Yes, Christianity proper would be young. I would be interested to hear the "whole world view of things"...
besides, age does not equal accuracy or truth.
I believe the original question was that of "protection." You can protect something entirely wrongly. I'm not, obviously, arguing for Christianity == wrong, but pick what you want to argue... Christianity != protected or Christianity != true. You're right, thinking age means truth is a logical fallacy, in many arguments. So is "God didn't do this, therefore He must not exist."
If you think most religions', let alone Christianity's, meaning of "faith" means "lazy, let-God-do-everything, don't have to do anything ourselves," then you appear to know very little about it.
Protect His own property? Sure. Ever wondered how the Bible survived with so many world powers trying to extinguish it during history? Or, for that matter, the Christian faith in general? How many religions do you know of that survived through even just Rome's occupation of most of the world?
But I've never heard, and I have studied the Bible, anyone claim that a protestant church building is somehow specially protected by God all the time as though it were a "holy" place....
Therefore, we should immediately ban all political contributions. Not just by fat cats, but ALL political contributions. Oh, and none of this "I'll use my own money" -- we must also ban all political expenditures as well. No campaign ads, no flyers, no paid push pollers.
using software other than Microsoft's are unable to bid at many Portuguese public tenders.
That is what I am referring to. It is somewhat inherently blaming Microsoft. Not even just Windows, or not even just "platforms supported by Silverlight," but "software other than Microsoft." software? Even "operating systems by Microsoft" would have been better, wouldn't it?
It is just NOT a neutral article, it seems rather anti-Microsoftly worded.
Babbling about flash had nothing to do with the summary, you're right.:)
Instead the impression a first-time visitor will get is that Linux is arcane, old-fashioned, and disorganized.
I know this will sound like a troll post... but, Linux IS disorganized. Arcane and old-fashioned, no, but disorganized, yes. There are tons of distros. Those distros have very different organizational structures even (deb vs. rpm, to name one). Even something as simple as dvd playback and sound is sometimes hard. Last evening, in fact, I spent an hour trying to get Amarok 2, kscd, and Kaffeine to work.
Amarok 2 was fine, but kscd and Kaffeine wouldn't work. If I had used Amarok 2 that session, Kaffeine had no sound.
kscd wouldn't open, period. Turns out kscd was already open, somewhere in the background, due to KDE 4.2 session management
gstreamer was the culprit, I guess, for the Amarok-2-stealing-my-sound, since I was able (with some amount of difficulty) to switch to a xine backend for phonon.
DVD playback worked after I installed Packman's libxine codecs, except that it could not decrypt the DVD (which, incidentally, was a Hogan's Heroes collection from the library).
Where to begin. Let's see. Disorganized was my critical remark - there we, I think, too many options for the sound backend which is why it didn't work. Xine didn't work right off the bat with Amarok 2. Gstreamer was fine, except that it didn't work well with multiple applications, for whatever reason. Now, my question is - how in the world would a normal user know how to fix this? He should not even have to know that such things as "phonon" and "xine" and "gstreamer" exist. Sound should be taken care of in the background; at worst, installing a DRIVER for the soundcard, but having to work with backends (xine, gstreamer, etc.) to a backend (phonon) for applications is a bit much.
And the DVD playback thing, I still don't know how to correct that. At least I'm able to get it to see that it is a DVD - before this, DVD playback was simply disabled (see opensuse.org page).
Old fashioned, arcane? No. Disorganized? Yes.
Documentation of a LOT of different problems (has to be distro-specific though, as they are so different and *ahem* organized differently...) would help a LOT of users, I think.
Agreed. A well-written and easily-used "standard" linux documentation for a lot of distros would be very, very excellent. And targeted, distinctly targeted, to the beginner. "linux.com" is going to be what very beginning beginner linux users are going to type in, right, not advanced computer users. Centralized and standardized Linux help would be great.
I have no idea why it would need Silverlight or Flash to submit a bid, but that doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with Microsoft. It has to do with website designers/programmers. So blame the developeres and programmers, not companies for producing products that developers and programmers wrongly or incorrectly use.
I suppose Flash is much better supported on Linux. Hmmm. Yes there are flash versions, but Adobe took their sweet time about it, did they not?
I'm not a FAN of silverlight (or flash!), but Silverlight seems to be better supported on Linux and Mac than Flash was initially. I could be wrong about that.
