It's great to meet a fellow Libertarian (especially on/.). I would like to comment on one thing you said:
Capitalism is great because it can quickly and easily change in a changing world, and those that have the assets or abilities to "capitalize" on the changes get rewarded by it, others see the changes and are inspired to do the same. Capitalism's down side is that the people that at one time capitalized on the changes and have acquired assets because of the changes, now feel compelled to leverage the environment to keep what they have and not allow others to make the changes.
You are absolutely right that those that acquire assets want to keep what they have (and probably try to acquire even more assets). There is no doubt in my mind that some companies and individuals will attempt to leverage their market power in their favor. However, I don't think this is a bad thing. I only think it's "bad" when these people try to use the government to FORCE markets to continue to support their products or services. Truly free markets are not a zero sum game. While some company may think its market power can be used to leverage all customers in a particular group, very soon...some other company with a completely different vision will come along and totally alter the entire market into something new altogether. Look at Gmail. Once Google said, screw it, we're going to give everyone 1+ Gigabytes of storage (now over 2.5 Gigs), the entire pay-for-extra-space web based email market was changed. And google is probably making more money per user than any other web based email providers because of their intelligently placed dynamic text ads. Hotmail and yahoo ruled that market...but things flipped overnight. Hotmail and yahoo began offering almost 50 times their innitial storage amount...and they both began racing to make their software competitive again as well. In other words, when some companies allegedly have a "monopoly" and use that monopoly to leverage more customers or money (ie, charging 20 bucks/year for a reasonable amount of email storage space), some other company sees a huge market oppertunity to completely change the game (always to the benefit of the consumer). If it wasn't for company greed, other competitors and innovators wouldn't have the financial incentive to try to topple or at least level these hugely lucrative markets. True free markets are never a bad thing...because there is always gonna be a competitor or inventor around the corner that can eliminate "monopolies" or take all the chips...until another company does the same and so on.
As a libertarian voter, I'm sure you know all of this, but I felt it was neccessary to clarify that true capitalistic free markets are far better than they are bad (and certainly more effective and efficient than any other political/economic model). At least in a free market, there is a (very good) chance to compete against "monopolists." In a regulated market, powerful governments create and protect monopolies and make it impossible to drive prices down and improve service (Think farming subsidies, rent-controls, price-controlled healthcare, election donation limits, special industry taxes (or tax cuts), etc). As far as I'm concerned, the only agency that can and does truly leverage their power is the government.
Well, they have jurisdiction over my phone to the point that about 30% of the bill goes to them or other government agencies. I'm a little miffed that I have to pay for 911 service to my phone without an option. I am not required to have a phone, but I am required to pay for extra phone "features"?? Why do I have to pay for it on every phone line? I'm sure somebody has a link, but I would love to know how much as a percent of my money really is just recycled back to the people that print it to begin with. Before I even get my paycheck, they take a huge chunk. What is left over, I typically owe another 5 to 10% to spend it somewhere. I have to pay semi-annually for the privilege of owning some of my own possessions (real estate tax, car tax). There are exceptions for some goods and services. I don't have to pay an extra tax for medications. I have to pay a tax for general goods. I have to pay an additional tax to eat over the general goods tax (WTF??)
Don't like wasteful government bureaucracy? Don't like government created monopolies? Don't like taxes? Well then, it's time for a shameless libertarian pitch: Vote for Libertarians! Libertarians want to eliminate taxes, government waste, corporate handouts, boondoggles, military imperialism, and especially unconstitutional agencies (like the FCC).
I like the gist of this idea, but I think the "certified" reviews is unworkable and probably unfair. I think being able to rate an article's accuracy and quality (and having that rating appear on the article) is a great idea if only to get an idea of the popularity and inherant controversy surrounding the article. And I think you'd have to eliminate annonymous users from the voting process simply because it's too easy to setup a spambot network with thousands of IP addresses to vote for unsavory or innacurate versions of an article.
Sorry, but that kind of prememptive thinking is responsible for alot of unnecessary oppression around the world. If we advocate snuffing out "problems" before they occur, then we are advocating tyranny and the abuse of power...because what if those "assasination advocates" eventually just become political dissenters or members of the opposition? The president may assume that he has licence to have "talks" with these people as well.
No one should be "talked" to unless they are suspects in a crime (not potential or hypothetical crimes).
I agree with this as well. I certainly didn't mean for my comment to be extrapolated and isolated into meaning ONLY what my comment responded to. As a libertarian, I wholeheartedly support the freedom of private parties to edit or exclude speech they don't like on their own mediums.
Agreed. I'm sorry that you made the assumption that I meant private parties couldn't excerise their rights over their content. I fully support the freedom of private parties to curb speech they don't like on their mediums.
Exactly. It is the audience's responsibility to scrutinize legitmacy, not the speaker's. And they should be especially vigilant in the regard when the speaker is annonymous. If the audience chooses not to scrutinize then the audience is responsible for the deception, not the speaker.
All of these are in place to deal with trolls: asshats who are still trying to speak shite and not accept responsibility for it. Do you want to remove all this and let the trolls ruin it for everyone?
