So if you think something is too expensive, you steal it? Great philosophy. A lot of people buy Final Cut Pro, far more than steal it. And expensive software is not why people pirate software. The #1 reason is because they don't want to pay at all #2 is because they don't want to have to deal with draconian licensing.
By "can't punish companies", I meant "can't rightfully punish companies". Corrupt governments will do nearly anything.
They don't have the power to harm society, unless individuals let them.
If you want to punish them, don't buy their product. Using force to punish them is wrong.
When the government came for the corporations,
I remained silent;
I was not invested in a corporation.
When they robbed the wealthy,
I remained silent;
I was not wealthy.
When they came for the businesses,
I did not speak out;
I was not a small business owner.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Would you hire a free electrician with the knowledge that if your electrical system broke down a day after he worked on it, he wouldn't be accountable?
monopoly" does not have to mean that there's only one company supplying the product.
Wikipedia defininition of monopoly:
In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monoplium - Greek language Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
I don't consider monopolistic competition a monopoly, but even if you do, you can't punish companies for it. It is their goal to make money and that often involves dominating the market.
By integrated I do NOT mean like I.E. One can remove Safari from OS X without a problem, although there isn't really any point in doing so. And I heartily agree that browsers make poor file managers. By integrated I mean it takes advantage of system services (Spell check, password manager), and uses standard interface conventions. This allows for a uniform experience across applications.
Most of this is subjective, and it's good that there are competing browsers. I would like to point out that I did change my Opera settings, with all of the bars but the address bar gone, and some okay looking skin.
Up until a short time ago, Opera costed money. That is probably the #1 reason it has such low popularity.
The reason I do not like it are: I think it's interface is unintuitive. It's ugly. It's focused on tabbed browsing, which I do not like. It is not well integrated with Mac OS X.
Firefox is now the "non-evil-microsoft" browser, so it is getting much more attention than Opera.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. People could use another OS if they wanted to. It may not be as easy, or as cheap, and it may involve change. Thus, they don't usually. But no is forced to run Windows. Should Microsoft be punished for doing well?
Are they not allowed to charge different prices to different people? If they make a contract that their discounted licenses are only for I.E.-only computers, and the PC maker agrees, what is wrong?
Windows is Microsoft's. OS X is Apple's. Different *nix's belongs to different groups.
They are not yours (Certainly all of them aren't, though I guess you could have your own *nix distro)
They can do whatever they want with their product.
If that means making it unintuitive, insecure, ugly, and bundled with a poor browser, so be it. If that means making it intuitive, intelligent, beautiful, and bundled with a good browser, so be it. If that means making it very configurable, open source, and bundled with ten thousand browsers, so be it.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. People could use another OS if they wanted to. It may not be as easy, or as cheap, and it may involve change. Thus, they don't usually. But no is forced to run Windows. Should Microsoft be punished for doing well?
If they didn't bundle it, then it would be very hard for a lot of people to get on the internet. ISP customer : How do I open a browser? Tech support : Microsoft is evil, so they are forced not to bundle a browser with their software product. Thus, you have to download firefox. ISP customer : Download? Doesn't that require an internet connection? Tech support : Well, we will send you a CD with firefox for $9.95 ISP customer : It would sure be a lot easier if Windows came with a browser. Tech support : OH YEAH? WELL YOU'RE AN EVIL FASCIST!
It looks like they are just buying specific information for people involved in crimes, from what the great, great grand-parent posted. What is wrong with that? The government would inevitably spend more in acquiring the same information.
If there are many people willing to go to dangerous extremes to get into college, then they will certainly be willing to pay. If China was open to private schooling, then there wouldn't be the leaders saying "We will have this many universities", there would be universities opening everywhere to meet the demands of the students. And they would be competing, so it would probably end up being cheaper, and certainly more effective.
Here's my idea for a portable desktop:
The computer and storage can be in a backpack, with a laptop shaped screen and keyboard that wirelessly hook up to it. That way you can have a lot of computing power, but still be able to carry it around, and have a lightweight, ergonomic device to hold and use. You could plug the backpack in, and carry around the laptop-like I/O device, which would have plenty of space for batteries. A battery for a fully powered desktop computer would probably be too heavy to every carry around.
My solution would be to escort people out who talk on their cell phones in a theater, unless, of course, it is a real emergency. Otherwise, they can go outside.
Why will it be useless? It certainly seems logical that more personnel will be able to do a more effective job. And it is certainly possible to stop people from crossing the border. How can the army stop toads?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they were dedicated to what they should be, do the legislators have the right to tell ISPs how to use their property?
So if you think something is too expensive, you steal it? Great philosophy. A lot of people buy Final Cut Pro, far more than steal it. And expensive software is not why people pirate software. The #1 reason is because they don't want to pay at all #2 is because they don't want to have to deal with draconian licensing.
Security through obscurity does not work.
Sure it does. Have you heard of any exploits for the SoObscureItDoesntExist Browser?
