So, you're saying that it wasn't impossible for OS/2 to provide support for this system call, since they put it in eventually?
In any case, this "Microsoft will just change the rules" is a bogus argument. Microsoft can't change things such that they break support with existing applications, so they can't just make arbitrary changes to the API.
"ripping you off" is not the same as performing monopolistic actions. Don't like Microsoft? Don't use them! Buy a Mac. Use Linux. There are people who never buy Microsoft software, and get along fine.
...compared to Win/98. That should be obvious, but for some reason it never is.
Why don't you read the ruling? You'll notice that it's loaded with "coulds" and "mays", but precious few "dids" and "haves". The judge was ignorant of the industry, and unfortunately bought into the emotional hysteria.
Apple engaged in extremely monopolistic practices. That they were too incompetent to actually become a monopolist is irrelievent.
...refused to give Netscape key APIs so that Netscape could run efficiently on Windows...
Then how do you explain Opera? It's amazing how speedy a program can be when written by competent people. I mean, let's face it... an HTML renderer is not rocket science. Netscape shouldn't be the big piece of garbage it is.
Since when did corporations become citizens?
Since they have been owned be private citizens. Or do you think that corporations are living beings somehow?
In any case, the point is not that the government gets money, the point is that they are issuing an order forcing actions to be taken on the assets of private citizens (aka the shareholders).
to me, is how eager many people (particularly here on Slashdot) are to see the government seize the assets of private citizens (aka "breaking them up").
The government's lawsuit is totally bogus. The only reason Microsoft has achieved dominance is through the incompetence of its competitors.
IBM OS/2? Dead, the minute they decided not to support Win32. If their marketing slogan had been "absolutely, positively 100% Windows compatible, only better!", they would have won.
Apple? The true monopoly. People dumped them because they tried to hold onto too much power.
Netscape? They lost because their browser sucked. The only reason they survived as long as they did is momentum and anti-Microsoft sentiment.
To me, the primary advantage of an MP3 player (which the Rio does not quite get there yet) is being able to hold a lot of music that can be carried around. This is the first unit that is getting close to the promise.
In any case, IBM 2.5" disk drive are extremely rugged (the heads have extremely low mass).
"Why Michael Couldn't Hit (And Other Tales of the Neurology of Sports)" by Harold L. Klawans, M.D.
The title is a reference to Michael Jordan, who despite being one of the greatest basketball athletes of all time, utterly failed to be a world-class baseball player. The book provides fascinating evidence that to be a world class athlete, there are windows of opportunity for learning particular skills during early childhood. If the window is missed, that person will never be capable of performing at a world class level.
Even if you're not interested in sports, I think the material in the book is applicable to almost any human activity. For example, he talks about violinists, and differences in CAT scans of the brains of people who started before the age of 13, and after 13. Fascinating stuff.
Learn why Babe Ruth was more superhuman than you might think... I love this quote (a footnote): "*None of this applies to Babe Ruth. He used the heaviest bat of any major league slugger, one that was clearly so heavy that its moment of inertia was so great that no one could possibly have used it successfully to hit major league fastballs. The Babe was blissfully ignorant of physics."
I'm not saying the lawsuit has merit or not, but 1-click is more complicated than just "storing name and credit card number". The back end shipping system at Amazon reviews orders and automatically combines separate orders into one shipping unit. I don't know if it took "thousands of hours", but there may have been some non-trivial problems to solve (beyond the naive "Hey Beevus, heh heh, heh heh, just do a SELECT on the address!!! huh heh! heh huh!).
Hang out in a bust-town sometime. Go talk to the people in a ghetto. Then try and tell me that you still think those people are there because of their work ethic.
They are there because of people like you who tell them they have no chance. Who is more compassionate? You, who tell them they are trapped there by The Man, or me, who tell them "You are better than this. Walk out of here, get a crappy job, go to school at night and get an education. Then get a professional job."
I submit that my attitude is far more compassionate.
