Yeah the Empire State Building was a great prank!/sarcasm
Really, what's the point of your link? Perspective is nice, but it's just a bit absurd to compare the construction of an office building to the destruction of thousands of personal and business computer files and the resulting loss of thousands of man-hours of productivity and millions of dollars.
And when did this become a popular sentiment on/.?
Seriously now, everyone here is against choosing Microsoft, against choosing Intel, against voting conservative, against the war in Iraq, against the use of proper grammar and spelling, etc. The only things anyone seems to be for are movie/music piracy and open source code because "the information wants to be free." Anyone who takes a contrarian position on one or more of the examples listed is modded as a troll. So where's the "freedom of choice?"
I recall reading somewhere that the music industry was actually more profitable during Napster's peak years than in the previous few years. I wish I could remember where I'd read that though....
"We'll sell you MacOSX, but you can't sell OS|2, and if you do, you'll never see another Apple product again."
I contend that this statement is illegal for the reason that it is an unreasonable method to acquire or maintain a monopoly (I don't see any 3rd party Macs or iPods on the market, do you?). I understand your position that Microsoft has already been found in violation the law, but I don't see how you can argue that the above statement is any different, and thus any more legal. Please explain this.
From your link: "The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods."
Thank you for proving exactly what my point was, namely:
Actions performed by some company are either "fair" or "unfair" regardless of the size of the company.
In other words: if Apple used the same "unreasonable methods" to try to "acquire a monopoly" as Microsoft has repeatedly used (in other words, if Apple used those same methods to try to become dominant in the home computing market), those methods would violate the law.
""Your Rights Online" is used for anything freedom based. Even if it has nothing to do with the Internet. Like if there was a new Patriot Act requirement that banks report more transactions to the Feds - might be legitimate news for Slashdot, but not YRO."
Are you sure your quotation marks are in the right place? Judging by what gets put in this subdomain, I'd say it's "Your Rights" Online. In other words, news pertaining to your rights posted and discussed in an online setting, rather than news about your rights while online. If you look at it that way, news about the Patriot Act fits in YRO perfectly.
"Apple lovers. Bashing Apple gets one modded down..."
And yet, bashing Microsoft does not. If the Internet for the free trafficking of ideas, why are Apple and Linux bashers "trolls" but Windows bashers are "insightful?"
Thank you, yes, that's just the kind of thing I was talking about. Although this conversation is about Microsoft specifically, this concept can be applied to any company that dominates its field. Given that, what I have to wonder is, where's the incentive for a company to be successful if they are going to be punished for it later when a smaller competitor tries to enter the market?
Aside: there's no grand law of business that says a big company will always dominate. If a small company markets a product that is superior in some way, then the public will readily adopt it. Think about the automotive industry. Ford, Chevrolet, and Chrysler dominated the market in the 1970s. Japanese companies (Honda, Toyota, etc.) got to where they are today by building and advertising a more efficient product. The reason Linux is not doing the same in the home computing market is because there is very little public awareness of it.
So "fair" is a matter of scale? I defy you to provide a dictionary which states this.
The fact that Microsoft dominates the market does not mean their practices are inherently "unfair" but would be "fair" if applied by a smaller company. According to your definition of "fair," Lance Armstrong should only be allowed to use a unicycle because he has dominated the Tour de France for years, but everyone else competing in the race can use a normal bicycle.
It's not "classy" or "moral," but it's a time-honored business practice to slander competitors, and Microsoft didn't invent the concept. There's no law saying you didn't have an equal right to slander Microsoft for advertising a product they weren't actually producing, and it would have been a perfectly "fair trade practice" for you to do so.
The topic summary given is a bit misleading. From the article:
"The use of open-source operating systems in enterprise servers is growing in Japan"
and
"So far, 21 percent of Japanese companies have already introduced open-source operating systems including Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD systems"
and
"Open-source operating systems are used with much less frequency in applications for financial, payment, distribution and customer service applications, the report said."
It seems to me that the article is talking about the use of OSS for running servers (web, etc.), but doesn't specifically say anything about personal workstations. Based on the third quote, I surmise that this means they're still using Windows in other places around the office.
"A number of gun-sellers were busted a few years ago "
But they weren't the ones manufacturing the guns, nor were they advertising a specific model of gun as being "perfect for settling some scores".
