To be more accurate about the 'Fire' myth. You can yell fire in a crowded theatre and only if the crowd panics and someone is injured/killed will you be held accountable for anything. If everyone leaves safely and no one gets hurt, the worst that can happen is you get banned from the theatre (it's private property after all)
That's not true in the general or specific cases. You can absolutely be charged for yelling "fire" even if no one is injured. Disturbing the peace or public nuisance charges apply. Further you're liable for civil penalties to reimburse the theater for tickets they have to refund as a result of your actions.
In the general case you don't have to prove harm results from slander or libel, just that such action was the intention.
I agree hands free use of cell phones is still dangerous, but at least such drivers are capable of and sometimes do use turn signals.
As said by TFA and various study in Europe. Talking on phone with or without your hands does not change anything.
No, all the studies say that hands free devices don't appreciably improve the situation. On the other hand, people with one hand on the wheel and one on a cell phone often can't reach their turn signals and so ignore them. I find that irritating. Many people ignore them anyway. Maybe there is zero overlap in these groups, but I doubt it.
To make them responsible for having an accident while talking on the phone, you have to make it forbidden.
Why?
Or is there a way a behavior can be aggravating fact without being illegal ?
There are many such laws. For example, you can be charged with manslaughter if you get in an accident while taking over the counter drugs that warn you not to drive, but you cannot be arrested simply for driving while using them.
Ban cell phone conversations in cars? That'd be the only way - the "hands free" laws are as good as no laws at all, its the division of attention that causes the accidents, not the holding of the phone.
I agree hands free use of cell phones is still dangerous, but at least such drivers are capable of and sometimes do use turn signals.
And banning phones in cars will cause some people to turn in their phones and cancel the service, because the car is about the only place they use and need them (like me.)
I'm sure a few people would, but I doubt that number is significant. Besides, there's no reason to ban them in cars, just for the current driver.
So, I want to see the study that pits the consequences of fewer cell phones in society vs. the death rate, since it may take longer to get an accident called in to 911
For that to be a useful study you'd need to know how many fewer cell phones would be out there if a law banned their use while driving. I doubt it would be significant these days, as cell phones become more and more common and provide more functions. I doubt such a law would put a dent in the increasing use of them.
It's always a 2-edged sword if you ban something, since you have to consider the effects of its absence as well as the effects of its presence.
True, an in a free society you need serious justification for a ban of some activity. Personally, I favor laws making people financially and criminally responsible if they do get in an accident while on the phone, rather than an outright ban.
There is a lot less uproar about hate speech laws than there is about censorship laws because hate speech laws are a much broader and more loosely defined category.
And that's so much better. I know I want my free-speech limiting laws to be "broader and more loosely defined".
The category is broader, and encompasses a wider range of different laws. Each individual law is not necessarily broader. An analogy would be there are fewer complaints about gun laws than the death penalty, because gun laws encompass a much wider range of disparate laws than the death penalty does.
And it looks like Obama is going to expand the hate speech laws as well.
First, the president doesn't pass laws, he just signs them or vetoes them. Congress writes the laws. Did no one pay attention in civics class? If you're worried about what laws are likely to be written pay attention to the composition of congress. Second, since hate speech laws is such a broad term, that doesn't tell us a whole lot. There are some very reasonable and useful laws that are lumped into the category of "hate speech laws" while there are equally a lot that are absurd violations of human rights. It's like the people complaining that Obama is going to pass gun laws. Well, he declined to veto one so far and signed it, making it easier to carry concealed weapons in national parks. I'm less than outraged.
With the exception of a small percentage of quadrapaligics everyone has the 'right' to kill just about anyone else;
You're confusing "right" with "capability". Quadriplegics have just as many rights as anyone else, just lesser capability in one way.
The fundamental tenet of Law is: While you are perfectly 'free' to do whatever the hell you want, there exist rules about certain things and actions, as well as consequences for breaking those rules.
True enough, as written, but what you are missing is what we were talking about. That is when those rules are allowed to restrict your actions and present consequences. For example, why is it unconstitutional and a violation of basic human rights to create a law that makes practicing Taoism illegal? The answer is, laws are primarily supposed to be for the purpose of determining what happens when the rights of two individuals conflict. In a free society, laws don't restrict your actions if those actions don't interfere with the rights of others.
It is you, the ill-thinking, short-sighted, poorly informed, morally compromised, self-proclaimed-know-it-all, and your ilk who shaft those of us who give a hoot about freedom and what was given up for it.
You seem to have missed the point we were discussing entirely, that being what rights people have and when laws can restrict those rights. If you truly care about freedom should understand more about when laws are restrictions of individual liberty and when they are compromises between the liberties of different people.
Since you've obviously thought all the way through about what type of tight-fettered control would be required to keep anyone from killing anyone else, perhaps you would be so kind as to share your notion of how a Nerfed prison society would last very long...or would it be 'if we just had more control'...
Okay you seem to have gone off the deep end here. Perhaps you just read my last reply and missed all the context in which we were speaking? The previous poster was claiming that just because a law makes an action illegal, that doesn't mean the law is restricting freedom; i.e. just because a law punishes you after you criticize religion, doesn't mean that law restricts free speech. You seem to have interpreted my reply to him somewhat insanely. What in my post gave you the idea I'm in favor of more restrictions?
And who is providing the Iranian government with the technical know-how to implement these censoring measures? Is it private consultants? Is it foreign governments?
This is a good question. I've asked a few people and no one is fessing up to suppling Iran publicly. I've worked in that particular industry so I have some good contacts who should know. We know they use software from CA based Secure Computing, but the company denies having sold them a license so it seems they're just pirating the software. The Nokia Siemens partnership is selling them some gear but denies selling them monitoring software for anything other than cell phone networks.
Is there sufficient know-how within Iran's pro-government citizenship to effect the censorship?
There is a surprising amount of network traffic shaping and monitoring software related to the middle east. Half the startup companies in the business a few years ago had founders educated in Israel. It is possible, therefor that the locals do have such knowledge, but on the other hand the Israelis and Iranians don't really get along (understatement of the year nomination please).
And my (and my employer's) dollars can speak a lot louder than this comment.