And by the way, my parents were lower middle class. But they taught me not to whine. What's your excuse? You can't succeed without a trust fund? Please.
Well, I would rather have "gnawing guilt" than a phony sense of "liberal compassion" while people are addicted to government aid. At least what I feel is honest.
I have a lot of knowledge of the education industry in the US, and I will tell you that ANYONE can get grants or students loans to go to a good college. Maybe not Cal Tech or MIT, but you don't have to go to a "name" school to get a good education. Most schools offer night or weekend classes for working adults. There is absolutely NO excuse for someone not to be able to get a college education.
Simple: Wealth != Greed. The exact quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil." Note the word "love".
What you don't understand is that a rising tide floats all boats. People getting rich by creating wealth creates jobs for everyone else.
In fact, you're rich compared to people in third world countries. Doesn't that prove that you're greedy? Shouldn't you give away all your wealth and live in a hut? Oh, you won't? Why not?
So, let's say I'm a young, male African-American born to people under the poverty line. How can I succeed? Work hard? The people that work the hardest make the least money. Horatio Alger is dead and gone.
Is it harder to be black? Absolutely. Is it harder to be fat and ugly? Absolutely. Is it harder with a lack of social skills? Absolutely. "Work harder" doesn't necessarily mean physical labor. It means working a lot of hours in order to go to school at night. It means spending time at the library learning what you can. It means working multiple jobs if necessary.
Show me an able-bodied person still in poverty in the US, and I'll show you someone who sits on his butt doing nothing at night.
And by the way, at my last company the VP of product development was black (with huge stock options). Tell him that The Man kept him down.
And what happens the next day when that same person is hungry again, and the other guy doesn't have a TV? That's the fallacy of socialism and why these seemingly simple ideas always fail.
On the other hand, if we don't feed this theoretical hungry person (assuming they are able bodied), hunger will eventually overcome their lazyness and they will get a job and feed themselves. He then can feed himself every day, and the first guy still has his TV.
"Tough love" is true compassion, because it has as its goal dignity. Stealing from someone else is false compassion, because it solves nothing.
My point was that Socialists typically hold up an ideal society as their goal, and utilize government coercion to enforce it. The only way society improves is through actions of individuals unshackled from government, not through actions of government. Utopia is apparently a loaded word for you, and I probably didn't mean it in the way you interpreted it. I meant it as a "well working society" (perfection is non-attainable, of course).
Have you ever been to the US? It's not that easy. Lots of people do it, but this "literally anyone" thing is nonsense.
I live in Southern California. I never said it was easy, I just said anyone who works hard. And it's true.
Visit Europe some time. On the whole, it's a great place. It bears absolutely no resemblance to your description.
Been there a number of times. I have family in Germany. My wife's family hosted a student from Luxemburg. The latter person desperately wants to come to the US. To her, it's no comparison and Luxemburg is one of the more livable countries.
You can get edible bread in a supermarket, for example, which in the US is virtually unknown.
Huh? I don't know about your supermarkets, but mine carry fresh baked bread every day that is wonderful. If you seriously think there is any comparison between food in the US and Europe, you obviously haven't travelled broadly. Food in the US is so far superior it's not even comparable, and to top it off, it's 1/2 to 1/3 the price. Not to mention the portions are about 50% to 100% larger.
I don't mind living here, but that's because I get to live in the Boston area. The rest of the country is mostly an uninhabitable wasteland.
You need to get out more. Wasteland? Upstate New York? Maine? Virginia? Florida keys? or my side of the country, Lake Tahoe? Yosemite? Ever drive around the Palos Verdes Peninsula? Wasteland indeed.
Don't get me wrong -- I like Europe. They have one thing that blows away the US -- History. I love crawling through the old castles and cathedrals. But live there? No way. I like my freedom.
