Yet in many EU countries it is illegal to walk down the street if you shield your face from public view.
As an American, I think holding the EU up as a model for personal freedom is ridiculous.
Well, don't know about personal freedom (although having lived both in the US and Europe, I feet more free in Europe), but on the internet privacy topic there are good things coming from the EU. Not taking those good things as a model would be kind of stupid... Just like judging the whole topic of personal freedom on a single law is kind of stupid.
Well the ASUS tranfromer Pad Infinity (on which I type this) has a 1920x1200 resolution. To be honest it is quite simply a brilliant tablet. For my use of it: with the dock, two SD slots (microSD on the tablet itself + SD on the dock), its USB port, Androids capability of using a mouse and citrix receiver it actually becomes a fully functional solution for working away from the office. I really wasn't expecting it but quite a few iPad owners were actually envious when I showed them what this device was capable and almost all of my colleagues which haven't yet bought a tablet are favoring the infinity over the iPad.
The infinity + dock + citrix combination really is simply awesome for business travellers and in my case vastly superior to the iPad.
Do you feel any different about your friend's death knowing dude was texting or trying to eat a fast food burger? We are being extremely heavily propagandized that death from texting is horrifically worse than death by burger/cd/radio/8 track/plain ole daydreaming/being lost/reading a old fashioned paper map/reading a GPS map.
Distractions of any kind increase the risk of having an accident. Texting while driving is a relatively new phenomenon and many people are not yet conscious of how much it increases the odds of having an accident. It's not propaganda to point that out.
My work is directly related to accidents (I do statistical modelling of extreme events in reinsurance) and believe me that when you have to study "dumb" accidents caused by reckless driving, texting, alcohol or simply excessive speed (1) you fully understand the motives behind what you call "propaganda". People, often kids or young adults which are hit by death, vegetative states, para- or tetraplegia, amputated limbs,... these are the consequences of accidents and they happen every day. Believe me that when you are exposed to those horrors on a daily basis you see things a little differently. And I have a relative distance between myself and the victims, I can only hardly imagine having to go to the scene of the accident or having to judge such cases all day.
Those campaigns may be shocking or seen as demagogy, but they merely translate a reality which fortunately most people don't have to be confronted to every day. Its not propaganda, its reality.
(1) Excessive speed relative to the traffic increases the odds of an accident exponentially and there is also an exponential relationship between speed and the consequences of the accident; reason why the combined distribution is often Pareto-like.
I think its probably more accurate to say that neither of you have enough data to prove what you're saying.
You've both given your opinion on the topic, but with no statistical evidence, neither of you have the ability to prove what you're saying.
I actually do statistical modelling of car accidents for a living (Reinsurance Industry)... It's been proven times and times again that excessive speeds where one of the major causes of car accidents (along with alcohol, drugs legal or not, tiredness,...) and proportionally even more so in casualties. Just Google (Scholar if you want more detailed studies) causes of car accidents... Unfortunately there are many car accidents statistics available for you to look around.
Sorry if I am a bit crude but I study cases of children who suffer tetraplegia or severe head traumas all day long and believe me that when you do comments like driving fast (and implicitly faster than speed limits) decreases the risk of accident, suddenly seem quite idiotic.
Please explain what's idiotic about claiming that Driving 75 MPH while watching the road the distance ahead that you'd need to stop is safer than driving 60 MPH while watching your kids in the back seat, while talking on your cell phone.
No, what I'm saying is that driving concentrated at 60 MPH is less dangerous than driving concentrated at 75 MPH. Of course driving 50 while completely drunk without a seat-belt and ignoring traffic lights is less dangerous than driving completely concentrated at 75 on a German highway with no one around... but that comparison is idiotic.
If everyone drove at the speed limits, all other things remaining equal, there would be less deaths on the roads.
I'd put heavy cash down on the outcome being you're a fucking idiot.