By "can't punish companies", I meant "can't rightfully punish companies". Corrupt governments will do nearly anything. They don't have the power to harm society, unless individuals let them. If you want to punish them, don't buy their product. Using force to punish them is wrong. When the government came for the corporations, I remained silent; I was not invested in a corporation. When they robbed the wealthy, I remained silent; I was not wealthy. When they came for the businesses, I did not speak out; I was not a small business owner. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Why is that a shame? Being opposed to proprietary software is just as ridiculous as being opposed to open source.
Would you hire a free electrician with the knowledge that if your electrical system broke down a day after he worked on it, he wouldn't be accountable?
Perhaps it's because governments aren't software developers?
A monopoly is when there is one supplier of a product in a market. Even if they aren't popular, *nix and OS X are alternate suppliers.
No one uses force to coerce others into using Windows. Being pressured by its popularity and ignorant of alternatives is not being forced.
monopoly" does not have to mean that there's only one company supplying the product.
Wikipedia defininition of monopoly:
In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monoplium - Greek language Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
I don't consider monopolistic competition a monopoly, but even if you do, you can't punish companies for it. It is their goal to make money and that often involves dominating the market.
By integrated I do NOT mean like I.E. One can remove Safari from OS X without a problem, although there isn't really any point in doing so. And I heartily agree that browsers make poor file managers. By integrated I mean it takes advantage of system services (Spell check, password manager), and uses standard interface conventions. This allows for a uniform experience across applications.
Most of this is subjective, and it's good that there are competing browsers. I would like to point out that I did change my Opera settings, with all of the bars but the address bar gone, and some okay looking skin.
You can probably install Firefox on Windows too, and rarely, if ever, use I.E.
Up until a short time ago, Opera costed money. That is probably the #1 reason it has such low popularity.
The reason I do not like it are:
I think it's interface is unintuitive.
It's ugly.
It's focused on tabbed browsing, which I do not like.
It is not well integrated with Mac OS X.
Firefox is now the "non-evil-microsoft" browser, so it is getting much more attention than Opera.
Safari is already very widespread, considering it is Mac-only and used by the majority of Mac users.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. People could use another OS if they wanted to. It may not be as easy, or as cheap, and it may involve change. Thus, they don't usually. But no is forced to run Windows. Should Microsoft be punished for doing well? Are they not allowed to charge different prices to different people? If they make a contract that their discounted licenses are only for I.E.-only computers, and the PC maker agrees, what is wrong?
Windows is Microsoft's.
OS X is Apple's.
Different *nix's belongs to different groups.
They are not yours (Certainly all of them aren't, though I guess you could have your own *nix distro)
They can do whatever they want with their product.
If that means making it unintuitive, insecure, ugly, and bundled with a poor browser, so be it.
If that means making it intuitive, intelligent, beautiful, and bundled with a good browser, so be it.
If that means making it very configurable, open source, and bundled with ten thousand browsers, so be it.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. People could use another OS if they wanted to. It may not be as easy, or as cheap, and it may involve change. Thus, they don't usually. But no is forced to run Windows. Should Microsoft be punished for doing well?
If they didn't bundle it, then it would be very hard for a lot of people to get on the internet.
ISP customer : How do I open a browser?
Tech support : Microsoft is evil, so they are forced not to bundle a browser with their software product. Thus, you have to download firefox.
ISP customer : Download? Doesn't that require an internet connection?
Tech support : Well, we will send you a CD with firefox for $9.95
ISP customer : It would sure be a lot easier if Windows came with a browser.
Tech support : OH YEAH? WELL YOU'RE AN EVIL FASCIST!
Better Idea: Everyone can do whatever they want with their software product because it is theirs. Freedom. That's in the best interest of all.
It looks like they are just buying specific information for people involved in crimes, from what the great, great grand-parent posted. What is wrong with that? The government would inevitably spend more in acquiring the same information.
No, it gives us the right to their arms.
If there are many people willing to go to dangerous extremes to get into college, then they will certainly be willing to pay. If China was open to private schooling, then there wouldn't be the leaders saying "We will have this many universities", there would be universities opening everywhere to meet the demands of the students. And they would be competing, so it would probably end up being cheaper, and certainly more effective.
Here's my idea for a portable desktop: The computer and storage can be in a backpack, with a laptop shaped screen and keyboard that wirelessly hook up to it. That way you can have a lot of computing power, but still be able to carry it around, and have a lightweight, ergonomic device to hold and use. You could plug the backpack in, and carry around the laptop-like I/O device, which would have plenty of space for batteries. A battery for a fully powered desktop computer would probably be too heavy to every carry around.
Get another job? Move into a different field?
My solution would be to escort people out who talk on their cell phones in a theater, unless, of course, it is a real emergency. Otherwise, they can go outside.
Why will it be useless? It certainly seems logical that more personnel will be able to do a more effective job. And it is certainly possible to stop people from crossing the border. How can the army stop toads?