You have exactly defined why Socialism is a repressive system, and don't even realize it: "leaving aside personal greed". In the United States, literally anyone who works hard can become independantly wealthy. Sadly, in most European countries that is not true (although it happens, rarely). But what's amazing is that apologists such as yourself think that's a *good* thing! No one should be able to rise above anyone else... everyone should stay at the same level of mediocrity (except for the people in control, of course).
Or haven't you noticed the huge disparity between the number of people who want to come to the US, versus the number of people who want to leave?
One of the fundamental flaws of the socialist mentality is that you equate desire for a better life through money == greed. They are not the same. The pie is not limited.
While I think that his comparison of Socialism and Naziism is excessive, Socialism is a very repressive form of government. Yes, I've been to Europe and listened in amazement at the restrictions on personal freedom.
It's fashionable nowadays to spew feel good nonsense like, "all systems are neither better nor worse, only different." Sorry. It's simply wrong. There is a reason that the United States has had the strongest economy in the world during the 20th century, and it's called freedom. Stealing from working people and giving it to slackers hasn't worked in the past, and won't work in the future (See: France).
Bottom line, utopia is built by individuals, not by governments.
Note this is a criticism of governments, not of people. Don't take it personally.
Netscape stinks as a browser, it's slow, buggy and looks particularly bad under Linux (primarily because of the font issues under Linux).
Presumably this thing is aimed at the low end. I know I can't stand to use Netscape under Linux. Will the average user notice how much worse browsing looks on this thing than a PC?
Hopefully KDE will get their browser to a useful state someday (although that won't solve the font problem).
Of course we all know that everything taught in sociology classes is absolutely scientific and factual (/tim collapses in hysterical laughter).
Of course there are mental differences between men and woman, on the average. However, this does not mean that one is better than the other, only different.
Why is it so difficult for some people to imagine that if men and woman have physical differences, their might be differences in how their brains are wired?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying that it wasn't impossible for OS/2 to provide support for this system call, since they put it in eventually?
In any case, this "Microsoft will just change the rules" is a bogus argument. Microsoft can't change things such that they break support with existing applications, so they can't just make arbitrary changes to the API.
"ripping you off" is not the same as performing monopolistic actions. Don't like Microsoft? Don't use them! Buy a Mac. Use Linux. There are people who never buy Microsoft software, and get along fine.
...compared to Win/98. That should be obvious, but for some reason it never is.
Why don't you read the ruling? You'll notice that it's loaded with "coulds" and "mays", but precious few "dids" and "haves". The judge was ignorant of the industry, and unfortunately bought into the emotional hysteria.
Apple engaged in extremely monopolistic practices. That they were too incompetent to actually become a monopolist is irrelievent.
Then how do you explain Opera? It's amazing how speedy a program can be when written by competent people. I mean, let's face it... an HTML renderer is not rocket science. Netscape shouldn't be the big piece of garbage it is.
Since when did corporations become citizens?
Since they have been owned be private citizens. Or do you think that corporations are living beings somehow?
In any case, the point is not that the government gets money, the point is that they are issuing an order forcing actions to be taken on the assets of private citizens (aka the shareholders).
to me, is how eager many people (particularly here on Slashdot) are to see the government seize the assets of private citizens (aka "breaking them up").
The government's lawsuit is totally bogus. The only reason Microsoft has achieved dominance is through the incompetence of its competitors.
IBM OS/2? Dead, the minute they decided not to support Win32. If their marketing slogan had been "absolutely, positively 100% Windows compatible, only better!", they would have won.
Apple? The true monopoly. People dumped them because they tried to hold onto too much power.
Netscape? They lost because their browser sucked. The only reason they survived as long as they did is momentum and anti-Microsoft sentiment.
To me, the primary advantage of an MP3 player (which the Rio does not quite get there yet) is being able to hold a lot of music that can be carried around. This is the first unit that is getting close to the promise.
In any case, IBM 2.5" disk drive are extremely rugged (the heads have extremely low mass).
