No, it doesn't have to. That might be the only reasonable option, but it does not have to by any law or force. If you really want to, you can not use it.
No one is forced to use them. The fact that they are popular does not make them a monopoly. The fact that that popularity pressures people to use them does not make them a monopoly either.
People could stop using Microsoft software if they cared. There is simply no suitable reason to in most circumstances. If there was, they could. In a monopoly situation, they couldn't.
What does forcefully bundling Windows matter? Wipe it from the hard drive the minute you get it if you don't like it. The thing is, most people want it, so making a few without Windows would probably cost more.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. They have a very large percentage of the market, but not a monopoly. BSD/Linux/OS X are also available. No, they aren't all that popular, and they aren't something that most people are going to go out of their way to use, but that is no reason to punish Microsoft.
Why must the tools avoid standards in their respective fields? (typesetting, ISO C99, proper W3C XHTML...)
Why must the tools only work in Windows?
Because they are Microsoft's. Microsoft makes them, and people willingly buy/use them. Microsoft can do whatever they want with them. If the consumers don't like it, they can not buy/use the product. There is no need for regulators in need of an ego boost to come in and try to "fix" things that are none of their business.
Now that I think about it, and after putting on my tinfoil hat, those Wikipedia articles (the one for you, your political philosophy, and your cocktail), reek of having been written by you in order to spread your political philosophy. Especially considering they were all written by "MrLiberty". I'll be sure to post my suspicions on Wikipedia.
What about the large percentage of those potential criminals that are addicted to drugs? Unless your welfare scheme gives them the drugs, which would be expensive and unethical, they will have to resort to crime to get them (rehabilitation may mitigate the problem somewhat, but it's not going to work for all, and probably most, cases). It's not as if this would be a small problem either.
We also outlaw guns so you can walk in the dark in the worst neighbourhoods without being afraid of anything at all.
That's ridiculous. You're in just as much danger from people with knives, improvised blunt weapons, or bare fists in that sort of situation as you are from people with guns. Probably more, in fact, since gunshots will draw more attention.
First of all, it converts the pollutants to less problematic substances, it doesn't absorb them.
Second of all, it does not pose a 30% increase in building costs. It is a 30% increase in concrete costs. That would be a very small portion of the cost of a building.
Counter A: This X extends.3 millimeters outside of the box. INVALID! Counter B: Hey! That's ridiculous! You're trying to cheat so the other candidate win! Counter A: Huh, oh yeah, I think I accidently got a package meant for you. It was full of money. It's in my car, you wanna get it later today. Counter B: waah, full of money, HEY! I won't take bribes! Counter A: I sort of need to take it out of my car today, it's taking up a lot of space, it must be like 10 thousand dollars. Counter B: I will not take bribes! Counter A: Per box. There were like ten boxes. Counter B: A hundred thousand dollars? Hmm... this X is sort of wavy. Counter A: Invalid, then? Counter B: Actually, I heard wavy X's meant you were voting for the other candidate? Counter A: Maybe there are 15 boxes.
Compulsory voting dilutes the power of these lobbies
It gives more power to people who would be too lazy and apathetic to vote otherwise. They do not need to be affecting the course of our nation. Beyond that, it doesn't affect lobbies' power, although it might affect the power of special interest advocacy groups. Lobbies try to affect how politicians vote, not citizen voters.
Oh and another thing, why the hell do you Americans hold elections on weekdays? Aren't most people at work? Normal people would hold an election on a Saturday...
Wikipedia says: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November was chosen to keep the election day from falling on November 1, All Saints' Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Tuesday was chosen to allow voters one day to travel to their polling place, as most residents at the time could not travel on Sunday because of church. The month of November was chosen because it was after the crops were harvested.
You have linked that page several times to show that the president believes in anthropogenic global warming, but that page has nothing to do with global warming. You even said it was a copy/paste error once, but you continue to do it. This suggests you are a troll.
One of the problems is the necessity for glue code. There needs to standards for software libraries. You can have different libraries, but certain functions should always get you something that will work in the context. One should be able to take out any library from any piece of software, and replace it with another library (assuming there is more than one for the same purpose).
Interesting how Canada and Spain have moved into the forefront of the civilized world while the US declines into a fascist police state.
That's a bit, extreme, you think? Not being able to download music at will for free doesn't make a country a "fascist police state".
I'd rather live in Vancouver than LA or New York.
So you'd rather live in a very nice, medium sized city surrounded by incredible landscape than a huge, sprawling urban area with the associated issues. Wow. That must be because of the countries they are in, and not due to anything else.
Now if only the Asian countries like China that seem to have a defacto policy of legalized file sharing would ease up on their draconian drug laws they could form an international coalition of states that actually support the rights of citizens.
So as long as they allow you to download music for free, and smoke marijuana, they're free? You seem to be forgetting that China has a repressive communist government.
No. Liberal and conservation have other meanings apart from distribution of something. Those meaning aren't related in the way you think.
The word liberal, in a general political sense, and not distribution of something, refers to freedom, or liberty. Classical liberals supported individual liberty in every area. In modern, especially American, politics it has come to refer to leftist ideology, which is quite different, and as you said generally "spends a lot".
LIbertarian is a made up word that means the same thing as classical liberalism, without the stigma of being "classical" (out of date) or "liberal"(leftist).
