Of course you TOTALLY miss the fundamental point, and the concept that taxes and tax reformers either don't understand or purposefully misrepresent.
99% of the wealth is held by 2% of the population, but they only pay about 40% of the taxes. So, 60% of the taxes are paid from the group of people holding 1% of the wealth. Does that sound fair?
There should absolutely be a flat tax, but not on income, but accrued wealth.
you fail to mention that criminals are really the only element of citizenry that need to be controlled
This is a VERY dangerously naive position. Who are these "criminals?" Are all "criminals" alike?
A person arrested for chaining him/her self to a poll during a protest, should they be "controlled?"
We are *all* every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. in violation of some law and probably have no idea. We are all criminals. Are we all to be controlled?
A serious crime like rape, murder, being a member of the Bush administration, should bring a penalty of DNA identification. Short of that its totalitarianism slowly creeping up on us.
you have no freaking idea how different it is, how the application paradigm changed with the concepts of TabletPCs or how it is used in Vista by anyone with a Wacom tablet.
Again, you are not saying *what* is different, I see no appreciable difference in the table paradigms. Sure, 15 years is going to show some improvement, but "Go Computer" was functional 15 years ago while "Pen Windows" never worked.
Give me a reference. because I remember the Toshiba support decisions a LOT differently.
As anyone knows, it is hard to find details and references on this sort of thing, but it is well known, and a SOP or Microsoft to to use the carrot vs stick approach to threatening OEMs especially back then before the DOJ.
You may wish to believe something different, but I know what the Go people told us when their Toshiba deal fell apart.
Nice theory, it doesn't support reality. I was a senior partner of an OEM company at this time that provided software and equipment for several pen computing markets. (One of our software projects from the time is still in use on the Space Station.)
A little too vague, nothing to confirm or deny anything. The INK technolgy is completely different, has different features, functions, and meets different standards based on the change in computing power and needs of TabletPC application innovations.
How is it different? How is "TabletPC" "innovation" different than Go Computing's Tablet?
Go Computing? Really? Don't even try to argue MS used its monopoly, as people choose pen computing for Windows because they could USE THEIR EXISTING DOS AND WINDOWS APPLCIATIONS.
The original Go computing was a unified memory space that used the virtual memory mapping of the 386/486 32 bit mode to make one large memory space. It was totally different and incompatible. And, unlike "PenWindows," it actually worked.
Have you even used the Pinpoint OS supplied by Go Corporation? It was crap... Grid would have been a better example as it was DOS based, but again, they failed because of the Windows Boom, BEFORE MS was even close to being a monopoly.
I used one of the first large form tablet computers and had digitizer instead of a mouse on my system.
When Go Computing was making headway, microsoft announce "PenWindows" and threatened toshiba, and toshiba had to drop support for Go. PenWindows disappeared from the SDK disks soon after Go was gone.
Nice revisionism, next time know you are trying to fool when making crap up...
I don't make stuff up that I post, you may have a different recollection of history than I, but one can only testify from their perspective. I probably still have my 1.44 Go SDk floppies.
If Microsoft really really has a monopoly...why is there MacOS and Unix and Linux.
A "monopoly" has never meant that 100% market share, it meant a position so powerful that there was no meaningful competition and that the barriers to using the competition were too high. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft has been convicted in the U.S. and Europe for maintaining illegally.
And yes it is illegal for a monopoly to create anti-competitive deals.
The Microsoft monopoly debate has been settle in multiple venues and debating it is not worth my time.
perhaps you don't realize that those were the dying words of the Sicilian who uttered them? By that logic the former litigator should be expected to lose.
If you are referring to "Princess Bride," which I assume you are as that is where the quote is most likely originated, in the mythos of the character, the rule is not, in fact, his.
The second CPU is on the order of 6-8 times faster than the former. Which is a hell of a lot, relatively speaking.
Selective quoting for sure. The quad core processor is all well and good but, if we're going by clock speed, has a slower clock speed than the older Pentium.
Also, it can not do a single task any faster than that single processor. Since most people use one program at a time, the quad code will not help them much.
The logic behind this comment is exceptionally difficult to fathom. Exactly which part of Microsoft's supposed monopoly stops OEMs from banging together their own Linux distro ?
