Multiple courts use an outdated and frankly incorrect definition of monopoly. Their being prosecuted for being a monopoly does not make them a monopoly; especially amoungst economists.
"monopolies discourage competitors products through control, price gouging, and more"
So if my local grocery 'gouges' me $5/lb for bananas is that their way of excerising monopoly? Claims of monopoly have gone on far enough.
Unless you are the sole provider of a good or service the power you can exert is SEVERELY limited. Any economist will tell you that. Unfortuately economists don't make laws, politicians do. And politicians will pass any unjust law if it gets them votes.
Obviously people that are using MSN/Yahoo over Google simply don't know any better. Is this the result of a monopoly or Google's policy of never advertising themselves ever?
Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
Censorship is a loaded word used to incriminate someone as some 'rights-infringer'. Why is it censorship against some ads but not against others (I can't imagine a similar outcry for a Hustler or Call girl ad during the Superbowl)
Yes we have APIRG here in Alberta. Whether or not they are "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. People that take student's money by DEFAULT are not people I would ever choose to support.
Being the undisputed cartoon motion picture producers have certainly bloated their ego, but done nothing for their movies. Take any 5 Disney movies of the last 10 years and I guarantee they each have the mandatory criteria/characters:
1. The comedic relief 2. The love interest 3. The complacent good natured affable hero 4. The easily-identifiable bad guy (always in black and smoking something) 4. The up-beat music song 5. The slow-dance music song 6. The Billboard song 7. The humorous evil sidekicks.
Put 'em all in a bag, add some celebrity voices, and presto-chango, we've got ourselves another cliche by-the-book Disney flick. Now take a Pixar movie, not quite such an easy formula? AND NO STUPID SONGS. I hope they mop the flour with Disney.
PS. I must say though The Gummi Bears cartoon series was awesome.
"But I'm betting the real reason that most people use IE is because it comes installed!"... ... too novice to even desire changing.
I'm sure this has helped IE gain a lot of market share, but it is nevertheless an excuse. People will stop using IE and will switch as soon as a better alternative is made aware to them. It is up to MS's competitors to advertise and explicit transmit their comparative advantage to their customers.
I was struggling to choose a word other than "downfall", but couldn't come up with one. Drawback? Failure? I apologize for my limited vocabulary.
As for ActiveX, what I meant was your normal JoeBlow user knows nothing of ActiveX. They use IE not because other browsers won't be compatible but simply out of ignorance of the competetion. Unfortunately consumers use the excuse that Microsoft is a monopoly for their own failures as a consumer. Linux and Mozilla have always relied on word of mouth for their PR. This is painfully slow, and has mostly stayed within the 'geek' circles. It's going to take time.
I've definitely noticed in the last few mnths that Microsoft seems to be REALLY ramping up its PR war against Linux. They've been talking about it for a while, and now we're seeing it.
Linux's true downfall has far less to do with MS's market dominance than it does with basic marketing. It's nice to have a product, but it's useless if no one knows about it.
For example the people that use Internet Explorer do so not because "other browsers don't work with ActiveX" but because they are not even aware of the existence of Opera or Mozilla. The only browser ever mentioned in the same breath as MS is Netscape, which is massively inferior to the aforementioned browsers. At best it's marginally superior to MS, but not enough to have a significant competetive advantage.
Take a look at iMacs, often cited as one of the most brilliant marketing programs conceived. Personally I hated those ugly things, nevertheless they did exceptionally well.
"I don't see people leaving the United States to go overseas for university because the quality is better there. In fact, I see the exact opposite."
I'm willing to bet the really truly good universities are few and far away, and more often then not private. Graduates from said universities are also worth what they are paid, and probably not getting outsourced.
In my experience (3 Universities for my undergrad) the education was not preparing for the work world. Instead I am very good at writing multiple choice tests. Unfortunately life isn't like a multiple choice test.
And I agree, grade school is an abysmal failure.
"This has been done. Whether or not it has been marketed effectively is debatable, but MacOSX is hard to beat. Easy to use, beautiful to look at and fast even on a G4."
Too bad it's not free. I was mostly referring to Open Source alternatives in my comment.
Is the astronomical price of Macs worth the marginal benefit? In my experience with G4s at a lab I worked with it was the most frustrating piece of equipment I've ever been forced to use. If there was an advantage, I didn't see it, and it certainly wasn't worth the price.
Being able to do the work I am assigned is the most important. As a developer, a correlation between your workstation and target platform is important.
I'm sure you co-workers would say their work is the most important as well. You're probably far more capable of using XP then they are of using FreeBSD as well.
