD, etc.).
Of course, the countries of the world that do change their clocks don't change their clocks at the same time. The EU starts DST on the last Sunday of March whereas we (currently) start ours on the first Sunday of April. Currently, we both end ours on the last Sunday of October.
If we're going to change how we handle DST, I'd recommend that we match the EU. I know that the idea of following the EU's lead is anathema to many of us, but hey, it's a small sacrifice and shows that we're willing to make compromises every so often.
I don't think Bailey actually was taking Lindzen's word. I think he might have just been somewhat coy about the interview in question. It might have also been an attempt to protect himself while still reiterating what his notes clearly had Lindzen down as saying.
I almost always enjoy my commute home. Not only am I going home, I get to enjoy nature along the way. Of course, if it's raining and I've forgotten my umbrella, the walk isn't usually as much fun!
Even before I went back to school, the commute home wasn't all that bad - and I lived in Atlanta! Of course, I worked up in Marietta, so my commute was in the opposite direction from most others. Sometimes, if something good was on the radio, I did enjoy this commute, as well.
Now, this doesn't dispute the idea that most people probably don't enjoy their commute home, but you did ask for a single example!
This is actually an excellent point. Other posters have suggested that the Australian government might have shied away from using an internet application due to security concerns (regardless of whether those concerns are justified). Lugging your tax information to a friend's place or to work would seem to put your confidential tax information at a higher security risk.
This reminds me of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) that we have here in the US. Because my physician can no longer store some information digitally, I am asked for this same information every time I visit the doctor. Not only does this slow down the process (there are lines where there did not used to be lines), but it actually puts my information at greater risk!
Humor intolerance unfortunately is not as easy to treat as lactose intolerance. The GP obviously got the joke but feels that anyone with a different sense of humor is not funny. Let's hope that the GP thinks that most people are not funny!
This reminds me of something a faculty member told me once about a chair in another department (after I had complained - confidentially - that that department seemed to be remarkably unremarkable). He said that the chair did not believe in hiring anyone more intelligent than himself - and that didn't leave many people to choose from.
Not that I agree with the GP, but decentralization can help - if it's implemented correctly.
Decentralization does not mean that one necessarily needs to get away from large cities, and definitely does not need they need to be more detached from everyone else.
A primary goal of decentralization is that the price of living near where you work (i.e., within walking or at least biking distance) should not be more expensive than living far from where you work. When all of the companies are centralized in one location, only so many of their employees can live near to those companies. This means that (a) the price of living near those companies is prohibitive, and (b) most people cannot do so. Of course, this can be (and is) somewhat mitigated by building large apartment complexes (or condominiums) near these companies. However, with a few people controlling these housing markets, prices are still going to be prohibitive.
True decentralization is probably as realistic as eliminating war or hunger. However, being unattainable does not it make a bad goal. One step we can take is trying to find jobs near where we live - or telecommute. Naturally, there are reasons for centralization or it would not exist. However, I think that some of the reasons are due to laziness, habit, or history.
Both groups are forced to breathe the pollution produced primarily by only one group (automobile users). This is an example of hidden costs. It's relatively easy to point to the cost of building and maintaining roads. It's very difficult to calculate the cost due to pollution.
Fair enough, that article does talk about surface waters. However, adding C02 to water will result in carbonic acid. Of course, if the C02 is kept in the same resevoir where natural gas was found (as the article suggests) and doesn't escape, the point is moot.
Similarly, Einstein's theories are wrong, as is the quantum model of the atom, although both of these were improvements on the theories that preceded them. String theory is also wrong, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might also be wrong, but I'm not... certain... about that one. Nevertheless, these are all good theories because they improve on the theories before them in some way (well, string theory still has a way to go before that can be said without argument), and can be shown to be false. In fact, much of the early advances in quantum theory came by Einstein proposing means of showing it to be false!
Actually that only gives you the weight of the Earth (as caused by your gravitational attraction). In order to determine it's mass you must divide the weight of the Earth by the acceleration due to your own mass.
So, if you know your mass without consulting the Earth's gravitational pull (which would require that you know the Earth's mass), you're set. If not, you must use an object of known mass to measure the Earth's mass, from which you can then calculate your own.
