communism is an economic system comparable to capitalism.
Sorry, but no. There's nothing comparable about communism and capitalism. You see, capitalism works.
Oh, and yes, you can call communists "brutal." Taking away one's freedom property and giving it to someone else is about as brutal and unfair (and totally absurd) as you can get. Death and dictatorship is merely a byproduct of the extreme poverty and human inprisonment that communism requires.
It's one thing to be a winner by being fastest in the race. It's another to win by throwing banana peels at your competitor's feet.
What banana peels? I'm so tired of this baseless rhetoric. Just because YOU don't like the problems that Microsoft's products have, doesn't mean that they are a)evil b)should be regulated c)should be sued d)should be called unfair competitors and most importantly e)that you have to use their products.
Personally, I use a Debian variant at home for most of my tasks and Red Hat for web and db servers. I think Linux is great in many respects (if you're patient and experienced with computers), but that doesn't mean I don't also have Windows and can't appreciate Microsoft's efforts to improve the OS over the years. I just get so irritated that Linux users don't realize that the primary reason windows computers are "less secure" is that windows users comprise about 90% of the market. Linux home users is probably like 1%! If you wrote viruses, trojans and so forth...would you like to target 90% of computers or 1%? And besides, as a linux user myself, I know how many godamn security patches are issued for Linux as well...so don't tell me that Linux is bug free! It's just that it is such a minor product in the huge computer market that press doesn't cover the Linux security bugs like it does for Windows.
Here's what I'm asking you people...try to break out of your typical thinking. There's just too much false causality in your reasoning when you think that because microsoft dominates the market and that because there are security issues with most computers that everything is microsoft's fault. Lets see how "secure" linux would be if Linux comprised 90% of the market. You have to remember that most linux users are computer pros, or at least fairly security conscious. If you gave Linux to the same dumb windows users that don't update their computers and always run as "Admin", you can be fairly certain that their obvliviousness wouldn't change--they would also run always as root and never download a single security update package and ultimately we'd be reading about how many viruses Linux users have on their computers.
The good news is that all OS makers are really wising up with regard to security. All the negative press Microsoft gets over it's vulnerabilities can only help to encourage them to take security much much more seriously. And of course, Linux wants to maintain their position on the security pedestal...so all the developers will continue to eagle eye security there, and hopefully this intense focus on security will pervade the relatively insecure mobile device market shortly as well. There has to be a learning phase at some point...and Microsoft has helped us ALL learn about security vulnerabilities so that we can ALL improve our products and our thinking about developing code.
In short, your sweeping conclusions are virtually meaningless because they completely ignore the real problems with the market and the consumers that comprise that market. You also ignore how having problems is actually a good thing because we learn from them and make things better. Henry Ford didn't build the Ferrari 430 Modena. It took a good 100 years of automotive innovation to create this masterpiece. Keep in mind that computers really are rather new, and given the infinite number of applications we can ascribe to computers, I'd say we're doing pretty damn well so far (especially in light of the relatively short amount of time we have had to adjust to our now blazing processor speeds and lightning fast networks).
BTW, where do you live?-I never want to go there. Killing and threats of killing are not considered legitimate business plans here, in fact they are illegal. You are going to say that Ballmer was being figurative. Are you sure?
Yes I'm sure. Ballmer got mad that he lost another employee just like a baskball coach gets angry when he loses a good player to higher bidding team. Ballmer wants to bury Google like the Lakers want to bury Miami Heat. It's called competition and sometimes irrational emotions get involved because we're human.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is just being a melodramatic group-thinker who continues to salute the slash-quo (everything microsoft does is evil no matter what and everything any other company that competes against microsoft does is perfectly ok). Grow up.
BTW, I do disagree with most lawsuits these days, but a breach of contract is a breach of contract. If Lee thought he might be leaving for Google in the future, he shouldn't have signed Microsoft's restrictive employment contract.
I have never ever read about how capitalism is supposed to foster killing competitors with legal tactics, bribes and by using illegal or shoddy business deals
Me neither. But countless companies with inferior products, inferior marketing, and inferior statist ideologies have tried to use "legal tactics, bribes and shoddy business deals" to sue or lobby against Microsoft because they couldn't compete in the free market like real Capitalists do. Your insinuation that Microsoft's stiff competitive spirit is somehow evil would only be "insightful" in a world where we punish market winners for being too successful. How sad.
