Bullshit. If you're working for "less than you are worth" you can find another job. If you can't, then by definition you're working for exactly (or more than) you are worth.
When some whiny bitch H1B IT worker goes and watches a garbage man, or a construction worker, or a dude who works in 115 degree weather fixing roads and then legitimately claims that he's "worth" more than he can negotiate out of willing employers, uhh.. well, I'll know he's lying.
People working H1B's are better off than the majority of people in America, much less the rest of the world. Whining about it won't generate much sympathy.
The reaction to Obama is a mixture of things. We in America have this issue with popular things of all categories called "backlash". We're largely a country of idiots that way (and many others). We love something, then we feel silly for having wet our panties so quickly and react with a kind of childish hatred. Obama will experience that now.
Another reason is crushed hopes. People really did think Obama could walk on water. He can't.
And legitimate disagreement with a fiscal policy that is..."orthogonal to reality" to put it nicely.
I'm mainly in the wait and see mode, myself, but as with any populist democrat I'm expecting economic disaster simply because they want to milk the productive members of society to buy the votes of the unproductive.
The odds are your "country" is smaller than California. Try making your wonderful system work in a country of 300 million people.
It amuses me when people bring up the Great Socialist States when they're almost all smaller than California. Why not bring up England's system? At least they're 1/5 the size of the US? Oh, that's right...their NHS sucks balls, that's why.
Let me tell you why the whole thing is bullshit. It's bullshit because if it was true they absolutely _could_ send information with it - yet they hadn't.
Let me tell you how - time. You and I will come to an agreement. We shall entangle two particles and you shall have one and I shall have one. You will "collapse the waveform" or whatever these Star Trek raised modern physicists want to call it on an even second to send a "1" and on an odd second to send a "0". Since I will instantly see the change on my magic fairy dust atom we shall be able to send information by measuring the time of the change. Sure, our bandwidth won't be real hot, but it's a good experiment, no?
Hasn't happened, and will never happen because the whole "spooky action at a distance" thing is bullshit.
Becuase the CLI/CLR portion of the.NET framework isn't the hard part..NET is a set of libraries Microsoft wrote as well as a runtime environment to support them. Mono is trying to make copies of what Microsoft has done.
Microsoft's.NET libraries themselves are not open. When Apple and Sun and IBM releases all of their source code, we can all get angry and call them out for not opening up every single one of their products.
Create protocols/formats/standards/specifications which are not inherently inter-operable. (Remember how buggy, incomplete and inaccurate OOXML spec was. Remember how Windows-specific the.NET and Silverlight specs are.)
The WS-* standards are OASIS open standards. Microsoft has been a leader in this area - this is a simple fact. For example, the Metro/WSIT stack specifically targets Microsoft.NET 3.5 compatibility.
Pick one of your competitors, give him (and him alone, not the whole public) code and/or patent-freedoms so that he can make an inter-operable software. (Remember Novell OO.Org plugins, Mono and Moonlight.)
Many competitors have access to these web service standards. See: Sun, IBM, Apache, Anyone with a web browser, etc...
I could go on. You're on your soapbox all right, but you're way off in left field with no real understanding of anything to do with..well...anything.
Take, for instance, Mono. Microsoft didn't grant shit - the CLI spec is open. Mono is implementing compatible clean-room class libraries to mimic the.NET ones.
Really - just give up. If you want to say something bad about Microsoft don't exhibit your cluelessness and instead just say "Micro$haft is teh suxx0rs!".
The government does regulate the Internet (or "teh intrawebs"). That doesn't mean they should pay for or build my connection to it. Does the federal government provide power? Water?
It sucks when people started seeing the Internet as public anyway. It's really just me electing to connect my computer to someone's network. Then it got all important and shit and suddenly it's something "public" and now the government gets to stick its grubby little hands in.
But continue asking for Big Brother to get involved more. And don't complain when they add a large number of taxes (seen your phone bill lately?), tax purchases made, censor the internet, and put all kinds of crazy regulations in place.
