If things are so complex that only an omnipotent creator could have done it then obviously the omnipotent creator must be massively more complex than us.
I find it hilarious that pro-microsoft people here seem to consider that only a 100% complete (ie. not 99.999999%) market share equates to monopoly. Everything else is incompetence etc. by the Microsoft competitors or some form of communism by Linux people and because it isn'nt 100% it cannot be a monopoly.
The initial argument is deeply flawed. "Microsoft (to my knowledge) do not sell hamburgers. Therefore, taking this into account they are not a monopoly." They *are* a monopoly on the desktop whether any of us like it or not.
In the real world (in the UK at least) a high percentage is usually considered cause for concern. If the leading supermarket here (Tesco, ca. 40% of market) was to attempt to purchase one of its competitors (e.g. Asda/Wal-mart at 20%) then the mergers and monopolies commission would step in and stop it as the combined unit would have too great a market presence and hinder fair competition.
But no, Microsoft is not 100% of the market then they are not a 'monopoly' according to the unintelligensia. The fact I cannot purchase, for example, GPS mapping upload software for a Mac but loads do it for Windows to me says loads. In a competitive market people would be developing all over and you would be able to pick the best products for the platform of your choice. The great majority of the developers write for a single platform as that is where the money is which causes a feedback loop.
Interoperability is nice and I understand why a single operating system for home use would be a good idea. Pity it is owned by a single company with the ethics and scruples of beezlebub.pP
BZZT! I'm sorry but you have used the 'Z' word. This conversation, as ratified by the InterWebLand Conference of 2004 has now been officially won by your opposition. Please note that the following terms now constitute automatic argument failure: Nazi/Zealotry.
Thank you for your time.
Slashdot Mirror
If things are so complex that only an omnipotent creator could have done it then obviously the omnipotent creator must be massively more complex than us.
Who created the creator?
--
Does dim atal y llanw!
The initial argument is deeply flawed. "Microsoft (to my knowledge) do not sell hamburgers. Therefore, taking this into account they are not a monopoly." They *are* a monopoly on the desktop whether any of us like it or not.
In the real world (in the UK at least) a high percentage is usually considered cause for concern. If the leading supermarket here (Tesco, ca. 40% of market) was to attempt to purchase one of its competitors (e.g. Asda/Wal-mart at 20%) then the mergers and monopolies commission would step in and stop it as the combined unit would have too great a market presence and hinder fair competition.
But no, Microsoft is not 100% of the market then they are not a 'monopoly' according to the unintelligensia. The fact I cannot purchase, for example, GPS mapping upload software for a Mac but loads do it for Windows to me says loads. In a competitive market people would be developing all over and you would be able to pick the best products for the platform of your choice. The great majority of the developers write for a single platform as that is where the money is which causes a feedback loop.
Interoperability is nice and I understand why a single operating system for home use would be a good idea. Pity it is owned by a single company with the ethics and scruples of beezlebub.pP
BZZT! I'm sorry but you have used the 'Z' word. This conversation, as ratified by the InterWebLand Conference of 2004 has now been officially won by your opposition. Please note that the following terms now constitute automatic argument failure: Nazi/Zealotry. Thank you for your time.