I don't know whether or not this is a Microsoft sponsored post, but lets assume it is an honest question.
Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop PC Type computers.
Microsoft uses this monopoly to set prices for Windows and Office.
While Linux is technically a viable alternative to Windows, average computer consumers don't know any better and there is "undue" pressure to stay with Windows. (Finding of fact, BTW) Because of this, OEMs MUST sell Windows to be financially viable until the monopoly is broken.
Microsoft uses illegal methods of coercion on OEMs. If they offer alternatives to Windows, the Windows OEM license becomes more expensive, or the OEMs have signed a "CPU License" which they pay a flat fee based on shipped CPUs, thus making it more expensive to put Linux on a computer.
Well, they have a following and have typically been a niche market for graphics designers and such. More importantly, why don't Dell, HP, IBM, Levino, etc. have their own system like Macintosh?
Because of Microsoft past and continued illegal behavior they have been able to maintain their monopoly.
Monster cables are nonsense. If you don't mind paying for them because they are right there and look good, have at it. If your money is worth something to you, buy something else.
Go to a hardware store and buy 10 gauge stranded wire for your speakers, go to a discount store to by cheap audio/video cables for your VCR (with white/red/yellow RCA connector hoods and coaxial cable), and buy HDMI cables on-line for $4.99.
Digital signals like HDMI either work or they don't, so as long as it works, you are fine. The speaker wire is far more than enough. And the cheap w/r/y a/v cables from walmart are just fine for the signals they are carrying from a VCR or DVD player.
Monster cables are a rip-off, there is absolutely no factual quantitative reason to pay for them. The do not perform better, and seriously, CAN'T perform any better then generic cables on consumer electronics. When properly connected, the electrical signals levels are pretty immune to noise. Did you ever wonder why VCRs and DVD players always came with cheap wires? Because the OEMs know that it doesn't make a difference.
In the case of speaker wires, does anyone know how much energy has to be induced on a speaker wire to actually produce audible noise through a speaker? Its HUGE! Measured in WATTS!
Hmmm, maybe you've not been paying attention over the last 20 years?
How does Microsoft, a company convicted of illegally maintaining their monopoly on operating systems on "personal computers" in the U.S. and Europe keep "personal computer OEMs" from using a different OS?
I have not enjoyed a letter like that in a long while.
I think I have a new rule, right after "never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!" "Never challenge a former litigator who misses his old job."
Actually OEMs like the concept of Windows. They do not have to support the OS.
This is a misconception to say the least. OEMs hate the release cycles with Windows, they hate being dictated to, and they hate having to support stupid features, they hate not having control over OS changes.
"Back in the day" when I worked at a tape drive company working with Compaq on OS/2, there were *always* "fire drills" about this dictate from Microsoft or this change they made in the OS. Compaq, one of the bigger OEMs at the time, had advance notice and input to changes Microsoft was making! The smaller guys have no control.
I've been to enough WinHEC conferences and talked with enough product managers to know that if the OEM's could take control over the OS their computers ran, they would have a better life.
Just look at the EeePC, this is an example of an OEM rolling their own and being successful. Now, seeing it, Microsoft is scared, obviously, and making concessions they otherwise would not have.
CPU clocks are not getting much faster, and certainly not at the rates of increase previously seen, sure a few incremental steps here and there, but not the doubling we've see in the past. We are getting to the limits of the current technology. Digital signal voltages are practically noise as it is.
A 5 year old processor is not much slower than a newer one, comparatively speaking.
Also, the primary limit to CPU speed is bus and cache speed as well. The transfer of data from one place to another within the CPU and external to it as well has not changed. For all practical purposes the CPU instructions are infinitely fast compared to the movement of data.
When I said CPU speed, you misinterpreted it to mean merely clock speed, which was your mistake, not mine.
I don't agree with this. OEMs HATE Windows, they would rather have their own system like Apple does. They would love to be able to ship Linux, but Microsoft's monopoly prevents them from doing so.
There is a decreasing momentum with Windows, however, the EeePC sales without Windows has caught the attention of OEMS and don't be surprised to see more Linux based "small" systems.
The ironic part is that this is how Linux will beat Microsoft, just like Microsoft beat others decades ago. P.C.s were small and unnoticed by the likes of DEC and Wang until there were too many of them. Linux is doing the same thing to Windows.
