"This is the case of "Buy our brand's DVD Player so you can listen to our brand of DVDs""
This is exactly what happens with Blu Ray and HD-DVD. Apple is very upfront with the restrictions on songs purchased through iTunes (I don't have an iPod because they're too expensive for me to justify buying one). Basically, the complaints here are 1) companies are mad that Apple is outdoing them and 2) idiots are mad that they aren't smart enough to buy the right mp3 player or buy from the right music download service to work with their mp3 player.
As much as I would love to see Apple sued for including iEverythingPlusTheKitchenSink on their computers, there is no reason to sue them over the iPod or iTunes.
I buy books so that I can read them over and over again without hassles or wasting gas. The one time I DID try going to the library was to get a book to write a paper for my philosophy class -- but my library card was expired. Then, even though I'd had a library card since I was 5 or 6 years old (I lived in the library as a child) since they threw out all their old records when they updated their systems, they had no record of me and wouldn't issue me a new card without me going back home and bringing in multiple things to prove my name and address. So I said "screw that" and ended up finding what I needed on a website instead.
Really, my tax dollars pay for their (now pretty much pointless) jobs and I have to be hassled because they can't be bothered to maintain their records properly?
"and why else doesn't Linux get any real press in the same magazines"
Well, if the magazine is something along the lines of PC Gamer, most games DON'T run in Linux (at the very least they don't run without a hassle and even IF an emulator works for them they don't always work 100%). Why would they praise an OS that doesn't run the software that the magazine is focused around?
Before you talk about how I'm some MS fanboy, the only reason I haven't switched entirely over to Ubuntu is because I'm a gamer. If the Linux community really got to work on running games on Linux (correctly running games and without having to have half a dozen different emulators since what works for one game doesn't necessarily work for another), you'd see a huge increase in the number of Linux users.
"You're right, criticizing Nintendo leads to a lot of flack on slashdot"
You must read a different slashdot than I do. Most of what I've seen for the last I don't know how many years is "the [gamecube or wii] sucks because it isn't all shiny like a ps[insert number here]!" while ignoring the fact that there is a larger percentage of Nintendo games that have high quality gameplay than on other systems. If you want to argue about the merits of a system based on it's controls (I HATE the controls on most playstation games, but that doesn't stop me from playing my ps2) or on the quality of the games for it, that's great - but when your whole argument stems around "they chose gameplay and innovation over 3456938383i resolution", you just sound like a drooling moron. Unfortunately, when it comes to video games on slashdot I primarily see drooling morons who only care about shiny graphics.
"but this is one of the first studies that shows the relation between viewing media violence and real criminal behavior, according to the study's author"
No, it doesn't. Correlation does NOT prove causation. There are an infinite number of explanations why why these numbers are the way they are. Just one of them would be the fact that people who already have violent tendencies are more attracted to violent games.
"In another experiment cited, both children and adults who watched a violent movie showed significantly more aggression than the children and adults who watched a nonviolent movie when playing a physical game immediately after watching the films."
Yes, the proved that a movie that gets your heart rate up will cause you to be more over-active. I don't think anyone in the world would try to claim that watching a sad movie / kiddie movie is going to get your blood pumping and give you excess energy to burn. Again, this isn't showing any correlation to VIOLENCE. They could show a movie about a char chase or a race or sporting event and achieve the same effect.
All this crap of "video games are evil" has been applied to music, tv, comic books, etc over the years. Every few years when something new becomes popular then people claim it's evil. Why? Because they're determined to deny that there are people who are just plain mean / evil / violent. This is looking for something to blame violence on other than the people who commit the violent act.
While parts of what you said were good, you unfortunately negated it with this
"Leaving somebody in the sun of 35C or more for longer periods of time is torture. Sleep derivation is torture. Loud music for long periods of time is torture."
According to that, spending a day working outside in the summer is torture; cramming for finals or going without sleep to meet a deadline (whether for work or school) is torture; having an annoying roommate / neighbor is torture.