Oh, yeah, that is frigging insightful. +4 already. 'Cause there is nothing more insightful than calling someone else an idiot.
Still, I am going to resist the temptation to take this route and instead say that I do not have enough data on GP's statement. It is unlikely but conceivable that speeding drivers are reasonably safe on average (or at least a lesser risk than may others, non-speeding, drivers). People who insist on driving at 60 miles/hour max in the left lane when everyone else goes 75+ are likely causing quite a few accidents.
It is insightful because the original statement was simply stated... idiotic.
The faster you drive, the longest the breaking distance (a function of the square of the velocity), the less time you have to react, the more momentum your car has and the less time other drivers have to react to your attitude. For any given driver, driving faster is more dangerous.
The original message is idiotic in the sense that it completely ignores the fact that you're simply not alone on the road and that generally drivers overestimate their capabilities (and the capabilities of their cars).
The posting was made on a Facebook Page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist), which Aan created. At the time of writing, it had over 1,700 Likes. Aanâ(TM)s posting has been removed, but supporters on the Page are urging police to release him.
What if those 17,000 likes transforms into a few thousands?
to simply go after cheaters is putting a band-aid over the real problem.
I disagree. Some portion of students will cheat as long as (in theory):
[benefit of higher grade] - [cost of honestly achieving higher grade] > {[benefit of cheating] - [cost of cheating]} * [ risk of getting caught cheating] * [value of punishment for cheating].
The real problem is that people are lazy and want to get the best return for the smallest investment. This cannot be fixed, it is human nature.
So we tip the equation in favor of not cheating, by either/and
1. Making the punishment so extreme (expulsion) that even if the risk of getting caught is low, cheating is not a good idea. The problem with this approach is that as the risks of getting caught decrease, people dismiss the risk as zero. This is a known problem with how humans interpret probability and risk dealing with VLNs and VSNs. 2. Increasing the chance of being caught. This is a problem because of the costs involved, as well as an "arms race" between proctors and students.
Note that the equation is also affected by the fact that cheating has become easier, and thus cheaper. There is also a factor for personal inhibitions against cheating, but I'm not sure how to fit it into the model.
PS. sorry for the messy formula.
Actually the model would be:
Cheating and not getting caught = CNGC Cheating and getting caught = CGC
2) giving a cut to some payment processor like PayPal? I'd rather use cash.
Cash is much more expensive than electronic money.
An example of this is the 50 euro bill here in Europe. In most ATMs, 50 euros is the biggest bill available. This means that the 50 euro bill is almost never used to give change back. Now think about the life cycle of a 50 euro bill.
First, it is printed, checked etc and sent guarded by big men with guns to banks, where they are put inside an ATM machine. Then, a consumer takes it out a 50 euro bill in the ATM. He then goes to a shop and buys product A, gives the 50 euro bill, and receives change (which is of course smaller than 50 euros). The 50 euro bill then stays in the cash register where it is accumulated with other 50 euro bills since no one pays with a bill higher than 50 euros, it can never be used as change. After a long day of work, the shopkeeper then bring the bill back to the bank, where it is counted, bagged and sent back to the national bank guarded by big men with guns. The national bank then checks that the bill is in good condition, bags it ans sent it back guarded by big men with guns to the bank where it is put in the ATM for the next consumer.
This whole process is hugely expensive.
So you may have the impression that you don't give a cut when using cash, but that's merely because the cost is subsidized elsewhere.
Not true. Wal-Mart and Home Depot did a better job than the gov't during Katrina. [..]
The real pioneers and leaders in Logistics are the Army... for the same reasons that Wall-Mart is better in logistics than FEMA was (is?). Incentives and experience. The hurricane Katrina was a once-in-a-career experience, where the Army and Wall-Mart are busy day-in day-out with logistics, of course Wall-Mart will be better.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being governmental or not.
That's not very surprising since income inequality and wealth inequality grew. So yeah, they paid more taxes, but simply because even if their nominal tax rate decreased, their additional revenues made up for the change...