I don't undrestand why Microsoft gets blamed for producing a product that isn't supported on platforms that Windows isn't supported on. I may as well complain that it took forEVER for Amarok to get Windows support, and it's STILL not available! Or, even better, that Safari took forEVER to be ported to Windows! Or whatever other software you care to complain about.
If developers choose to use a MS only product, that's not MS's fault. Ms is under no obligation to produce software that works with everyone's, including their competitors, operating system. That makes no sense, monopoly or no monopoly. Now, if they were forcing the developers to use Silverlight, or forcing Adobe not to let Flash have a Windows version, that's different.
Er... I'm confused. Did you just say the US is essentially socialistic in comparison to the US of a century ago? Seems like you did. I agree. But you seem to imply that the US is an example of capitalism failing (modern day US) and then say that modern day US capitalism isn't capitalism at all, but only leans towards capitalism...
So, where is the argument for the blanket "capitalism doesn't work." statement?
(my opinion - capitalism as an ideology isn't perfect, but appears to be the best idea so far, given human nature... socialism, communism, fascism, monarchy, anarchy, oligarchy, etc., all have appeared to completely crumble and fall apart - and incidentally, capitalistic-US is becoming more and more socialistic AS it deteriorates... so why is it that we blame capitalism again?)
attend a 2 year community or jr college the first two years.
Sorry, I should have noted that part, too. Not everyone has to go to a state university for all four years. I knew people at the jr. college I went to that were paying about $10 for a semester... even books were paid for. I am from the middle class, so I wasn't eligible for that financial aid, my costs were still really cheap though. Originally, I think it was something like $11 per unit, but it has since gone up... still very cheap, though; the books cost more than the tuition.
All that said, even at $6500 (does that include room/board?) per year, we're looking at what, $15,000 for a four year degree? The original poster was saying a teacher making $31k a year couldn't even pay off student loans with that. I disagree. Yeah, $31k isn't much, but it's definitely doable. IIRC, Starbucks still pays under $25k/yr for full-time employees, too.
This also assumes no financial aid. There are tons of financial aid options available for those that qualify financially. And there are school (and even corporation) scholarships for those that don't qualify for FAFSA stuff. I went to a private college, tuition expensive there, but I got roughly 50% from academic and music scholarships.
Incidentally, the people I knew at jr. college that were going through it paying $10/semester or whatever still drove cars, still went to movies, still ate out, still smoked pot, and still watched TV. I am still considered middle-class and I don't watch TV, don't smoke pot, rarely (once a year?) go to movies, bike to work when it's not raining, etc. People spend more money things they don't need than they think. $31k can go a long ways, especially if you are single. Case in point: my music theory teacher worked his way through college, working full time and going to school full time. He worked as a sales clerk person at a record school. He said he lived on about $3 to $5 a day for food. (this was in Minnesota). It's possible to do!
Hmm. So, can I produce something and be completely legally separated from it?
It seems that at a very, very basic level, a "license" and "ownership" and the "responsibility for creating it" are intertwined. Hm. Thinking out loud on slashdot. Not good.;)
It seems like not allowing the uttermost basic right of ownership/credit is a good thing though. Being able to claim something as mine even though I didn't actually do it is generally considered... bad. Say I write a research paper and want to have be completely "public domain" with "no license attached." Ok, so now Joe can pick it up, put his name on it, and claim it has his completely legally? What happens when a school refuses to accept him for a Master's program, claiming that he didn't write it? Hmmm. Seems like NOT being allowed ot simply claim it as your own work when it's not (plagiarism) and licensing, at an extremely basic level, have to be cooperative.
Exactly. MS is still a software company, and that's pretty much it. Yeah, they have a lot of leveraging power because of the mainstream acceptance of Windows, but they are far from a telecommunication company's monopoly on the hardware, software, AND service of one thing... yikes.
So, here's an interesting question then. What if ISPs were not allowed to target downloaders, but only providers?
For example, The Pirate Bay. What's the problem with them going out of business? They host a lot of illegally copied content, cracked content, or what have you. Unfortunatley, though, we have the nit-picking crowd that says "but just making it available isn't illegal" that also says "but just downloading it isn't illegal"... so we're reduced to forcing law-enforcers to proving that we not only made it available AND downloaded it, but actually listened to it. It's almost getting as ludicrous on the anti-copyright side as the copyright side. May as well go wit hthe "I didn't inhale" argument.