Ahh. You're someone, like the federal government, who uses any excuse to enact your big-government dreams. "That alcohol _could_ have been sold across state lines, we're going to have to take a cut!" "That gun at some point could have crossed state lines in its manufacture, so we are going to regulate". Etc...
Still - yes. My internet connection is Magical. It goes from my house to my internet provider over magic cables that go from my house to some central routing box in my neighborhood. It's _magic_.
...[dreary attempts to seem condescending, because if you're condescending the other person must be below you]...
That about sum it up? Your arguments are tired. Instead of arguing right and wrong, rational and irrational, you toe the line. Your arguments all apply to specific interpretations of law. A lot of economists will tell you straight up it's silly to apply anti-trust laws to Microsoft, while a lot of others will say they should be broken up.
The problem with your approach is administrations change, judges change, and the public's priorities change. In 10 years when MS delivers Windows 12 - "now including Microsoft Office and Microsoft PhotoEditor 5.0" and nobody gives a shit, is Microsoft suddenly not abusing their "monopoly"?
If some company gets the bright idea to deliver a desktop replacement for Windows to replace explorer.exe, does that suddenly mean Microsoft is abusing their monopoly to stifle the "desktop managers for Windows" market?
As for your pedantry, it's duly noted and dismissed. Most of you Linux dweeb's problems with Microsoft are concerning the desktop OS. Your dream is if it loses dominance then Linux will swoop in. Protecting this fragile, delicate, and important "web browser" market (haha) is just a pretense for your real goals.
PS: There exists no "web browser market" anymore. The OS's all come with a web browser. They're free. I know we, the consumers, who antitrust law is meant to protect, would be better in the good old days when we could pay 19.95 for the browser. These laws are for us, the consumer, right? Not for whiny competitors, right?
No, I'm actually completely serious. The only people who "know" he had nothing to do with it are also the ones who "know" we faked the moon landing and that 9/11 was a US conspiracy.
"interstate" being the operative word. Besides, I'll complain. They use the highways as an excuse to extort the states into doing what they want. "Do such and such or we'll withold your money".
What you call "cynics" others may call "realists". I don't know what ridiculous Care Bears world you live in, but "dreaming" you can "accomplish" "great things" doesn't make it so.
Me, I'm withholding judgment. I've heard some good ideas from him, but a lot of ridiculous pie in the sky economic theories too - like that money just grows on trees, basically. So we'll see.
Who DID shoot JFK in the head, by the way? The mob? Aliens? I think the fact that we don't know STILL means it was obviously a government operation, and therefore our government has been TAKEN from the American people,
It's fun to paint a caricature, isn't it? So much easier to argue against.
The fact is there are assholes on both sides, but they don't matter. The second amendment clearly gives me the right to own guns. Not guns I can "hunt" with. Guns I just want.
I don't care about hunting. We're not going to have an armed revolution in this country almost no matter what. Who cares? Do people "need" 65" TV's? Do they "need" 500hp cars? No. Fuck need - I
Since the copyright laws that establish copyright in the US use the term "monopoly" describing what they are granting... you fail before you've begun. The rest of your comments show you clearly don't understand antitrust law and its purpose in maintaining the benefits of competition. Please go read an economics textbook so you have a clue before trying to debate a topic.
Or..."I can't deny your logic". This fundamentally boils down to you hating Microsoft and being a closet socialist. Like the rest of the dweebs around here you'll clothe yourself in the laughable position of "_real_ free market protector". This is the highest form of perversion - claiming you're really protecting the free market because _you_ know economics and greatly cherish it.
You didn't address how silly it is to define a monopoly based on demand instead of supply because you know I'm right. Instead, you spout the same righteous "we must protect the free market and spur innovation!" (or: I hate Microsoft) nonsense the rest of your ilk use.
And you can't grasp the concept of having your own well-backed opinions and instead keep pretending to be Master of Economics by referring to econ books. I fully understand every point you make. It's not complicated. Really. Your points are just fundamentally wrong from a first-principles perspective.
When the government gets involved in OS product design and has to narrowly define a market to get what it wants, it's generally a clue it's doing something it shouldn't be.
