I'm saying it's wrong to punish success as a crime. The reason why there are anti-trust laws is because once a company gets large enough to be able to use predatory tactics to stifle any possible competition the economy as a whole is harmed. However, in all cases by the time a company has reached that status they have done incalculable good for the economy. To turn around at that point and say, "Ha! You're now too big and might be bad for the economy. Time for jail!" is preposterous.
It's a different story in the case of a company like Enron because they broke laws. The grandparent post was describing criminal prosecution on the basis of being too big.
Competition leads to a winner, a winner can become a monopoly, and a monopoly might need to be broken up to foster more competition. It's a cycle impossible to avoid without crippling government regulation in an industry with increasing returns to scale. (Regulation is a fine way to stifle innovation and progress; is that what we want in the software world?)
You are proposing to try as CRIMINALS companies and individuals that have DONE WELL. Microsoft and Bill Gates have done many millions of times more good for the world (philanthropy, jobs, economic growth, software that's useful and easy enough to use and that runs on hardware cheap enough to buy, research & development, the list goes on) than bad (competing against other companies).
I have to call you out when you propose something as ludicrous as making successful businesses criminal. You're insane and wrong.
No kidding. When a new CD is $20 and a new DVD is $14, something is VERY wrong.
How many people does it take to make a music CD? Twenty? Maybe thirty tops.
Now how many people does it take to make a movie? Let's assume a modest 200. Now how much more does it cost to produce a movie? Well, probably on the order of many tens of millions of dollars.
Sure people will listen to a CD over and over again, but these music companies are out of their minds with their pricing and bad "piracy math".
For the love of Christ!
How can you say they should be forced to auction off THEIR property and that they "could", oh generous one, "even" keep the cash from the sale!?
There's a difference between preventing MS from unfairly competing and actually stealing their property. Heck, forcing a sale is too authoritarian for my taste too.
And though I love Linux as a home OS for the old P3, there's more reasons why Windows is such a popular business OS. I've never ever ever had my office Windows 2000 machine crash in over 2 years. And there is absolutely nothing I want Office to do that I can't make it do or program it to do.
Forking Windows would just decrease compatibility, stability, and usability for us users. At the least it would decrease the rate of increase of those factors.
I'm so sick of entire damned toolbars. Why not just a nice little Tool Icon that displays a menu when clicked on? Something neat like the RSS bookmarks in Firefox?
Just have to chime in and remind you that the government ALSO is motivated to keep wages up in the interest of the economy. Higher wages = higher spending / savings = good business.
But what about all the pretty pictures? I can think of a good many textbooks or art collections that would be rather worthless without the images. Including high resolution images in addition to plain text would take a TON of disk space--is this factored into the proposal?
Slashdot Mirror
My kingdom for a mod point.
But the parent poster is the person about whom the article is written. I think we can consider him an authority on what he actually said.
(And he thinks Windows XP is good? Google loves Microsoft! We knew it...)
That's not what I'm suggesting.
I'm saying it's wrong to punish success as a crime. The reason why there are anti-trust laws is because once a company gets large enough to be able to use predatory tactics to stifle any possible competition the economy as a whole is harmed. However, in all cases by the time a company has reached that status they have done incalculable good for the economy. To turn around at that point and say, "Ha! You're now too big and might be bad for the economy. Time for jail!" is preposterous.
It's a different story in the case of a company like Enron because they broke laws. The grandparent post was describing criminal prosecution on the basis of being too big.
Competition leads to a winner, a winner can become a monopoly, and a monopoly might need to be broken up to foster more competition. It's a cycle impossible to avoid without crippling government regulation in an industry with increasing returns to scale. (Regulation is a fine way to stifle innovation and progress; is that what we want in the software world?)
Are you insane??
You are proposing to try as CRIMINALS companies and individuals that have DONE WELL. Microsoft and Bill Gates have done many millions of times more good for the world (philanthropy, jobs, economic growth, software that's useful and easy enough to use and that runs on hardware cheap enough to buy, research & development, the list goes on) than bad (competing against other companies).
I have to call you out when you propose something as ludicrous as making successful businesses criminal. You're insane and wrong.
No kidding. When a new CD is $20 and a new DVD is $14, something is VERY wrong.
How many people does it take to make a music CD? Twenty? Maybe thirty tops.
Now how many people does it take to make a movie? Let's assume a modest 200. Now how much more does it cost to produce a movie? Well, probably on the order of many tens of millions of dollars.
Sure people will listen to a CD over and over again, but these music companies are out of their minds with their pricing and bad "piracy math".
For the love of Christ! How can you say they should be forced to auction off THEIR property and that they "could", oh generous one, "even" keep the cash from the sale!? There's a difference between preventing MS from unfairly competing and actually stealing their property. Heck, forcing a sale is too authoritarian for my taste too. And though I love Linux as a home OS for the old P3, there's more reasons why Windows is such a popular business OS. I've never ever ever had my office Windows 2000 machine crash in over 2 years. And there is absolutely nothing I want Office to do that I can't make it do or program it to do. Forking Windows would just decrease compatibility, stability, and usability for us users. At the least it would decrease the rate of increase of those factors.
I'm so sick of entire damned toolbars. Why not just a nice little Tool Icon that displays a menu when clicked on? Something neat like the RSS bookmarks in Firefox?
Just have to chime in and remind you that the government ALSO is motivated to keep wages up in the interest of the economy. Higher wages = higher spending / savings = good business.
Next Slashdot article: Previous Pope Still Dead
You forgot:
...
80-95 | Indefinitely | Indefinitely
95-105 | 2-7 Hours | 2-10 Hours
400-410 | 5-10 sec. | 30 to 60 sec.
etc.
MGM's The Aviator is the old version starring the late Christopher Reeves.
But what about all the pretty pictures? I can think of a good many textbooks or art collections that would be rather worthless without the images. Including high resolution images in addition to plain text would take a TON of disk space--is this factored into the proposal?