I'm all in favor of accountability. I'd like to think the press would be competent enough to figure do some serious investigation of this and that the US government would make sure any companies involved were exposed as such to the public as well as subjected to punishments for doing business there (at least being unavailable for US contracts for a few years). I'm afraid I've become more of a cynic iver the last decade and I have little faith in either the press or the US government to push for the truth and hold people accountable. But seeing as most of the public has the attention span of a fruit fly and doesn't care enough to vote based upon such things anyway, I suppose we get what we deserve.
So what if my idea that I want to promote and protect is that all black people should be killed and that the people in my organization should go out and kill them right now...
You moved from promoting to inciting: from words which share ideas to instigating actions.
Actually no, I was careful to do no such thing. The idea that I would want people to go and kill other people is not the same as telling them to do it.
It's no longer "speech".
Your distinction seems entirely arbitrary. Telling people to go vote for a particular candidate is inciting them to action and is some of the most protected free speech. The speech I described specifically did not ask or tell people to take an action, but left that to be inferred by the listener. But even if it did, it is still speech.
Maybe what we're seeing here is a semantic issue. You say speech that incites violence isn't speech and thus is not affected by your proposed absolute freedom of speech. Is yelling loudly at night and keeping your neighbors awake not speech either? Is lying about a product for sale not speech? Is lying about a political candidate the night before an election not speech?
Beyond that I generally agree, though again think that a reframing makes the idea easier to bright-line test:
I think I muddies the waters more than anything.
It means your "right to kill who you want" isn't trumped by someone else's right to not be killed, but rather that you never had the right to kill someone in the first place (your rights don't include the circumstances of others)
Actually in the US in most places you do have the right to kill others in particular circumstances, such as when someone invades your home or is in the process of committing a felony. More importantly the US recognizes freedom of action as the default state with laws needed to restrict action and resolve when people's actions conflict with one another. By default you can swing an axe wildly in the air. That right ends when it endangers the life of another or otherwise conflicts with the rights of another where the law has ruled such rights override yours.
The US doesn't have hate speech laws, so the ACLU can't fight against them. Hate speech is constitutionally protected, like most speech.
Actually, ll but 5 US states have implemented laws that an be considered "hate speech" laws according to the common understanding of the term. (AR, GA, IN, SC, WY)
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that free speech is an unlimited right. That's not so. Just because free speech is a guaranteed right, does not mean that instances where speech conflicts with other protected rights it trumps them. We also have the basic human right to live and speech which is likely to cause the death of others can qualify in that regard. Just as free speech doesn't protect a person who orders another murdered, even though all they did was speak.
This is a sophomoric view. Free speech always has been limited when it comes into conflict with other rights.
That is almost not a consideration in the US.
It is very much a consideration. The "yelling fire in a theater" example originated in the US in 1919 in a Supreme court case. The courts have been ruling what constitutes legitimate restrictions on speech in light of the rights of others for a long time.
In order to be prohibited, it has to be false and extremely and imminently dangerous.
Here's an experiment for you. Tonight at 3 A.M. I dare you to go to a nice suburban neighborhood and scream as loud as possible "Barack Obama is black!" over and over again. It's a true statement and not imminently dangerous. We'll see how long it is before you find yourself face to face with the cops. Public nuisance and disturbing the peace laws restrict free speech for the simple convenience and comfort of the public. There are many more examples, but hopefully that one is good enough to falsify your theory.
Your free speech is not protected if your speech is telling your underling to go shoot the shopkeeper who wouldn't pay up. Your free speech does not trump another person's right to not be threatened or even give you the right to slander or libel or falsely advertise or commit fraud.
Wrong. You have the right to free speech in all of these cases. However, you are responsible for the effects of your speech in all of them. You can yell "fire" all you want, but because this compromises safety, it will land you in jail.
When you go to jail for doing something, that something is not something you have the legal right to do. By your argument you have the right to murder, but are responsible for the consequences and will go to jail for murdering irresponsibly. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your ill thought out ideas.
I think that we can remove the "trumped by other rights" quandary by revising our definition of "speech".
I disagree, but I'm willing to hear your arguments.
If speech is the right to hold and promote an idea or belief, and I think that's what we are all wanting to protect, then clearly shouting "fire" wouldn't pass muster as protected.
So what if my idea that I want to promote and protect is that all black people should be killed and that the people in my organization should go out and kill them right now? Currently my free speech is limited. If I tell my followers to go out and kill black people, I go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder. This is because my free speech rights don't trump other's right to live. If, however, I don't actually incite others to direct violence and just say I think black people are evil and inferior and should be put killed (without telling people to actually do it) my free speech rights are protected. In some countries they place this line a little further in either direction.
This is also in keeping with the way out legal system deals with rights in general. Freedom of religion, for example, protects my right to perform crazy sex rituals and smear myself with chicken blood. It does not protect my right to steal a chicken from someone else or rape or perform human sacrifice because that is where my religious freedom starts conflict with other people's rights. Even if my religion requires me to sacrifice people, that freedom is limited.
All freedoms are limited when they come in conflict with other people's freedom. The main purpose of laws in our country is supposed to be resolving those conflicts of freedom. In theory, the government is not even supposed to be getting involved (sans a few particulars spelled out) unless there is a conflict of rights.
I often refer to myself as an agnostic of a sort or at least as holding more agnostic views on religious subjects. As such, I found some o your comments way off base.
If it helps, don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith." As you go through the business of living, you have to stand on one side of the line or the other.
I disagree with this. Everyone uses reason to solve some problems and takes a lot of facts based upon having faith in the research done by others. Like most other things, there are shades of grey and people who refuse to see that are just another stripe of extremist.
It's simply not meaningful to hide behind "agnosticism" as a position. It doesn't make you sound diplomatic, it only makes you sound cowardly and irresolute.
It's not meaningful to have a position that isn't persuasive to others. I didn't realize the purpose of life philosophies of this sort was to shape other people's perceptions of me.
As an example, are you agnostic about Zeus, too? No?
Don't you think it is more than a little presumptuous to answer a question you pose for others? I feel about Zeus just as I do about Allah and Yahweh. I don't know or care to argue the existence of any particular deity. Obviously they exist as ideas and as objects of faith and worship for individuals. To what degree that makes them "real" and how objective that is can be debated, but to little effect. Faith and the results of faith is a very subjective thing.