Maybe an overhaul of copyright laws/ideas is the way to go. But is not protection of individual artistry and creativity an important ideal, too? Or do we not care, as long as we get it for free.:)
That said, I might add that I do believe privacy, connectivity, and due process are more important. On the other hand, I also think copyright infringement is illegal and don't support people who want to hide behind privacy laws simply because they don't want to be caught. It's a hard position for me to be in, because usually that is misinterpreted as the "I have nothing to hide" mentality. No, it's more the mentality of asking "what right do you have to rant about the evil and questionable actions of the ISP when you're doing illegal activity as well?" Not to say anyone is perfect... but something else is wrong, too, with consumers that think they deserve the right to freely download other people's work, effort, and monetary contributions (recordings aren't free:) ). And there again, accusations come of "but copyright laws are stupid as they are!" and again comes the retort "then we need an alternative, not copyright anarchy." Or me, being a composer, am going to go buy a big gun and take copyright infringement punishment on my own hands. "By opening this sheet music, you agree to die if you infringe on the creative commons copyright therein." hehe:)
I agree that the burden of proof should be high. Here's the question - how can anyone prove it? Can't search my computer, that's not supposed to happen (in ideal worlds). Can't sniff my packets, that's not fair. Can't monitor my traffic, that's invasion of privacy.
I find this to be a really hard place for ISPs. On one hand, they do have to worry about copyright infringement. It happens, ok, and it's illegal, and no matter what grassroots movements are out there, if a corporation doesn't abide by the laws of the country, ridiculous laws or not, they will have some major problems in that country. So, how do ISPs do it? Yes, burden of proof should be high. How do you propose they detect and shutdown illegal activity?
Basically, here's what I want to say - and not necessarily to you, but to the topic in general - it seems that most arguers of "Hey, that's not fair, you can't [insert action] to my internet connection!" offer no alternative, and really seem to be arguing that they want to have the right to download anything they want, regardless of any law, copyright, artistic license, or what have you.
Arguing for rights of privacy is one thing, but arguing for the right of illegal activity... uh, is stupid. And corporations are in the position to care about illegal activity. Probably because of money/lawsuits, but they still have to do it.
Of course, if someone decides to take GPL code and do something against GPL, woe to them, so there is a double standard there, too, IMO.
Google is dominant. iPhone is pretty dominant. Or they wouldn't talk about an "iPhone killer." Google seems able to impose standards on many other people. Incidentally, I don't see MS imposing many standards. They are trying, perhaps, sure. But w3c seems to be doing pretty well. Especially with web browsing standards. Why not let IE either die or improve naturally, as already is happening?
People should have the choice, period. Killing off IE (because it's "not compliant") is different from it dying off becuase it's not compliant.
Incidentally, doesn't "IE needs to leave because it is not compliant" sound ominous? "You are not in compliance. Your software must die." To me, that sounds very, very tightly controlled. By an administration. And of course, when bodies of law-makers control those sorts of things, everything is much better, because law-makers are inherently fair, understanding, and completely unbribeable.
Hello, the below sounds really harsh.:( but isn't meant to be. I'm just typing quickly.
The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.
I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.
Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want them to fix it?:)
OEM installs other browsers... well, they can do that now, if they want to, can't they? "No, because then Microsoft won't let them use Windows." Great, then maybe they'll start using Linux. Unless Linux isn't as good as we like to think it is, and people actually can't use it as well? Hmmm. Regardless, if THAT was the lawsuit - forcing Microsoft to not make deals that kept OEMs from putting Firefox on a computer that they sell - I would suppor tthat. But forcing MS to take it out of Windows altogether is stupid, IMO.
All of them that want to be included? Great, my computer will now ship with 50 browsers.:)
End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market... by what? By telling Microsoft, by court-ordering/government-mandating them to shape up and produce better products or leave? Sounds like free, consumer-driven market to me! (sarcasm, hehe). Maybe bad MS products will drive people to use other products. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? Not the government or EU or whoever TELLING consumers that they NEED to use other products because this company's ones aren't that great... ?
Hmmm. While we're at it, I don't like Hershey's chocolate. Can we force them people to buy good chocolate?
And incidentally, MS Word isn't as bad as you seem to think it is:) Other than that it doesn't necessarily support this or that standard. Which shouldn't necessarily be bad, unless "free market" now means that everyone has to work together or else.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Christianity proper would be young. I would be interested to hear the "whole world view of things" ...
besides, age does not equal accuracy or truth.