Personally, I wish MS would just do everything you whiners want. Then, when they still dominate the OS market it'll be interesting to see which direction your whining takes.
You're not the market for Windows, OEMs are. OEMs can and do sell Linux, but in tiny numbers because the barrier to entry in the mainstream market is huge. It's hard to sell computers when 90% or more of software including everything in the local stores doesn't run on them and the majority of a users old files and already purchased software doesn't work.
An OEM is just a reseller. The concept of an "OEM" is a specific one, you don't go around defining monopolies because of the manner in which a product is sold. They sell it in tiny numbers because the demand is small (see below) - nobody wants Linux. For that matter, if you're such a modern day trust-buster, go after the OEMs for conspiring to make Microsoft the de-facto OS.
You forgot the 'commercially viable' part which excludes pretty much everything you listed. Also, you again misinterpreted the market. OS X does not count because Apple doesn't sell it to OEMs and is not in the market.
Commercially viable is just another way of saying "people want it" or "people don't want it". You're defining a demand-side monopoly which is nonsensical (see below).
That does not describe either of my above comments.
Yeah, I forgot the other usual shallow reply - "Uhh, durr, I will define the 'market' narrowly so that there is a monopoly!".
Yeah, silly conditions like understanding what the market is and whose buying things in it. Such silliness.
Indeed. The market is "computer operating systems". If you want to play games defining markets, again you can make anything a monopoly. "Whaa, the market is 'digital audio players which are manufactured by Apple and which support music purchased off itunes! Whaa, Apple has a monopoly!".
Your understanding of monopolies and economics in general is pathetic. Can't you even read the articles already written on this subject before spouting off this crap?
Actually, I prefer rational thought to blindly regurgitating politically motivated laws and their interpretation by stupid people. See if you can follow. I've said all this below and it's essentially unassailable logic if you argue using reason instead of modern interpretations of antitrust law.
First, the concept of a monopoly applied to intellectual property is silly. Monopoly law is intended to protect us, society, from the single-supplier issue of a limited physical resource. Think oil, power, water. Important stuff where public safety outweighs the inherent moral issue of government regulation of the fundamental right of one person to sell property to another. Computer OS's most certainly don't fall into this category. If it was a cure for cancer there might be a legitimate excuse to use anti-trust law on intellectual property. In this case, the only reason anyone can give is "people prefer Windows, so, uhh, they have a monopoly!".
Second, a 'demand-side' monopoly is irrational. Customers choose Microsoft because they want it. Developers choose Microsoft because they want it. Customers, in a feedback loop, choose Microsoft because that's where their apps are. So the only reason MS has a monopoly is because of demand, not supply. There is no supply-side limitation in the computer OS market. Defining a monopoly based solely on customer choice in the face of multiple alternatives is retarded.
In the end, all you can do is regurgitate meaningless drivel and appeal to specific interpretation. Your rationale is based on other people's thinking and not your own because you, like most of the dweebs around here, just hate Microsoft.
To stave off the many boring replies I'll get concerning "but, durr, it's more like if cars could only use Standard Oil durr!" I'll just point out how ridiculous that line of reasoning is.
If there was an incentive in this magic "many oil companies, but cars only work with Standard Oil" world and customers wanted it, people would make cars or sell kits to make cars that worked with other types of oil.
Microsoft is only a "monopoly" because the people buying the product choose it in overwhelming numbers despite many alternatives.
I'm too tired of trying to explain how ridiculous the concept of a "demand-side" monopoly where a company is ruled a monopoly solely based on the purchasing decisions of customers and not based on some supply-side limitation. You're all too retarded and biased to understand.
Did you bother to read what you blindly linked? Microsoft wasn't convicted of anything, and you assholes keep repeating the same nonsense and using the even more laughable phrase "convicted monopolist".
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. If you're working for "less than you are worth" you can find another job. If you can't, then by definition you're working for exactly (or more than) you are worth.
When some whiny bitch H1B IT worker goes and watches a garbage man, or a construction worker, or a dude who works in 115 degree weather fixing roads and then legitimately claims that he's "worth" more than he can negotiate out of willing employers, uhh.. well, I'll know he's lying.
