Downloading and profits are both linked to the same factors.
Which, of course, is correct, but doesn't do anything to disprove the GP's notion that file-sharing causes only minor reductions (if at all) in profit. D'oh.
The fact that you bring up a source where he claims that the film is not propaganda reveals either that he doesn't know what the word means (which makes him uneducated at best, stupid at worst), or that he is contradicting himself (which makes him inconsistent at best, or a liar at worst, or perhaps it means that he has changed his mind about his own work between the two interviews).
You obviously didn't bother to hear Moore's own words.
"It's a work of journalism," he maintained. "It's the real journalism that the journalists should be doing. The movie is filled with a lot of facts, a lot of background information, a lot of research and then the film is an op ed piece. Propaganda? That's a bit of a strong term. Propagandists believe it's OK to take the facts and tell half-truths and twist them to meet their purposes. I present to you the facts."
So no, he's not uneducated or a liar, he just points out that the term "propaganda" is often used to label sth. as lies and distortion, that's why he is against labeling Fahrenheit 9/11 as such. Your dictionary definition is somewhat detached from the political reality of the word's usage.
Also since Apple doesn't require a serial any group of folks can buy one copy of Tiger and then just share the copy. My friend just did this and only paid $5.00 for his copy.
Not that I'm aware of, but they do ship some FreeDOS computers. However only in the US, where the DoJ disallowed Microsoft to use per-processor licensing. (Which means you pay one copy of Windows for every machine, even if you sell some machines without Windows.)
Rather, if you dont do as the terms of the contract said, you dont get the benefit.
And the contract reads (slightly exaggerated): "If you even talk to competitors, we're allowed to terminate this contract."
Now this point is interesting. Which is the uncompetative behavior here, offering specific OEMs cheaper prices, or locking other OEMs out of those prices?
Locking OEMs out of those prices because they ship or plan to ship competitors' products.
Most people would say 'both' and most people on here would say they shouldnt be able to do it at all, which brings us to the question: just how much is software worth? You cant do it on the standard basis of how much it costs to manufacture the item you purchase as once you have one its easy to make a million more.
Which is exactly why pricing gives Microsoft that much power.
What I was trying to say in the origional post was that OEMs who were dual booting Windows with Linux were using the selling point of Windows to shift Linux, which I beleive is a unfair to MS.
Yes, that's the way I would see it if I was a paranoid Microsoft employee. Since I'm not, I figure that there may be a market for dual-boot machines, and that's why some OEMs would like to ship them.
No business is going to allow its product to be the selling point of its competitor.
Windows is not the selling point of Linux (hell, they could put Debian, Gentoo or Fedora on those boxes, which are free as in beer and speech). Windows is the selling point of the PCs, nothing else.
Im not a 'die-hard astroturfer' like you say, and I do care. Im just pissed off with the long standing rhetoric on this site that its OK to punish MS to the ends of the earth while overlooking the fact that most of that view comes from jelousy,
Oh, of course. Poor cute little innocent Microsoft, how can they all be so mean for no reason? Do you know what jealousy is? Jealousy is when you're locking competitors out of your monopolized markets because you want it all, for now, and forever. That's jealousy. If Microsoft were half as confident about the quality of their products as they claim to be, then they would be happy to allow people to test Linux on their machines without having to pay extra for Windows (imagine you would have to pay more for a bottle of Coke if you also put a bottle of Pepsi into the cart). But obviously they don't. They're scared that their products aren't that much better (or even worse in some respects), and they're scared of competition. This is why they work hard to keep competition out of the equation.
and most of the recent lawsuits against MS seem to be cash grabs and little else.
Microsoft attempted to monopolize the market for media formats by building WMV/WMA into their desktop OSes, and to monopolize the market for server OSes (that is, groupware and file serving) by making their client OSes and apps incompatible with the software of competitors. This is why the EU has taken anti-trust action against Microsoft. If you use one monopoly to gain a monopoly in another area, instead of competing on the merits of your software, you're abusing your power, and in violation of anti-trust law. Simple as that.
The defense that "Microsoft is just acting in its best interest like any other business" is so tired and lame, it's hard to express. No one ever questioned that, and it's exactly the problem. The basic premise of capitalism is that the selfishness of companies is a good thing as long as they are in competition with other selfish companies. The problem is that Microsoft isn't, at least not properly, and in such cases, the public doesn't benefit from the company's selfishness, to the contrary, it suffers (e.g. from products which are more expensive than necessary, and of a lesser quality than possible). This is why monopolists are disallowed anti-competitive practices, which means using unfair tactics instead of competing through price and quality of their products alone. Microsoft wants to break the law to make more profit. Understandble. But not tolerable.
I installed Gentoo from stage1 using my existing SuSE partition. You can just continue to use any applications you like while Gentoo build in the background. Now that's user friendly.:)
Someone could create a portage-like system for windows for all the Free software.