You're pretty sure that the possibility of Zeus's existence shouldn't inform your decisions and actions in everyday life?
But religious systems tend to provide more than assertions about what does and does not exist. The existence of Jesus is debatable, but whether or not he existed has less impact on informing the average christian's life than the content of the teachings attributed to him. Does Jesus's existence or lack thereof influence whether his moral (not moral not ethical) teachings about treating one's neighbors with kindness?
All it takes for thumpers to get away with this crap is for good "agnostics" to do nothing.
Your paraphrasology fails on several points. Just because a person is an agnostic does not mean their actions are any better or worse than your own or even that there exists a subjective moral framework into which that could be judged. If an agnostic teaches their children that there may or may not be a god, but that there are certain accepted moral principals provided by different religions and educates them on how those principals influence society have they done a better or worse job than a parent who teaches their children that there absolutely is no god?
Seriously. It's time to pick a side and stand up for it.
So they're with you or they're against you? You make is sound as though agnostics don't vote or participate in life at all, as if their lack of judgement on religious matters makes them immobile when it comes to any debate about religion. I reject any such assertion. A person can be an agnostic and vote against teaching religion in the classroom. For that matter a person can be a devout believer in some religion and still vote against teaching religion in the classroom. Your adversarial attitude and derogatory nicknames aren't helping anything. All they do is artificially polarize people on an issue and make people angry and defensive so it is harder for people to cooperate and work together to solve real problems.
You place the blame at religious people, but on the other side, things like "hate speech" still follows this absurdity of lack of freedom of speech yet there is (comparatively) less uproar about it.
There is a lot less uproar about hate speech laws than there is about censorship laws because hate speech laws are a much broader and more loosely defined category. For example, most laws that fall within that category provide harsher penalties for people convicted of conspiring to commit other violent crimes against a group they speaking out against. Some hate speech laws provide harsher penalties for people issuing threats and directly advocating/ordering violence against particular groups. They are the same tradeoff of rights we've always used when limiting free speech, that is free speech is limited when it infringes upon other people's individual rights, like the right to live.
Mind you, not all hate speech laws fit into the above category. Some of them to simply try to censor negative speech about groups, regardless of whether o not that speech directly infringes upon the rights of others. Many people do speak out about these and there have been several ACLU cases where the ACLU has fought hard against those hate speech laws.
We need freedom of speech for absolutely -everything- one thing banned from freedom of speech is one thing too many.
This is a sophomoric view. Free speech always has been limited when it comes into conflict with other rights. You don;t have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because your free speech does not trump everyone else's safety. Your free speech is not protected if your speech is telling your underling to go shoot the shopkeeper who wouldn't pay up. Your free speech does not trump another person's right to not be threatened or even give you the right to slander or libel or falsely advertise or commit fraud.
I wasn't aware that MS has been found guilty in adding web browser to installation package of Windows in any country. Care to name few?
MS has been found guilty of illegally tying Windows and IE in the US and Korea. Windows has been found to monopolize the desktop OS market in the EU as well. Adding a Web browser to a Windows installation package is a clear example of tying. You're honestly trying to claim Microsoft with dozens of lawyers who specialize in antitrust can't figure out this is illegal? Seriously?
So isn't this exactly what they have done here?
Sort of. They've said they are going to stop breaking the law in one particular instance, but have continued breaking the law by shipping WinXP and WinVista with IE bundled. Further They haven't addressed numerous other antitrust abuses related to Win7, just the one the EU started to take immediate action on.
In short, MS did the "right thing" here but only in a very limited sense and likely for strategic reasons. They certainly haven't changed their illegal business practices in general yet and they should not expect stopping commission of the crime will mean the EU is not going to still force remedies upon them to correct the damage done from their past illegal action.
Laws do not depend on circumstance. Given the same acts, it is either illegal for all or legal for all.
So if pulling the trigger on a gun in one case is illegal, it is illegal in all cases? That's your argument?
Read my lips: THERE IS NO BROWSER MARKET.
Well, all my knowledge of economics disagrees with you as do the courts in the US, UK, and several other countries... but you used all caps. That sure is persuasive. Only brilliant people use all capital letters, after all.
I believe he was referring to the ability for other browsers to plug into the same API as IE so applications that currently rely upon IE can rely on Firefox or the like without changes to those applications.
Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the API
So corporations should be forced to open source their products now?
It was a suggestion of what MS could do, not what the EU should force them to do.
Why not Chrome? Who decides?
The EU commission decides remedies for MSs crimes. They been soliciting input from OEMs on the issue.
That doesn't make much sense. It's obviously far more convenient to finish the installation, and let the user use the preinstalled browser to download and install whatever he wants
It's also more convenient to just let criminals break the law and not throw them in prison and use tax dollars to house them. That doesn't mean it's the best plan.
OK. Wow..Crime??? Seriously? Someone's going to jail and getting a criminal record over this?;)
Antitrust violation is a criminal offense. When corporations commit crimes, however, jail time is rarely an option. Breaking the company up into several smaller companies has been used in the past as a punishment.
The focus of the complaint was bundling and the law does, in fact, expressly forbid it in the instance where one of the products is a monopoly.
U.S. law used bundling as an example of illegal tying (the first example in fact), but tying in turn is only one type of antitrust abuse. There are plenty of methods of antitrust abuse and even tying that don't use bundling. MS has already been convicted of illegal tying between their desktop and server OS's for example, when there was no bundling. It is undermining markets that is illegal. Bundling is just one method, like stabbing is one way of committing assault with a deadly weapon. As far as I've read, EU antitrust law takes the same tack, making undermining markets illegal, then listing example methods.
As to the point of making the browser market competitive again, how does removing IE from the field entirely block competition?
It doesn't, but neither does it solve the broken market. Th point of the remedy is to stop further crime while repairing the damage already done. Just removing IE from the shipping OEM version of Windows 7 in the EU, does not repair the damage.
Now the EU won't accept this. They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid. The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).
What makes you think stopping the commission of a crime is enough to get away from all the penalties and remedies for having committed it in the first place? The EU commission is empowered to do more than stop crime, they also punish crime and do what is necessary to fix the damage caused by the crime. The law is absolutely in the EU commission's favor on this. Pulling the knife out of your victim doesn't mean you don't have to pay the hospital bills and spend time in prison.