People working H1B's are better off than the majority of people in America, much less the rest of the world. Whining about it won't generate much sympathy.
Haha. If you fervently wish for something or try to state something laughably false as a fact, little Johnny, you can make it true!
Well, there is always the silver lining that if you don't like it you don't have to come to America and work under it.
Osama? That you?
The reaction to Obama is a mixture of things. We in America have this issue with popular things of all categories called "backlash". We're largely a country of idiots that way (and many others). We love something, then we feel silly for having wet our panties so quickly and react with a kind of childish hatred. Obama will experience that now.
Another reason is crushed hopes. People really did think Obama could walk on water. He can't.
And legitimate disagreement with a fiscal policy that is..."orthogonal to reality" to put it nicely.
I'm mainly in the wait and see mode, myself, but as with any populist democrat I'm expecting economic disaster simply because they want to milk the productive members of society to buy the votes of the unproductive.
The odds are your "country" is smaller than California. Try making your wonderful system work in a country of 300 million people.
It amuses me when people bring up the Great Socialist States when they're almost all smaller than California. Why not bring up England's system? At least they're 1/5 the size of the US? Oh, that's right...their NHS sucks balls, that's why.
The other downside: it's science fiction and will never happen.
Let me tell you why the whole thing is bullshit. It's bullshit because if it was true they absolutely _could_ send information with it - yet they hadn't.
Let me tell you how - time. You and I will come to an agreement. We shall entangle two particles and you shall have one and I shall have one. You will "collapse the waveform" or whatever these Star Trek raised modern physicists want to call it on an even second to send a "1" and on an odd second to send a "0". Since I will instantly see the change on my magic fairy dust atom we shall be able to send information by measuring the time of the change. Sure, our bandwidth won't be real hot, but it's a good experiment, no?
Hasn't happened, and will never happen because the whole "spooky action at a distance" thing is bullshit.
Becuase the CLI/CLR portion of the .NET framework isn't the hard part. .NET is a set of libraries Microsoft wrote as well as a runtime environment to support them. Mono is trying to make copies of what Microsoft has done.
Microsoft's .NET libraries themselves are not open. When Apple and Sun and IBM releases all of their source code, we can all get angry and call them out for not opening up every single one of their products.
Create protocols/formats/standards/specifications which are not inherently inter-operable. (Remember how buggy, incomplete and inaccurate OOXML spec was. Remember how Windows-specific the .NET and Silverlight specs are.)
The WS-* standards are OASIS open standards. Microsoft has been a leader in this area - this is a simple fact. For example, the Metro/WSIT stack specifically targets Microsoft .NET 3.5 compatibility.
Pick one of your competitors, give him (and him alone, not the whole public) code and/or patent-freedoms so that he can make an inter-operable software. (Remember Novell OO.Org plugins, Mono and Moonlight.)
Many competitors have access to these web service standards. See: Sun, IBM, Apache, Anyone with a web browser, etc...
I could go on. You're on your soapbox all right, but you're way off in left field with no real understanding of anything to do with..well...anything.
Take, for instance, Mono. Microsoft didn't grant shit - the CLI spec is open. Mono is implementing compatible clean-room class libraries to mimic the .NET ones.
Really - just give up. If you want to say something bad about Microsoft don't exhibit your cluelessness and instead just say "Micro$haft is teh suxx0rs!".
The government does regulate the Internet (or "teh intrawebs"). That doesn't mean they should pay for or build my connection to it. Does the federal government provide power? Water?
It sucks when people started seeing the Internet as public anyway. It's really just me electing to connect my computer to someone's network. Then it got all important and shit and suddenly it's something "public" and now the government gets to stick its grubby little hands in.
But continue asking for Big Brother to get involved more. And don't complain when they add a large number of taxes (seen your phone bill lately?), tax purchases made, censor the internet, and put all kinds of crazy regulations in place.
Ahh. You're someone, like the federal government, who uses any excuse to enact your big-government dreams. "That alcohol _could_ have been sold across state lines, we're going to have to take a cut!" "That gun at some point could have crossed state lines in its manufacture, so we are going to regulate". Etc...
