"Convicted monopolist". Lol. I love when people say that, it's such a bullshit phrase but people say it so dramatically.
Anyway - in any sane monopoly situation you don't hamstring the company with the monopoly to the point where they can't do things other companies can. You prevent them from leveraging their monopoly in ways other vendors can't.
If Apple, Linux,...any other OS bundles a browser, Microsoft should be able to.
They don't charge for it. There is no market in which SE plays because it's free.
Besides, you're..."innovating" (making up) new law here and you're full of shit as usual. They are "legally obligated" to do exactly two things: Jack and Shit.
Good lord, what the hell are you on about? You're saying obviously true things as if they're grand revelations. Microsoft believes in Open Source as much as any corporation, in that Open Source will somehow increase their profits they believe in it.
Nor are they geniuses. The professionals arrayed against them will always win. It's simple, really. If you were that good you wouldn't be a criminal.
Nowadays they can write big malware in high level languages, none of what they're doing is that hard especially considering most of them don't spread by obscure exploits in the OS but instead by "Durr, run this and watch the cool video of the cat dressed as a sheep!" type mails with dumb users actually running it.
Seriously, if you can just get 100k people to run a program you send them, developing malware is easy shit.
Every smartphone with any kind of over the air update has this capability. The article and the uproar are silly. By definition if the vendor can push updates they can killswitch your phone. Duh.
I'm focused on what's fair, and I don't see how your kids have earned your money any more than John Doe has. This is a really, really tough thing for most people to come to accept, because the conclusion is so antithetical to what we really want and that's for our loved-ones to prosper. But, try as I might, I can't come up with any solid argument for how loved ones have earned the money they inherit.
Huh? That's a mighty random conclusion. It's not "fair"? Based on what moral or ethical code is it not fair? How is it fair that someone wins the lottery? How is it fair that if a rich football player makes an off color comment and pats you on the ass you can make $1 million dollars but if a gang of bums rape you you will get $0?
Fair. Give me a fucking break. It's not "fair" that the government controls my money and does not honor my wishes with where it should go.
You seem to be making up definitions of "fair" completely contrary to your own fundamental point. I could say the exact thing about "what's fair" and "what we'd like" as you said, just switching positions.
It's a level of greed that I find astonishing and one that cost me the friendship.
You know, you're free to donate that estate money to charity, right? It's not selfless if it's forcing something on other people. You're free to assuage your guilt in any of numerous ways by spending your money wisely, you don't need the government to help you.
Yeah, I'm willing to vote for 50% estate taxes (on money I didn't do anything to earn) if it means that people like Paris Hilton might have to do a single-day's work someday
I'm not sure if you know this, but Paris Hilton makes a shitload of her own money. But it's ironic you think it's terrible that her family have worked hard to become successful and would want to give her "free money", but you think it's swell that the government instead takes this money (for free) and gives it to someone else who gets it (for free).
If I have a modest sum of money when I die I'd much rather 100% of it go to my kids than to some shitbag who doesn't work and doesn't need the money to survive.
I don't see them in designer clothes.
Bullshit. Go to any inner city and watch how people spend their time and their money. Fuck them.
I'm not a big-L libertarian, we need social nets. We can't have people starving in the streets or dying from untreated wounds. But we've got both of those things under control, people have food and emergency treatment. That's all you get for free, get off your stupid lazy ass and work for more if you want it.
The insurance companies did not want this. It was required or they might as well have closed up shop. The provision that they cover people with pre-existing conditions and not refuse coverage would have immediately put them out of business. Mandatory insurance was a weak attempt to keep them alive, but it won't work.
Nobody's fooled by any of this - they want Single Payer but know the US isn't ready for it, so they're taking baby steps to force it.
Republican's have a hell of a position now. They can still blame the Democrats (who control Senate and Executive) for all the woes, but take credit for anything good that does happen.
Thank God, on both counts. Back in my day we fought to keep the government's hands off the Internet as much as possible, and personally I still think that's a good idea. The furor over the need for Net Neutrality was a tempest in a teacup. Instead of inviting the government in to control the Internet based on nebulous could-be's, how about we wait and see if all these catastrophes like my ISP TOTALLY BLOCKING! google ever come to pass.
Right, because poor people voting themselves money will only do so to those Fat Cats making over 400k, amirite? Wait, I guess it's $250k now. Well.. hmm.. $100k a year is a lot of money...