Imagine if the EU mandated that Google remove its browser from its new OS. The whole point of that OS is web accelleration. Meh.
--
Or imagine if they arrested everyone who has cut meat with a knife for murder. Or imagine if donkeys were implanted with nanorobots and took over the world and forced everyone to eat Taco Bell all the time.
Yes but that puts any vendor in a very awkward situation. EU is basically saying that vendor is doing something wrong but not telling anything specific.
Oh please. MS has a million lawyers and has already been convicted of this same crime in several other countries. They know exactly what they're doing that is illegal and their internal memos were quite clear on it. They've built their whole business model on breaking the law and using an army of lawyers to slow prosecution to the point where they make more money by breaking the law and paying fines and settlements than they would by obeying the law. The will get zero sympathy from me in that regard. They know EXACTLY what they're doing that is illegal and like usual they're trying to half ass stopping the commission of the crime in the hopes that they will make more money.
Now if vendor has a big release coming (like Windows 7) what can they do?
They can either continue to break the law or stop breaking the law and hope the remedies imposed for their past criminal actions don't conflict too badly with their other plans. Gee, breaking the law for a business might result in uncertainty in planning. Consider me unsympathetic.
What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS?
Possibly the inclusion of other browsers by default and adding enforced adherence to Web standards, perhaps.
Isn't the complaint that IE is included in the OS, and that this is the problem?
No, that is wrong. The complaint is that MS has illegally undermined competition in the Web browser market. The mechanism by which they achieved this was by bundling.
As an analogy, suppose a person commits assault with a deadly weapon by stabbing you with a knife. Since they were arrested for stabbing is the most effective remedy for you, the criminal being forced to remove the knife? After all they were arrested for sticking the knife in you. If they pull it out and don't stick it back in, are you all better?
As in the analogy, MS has done serious and long term damage to the market. Even if they stop bundling IE, the damage done by their bundling it for so long continue in all the IE specific Web pages and applications. Even without MS's ongoing interference with them or bundling, OEMs have been given motivation to install IE as the default WEb browser, because of MS's past criminal behavior. Thus, the market is still undermined. A more effective remedy going forward provides incentive for Web developers to change the Web to conform to standards so all browsers can compete on even ground. One way to do that is to force IE to conform to standards going forward so it won't be able to work with broken pages either. Another way is forcing the inclusion of multiple browsers so that Web developers have incentive to target standards and can target standards not implemented in IE because they can be confident users will have a more advanced browser that will work.
Sure.. the end users in the E.U. are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS.. because they want a fucking browser!
Generally users don't choose an OS, they choose a computer which comes with both an OS and a browser. There is no reason to suspect that will change with a remedy from the EU, only that when users choose a computer the browser that comes along with it may not be IE or may be IE and several other browsers.
In other news, Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.
The only reason to bring that up is if you mistakenly think MS is guilty of bundling a browser and an OS, instead of undermining a market using a monopoly. Maybe if you took the time to understand what the crime was, your comments about how to remedy the effects of that crime would be more worthwhile.
Because Microsoft probably has close to 90% of the consumer PC market whereas Apple and various Linux distributions account for the remaining 10%.
Apple has less than 10% of the PC market, but MS does not compete in that market. MS competes in the desktop OS market where they have about 99% of the market (Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs so is not relevant).
Personally I don't care if they bundle Explorer with their Operating System, but I do believe that the hardware manufacturers should have the opportunity to install additional browsers alongside or instead of Explorer.
That would have been fine from the outset, but at this point the browser market is so broken such action would do little. The Web itself has been broken in such a way that OEMs have artificial incentive to make IE the default browser regardless of if MS is preventing them contractually or not. It takes more than removing the knife to cure a stabbing.
Did it remove the bundled product? No. Is the law, as written, still being broken? Yes. So why are we still floating this "solution"?
You are mistaken. You see, the law doesn't make bundling, per se, illegal. It makes undermining a second market illegal and bundling is an EXAMPLE, of how such undermining can take place. Any remedy that prevents the browser market from being undermined effectively stops the crime.
What's the point? All we're doing here is making other people rich, really.
The point is to make the browser market competitive again so that MS has to actually compete and make IE the best browser if they want it to have the most market share. In that way all the browsers get better and technology rapidly innovates and everyone wins except Microsoft who has been making money through criminal action.
haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime
Isn't this like asking the old phrase: when did you stop beating your wife?
Not really, no. That would be an implicit statement in a question. The EU just made a statement and asked MS if they wanted to comment on it.
And another one comes to mind: guilty until proven otherwise.
MS can go to court and defend themselves if they are unwilling to admit their guilt, but it is a pretty open and shut case and MS recognizes that. MS has declined to even comment to the EU in their own defense so the EU is going forward with prosecution. It works a little different than individual in court though, the EU commission can put forward a claim of MS's guilt and issue punishment and remedy and then MS has the choice of if they want to take it to the judiciary as they did in the last case.
The EU commission already circulated a survey among OEMs asking them.
...but then the whole point of anti-trust is to protect the little guy.
Actually, the point is to keep the market competitive. Anything but IE does that.
However then some new browser comes along and they want to be included too, so they go after MS saying it isn't fair
This isn't a long term solution. Once the market is restored to competitiveness this won't be a big issue and OEMs won't have artificial motivation to just go with IE.
This is a nightmare not only from an updating standpoint (any time MS does an update they have to deal with all the third party code) but from a user standpoint.
MS doesn't have to worry about updating others, just not overwriting random files. As for users, having a few extra browsers installed is not a big deal. If one gets close on disk space you can always uninstall them.
Users wouldn't know what to choose, and would get mad when they chose poorly and the browser didn't work well for them.
Funny how users don't get confused and have problems with other free markets. There are dozens of FPS games out there, and yet users manage to pick among them and some of them end up sucking. User's learn and companies build trust in brands. It's how competition works.
A much cleaner idea is just to say "Ok, no browser included, do what you like."
The problem is, by itself, that doesn't correct the broken market.