I think you're missing the point. Yes there are consequences, but they are private consequences. Slashdot is a private medium. Its owners can (and do) control its content. Wikipedia, while editable by the public, is also a privately help medium that can (to a lessor degree) control its content. If Wikipedia decides to take action by banning or blocking certain "slanderous" users, then they have every right to do so. Private institutions may block speech, but the government has NO right to control speech and should not be able to prosecute or manipulate anyone in this regard. Making it legal to allow "trolls" and "asshats" run free does not mean that it is illegal for private entities to control or prevent these dissentors from publishing their speech on their private medium.
Anonymity and 'freedom after speech' should be reserved for content that is openly understood to be opinion.
My guess is that you don't understand or even LIKE the first Ammendment in the US:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are NO footnotes in its original rendition. No law means no law. It certainly doesn't mean that free speech is only allowed when the "content is openly understood to be opinion."
If that is the case, just chop off slander and libel from civil laws and castrate the criminal laws.
Good idea. People should learn to distinguish fact-based reporting from hyperbolic nonsense. Why we allow the courts to determine what is true or not when any good reporter with a research assistant can confirm or deny sources is beyond me.
After all, you are exercising your free speech when you print in your newspaper that Bush is involved in kidnappings in Baghdad or when you con your neighbor into signing you his property. They are just speech, right.
Yes, these statements are just speech. And just like the President can without consequences (or proof) slander Iraq by claiming that they harbour WMD's, so should all other citizens be able to say whatever the hell they want...and so should all citizens be skeptical of any statements until evidence is produced.
How about telling people to kill infidels?
How 'bout I tell you to jump off a roof? Are you going to do it?
Well, the problem is, even if they deserve the ridicule, the damage is already done when people accept a Wiki entry as "proof" of anything. For example, cyberjihadists keep modifying Wiki entries on Islam to remove facts perceived negatively such as Prophet Mohammad marrying a 6 y.o. girl and consumated the marriage at 9, or keep adding sweetened "facts" such as Islam means Peace when it actually means Submission. Now, if you don't know anything about Islam, you'd take this as facts and the damage has been done when you shift the blame to the West and Israel whenever terror acts happen. Even Bush repeated such mantra though he didn't get it from Wikipedia. Such is the value of propaganda. Isn't that what kept the Nazi and Uni Soviet going for a very long time and keeps N.Korea and Iran going till now?
So basically, we should take down Wikipedia just to be safe? Or wait, I have an idea...maybe, readers of Wikipedia can actually be responsible for making their own minds up. Hmmm, maybe not...sounds too much like FREEDOM.
Yes, but there shouldn't be. Saying "I wish the president was dead," or "I wish someone would assassinate the president" is an opinion and should be protected speech like all other opinions. Besides, at any given moment, the president should assume that hundreds of groups and individuals want him dead. His assumption doesn't give him license however to investigate everyone that merely wants him dead. It should only give him license to adequately setup DEFENSIVE (not preemptive) measures that protect him from any ACTUAL attacks.
As mentioned in the news story, the writer did it as a joke to amuse a friend. I don't think he did it seriously, or that it even crossed his mind how blown out of proportion a silly story like this would become. There was no malicious intent in his mind, and thus no reason to make the post covertly with a public internet connection.
The difference between Wikipedia and say, The New York Times is that the writers of the New York Times are PAID to write accurately. If they fail to perform their duties (write "truth" that can be confirmed), then they will be fired and possibly shunned from the journalism industry. Thusly, there is a motivation to write as much truth as possible to avoid negative financial consequences or a coerced career change. There are no such consequences on Wikipedia which is why its writers are more nonchalant and sometimes intentionally innacurate.
So, a "reliable" publisher is one that controls its writers to a degree with positive or negative consequences.
I don't know of any sites that give me the choice of only playing the media under Windows Media. Do you?
Yes, I do. But even if I didn't, it's not Microsoft's fault that it has a popular player used by many websites. The websites themselves are responsible for maximizing their audience...if they fail to do that, you can't blame microsoft. They could easily offer their movies in quicktime, realplayer, or flash video formats. Amazon.com offers their music previews in Real and WMP for example...and lots of cutting edge sites use flash video as almost everyone has the flash plugin.
The fact that you pretty much have to have a fundementally gratis product to get anywhere these days rather soundly demonstrates how broken things are.
Actually, most of Microsoft's products aren't free, and they still manage to persuade consumers to purchase them...perhaps because to most consumers paying some money for a good product is better than paying no money for an inferior one. By the way, this in no way reflects my view of open source software because I think there is lots of great open source software. Nevertheless, I realize that many people enjoy the familiarity, the hardware support, and the extensive availability of well funded 3rd party software products available on Windows machines...and for these reasons, I think many people continue to purchase Windows despite the free alternatives.
Claiming Linux as argument for Microsoft as not a monopoly is sleazy and dishonest in the extreme.
Actually, I'm claiming that Microsoft isn't a monopoly because it isn't. Even if there were NO other operating systems in the entire world, they still couldn't have a monopoly because they do not have exclusive control over the resources required to create operating systems (software programmers). You must have exclusive control over a scarce resource to be a monopoly, and no one person or company can have exclusive control over the creation of software. It's impossible.
YOUR attitude about the proper focus of business is exactly why things are so wrong in the market. Me, the man with the cash, should come first, not the stockholders.
Indeed, you the man with the cash ARE first. If you the man with cash don't buy a company's products, then the shareholder's lose. You truly are in control, BECAUSE the stockholders depend on you (or whatever market they are after) for a profit. The proper focus of business is to please stockholders...but that can only be done by pleasing consumers. Clearly Microsoft has achieved this beause they are a very profitable company.