It is a slow process, but in the last 5 years huge but subtle progress has been made. Sooner or later, people will realize they've been using Linux for a decade.
I have been developing hardware and software for about 30 years and there is something happening in computers that is "important."
For what I can see, the nature of hardware has reached a plateau. RAM speed, hard disk speed, and CPU speed have all reached a practical top-end in their current form. Yea, sooner or later a breakthrough will happen, but we are not there yet.
So we are left with the only option, making bigger disks, more RAM, and more CPUs, but they are not "faster."
So, unless and until a breakthrough happens, systems like Vista can't push hardware anymore because it isn't faster and more CPU's won't help a single thread process a key stroke or mouse action.
For the time being, bloat can't be cured with a new computer, so people aren't buying them. Low end computers like the EeePC are almost as fast as your desktop. Microsoft's bloat to sell boxes (with Windows, of course) is starting to backfire.
People HATE big computers, they want something just big enough to do what they want. Now that speed is "static" and small is big enough for most, Microsoft has got to slim down Windows.
The same could be said of ODF. It is even more vague, with multiple developers coming out and saying that the spec isn't well defined and that they have to use OpenOffice's sourcecode as a definitive source.
While I doubt this assertion, assuming it is "true" within some M$ favorable scenario, at least OpenOffice source code is available. How would one go about getting MS Office source code to use as a definitive source?
See the problem? Proprietary software and from a monopoly at that *MUST* be held at a tougher standard.
And how exactly do you know this for sure? Have you even read it?!?
Whether or not I know this first hand is not something you can verify either way, so therefor you must forgo the ad hominem attack and address the assertions as stated:
"Any rational review of the "standard," will show that it is incomplete, non-specific, and completely worthless as a blue print on how to implement a document reader for a document."
Given the publicly available evidence, this is the assertion which must be disproved.
Microsoft "INK" is funny as it is a decedent from "Pen Windows" which was inferior to "Go Computing" at the time. Microsoft's monopoly allowed them to threaten OEMS and have them abandon support for Go's platform.
Past crimes have a way of repeating themselves over and over again.
"INK" is all nice and everything, but it is hardly something that will, how did you put it, "cripple the medical industry at the very least."
I laugh at this. There is no reason why Microsoft can't support ODF and propose additions to the standard to support emerging technologies. Let these emerging technologies be developed and perfected in public.
If, however, they want their own proprietary system, no one is stopping them, but using the ISO standardization to promote their PROPRIETARY software is bogus.
The ISO process to fast track and/or approve OOXML has been fought hard by technical people on the basis of technical deficiencies.
OOXML is *NOT* worthy of ISO approval. Any rational review of the "standard," will show that it is incomplete, non-specific, and completely worthless as a blue print on how to implement a document reader for a document.
How this got approved is clearly worth a corruption investigation. It calls into question the integrity of the people and organization that approved it.
It is nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the ability to share documents without paying Microsoft and maintain Microsoft's monopoly. The very thing the ISO standard is supposed to fight. It is criminal that these bastards have subverted the standards process as they did.
Calling for the end of "Personal attacks" is nothing more than saying "fuck you." Public statements questioning the motives and integrity of these people is the only ration course of action given what they have done. They deserve every last bit of it. Jailtime if we can find a law to fit the crime.
These are remote controlled guns, plain and simple. ANYONE who does not think this is a bad idea is an idiot.
*all* remote systems can be hacked, and regardless of our arrogance in our intelligence there are enough smart people who can break in to any system we build.
If these things *ever* become mainstream, an "enemy's" first job would be to hack into them. It is the least risky mode of attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you TOTALLY miss the fundamental point, and the concept that taxes and tax reformers either don't understand or purposefully misrepresent.
99% of the wealth is held by 2% of the population, but they only pay about 40% of the taxes. So, 60% of the taxes are paid from the group of people holding 1% of the wealth. Does that sound fair?
There should absolutely be a flat tax, but not on income, but accrued wealth.
you fail to mention that criminals are really the only element of citizenry that need to be controlled
This is a VERY dangerously naive position. Who are these "criminals?" Are all "criminals" alike?
A person arrested for chaining him/her self to a poll during a protest, should they be "controlled?"