Still - yes. My internet connection is Magical. It goes from my house to my internet provider over magic cables that go from my house to some central routing box in my neighborhood. It's _magic_.
My connection to it certainly doesn't. You just want to suckle at the teat of Uncle Sucker like your average welfare momma.
[appeal to authority]
...[more appeal to authority]...
...[dreary attempts to seem condescending, because if you're condescending the other person must be below you]...
That about sum it up? Your arguments are tired. Instead of arguing right and wrong, rational and irrational, you toe the line. Your arguments all apply to specific interpretations of law. A lot of economists will tell you straight up it's silly to apply anti-trust laws to Microsoft, while a lot of others will say they should be broken up.
The problem with your approach is administrations change, judges change, and the public's priorities change. In 10 years when MS delivers Windows 12 - "now including Microsoft Office and Microsoft PhotoEditor 5.0" and nobody gives a shit, is Microsoft suddenly not abusing their "monopoly"?
If some company gets the bright idea to deliver a desktop replacement for Windows to replace explorer.exe, does that suddenly mean Microsoft is abusing their monopoly to stifle the "desktop managers for Windows" market?
As for your pedantry, it's duly noted and dismissed. Most of you Linux dweeb's problems with Microsoft are concerning the desktop OS. Your dream is if it loses dominance then Linux will swoop in. Protecting this fragile, delicate, and important "web browser" market (haha) is just a pretense for your real goals.
PS: There exists no "web browser market" anymore. The OS's all come with a web browser. They're free. I know we, the consumers, who antitrust law is meant to protect, would be better in the good old days when we could pay 19.95 for the browser. These laws are for us, the consumer, right? Not for whiny competitors, right?
No, I'm actually completely serious. The only people who "know" he had nothing to do with it are also the ones who "know" we faked the moon landing and that 9/11 was a US conspiracy.
"interstate" being the operative word. Besides, I'll complain. They use the highways as an excuse to extort the states into doing what they want. "Do such and such or we'll withold your money".
What you call "cynics" others may call "realists". I don't know what ridiculous Care Bears world you live in, but "dreaming" you can "accomplish" "great things" doesn't make it so.
Me, I'm withholding judgment. I've heard some good ideas from him, but a lot of ridiculous pie in the sky economic theories too - like that money just grows on trees, basically. So we'll see.
Who DID shoot JFK in the head, by the way? The mob? Aliens? I think the fact that we don't know STILL means it was obviously a government operation, and therefore our government has been TAKEN from the American people,
Umm. Dude? We do know. It was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Yeah, because providing Internet access is exactly the purpose of the federal government.
It's fun to paint a caricature, isn't it? So much easier to argue against.
The fact is there are assholes on both sides, but they don't matter. The second amendment clearly gives me the right to own guns. Not guns I can "hunt" with. Guns I just want.
I don't care about hunting. We're not going to have an armed revolution in this country almost no matter what. Who cares? Do people "need" 65" TV's? Do they "need" 500hp cars? No. Fuck need - I
want
an AK47.
Since the copyright laws that establish copyright in the US use the term "monopoly" describing what they are granting... you fail before you've begun. The rest of your comments show you clearly don't understand antitrust law and its purpose in maintaining the benefits of competition. Please go read an economics textbook so you have a clue before trying to debate a topic.
Or..."I can't deny your logic". This fundamentally boils down to you hating Microsoft and being a closet socialist. Like the rest of the dweebs around here you'll clothe yourself in the laughable position of "_real_ free market protector". This is the highest form of perversion - claiming you're really protecting the free market because _you_ know economics and greatly cherish it.
You didn't address how silly it is to define a monopoly based on demand instead of supply because you know I'm right. Instead, you spout the same righteous "we must protect the free market and spur innovation!" (or: I hate Microsoft) nonsense the rest of your ilk use.
And you can't grasp the concept of having your own well-backed opinions and instead keep pretending to be Master of Economics by referring to econ books. I fully understand every point you make. It's not complicated. Really. Your points are just fundamentally wrong from a first-principles perspective.