I believe the original question was that of "protection." You can protect something entirely wrongly. I'm not, obviously, arguing for Christianity == wrong, but pick what you want to argue ... Christianity != protected or Christianity != true. You're right, thinking age means truth is a logical fallacy, in many arguments. So is "God didn't do this, therefore He must not exist."
God has never rewarded stupidity or laziness.
If you think most religions', let alone Christianity's, meaning of "faith" means "lazy, let-God-do-everything, don't have to do anything ourselves," then you appear to know very little about it.
Protect His own property? Sure. Ever wondered how the Bible survived with so many world powers trying to extinguish it during history? Or, for that matter, the Christian faith in general? How many religions do you know of that survived through even just Rome's occupation of most of the world?
But I've never heard, and I have studied the Bible, anyone claim that a protestant church building is somehow specially protected by God all the time as though it were a "holy" place....
Therefore, we should immediately ban all political contributions. Not just by fat cats, but ALL political contributions. Oh, and none of this "I'll use my own money" -- we must also ban all political expenditures as well. No campaign ads, no flyers, no paid push pollers.
What, and have normal people govern? People without corruption/brib^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "political" and law experience? You really think some uneducated self-taught/homeschooled son of farmers could ever be a good president?
Eh, no. Now it's money.
(accidentally posted AC before, oops)
using software other than Microsoft's are unable to bid at many Portuguese public tenders.
That is what I am referring to. It is somewhat inherently blaming Microsoft. Not even just Windows, or not even just "platforms supported by Silverlight," but "software other than Microsoft." software? Even "operating systems by Microsoft" would have been better, wouldn't it?
It is just NOT a neutral article, it seems rather anti-Microsoftly worded.
Babbling about flash had nothing to do with the summary, you're right. :)
Instead the impression a first-time visitor will get is that Linux is arcane, old-fashioned, and disorganized.
I know this will sound like a troll post... but, Linux IS disorganized. Arcane and old-fashioned, no, but disorganized, yes. There are tons of distros. Those distros have very different organizational structures even (deb vs. rpm, to name one). Even something as simple as dvd playback and sound is sometimes hard. Last evening, in fact, I spent an hour trying to get Amarok 2, kscd, and Kaffeine to work.
Where to begin. Let's see. Disorganized was my critical remark - there we, I think, too many options for the sound backend which is why it didn't work. Xine didn't work right off the bat with Amarok 2. Gstreamer was fine, except that it didn't work well with multiple applications, for whatever reason. Now, my question is - how in the world would a normal user know how to fix this? He should not even have to know that such things as "phonon" and "xine" and "gstreamer" exist. Sound should be taken care of in the background; at worst, installing a DRIVER for the soundcard, but having to work with backends (xine, gstreamer, etc.) to a backend (phonon) for applications is a bit much.
And the DVD playback thing, I still don't know how to correct that. At least I'm able to get it to see that it is a DVD - before this, DVD playback was simply disabled (see opensuse.org page).
Old fashioned, arcane? No. Disorganized? Yes.
Documentation of a LOT of different problems (has to be distro-specific though, as they are so different and *ahem* organized differently...) would help a LOT of users, I think.
Agreed. A well-written and easily-used "standard" linux documentation for a lot of distros would be very, very excellent. And targeted, distinctly targeted, to the beginner. "linux.com" is going to be what very beginning beginner linux users are going to type in, right, not advanced computer users. Centralized and standardized Linux help would be great.
Uh, the summary.
I have no idea why it would need Silverlight or Flash to submit a bid, but that doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with Microsoft. It has to do with website designers/programmers. So blame the developeres and programmers, not companies for producing products that developers and programmers wrongly or incorrectly use.
I suppose Flash is much better supported on Linux. Hmmm. Yes there are flash versions, but Adobe took their sweet time about it, did they not?
I'm not a FAN of silverlight (or flash!), but Silverlight seems to be better supported on Linux and Mac than Flash was initially. I could be wrong about that.
I don't undrestand why Microsoft gets blamed for producing a product that isn't supported on platforms that Windows isn't supported on. I may as well complain that it took forEVER for Amarok to get Windows support, and it's STILL not available! Or, even better, that Safari took forEVER to be ported to Windows! Or whatever other software you care to complain about.