We are *all* every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. in violation of some law and probably have no idea. We are all criminals. Are we all to be controlled?
A serious crime like rape, murder, being a member of the Bush administration, should bring a penalty of DNA identification. Short of that its totalitarianism slowly creeping up on us.
you have no freaking idea how different it is, how the application paradigm changed with the concepts of TabletPCs or how it is used in Vista by anyone with a Wacom tablet.
Again, you are not saying *what* is different, I see no appreciable difference in the table paradigms. Sure, 15 years is going to show some improvement, but "Go Computer" was functional 15 years ago while "Pen Windows" never worked.
Give me a reference. because I remember the Toshiba support decisions a LOT differently.
As anyone knows, it is hard to find details and references on this sort of thing, but it is well known, and a SOP or Microsoft to to use the carrot vs stick approach to threatening OEMs especially back then before the DOJ.
You may wish to believe something different, but I know what the Go people told us when their Toshiba deal fell apart.
Nice theory, it doesn't support reality. I was a senior partner of an OEM company at this time that provided software and equipment for several pen computing markets. (One of our software projects from the time is still in use on the Space Station.)
A little too vague, nothing to confirm or deny anything.
The INK technolgy is completely different, has different features, functions, and meets different standards based on the change in computing power and needs of TabletPC application innovations.
How is it different? How is "TabletPC" "innovation" different than Go Computing's Tablet?
Go Computing? Really? Don't even try to argue MS used its monopoly, as people choose pen computing for Windows because they could USE THEIR EXISTING DOS AND WINDOWS APPLCIATIONS.
The original Go computing was a unified memory space that used the virtual memory mapping of the 386/486 32 bit mode to make one large memory space. It was totally different and incompatible. And, unlike "PenWindows," it actually worked.
Have you even used the Pinpoint OS supplied by Go Corporation? It was crap... Grid would have been a better example as it was DOS based, but again, they failed because of the Windows Boom, BEFORE MS was even close to being a monopoly.
I used one of the first large form tablet computers and had digitizer instead of a mouse on my system.
When Go Computing was making headway, microsoft announce "PenWindows" and threatened toshiba, and toshiba had to drop support for Go. PenWindows disappeared from the SDK disks soon after Go was gone.
Nice revisionism, next time know you are trying to fool when making crap up...
I don't make stuff up that I post, you may have a different recollection of history than I, but one can only testify from their perspective. I probably still have my 1.44 Go SDk floppies.
If Microsoft really really has a monopoly...why is there MacOS and Unix and Linux.
A "monopoly" has never meant that 100% market share, it meant a position so powerful that there was no meaningful competition and that the barriers to using the competition were too high. This is EXACTLY what Microsoft has been convicted in the U.S. and Europe for maintaining illegally.
And yes it is illegal for a monopoly to create anti-competitive deals.
The Microsoft monopoly debate has been settle in multiple venues and debating it is not worth my time.
perhaps you don't realize that those were the dying words of the Sicilian who uttered them? By that logic the former litigator should be expected to lose.
If you are referring to "Princess Bride," which I assume you are as that is where the quote is most likely originated, in the mythos of the character, the rule is not, in fact, his.
The second CPU is on the order of 6-8 times faster than the former. Which is a hell of a lot, relatively speaking.
Selective quoting for sure. The quad core processor is all well and good but, if we're going by clock speed, has a slower clock speed than the older Pentium.
Also, it can not do a single task any faster than that single processor. Since most people use one program at a time, the quad code will not help them much.
The logic behind this comment is exceptionally difficult to fathom. Exactly which part of Microsoft's supposed monopoly stops OEMs from banging together their own Linux distro ?
I don't know whether or not this is a Microsoft sponsored post, but lets assume it is an honest question.
Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop PC Type computers.
Microsoft uses this monopoly to set prices for Windows and Office.
While Linux is technically a viable alternative to Windows, average computer consumers don't know any better and there is "undue" pressure to stay with Windows. (Finding of fact, BTW) Because of this, OEMs MUST sell Windows to be financially viable until the monopoly is broken.
Microsoft uses illegal methods of coercion on OEMs. If they offer alternatives to Windows, the Windows OEM license becomes more expensive, or the OEMs have signed a "CPU License" which they pay a flat fee based on shipped CPUs, thus making it more expensive to put Linux on a computer.
