What you are saying is that you want the government to force open source. But I think you ought to consider the position that perhaps the government should not force OSes on people - that people and business should be free to deal with other people and businesses however they see fit. If the government mandated some particular software license be imposed on the country, you would only be opening up a whole different set of problems.
use of proprietary and not standard software is a bad idea
Just what do you consider 'standard' software to be? Some particular flavor of Linux distribution? Solaris Unix?
One definition of standard might be: "Mandatory requirements employed and enforced to prescribe a disciplined uniform approach to software development, that is, mandatory conventions and practices are in fact standards. [IEEE-STD-610]"
Microsoft DOES have a disciplined approach to software development, and they PROMOTE a disciplined approach to doing development on their platform. Similarly, such standards exist in the Linux community.
My point is that I don't think 'standardization' has much of a role in an argument for/against Microsoft in this case.
In fact, if anything, You could say that S Korea has 'standardized' on a version of Windows, and other than uncertainties on the horizon, it has served them perfectly well until now.
Honestly, I question the sanity and/or sincerity of anyone who claims to believe that any pure system is "the answer," be it capitalism, socialism, communism, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism, or anything else.
If you were being fed a mixture of food and poison and were becoming sick, would you question the sanity and/or sincerity of someone who told you only pure food is "the answer"? (loosely paraphrased from Ayn Rand)
HP doesn't make Windows. They require you to purchase it, but they don't make it.
Not true. HP does not "require" you to purchase anything. You are perfectly free to purchase from someone else, if you wish.
The HP computer won't function without another company's product, but they don't give you a choice as to which company (MS, or buy a Linux distro or something else).
Again, not true. The choice you have is: purchase from HP with Windows, (or a server with HPUX), or alternatively, don't purchase from HP at all!
I honestly must say I don't give a rats ass if somebody loses his/her job now because we have to protect a unique species from going extinct
That is because you don't give a rats ass about people. There is nothing valuable to mankind about the sheer existence of that dolphin species. (Notwithstanding any food-chain arguments, which you have not made.)
For you to declare that you would cause people to suffer to support the sheer existence of a species is, I believe, abhorrent.
Different perspective from a long time Sprint customer:
I travelled from California to Denver, then South to Louisiana, and had good coverage for almost the whole trip (even in some desolate Wyoming stretches). One instance in particular stands out: while crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains during a snowstorm with my brother, we were trying to remember the lyrics to a song, so he fires up his laptop with Sprint mobile data card, and we're surfing the net in middle of a blizzard in the mountains. That was cool.
Also, with Sprint's most popular plans, roaming is free, so even though Sprint towers tend to concentrat on larger population centers and highways, even in Rural Louisiana I had decent coverage. I understand Sprint is investing a lot in cell sites in 2007, so I look forward to the enhanced coverage.
Microsoft's company policies are monopolistic, directly conflict with orders made by governments, and are largely overbuilt, poorly made POS's. And they're right. Just try looking at a Word document with pictures on a computer with multiple monitors, and you'll see what I mean.
Holy Crap you are right! I was fidgeting away with my normal uneventful Windows experience - until I read your post! I immediately went and got another graphics port, set up a multiple monitor, created and opened a word document with pictures on it. Now in truth, - I didn't have any problems that I was aware of, but if I *do* have a problem with a multiple-monitor word document with graphics in it, I will give a knowing nod to your ability to connect that undesireable software effect with government monopolistic, overbuilt, poorly made POS's!
how would you like to find out (through experience) that global warming existed when your house was flooded by melting polar ice caps, and know that you still had ten more years of worsening conditions?
How would you like to find out (through experience) that you couldn't afford a house, becuase the cost of goods and services were rising due to stifling regulations across many industries, all based on uncertain science and the desire to sacrifice living generations for the sake of some unknown future generation's alleged 'standard of living'.
Businessmen who commit crimes don't lose their business license, because, uhhh... let me think... because they DON'T HAVE a license! There is no licensing agency used by corporate executives.
I think it could be great to have a licensing body that provided a sort of branding confidence to business executives. But it should not be mandatory.
Regardless of what testing you may have done, or seen others do, that does not negate my own personal opinion that I have never used a better product than Microsoft Word. ESPECIALLY in the ability to cut&paste most anything from one Office product to another.
Granted, I don't do enormouse, nightmarish, page layout & formatting intensive documents. There may be something better (expensive) for that niche market. For good ole normal day-to-day business functions, MS Office integrated apps do the trick VERY nicely for me.
Even if you gleefully murdered all the evil humans on Earth, the Earth would continue on it's climate path. The history of climate is periods of warming punctuated by ice ages.
My, what a horrible little subjectivist you are. I don't know why you bother speaking at all - you can't possible believe there is some objective reality that your words refer to.
