Microsoft is the ultimate one-hit wonder. That one hit was licensing DOS. That wasn't a big step forward for computing, it was ingenious, visionary, rapacious capitalism.
Everything else that they have done could have been done better by a core team of a hundred bright people.
Decently-capitalized companies that size (100 or fewer) will continue to be the innovators and paradigm-changers. Huge companies like Microsoft are only good for marketing excesses, congressional lobbying and other strongarming, and defiance of the rule of law, backed by armies of attorneys.
That this qualifies as "insightful" is troubling indeed.
A. Kerry would not have unilaterally invaded Iraq if he had been president--he is not surrounded by maniac ideologues who are bent on the idea of taking control of Iraq oil, putting a military foothold in Iraq, and who think (quite idiotically, as we now see) that democracy will flourish throughout the middle east after Saddam's removal. Kerry HAS made statements indicating that he would have voted the same way, as a senator, even knowing that WMD were not there. But making the (poorly considered) decision to give the president war powers as leverage is hardly as bad as BushCo's decision to invade unilaterally. The Bush decision is insubstantially different from, say Hitler invading Poland. (Spell out some compelling differences for me, and convince me...I'm listening.)
B. Gay marriage. Bush wants a constitutional amendment banning it. Kerry does not. Nevermind, for a moment, that a constitutional amendment will never happen and that it's just an empty gesture to the nutjobs on the far right. It's a significant difference between the two candidates.
C. OK, I'm going to change the subject from FCC blah blah blah and point out what is undoubtedly the most significant difference between the two candidates. If Bush is reelected, and any of the supreme court justices keeping Roe v Wade alive retire or die, he will appoint a conservative judge--a nice young one who'll serve for decades--and give right-to-lifers a great chance of making abortion illegal in America. Kerry won't.
Let's not even talk about clear skies, healthy forests, or any of the environmental catastrophes Bush has fostered to line pockets of businessmen. Let's not even talk about a third of our deficit resulting from tax cuts for the rich. Or the patriot act. Or Guantanamo. Or, ritual torture in military and CIA-run prisons, sanctioned by Rumsfeld. Or, sidestepping Geneva conventions. Bush's personal council advised the administration on this one--it is simply incredible that people accept all the shocking precedents of this administration and are still willing to propose that the two candidates are the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is the ultimate one-hit wonder. That one hit was licensing DOS. That wasn't a big step forward for computing, it was ingenious, visionary, rapacious capitalism. Everything else that they have done could have been done better by a core team of a hundred bright people. Decently-capitalized companies that size (100 or fewer) will continue to be the innovators and paradigm-changers. Huge companies like Microsoft are only good for marketing excesses, congressional lobbying and other strongarming, and defiance of the rule of law, backed by armies of attorneys.
That this qualifies as "insightful" is troubling indeed. A. Kerry would not have unilaterally invaded Iraq if he had been president--he is not surrounded by maniac ideologues who are bent on the idea of taking control of Iraq oil, putting a military foothold in Iraq, and who think (quite idiotically, as we now see) that democracy will flourish throughout the middle east after Saddam's removal. Kerry HAS made statements indicating that he would have voted the same way, as a senator, even knowing that WMD were not there. But making the (poorly considered) decision to give the president war powers as leverage is hardly as bad as BushCo's decision to invade unilaterally. The Bush decision is insubstantially different from, say Hitler invading Poland. (Spell out some compelling differences for me, and convince me...I'm listening.) B. Gay marriage. Bush wants a constitutional amendment banning it. Kerry does not. Nevermind, for a moment, that a constitutional amendment will never happen and that it's just an empty gesture to the nutjobs on the far right. It's a significant difference between the two candidates. C. OK, I'm going to change the subject from FCC blah blah blah and point out what is undoubtedly the most significant difference between the two candidates. If Bush is reelected, and any of the supreme court justices keeping Roe v Wade alive retire or die, he will appoint a conservative judge--a nice young one who'll serve for decades--and give right-to-lifers a great chance of making abortion illegal in America. Kerry won't. Let's not even talk about clear skies, healthy forests, or any of the environmental catastrophes Bush has fostered to line pockets of businessmen. Let's not even talk about a third of our deficit resulting from tax cuts for the rich. Or the patriot act. Or Guantanamo. Or, ritual torture in military and CIA-run prisons, sanctioned by Rumsfeld. Or, sidestepping Geneva conventions. Bush's personal council advised the administration on this one--it is simply incredible that people accept all the shocking precedents of this administration and are still willing to propose that the two candidates are the same.