How come Apple can do it, but nobody else can?
Well, they have a following and have typically been a niche market for graphics designers and such. More importantly, why don't Dell, HP, IBM, Levino, etc. have their own system like Macintosh?
Because of Microsoft past and continued illegal behavior they have been able to maintain their monopoly.
Sure, but which costs more? You can have the end user reboot all day while talking to a phone monkey, and its fairly cheap.
Multiple calls to phone monkeys who don't solve the problem and frustrate the user is far more expensive than a single call that solves the problem.
Monster cables are nonsense. If you don't mind paying for them because they are right there and look good, have at it. If your money is worth something to you, buy something else.
Go to a hardware store and buy 10 gauge stranded wire for your speakers, go to a discount store to by cheap audio/video cables for your VCR (with white/red/yellow RCA connector hoods and coaxial cable), and buy HDMI cables on-line for $4.99.
Digital signals like HDMI either work or they don't, so as long as it works, you are fine. The speaker wire is far more than enough. And the cheap w/r/y a/v cables from walmart are just fine for the signals they are carrying from a VCR or DVD player.
Monster cables are a rip-off, there is absolutely no factual quantitative reason to pay for them. The do not perform better, and seriously, CAN'T perform any better then generic cables on consumer electronics. When properly connected, the electrical signals levels are pretty immune to noise. Did you ever wonder why VCRs and DVD players always came with cheap wires? Because the OEMs know that it doesn't make a difference.
In the case of speaker wires, does anyone know how much energy has to be induced on a speaker wire to actually produce audible noise through a speaker? Its HUGE! Measured in WATTS!
Monster Cables? give me a break.
How does MS prevent them from doing so?
Hmmm, maybe you've not been paying attention over the last 20 years?
How does Microsoft, a company convicted of illegally maintaining their monopoly on operating systems on "personal computers" in the U.S. and Europe keep "personal computer OEMs" from using a different OS?
Is that the question you are asking?
I have not enjoyed a letter like that in a long while.
I think I have a new rule, right after "never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!" "Never challenge a former litigator who misses his old job."
Actually OEMs like the concept of Windows. They do not have to support the OS.
This is a misconception to say the least. OEMs hate the release cycles with Windows, they hate being dictated to, and they hate having to support stupid features, they hate not having control over OS changes.
"Back in the day" when I worked at a tape drive company working with Compaq on OS/2, there were *always* "fire drills" about this dictate from Microsoft or this change they made in the OS. Compaq, one of the bigger OEMs at the time, had advance notice and input to changes Microsoft was making! The smaller guys have no control.
I've been to enough WinHEC conferences and talked with enough product managers to know that if the OEM's could take control over the OS their computers ran, they would have a better life.
Just look at the EeePC, this is an example of an OEM rolling their own and being successful. Now, seeing it, Microsoft is scared, obviously, and making concessions they otherwise would not have.
CPU clocks are not getting much faster, and certainly not at the rates of increase previously seen, sure a few incremental steps here and there, but not the doubling we've see in the past. We are getting to the limits of the current technology. Digital signal voltages are practically noise as it is.
A 5 year old processor is not much slower than a newer one, comparatively speaking.
Also, the primary limit to CPU speed is bus and cache speed as well. The transfer of data from one place to another within the CPU and external to it as well has not changed. For all practical purposes the CPU instructions are infinitely fast compared to the movement of data.
When I said CPU speed, you misinterpreted it to mean merely clock speed, which was your mistake, not mine.
This, of course, is pure FUD.
Linux is far easier to support than is Windows. Have you seen the EeePC?
Linux is far more modular, offers far more diagnostic tools, and is far less brittle than Windows.
With Linux you can troubleshoot a bad video driver for X and still have the system workable. Using ssh you can administer the machine remotely.
Windows sucks to support, the answer is always the same "Reboot." It works now? OK, good by.
I don't agree with this. OEMs HATE Windows, they would rather have their own system like Apple does. They would love to be able to ship Linux, but Microsoft's monopoly prevents them from doing so.
There is a decreasing momentum with Windows, however, the EeePC sales without Windows has caught the attention of OEMS and don't be surprised to see more Linux based "small" systems.