File locking would be a great problem, though. No way to update libxyz while some app which uses libxyz.so is still running. You would have to encourage lots of reboots or at least far-ranging application shutdown.
As a developer, I absolutely hate the executable locking which Windows uses, it's incredibly annoying when you get build errors just because you're still running an instance of your application (maybe in a debugger). The inode concept is so much more useful.
Give me a reason why MS shouldnt be able to charge an OEM full price for the operating system?
Umm, anti-trust law?
Its the terms that the OEM signed up for in order to stay in competition with other manufacturers.
Which is exactly the problem. If you don't do as Microsoft tells you, you will be unable to compete.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that OEM prices are a reward, not a god given right.
Actually, they are Gates-given rewards for being an obedient Microsoft lackey.
And dont give me any bullshit about MS having to treat everyone correct 'because they are a monopoly'
Locking competitors out of markets by pressuring vendors is unethical in any way. But if you're a monopolist, it's not only unethical but unlawful.
they are still a business first and formost,
Yes, and I'm a man and have a sex drive. This is considered ok, and I'm allowed to have consensual sex with women. But I'm not allowed to rape them. Do you think I should?
and no law in this country says you have to support the sale of a competitors product,
No, but anti-trust law says that if you're a monopolist, you're not allowed to use your power to lock upcoming competitors out of your markets. If you can't compete on the merit (and cost) of your products alone, then you don't deserve your monopoly any longer.
which they are doing by offering low prices to OEMs who use the lure of an MS system and a Linux system dual booting to sell a computer.
It's the other way round. Everyone (vendor of a certain minimum size that is) gets OEM contracts, except those who give MS competitors a chance. It's a tool of punishment, not a reward. But as the die-hard astroturfer you seem to be, you probably don't care.
My answer to this is: Make use of the auto-save feature of your editor and do some beating to the one who thought switching the power is funny.
I think the only reason why cleaning personnel are allowed to use vacuum cleaners in computer rooms, is that they would be still more dangerous were they given water.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of software monopoly do you think Apple has? Are there no other OSes?
Did Warhammer 40,000 have a predecessor? If not, that's a daring version number for a first release.
Java has a good name for professionalism, but whoever came up with this ought to hang their head in shame.
You misspelled "ought to be hung".
On the off chance that this is an honest question and not simply a troll
Maybe you're the troll.
Downloading and profits are both linked to the same factors.
Which, of course, is correct, but doesn't do anything to disprove the GP's notion that file-sharing causes only minor reductions (if at all) in profit. D'oh.
The fact that you bring up a source where he claims that the film is not propaganda reveals either that he doesn't know what the word means (which makes him uneducated at best, stupid at worst), or that he is contradicting himself (which makes him inconsistent at best, or a liar at worst, or perhaps it means that he has changed his mind about his own work between the two interviews).
You obviously didn't bother to hear Moore's own words.
So no, he's not uneducated or a liar, he just points out that the term "propaganda" is often used to label sth. as lies and distortion, that's why he is against labeling Fahrenheit 9/11 as such. Your dictionary definition is somewhat detached from the political reality of the word's usage.
You bump enter while you hit slash (they're right next to each other, remember).
Ah, German keyboards do have obvious advantages. ;)
Goes to show the idiocy of storing important data on a single-user system.
So that's why they're called Fireball.
Microsoft's plain evil. But certainly not evil enough to code a program like Win95 on purpose.
It's all in here: UNIX Haters Handbook
rm: cannot remove '.' or '..'
Seems like they fixed this problem.
PS: I was actually too cowardly to try this in /home, but I did run it as root. :)
It's not just Windows. It's the Windows 9x line, also known as the longest batch file in the world.
Purchasing Windows 98.
As long as you didn't install it.
A great way to advertise free software.
Also since Apple doesn't require a serial any group of folks can buy one copy of Tiger and then just share the copy. My friend just did this and only paid $5.00 for his copy.
But that's illegal, right?
but I've never heard of them.
Not that I'm aware of, but they do ship some FreeDOS computers. However only in the US, where the DoJ disallowed Microsoft to use per-processor licensing. (Which means you pay one copy of Windows for every machine, even if you sell some machines without Windows.)
Rather, if you dont do as the terms of the contract said, you dont get the benefit.
And the contract reads (slightly exaggerated): "If you even talk to competitors, we're allowed to terminate this contract."
Now this point is interesting. Which is the uncompetative behavior here, offering specific OEMs cheaper prices, or locking other OEMs out of those prices?
Locking OEMs out of those prices because they ship or plan to ship competitors' products.
Most people would say 'both' and most people on here would say they shouldnt be able to do it at all, which brings us to the question: just how much is software worth? You cant do it on the standard basis of how much it costs to manufacture the item you purchase as once you have one its easy to make a million more.
Which is exactly why pricing gives Microsoft that much power.
What I was trying to say in the origional post was that OEMs who were dual booting Windows with Linux were using the selling point of Windows to shift Linux, which I beleive is a unfair to MS.