Anarchists want a complete absence of "state" or government. Wikipedia might be a good place to start learning about anarchy's various ideological factions.
Libertarians claim to be the third largest party in the US, and they range from wanting small government to virtually no government at all. They all agree that the government should be dramatically smaller than it is today. Their philosophy is guided by the principal that freedom is always more important than "safety" and force. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to do as they please so long as they do not take away the freedoms of others. The Libertarian party in the US has a very detailed section on their website with points illustrating how this philosophy shapes their political stance on nearly everything: Libertarian Issues & Positions.
If you want to read some engaging essays and articles by the Libertarian Party's most prominant writer (and former presidential candidate), I suggest visiting Harry Browne's Website. You can also find alot of libertarian essays and editorials at Lew Rockwell's website
Exactly. I think the next truly "killer app" will be global wimax/voip networks. I expect all mobile telecommunications to run over wimax/voip 5 years from now. Think unlimited calls for about 20 bucks a month to anywhere from anywhere.
This kind of reminds me of pinkdot.com. In the SoCal area about 5-6 years back, during the dotcom boom, we used to be able to order booze, smokes, sandwiches, chips, munchies, etc online from pinkdot and it would be delivered to our house within a half hour. It rocked. I was really bummed when it went out of business...and I couldn't figure out why because our house (5 roomates+ dozens of walk-in friends) dropped about 200 bucks there every night. No one had to drink and drive, no one had to skip out any games on the LAN, and we didn't have to worry about the 2am booze cutoff either (because we became buddies with the delivery guys). I miss home delivery. Oh well.
People might start smoking because they thought it was "cool", but people continue to smoke because nicotine really is addicting. No one actually enjoys smoking...they just don't enjoy nicotine withdrawal. If you've never had a physical addiction, then you ought to keep your parochial and rather meaningless comments to yourself because they don't help and they certainly aren't insightful.
I recently quit smoking about a month ago (after nearly 10 years), and it was the most difficult thing I've ever done...it was literally physically painful to quit...withdrawing from something your body has lived for for almost 10 years is not easy.
Yeah, smoking is stupid, but so are people that divide all behavior into black and white because of total lack of experience.
Let me reiterate...people DO NOT smoke to be "independant." They smoke because they don't like the feeling of nicotine withdrawal.
I think if you were truly "altruistic" in the sense that you want it to mean, then you wouldn't have been so compelled to describe your altruism to thousands of others to "prove" your point. People that think of themselves as altruistic are more arrogant than altruistic. Besides, your emotional hedonism is derived from the pleasure your friend gives you by being a friend to you. The effort you put into the friendship is clearly worth less than the feelings you get back from the friendship, therefore even if you were truly altruistic, the "emotional hedonism" still stands.
This "Republicans = small government" hasn't been true in my lifetme
Hehe, I don't think they've ever really stood for small government. If you really want smaller government (less taxes, more freedom), you have to vote for Libertarians.
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it to. You either want smaller government or you don't. There are no half measures. Every other party will try to "reform" government (steadily increase it's size by 3-4% a year). Libertarians will actively reduce it. You did the right thing in 2004.
Remember, Libertarians give you the choice. Every other party wants to make "your" choices for you.
Libertarians primarily only want to restore the government to a size that is Constitutional. Once it is small enough, then people can quibble over things like govt police or contracted sheriffs etc. The point of the Libertarian party is to immediately take real steps to reduce government's invasive and unconstitutional powers. Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight, but if you actually want a smaller government, then the Libertarians are the only ones that will actively work toward reducing government not "reforming" it.
By the way, what's so "extremist" about wanting to have the freedom to run your own life? Libertarians aren't the type of people that will force your to live a certain way, they leave that choice up to you...aren't you adult enough to make your own decisions?
I live in a "third world country" in the caribbean. The majority of people on this island, let alone the people that only make $3,000/year don't even have computers or know how to use them...so the price of an OS is pretty damn irrelevant. And my third world country ($9,000/year avg) is pretty advanced compared to some places in africa/asia.
That said, when I flew to Malaysia and Singapore last year, it was pretty unimaginable for anyone to pay more than a buck for a piece of software. Paying high prices for ones and zeros is something reserved for extravagant countries. Paying for software is a luxury. No one thinks of pirated software as a moral issue in Asia because there really isn't a choice for the population at large that can barely afford hardware.