Slashdot Mirror
To be more accurate about the 'Fire' myth. You can yell fire in a crowded theatre and only if the crowd panics and someone is injured/killed will you be held accountable for anything. If everyone leaves safely and no one gets hurt, the worst that can happen is you get banned from the theatre (it's private property after all)
That's not true in the general or specific cases. You can absolutely be charged for yelling "fire" even if no one is injured. Disturbing the peace or public nuisance charges apply. Further you're liable for civil penalties to reimburse the theater for tickets they have to refund as a result of your actions.
In the general case you don't have to prove harm results from slander or libel, just that such action was the intention.
I agree hands free use of cell phones is still dangerous, but at least such drivers are capable of and sometimes do use turn signals.
As said by TFA and various study in Europe. Talking on phone with or without your hands does not change anything.
No, all the studies say that hands free devices don't appreciably improve the situation. On the other hand, people with one hand on the wheel and one on a cell phone often can't reach their turn signals and so ignore them. I find that irritating. Many people ignore them anyway. Maybe there is zero overlap in these groups, but I doubt it.
To make them responsible for having an accident while talking on the phone, you have to make it forbidden.
Why?
Or is there a way a behavior can be aggravating fact without being illegal ?
There are many such laws. For example, you can be charged with manslaughter if you get in an accident while taking over the counter drugs that warn you not to drive, but you cannot be arrested simply for driving while using them.
Ban cell phone conversations in cars? That'd be the only way - the "hands free" laws are as good as no laws at all, its the division of attention that causes the accidents, not the holding of the phone.
I agree hands free use of cell phones is still dangerous, but at least such drivers are capable of and sometimes do use turn signals.
And banning phones in cars will cause some people to turn in their phones and cancel the service, because the car is about the only place they use and need them (like me.)
I'm sure a few people would, but I doubt that number is significant. Besides, there's no reason to ban them in cars, just for the current driver.
So, I want to see the study that pits the consequences of fewer cell phones in society vs. the death rate, since it may take longer to get an accident called in to 911
For that to be a useful study you'd need to know how many fewer cell phones would be out there if a law banned their use while driving. I doubt it would be significant these days, as cell phones become more and more common and provide more functions. I doubt such a law would put a dent in the increasing use of them.
It's always a 2-edged sword if you ban something, since you have to consider the effects of its absence as well as the effects of its presence.
True, an in a free society you need serious justification for a ban of some activity. Personally, I favor laws making people financially and criminally responsible if they do get in an accident while on the phone, rather than an outright ban.
There is a lot less uproar about hate speech laws than there is about censorship laws because hate speech laws are a much broader and more loosely defined category.
And that's so much better. I know I want my free-speech limiting laws to be "broader and more loosely defined".
The category is broader, and encompasses a wider range of different laws. Each individual law is not necessarily broader. An analogy would be there are fewer complaints about gun laws than the death penalty, because gun laws encompass a much wider range of disparate laws than the death penalty does.
And it looks like Obama is going to expand the hate speech laws as well.
First, the president doesn't pass laws, he just signs them or vetoes them. Congress writes the laws. Did no one pay attention in civics class? If you're worried about what laws are likely to be written pay attention to the composition of congress. Second, since hate speech laws is such a broad term, that doesn't tell us a whole lot. There are some very reasonable and useful laws that are lumped into the category of "hate speech laws" while there are equally a lot that are absurd violations of human rights. It's like the people complaining that Obama is going to pass gun laws. Well, he declined to veto one so far and signed it, making it easier to carry concealed weapons in national parks. I'm less than outraged.
With the exception of a small percentage of quadrapaligics everyone has the 'right' to kill just about anyone else;
You're confusing "right" with "capability". Quadriplegics have just as many rights as anyone else, just lesser capability in one way.
The fundamental tenet of Law is: While you are perfectly 'free' to do whatever the hell you want, there exist rules about certain things and actions, as well as consequences for breaking those rules.
True enough, as written, but what you are missing is what we were talking about. That is when those rules are allowed to restrict your actions and present consequences. For example, why is it unconstitutional and a violation of basic human rights to create a law that makes practicing Taoism illegal? The answer is, laws are primarily supposed to be for the purpose of determining what happens when the rights of two individuals conflict. In a free society, laws don't restrict your actions if those actions don't interfere with the rights of others.
It is you, the ill-thinking, short-sighted, poorly informed, morally compromised, self-proclaimed-know-it-all, and your ilk who shaft those of us who give a hoot about freedom and what was given up for it.
You seem to have missed the point we were discussing entirely, that being what rights people have and when laws can restrict those rights. If you truly care about freedom should understand more about when laws are restrictions of individual liberty and when they are compromises between the liberties of different people.
Since you've obviously thought all the way through about what type of tight-fettered control would be required to keep anyone from killing anyone else, perhaps you would be so kind as to share your notion of how a Nerfed prison society would last very long...or would it be 'if we just had more control'...
Okay you seem to have gone off the deep end here. Perhaps you just read my last reply and missed all the context in which we were speaking? The previous poster was claiming that just because a law makes an action illegal, that doesn't mean the law is restricting freedom; i.e. just because a law punishes you after you criticize religion, doesn't mean that law restricts free speech. You seem to have interpreted my reply to him somewhat insanely. What in my post gave you the idea I'm in favor of more restrictions?
And who is providing the Iranian government with the technical know-how to implement these censoring measures? Is it private consultants? Is it foreign governments?
This is a good question. I've asked a few people and no one is fessing up to suppling Iran publicly. I've worked in that particular industry so I have some good contacts who should know. We know they use software from CA based Secure Computing, but the company denies having sold them a license so it seems they're just pirating the software. The Nokia Siemens partnership is selling them some gear but denies selling them monitoring software for anything other than cell phone networks.
Is there sufficient know-how within Iran's pro-government citizenship to effect the censorship?
There is a surprising amount of network traffic shaping and monitoring software related to the middle east. Half the startup companies in the business a few years ago had founders educated in Israel. It is possible, therefor that the locals do have such knowledge, but on the other hand the Israelis and Iranians don't really get along (understatement of the year nomination please).
And my (and my employer's) dollars can speak a lot louder than this comment.
I'm all in favor of accountability. I'd like to think the press would be competent enough to figure do some serious investigation of this and that the US government would make sure any companies involved were exposed as such to the public as well as subjected to punishments for doing business there (at least being unavailable for US contracts for a few years). I'm afraid I've become more of a cynic iver the last decade and I have little faith in either the press or the US government to push for the truth and hold people accountable. But seeing as most of the public has the attention span of a fruit fly and doesn't care enough to vote based upon such things anyway, I suppose we get what we deserve.