Stimulus spending has done shit to shore up the economy, it created temporary government jobs - nothing else. I don't blame the Democrats or Republicans entirely for our economic woes, nor do I think either party can just wave a magic wand and fix things. But I do know that Europe is going to come crashing down over the next few decades, and emulating them is going to go even worse for us considering our population and demographics.
Voting against your own self-interest is your choice. It's a silly one, IMO, but it's your choice and it probably makes you feel good. Some people like to do things that make them feel like they're wise spirits who care for the noble poor. Personally, I've seen the "noble poor" in action and a huge number of them are just shit spitting out abused/neglected kid after abused neglected kid, wasting money on lottery tickets, alcohol, junk food, and designer clothes. But whatever floats your boat.
Voting for policies that are inherently unsustainable, however, is just idiotic.
Me - I see a shrinking number of taxpayers and an increasing percentage of voters who are dependent on the government either for direct, free money (for having kids they abuse/neglect) or for jobs. So if I vote for their interests...and they vote for their interests... things will go very badly very quickly.
We're doomed in this country anyway if you look at the trends, but at least if you don't let the rabble vote themselves free money too easily maybe we can delay it.
Seriously? Come on now. You do understand that a business must forecast costs and try to balance profits, right? If I know my expenses will go up by 50% next year (or in two years) I'm going to raise prices now.
How naive of you. This bill will destroy the insurance companies, and anyone can see it. Let's see, pay $5k a year for insurance, or pay a much smaller fine to the IRS (if they even find you)? I know which I'd pick. And the beauty is if I get really sick I can just walk into an insurance company and say "I'm sick, I want you to pay the $60k bill I'm about to incur and the $5k monthly expense from here on out for my medicine - here's my first month's premium of $500, good luck suckers."
Good luck paying for that scheme in a country of 300,000,000 with an influx of poor people coming in every day.
Europe's model doesn't even work for Europe, it would _never_ work here. Europe is going to start facing a hard reality over the coming few decades as their birth rates plummet and poor immigrants continue to flood in, and their social programs become utterly unsustainable.
Besides, we have eliminated poverty in the US. How many cases of starvation are there in the US? Deaths due to lack of shelter (not including mentally ill homeless people)? Every person in this country can walk into an emergency room and receive medical treatment.
Unless you define poverty as not having enough 50" TVs or enough money to eat at a nice restaurant 3 days a week, there is no poverty in the US.
It depends. If it's 10% in favor of FireFox or Chrome, it makes an earth shattering difference and you're an idiot to use IE. If it's 10% in favor of IE, it makes absolutely no difference.
Haha. You even used the M$ moniker. Your post is mostly funny to me because Microsoft didn't win this contract, and because you don't know what you're talking about.
Our health care system is the most modern in the world. It's our health care payment system that has some issues. But those issues pale in comparison to the issues the EU countries will have with their entire system of government and mass of social program proving themselves ridiculously unsustainable over the next 20 years.
Sorry, guys. I know it's hard to believe, but an ever increasing social program burden plus a low birth rate plus an influx of poor people from third world countries is not exactly something that can be sustained forever.
Really, there comes a level of stupidity masked by an air of reasonableness where you just have to read it and realize the person making the "reasonable argument" that a four year old should be held legally responsible for running into someone on their trike is beneath comment.
This whole article is flamebait, it's obviously an example of the legal system run a muck and anyone defending this as being reasonable is a moron and not worth comment.
Apple is cynical enough to know that if you're a typical Apple fan and you just bought an iPhone 4, you would have a really hard time justifying selling your old one and buying a new one just because it's white. However if you've had it a few months, you might be inclined to do this as it doesn't seem like you "just bought" your other iPhone 4.
And yes, many Apple fans are the type who will literally rebuy the same phone because of a color change... or because they cynically withheld features from a first rev of a product to make you want to buy the second generation less than a year later (which is what will happen with the iPad).
Slashdot Mirror
"Convicted monopolist". Lol. I love when people say that, it's such a bullshit phrase but people say it so dramatically.
Anyway - in any sane monopoly situation you don't hamstring the company with the monopoly to the point where they can't do things other companies can. You prevent them from leveraging their monopoly in ways other vendors can't.
If Apple, Linux, ...any other OS bundles a browser, Microsoft should be able to.
introduced a product of their own
They don't charge for it. There is no market in which SE plays because it's free.