I s'pose everyone could have their own OSs but I am assuming that would make life even more miserable. If not I see no reason why you are not permitted to use whatever platform you wish.
You are 'forced' to use these applications because your co-workers, assuming to be significantly less computer savvy, would much rather have user-friendly Windows then struggle with FreeBSD. Now what's more important, your hairline or 20 from your co-workers?
I agree. All this talk of "monopoly" and we seem to forget the shortcomings of MS's competitors. Given that Microsoft has no dominance in the server or database market, the only case for monopoly would be on the desktop market.
Now are they the CURRENT leaders because of 'monopoly', or because there are no better alternatives for JoeBlow Layman? Yes Spyware is a problem, yes viruses are a problem, yes exploits are a problem, but they are an INFINITELY small problem compared to configuring Open Source alternatives, installing the drivers, and basically getting things done quickly and easily without knowing a thing about computers.
Introduce a desktop with a small learning curve designed for laymen and market it well, and then we can start blaming the monopoly, but not before.
You are correct, as of this moment there is nothing you can really do except take unemployment and keep searching for jobs.
"Nor do prices go down substantially when products are shipped overseas"
Have you seen the price of T-shirts and clothing drop after being outsourced? Of course you have. The same thing will happen to any product where input costs decrease. If a company wants to stay competetive they must lower their prices. It just takes time. It's nice to think that al lthe money is going to fill some 'corporate trough", but such a trough is ephemeral in the long run: Other businesses are attracted to these profits and will become competetiors. It just takes time. And the consumer money saved on this software will be used on other businesses, allowing them to grow larger and who knows, possibly employing you.
" It's obscene to say that someone who gets a four-year degree developing a fairly technical skill."
If you've gone to school for 16 years and can't make more money then some impoverished nobody from India, don't you think you should take a hard look at the quality of education you received? And I mean kindergarten and beyond.
Even if one nation is incredibly protectionist and the other is incredibly open, trade is still MUTUALLY beneficially. Nobody is going to accept a trade that makes them worse off.
You miss the point. American's who have lost their good jobs to foreigners due to "free trade"... Financial discomfiture is one of the chief motivators of the voting American populace.
The sad thing is welfare is MAXIMIZED by free trade. Businesses are happy, they can produce their goods cheapers. Foreign workers are happy, they get a job. Consumers are happy, they get cheaper products. The only 'losers' are the one's who lose their job. It's s widespread benefits coupled with a small minority who bear the brunt of the cost. And it's this minority who lobbies the government. Consumers benefiting from this hardly even realize it.
When products become cheaper for consumers they have more money leftover to spend on other things. This means more things will be bought with the same money and business will grow. Even if that money is saved it will be loaned out to business to employ more people. However none of this is obvious and it's far more convenient to look at the short-term.
How tragic that people blame corporations and politicians as the money grubbers when their own protectionist policies put thousands of foreign laborers out of work. Who's greedy now?
Why is it okay to pump billions of tax payer money on foreign aid to be squandered on corrupt government, and yet punish private companies for using far less money on an infinitely more useful purpose?
I think you mean: 'No matter how much you whine about it, this free trade "scam" will end soon enough.'
" so consumers could save a couple of bucks while putting their neighbours out of work."
I'd rather put 100 of my "neighbors" out if it means 10000 third world employees can get a job (and don't even talk about exploitation, that argument has always been rubbish).
No, you are quite wrong. Comparative advantage (trade) is the hallmark of economic productivity, the goose that lays the golden egg and let's us produce more then we would without it.
Our entirely WORLD is built on trade, from the tiniest hamlet to the largest multinational corporation. Why do people get jobs in the first place? Because some people are better at doing somethings then other people. They 'specialize' in their activities and trade. In the end we gain more then if we had try to satisfy all our needs on our own.
It's no different in a global setting. Maybe India IS better at programming than America, and I applaud Indians for being able to beat the odds and rise to such a level of education. You want me to feel sorry for Joe Blow American with 16 years of schooling in a developed nation losing his job to the HORDES of despondant, ridiculously poor people of India? Good for the Indians, it's about time they rose from poverty.
Slashdot Mirror
Multiple courts use an outdated and frankly incorrect definition of monopoly. Their being prosecuted for being a monopoly does not make them a monopoly; especially amoungst economists. "monopolies discourage competitors products through control, price gouging, and more" So if my local grocery 'gouges' me $5/lb for bananas is that their way of excerising monopoly? Claims of monopoly have gone on far enough. Unless you are the sole provider of a good or service the power you can exert is SEVERELY limited. Any economist will tell you that. Unfortuately economists don't make laws, politicians do. And politicians will pass any unjust law if it gets them votes.