If developers choose to use a MS only product, that's not MS's fault. Ms is under no obligation to produce software that works with everyone's, including their competitors, operating system. That makes no sense, monopoly or no monopoly. Now, if they were forcing the developers to use Silverlight, or forcing Adobe not to let Flash have a Windows version, that's different.
According to Google definition search...
[...]
* a coin worth one-hundredth of the value of the basic unit
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Both?
Er... I'm confused. Did you just say the US is essentially socialistic in comparison to the US of a century ago? Seems like you did. I agree. But you seem to imply that the US is an example of capitalism failing (modern day US) and then say that modern day US capitalism isn't capitalism at all, but only leans towards capitalism ...
So, where is the argument for the blanket "capitalism doesn't work." statement?
(my opinion - capitalism as an ideology isn't perfect, but appears to be the best idea so far, given human nature... socialism, communism, fascism, monarchy, anarchy, oligarchy, etc., all have appeared to completely crumble and fall apart - and incidentally, capitalistic-US is becoming more and more socialistic AS it deteriorates ... so why is it that we blame capitalism again?)
attend a 2 year community or jr college the first two years.
Sorry, I should have noted that part, too. Not everyone has to go to a state university for all four years. I knew people at the jr. college I went to that were paying about $10 for a semester... even books were paid for. I am from the middle class, so I wasn't eligible for that financial aid, my costs were still really cheap though. Originally, I think it was something like $11 per unit, but it has since gone up ... still very cheap, though; the books cost more than the tuition.
All that said, even at $6500 (does that include room/board?) per year, we're looking at what, $15,000 for a four year degree? The original poster was saying a teacher making $31k a year couldn't even pay off student loans with that. I disagree. Yeah, $31k isn't much, but it's definitely doable. IIRC, Starbucks still pays under $25k/yr for full-time employees, too.
This also assumes no financial aid. There are tons of financial aid options available for those that qualify financially. And there are school (and even corporation) scholarships for those that don't qualify for FAFSA stuff. I went to a private college, tuition expensive there, but I got roughly 50% from academic and music scholarships.
Incidentally, the people I knew at jr. college that were going through it paying $10/semester or whatever still drove cars, still went to movies, still ate out, still smoked pot, and still watched TV. I am still considered middle-class and I don't watch TV, don't smoke pot, rarely (once a year?) go to movies, bike to work when it's not raining, etc. People spend more money things they don't need than they think. $31k can go a long ways, especially if you are single. Case in point: my music theory teacher worked his way through college, working full time and going to school full time. He worked as a sales clerk person at a record school. He said he lived on about $3 to $5 a day for food. (this was in Minnesota). It's possible to do!
It should also be noted that getting a bachelor degree at a state university is quite cheap.
Hmm. So, can I produce something and be completely legally separated from it?
It seems that at a very, very basic level, a "license" and "ownership" and the "responsibility for creating it" are intertwined. Hm. Thinking out loud on slashdot. Not good. ;)
It seems like not allowing the uttermost basic right of ownership/credit is a good thing though. Being able to claim something as mine even though I didn't actually do it is generally considered ... bad. Say I write a research paper and want to have be completely "public domain" with "no license attached." Ok, so now Joe can pick it up, put his name on it, and claim it has his completely legally? What happens when a school refuses to accept him for a Master's program, claiming that he didn't write it? Hmmm. Seems like NOT being allowed ot simply claim it as your own work when it's not (plagiarism) and licensing, at an extremely basic level, have to be cooperative.
Exactly. MS is still a software company, and that's pretty much it. Yeah, they have a lot of leveraging power because of the mainstream acceptance of Windows, but they are far from a telecommunication company's monopoly on the hardware, software, AND service of one thing... yikes.
Apparently, yes. Paper can be, too. Cool.
So, here's an interesting question then. What if ISPs were not allowed to target downloaders, but only providers?
For example, The Pirate Bay. What's the problem with them going out of business? They host a lot of illegally copied content, cracked content, or what have you. Unfortunatley, though, we have the nit-picking crowd that says "but just making it available isn't illegal" that also says "but just downloading it isn't illegal" ... so we're reduced to forcing law-enforcers to proving that we not only made it available AND downloaded it, but actually listened to it. It's almost getting as ludicrous on the anti-copyright side as the copyright side. May as well go wit hthe "I didn't inhale" argument.