Besides, you're..."innovating" (making up) new law here and you're full of shit as usual. They are "legally obligated" to do exactly two things: Jack and Shit.
But, their OS philosophy by nature makes it an insecure OS, and thus is coded that way.
BS. There is nothing inherently secure about the OS, as proved by the fact that if you aren't clueless you can run a very secure Windows machine.
Good lord, what the hell are you on about? You're saying obviously true things as if they're grand revelations. Microsoft believes in Open Source as much as any corporation, in that Open Source will somehow increase their profits they believe in it.
Or more succinctly: Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Nor are they geniuses. The professionals arrayed against them will always win. It's simple, really. If you were that good you wouldn't be a criminal.
Nowadays they can write big malware in high level languages, none of what they're doing is that hard especially considering most of them don't spread by obscure exploits in the OS but instead by "Durr, run this and watch the cool video of the cat dressed as a sheep!" type mails with dumb users actually running it.
Seriously, if you can just get 100k people to run a program you send them, developing malware is easy shit.
Every smartphone with any kind of over the air update has this capability. The article and the uproar are silly. By definition if the vendor can push updates they can killswitch your phone. Duh.
I'm focused on what's fair, and I don't see how your kids have earned your money any more than John Doe has. This is a really, really tough thing for most people to come to accept, because the conclusion is so antithetical to what we really want and that's for our loved-ones to prosper. But, try as I might, I can't come up with any solid argument for how loved ones have earned the money they inherit.
Huh? That's a mighty random conclusion. It's not "fair"? Based on what moral or ethical code is it not fair? How is it fair that someone wins the lottery? How is it fair that if a rich football player makes an off color comment and pats you on the ass you can make $1 million dollars but if a gang of bums rape you you will get $0?
Fair. Give me a fucking break. It's not "fair" that the government controls my money and does not honor my wishes with where it should go.
You seem to be making up definitions of "fair" completely contrary to your own fundamental point. I could say the exact thing about "what's fair" and "what we'd like" as you said, just switching positions.
It's a level of greed that I find astonishing and one that cost me the friendship.
You know, you're free to donate that estate money to charity, right? It's not selfless if it's forcing something on other people. You're free to assuage your guilt in any of numerous ways by spending your money wisely, you don't need the government to help you.
Yeah, I'm willing to vote for 50% estate taxes (on money I didn't do anything to earn) if it means that people like Paris Hilton might have to do a single-day's work someday
I'm not sure if you know this, but Paris Hilton makes a shitload of her own money. But it's ironic you think it's terrible that her family have worked hard to become successful and would want to give her "free money", but you think it's swell that the government instead takes this money (for free) and gives it to someone else who gets it (for free).
If I have a modest sum of money when I die I'd much rather 100% of it go to my kids than to some shitbag who doesn't work and doesn't need the money to survive.
I don't see them in designer clothes.
Bullshit. Go to any inner city and watch how people spend their time and their money. Fuck them.
I'm not a big-L libertarian, we need social nets. We can't have people starving in the streets or dying from untreated wounds. But we've got both of those things under control, people have food and emergency treatment. That's all you get for free, get off your stupid lazy ass and work for more if you want it.
The insurance companies did not want this. It was required or they might as well have closed up shop. The provision that they cover people with pre-existing conditions and not refuse coverage would have immediately put them out of business. Mandatory insurance was a weak attempt to keep them alive, but it won't work.
Nobody's fooled by any of this - they want Single Payer but know the US isn't ready for it, so they're taking baby steps to force it.
Well, I wouldn't say _absolutely_ nothing.
People blame the healthcare bill for their rising insurance costs.
"Reasonable" people then point out most of the bill hasn't gone into effect yet, and that it can't be affecting prices.
I then point out that of course it can.
Republican's have a hell of a position now. They can still blame the Democrats (who control Senate and Executive) for all the woes, but take credit for anything good that does happen.
They're going to sweep all 3 in 2012.
Thank God, on both counts. Back in my day we fought to keep the government's hands off the Internet as much as possible, and personally I still think that's a good idea. The furor over the need for Net Neutrality was a tempest in a teacup. Instead of inviting the government in to control the Internet based on nebulous could-be's, how about we wait and see if all these catastrophes like my ISP TOTALLY BLOCKING! google ever come to pass.