Let's see, we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics, and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him. Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree, we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions. Statistics then tells us there is a 1/(X+1) chance of his being right, and an X/(X+1) chance of their being right. We can assume that X >= 2 based on his ranting, therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3, and probably much more. Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct.
Euh no... The Variable (Zed being right or not) is not stochastic. The "probability" of him being right is either 1 or 0.
There are plenty studies showing strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP (even between US states)
That "study" is BS. Just look at the errors, the higher the variables, the higher the variance between the model and the actual data. You can't confidently draw correlation conclusions with heteroskedasticity. The only thing this "study" shows is that the authors lack a good understanding of econometrics.
Comcast has a Debt/Equity ratio of 67... so in theory 67% of their value is not theirs to spend, as creditors are going to want their money back. Now looking at Google's Debt/Equity ratio.... huh. It looks like Google doesn't owe anyone any money.
Notwithstanding that you're probably talking about the Debt/Total Assets ratio (a Debt/Equity ration of 67 would mean that 98.5% (or 67/68) of their financing comes from debt), you cannot compare two companies operating in different sectors by looking at such ratios. Having a higher financial leverage doesn't mean a company is good or badly run, it depends of many factors such as the industry they're in, the nature of their assets, the stability of their income streams etc...
Not owing anyone any money can also be a sign of a badly run company, as it could go against the principle of maximizing shareholder wealth (debt funding is cheaper).
Basically, what grandparent says stands... You're basically comparing apples and oranges.
On an issue as important as whether to expend tax money to keep incompetent management in place in failed banks, it's pretty damned sad that Obama and McCain weren't on opposite sides of the question.
-jcr
You're sad that none of the Presidential candidates wanted to play Russian roulette with the American/World economy?
You know, maybe you should learn a little about capital markets before making ideological judgments on issues.
Many government stockpiles of Tamiflu from the last pandemic that according to the "experts" was dead set going to "wipe us out" (lol) are expiring right now.
The H5N1 strain has a current mortality rate of 63.27% according to the WHO. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_and_infection_of_H5N1#Mortality_rate)
The A/H1N1 has, of course, a mortality rate close to the seasonal flu, but that is not the point. The point is that we humans have no antibodies against this strain, this means that if it were to mutate and become more virulent, it could have disastrous effects.
OK, the WHO and media may have overreacted, but what we are seeing now (a small pandemic with few fatalities) is exactly how the Spanish flu pandemic began... You really think the WHO should take the chance and not blow his out of proportions?
The data on your machine is worth anywhere from about as much as the hardware, up to 1000+ times as much as the hardware, depending on how much cash you have in your bank account.
Even in regulated markets, monopolies kill innovation and drive prices up. This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market ideology.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market, used that monopoly to gain monopoly position in the browser market (although they have lost that position over the last couple of years) and a dominant position in the office software market. Let's see what happened in these three markets.
First of all, the OS. It took MS over 6 years to bring out a new OS. 6 years! Until Windows 95/98, the OS sector was one of the fastest moving sectors around, with plenty of innovation coming out every year, but when MS got to their monopoly position, they have been basically stagnating. Now that Mac OS X and Linux start eating some market share, the development cycle fell from 6 to 3 years!
So, they used that market to get a monopoly in the browsers' market. What happened once they got it? Nothing for 6 years! It was only until Mozilla got a decent market share that Microsoft restarted the development of IE again. And look what happens now, MS will release IE 8 soon, only 3 years after IE 7. Not only this, but since the absolute dominance of IE has declined, we get innovation after innovation in the browsers. Safari, Chrome, Opera and Firefox are all good alternatives that almost monthly release a new faster than ever version racing each other to be the most standards compliant and the fastest.
Office? Again, it was only when Google or Open Office started threatening their market dominance that MS again felt the need to innovate (ribbons, xml file format, Office Live, etc...).