When the government gets involved in OS product design and has to narrowly define a market to get what it wants, it's generally a clue it's doing something it shouldn't be.
Personally, I wish MS would just do everything you whiners want. Then, when they still dominate the OS market it'll be interesting to see which direction your whining takes.
You're not the market for Windows, OEMs are. OEMs can and do sell Linux, but in tiny numbers because the barrier to entry in the mainstream market is huge. It's hard to sell computers when 90% or more of software including everything in the local stores doesn't run on them and the majority of a users old files and already purchased software doesn't work.
An OEM is just a reseller. The concept of an "OEM" is a specific one, you don't go around defining monopolies because of the manner in which a product is sold. They sell it in tiny numbers because the demand is small (see below) - nobody wants Linux. For that matter, if you're such a modern day trust-buster, go after the OEMs for conspiring to make Microsoft the de-facto OS.
You forgot the 'commercially viable' part which excludes pretty much everything you listed. Also, you again misinterpreted the market. OS X does not count because Apple doesn't sell it to OEMs and is not in the market.
Commercially viable is just another way of saying "people want it" or "people don't want it". You're defining a demand-side monopoly which is nonsensical (see below).
That does not describe either of my above comments.
Yeah, I forgot the other usual shallow reply - "Uhh, durr, I will define the 'market' narrowly so that there is a monopoly!".
Yeah, silly conditions like understanding what the market is and whose buying things in it. Such silliness.
Indeed. The market is "computer operating systems". If you want to play games defining markets, again you can make anything a monopoly. "Whaa, the market is 'digital audio players which are manufactured by Apple and which support music purchased off itunes! Whaa, Apple has a monopoly!".
Your understanding of monopolies and economics in general is pathetic. Can't you even read the articles already written on this subject before spouting off this crap?
Actually, I prefer rational thought to blindly regurgitating politically motivated laws and their interpretation by stupid people. See if you can follow. I've said all this below and it's essentially unassailable logic if you argue using reason instead of modern interpretations of antitrust law.
First, the concept of a monopoly applied to intellectual property is silly. Monopoly law is intended to protect us, society, from the single-supplier issue of a limited physical resource. Think oil, power, water. Important stuff where public safety outweighs the inherent moral issue of government regulation of the fundamental right of one person to sell property to another. Computer OS's most certainly don't fall into this category. If it was a cure for cancer there might be a legitimate excuse to use anti-trust law on intellectual property. In this case, the only reason anyone can give is "people prefer Windows, so, uhh, they have a monopoly!".
Second, a 'demand-side' monopoly is irrational. Customers choose Microsoft because they want it. Developers choose Microsoft because they want it. Customers, in a feedback loop, choose Microsoft because that's where their apps are. So the only reason MS has a monopoly is because of demand, not supply. There is no supply-side limitation in the computer OS market. Defining a monopoly based solely on customer choice in the face of multiple alternatives is retarded.
In the end, all you can do is regurgitate meaningless drivel and appeal to specific interpretation. Your rationale is based on other people's thinking and not your own because you, like most of the dweebs around here, just hate Microsoft.
How about "nobody wants Linux". MS hasn't had any such agreements for a long time.
To stave off the many boring replies I'll get concerning "but, durr, it's more like if cars could only use Standard Oil durr!" I'll just point out how ridiculous that line of reasoning is.
If there was an incentive in this magic "many oil companies, but cars only work with Standard Oil" world and customers wanted it, people would make cars or sell kits to make cars that worked with other types of oil.
Microsoft is only a "monopoly" because the people buying the product choose it in overwhelming numbers despite many alternatives.
I'm too tired of trying to explain how ridiculous the concept of a "demand-side" monopoly where a company is ruled a monopoly solely based on the purchasing decisions of customers and not based on some supply-side limitation. You're all too retarded and biased to understand.
Did you bother to read what you blindly linked? Microsoft wasn't convicted of anything, and you assholes keep repeating the same nonsense and using the even more laughable phrase "convicted monopolist".