Your argument is invalid as MS has been prosecuted by state, federal, and european governments for their monopolistic business practices in the OS market.
Oh, you mean the same governments that have squandered over 300 billion US dollars to blow up Afganistan and Iraq? You mean the same governments that violate the Constitution and other common laws on a regular basis in the name of protecting us against "terrorism" or drugs or "immorality"? Excuse me for questioning the integrity of the supreme governments you had in mind. After all, governments and politicians that run them never make mistakes and are never dishonest. Idiot.
Also, If you really believe that our government is as oppressive as you state then please move to another country.
Already have. I moved to the Caribbean so I could ensure that not one dime of the money I earn is squandered on injustice sponsered by your flawless governments. But, you should know, that I still fly back to the states every 2 years so that I can vote for the only party in the US that believes in real freedom. So, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm way ahead of you.
Sorry, but just because some anti-business lawyer/politician/judge calls something a "monopoly" doesn't mean it is. The fact is there are hundreds of operating systems out there available for free ($0 dollars as a download). OSX is also a great OS that is available EXCLUSIVELY for Macs. The bottom line is...people have a choice, and you cannot have a "monopoly" if people can easily choose another equally excellent (or better) product for the same money or for free! Just because something is the market leader or overwhelmingly popular doesn't mean it is a monopoly! I'm getting tired of all the sheep that claim they don't have a choice...WHILE they are typing on an alternative OS! Everytime I boot my system, I have a choice between Debian and Windows XP...where's the monopoly there? In my living room, I have an Mac G5...where's the evil monopoly there? If anything, Apple is more monopolistic than Microsoft. You HAVE to buy an iPod/shuffle to play DRM'd AAC files, but you can buy from hundreds of devices for DRM'd WMA files...and you can usually put OGG files on those devices too. But that's another discussion. The point is, there are so many choices today that it is utterly absurd to even use the word "monopoly" anymore. Don't blame consumers for not caring about your ideological crusade the way you do. The fact is, most consumers actually WANT Microsoft Windows and all their evil tie-ins because Windows has an easier learning curve, just "works" and supports all their devices and peripherals without any major hitches. I am a user of Linux...but I'm also a computer nerd. What you and I consider "easy" isn't so for most people that don't want any trouble and more likely don't even care enough about their computer to think twice about the OS. Half the people I know don't even know what their OS is (or what and OS is)...
Another comment about "illegal". It used to be legal to own slaves and to prevent women from voting. Laws aren't always right. Most people that create laws don't even have any exerience in the areas they seek to legislate...let alone the fact that they are heavily funded/influenced by powerful lobbyist with political or economic agendas. No matter how well intentioned a polticians' laws are, they never actually work in practice...often they make things worse and more expensive (think drug war, social welfare, public education, medicare/medicaid, social security etc). Allowing the government to regulate businesses and call some of their practices "illegal" because they are popular is borderline absurd...but everyone just accepts the CNN broadcasts as fact these days that absurdity is becoming mainstream. If you want to talk about illegal, why not focus on the very illegal breaches of our Constitution that government makes every single day with almost every new law and regulation it passes in congress. Businesses solve things and provide choices, governments take away choices and make things worse. Believing anti-business propoganda is exactly what a hungry government wants you to believe. Make the government more powerful! Make the government more invasive! All in the name of protecting you from the evils of popular computer programs! Damn fools.
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want, is big enough to take it all away." - Barry Goldwater
but asking for exclusivity is in most cases going to get you into legal trouble.
I have no idea where you pulled this from, and I'd prefer not to imagine where because it certainly wasn't from someplace based in reality. When two businesses come together and create a contract that regulates the terms of a transaction that both parties agree to and sign, I don't see how anyone could get into legal trouble unless those agreements are broken down the line. Regardless, if as you say, it is illegal to create exclusivity agreements in certain countries, it definately shouldn't be. If two businesses reach a mutual agreement, then who the hell are YOU or the government to come in an interfere with those businesses? At the end of the day, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. If enough people don't like it, there will be enough demand for another business to sprout up and cater to these dissenting consumers. Nevertheless, not all consumers will be happy all the time...but it's not the governments job to turn business owners into the public's personal slaves! You have to remember, businesses are PRIVATE institutions run by individuals that deserve the same freedoms that consumers have. Just because they generously open their products and services to the public, doesn't mean that those products and services belong to the public.