So what if my idea that I want to promote and protect is that all black people should be killed and that the people in my organization should go out and kill them right now...
You moved from promoting to inciting: from words which share ideas to instigating actions.
Actually no, I was careful to do no such thing. The idea that I would want people to go and kill other people is not the same as telling them to do it.
It's no longer "speech".
Your distinction seems entirely arbitrary. Telling people to go vote for a particular candidate is inciting them to action and is some of the most protected free speech. The speech I described specifically did not ask or tell people to take an action, but left that to be inferred by the listener. But even if it did, it is still speech.
Maybe what we're seeing here is a semantic issue. You say speech that incites violence isn't speech and thus is not affected by your proposed absolute freedom of speech. Is yelling loudly at night and keeping your neighbors awake not speech either? Is lying about a product for sale not speech? Is lying about a political candidate the night before an election not speech?
Beyond that I generally agree, though again think that a reframing makes the idea easier to bright-line test:
I think I muddies the waters more than anything.
It means your "right to kill who you want" isn't trumped by someone else's right to not be killed, but rather that you never had the right to kill someone in the first place (your rights don't include the circumstances of others)
Actually in the US in most places you do have the right to kill others in particular circumstances, such as when someone invades your home or is in the process of committing a felony. More importantly the US recognizes freedom of action as the default state with laws needed to restrict action and resolve when people's actions conflict with one another. By default you can swing an axe wildly in the air. That right ends when it endangers the life of another or otherwise conflicts with the rights of another where the law has ruled such rights override yours.
The US doesn't have hate speech laws, so the ACLU can't fight against them. Hate speech is constitutionally protected, like most speech.
Actually, ll but 5 US states have implemented laws that an be considered "hate speech" laws according to the common understanding of the term. (AR, GA, IN, SC, WY)
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that free speech is an unlimited right. That's not so. Just because free speech is a guaranteed right, does not mean that instances where speech conflicts with other protected rights it trumps them. We also have the basic human right to live and speech which is likely to cause the death of others can qualify in that regard. Just as free speech doesn't protect a person who orders another murdered, even though all they did was speak.
This is a sophomoric view. Free speech always has been limited when it comes into conflict with other rights.
That is almost not a consideration in the US.
It is very much a consideration. The "yelling fire in a theater" example originated in the US in 1919 in a Supreme court case. The courts have been ruling what constitutes legitimate restrictions on speech in light of the rights of others for a long time.
In order to be prohibited, it has to be false and extremely and imminently dangerous.
Here's an experiment for you. Tonight at 3 A.M. I dare you to go to a nice suburban neighborhood and scream as loud as possible "Barack Obama is black!" over and over again. It's a true statement and not imminently dangerous. We'll see how long it is before you find yourself face to face with the cops. Public nuisance and disturbing the peace laws restrict free speech for the simple convenience and comfort of the public. There are many more examples, but hopefully that one is good enough to falsify your theory.
Your free speech is not protected if your speech is telling your underling to go shoot the shopkeeper who wouldn't pay up. Your free speech does not trump another person's right to not be threatened or even give you the right to slander or libel or falsely advertise or commit fraud.
Wrong. You have the right to free speech in all of these cases. However, you are responsible for the effects of your speech in all of them. You can yell "fire" all you want, but because this compromises safety, it will land you in jail.
When you go to jail for doing something, that something is not something you have the legal right to do. By your argument you have the right to murder, but are responsible for the consequences and will go to jail for murdering irresponsibly. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your ill thought out ideas.
I think that we can remove the "trumped by other rights" quandary by revising our definition of "speech".
I disagree, but I'm willing to hear your arguments.
If speech is the right to hold and promote an idea or belief, and I think that's what we are all wanting to protect, then clearly shouting "fire" wouldn't pass muster as protected.
So what if my idea that I want to promote and protect is that all black people should be killed and that the people in my organization should go out and kill them right now? Currently my free speech is limited. If I tell my followers to go out and kill black people, I go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder. This is because my free speech rights don't trump other's right to live. If, however, I don't actually incite others to direct violence and just say I think black people are evil and inferior and should be put killed (without telling people to actually do it) my free speech rights are protected. In some countries they place this line a little further in either direction.
This is also in keeping with the way out legal system deals with rights in general. Freedom of religion, for example, protects my right to perform crazy sex rituals and smear myself with chicken blood. It does not protect my right to steal a chicken from someone else or rape or perform human sacrifice because that is where my religious freedom starts conflict with other people's rights. Even if my religion requires me to sacrifice people, that freedom is limited.
All freedoms are limited when they come in conflict with other people's freedom. The main purpose of laws in our country is supposed to be resolving those conflicts of freedom. In theory, the government is not even supposed to be getting involved (sans a few particulars spelled out) unless there is a conflict of rights.
I often refer to myself as an agnostic of a sort or at least as holding more agnostic views on religious subjects. As such, I found some o your comments way off base.
If it helps, don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith." As you go through the business of living, you have to stand on one side of the line or the other.
I disagree with this. Everyone uses reason to solve some problems and takes a lot of facts based upon having faith in the research done by others. Like most other things, there are shades of grey and people who refuse to see that are just another stripe of extremist.
It's simply not meaningful to hide behind "agnosticism" as a position. It doesn't make you sound diplomatic, it only makes you sound cowardly and irresolute.
It's not meaningful to have a position that isn't persuasive to others. I didn't realize the purpose of life philosophies of this sort was to shape other people's perceptions of me.
As an example, are you agnostic about Zeus, too? No?
Don't you think it is more than a little presumptuous to answer a question you pose for others? I feel about Zeus just as I do about Allah and Yahweh. I don't know or care to argue the existence of any particular deity. Obviously they exist as ideas and as objects of faith and worship for individuals. To what degree that makes them "real" and how objective that is can be debated, but to little effect. Faith and the results of faith is a very subjective thing.
You're pretty sure that the possibility of Zeus's existence shouldn't inform your decisions and actions in everyday life?