This wannabe robberbaron crap you're spouting is just assinine.
Uh oh, your "logic" isn't holding up so well...so your Plan B is to spew out feeble personal attacks and colorful adjectives?
I think it's amusing that you have to require rules and conditions for me to support my argument, Anonymous Coward, despite the fact that I made no such rules and conditions in the first place. The fact is, the market doesn't behave in a fashion that YOU get to decide, the market simply is what it is. There are hundreds of Linux distributions, Unix based OS's, Apple desktop and server software, Solaris renditions and so on. Whether some of these products are commercial or open source is irrelevant: Operating systems are operating systems regardless of price and distribution reach (or indeed marketing prowess).
You also seem to make the sophmoric mistake of attacking the wrong party. Is it Microsoft's fault (as if it could be a fault) that most people want Windows on their hardware and therefore most smart hardware manufacturers package their products with Windows? Doesn't the choice of what operating systems to preload on their hardware soley lie with the OEMs? Microsoft certainly isn't forcing anyone to buy their software...but intelligent hardware manufacturers that actually want to SELL their products realize that Windows is the most desireable OS in the consumer market--and obviously offer it. Walmart, despite being the largest, most expansive retailer in the world failed to sell a great deal of their Linspire boxes (even though they were priced very low)...why? Because most people want Windows. YOu might not like this fact, but it is a fact, and the business world wisely allows facts to determine what they market (for the most part).
You want me to name 3 OEM's or resellers that sell hardware without an OS? Why? It's certainly not Microsoft's fault that many OEM's install their OS on their systems...it's the market's fault. You see, the market (consumers that don't know how to build their own machines), WANT Windows and that's what they get. Those that don't want windows need only to use google to find these 3+ OEM's that you seek. I found 52 without even trying by the way: Linux harware vendors. Most of this hardware is offered with or without Linux. Newegg.com offers many "barebones" packages without an OS, and there are dozens of other online computer retailers that also sell barebones packages which anyone who is actively seeking can find. Nevertheless, the fact remains, it is up to most OEM's to maximize their market...and they successfully do this by offering Windows on their machines because that's what most people want.
Microsoft has the power to exclude competition. Believe it or don't if you like, but it was (repeatedly) proven in court.
What the hell are you talking about? How has Microsoft excluded Linux distros and Apple OS from the market? Anyone in the world can download Linux for free, or order an Apple computer from apple.com. This is hardly exclusion.
My quote: Microsoft can not and never has had any exclusive control over the production of software.
Correct. It does have exclusive control, over the software *MARKET*. Note that this is not illegal. What's illegal is *using* this power.
You obviously misread me. I said that Microsoft can NOT and NEVER has had any exclusive control over the production of software meaning that it hasn't ever had exclusive control and therefore cannot weild this "power" that you imagine.
Indeed !!! And this is the power that a monopoly has: control over the price of its *own* products. Normally the price is controlled by the market itself.
And make no mistake, Microsoft has *huge* profit margins in windows and office. Much bigger than any competing software. The combination alone of high market share and profit margins spell "monopoly".
I think you're reading into this in a fashion that only allows you to extract the meaning you want. What I meant by a company being able only to determine the price of their products is that it is up to them to price their products based on their cost to make, how much profit they can earn and what the market will bear. It is obvious that Microsoft has chosen pricing points that people can bear because millions of people buy their software. If Microsoft made Windows $10,000 a pop, they would still retain control over their prices, but of course, no one would buy their product. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with "huge" profit margins if the market is willing to buy the products that weild such margins. There is nothing wrong with being "much" bigger than other competing software companies any more than there is something wrong with Tiger Woods being the highest paid golpher. Our society should reward success, not bash it. The combination of your points most certainly does not spell "monopoly," it spells illogical misuse of rhetoric that gets bowled over by the actual definition of monopoly which I've already refrenced (and which you clearly ignored).
The korean court ordered microsoft to add links to competitors not because it was the law, or the right thing to do but as a *punishment* to illegal behavior.
And the entire premise for the Korean court's ruling as well as any other court's previous ruling against Microsoft is a sham inspired by lobbyists and greed, much like your feeble, idealistically driven arguments.
You know, if all things were equal then I would agree with most of what you said. However, things are not equal. There is NO CHOICE for the vast majority of computer users. When a typical user purchases a computer from one of the big OEMs (or even the smaller ones) their ONLY choice is Windows. In fact, they don't even get much of a choice there --- it is typically the latest version of (desktop) Windows or nothing. So do not say no one is being forced to buy Windows, if there is no other choice than Windows then the typical user _is_ being forced to buy Windows when they purchase a computer.
Since you seem keen on legal determinations, you surely know that ignorance is never an excuse for not obeying a law. Similarly, just because the "average" consumer doesn't know about other alternatives does not make the majority software maker responsible. Your argument is like saying that it's not the consumers fault for only finding Toyota's at a Toyota dealership! The fact is, most people actually WANT windows and that is why most people buy windows (and most suppliers supply it). Demand creates markets, supply fills them. Even still, I don't believe for a second that people are unaware of alternatives. Apple is a famous computer company that makes computers just as well and sometimes better than PC's. Even a quick search on google for "Alternative Operating Systems" churns out hundreds of viable alternatives. Unless one is a complete technophobe, one cannot pretend to not know about other alternatives. Your point is moot.