Yes, that's the way I would see it if I was a paranoid Microsoft employee. Since I'm not, I figure that there may be a market for dual-boot machines, and that's why some OEMs would like to ship them.
No business is going to allow its product to be the selling point of its competitor.
Windows is not the selling point of Linux (hell, they could put Debian, Gentoo or Fedora on those boxes, which are free as in beer and speech). Windows is the selling point of the PCs, nothing else.
Im not a 'die-hard astroturfer' like you say, and I do care. Im just pissed off with the long standing rhetoric on this site that its OK to punish MS to the ends of the earth while overlooking the fact that most of that view comes from jelousy,
Oh, of course. Poor cute little innocent Microsoft, how can they all be so mean for no reason? Do you know what jealousy is? Jealousy is when you're locking competitors out of your monopolized markets because you want it all, for now, and forever. That's jealousy. If Microsoft were half as confident about the quality of their products as they claim to be, then they would be happy to allow people to test Linux on their machines without having to pay extra for Windows (imagine you would have to pay more for a bottle of Coke if you also put a bottle of Pepsi into the cart). But obviously they don't. They're scared that their products aren't that much better (or even worse in some respects), and they're scared of competition. This is why they work hard to keep competition out of the equation.
and most of the recent lawsuits against MS seem to be cash grabs and little else.
Microsoft attempted to monopolize the market for media formats by building WMV/WMA into their desktop OSes, and to monopolize the market for server OSes (that is, groupware and file serving) by making their client OSes and apps incompatible with the software of competitors. This is why the EU has taken anti-trust action against Microsoft. If you use one monopoly to gain a monopoly in another area, instead of competing on the merits of your software, you're abusing your power, and in violation of anti-trust law. Simple as that.
The defense that "Microsoft is just acting in its best interest like any other business" is so tired and lame, it's hard to express. No one ever questioned that, and it's exactly the problem. The basic premise of capitalism is that the selfishness of companies is a good thing as long as they are in competition with other selfish companies. The problem is that Microsoft isn't, at least not properly, and in such cases, the public doesn't benefit from the company's selfishness, to the contrary, it suffers (e.g. from products which are more expensive than necessary, and of a lesser quality than possible). This is why monopolists are disallowed anti-competitive practices, which means using unfair tactics instead of competing through price and quality of their products alone. Microsoft wants to break the law to make more profit. Understandble. But not tolerable.
I installed Gentoo from stage1 using my existing SuSE partition. You can just continue to use any applications you like while Gentoo build in the background. Now that's user friendly. :)
Someone could create a portage-like system for windows for all the Free software.
File locking would be a great problem, though. No way to update libxyz while some app which uses libxyz.so is still running. You would have to encourage lots of reboots or at least far-ranging application shutdown.
As a developer, I absolutely hate the executable locking which Windows uses, it's incredibly annoying when you get build errors just because you're still running an instance of your application (maybe in a debugger). The inode concept is so much more useful.
Give me a reason why MS shouldnt be able to charge an OEM full price for the operating system?
Umm, anti-trust law?
Its the terms that the OEM signed up for in order to stay in competition with other manufacturers.
Which is exactly the problem. If you don't do as Microsoft tells you, you will be unable to compete.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that OEM prices are a reward, not a god given right.
Actually, they are Gates-given rewards for being an obedient Microsoft lackey.
And dont give me any bullshit about MS having to treat everyone correct 'because they are a monopoly'
Locking competitors out of markets by pressuring vendors is unethical in any way. But if you're a monopolist, it's not only unethical but unlawful.
they are still a business first and formost,
Yes, and I'm a man and have a sex drive. This is considered ok, and I'm allowed to have consensual sex with women. But I'm not allowed to rape them. Do you think I should?
and no law in this country says you have to support the sale of a competitors product,
No, but anti-trust law says that if you're a monopolist, you're not allowed to use your power to lock upcoming competitors out of your markets. If you can't compete on the merit (and cost) of your products alone, then you don't deserve your monopoly any longer.
which they are doing by offering low prices to OEMs who use the lure of an MS system and a Linux system dual booting to sell a computer.
It's the other way round. Everyone (vendor of a certain minimum size that is) gets OEM contracts, except those who give MS competitors a chance. It's a tool of punishment, not a reward. But as the die-hard astroturfer you seem to be, you probably don't care.
My answer to this is: Make use of the auto-save feature of your editor and do some beating to the one who thought switching the power is funny.
I think the only reason why cleaning personnel are allowed to use vacuum cleaners in computer rooms, is that they would be still more dangerous were they given water.
And what if one person writes an important document and another wants to press reset?
That's why they're using Linux. You have no need for a reset button.
Think of developmental countries, where money is often much more scarce than labor.
I figure that buses would be a bottle-neck. PCI is far less than ideal for 3D gaming, and with four cards, the problems get much worse still.