"Could google screw up (like netscape)? Sure!"
"Your honor Microsoft is abusing its monopoly by making MSN the default search engine. We demand they advertise our product at their expense."
Even if they do screw up they can play the old monopoly card, works everytime.
Obviously people that are using MSN/Yahoo over Google simply don't know any better. Is this the result of a monopoly or Google's policy of never advertising themselves ever?
Censorship is a loaded word used to incriminate someone as some 'rights-infringer'. Why is it censorship against some ads but not against others (I can't imagine a similar outcry for a Hustler or Call girl ad during the Superbowl)
Don't forget battery life, and you can always use CD-RWs for those 'waste not want not' types.
I was fortunate enough that I did not buy a single new textbook. My tips:
1. Naturally buy used if possible. Often you can get away with an older edition, just make sure your prof approves of it.
2. Make sure the book will even be useful. I doubt anyone opens their book until midterms anyway, so just wait it out.
3. Use the library liberally, they may offer the book on reserve.
4. If you absolutely MUST buy new, shop around on the net. Although in my experience its the publishers that are gouging, not your bookstore.
It's a sick sad system that I try and subvert at every turn, I suggest you do the same.
Yes we have APIRG here in Alberta. Whether or not they are "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. People that take student's money by DEFAULT are not people I would ever choose to support.
Being the undisputed cartoon motion picture producers have certainly bloated their ego, but done nothing for their movies. Take any 5 Disney movies of the last 10 years and I guarantee they each have the mandatory criteria/characters:
1. The comedic relief
2. The love interest
3. The complacent good natured affable hero
4. The easily-identifiable bad guy (always in black and smoking something)
4. The up-beat music song
5. The slow-dance music song
6. The Billboard song
7. The humorous evil sidekicks.
Put 'em all in a bag, add some celebrity voices, and presto-chango, we've got ourselves another cliche by-the-book Disney flick.
Now take a Pixar movie, not quite such an easy formula? AND NO STUPID SONGS. I hope they mop the flour with Disney.
PS. I must say though The Gummi Bears cartoon series was awesome.
"But I'm betting the real reason that most people use IE is because it comes installed!"...
... too novice to even desire changing.
I'm sure this has helped IE gain a lot of market share, but it is nevertheless an excuse. People will stop using IE and will switch as soon as a better alternative is made aware to them. It is up to MS's competitors to advertise and explicit transmit their comparative advantage to their customers.
I was struggling to choose a word other than "downfall", but couldn't come up with one. Drawback? Failure? I apologize for my limited vocabulary.
As for ActiveX, what I meant was your normal JoeBlow user knows nothing of ActiveX. They use IE not because other browsers won't be compatible but simply out of ignorance of the competetion.
Unfortunately consumers use the excuse that Microsoft is a monopoly for their own failures as a consumer. Linux and Mozilla have always relied on word of mouth for their PR. This is painfully slow, and has mostly stayed within the 'geek' circles. It's going to take time.
I've definitely noticed in the last few mnths that Microsoft seems to be REALLY ramping up its PR war against Linux. They've been talking about it for a while, and now we're seeing it.
Linux's true downfall has far less to do with MS's market dominance than it does with basic marketing. It's nice to have a product, but it's useless if no one knows about it.
For example the people that use Internet Explorer do so not because "other browsers don't work with ActiveX" but because they are not even aware of the existence of Opera or Mozilla. The only browser ever mentioned in the same breath as MS is Netscape, which is massively inferior to the aforementioned browsers. At best it's marginally superior to MS, but not enough to have a significant competetive advantage.
Take a look at iMacs, often cited as one of the most brilliant marketing programs conceived. Personally I hated those ugly things, nevertheless they did exceptionally well.
"I don't see people leaving the United States to go overseas for university because the quality is better there. In fact, I see the exact opposite."
I'm willing to bet the really truly good universities are few and far away, and more often then not private. Graduates from said universities are also worth what they are paid, and probably not getting outsourced.
In my experience (3 Universities for my undergrad) the education was not preparing for the work world. Instead I am very good at writing multiple choice tests. Unfortunately life isn't like a multiple choice test.
And I agree, grade school is an abysmal failure.
"This has been done. Whether or not it has been marketed effectively is debatable, but MacOSX is hard to beat. Easy to use, beautiful to look at and fast even on a G4."
Too bad it's not free. I was mostly referring to Open Source alternatives in my comment.
Is the astronomical price of Macs worth the marginal benefit? In my experience with G4s at a lab I worked with it was the most frustrating piece of equipment I've ever been forced to use. If there was an advantage, I didn't see it, and it certainly wasn't worth the price.