Other people do not have the choice because they or others they deal with are locked into Microsoft's proprietary formats. Hence, you need access to the data then you use Windows.
Another car analogy: That's like saying that people don't have a choice when going to their Ford service center and replacing their engine with a Mercedes diesel engine. If you don't like the package and all that it entails, it is YOUR responsibility to choose wisely...not the company manufacturing the package. If you are weary of being tied to proprietary formats (I assume you mean Microsoft Office formats), then you or your company should make more careful buying decisions...or the leap to open source solutions. By the way, I've been a Microsoft user for over 13 years and I can open ALL of my "proprietary" microsoft files in Ubuntu/Open Office just fine. Your point is weak, and as far as I'm concerned irrelevant. Software purchase and the ramifications it entails is the buyer's responsibility. And by the way...despite the existence of free alternatives, Microsoft still sells it's products successfully many would argue because they are often superior (not just because they are sometimes bundled). I think you'll find alot of people buying Office 12 because of it's innovations...even though Open Office is free.
Yes, there are hundreds of other companies that make similar software to Microsoft's. Now tell me how many of those other companies have the clout to coerce OEMs into bundling deals at the expense of pissing off Microsoft? Or did you forget about the part about Microsoft forcing OEMs to not offer competing products bundled with the computer purchase?
No one is coercing anyone to do anything. If you sell PC's, you are free to install Linux or others and sell it like that. If the company chooses to use the most popular (and desirable) OS (Windows), then they will draft out a deal that is beneficial to both parties. If the deal isn't beneficial to the OEM, the OEM is free to decline and go with something else. Yes, I know that his product won't be very marketable without Windows...but isn't that the point? Windows has made a product that people want (and have spent BILLIONS of dollars marketing and developing it)...aren't they entitled to reap the rewards of their investment?
How can you keep a straight face when claiming Microsoft is not a monopoly or even wields monopoly power?
I can keep a straight face because it's true. A mo
There has never been a "scarsity of resources" in making telephone lines either, but there have been monopolies in the communication market. This is the case in many countries today, actually..
Telecommunications monopolies artificially create scarcity because they are granted by the government (as are all monopolies). If a country had a true free-market, then every city, town and neighbourhood would be fighting off other companies that would love to lay cables in your streets so they could truly compete for your telecommunications dollars. It is the government that has made such competition impossible, so they are responsible for the monopolies, not businesses.
Monopoly: exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill --see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section
Again, you seem to be glossing over the "exclusive control" part of the definition. Microsoft can not and never has had any exclusive control over the production of software. Without exclusive control of a particular market, one cannot control prices over anything other than their own software--which as mentioned has to compete with hundreds of other companies (some of which offer their software for free). If other companies want to support Microsoft by writing software for it, then they have chosen to do so despite the existence of other alternative platforms. No one has a "right" to put their software into Microsoft's products anymore than Ford has a right to put their engines into a Toyota. Or a better analogy would be, no one company or government agency has the right to foist their DRM protection scheme on Apple's AAC format despite the fact that Apple has a majority marketshare of the music downloading business. The fact remains...there are hundreds of other alternatives to iTunes, and there are hundreds of other alternatives to Windows. There is no monopoly here, please move along.
PS, Your post only served to underline my valid points. Thanks.
The problem is not the software, the problem is monopoly: Since microsoft has 95% of the desktop market, bundling media player with windows is, apparently, illegal. There are laws about such things, it's not a decision based on user surveys....
The whole "microsoft is a monopoly" argument is so absurd because we aren't even talking about a scarcity of resources. If I owned 95% of the world's oil reserves, then I would truly have a monopoly because there is only so much oil to be had. But software has no such resource limitations. Anyone with a computer and a web server CAN produce an unlimited number of competing operating systems and package them with whatever software they like...oh wait, hundreds of company's already do this. Microsoft's Windows does NOT have a monopoly. It is impossible to have a monopoly with software when there are free, viable and unlimited supplies of alternatives available.
monopoly (n.): Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service. Source: Dictionary.com
With regard to the real definition, fist of all, Microsoft doesn't have exclusive control over the production of perating systems (there are hundreds of alternatives, many of which are free), and secondly, Microsoft does not control the means of production (as millions of people are capable of writing and distributing operating systems). It seems that the politicians and judges that went after Microsoft and labelled them a "monopoly" were more influenced by politics and lobbyists that the actual definition of a monopoly. You also have clearly become enamoured with the spurious use of the word as it suits your ideology to ignore facts.
In addition to these facts, the operating system market is not a zero sum game. Because an OS is simply a piece of software, anyone is free to install multiple OS's on their hardrives to maximize their choices. Indeed, I have 3 Operating systems on the machine I'm typing on right now (Windows XP, Ubuntu Breezy, and FreeBSD). It is litterally impossible at this point in the game to assert that Microsoft eliminates choice when there are hundreds of alternatives available for FREE right now! Even if it had 100% marketshare, their product is certainly not exclusive and they certainly don't have a stranglehold on the means of production.
Thank you, god: an intelligent comment on slashdot.
I'll answer your rhetorical question in case others aren't capable of doing the same: No, the government should NOT be involved in anything other than protecting freedom. That freedom, by the way is extended to companys that should be free to decide what they package with their operating systems to make them more desirable to the consumers that are also free to buy or not buy their products.