I still fail to see how creating exclusivity agreements is a bad thing. If Pepsi hires Britney Spears for $10,000,000 just to do pepsi commercials and only drink pepsi when she drinks cola, and Britney goes ahead and drinks Coca-Cola in public...then Pepsi has every right to void the contract or give her less money (assuming those are the terms of the contract). The fact is, no one has a right to microsoft XP! But, if you want to use/sell XP, then you must agree to Microsoft's terms, sell another OS, change your business, or go out of business. No one has a right to force any business or consumer to do anything, include selling or not selling an operating system at X price. Microsoft says, "If you sell MS XP in great quantity and exclusively, then we'll give you a huge discount." That's no different from Pepsi saying to 7/11, "We'll give you this nice drinks fridge for free if you promise to only put pepsi products inside it." If 7/11 wants the fridge, they must abide by Pepsi's generous terms, or pass on the deal. That's business. And that IS a choice. Everyone has a right to sell computers, but not everyone is going to make money doing it. Dell is after the cash, so they are going to sell the most popular product (Windows) because it makes the most money...so obviously it pays to stay buddy buddy with Microsoft. Dell can still choose to make less money and sell Linux (much less money), but they don't because obviously that's not what the masses want! Don't blame Dell or Microsoft for making smart business choices. Again, no one is forced to do anything...they are only compelled to act on reason!
Freedom, man freedom! You have to remember, the freedoms you want to take away from businesses are also freedoms that will be taken away from you! And how dare you try to limit other people's freedoms just because YOU don't like something. If you don't like a product or a company, don't support it by buying it! If that's not enough, get on the news and persuade people to boycott etc...but please, don't try to limit my freedoms as a consumer or as a business with government force! Remember, the only true monopoly is your government--it is your government that doesn't give you a choice. You HAVE to pay taxes, you HAVE to obey laws, or you will go to jail or get shot. In the business world, you always have a choice (unless govt. interferes).
Don't blame the free market on that one. Blame your all powerful government. In a truly free market there shouldn't be any patents, at least according to some Libertarians
If you don't know how to use search engines to find alternatives, then that's your fault, not the fault of popular software. There are dozens of applications that can competantly compete with Photoshop and Autocad. They may not be better than the market leaders, but they are useable and often much cheaper for those that are unwilling to spend top dollar. I'm afraid you don't have any idea what the free market really means. In the free market, if a product is significantly superior or better marketed or better supported, it will usually become the most popular. Popularity doesn't mean monopoly! One can lose popularity overnight if something better comes along. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a monopoly in the software world because anyone at any point can write a competing program and distribute it on the internet for very little cost. No one has to use Windows, Photoshop, or Autocad...they are choosing to use it (probably because of their inherent long-term company stability--which people like).
By the way, the "basic laws" of the free market do not include a market with "equal products." I don't know how or why you came up with this description...but it makes no sense. A free market is a economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated. In other words, there are no laws governing transactions in a free market (ie, free markets are a myth on planet earth because the government has their greedy paws in everything).
Yeah sorry, but I'm gonna have to comment on your claim that Microsoft is "double charging" for minor upgrades. Maybe they are...but are you saying that Apple's "upgrades" aren't minor on OS X? I've yet to see one OS X upgrade that I didn't consider a patch. Spotlight? Puleeezz...you can download free instant search tools from yahoo, google, microsoft and countless others. I remember when OSX first came out and didn't properly support cd burners! They called an "upgrade" the ability to get a cd burner to work. Nope, sorry, if MS is full of shit, then Apple is right there with em.
Solutions that don't involve scapegoating, politics or morality:
1. Sexually transmitted diseases: wear a condom
2. Unwanted preganancy: wear a condom
3. Life threatening STDs: dupe, see point one
4. Psychological effects: ignore religious dogma
I really don't think my statement is glib. It's simple because it's true. If I said "There's nothing wrong with driving," you could say:
1. Injurous car accidents
2. Roll-overs
3. Deadly car accidents
4. Enviornmentally unfriendly
And I would just respond:
1. Injurous car accidents: wear a seatbelt
2. Roll-overs: wear a seatbelt
3. Deadly car accidents: dupe, see point one
4. Enviornmentally unfriendly: ignore leftist dogma and/or buy a hybrid
My point being that there are "dangers" to every activity, but that doesn't mean politicians should get involved because a group of maniacs that believe in an invisible man in the sky that watches our every moves have urged them to regulate arbitrary human activities like sex because they think it is "wrong" or evil or immoral. The only thing that should be regulated is human ignorance...it shouldn't be allowed to influence law or politicians...or video games!