These are all normal parts of life in the modern world, especially in the US. By making these claims about "torture", you are insulting anyone who has ACTUALLY been tortured. It's a pity that former POW's aren't out suing the hell out of people like you for defamation of character or something along those lines.
Really, if you think that's torture you must be one of the biggest wimps out there.
"The "big games" are still all aimed at the PS3 and the 360 because that's where the gamers will end up."
No, that's where the "OOH!! SHINY!!" crowd ends up. I know people with all three systems, all the older consoles, plus they game on the PC a lot. Which of the new consoles do they prefer? Wii. Why? It's creative and it has some really good games and some even better games on the way. I can't think of any games, other than Halo 3 which is just yet another fps (and those got old about 12 years ago), that are on 360 and PS3 that you can't get for PC. It does irritate me that MS and Sony pay off companies to develop not develop their games for Nintendo as well, but those games I just buy on PC.
"That's the danger of selling your console to a very, very casual set of gamers who might never feel the need to buy another game for their console after they've found one they enjoy diddling with."
Again, they're marketing at people who value good game-play over shiny graphics and at a reasonable price too.
There's only one thing you need to do to "protect your child from these predators" - tell them not to meet people in real life that they've met online and not give out where they live and such. It's pretty simple. Honestly, anyone dumb enough to meet up with someone they met online randomly deserves whatever happens to them. It's one thing to meet up with someone you met online that is a friend of a friend (say you're best friends with Mike and his friend Joe wants to meet you and you've only talked to Joe online, but you know for a fact that Mike and Joe are friends, then it's ok), but it's totally different if someone you don't REALLY know anything about wants to meet up.
Bottom line is, don't be a typical American parent who raises kids that are total morons. Raise your kids to have common sense. If you do that, then you don't need to be a mini-China and block out almost all of the internet.
the US has the most ridiculously over-regulated emissions. If they get much worse, we won't even HAVE cars. Why do you think so many foreign cars aren't for sale here? It's not the market, it's that it's not worth the money it would take to make them comply with the US emissions standards.
My new plan is to trademark the name of every politician, athlete, and celebrity. Then, anytime their name is mentioned in any way I can sue for millions of dollars.
This whole thing is just Google trying to justify it's political biases. They have every right to say "we like party X over party Y" and run ads accordingly. However, when they start making up lies to try to keep party Y from being upset with them for preferring party X, then it pisses me off. It doesn't matter if Google likes Al Gore or George Bush better - just f-ing admit which one you prefer and stop making up lies to try to keep from angering the other half of your user base!
"Wouldn't expect it to happen in Great Britain - the country claims to be very liberal on human rights (a way too much in some cases)."
You must be new here if you're surprised - every few weeks there's another article on here about Great Britain is horribly violating it's citizens rights.
"but you were wrong because that grammar rule is not applicable to English, just American English."
No, it's not. It applies to the entire English language. Just because you either grew up in a home where your family in friends couldn't speak English or because you had a horrible English teacher as a child doesn't magically mean that the basic rules of the language change.
However, if you wish to prove me wrong, show me something (such as an official government document or a classic novel) that uses "don't" instead of "doesn't" and when the word "don't" is not intentionally being used to show the character is unintelligent.
"It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with dominance of a market."
I know, socialist / communist bastards HATE success with a fiery passion.
"The issue with bundling is that Microsoft were abusing their monopoly in the desktop operating system market to extend their presence in other markets (such as the web browser market) by bundling their web browser with their desktop operating system."
When you buy a computer or install an OS, you EXPECT there to be a browser and a way to play audio/video. There is absolutely nothing to stop people form downloading the competitors products (usually FREE even!). However, give the vast majority of people a computer without a browser or a way to play media and they'll be quite annoyed. I don't use IE or media player - *gasp!* however did I manage that? Well, I realized that I CAN INSTALL ANY SOFTWARE I WANT on my computer......and then I installed things I find superior to MS software. Novel concept, I know. I think I should get a Nobel Prize for figuring that one out. As for the courts ruling on this issue - it's an easy few hundred million dollars - of course they're going to rule against MS.