As much as I dislike DRM and proprietary formats, any company should be free to institute whatever protectionist schemes that they like (short of government legislation) just as long as I am free to avoid companies that persue this parochial approach.
Freedom is a two way street. Sometimes you aren't gonna like what's on that street, but at least you are free to turn around and go the othe way.
The problem is that in many cases you can't even fully uninstall these programs. There's no reason why you should be forced to have applications with tons of holes in them (wmp, ie) just to use their operating system.
It is so frustrating as a libertarian to read so many comments like this. YOU DON'T HAVE TO INSTALL WINDOWS. NO ONE is forcing you to buy, install or use windows. If you don't like the way windows bundles software or how windows makes uninstalling their bundled software difficult...then don't use windows!
Microsoft is a company that makes software. There are HUNDREDS of other company's that make other similar software. If you CHOOSE to use windows, then you are chosing the entire package that they offer. If that package isn't to your liking, then you may choose to use another piece of software (like unix, linux, apple, and the hundreds of iterations thereof). You can even build your own operating system for free exactly how you like it. Microsoft is not responsible for making operating systems exactly how YOU want them. They are responsible to their shareholders and as such, make operatings systems that appeal to the most possible people in the marketplace at the best possible price. Most people actually like having more software bundled in for free (gasp).
Again, there are too many choices in the marketplace to even use the word monopolist. You can't be a monopolist if anyone can produce similar products freely (as hundreds of companys and linux distrubutions do). This just sounds like Anti-Microsoft group thinking to me. The fact is, nobody owes you anything, especially a microsoft windows OS that is specially tailored to your communistic ideals. Grow up.
Much of the speed of your download depends on the speed of your upload. If your upload speed is high, your download speed will typically be much higher too. My advice: increase your upload bandwidth and stop or pause other downloads/uploads if the desired file is a priority. Also, if you are behind a firewall or router, you need to setup port forwarding correctly with most clients.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, that was funny.
Capitalism is great because it can quickly and easily change in a changing world, and those that have the assets or abilities to "capitalize" on the changes get rewarded by it, others see the changes and are inspired to do the same. Capitalism's down side is that the people that at one time capitalized on the changes and have acquired assets because of the changes, now feel compelled to leverage the environment to keep what they have and not allow others to make the changes.
You are absolutely right that those that acquire assets want to keep what they have (and probably try to acquire even more assets). There is no doubt in my mind that some companies and individuals will attempt to leverage their market power in their favor. However, I don't think this is a bad thing. I only think it's "bad" when these people try to use the government to FORCE markets to continue to support their products or services. Truly free markets are not a zero sum game. While some company may think its market power can be used to leverage all customers in a particular group, very soon...some other company with a completely different vision will come along and totally alter the entire market into something new altogether. Look at Gmail. Once Google said, screw it, we're going to give everyone 1+ Gigabytes of storage (now over 2.5 Gigs), the entire pay-for-extra-space web based email market was changed. And google is probably making more money per user than any other web based email providers because of their intelligently placed dynamic text ads. Hotmail and yahoo ruled that market...but things flipped overnight. Hotmail and yahoo began offering almost 50 times their innitial storage amount...and they both began racing to make their software competitive again as well. In other words, when some companies allegedly have a "monopoly" and use that monopoly to leverage more customers or money (ie, charging 20 bucks/year for a reasonable amount of email storage space), some other company sees a huge market oppertunity to completely change the game (always to the benefit of the consumer). If it wasn't for company greed, other competitors and innovators wouldn't have the financial incentive to try to topple or at least level these hugely lucrative markets. True free markets are never a bad thing...because there is always gonna be a competitor or inventor around the corner that can eliminate "monopolies" or take all the chips...until another company does the same and so on.
As a libertarian voter, I'm sure you know all of this, but I felt it was neccessary to clarify that true capitalistic free markets are far better than they are bad (and certainly more effective and efficient than any other political/economic model). At least in a free market, there is a (very good) chance to compete against "monopolists." In a regulated market, powerful governments create and protect monopolies and make it impossible to drive prices down and improve service (Think farming subsidies, rent-controls, price-controlled healthcare, election donation limits, special industry taxes (or tax cuts), etc). As far as I'm concerned, the only agency that can and does truly leverage their power is the government.
Don't like wasteful government bureaucracy? Don't like government created monopolies? Don't like taxes? Well then, it's time for a shameless libertarian pitch: Vote for Libertarians! Libertarians want to eliminate taxes, government waste, corporate handouts, boondoggles, military imperialism, and especially unconstitutional agencies (like the FCC).
I like the gist of this idea, but I think the "certified" reviews is unworkable and probably unfair. I think being able to rate an article's accuracy and quality (and having that rating appear on the article) is a great idea if only to get an idea of the popularity and inherant controversy surrounding the article. And I think you'd have to eliminate annonymous users from the voting process simply because it's too easy to setup a spambot network with thousands of IP addresses to vote for unsavory or innacurate versions of an article.
No one should be "talked" to unless they are suspects in a crime (not potential or hypothetical crimes).
I agree with this as well. I certainly didn't mean for my comment to be extrapolated and isolated into meaning ONLY what my comment responded to. As a libertarian, I wholeheartedly support the freedom of private parties to edit or exclude speech they don't like on their own mediums.
Agreed. I'm sorry that you made the assumption that I meant private parties couldn't excerise their rights over their content. I fully support the freedom of private parties to curb speech they don't like on their mediums.