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but no. There's nothing comparable about communism and capitalism. You see, capitalism works.
Oh, and yes, you can call communists "brutal." Taking away one's freedom property and giving it to someone else is about as brutal and unfair (and totally absurd) as you can get. Death and dictatorship is merely a byproduct of the extreme poverty and human inprisonment that communism requires.
What banana peels? I'm so tired of this baseless rhetoric. Just because YOU don't like the problems that Microsoft's products have, doesn't mean that they are a)evil b)should be regulated c)should be sued d)should be called unfair competitors and most importantly e)that you have to use their products.
Personally, I use a Debian variant at home for most of my tasks and Red Hat for web and db servers. I think Linux is great in many respects (if you're patient and experienced with computers), but that doesn't mean I don't also have Windows and can't appreciate Microsoft's efforts to improve the OS over the years. I just get so irritated that Linux users don't realize that the primary reason windows computers are "less secure" is that windows users comprise about 90% of the market. Linux home users is probably like 1%! If you wrote viruses, trojans and so forth...would you like to target 90% of computers or 1%? And besides, as a linux user myself, I know how many godamn security patches are issued for Linux as well...so don't tell me that Linux is bug free! It's just that it is such a minor product in the huge computer market that press doesn't cover the Linux security bugs like it does for Windows.
Here's what I'm asking you people...try to break out of your typical thinking. There's just too much false causality in your reasoning when you think that because microsoft dominates the market and that because there are security issues with most computers that everything is microsoft's fault. Lets see how "secure" linux would be if Linux comprised 90% of the market. You have to remember that most linux users are computer pros, or at least fairly security conscious. If you gave Linux to the same dumb windows users that don't update their computers and always run as "Admin", you can be fairly certain that their obvliviousness wouldn't change--they would also run always as root and never download a single security update package and ultimately we'd be reading about how many viruses Linux users have on their computers.
The good news is that all OS makers are really wising up with regard to security. All the negative press Microsoft gets over it's vulnerabilities can only help to encourage them to take security much much more seriously. And of course, Linux wants to maintain their position on the security pedestal...so all the developers will continue to eagle eye security there, and hopefully this intense focus on security will pervade the relatively insecure mobile device market shortly as well. There has to be a learning phase at some point...and Microsoft has helped us ALL learn about security vulnerabilities so that we can ALL improve our products and our thinking about developing code.
In short, your sweeping conclusions are virtually meaningless because they completely ignore the real problems with the market and the consumers that comprise that market. You also ignore how having problems is actually a good thing because we learn from them and make things better. Henry Ford didn't build the Ferrari 430 Modena. It took a good 100 years of automotive innovation to create this masterpiece. Keep in mind that computers really are rather new, and given the infinite number of applications we can ascribe to computers, I'd say we're doing pretty damn well so far (especially in light of the relatively short amount of time we have had to adjust to our now blazing processor speeds and lightning fast networks).
Besides, if you want to be an activist for a cause, there are far worse things in the world than computer bugs that you can fight against. Religion, power-hungry politicians that waste 200 B
Yes I'm sure. Ballmer got mad that he lost another employee just like a baskball coach gets angry when he loses a good player to higher bidding team. Ballmer wants to bury Google like the Lakers want to bury Miami Heat. It's called competition and sometimes irrational emotions get involved because we're human.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is just being a melodramatic group-thinker who continues to salute the slash-quo (everything microsoft does is evil no matter what and everything any other company that competes against microsoft does is perfectly ok). Grow up.
BTW, I do disagree with most lawsuits these days, but a breach of contract is a breach of contract. If Lee thought he might be leaving for Google in the future, he shouldn't have signed Microsoft's restrictive employment contract.
Me neither. But countless companies with inferior products, inferior marketing, and inferior statist ideologies have tried to use "legal tactics, bribes and shoddy business deals" to sue or lobby against Microsoft because they couldn't compete in the free market like real Capitalists do. Your insinuation that Microsoft's stiff competitive spirit is somehow evil would only be "insightful" in a world where we punish market winners for being too successful. How sad.