The ironic part is that this is how Linux will beat Microsoft, just like Microsoft beat others decades ago. P.C.s were small and unnoticed by the likes of DEC and Wang until there were too many of them. Linux is doing the same thing to Windows.
It is a slow process, but in the last 5 years huge but subtle progress has been made. Sooner or later, people will realize they've been using Linux for a decade.
I have been developing hardware and software for about 30 years and there is something happening in computers that is "important."
For what I can see, the nature of hardware has reached a plateau. RAM speed, hard disk speed, and CPU speed have all reached a practical top-end in their current form. Yea, sooner or later a breakthrough will happen, but we are not there yet.
So we are left with the only option, making bigger disks, more RAM, and more CPUs, but they are not "faster."
So, unless and until a breakthrough happens, systems like Vista can't push hardware anymore because it isn't faster and more CPU's won't help a single thread process a key stroke or mouse action.
For the time being, bloat can't be cured with a new computer, so people aren't buying them. Low end computers like the EeePC are almost as fast as your desktop. Microsoft's bloat to sell boxes (with Windows, of course) is starting to backfire.
People HATE big computers, they want something just big enough to do what they want. Now that speed is "static" and small is big enough for most, Microsoft has got to slim down Windows.
It will be interesting to watch this play out.
The same could be said of ODF. It is even more vague, with multiple developers coming out and saying that the spec isn't well defined and that they have to use OpenOffice's sourcecode as a definitive source.
While I doubt this assertion, assuming it is "true" within some M$ favorable scenario, at least OpenOffice source code is available. How would one go about getting MS Office source code to use as a definitive source?
See the problem? Proprietary software and from a monopoly at that *MUST* be held at a tougher standard.
And how exactly do you know this for sure? Have you even read it?!?
Whether or not I know this first hand is not something you can verify either way, so therefor you must forgo the ad hominem attack and address the assertions as stated:
"Any rational review of the "standard," will show that it is incomplete, non-specific, and completely worthless as a blue print on how to implement a document reader for a document."
Given the publicly available evidence, this is the assertion which must be disproved.
Microsoft "INK" is funny as it is a decedent from "Pen Windows" which was inferior to "Go Computing" at the time. Microsoft's monopoly allowed them to threaten OEMS and have them abandon support for Go's platform.
Past crimes have a way of repeating themselves over and over again.
"INK" is all nice and everything, but it is hardly something that will, how did you put it, "cripple the medical industry at the very least."
I laugh at this. There is no reason why Microsoft can't support ODF and propose additions to the standard to support emerging technologies. Let these emerging technologies be developed and perfected in public.
If, however, they want their own proprietary system, no one is stopping them, but using the ISO standardization to promote their PROPRIETARY software is bogus.
It is a "personal attack" to question someone's integrity, in this case, however, they deserve what they get.
If they don't want to be called a microsoft lackey or corrupt, then they should have thought about that before hand.
Sorry, they can't whine just because people are exposing their corruption. Sucks to be them, but they brought it on themselves.
The ISO process to fast track and/or approve OOXML has been fought hard by technical people on the basis of technical deficiencies.
OOXML is *NOT* worthy of ISO approval. Any rational review of the "standard," will show that it is incomplete, non-specific, and completely worthless as a blue print on how to implement a document reader for a document.
How this got approved is clearly worth a corruption investigation. It calls into question the integrity of the people and organization that approved it.
It is nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the ability to share documents without paying Microsoft and maintain Microsoft's monopoly. The very thing the ISO standard is supposed to fight. It is criminal that these bastards have subverted the standards process as they did.
Calling for the end of "Personal attacks" is nothing more than saying "fuck you." Public statements questioning the motives and integrity of these people is the only ration course of action given what they have done. They deserve every last bit of it. Jailtime if we can find a law to fit the crime.
These are remote controlled guns, plain and simple. ANYONE who does not think this is a bad idea is an idiot.
*all* remote systems can be hacked, and regardless of our arrogance in our intelligence there are enough smart people who can break in to any system we build.
If these things *ever* become mainstream, an "enemy's" first job would be to hack into them. It is the least risky mode of attack.
Then you aren't a parent.
Wrong, I have two children. The problem is that people sold them "blame."