But back to economic theory (I am after all, an economist), innovation creates value, more value means more people can enjoy a decent salary like you said. More people would enjoy a decent salary had Microsoft not taken over those markets because it slowed down the process of value creation! It is exactly BECAUSE an absolutely free market doesn't work efficiently that it should be regulated. Regulation is necessary because left alone, free markets are NOT innovation-optimal. This lack of innovation is what makes communism impossible and why the free market cannot be fully efficient at the same time.
And yes Microsoft force their product onto me (well maybe not me, but the immense majority of PC buyers). Yes you can say public schools are forced onto us, but that is because a private school system is a very bad way to educate the next generation of innovators.
Microsoft doesn't restrict who can program for good reasons (they'd be bankrupt in no time), just like there are good reasons to not allow anyone to be a lawyer or a doctor.
And the taxation bit, well, I have no idea why it is even brought up.
Anyways, innovation is doing more with the same, it is how a society solves the eternal problem of limited resources. Innovation is what should make our kids' world a better world than ours. Having a society that is optimal for innovation is what economics is all about! How our society is able to evolve the best is very complex and filled with needed regulation, but the goal of innovation is crystal clear.
I believe it's time for you to open an economics books before you draw microeconomic conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet in many EU countries it is illegal to walk down the street if you shield your face from public view.
As an American, I think holding the EU up as a model for personal freedom is ridiculous.
Well, don't know about personal freedom (although having lived both in the US and Europe, I feet more free in Europe), but on the internet privacy topic there are good things coming from the EU. Not taking those good things as a model would be kind of stupid... Just like judging the whole topic of personal freedom on a single law is kind of stupid.
Well the ASUS tranfromer Pad Infinity (on which I type this) has a 1920x1200 resolution. To be honest it is quite simply a brilliant tablet. For my use of it: with the dock, two SD slots (microSD on the tablet itself + SD on the dock), its USB port, Androids capability of using a mouse and citrix receiver it actually becomes a fully functional solution for working away from the office. I really wasn't expecting it but quite a few iPad owners were actually envious when I showed them what this device was capable and almost all of my colleagues which haven't yet bought a tablet are favoring the infinity over the iPad.
The infinity + dock + citrix combination really is simply awesome for business travellers and in my case vastly superior to the iPad.
(seriously Samsung, why put a heat vent right next to the power input?)
Planned Obsolescence.
Do you feel any different about your friend's death knowing dude was texting or trying to eat a fast food burger? We are being extremely heavily propagandized that death from texting is horrifically worse than death by burger/cd/radio/8 track/plain ole daydreaming/being lost/reading a old fashioned paper map/reading a GPS map.
Distractions of any kind increase the risk of having an accident. Texting while driving is a relatively new phenomenon and many people are not yet conscious of how much it increases the odds of having an accident. It's not propaganda to point that out.
My work is directly related to accidents (I do statistical modelling of extreme events in reinsurance) and believe me that when you have to study "dumb" accidents caused by reckless driving, texting, alcohol or simply excessive speed (1) you fully understand the motives behind what you call "propaganda". People, often kids or young adults which are hit by death, vegetative states, para- or tetraplegia, amputated limbs, ... these are the consequences of accidents and they happen every day. Believe me that when you are exposed to those horrors on a daily basis you see things a little differently. And I have a relative distance between myself and the victims, I can only hardly imagine having to go to the scene of the accident or having to judge such cases all day.
Those campaigns may be shocking or seen as demagogy, but they merely translate a reality which fortunately most people don't have to be confronted to every day. Its not propaganda, its reality.
(1) Excessive speed relative to the traffic increases the odds of an accident exponentially and there is also an exponential relationship between speed and the consequences of the accident; reason why the combined distribution is often Pareto-like.
I think its probably more accurate to say that neither of you have enough data to prove what you're saying.
You've both given your opinion on the topic, but with no statistical evidence, neither of you have the ability to prove what you're saying.