Libertarians claim to be the third largest party in the US, and they range from wanting small government to virtually no government at all. They all agree that the government should be dramatically smaller than it is today. Their philosophy is guided by the principal that freedom is always more important than "safety" and force. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to do as they please so long as they do not take away the freedoms of others. The Libertarian party in the US has a very detailed section on their website with points illustrating how this philosophy shapes their political stance on nearly everything: Libertarian Issues & Positions.
If you want to read some engaging essays and articles by the Libertarian Party's most prominant writer (and former presidential candidate), I suggest visiting Harry Browne's Website. You can also find alot of libertarian essays and editorials at Lew Rockwell's website
Enjoy!
Exactly. I think the next truly "killer app" will be global wimax/voip networks. I expect all mobile telecommunications to run over wimax/voip 5 years from now. Think unlimited calls for about 20 bucks a month to anywhere from anywhere.
This kind of reminds me of pinkdot.com. In the SoCal area about 5-6 years back, during the dotcom boom, we used to be able to order booze, smokes, sandwiches, chips, munchies, etc online from pinkdot and it would be delivered to our house within a half hour. It rocked. I was really bummed when it went out of business...and I couldn't figure out why because our house (5 roomates+ dozens of walk-in friends) dropped about 200 bucks there every night. No one had to drink and drive, no one had to skip out any games on the LAN, and we didn't have to worry about the 2am booze cutoff either (because we became buddies with the delivery guys). I miss home delivery. Oh well.
I recently quit smoking about a month ago (after nearly 10 years), and it was the most difficult thing I've ever done...it was literally physically painful to quit...withdrawing from something your body has lived for for almost 10 years is not easy.
Yeah, smoking is stupid, but so are people that divide all behavior into black and white because of total lack of experience.
Let me reiterate...people DO NOT smoke to be "independant." They smoke because they don't like the feeling of nicotine withdrawal.
I think if you were truly "altruistic" in the sense that you want it to mean, then you wouldn't have been so compelled to describe your altruism to thousands of others to "prove" your point. People that think of themselves as altruistic are more arrogant than altruistic. Besides, your emotional hedonism is derived from the pleasure your friend gives you by being a friend to you. The effort you put into the friendship is clearly worth less than the feelings you get back from the friendship, therefore even if you were truly altruistic, the "emotional hedonism" still stands.
Hehe, I don't think they've ever really stood for small government. If you really want smaller government (less taxes, more freedom), you have to vote for Libertarians.
Remember, Libertarians give you the choice. Every other party wants to make "your" choices for you.
By the way, what's so "extremist" about wanting to have the freedom to run your own life? Libertarians aren't the type of people that will force your to live a certain way, they leave that choice up to you...aren't you adult enough to make your own decisions?
That said, when I flew to Malaysia and Singapore last year, it was pretty unimaginable for anyone to pay more than a buck for a piece of software. Paying high prices for ones and zeros is something reserved for extravagant countries. Paying for software is a luxury. No one thinks of pirated software as a moral issue in Asia because there really isn't a choice for the population at large that can barely afford hardware.
Oh, you mean the same governments that have squandered over 300 billion US dollars to blow up Afganistan and Iraq? You mean the same governments that violate the Constitution and other common laws on a regular basis in the name of protecting us against "terrorism" or drugs or "immorality"? Excuse me for questioning the integrity of the supreme governments you had in mind. After all, governments and politicians that run them never make mistakes and are never dishonest. Idiot.
Also, If you really believe that our government is as oppressive as you state then please move to another country.
Already have. I moved to the Caribbean so I could ensure that not one dime of the money I earn is squandered on injustice sponsered by your flawless governments. But, you should know, that I still fly back to the states every 2 years so that I can vote for the only party in the US that believes in real freedom. So, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm way ahead of you.