Conservative, in a general political sense, and not distribution of something, refers to preserving traditions. It is also used to describe many right wing ideologies, which generally go along with that principle, but have other, possibly more important, facets.
One thing irking about his campaign is his stance on several issues. He says he is in favor of "rethinking" them, but does not give an actual platform.To me, that seems like deliberately avoiding taking a position on a topic so as to please everyone, while still seeming like he has a position.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it was pandering to the brick and mortar casinos. It was helped along by the religious factor, and the nanny state supporters.
No, it doesn't have to. That might be the only reasonable option, but it does not have to by any law or force. If you really want to, you can not use it.
No one is forced to use them. The fact that they are popular does not make them a monopoly. The fact that that popularity pressures people to use them does not make them a monopoly either.
People could stop using Microsoft software if they cared. There is simply no suitable reason to in most circumstances. If there was, they could. In a monopoly situation, they couldn't.
What does forcefully bundling Windows matter? Wipe it from the hard drive the minute you get it if you don't like it. The thing is, most people want it, so making a few without Windows would probably cost more.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. They have a very large percentage of the market, but not a monopoly. BSD/Linux/OS X are also available. No, they aren't all that popular, and they aren't something that most people are going to go out of their way to use, but that is no reason to punish Microsoft.
There is undeniable evidence for many of his crimes. He would never walk out a free man in a fair court.
Also note that while he has denied having anything to do with the attacks, he has also claimed responsibility.
He's not really good for PR. The fact that he still lives makes the war on terrorism look like a failure to many people.
Gates got all his money legitimately.
No, they certainly make money on the hardware. Have you seen the prices?
How else would they make money (which they occasionally do)? Selling hardware at a loss in order to give away more free software isn't profitable.
Now that I think about it, and after putting on my tinfoil hat, those Wikipedia articles (the one for you, your political philosophy, and your cocktail), reek of having been written by you in order to spread your political philosophy. Especially considering they were all written by "MrLiberty". I'll be sure to post my suspicions on Wikipedia.
What about the large percentage of those potential criminals that are addicted to drugs? Unless your welfare scheme gives them the drugs, which would be expensive and unethical, they will have to resort to crime to get them (rehabilitation may mitigate the problem somewhat, but it's not going to work for all, and probably most, cases). It's not as if this would be a small problem either.
First of all, it converts the pollutants to less problematic substances, it doesn't absorb them.
Second of all, it does not pose a 30% increase in building costs. It is a 30% increase in concrete costs. That would be a very small portion of the cost of a building.
Counter A: This X extends .3 millimeters outside of the box. INVALID!
Counter B: Hey! That's ridiculous! You're trying to cheat so the other candidate win!
Counter A: Huh, oh yeah, I think I accidently got a package meant for you. It was full of money. It's in my car, you wanna get it later today.
Counter B: waah, full of money, HEY! I won't take bribes!
Counter A: I sort of need to take it out of my car today, it's taking up a lot of space, it must be like 10 thousand dollars.
Counter B: I will not take bribes!
Counter A: Per box. There were like ten boxes.
Counter B: A hundred thousand dollars? Hmm... this X is sort of wavy.
Counter A: Invalid, then?
Counter B: Actually, I heard wavy X's meant you were voting for the other candidate?
Counter A: Maybe there are 15 boxes.
Let people write-in candidates or issues that aren't on the ballots.
Wikipedia says: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November was chosen to keep the election day from falling on November 1, All Saints' Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Tuesday was chosen to allow voters one day to travel to their polling place, as most residents at the time could not travel on Sunday because of church. The month of November was chosen because it was after the crops were harvested.
You have linked that page several times to show that the president believes in anthropogenic global warming, but that page has nothing to do with global warming. You even said it was a copy/paste error once, but you continue to do it. This suggests you are a troll.
Because people think things should work in different ways, be written in different languages, etc.
One of the problems is the necessity for glue code. There needs to standards for software libraries. You can have different libraries, but certain functions should always get you something that will work in the context. One should be able to take out any library from any piece of software, and replace it with another library (assuming there is more than one for the same purpose).
So you'd rather live in a very nice, medium sized city surrounded by incredible landscape than a huge, sprawling urban area with the associated issues. Wow. That must be because of the countries they are in, and not due to anything else.
So as long as they allow you to download music for free, and smoke marijuana, they're free? You seem to be forgetting that China has a repressive communist government.
No. Liberal and conservation have other meanings apart from distribution of something. Those meaning aren't related in the way you think.
The word liberal, in a general political sense, and not distribution of something, refers to freedom, or liberty. Classical liberals supported individual liberty in every area. In modern, especially American, politics it has come to refer to leftist ideology, which is quite different, and as you said generally "spends a lot".
LIbertarian is a made up word that means the same thing as classical liberalism, without the stigma of being "classical" (out of date) or "liberal"(leftist).
Conservative, in a general political sense, and not distribution of something, refers to preserving traditions. It is also used to describe many right wing ideologies, which generally go along with that principle, but have other, possibly more important, facets.
Thanks for the answer.
So even if the websites hosting the ads can tell, do the advertisers check and will they count an adblocked pageview as a regular one?
One thing irking about his campaign is his stance on several issues. He says he is in favor of "rethinking" them, but does not give an actual platform.To me, that seems like deliberately avoiding taking a position on a topic so as to please everyone, while still seeming like he has a position.
That is a bad idea. If they don't care enough to vote without being forced to, they shouldn't be voting anyway.