And yet, I understand you were being funny. But what strikes me as funny is that this approach actually works!
Slashdot Mirror
For those, who don't know Hölle is German for Hell.
Which is why I've tried to qualify most of what I say with was/is, etc. I'm sure there are those on /. who can fill us in, however. I believe these practices have changed, primarily, if not exclusively, due to the Justice anti-monopoly suit.
However, what happened in 1988 does still have a bearing on what happens in 2005, although in the computer business this is less true than in other businesses. That's the whole reason that some companies sell below cost (illegally). Once you've driven your competitors out of business you can raise the prices higher than they were with those pesky competitors around.
They are not breaking the law because they are not charging you for Windows without giving you Windows. They were passing on the cost of having Windows on that computer, whether or not you want Windows. It's a subtle difference, but a legal one.
Microsoft was breaking the law (in Justice's opinion) because they were forcing vendors to pay this cost whether or not the computer had Windows installed on it. That takes the "free" out of "free market".
Btw, if you're a fan of a truly free market (as in Microsoft should be allowed to coerce their vendors), then you probably would have been a fan of the lat 19th century economics before all of those pesky anti-monopoly (and anti-cartel) laws were passed.
You could just stay home and cook your own food. The point is that this practice is/was anti-competitive. For people who actually were selling other operating systems, they were definitely out of luck. If you're not familiar with anti-monopoly laws, and the history behind them, I'd strongly recommend it. It helps put Microsoft's practices in an interesting light.
I'm not completely anti-Microsoft, btw. I'm just pointing out how forcing vendors to pay for a copy of MS Windows for every PC they sell, regardless of whether the customer wants Windows on that PC or even whether the PC has Windows, falls into the category of anti-competitive.
It explains why this isn't profitable - or at least why it didn't use to be profitable. (Things might have changed with the Justice suite.) In essence, if you want to sell PCs without MS Windows, you'd better be prepared to not sell any PCs with MS Windows! So, you can either lock yourself into a 5% market, or be allowed to deal with the 95% market. There are people who deal with the 5%, naturally, but this kind of practice makes it harder on them.
From http://theai.net/injustice.html (an ostensibly pro-MS site):
The problem here is the strong-arm tactics being used against the OEM. Again, things might have changed since the Justice suit, but these tactics are partially responsible for the quasi-Monopoly that MS now has.
Make sure you read that blurb carefully - MS charged (and maybe still does charge) the vendors for every machine the vendor sold, whether or not the vendor put MS on it. That cost is naturally passed on to the consumer. The OEM is not charging you for Windows directly, but they are charging you indirectly.
Actually, it's more like going to a restaurant and asking for a water. The waiter says, sorry we must charge you for a Coke (or Pepsi). If you want to then dump out the Coke and fill it with water, we will allow you to do that.
The point is that most OEM's still charge you the cost of MS Windows @%, whether or not you want it. Sure, you're free to wipe the hard-drive and install Linux, but it seems silly to pay that much money for software you have no intention of using. The reason that the OEM's do this is that they get a discount from MS on the base price of the OS if they do this. (Although perhaps this practice has been changed now due to pressure from the justice system.) Now, you can find some OEM's who will not do this, and I recommend doing so if all you want is Linux (or BSD, etc.).
Of course, the countries of the world that do change their clocks don't change their clocks at the same time. The EU starts DST on the last Sunday of March whereas we (currently) start ours on the first Sunday of April. Currently, we both end ours on the last Sunday of October.
If we're going to change how we handle DST, I'd recommend that we match the EU. I know that the idea of following the EU's lead is anathema to many of us, but hey, it's a small sacrifice and shows that we're willing to make compromises every so often.
I, for one, think George W. Bush is the best arbiter for truth, and he said:
Notice the last part of that quote.(And yes, I am being tongue-in-cheek about the "arbiter for truth" bit.)
Priceless.
Of course, it's somewhat amusing that a staunch Republican would be arguing against the scientists' rights to intellectual property!
I don't think Bailey actually was taking Lindzen's word. I think he might have just been somewhat coy about the interview in question. It might have also been an attempt to protect himself while still reiterating what his notes clearly had Lindzen down as saying.