Right, because poor people voting themselves money will only do so to those Fat Cats making over 400k, amirite? Wait, I guess it's $250k now. Well.. hmm.. $100k a year is a lot of money...
The Republicans are fiscally more responsible than the Democrats, just like Ted Kazinski was less insane than Jeffrey Dahmer.
Stimulus spending has done shit to shore up the economy, it created temporary government jobs - nothing else. I don't blame the Democrats or Republicans entirely for our economic woes, nor do I think either party can just wave a magic wand and fix things. But I do know that Europe is going to come crashing down over the next few decades, and emulating them is going to go even worse for us considering our population and demographics.
Voting against your own self-interest is your choice. It's a silly one, IMO, but it's your choice and it probably makes you feel good. Some people like to do things that make them feel like they're wise spirits who care for the noble poor. Personally, I've seen the "noble poor" in action and a huge number of them are just shit spitting out abused/neglected kid after abused neglected kid, wasting money on lottery tickets, alcohol, junk food, and designer clothes. But whatever floats your boat.
Voting for policies that are inherently unsustainable, however, is just idiotic.
Me - I see a shrinking number of taxpayers and an increasing percentage of voters who are dependent on the government either for direct, free money (for having kids they abuse/neglect) or for jobs. So if I vote for their interests...and they vote for their interests... things will go very badly very quickly.
We're doomed in this country anyway if you look at the trends, but at least if you don't let the rabble vote themselves free money too easily maybe we can delay it.
Seriously? Come on now. You do understand that a business must forecast costs and try to balance profits, right? If I know my expenses will go up by 50% next year (or in two years) I'm going to raise prices now.
How naive of you. This bill will destroy the insurance companies, and anyone can see it. Let's see, pay $5k a year for insurance, or pay a much smaller fine to the IRS (if they even find you)? I know which I'd pick. And the beauty is if I get really sick I can just walk into an insurance company and say "I'm sick, I want you to pay the $60k bill I'm about to incur and the $5k monthly expense from here on out for my medicine - here's my first month's premium of $500, good luck suckers."
It utterly defeats the point of insurance.
And if wishes were made of fairy dust...
Good luck paying for that scheme in a country of 300,000,000 with an influx of poor people coming in every day.
Europe's model doesn't even work for Europe, it would _never_ work here. Europe is going to start facing a hard reality over the coming few decades as their birth rates plummet and poor immigrants continue to flood in, and their social programs become utterly unsustainable.
Besides, we have eliminated poverty in the US. How many cases of starvation are there in the US? Deaths due to lack of shelter (not including mentally ill homeless people)? Every person in this country can walk into an emergency room and receive medical treatment.
Unless you define poverty as not having enough 50" TVs or enough money to eat at a nice restaurant 3 days a week, there is no poverty in the US.
You must be new around here.
It depends. If it's 10% in favor of FireFox or Chrome, it makes an earth shattering difference and you're an idiot to use IE. If it's 10% in favor of IE, it makes absolutely no difference.
Haha. You even used the M$ moniker. Your post is mostly funny to me because Microsoft didn't win this contract, and because you don't know what you're talking about.
No, it isn't.
Our health care system is the most modern in the world. It's our health care payment system that has some issues. But those issues pale in comparison to the issues the EU countries will have with their entire system of government and mass of social program proving themselves ridiculously unsustainable over the next 20 years.
Sorry, guys. I know it's hard to believe, but an ever increasing social program burden plus a low birth rate plus an influx of poor people from third world countries is not exactly something that can be sustained forever.
Really, there comes a level of stupidity masked by an air of reasonableness where you just have to read it and realize the person making the "reasonable argument" that a four year old should be held legally responsible for running into someone on their trike is beneath comment.
This whole article is flamebait, it's obviously an example of the legal system run a muck and anyone defending this as being reasonable is a moron and not worth comment.
Apple is cynical enough to know that if you're a typical Apple fan and you just bought an iPhone 4, you would have a really hard time justifying selling your old one and buying a new one just because it's white. However if you've had it a few months, you might be inclined to do this as it doesn't seem like you "just bought" your other iPhone 4.
And yes, many Apple fans are the type who will literally rebuy the same phone because of a color change... or because they cynically withheld features from a first rev of a product to make you want to buy the second generation less than a year later (which is what will happen with the iPad).
Reality and reason disagree with him as well.