Another comment about "illegal". It used to be legal to own slaves and to prevent women from voting. Laws aren't always right. Most people that create laws don't even have any exerience in the areas they seek to legislate...let alone the fact that they are heavily funded/influenced by powerful lobbyist with political or economic agendas. No matter how well intentioned a polticians' laws are, they never actually work in practice...often they make things worse and more expensive (think drug war, social welfare, public education, medicare/medicaid, social security etc). Allowing the government to regulate businesses and call some of their practices "illegal" because they are popular is borderline absurd...but everyone just accepts the CNN broadcasts as fact these days that absurdity is becoming mainstream. If you want to talk about illegal, why not focus on the very illegal breaches of our Constitution that government makes every single day with almost every new law and regulation it passes in congress. Businesses solve things and provide choices, governments take away choices and make things worse. Believing anti-business propoganda is exactly what a hungry government wants you to believe. Make the government more powerful! Make the government more invasive! All in the name of protecting you from the evils of popular computer programs! Damn fools.
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want, is big enough to take it all away." - Barry Goldwater
I have no idea where you pulled this from, and I'd prefer not to imagine where because it certainly wasn't from someplace based in reality. When two businesses come together and create a contract that regulates the terms of a transaction that both parties agree to and sign, I don't see how anyone could get into legal trouble unless those agreements are broken down the line. Regardless, if as you say, it is illegal to create exclusivity agreements in certain countries, it definately shouldn't be. If two businesses reach a mutual agreement, then who the hell are YOU or the government to come in an interfere with those businesses? At the end of the day, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. If enough people don't like it, there will be enough demand for another business to sprout up and cater to these dissenting consumers. Nevertheless, not all consumers will be happy all the time...but it's not the governments job to turn business owners into the public's personal slaves! You have to remember, businesses are PRIVATE institutions run by individuals that deserve the same freedoms that consumers have. Just because they generously open their products and services to the public, doesn't mean that those products and services belong to the public.
Freedom, man freedom! You have to remember, the freedoms you want to take away from businesses are also freedoms that will be taken away from you! And how dare you try to limit other people's freedoms just because YOU don't like something. If you don't like a product or a company, don't support it by buying it! If that's not enough, get on the news and persuade people to boycott etc...but please, don't try to limit my freedoms as a consumer or as a business with government force! Remember, the only true monopoly is your government--it is your government that doesn't give you a choice. You HAVE to pay taxes, you HAVE to obey laws, or you will go to jail or get shot. In the business world, you always have a choice (unless govt. interferes).
Don't blame the free market on that one. Blame your all powerful government. In a truly free market there shouldn't be any patents, at least according to some Libertarians
By the way, the "basic laws" of the free market do not include a market with "equal products." I don't know how or why you came up with this description...but it makes no sense. A free market is a economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated. In other words, there are no laws governing transactions in a free market (ie, free markets are a myth on planet earth because the government has their greedy paws in everything).
Yeah sorry, but I'm gonna have to comment on your claim that Microsoft is "double charging" for minor upgrades. Maybe they are...but are you saying that Apple's "upgrades" aren't minor on OS X? I've yet to see one OS X upgrade that I didn't consider a patch. Spotlight? Puleeezz...you can download free instant search tools from yahoo, google, microsoft and countless others. I remember when OSX first came out and didn't properly support cd burners! They called an "upgrade" the ability to get a cd burner to work. Nope, sorry, if MS is full of shit, then Apple is right there with em.
1. Sexually transmitted diseases: wear a condom
2. Unwanted preganancy: wear a condom
3. Life threatening STDs: dupe, see point one
4. Psychological effects: ignore religious dogma
I really don't think my statement is glib. It's simple because it's true. If I said "There's nothing wrong with driving," you could say:
1. Injurous car accidents
2. Roll-overs
3. Deadly car accidents
4. Enviornmentally unfriendly
And I would just respond:
1. Injurous car accidents: wear a seatbelt
2. Roll-overs: wear a seatbelt
3. Deadly car accidents: dupe, see point one
4. Enviornmentally unfriendly: ignore leftist dogma and/or buy a hybrid
My point being that there are "dangers" to every activity, but that doesn't mean politicians should get involved because a group of maniacs that believe in an invisible man in the sky that watches our every moves have urged them to regulate arbitrary human activities like sex because they think it is "wrong" or evil or immoral. The only thing that should be regulated is human ignorance...it shouldn't be allowed to influence law or politicians...or video games!
I would mod this insightful if I had the points.
I find it amusing and ironic that Hillary Clinton is spearheading the crackdown on this game especially in light of this particular content...
Perhaps she's focusing her anger in the wrong place?
Maybe that's because there's nothing wrong with sex.