I actually do statistical modelling of car accidents for a living (Reinsurance Industry)... It's been proven times and times again that excessive speeds where one of the major causes of car accidents (along with alcohol, drugs legal or not, tiredness, ...) and proportionally even more so in casualties. Just Google (Scholar if you want more detailed studies) causes of car accidents... Unfortunately there are many car accidents statistics available for you to look around.
Sorry if I am a bit crude but I study cases of children who suffer tetraplegia or severe head traumas all day long and believe me that when you do comments like driving fast (and implicitly faster than speed limits) decreases the risk of accident, suddenly seem quite idiotic.
Please explain what's idiotic about claiming that Driving 75 MPH while watching the road the distance ahead that you'd need to stop is safer than driving 60 MPH while watching your kids in the back seat, while talking on your cell phone.
No, what I'm saying is that driving concentrated at 60 MPH is less dangerous than driving concentrated at 75 MPH. Of course driving 50 while completely drunk without a seat-belt and ignoring traffic lights is less dangerous than driving completely concentrated at 75 on a German highway with no one around... but that comparison is idiotic.
If everyone drove at the speed limits, all other things remaining equal, there would be less deaths on the roads.
I'd put heavy cash down on the outcome being you're a fucking idiot.
Oh, yeah, that is frigging insightful. +4 already. 'Cause there is nothing more insightful than calling someone else an idiot.
Still, I am going to resist the temptation to take this route and instead say that I do not have enough data on GP's statement. It is unlikely but conceivable that speeding drivers are reasonably safe on average (or at least a lesser risk than may others, non-speeding, drivers). People who insist on driving at 60 miles/hour max in the left lane when everyone else goes 75+ are likely causing quite a few accidents.
It is insightful because the original statement was simply stated... idiotic.
The faster you drive, the longest the breaking distance (a function of the square of the velocity), the less time you have to react, the more momentum your car has and the less time other drivers have to react to your attitude. For any given driver, driving faster is more dangerous.
The original message is idiotic in the sense that it completely ignores the fact that you're simply not alone on the road and that generally drivers overestimate their capabilities (and the capabilities of their cars).
The posting was made on a Facebook Page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist), which Aan created. At the time of writing, it had over 1,700 Likes. Aanâ(TM)s posting has been removed, but supporters on the Page are urging police to release him.
What if those 17,000 likes transforms into a few thousands?
Worth a shot I believe.
I disagree. Some portion of students will cheat as long as (in theory):
[benefit of higher grade] - [cost of honestly achieving higher grade] > {[benefit of cheating] - [cost of cheating]} * [ risk of getting caught cheating] * [value of punishment for cheating].
The real problem is that people are lazy and want to get the best return for the smallest investment. This cannot be fixed, it is human nature.
So we tip the equation in favor of not cheating, by either/and
1. Making the punishment so extreme (expulsion) that even if the risk of getting caught is low, cheating is not a good idea. The problem with this approach is that as the risks of getting caught decrease, people dismiss the risk as zero. This is a known problem with how humans interpret probability and risk dealing with VLNs and VSNs.
2. Increasing the chance of being caught. This is a problem because of the costs involved, as well as an "arms race" between proctors and students.
Note that the equation is also affected by the fact that cheating has become easier, and thus cheaper. There is also a factor for personal inhibitions against cheating, but I'm not sure how to fit it into the model.
PS. sorry for the messy formula.
Actually the model would be:
Cheating and not getting caught = CNGC
Cheating and getting caught = CGC
Expected[Utility CNGC] = (1- Probability[CGC])*[Utility CNGC] > Expected[Utility CGC] = [Probability CGC]*[Utility CGC]
where [Utility CNCG] = f([how much work was done]; [utility of higher grades]; [Utility of the act of cheating independently of its outcome])
Your model describes the decision of "planning to cheat", not cheating itself.
2) giving a cut to some payment processor like PayPal? I'd rather use cash.