But religious systems tend to provide more than assertions about what does and does not exist. The existence of Jesus is debatable, but whether or not he existed has less impact on informing the average christian's life than the content of the teachings attributed to him. Does Jesus's existence or lack thereof influence whether his moral (not moral not ethical) teachings about treating one's neighbors with kindness?
All it takes for thumpers to get away with this crap is for good "agnostics" to do nothing.
Your paraphrasology fails on several points. Just because a person is an agnostic does not mean their actions are any better or worse than your own or even that there exists a subjective moral framework into which that could be judged. If an agnostic teaches their children that there may or may not be a god, but that there are certain accepted moral principals provided by different religions and educates them on how those principals influence society have they done a better or worse job than a parent who teaches their children that there absolutely is no god?
Seriously. It's time to pick a side and stand up for it.
So they're with you or they're against you? You make is sound as though agnostics don't vote or participate in life at all, as if their lack of judgement on religious matters makes them immobile when it comes to any debate about religion. I reject any such assertion. A person can be an agnostic and vote against teaching religion in the classroom. For that matter a person can be a devout believer in some religion and still vote against teaching religion in the classroom. Your adversarial attitude and derogatory nicknames aren't helping anything. All they do is artificially polarize people on an issue and make people angry and defensive so it is harder for people to cooperate and work together to solve real problems.
You place the blame at religious people, but on the other side, things like "hate speech" still follows this absurdity of lack of freedom of speech yet there is (comparatively) less uproar about it.
There is a lot less uproar about hate speech laws than there is about censorship laws because hate speech laws are a much broader and more loosely defined category. For example, most laws that fall within that category provide harsher penalties for people convicted of conspiring to commit other violent crimes against a group they speaking out against. Some hate speech laws provide harsher penalties for people issuing threats and directly advocating/ordering violence against particular groups. They are the same tradeoff of rights we've always used when limiting free speech, that is free speech is limited when it infringes upon other people's individual rights, like the right to live.
Mind you, not all hate speech laws fit into the above category. Some of them to simply try to censor negative speech about groups, regardless of whether o not that speech directly infringes upon the rights of others. Many people do speak out about these and there have been several ACLU cases where the ACLU has fought hard against those hate speech laws.
We need freedom of speech for absolutely -everything- one thing banned from freedom of speech is one thing too many.
This is a sophomoric view. Free speech always has been limited when it comes into conflict with other rights. You don;t have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater because your free speech does not trump everyone else's safety. Your free speech is not protected if your speech is telling your underling to go shoot the shopkeeper who wouldn't pay up. Your free speech does not trump another person's right to not be threatened or even give you the right to slander or libel or falsely advertise or commit fraud.
I wasn't aware that MS has been found guilty in adding web browser to installation package of Windows in any country. Care to name few?
MS has been found guilty of illegally tying Windows and IE in the US and Korea. Windows has been found to monopolize the desktop OS market in the EU as well. Adding a Web browser to a Windows installation package is a clear example of tying. You're honestly trying to claim Microsoft with dozens of lawyers who specialize in antitrust can't figure out this is illegal? Seriously?
So isn't this exactly what they have done here?
Sort of. They've said they are going to stop breaking the law in one particular instance, but have continued breaking the law by shipping WinXP and WinVista with IE bundled. Further They haven't addressed numerous other antitrust abuses related to Win7, just the one the EU started to take immediate action on.
In short, MS did the "right thing" here but only in a very limited sense and likely for strategic reasons. They certainly haven't changed their illegal business practices in general yet and they should not expect stopping commission of the crime will mean the EU is not going to still force remedies upon them to correct the damage done from their past illegal action.
Laws do not depend on circumstance. Given the same acts, it is either illegal for all or legal for all.
So if pulling the trigger on a gun in one case is illegal, it is illegal in all cases? That's your argument?
Read my lips: THERE IS NO BROWSER MARKET.
Well, all my knowledge of economics disagrees with you as do the courts in the US, UK, and several other countries... but you used all caps. That sure is persuasive. Only brilliant people use all capital letters, after all.
You mean the ability to host IE in applications?
I believe he was referring to the ability for other browsers to plug into the same API as IE so applications that currently rely upon IE can rely on Firefox or the like without changes to those applications.
Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the API
So corporations should be forced to open source their products now?
It was a suggestion of what MS could do, not what the EU should force them to do.
Why not Chrome? Who decides?
The EU commission decides remedies for MSs crimes. They been soliciting input from OEMs on the issue.
That doesn't make much sense. It's obviously far more convenient to finish the installation, and let the user use the preinstalled browser to download and install whatever he wants
It's also more convenient to just let criminals break the law and not throw them in prison and use tax dollars to house them. That doesn't mean it's the best plan.
OK. Wow..Crime??? Seriously? Someone's going to jail and getting a criminal record over this? ;)
Antitrust violation is a criminal offense. When corporations commit crimes, however, jail time is rarely an option. Breaking the company up into several smaller companies has been used in the past as a punishment.
The focus of the complaint was bundling and the law does, in fact, expressly forbid it in the instance where one of the products is a monopoly.
U.S. law used bundling as an example of illegal tying (the first example in fact), but tying in turn is only one type of antitrust abuse. There are plenty of methods of antitrust abuse and even tying that don't use bundling. MS has already been convicted of illegal tying between their desktop and server OS's for example, when there was no bundling. It is undermining markets that is illegal. Bundling is just one method, like stabbing is one way of committing assault with a deadly weapon. As far as I've read, EU antitrust law takes the same tack, making undermining markets illegal, then listing example methods.
As to the point of making the browser market competitive again, how does removing IE from the field entirely block competition?
It doesn't, but neither does it solve the broken market. Th point of the remedy is to stop further crime while repairing the damage already done. Just removing IE from the shipping OEM version of Windows 7 in the EU, does not repair the damage.
Now the EU won't accept this. They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid. The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).
What makes you think stopping the commission of a crime is enough to get away from all the penalties and remedies for having committed it in the first place? The EU commission is empowered to do more than stop crime, they also punish crime and do what is necessary to fix the damage caused by the crime. The law is absolutely in the EU commission's favor on this. Pulling the knife out of your victim doesn't mean you don't have to pay the hospital bills and spend time in prison.