This train of analysis cannot possibly capture the complexity of the fiber versus copper debate, and I therefore encourage you to refer to the bible in resolution of this issue.
THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE KANSAS EDUCATION SYSTEM
That's not a monopoly...
I suppose "slavery" is a better term.
Some of us like having a basic social safety net
In my kind of society, nobody will prevent you from helping to donate to whatever charity you choose.
Paying to support that is part of the social contract you agree to by living in the US
Not true. The US was created around the principle of individual rights - the right of every individual to be free from coercion from other indviduals or groups of individuals. The socialist/Christian ideal of self-sacrifice did not worm its way into politics until many decades after the founding, due to a failure in philophic grounding.
Of course there should be a government - the kind that upholds individual rights. Not the kind that *itself* abrogates individual rights.
By the way, I don't think you can actually go to jail for not paying taxes...But hey, who needs facts when you've got overblown rhetoric?
My supporting evidence can be found in any basic textbook in public economics.
If you cannot provide evidence, saying "go look in a book" is *not* going to help your argument. And even if you *could* find some author in some textbook who wrote a section about it, that alone is not proof of an idea's truth of falsehood.
Microsoft cannot bar competitors from entering the market, but the market itself can
No idea what you are trying to say here. A "market" comprises individuals and corporations(which in turn just represent individuals with asset/liability restrictions). "Markets" cannot do things - only the individuals in the market do things.
As for "socially optimal amount", that is the amount that maximizes the utility of society, in other words, the amount where the marginal benefit to society equals the marginal cost to society
Ok, but society is just a collection of individuals. So you are suggesting that some people become happy at the expense of other people suffering.
how do you suggest we should pay for city streets and squares? Privately owned?
Exactly.
What about the police, or the legal system? Could these be better operated by private firms?
No, I believe there *is* a role for government - lay down & uphold the principle of law, foreign and domestic protection. (Courts, military, police). Strictly the enforcement of individual rights. But the government, itself, should never endeavor to abrogate individual rights by forcing innocent people to do things.
I don't agree that government monopolies are optimal, in *any* area, and I wonder what your supporting evidence of this is...
A private monopoly will not "overprice and underproduce", because private companies cannot bar the entry of competitors - only governments can do that. Microsoft may have a huge market-share, but they cannot charge $10k per OS because everyone would switch to Unix/Linux/Apple (the competition). Microsoft charges as much as it can to maximize profit, and consumers vote with their dollars.
And I would challenge you to define the term: "socially optimal amount".
Since when has the US government had a monopoly on education, pensions
It is even worse than just a monopoly, it is a coercive monopoly, backed by the force of the government.
I have to pay into the public school system. If I send my child to private school, I pay twice, the coerced government education through taxes, and the voluntary private education I pay for myself.
I have to pay into the government retirement system (social security) which is on the verge of bankruptcy. (If it survives, it will only be by forcing taxpayers to pay yet MORE taxes to keep it going, or denying certain people the money their deserved benefits.)
I have to pay into the government charity system (welfare). I have no choice about to whom, where, when, or why my money is given - I am forced to either pay or go to jail.
You can clearly see the difference between a coercive monopoly, and an economic monopoly. If I choose to install Linux instead of Microsoft, I will not go to jail!
... that it represents socialization of software. Setting aside the issue of whether it is a legitimate role of government to expropriate taxpayer dollars to create software - just look at other state programs: government education, government retirement (social security), government charity (welfare), government transportation.
Whenever the government gets involved in franchises, subsidies, etc. the end result is a government-created monopoly.
Just remember that the government is a big stick, wielded by those in political power. A government monopoly is not sustained through economic production, but rather through the forced expropriation of taxpayer money to prop it up.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are saying is that you want the government to force open source. But I think you ought to consider the position that perhaps the government should not force OSes on people - that people and business should be free to deal with other people and businesses however they see fit. If the government mandated some particular software license be imposed on the country, you would only be opening up a whole different set of problems.
Just what do you consider 'standard' software to be? Some particular flavor of Linux distribution? Solaris Unix?
One definition of standard might be: "Mandatory requirements employed and enforced to prescribe a disciplined uniform approach to software development, that is, mandatory conventions and practices are in fact standards. [IEEE-STD-610]"
Microsoft DOES have a disciplined approach to software development, and they PROMOTE a disciplined approach to doing development on their platform. Similarly, such standards exist in the Linux community.
My point is that I don't think 'standardization' has much of a role in an argument for/against Microsoft in this case.
In fact, if anything, You could say that S Korea has 'standardized' on a version of Windows, and other than uncertainties on the horizon, it has served them perfectly well until now.
If you were being fed a mixture of food and poison and were becoming sick, would you question the sanity and/or sincerity of someone who told you only pure food is "the answer"? (loosely paraphrased from Ayn Rand)
For you to declare that you would cause people to suffer to support the sheer existence of a species is, I believe, abhorrent.