Actually, FDR died in his 4th term as President. There was no limit before the 22nd Amendment. Also, the limit now is 10 years, not 8. It is legal for someone to serve up to 2 years of his predecessor's term (i.e. if Bush were to die in 2006, Cheney could concievably serve as President from 2006 until January 2017.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Porom was the girl. Palom was the boy.
Did you read the article? It specifically said that Microsoft had a patch out for the security hole 2 weeks before Sasser appeared.
How did system administrators profit from this?
Really, what's the point of your link? Perspective is nice, but it's just a bit absurd to compare the construction of an office building to the destruction of thousands of personal and business computer files and the resulting loss of thousands of man-hours of productivity and millions of dollars.
And when did this become a popular sentiment on /.?
Seriously now, everyone here is against choosing Microsoft, against choosing Intel, against voting conservative, against the war in Iraq, against the use of proper grammar and spelling, etc. The only things anyone seems to be for are movie/music piracy and open source code because "the information wants to be free." Anyone who takes a contrarian position on one or more of the examples listed is modded as a troll. So where's the "freedom of choice?"
I recall reading somewhere that the music industry was actually more profitable during Napster's peak years than in the previous few years. I wish I could remember where I'd read that though....
Are they the ones downloading hundreds of gigs of movies already?
I contend that this statement is illegal for the reason that it is an unreasonable method to acquire or maintain a monopoly (I don't see any 3rd party Macs or iPods on the market, do you?). I understand your position that Microsoft has already been found in violation the law, but I don't see how you can argue that the above statement is any different, and thus any more legal. Please explain this.
"The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods."
Thank you for proving exactly what my point was, namely:
Actions performed by some company are either "fair" or "unfair" regardless of the size of the company.
In other words: if Apple used the same "unreasonable methods" to try to "acquire a monopoly" as Microsoft has repeatedly used (in other words, if Apple used those same methods to try to become dominant in the home computing market), those methods would violate the law.
Are you sure your quotation marks are in the right place? Judging by what gets put in this subdomain, I'd say it's "Your Rights" Online. In other words, news pertaining to your rights posted and discussed in an online setting, rather than news about your rights while online. If you look at it that way, news about the Patriot Act fits in YRO perfectly.
"Apple lovers. Bashing Apple gets one modded down..."
And yet, bashing Microsoft does not. If the Internet for the free trafficking of ideas, why are Apple and Linux bashers "trolls" but Windows bashers are "insightful?"
Aside: there's no grand law of business that says a big company will always dominate. If a small company markets a product that is superior in some way, then the public will readily adopt it. Think about the automotive industry. Ford, Chevrolet, and Chrysler dominated the market in the 1970s. Japanese companies (Honda, Toyota, etc.) got to where they are today by building and advertising a more efficient product. The reason Linux is not doing the same in the home computing market is because there is very little public awareness of it.
The fact that Microsoft dominates the market does not mean their practices are inherently "unfair" but would be "fair" if applied by a smaller company. According to your definition of "fair," Lance Armstrong should only be allowed to use a unicycle because he has dominated the Tour de France for years, but everyone else competing in the race can use a normal bicycle.
Yes.
It's not "classy" or "moral," but it's a time-honored business practice to slander competitors, and Microsoft didn't invent the concept. There's no law saying you didn't have an equal right to slander Microsoft for advertising a product they weren't actually producing, and it would have been a perfectly "fair trade practice" for you to do so.
And then link to it again a week later, then another month after that.
"The use of open-source operating systems in enterprise servers is growing in Japan"
and
"So far, 21 percent of Japanese companies have already introduced open-source operating systems including Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD systems"
and
"Open-source operating systems are used with much less frequency in applications for financial, payment, distribution and customer service applications, the report said."
It seems to me that the article is talking about the use of OSS for running servers (web, etc.), but doesn't specifically say anything about personal workstations. Based on the third quote, I surmise that this means they're still using Windows in other places around the office.
That's because the word "Muslim" just means a follower of the religion of Islam. Look it up.
Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "molten water"? Isn't molten water just.... liquid water?
"A number of gun-sellers were busted a few years ago " But they weren't the ones manufacturing the guns, nor were they advertising a specific model of gun as being "perfect for settling some scores".
Actually, FDR died in his 4th term as President. There was no limit before the 22nd Amendment. Also, the limit now is 10 years, not 8. It is legal for someone to serve up to 2 years of his predecessor's term (i.e. if Bush were to die in 2006, Cheney could concievably serve as President from 2006 until January 2017.)