Exactly. It is the audience's responsibility to scrutinize legitmacy, not the speaker's. And they should be especially vigilant in the regard when the speaker is annonymous. If the audience chooses not to scrutinize then the audience is responsible for the deception, not the speaker.
I think you're missing the point. Yes there are consequences, but they are private consequences. Slashdot is a private medium. Its owners can (and do) control its content. Wikipedia, while editable by the public, is also a privately help medium that can (to a lessor degree) control its content. If Wikipedia decides to take action by banning or blocking certain "slanderous" users, then they have every right to do so. Private institutions may block speech, but the government has NO right to control speech and should not be able to prosecute or manipulate anyone in this regard. Making it legal to allow "trolls" and "asshats" run free does not mean that it is illegal for private entities to control or prevent these dissentors from publishing their speech on their private medium.
My guess is that you don't understand or even LIKE the first Ammendment in the US:
There are NO footnotes in its original rendition. No law means no law. It certainly doesn't mean that free speech is only allowed when the "content is openly understood to be opinion."Good idea. People should learn to distinguish fact-based reporting from hyperbolic nonsense. Why we allow the courts to determine what is true or not when any good reporter with a research assistant can confirm or deny sources is beyond me.
After all, you are exercising your free speech when you print in your newspaper that Bush is involved in kidnappings in Baghdad or when you con your neighbor into signing you his property. They are just speech, right.
Yes, these statements are just speech. And just like the President can without consequences (or proof) slander Iraq by claiming that they harbour WMD's, so should all other citizens be able to say whatever the hell they want...and so should all citizens be skeptical of any statements until evidence is produced.
How about telling people to kill infidels?
How 'bout I tell you to jump off a roof? Are you going to do it?
Well, the problem is, even if they deserve the ridicule, the damage is already done when people accept a Wiki entry as "proof" of anything. For example, cyberjihadists keep modifying Wiki entries on Islam to remove facts perceived negatively such as Prophet Mohammad marrying a 6 y.o. girl and consumated the marriage at 9, or keep adding sweetened "facts" such as Islam means Peace when it actually means Submission. Now, if you don't know anything about Islam, you'd take this as facts and the damage has been done when you shift the blame to the West and Israel whenever terror acts happen. Even Bush repeated such mantra though he didn't get it from Wikipedia. Such is the value of propaganda. Isn't that what kept the Nazi and Uni Soviet going for a very long time and keeps N.Korea and Iran going till now?
So basically, we should take down Wikipedia just to be safe? Or wait, I have an idea...maybe, readers of Wikipedia can actually be responsible for making their own minds up. Hmmm, maybe not...sounds too much like FREEDOM.
Yes, but there shouldn't be. Saying "I wish the president was dead," or "I wish someone would assassinate the president" is an opinion and should be protected speech like all other opinions. Besides, at any given moment, the president should assume that hundreds of groups and individuals want him dead. His assumption doesn't give him license however to investigate everyone that merely wants him dead. It should only give him license to adequately setup DEFENSIVE (not preemptive) measures that protect him from any ACTUAL attacks.
As mentioned in the news story, the writer did it as a joke to amuse a friend. I don't think he did it seriously, or that it even crossed his mind how blown out of proportion a silly story like this would become. There was no malicious intent in his mind, and thus no reason to make the post covertly with a public internet connection.
So, a "reliable" publisher is one that controls its writers to a degree with positive or negative consequences.
Yes, I do. But even if I didn't, it's not Microsoft's fault that it has a popular player used by many websites. The websites themselves are responsible for maximizing their audience...if they fail to do that, you can't blame microsoft. They could easily offer their movies in quicktime, realplayer, or flash video formats. Amazon.com offers their music previews in Real and WMP for example...and lots of cutting edge sites use flash video as almost everyone has the flash plugin.
Actually, most of Microsoft's products aren't free, and they still manage to persuade consumers to purchase them...perhaps because to most consumers paying some money for a good product is better than paying no money for an inferior one. By the way, this in no way reflects my view of open source software because I think there is lots of great open source software. Nevertheless, I realize that many people enjoy the familiarity, the hardware support, and the extensive availability of well funded 3rd party software products available on Windows machines...and for these reasons, I think many people continue to purchase Windows despite the free alternatives.
Claiming Linux as argument for Microsoft as not a monopoly is sleazy and dishonest in the extreme.
Actually, I'm claiming that Microsoft isn't a monopoly because it isn't. Even if there were NO other operating systems in the entire world, they still couldn't have a monopoly because they do not have exclusive control over the resources required to create operating systems (software programmers). You must have exclusive control over a scarce resource to be a monopoly, and no one person or company can have exclusive control over the creation of software. It's impossible.
YOUR attitude about the proper focus of business is exactly why things are so wrong in the market. Me, the man with the cash, should come first, not the stockholders.
Indeed, you the man with the cash ARE first. If you the man with cash don't buy a company's products, then the shareholder's lose. You truly are in control, BECAUSE the stockholders depend on you (or whatever market they are after) for a profit. The proper focus of business is to please stockholders...but that can only be done by pleasing consumers. Clearly Microsoft has achieved this beause they are a very profitable company.
This wannabe robberbaron crap you're spouting is just assinine.
Uh oh, your "logic" isn't holding up so well...so your Plan B is to spew out feeble personal attacks and colorful adjectives?