Being able to do the work I am assigned is the most important. As a developer, a correlation between your workstation and target platform is important.
I'm sure you co-workers would say their work is the most important as well. You're probably far more capable of using XP then they are of using FreeBSD as well.
I s'pose everyone could have their own OSs but I am assuming that would make life even more miserable. If not I see no reason why you are not permitted to use whatever platform you wish.
You are 'forced' to use these applications because your co-workers, assuming to be significantly less computer savvy, would much rather have user-friendly Windows then struggle with FreeBSD. Now what's more important, your hairline or 20 from your co-workers?
I agree. All this talk of "monopoly" and we seem to forget the shortcomings of MS's competitors. Given that Microsoft has no dominance in the server or database market, the only case for monopoly would be on the desktop market.
Now are they the CURRENT leaders because of 'monopoly', or because there are no better alternatives for JoeBlow Layman? Yes Spyware is a problem, yes viruses are a problem, yes exploits are a problem, but they are an INFINITELY small problem compared to configuring Open Source alternatives, installing the drivers, and basically getting things done quickly and easily without knowing a thing about computers.
Introduce a desktop with a small learning curve designed for laymen and market it well, and then we can start blaming the monopoly, but not before.
You are correct, as of this moment there is nothing you can really do except take unemployment and keep searching for jobs.
"Nor do prices go down substantially when products are shipped overseas"
Have you seen the price of T-shirts and clothing drop after being outsourced? Of course you have. The same thing will happen to any product where input costs decrease. If a company wants to stay competetive they must lower their prices. It just takes time. It's nice to think that al lthe money is going to fill some 'corporate trough", but such a trough is ephemeral in the long run: Other businesses are attracted to these profits and will become competetiors. It just takes time. And the consumer money saved on this software will be used on other businesses, allowing them to grow larger and who knows, possibly employing you.
" It's obscene to say that someone who gets a four-year degree developing a fairly technical skill."
If you've gone to school for 16 years and can't make more money then some impoverished nobody from India, don't you think you should take a hard look at the quality of education you received? And I mean kindergarten and beyond.
Even if one nation is incredibly protectionist and the other is incredibly open, trade is still MUTUALLY beneficially. Nobody is going to accept a trade that makes them worse off.
"And that's for a modest 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in an inexpensive suburb of Dallas."
I just WISH you could see the living conditions of some of these Indians, but I doubt you've ever been there.
"Irregardless" Is anyone else annoyed this word made it into the dictionary despite meaning the EXACT SAME THING as its root word?
You miss the point. American's who have lost their good jobs to foreigners due to "free trade"... Financial discomfiture is one of the chief motivators of the voting American populace.
The sad thing is welfare is MAXIMIZED by free trade. Businesses are happy, they can produce their goods cheapers. Foreign workers are happy, they get a job. Consumers are happy, they get cheaper products. The only 'losers' are the one's who lose their job. It's s widespread benefits coupled with a small minority who bear the brunt of the cost. And it's this minority who lobbies the government. Consumers benefiting from this hardly even realize it.
When products become cheaper for consumers they have more money leftover to spend on other things. This means more things will be bought with the same money and business will grow. Even if that money is saved it will be loaned out to business to employ more people. However none of this is obvious and it's far more convenient to look at the short-term.
How tragic that people blame corporations and politicians as the money grubbers when their own protectionist policies put thousands of foreign laborers out of work. Who's greedy now?
Why is it okay to pump billions of tax payer money on foreign aid to be squandered on corrupt government, and yet punish private companies for using far less money on an infinitely more useful purpose?
I think you mean: 'No matter how much you whine about it, this free trade "scam" will end soon enough.'
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=walmart
" so consumers could save a couple of bucks while putting their neighbours out of work."
I'd rather put 100 of my "neighbors" out if it means 10000 third world employees can get a job (and don't even talk about exploitation, that argument has always been rubbish).
No, you are quite wrong. Comparative advantage (trade) is the hallmark of economic productivity, the goose that lays the golden egg and let's us produce more then we would without it.
Our entirely WORLD is built on trade, from the tiniest hamlet to the largest multinational corporation. Why do people get jobs in the first place? Because some people are better at doing somethings then other people. They 'specialize' in their activities and trade. In the end we gain more then if we had try to satisfy all our needs on our own.
It's no different in a global setting. Maybe India IS better at programming than America, and I applaud Indians for being able to beat the odds and rise to such a level of education. You want me to feel sorry for Joe Blow American with 16 years of schooling in a developed nation losing his job to the HORDES of despondant, ridiculously poor people of India? Good for the Indians, it's about time they rose from poverty.