"Don't foist your regional dialect style guide rules upon somebody who speaks actual English."
Right, I guess those silly people in England who spoke English and used "doesn't" long before the US was colonized were "foisting their regional dialect" on people too. Really, trying to claim that it's not proper English just to defend your own poor language skills makes you look even more ridiculous than you do by claiming that people should be punished for being successful or that there should be two sets of rules - one for the people you don't like and one for the people you do like.
"You don't level an uneven playing field by limiting everybody equally. That merely results in another uneven playing field."
Right, so if the Cubs are all taking 5x steroids and the Reds are taking 2x steroids, the rule should be "the Cubs can't use steroids" instead of "NO ONE can use steroids". That's your reasoning in action - because MS has more money than Apple, Apple can do X but MS can't. That's why collectivism is such a joke - you punish success and reward failure (or at least not being as successful as someone else).
"Not in the legal sense of the word."
Yes, well in the legal sense of the word, nothing is as it is in real life. For instance in the legal sense of the word OJ was "proven" innocent. Now, everyone alive knows this is a joke (including OJ). It's not my fault that lawyers distort reality for profit.
"Defining markets as one per product line as you are doing is a ludicrous idea and makes almost every company a monopoly."
No other OS system is bound up in a "you buy the OS, box, video card, hard drive, most of the software, etc all from one company". You can buy a windows computer from anyone - why not OSX (which is how I should have worded it originally)?
"I have non-Apple RAM in my laptop and it works just fine."
Sometimes it does - but not always. I know people who've been screwed out of $100 or so because their Apple wouldn't run right on identical spec ram that wasn't bought from Apple. And, if you want to be sure it'll work right, they charge you 3 - 4 times as much as that same spec ram would cost you if you were building your own pc.
Oh, one more thing since you said this many times.......it's not "Apple don't" it's "Apple doesn't". You might want to try repeating first grade...that's where they teach basic English.
"Apple don't have a monopoly on consumer operating systems."
No, but if you buy a Mac you HAVE to buy it from apple. You also HAVE to buy Apple approved RAM or things go screwy, they include iEverything (yea, MS gets sued for having basic stuff like a web browser and audio/video player, yet no on makes a peep against Apple), etc. Apple is a textbook definition of a monopoly - they control everything about the production of those systems and charge a ridiculous price as a result.
As long as my software runs, I don't give a crap what OS I'm using. However, when people blatantly ignore things so they can justify attacking someone / something, it really irritates me. Also, if you look it up, a monopoly means you have no choice in the matter - as many people here are using Linux, that alone invalidates the monopoly claim against MS. The governments stake in it is very simple - MS is one of the (if not THE) most successful companies out there........so why not fine then a few hundred million or a few billion a year to pad the bank accounts of politicians so that they can buy that 14th house. If I was running MS, I'd just close the company, put my money in a swiss bank account, and laugh as the greedy politicians cry over what their lust for money and power wrought.
"How in hell do you think it makes sense to protect the market from monopoly abuse by placing limits on non-monopolies?"
They're not "limiting" the non-monopolies - they're doing the very thing you CLAIM to want - leveling the playing field. However, you most likely realize that the typical American moron would still buy Windows because it's familiar and your primary concern is the destruction of MS, not what's fair or just.
"Excepting the geographical accident that places both of them in Germany, there is NOTHING analagous between Nazism and the actions of the government in this case."
Yes, there is - passing pointless laws as a way to control your citizens and make sure that you know of everything they do. Also, for the three things you list as "won't" happen - you don't know that. You assume that they won't happen, but with the level of power that the government has, there's nothing anyone could do about it if they chose to do those things.
"the sad fact of the matter is that it is generally cheaper to buy a PC with Windows"
I don't know if you're just unaware of the prices on most parts or if there are crazy tax laws in the UK that make it that way, but that is NOT the case. It is almost always significantly cheaper to build your own computer - especially if you're using software that you already own. I've built all of my computers since I was old enough (roughly 13 or so) and I've always saved a few hundred over what it would have cost me to buy a similar one already built.