Cash is much more expensive than electronic money.
An example of this is the 50 euro bill here in Europe. In most ATMs, 50 euros is the biggest bill available. This means that the 50 euro bill is almost never used to give change back. Now think about the life cycle of a 50 euro bill.
First, it is printed, checked etc and sent guarded by big men with guns to banks, where they are put inside an ATM machine.
Then, a consumer takes it out a 50 euro bill in the ATM. He then goes to a shop and buys product A, gives the 50 euro bill, and receives change (which is of course smaller than 50 euros).
The 50 euro bill then stays in the cash register where it is accumulated with other 50 euro bills since no one pays with a bill higher than 50 euros, it can never be used as change.
After a long day of work, the shopkeeper then bring the bill back to the bank, where it is counted, bagged and sent back to the national bank guarded by big men with guns.
The national bank then checks that the bill is in good condition, bags it ans sent it back guarded by big men with guns to the bank where it is put in the ATM for the next consumer.
This whole process is hugely expensive.
So you may have the impression that you don't give a cut when using cash, but that's merely because the cost is subsidized elsewhere.
Or maybe you just have a conflict with your team. Tried the default theme yet?
Not true. Wal-Mart and Home Depot did a better job than the gov't during Katrina. [..]
The real pioneers and leaders in Logistics are the Army... for the same reasons that Wall-Mart is better in logistics than FEMA was (is?). Incentives and experience. The hurricane Katrina was a once-in-a-career experience, where the Army and Wall-Mart are busy day-in day-out with logistics, of course Wall-Mart will be better.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being governmental or not.
That's not very surprising since income inequality and wealth inequality grew. So yeah, they paid more taxes, but simply because even if their nominal tax rate decreased, their additional revenues made up for the change...
Let's see, we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics, and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him. Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree, we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions. Statistics then tells us there is a 1/(X+1) chance of his being right, and an X/(X+1) chance of their being right. We can assume that X >= 2 based on his ranting, therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3, and probably much more. Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct.
Euh no... The Variable (Zed being right or not) is not stochastic. The "probability" of him being right is either 1 or 0.
There are plenty studies showing strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP (even between US states)
That "study" is BS. Just look at the errors, the higher the variables, the higher the variance between the model and the actual data. You can't confidently draw correlation conclusions with heteroskedasticity. The only thing this "study" shows is that the authors lack a good understanding of econometrics.
Comcast has a Debt/Equity ratio of 67... so in theory 67% of their value is not theirs to spend, as creditors are going to want their money back. Now looking at Google's Debt/Equity ratio.... huh. It looks like Google doesn't owe anyone any money.
Notwithstanding that you're probably talking about the Debt/Total Assets ratio (a Debt/Equity ration of 67 would mean that 98.5% (or 67/68) of their financing comes from debt), you cannot compare two companies operating in different sectors by looking at such ratios. Having a higher financial leverage doesn't mean a company is good or badly run, it depends of many factors such as the industry they're in, the nature of their assets, the stability of their income streams etc...
Not owing anyone any money can also be a sign of a badly run company, as it could go against the principle of maximizing shareholder wealth (debt funding is cheaper).
Basically, what grandparent says stands... You're basically comparing apples and oranges.
On an issue as important as whether to expend tax money to keep incompetent management in place in failed banks, it's pretty damned sad that Obama and McCain weren't on opposite sides of the question.
-jcr
You're sad that none of the Presidential candidates wanted to play Russian roulette with the American/World economy?
You know, maybe you should learn a little about capital markets before making ideological judgments on issues.
Parent is an obvious troll!
Well, it runs at 5.7X the original speed right?
So 5.7X CD-Rom drive runs at 570% the speed of the original drive.
Where is my math wrong?
Indeed, 50% of the original performance means that performance was multiplied by 5.7. But it's a 470% increase....
In your original post you spoke of a 570% increase, which would give a multiplier of 6.7.