Maybe an overhaul of copyright laws/ideas is the way to go. But is not protection of individual artistry and creativity an important ideal, too? Or do we not care, as long as we get it for free. :)
That said, I might add that I do believe privacy, connectivity, and due process are more important. On the other hand, I also think copyright infringement is illegal and don't support people who want to hide behind privacy laws simply because they don't want to be caught. It's a hard position for me to be in, because usually that is misinterpreted as the "I have nothing to hide" mentality. No, it's more the mentality of asking "what right do you have to rant about the evil and questionable actions of the ISP when you're doing illegal activity as well?" Not to say anyone is perfect... but something else is wrong, too, with consumers that think they deserve the right to freely download other people's work, effort, and monetary contributions (recordings aren't free :) ). And there again, accusations come of "but copyright laws are stupid as they are!" and again comes the retort "then we need an alternative, not copyright anarchy." Or me, being a composer, am going to go buy a big gun and take copyright infringement punishment on my own hands. "By opening this sheet music, you agree to die if you infringe on the creative commons copyright therein." hehe :)
I agree that the burden of proof should be high. Here's the question - how can anyone prove it? Can't search my computer, that's not supposed to happen (in ideal worlds). Can't sniff my packets, that's not fair. Can't monitor my traffic, that's invasion of privacy.
I find this to be a really hard place for ISPs. On one hand, they do have to worry about copyright infringement. It happens, ok, and it's illegal, and no matter what grassroots movements are out there, if a corporation doesn't abide by the laws of the country, ridiculous laws or not, they will have some major problems in that country. So, how do ISPs do it? Yes, burden of proof should be high. How do you propose they detect and shutdown illegal activity?
Basically, here's what I want to say - and not necessarily to you, but to the topic in general - it seems that most arguers of "Hey, that's not fair, you can't [insert action] to my internet connection!" offer no alternative, and really seem to be arguing that they want to have the right to download anything they want, regardless of any law, copyright, artistic license, or what have you.
Arguing for rights of privacy is one thing, but arguing for the right of illegal activity ... uh, is stupid. And corporations are in the position to care about illegal activity. Probably because of money/lawsuits, but they still have to do it.
Of course, if someone decides to take GPL code and do something against GPL, woe to them, so there is a double standard there, too, IMO.
Congratulations, that was "Informative." =P :)
Yeah, but 90% is what, 23 people? Not counting women and children. counting women and children ... 27?
Google is dominant. iPhone is pretty dominant. Or they wouldn't talk about an "iPhone killer." Google seems able to impose standards on many other people. Incidentally, I don't see MS imposing many standards. They are trying, perhaps, sure. But w3c seems to be doing pretty well. Especially with web browsing standards. Why not let IE either die or improve naturally, as already is happening?
People should have the choice, period. Killing off IE (because it's "not compliant") is different from it dying off becuase it's not compliant.
Incidentally, doesn't "IE needs to leave because it is not compliant" sound ominous? "You are not in compliance. Your software must die." To me, that sounds very, very tightly controlled. By an administration. And of course, when bodies of law-makers control those sorts of things, everything is much better, because law-makers are inherently fair, understanding, and completely unbribeable.
Hello, the below sounds really harsh. :( but isn't meant to be. I'm just typing quickly.
The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.
I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.
Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want them to fix it? :)
OEM installs other browsers... well, they can do that now, if they want to, can't they? "No, because then Microsoft won't let them use Windows." Great, then maybe they'll start using Linux. Unless Linux isn't as good as we like to think it is, and people actually can't use it as well? Hmmm. Regardless, if THAT was the lawsuit - forcing Microsoft to not make deals that kept OEMs from putting Firefox on a computer that they sell - I would suppor tthat. But forcing MS to take it out of Windows altogether is stupid, IMO.
All of them that want to be included? Great, my computer will now ship with 50 browsers. :)
End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market ... by what? By telling Microsoft, by court-ordering/government-mandating them to shape up and produce better products or leave? Sounds like free, consumer-driven market to me! (sarcasm, hehe). Maybe bad MS products will drive people to use other products. Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? Not the government or EU or whoever TELLING consumers that they NEED to use other products because this company's ones aren't that great... ?
Hmmm. While we're at it, I don't like Hershey's chocolate. Can we force them people to buy good chocolate?
And incidentally, MS Word isn't as bad as you seem to think it is :) Other than that it doesn't necessarily support this or that standard. Which shouldn't necessarily be bad, unless "free market" now means that everyone has to work together or else.