Again, it may be different over there, but here that's not true at all. Also, I'm pretty sure that Dell sells systems without an OS installed (not entirely sure since I rarely go to their site since I despise them).
If by "the MS Tax" you're referring to companies (such as Dell, Gateway, etc) installing Windows on a computer and then factoring that into the price, that is the COMPANIES fault. Nowhere is it written that a computer must have Windows or an OS at all installed on it when it is sold. Microsoft and try to get companies to pre-install it all they want, but in the end it is the company making the decision to do it. The bottom line here (if I'm interpreting your phrase "MS Tax" correctly) is that you're blaming MS for something that another company does.
As for "the outrageous pricing of Windows and Office" -- well, I guess you're talking about for the 10 people who actually BUY them instead of just burning the cd's from someone else.
Seriously, they don't make the best product, but they do a good job of marketing and such and people buy it of their own free will. Does McDonald's make the best product? God no - but they do a better job of marketing their stuff than other fast food restaurants.
What it comes down to is that 99.999999999999999999999% of people who want to "hurt" MS or whine about them being "evil" are just people who are jealous that they don't have that kind of money.
***waits to be modded down for defying the hive-mind***
Set up a proxy, have everyone log in through the proxy and just add a counter to the program and every 24 hours print out the IP address of the proxy X times to a text file.
Where your point falls apart though is calling MS an "abusive monopoly" - a Libertarian would never say that (especially since they're NOT a monopoly -- nothing is stopping people from buying a Mac or installing Linux).
There isn't an easy way for people to pay for their own roads. You CAN pay for your own college (it's called *gasp!* getting a job or *horrors!* taking out a student loan, which many people do). All the bullshit of "college is too expensive" is just an excuse to be lazy / stupid. I work a crap job and take out loans to pay for school - because I actually care about something more than beer and football (I know, Americans find it so hard to comprehend that someone can actually form a thought....).
Yes, because it makes sense to force me, Bob, Jane, *names of a a couple hundred million other people* to pay for John's college just because of the major he happened to choose.
I know no one here will care, but IT'S NOT FREE. You're (you meaning whoever would take advantage of this) are just stealing from others to pay for it -- only you have the governments permission to do it.
I dislike Bush, but we've been on this path for over 60 years - so you can't blame it on the Bush administration. It's because this is the "benefits" (I use the term sarcastically) of a collectivist government. All I have to say is "you brought this on yourselves, you lazy bastards".
Slashdot Mirror
"This is the case of "Buy our brand's DVD Player so you can listen to our brand of DVDs"" This is exactly what happens with Blu Ray and HD-DVD. Apple is very upfront with the restrictions on songs purchased through iTunes (I don't have an iPod because they're too expensive for me to justify buying one). Basically, the complaints here are 1) companies are mad that Apple is outdoing them and 2) idiots are mad that they aren't smart enough to buy the right mp3 player or buy from the right music download service to work with their mp3 player. As much as I would love to see Apple sued for including iEverythingPlusTheKitchenSink on their computers, there is no reason to sue them over the iPod or iTunes.
Really, my tax dollars pay for their (now pretty much pointless) jobs and I have to be hassled because they can't be bothered to maintain their records properly?
"What kind of "justice" department condones torture?"
What kind of wuss wants to be nice to people trying to kill him?
Seriously, I'm against the war and I don't like Bush, but this whole "being mean to our enemies is wrong!" crap is just idiotic.
Well, if the magazine is something along the lines of PC Gamer, most games DON'T run in Linux (at the very least they don't run without a hassle and even IF an emulator works for them they don't always work 100%). Why would they praise an OS that doesn't run the software that the magazine is focused around?
Before you talk about how I'm some MS fanboy, the only reason I haven't switched entirely over to Ubuntu is because I'm a gamer. If the Linux community really got to work on running games on Linux (correctly running games and without having to have half a dozen different emulators since what works for one game doesn't necessarily work for another), you'd see a huge increase in the number of Linux users.