"Why Michael Couldn't Hit (And Other Tales of the Neurology of Sports)" by Harold L. Klawans, M.D.
The title is a reference to Michael Jordan, who despite being one of the greatest basketball athletes of all time, utterly failed to be a world-class baseball player. The book provides fascinating evidence that to be a world class athlete, there are windows of opportunity for learning particular skills during early childhood. If the window is missed, that person will never be capable of performing at a world class level.
Even if you're not interested in sports, I think the material in the book is applicable to almost any human activity. For example, he talks about violinists, and differences in CAT scans of the brains of people who started before the age of 13, and after 13. Fascinating stuff.
Learn why Babe Ruth was more superhuman than you might think... I love this quote (a footnote): "*None of this applies to Babe Ruth. He used the heaviest bat of any major league slugger, one that was clearly so heavy that its moment of inertia was so great that no one could possibly have used it successfully to hit major league fastballs. The Babe was blissfully ignorant of physics."
Profit isn't everything.
I'm not saying the lawsuit has merit or not, but 1-click is more complicated than just "storing name and credit card number". The back end shipping system at Amazon reviews orders and automatically combines separate orders into one shipping unit. I don't know if it took "thousands of hours", but there may have been some non-trivial problems to solve (beyond the naive "Hey Beevus, heh heh, heh heh, just do a SELECT on the address!!! huh heh! heh huh!).
Hang out in a bust-town sometime. Go talk to the people in a ghetto. Then try and tell me that you still think those people are there because of their work ethic.
They are there because of people like you who tell them they have no chance. Who is more compassionate? You, who tell them they are trapped there by The Man, or me, who tell them "You are better than this. Walk out of here, get a crappy job, go to school at night and get an education. Then get a professional job."
I submit that my attitude is far more compassionate.
And by the way, my parents were lower middle class. But they taught me not to whine. What's your excuse? You can't succeed without a trust fund? Please.
Well, I would rather have "gnawing guilt" than a phony sense of "liberal compassion" while people are addicted to government aid. At least what I feel is honest.
(Not that I actually feel any guilt, by the way.)
I have a lot of knowledge of the education industry in the US, and I will tell you that ANYONE can get grants or students loans to go to a good college. Maybe not Cal Tech or MIT, but you don't have to go to a "name" school to get a good education. Most schools offer night or weekend classes for working adults. There is absolutely NO excuse for someone not to be able to get a college education.
Simple: Wealth != Greed. The exact quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil." Note the word "love".
What you don't understand is that a rising tide floats all boats. People getting rich by creating wealth creates jobs for everyone else.
In fact, you're rich compared to people in third world countries. Doesn't that prove that you're greedy? Shouldn't you give away all your wealth and live in a hut? Oh, you won't? Why not?
So, let's say I'm a young, male African-American born to people under the poverty line. How can I succeed? Work hard? The people that work the hardest make the least money. Horatio Alger is dead and gone.
Is it harder to be black? Absolutely. Is it harder to be fat and ugly? Absolutely. Is it harder with a lack of social skills? Absolutely. "Work harder" doesn't necessarily mean physical labor. It means working a lot of hours in order to go to school at night. It means spending time at the library learning what you can. It means working multiple jobs if necessary.
Show me an able-bodied person still in poverty in the US, and I'll show you someone who sits on his butt doing nothing at night.
And by the way, at my last company the VP of product development was black (with huge stock options). Tell him that The Man kept him down.
Have you tried American candy lately? [and other food comments]
Well, quit buying the cheap stuff! Just because bad food products are sold doesn't mean good ones are not sold as well.
And what happens the next day when that same person is hungry again, and the other guy doesn't have a TV? That's the fallacy of socialism and why these seemingly simple ideas always fail.
On the other hand, if we don't feed this theoretical hungry person (assuming they are able bodied), hunger will eventually overcome their lazyness and they will get a job and feed themselves. He then can feed himself every day, and the first guy still has his TV.