To make it a bit clearer, in your first post, had you used a 5% increase... you would have DIVIDED performance by 20 using your method!
Get it?
What other wisdom have you gained from your time sequestered with various RPGs?
That video games are a pretty bad place to gain wisdom from?
Many government stockpiles of Tamiflu from the last pandemic that according to the "experts" was dead set going to "wipe us out" (lol) are expiring right now.
The H5N1 strain has a current mortality rate of 63.27% according to the WHO. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_and_infection_of_H5N1#Mortality_rate)
The A/H1N1 has, of course, a mortality rate close to the seasonal flu, but that is not the point. The point is that we humans have no antibodies against this strain, this means that if it were to mutate and become more virulent, it could have disastrous effects.
OK, the WHO and media may have overreacted, but what we are seeing now (a small pandemic with few fatalities) is exactly how the Spanish flu pandemic began... You really think the WHO should take the chance and not blow his out of proportions?
Hey, that's a great idea! But I think we should call the strips "ribbons"...sounds way more sophisticated that way.
Oh come on, no one would be stupid enough to fall for that!
OMG, that looks exactly like my wifi router back home! and my gf is working from home today!
noes!
It's ok... now you'll finally fit in with the /. crowd!
The data on your machine is worth anywhere from about as much as the hardware, up to 1000+ times as much as the hardware, depending on how much cash you have in your bank account.
Aha! I knew my windows was worthless!
Who said anything about a "free" market?
Even in regulated markets, monopolies kill innovation and drive prices up. This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market ideology.
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market, used that monopoly to gain monopoly position in the browser market (although they have lost that position over the last couple of years) and a dominant position in the office software market.
Let's see what happened in these three markets.
First of all, the OS. It took MS over 6 years to bring out a new OS. 6 years! Until Windows 95/98, the OS sector was one of the fastest moving sectors around, with plenty of innovation coming out every year, but when MS got to their monopoly position, they have been basically stagnating. Now that Mac OS X and Linux start eating some market share, the development cycle fell from 6 to 3 years!
So, they used that market to get a monopoly in the browsers' market. What happened once they got it? Nothing for 6 years! It was only until Mozilla got a decent market share that Microsoft restarted the development of IE again. And look what happens now, MS will release IE 8 soon, only 3 years after IE 7. Not only this, but since the absolute dominance of IE has declined, we get innovation after innovation in the browsers. Safari, Chrome, Opera and Firefox are all good alternatives that almost monthly release a new faster than ever version racing each other to be the most standards compliant and the fastest.
Office? Again, it was only when Google or Open Office started threatening their market dominance that MS again felt the need to innovate (ribbons, xml file format, Office Live, etc...).
But back to economic theory (I am after all, an economist), innovation creates value, more value means more people can enjoy a decent salary like you said. More people would enjoy a decent salary had Microsoft not taken over those markets because it slowed down the process of value creation! It is exactly BECAUSE an absolutely free market doesn't work efficiently that it should be regulated. Regulation is necessary because left alone, free markets are NOT innovation-optimal. This lack of innovation is what makes communism impossible and why the free market cannot be fully efficient at the same time.
And yes Microsoft force their product onto me (well maybe not me, but the immense majority of PC buyers). Yes you can say public schools are forced onto us, but that is because a private school system is a very bad way to educate the next generation of innovators.
Microsoft doesn't restrict who can program for good reasons (they'd be bankrupt in no time), just like there are good reasons to not allow anyone to be a lawyer or a doctor.
And the taxation bit, well, I have no idea why it is even brought up.
Anyways, innovation is doing more with the same, it is how a society solves the eternal problem of limited resources. Innovation is what should make our kids' world a better world than ours. Having a society that is optimal for innovation is what economics is all about! How our society is able to evolve the best is very complex and filled with needed regulation, but the goal of innovation is crystal clear.
I believe it's time for you to open an economics books before you draw microeconomic conclusions.