"You're right, criticizing Nintendo leads to a lot of flack on slashdot"
You must read a different slashdot than I do. Most of what I've seen for the last I don't know how many years is "the [gamecube or wii] sucks because it isn't all shiny like a ps[insert number here]!" while ignoring the fact that there is a larger percentage of Nintendo games that have high quality gameplay than on other systems. If you want to argue about the merits of a system based on it's controls (I HATE the controls on most playstation games, but that doesn't stop me from playing my ps2) or on the quality of the games for it, that's great - but when your whole argument stems around "they chose gameplay and innovation over 3456938383i resolution", you just sound like a drooling moron. Unfortunately, when it comes to video games on slashdot I primarily see drooling morons who only care about shiny graphics.
"but this is one of the first studies that shows the relation between viewing media violence and real criminal behavior, according to the study's author"
No, it doesn't. Correlation does NOT prove causation. There are an infinite number of explanations why why these numbers are the way they are. Just one of them would be the fact that people who already have violent tendencies are more attracted to violent games.
"In another experiment cited, both children and adults who watched a violent movie showed significantly more aggression than the children and adults who watched a nonviolent movie when playing a physical game immediately after watching the films."
Yes, the proved that a movie that gets your heart rate up will cause you to be more over-active. I don't think anyone in the world would try to claim that watching a sad movie / kiddie movie is going to get your blood pumping and give you excess energy to burn. Again, this isn't showing any correlation to VIOLENCE. They could show a movie about a char chase or a race or sporting event and achieve the same effect.
All this crap of "video games are evil" has been applied to music, tv, comic books, etc over the years. Every few years when something new becomes popular then people claim it's evil. Why? Because they're determined to deny that there are people who are just plain mean / evil / violent. This is looking for something to blame violence on other than the people who commit the violent act.
While parts of what you said were good, you unfortunately negated it with this
"Leaving somebody in the sun of 35C or more for longer periods of time is torture. Sleep derivation is torture. Loud music for long periods of time is torture."
According to that, spending a day working outside in the summer is torture; cramming for finals or going without sleep to meet a deadline (whether for work or school) is torture; having an annoying roommate / neighbor is torture.
These are all normal parts of life in the modern world, especially in the US. By making these claims about "torture", you are insulting anyone who has ACTUALLY been tortured. It's a pity that former POW's aren't out suing the hell out of people like you for defamation of character or something along those lines.
Really, if you think that's torture you must be one of the biggest wimps out there.
"The "big games" are still all aimed at the PS3 and the 360 because that's where the gamers will end up." No, that's where the "OOH!! SHINY!!" crowd ends up. I know people with all three systems, all the older consoles, plus they game on the PC a lot. Which of the new consoles do they prefer? Wii. Why? It's creative and it has some really good games and some even better games on the way. I can't think of any games, other than Halo 3 which is just yet another fps (and those got old about 12 years ago), that are on 360 and PS3 that you can't get for PC. It does irritate me that MS and Sony pay off companies to develop not develop their games for Nintendo as well, but those games I just buy on PC. "That's the danger of selling your console to a very, very casual set of gamers who might never feel the need to buy another game for their console after they've found one they enjoy diddling with." Again, they're marketing at people who value good game-play over shiny graphics and at a reasonable price too.
There's only one thing you need to do to "protect your child from these predators" - tell them not to meet people in real life that they've met online and not give out where they live and such. It's pretty simple. Honestly, anyone dumb enough to meet up with someone they met online randomly deserves whatever happens to them. It's one thing to meet up with someone you met online that is a friend of a friend (say you're best friends with Mike and his friend Joe wants to meet you and you've only talked to Joe online, but you know for a fact that Mike and Joe are friends, then it's ok), but it's totally different if someone you don't REALLY know anything about wants to meet up.
Bottom line is, don't be a typical American parent who raises kids that are total morons. Raise your kids to have common sense. If you do that, then you don't need to be a mini-China and block out almost all of the internet.
the US has the most ridiculously over-regulated emissions. If they get much worse, we won't even HAVE cars. Why do you think so many foreign cars aren't for sale here? It's not the market, it's that it's not worth the money it would take to make them comply with the US emissions standards.