You also seem to make the sophmoric mistake of attacking the wrong party. Is it Microsoft's fault (as if it could be a fault) that most people want Windows on their hardware and therefore most smart hardware manufacturers package their products with Windows? Doesn't the choice of what operating systems to preload on their hardware soley lie with the OEMs? Microsoft certainly isn't forcing anyone to buy their software...but intelligent hardware manufacturers that actually want to SELL their products realize that Windows is the most desireable OS in the consumer market--and obviously offer it. Walmart, despite being the largest, most expansive retailer in the world failed to sell a great deal of their Linspire boxes (even though they were priced very low)...why? Because most people want Windows. YOu might not like this fact, but it is a fact, and the business world wisely allows facts to determine what they market (for the most part).
You want me to name 3 OEM's or resellers that sell hardware without an OS? Why? It's certainly not Microsoft's fault that many OEM's install their OS on their systems...it's the market's fault. You see, the market (consumers that don't know how to build their own machines), WANT Windows and that's what they get. Those that don't want windows need only to use google to find these 3+ OEM's that you seek. I found 52 without even trying by the way: Linux harware vendors. Most of this hardware is offered with or without Linux. Newegg.com offers many "barebones" packages without an OS, and there are dozens of other online computer retailers that also sell barebones packages which anyone who is actively seeking can find. Nevertheless, the fact remains, it is up to most OEM's to maximize their market...and they successfully do this by offering Windows on their machines because that's what most people want.
What the hell are you talking about? How has Microsoft excluded Linux distros and Apple OS from the market? Anyone in the world can download Linux for free, or order an Apple computer from apple.com. This is hardly exclusion.
Correct. It does have exclusive control, over the software *MARKET*. Note that this is not illegal. What's illegal is *using* this power.You obviously misread me. I said that Microsoft can NOT and NEVER has had any exclusive control over the production of software meaning that it hasn't ever had exclusive control and therefore cannot weild this "power" that you imagine.
Indeed !!! And this is the power that a monopoly has: control over the price of its *own* products. Normally the price is controlled by the market itself. And make no mistake, Microsoft has *huge* profit margins in windows and office. Much bigger than any competing software. The combination alone of high market share and profit margins spell "monopoly".
I think you're reading into this in a fashion that only allows you to extract the meaning you want. What I meant by a company being able only to determine the price of their products is that it is up to them to price their products based on their cost to make, how much profit they can earn and what the market will bear. It is obvious that Microsoft has chosen pricing points that people can bear because millions of people buy their software. If Microsoft made Windows $10,000 a pop, they would still retain control over their prices, but of course, no one would buy their product. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with "huge" profit margins if the market is willing to buy the products that weild such margins. There is nothing wrong with being "much" bigger than other competing software companies any more than there is something wrong with Tiger Woods being the highest paid golpher. Our society should reward success, not bash it. The combination of your points most certainly does not spell "monopoly," it spells illogical misuse of rhetoric that gets bowled over by the actual definition of monopoly which I've already refrenced (and which you clearly ignored).
The korean court ordered microsoft to add links to competitors not because it was the law, or the right thing to do but as a *punishment* to illegal behavior.
And the entire premise for the Korean court's ruling as well as any other court's previous ruling against Microsoft is a sham inspired by lobbyists and greed, much like your feeble, idealistically driven arguments.
Since you seem keen on legal determinations, you surely know that ignorance is never an excuse for not obeying a law. Similarly, just because the "average" consumer doesn't know about other alternatives does not make the majority software maker responsible. Your argument is like saying that it's not the consumers fault for only finding Toyota's at a Toyota dealership! The fact is, most people actually WANT windows and that is why most people buy windows (and most suppliers supply it). Demand creates markets, supply fills them. Even still, I don't believe for a second that people are unaware of alternatives. Apple is a famous computer company that makes computers just as well and sometimes better than PC's. Even a quick search on google for "Alternative Operating Systems" churns out hundreds of viable alternatives. Unless one is a complete technophobe, one cannot pretend to not know about other alternatives. Your point is moot.
Other people do not have the choice because they or others they deal with are locked into Microsoft's proprietary formats. Hence, you need access to the data then you use Windows.
Another car analogy: That's like saying that people don't have a choice when going to their Ford service center and replacing their engine with a Mercedes diesel engine. If you don't like the package and all that it entails, it is YOUR responsibility to choose wisely...not the company manufacturing the package. If you are weary of being tied to proprietary formats (I assume you mean Microsoft Office formats), then you or your company should make more careful buying decisions...or the leap to open source solutions. By the way, I've been a Microsoft user for over 13 years and I can open ALL of my "proprietary" microsoft files in Ubuntu/Open Office just fine. Your point is weak, and as far as I'm concerned irrelevant. Software purchase and the ramifications it entails is the buyer's responsibility. And by the way...despite the existence of free alternatives, Microsoft still sells it's products successfully many would argue because they are often superior (not just because they are sometimes bundled). I think you'll find alot of people buying Office 12 because of it's innovations...even though Open Office is free.
Yes, there are hundreds of other companies that make similar software to Microsoft's. Now tell me how many of those other companies have the clout to coerce OEMs into bundling deals at the expense of pissing off Microsoft? Or did you forget about the part about Microsoft forcing OEMs to not offer competing products bundled with the computer purchase?