Imagine if the EU mandated that Google remove its browser from its new OS. The whole point of that OS is web accelleration. Meh. --
Or imagine if they arrested everyone who has cut meat with a knife for murder. Or imagine if donkeys were implanted with nanorobots and took over the world and forced everyone to eat Taco Bell all the time.
Yes but that puts any vendor in a very awkward situation. EU is basically saying that vendor is doing something wrong but not telling anything specific.
Oh please. MS has a million lawyers and has already been convicted of this same crime in several other countries. They know exactly what they're doing that is illegal and their internal memos were quite clear on it. They've built their whole business model on breaking the law and using an army of lawyers to slow prosecution to the point where they make more money by breaking the law and paying fines and settlements than they would by obeying the law. The will get zero sympathy from me in that regard. They know EXACTLY what they're doing that is illegal and like usual they're trying to half ass stopping the commission of the crime in the hopes that they will make more money.
Now if vendor has a big release coming (like Windows 7) what can they do?
They can either continue to break the law or stop breaking the law and hope the remedies imposed for their past criminal actions don't conflict too badly with their other plans. Gee, breaking the law for a business might result in uncertainty in planning. Consider me unsympathetic.
What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS?
Possibly the inclusion of other browsers by default and adding enforced adherence to Web standards, perhaps.
Isn't the complaint that IE is included in the OS, and that this is the problem?
No, that is wrong. The complaint is that MS has illegally undermined competition in the Web browser market. The mechanism by which they achieved this was by bundling.
As an analogy, suppose a person commits assault with a deadly weapon by stabbing you with a knife. Since they were arrested for stabbing is the most effective remedy for you, the criminal being forced to remove the knife? After all they were arrested for sticking the knife in you. If they pull it out and don't stick it back in, are you all better?
As in the analogy, MS has done serious and long term damage to the market. Even if they stop bundling IE, the damage done by their bundling it for so long continue in all the IE specific Web pages and applications. Even without MS's ongoing interference with them or bundling, OEMs have been given motivation to install IE as the default WEb browser, because of MS's past criminal behavior. Thus, the market is still undermined. A more effective remedy going forward provides incentive for Web developers to change the Web to conform to standards so all browsers can compete on even ground. One way to do that is to force IE to conform to standards going forward so it won't be able to work with broken pages either. Another way is forcing the inclusion of multiple browsers so that Web developers have incentive to target standards and can target standards not implemented in IE because they can be confident users will have a more advanced browser that will work.
Sure.. the end users in the E.U. are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS .. because they want a fucking browser!
Generally users don't choose an OS, they choose a computer which comes with both an OS and a browser. There is no reason to suspect that will change with a remedy from the EU, only that when users choose a computer the browser that comes along with it may not be IE or may be IE and several other browsers.
In other news, Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.
The only reason to bring that up is if you mistakenly think MS is guilty of bundling a browser and an OS, instead of undermining a market using a monopoly. Maybe if you took the time to understand what the crime was, your comments about how to remedy the effects of that crime would be more worthwhile.
Because Microsoft probably has close to 90% of the consumer PC market whereas Apple and various Linux distributions account for the remaining 10%.
Apple has less than 10% of the PC market, but MS does not compete in that market. MS competes in the desktop OS market where they have about 99% of the market (Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs so is not relevant).
Personally I don't care if they bundle Explorer with their Operating System, but I do believe that the hardware manufacturers should have the opportunity to install additional browsers alongside or instead of Explorer.
That would have been fine from the outset, but at this point the browser market is so broken such action would do little. The Web itself has been broken in such a way that OEMs have artificial incentive to make IE the default browser regardless of if MS is preventing them contractually or not. It takes more than removing the knife to cure a stabbing.
Did it remove the bundled product? No. Is the law, as written, still being broken? Yes. So why are we still floating this "solution"?
You are mistaken. You see, the law doesn't make bundling, per se, illegal. It makes undermining a second market illegal and bundling is an EXAMPLE, of how such undermining can take place. Any remedy that prevents the browser market from being undermined effectively stops the crime.
What's the point? All we're doing here is making other people rich, really.
The point is to make the browser market competitive again so that MS has to actually compete and make IE the best browser if they want it to have the most market share. In that way all the browsers get better and technology rapidly innovates and everyone wins except Microsoft who has been making money through criminal action.
Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is doing this out of lethargy?
Entirely possible.
Mod me down for defending Microsoft here, but they are not stupid. This decision could make or lose billions of dollars.
How do you figure? This is a one time upgrade for users of Windows Vista, of which there aren't that many yet. I doubt it will cost them billions.
Your high horse clouds your judgement.
Personal attacks don't help your argument.
haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime
Isn't this like asking the old phrase: when did you stop beating your wife?
Not really, no. That would be an implicit statement in a question. The EU just made a statement and asked MS if they wanted to comment on it.
And another one comes to mind: guilty until proven otherwise.
MS can go to court and defend themselves if they are unwilling to admit their guilt, but it is a pretty open and shut case and MS recognizes that. MS has declined to even comment to the EU in their own defense so the EU is going forward with prosecution. It works a little different than individual in court though, the EU commission can put forward a claim of MS's guilt and issue punishment and remedy and then MS has the choice of if they want to take it to the judiciary as they did in the last case.
Because which ones do you include?
The EU commission already circulated a survey among OEMs asking them.
...but then the whole point of anti-trust is to protect the little guy.
Actually, the point is to keep the market competitive. Anything but IE does that.
However then some new browser comes along and they want to be included too, so they go after MS saying it isn't fair
This isn't a long term solution. Once the market is restored to competitiveness this won't be a big issue and OEMs won't have artificial motivation to just go with IE.
This is a nightmare not only from an updating standpoint (any time MS does an update they have to deal with all the third party code) but from a user standpoint.
MS doesn't have to worry about updating others, just not overwriting random files. As for users, having a few extra browsers installed is not a big deal. If one gets close on disk space you can always uninstall them.
Users wouldn't know what to choose, and would get mad when they chose poorly and the browser didn't work well for them.
Funny how users don't get confused and have problems with other free markets. There are dozens of FPS games out there, and yet users manage to pick among them and some of them end up sucking. User's learn and companies build trust in brands. It's how competition works.
A much cleaner idea is just to say "Ok, no browser included, do what you like."
The problem is, by itself, that doesn't correct the broken market.