My new plan is to trademark the name of every politician, athlete, and celebrity. Then, anytime their name is mentioned in any way I can sue for millions of dollars.
This whole thing is just Google trying to justify it's political biases. They have every right to say "we like party X over party Y" and run ads accordingly. However, when they start making up lies to try to keep party Y from being upset with them for preferring party X, then it pisses me off. It doesn't matter if Google likes Al Gore or George Bush better - just f-ing admit which one you prefer and stop making up lies to try to keep from angering the other half of your user base!
"Wouldn't expect it to happen in Great Britain - the country claims to be very liberal on human rights (a way too much in some cases)."
You must be new here if you're surprised - every few weeks there's another article on here about Great Britain is horribly violating it's citizens rights.
No, it's not. It applies to the entire English language. Just because you either grew up in a home where your family in friends couldn't speak English or because you had a horrible English teacher as a child doesn't magically mean that the basic rules of the language change.
However, if you wish to prove me wrong, show me something (such as an official government document or a classic novel) that uses "don't" instead of "doesn't" and when the word "don't" is not intentionally being used to show the character is unintelligent.
I know, socialist / communist bastards HATE success with a fiery passion.
"The issue with bundling is that Microsoft were abusing their monopoly in the desktop operating system market to extend their presence in other markets (such as the web browser market) by bundling their web browser with their desktop operating system."
When you buy a computer or install an OS, you EXPECT there to be a browser and a way to play audio/video. There is absolutely nothing to stop people form downloading the competitors products (usually FREE even!). However, give the vast majority of people a computer without a browser or a way to play media and they'll be quite annoyed. I don't use IE or media player - *gasp!* however did I manage that? Well, I realized that I CAN INSTALL ANY SOFTWARE I WANT on my computer......and then I installed things I find superior to MS software. Novel concept, I know. I think I should get a Nobel Prize for figuring that one out. As for the courts ruling on this issue - it's an easy few hundred million dollars - of course they're going to rule against MS.
"Don't foist your regional dialect style guide rules upon somebody who speaks actual English."
Right, I guess those silly people in England who spoke English and used "doesn't" long before the US was colonized were "foisting their regional dialect" on people too. Really, trying to claim that it's not proper English just to defend your own poor language skills makes you look even more ridiculous than you do by claiming that people should be punished for being successful or that there should be two sets of rules - one for the people you don't like and one for the people you do like.
Right, so if the Cubs are all taking 5x steroids and the Reds are taking 2x steroids, the rule should be "the Cubs can't use steroids" instead of "NO ONE can use steroids". That's your reasoning in action - because MS has more money than Apple, Apple can do X but MS can't. That's why collectivism is such a joke - you punish success and reward failure (or at least not being as successful as someone else).
"Not in the legal sense of the word."
Yes, well in the legal sense of the word, nothing is as it is in real life. For instance in the legal sense of the word OJ was "proven" innocent. Now, everyone alive knows this is a joke (including OJ). It's not my fault that lawyers distort reality for profit.
"Defining markets as one per product line as you are doing is a ludicrous idea and makes almost every company a monopoly."
No other OS system is bound up in a "you buy the OS, box, video card, hard drive, most of the software, etc all from one company". You can buy a windows computer from anyone - why not OSX (which is how I should have worded it originally)?
"I have non-Apple RAM in my laptop and it works just fine."
Sometimes it does - but not always. I know people who've been screwed out of $100 or so because their Apple wouldn't run right on identical spec ram that wasn't bought from Apple. And, if you want to be sure it'll work right, they charge you 3 - 4 times as much as that same spec ram would cost you if you were building your own pc.
Oh, one more thing since you said this many times.......it's not "Apple don't" it's "Apple doesn't". You might want to try repeating first grade...that's where they teach basic English.
"Apple don't have a monopoly on consumer operating systems."