I travelled from California to Denver, then South to Louisiana, and had good coverage for almost the whole trip (even in some desolate Wyoming stretches). One instance in particular stands out: while crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains during a snowstorm with my brother, we were trying to remember the lyrics to a song, so he fires up his laptop with Sprint mobile data card, and we're surfing the net in middle of a blizzard in the mountains. That was cool.
Also, with Sprint's most popular plans, roaming is free, so even though Sprint towers tend to concentrat on larger population centers and highways, even in Rural Louisiana I had decent coverage. I understand Sprint is investing a lot in cell sites in 2007, so I look forward to the enhanced coverage.
Holy Crap you are right! I was fidgeting away with my normal uneventful Windows experience - until I read your post! I immediately went and got another graphics port, set up a multiple monitor, created and opened a word document with pictures on it. Now in truth, - I didn't have any problems that I was aware of, but if I *do* have a problem with a multiple-monitor word document with graphics in it, I will give a knowing nod to your ability to connect that undesireable software effect with government monopolistic, overbuilt, poorly made POS's!
Are you FORCED to get fat *if* you choose to eat too much fast food?
Come to think of it - stealing music is real as well.
I think it could be great to have a licensing body that provided a sort of branding confidence to business executives. But it should not be mandatory.
Granted, I don't do enormouse, nightmarish, page layout & formatting intensive documents. There may be something better (expensive) for that niche market. For good ole normal day-to-day business functions, MS Office integrated apps do the trick VERY nicely for me.
I guess that would make you the 'unproductive nobody' when using office. I personally am a 'productive somebody' when I use it.
Even if you gleefully murdered all the evil humans on Earth, the Earth would continue on it's climate path. The history of climate is periods of warming punctuated by ice ages.
My, what a horrible little subjectivist you are. I don't know why you bother speaking at all - you can't possible believe there is some objective reality that your words refer to.
I'd like to see how ethical you think it is when 51% of the population thinks it is ok to torture you.
THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE KANSAS EDUCATION SYSTEM
Some of us like having a basic social safety net
In my kind of society, nobody will prevent you from helping to donate to whatever charity you choose.
Paying to support that is part of the social contract you agree to by living in the US
Not true. The US was created around the principle of individual rights - the right of every individual to be free from coercion from other indviduals or groups of individuals. The socialist/Christian ideal of self-sacrifice did not worm its way into politics until many decades after the founding, due to a failure in philophic grounding.
Of course there should be a government - the kind that upholds individual rights. Not the kind that *itself* abrogates individual rights.
By the way, I don't think you can actually go to jail for not paying taxes...But hey, who needs facts when you've got overblown rhetoric?
Indeed.
If you cannot provide evidence, saying "go look in a book" is *not* going to help your argument. And even if you *could* find some author in some textbook who wrote a section about it, that alone is not proof of an idea's truth of falsehood.
No idea what you are trying to say here. A "market" comprises individuals and corporations(which in turn just represent individuals with asset/liability restrictions). "Markets" cannot do things - only the individuals in the market do things.
Ok, but society is just a collection of individuals. So you are suggesting that some people become happy at the expense of other people suffering.
Exactly.
No, I believe there *is* a role for government - lay down & uphold the principle of law, foreign and domestic protection. (Courts, military, police). Strictly the enforcement of individual rights. But the government, itself, should never endeavor to abrogate individual rights by forcing innocent people to do things.A private monopoly will not "overprice and underproduce", because private companies cannot bar the entry of competitors - only governments can do that. Microsoft may have a huge market-share, but they cannot charge $10k per OS because everyone would switch to Unix/Linux/Apple (the competition). Microsoft charges as much as it can to maximize profit, and consumers vote with their dollars.
And I would challenge you to define the term: "socially optimal amount".
It is even worse than just a monopoly, it is a coercive monopoly, backed by the force of the government.
I have to pay into the public school system. If I send my child to private school, I pay twice, the coerced government education through taxes, and the voluntary private education I pay for myself.
I have to pay into the government retirement system (social security) which is on the verge of bankruptcy. (If it survives, it will only be by forcing taxpayers to pay yet MORE taxes to keep it going, or denying certain people the money their deserved benefits.)
I have to pay into the government charity system (welfare). I have no choice about to whom, where, when, or why my money is given - I am forced to either pay or go to jail.
You can clearly see the difference between a coercive monopoly, and an economic monopoly. If I choose to install Linux instead of Microsoft, I will not go to jail!
Whenever the government gets involved in franchises, subsidies, etc. the end result is a government-created monopoly.
Just remember that the government is a big stick, wielded by those in political power. A government monopoly is not sustained through economic production, but rather through the forced expropriation of taxpayer money to prop it up.
Here is a picture of the guy: http://elementy.ru/images/news/eric_lerner.jpg