I almost always enjoy my commute home. Not only am I going home, I get to enjoy nature along the way. Of course, if it's raining and I've forgotten my umbrella, the walk isn't usually as much fun!
Even before I went back to school, the commute home wasn't all that bad - and I lived in Atlanta! Of course, I worked up in Marietta, so my commute was in the opposite direction from most others. Sometimes, if something good was on the radio, I did enjoy this commute, as well.
Now, this doesn't dispute the idea that most people probably don't enjoy their commute home, but you did ask for a single example!
This is actually an excellent point. Other posters have suggested that the Australian government might have shied away from using an internet application due to security concerns (regardless of whether those concerns are justified). Lugging your tax information to a friend's place or to work would seem to put your confidential tax information at a higher security risk.
This reminds me of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) that we have here in the US. Because my physician can no longer store some information digitally, I am asked for this same information every time I visit the doctor. Not only does this slow down the process (there are lines where there did not used to be lines), but it actually puts my information at greater risk!
Humor intolerance unfortunately is not as easy to treat as lactose intolerance. The GP obviously got the joke but feels that anyone with a different sense of humor is not funny. Let's hope that the GP thinks that most people are not funny!
This reminds me of something a faculty member told me once about a chair in another department (after I had complained - confidentially - that that department seemed to be remarkably unremarkable). He said that the chair did not believe in hiring anyone more intelligent than himself - and that didn't leave many people to choose from.
The Civic Hybrid also qualifies for this AND you do not have to itemize to take advantage of the tax credit!
Not that I agree with the GP, but decentralization can help - if it's implemented correctly.
Decentralization does not mean that one necessarily needs to get away from large cities, and definitely does not need they need to be more detached from everyone else.
A primary goal of decentralization is that the price of living near where you work (i.e., within walking or at least biking distance) should not be more expensive than living far from where you work. When all of the companies are centralized in one location, only so many of their employees can live near to those companies. This means that (a) the price of living near those companies is prohibitive, and (b) most people cannot do so. Of course, this can be (and is) somewhat mitigated by building large apartment complexes (or condominiums) near these companies. However, with a few people controlling these housing markets, prices are still going to be prohibitive.
True decentralization is probably as realistic as eliminating war or hunger. However, being unattainable does not it make a bad goal. One step we can take is trying to find jobs near where we live - or telecommute. Naturally, there are reasons for centralization or it would not exist. However, I think that some of the reasons are due to laziness, habit, or history.
Both groups are forced to breathe the pollution produced primarily by only one group (automobile users). This is an example of hidden costs. It's relatively easy to point to the cost of building and maintaining roads. It's very difficult to calculate the cost due to pollution.
Fair enough, that article does talk about surface waters. However, adding C02 to water will result in carbonic acid. Of course, if the C02 is kept in the same resevoir where natural gas was found (as the article suggests) and doesn't escape, the point is moot.
Although I'm certain some organisms would benefit from this CO_2, other sea life will not. Think "carbonated beverages".
If it were CSI we could enhance the image to see the location antipodal to the impact as well!
Similarly, Einstein's theories are wrong, as is the quantum model of the atom, although both of these were improvements on the theories that preceded them. String theory is also wrong, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might also be wrong, but I'm not ... certain ... about that one. Nevertheless, these are all good theories because they improve on the theories before them in some way (well, string theory still has a way to go before that can be said without argument), and can be shown to be false. In fact, much of the early advances in quantum theory came by Einstein proposing means of showing it to be false!
The spammers can only safely spam the people they know are old enough to spam. Not that I'm claiming this will work or anything.
Actually that only gives you the weight of the Earth (as caused by your gravitational attraction). In order to determine it's mass you must divide the weight of the Earth by the acceleration due to your own mass.
So, if you know your mass without consulting the Earth's gravitational pull (which would require that you know the Earth's mass), you're set. If not, you must use an object of known mass to measure the Earth's mass, from which you can then calculate your own.
And yet, I understand you were being funny. But what strikes me as funny is that this approach actually works!
I mean "lower limit on the mass of the planets".