No one is coercing anyone to do anything. If you sell PC's, you are free to install Linux or others and sell it like that. If the company chooses to use the most popular (and desirable) OS (Windows), then they will draft out a deal that is beneficial to both parties. If the deal isn't beneficial to the OEM, the OEM is free to decline and go with something else. Yes, I know that his product won't be very marketable without Windows...but isn't that the point? Windows has made a product that people want (and have spent BILLIONS of dollars marketing and developing it)...aren't they entitled to reap the rewards of their investment?
How can you keep a straight face when claiming Microsoft is not a monopoly or even wields monopoly power?
I can keep a straight face because it's true. A mo
Telecommunications monopolies artificially create scarcity because they are granted by the government (as are all monopolies). If a country had a true free-market, then every city, town and neighbourhood would be fighting off other companies that would love to lay cables in your streets so they could truly compete for your telecommunications dollars. It is the government that has made such competition impossible, so they are responsible for the monopolies, not businesses.
Again, you seem to be glossing over the "exclusive control" part of the definition. Microsoft can not and never has had any exclusive control over the production of software. Without exclusive control of a particular market, one cannot control prices over anything other than their own software--which as mentioned has to compete with hundreds of other companies (some of which offer their software for free). If other companies want to support Microsoft by writing software for it, then they have chosen to do so despite the existence of other alternative platforms. No one has a "right" to put their software into Microsoft's products anymore than Ford has a right to put their engines into a Toyota. Or a better analogy would be, no one company or government agency has the right to foist their DRM protection scheme on Apple's AAC format despite the fact that Apple has a majority marketshare of the music downloading business. The fact remains...there are hundreds of other alternatives to iTunes, and there are hundreds of other alternatives to Windows. There is no monopoly here, please move along.
PS, Your post only served to underline my valid points. Thanks.
The whole "microsoft is a monopoly" argument is so absurd because we aren't even talking about a scarcity of resources. If I owned 95% of the world's oil reserves, then I would truly have a monopoly because there is only so much oil to be had. But software has no such resource limitations. Anyone with a computer and a web server CAN produce an unlimited number of competing operating systems and package them with whatever software they like...oh wait, hundreds of company's already do this. Microsoft's Windows does NOT have a monopoly. It is impossible to have a monopoly with software when there are free, viable and unlimited supplies of alternatives available.
With regard to the real definition, fist of all, Microsoft doesn't have exclusive control over the production of perating systems (there are hundreds of alternatives, many of which are free), and secondly, Microsoft does not control the means of production (as millions of people are capable of writing and distributing operating systems). It seems that the politicians and judges that went after Microsoft and labelled them a "monopoly" were more influenced by politics and lobbyists that the actual definition of a monopoly. You also have clearly become enamoured with the spurious use of the word as it suits your ideology to ignore facts.In addition to these facts, the operating system market is not a zero sum game. Because an OS is simply a piece of software, anyone is free to install multiple OS's on their hardrives to maximize their choices. Indeed, I have 3 Operating systems on the machine I'm typing on right now (Windows XP, Ubuntu Breezy, and FreeBSD). It is litterally impossible at this point in the game to assert that Microsoft eliminates choice when there are hundreds of alternatives available for FREE right now! Even if it had 100% marketshare, their product is certainly not exclusive and they certainly don't have a stranglehold on the means of production.
Rhetoric never wins under scrutiny. You lose.
I'll answer your rhetorical question in case others aren't capable of doing the same: No, the government should NOT be involved in anything other than protecting freedom. That freedom, by the way is extended to companys that should be free to decide what they package with their operating systems to make them more desirable to the consumers that are also free to buy or not buy their products.
As much as I dislike DRM and proprietary formats, any company should be free to institute whatever protectionist schemes that they like (short of government legislation) just as long as I am free to avoid companies that persue this parochial approach.
Freedom is a two way street. Sometimes you aren't gonna like what's on that street, but at least you are free to turn around and go the othe way.
It is so frustrating as a libertarian to read so many comments like this. YOU DON'T HAVE TO INSTALL WINDOWS. NO ONE is forcing you to buy, install or use windows. If you don't like the way windows bundles software or how windows makes uninstalling their bundled software difficult...then don't use windows!
Microsoft is a company that makes software. There are HUNDREDS of other company's that make other similar software. If you CHOOSE to use windows, then you are chosing the entire package that they offer. If that package isn't to your liking, then you may choose to use another piece of software (like unix, linux, apple, and the hundreds of iterations thereof). You can even build your own operating system for free exactly how you like it. Microsoft is not responsible for making operating systems exactly how YOU want them. They are responsible to their shareholders and as such, make operatings systems that appeal to the most possible people in the marketplace at the best possible price. Most people actually like having more software bundled in for free (gasp).
Again, there are too many choices in the marketplace to even use the word monopolist. You can't be a monopolist if anyone can produce similar products freely (as hundreds of companys and linux distrubutions do). This just sounds like Anti-Microsoft group thinking to me. The fact is, nobody owes you anything, especially a microsoft windows OS that is specially tailored to your communistic ideals. Grow up.
Much of the speed of your download depends on the speed of your upload. If your upload speed is high, your download speed will typically be much higher too. My advice: increase your upload bandwidth and stop or pause other downloads/uploads if the desired file is a priority. Also, if you are behind a firewall or router, you need to setup port forwarding correctly with most clients.
Yeah, and pink elephants on the dark side of the moon "could" be ruling the universe.