"Tough love" is true compassion, because it has as its goal dignity. Stealing from someone else is false compassion, because it solves nothing.
Well, I wouldn't hold up Bill Clinton and the mainstream American national media as the guardians of freedom!
My point was that Socialists typically hold up an ideal society as their goal, and utilize government coercion to enforce it. The only way society improves is through actions of individuals unshackled from government, not through actions of government. Utopia is apparently a loaded word for you, and I probably didn't mean it in the way you interpreted it. I meant it as a "well working society" (perfection is non-attainable, of course).
Have you ever been to the US? It's not that easy. Lots of people do it, but this "literally anyone" thing is nonsense.
I live in Southern California. I never said it was easy, I just said anyone who works hard. And it's true.
Visit Europe some time. On the whole, it's a great place. It bears absolutely no resemblance to your description.
Been there a number of times. I have family in Germany. My wife's family hosted a student from Luxemburg. The latter person desperately wants to come to the US. To her, it's no comparison and Luxemburg is one of the more livable countries.
You can get edible bread in a supermarket, for example, which in the US is virtually unknown.
Huh? I don't know about your supermarkets, but mine carry fresh baked bread every day that is wonderful. If you seriously think there is any comparison between food in the US and Europe, you obviously haven't travelled broadly. Food in the US is so far superior it's not even comparable, and to top it off, it's 1/2 to 1/3 the price. Not to mention the portions are about 50% to 100% larger.
I don't mind living here, but that's because I get to live in the Boston area. The rest of the country is mostly an uninhabitable wasteland.
You need to get out more. Wasteland? Upstate New York? Maine? Virginia? Florida keys? or my side of the country, Lake Tahoe? Yosemite? Ever drive around the Palos Verdes Peninsula? Wasteland indeed.
Don't get me wrong -- I like Europe. They have one thing that blows away the US -- History. I love crawling through the old castles and cathedrals. But live there? No way. I like my freedom.
I have no idea what that means.
You have exactly defined why Socialism is a repressive system, and don't even realize it: "leaving aside personal greed". In the United States, literally anyone who works hard can become independantly wealthy. Sadly, in most European countries that is not true (although it happens, rarely). But what's amazing is that apologists such as yourself think that's a *good* thing! No one should be able to rise above anyone else... everyone should stay at the same level of mediocrity (except for the people in control, of course).
Or haven't you noticed the huge disparity between the number of people who want to come to the US, versus the number of people who want to leave?
One of the fundamental flaws of the socialist mentality is that you equate desire for a better life through money == greed. They are not the same. The pie is not limited.
While I think that his comparison of Socialism and Naziism is excessive, Socialism is a very repressive form of government. Yes, I've been to Europe and listened in amazement at the restrictions on personal freedom.
It's fashionable nowadays to spew feel good nonsense like, "all systems are neither better nor worse, only different." Sorry. It's simply wrong. There is a reason that the United States has had the strongest economy in the world during the 20th century, and it's called freedom. Stealing from working people and giving it to slackers hasn't worked in the past, and won't work in the future (See: France).
Bottom line, utopia is built by individuals, not by governments.
Note this is a criticism of governments, not of people. Don't take it personally.
Netscape stinks as a browser, it's slow, buggy and looks particularly bad under Linux (primarily because of the font issues under Linux).
Presumably this thing is aimed at the low end. I know I can't stand to use Netscape under Linux. Will the average user notice how much worse browsing looks on this thing than a PC?
Hopefully KDE will get their browser to a useful state someday (although that won't solve the font problem).
This is only half-joking: I thought that Apple was the only company allowed to make any computer with colors that captures any press attention.
Of course we all know that everything taught in sociology classes is absolutely scientific and factual (/tim collapses in hysterical laughter).
Of course there are mental differences between men and woman, on the average. However, this does not mean that one is better than the other, only different.
Why is it so difficult for some people to imagine that if men and woman have physical differences, their might be differences in how their brains are wired?