No, but if you buy a Mac you HAVE to buy it from apple. You also HAVE to buy Apple approved RAM or things go screwy, they include iEverything (yea, MS gets sued for having basic stuff like a web browser and audio/video player, yet no on makes a peep against Apple), etc. Apple is a textbook definition of a monopoly - they control everything about the production of those systems and charge a ridiculous price as a result.
As long as my software runs, I don't give a crap what OS I'm using. However, when people blatantly ignore things so they can justify attacking someone / something, it really irritates me. Also, if you look it up, a monopoly means you have no choice in the matter - as many people here are using Linux, that alone invalidates the monopoly claim against MS. The governments stake in it is very simple - MS is one of the (if not THE) most successful companies out there........so why not fine then a few hundred million or a few billion a year to pad the bank accounts of politicians so that they can buy that 14th house. If I was running MS, I'd just close the company, put my money in a swiss bank account, and laugh as the greedy politicians cry over what their lust for money and power wrought.
"How in hell do you think it makes sense to protect the market from monopoly abuse by placing limits on non-monopolies?"
They're not "limiting" the non-monopolies - they're doing the very thing you CLAIM to want - leveling the playing field. However, you most likely realize that the typical American moron would still buy Windows because it's familiar and your primary concern is the destruction of MS, not what's fair or just.
"Excepting the geographical accident that places both of them in Germany, there is NOTHING analagous between Nazism and the actions of the government in this case."
Yes, there is - passing pointless laws as a way to control your citizens and make sure that you know of everything they do. Also, for the three things you list as "won't" happen - you don't know that. You assume that they won't happen, but with the level of power that the government has, there's nothing anyone could do about it if they chose to do those things.
I don't know if you're just unaware of the prices on most parts or if there are crazy tax laws in the UK that make it that way, but that is NOT the case. It is almost always significantly cheaper to build your own computer - especially if you're using software that you already own. I've built all of my computers since I was old enough (roughly 13 or so) and I've always saved a few hundred over what it would have cost me to buy a similar one already built.
Again, it may be different over there, but here that's not true at all. Also, I'm pretty sure that Dell sells systems without an OS installed (not entirely sure since I rarely go to their site since I despise them).
As for "the outrageous pricing of Windows and Office" -- well, I guess you're talking about for the 10 people who actually BUY them instead of just burning the cd's from someone else.
Yea -- how dare they be successful!
Seriously, they don't make the best product, but they do a good job of marketing and such and people buy it of their own free will. Does McDonald's make the best product? God no - but they do a better job of marketing their stuff than other fast food restaurants.
What it comes down to is that 99.999999999999999999999% of people who want to "hurt" MS or whine about them being "evil" are just people who are jealous that they don't have that kind of money.
***waits to be modded down for defying the hive-mind***
Set up a proxy, have everyone log in through the proxy and just add a counter to the program and every 24 hours print out the IP address of the proxy X times to a text file.
Where your point falls apart though is calling MS an "abusive monopoly" - a Libertarian would never say that (especially since they're NOT a monopoly -- nothing is stopping people from buying a Mac or installing Linux).
There isn't an easy way for people to pay for their own roads. You CAN pay for your own college (it's called *gasp!* getting a job or *horrors!* taking out a student loan, which many people do). All the bullshit of "college is too expensive" is just an excuse to be lazy / stupid. I work a crap job and take out loans to pay for school - because I actually care about something more than beer and football (I know, Americans find it so hard to comprehend that someone can actually form a thought....).
Yes, because it makes sense to force me, Bob, Jane, *names of a a couple hundred million other people* to pay for John's college just because of the major he happened to choose. I know no one here will care, but IT'S NOT FREE. You're (you meaning whoever would take advantage of this) are just stealing from others to pay for it -- only you have the governments permission to do it.
I dislike Bush, but we've been on this path for over 60 years - so you can't blame it on the Bush administration. It's because this is the "benefits" (I use the term sarcastically) of a collectivist government. All I have to say is "you brought this on yourselves, you lazy bastards".