The taxpayers already paid for them once. Why should they have to pay twice?
Because the underpricing doesn't benefit all taxpayers, but rather a small-subsection of them. If the county charged fair market value (which I wouldn't think would much more for a 3+ year old notebook, but the crowds say otherwise) then the funds would go in the general coffer, benefitting all taxpayers (as a tax-funded institution).
The obvious point here should be that the county was sellign them too cheap
Exactly - this obviously wasn't an efficient marketplace. It's possible the county was doing it almost as a public service, underpricing for the citizens of the county. Of course most of those people rushing for the PCs probably plan on selling them anyways - watch for a rash of iBook auctions.
No, I'm not going to explain every detail of the history of Microsoft's business practices here. My point is, I'm astonished that you could be disgusted by this and none of the other things they have done.
I'm hardly unaware of all of the claims of Microsoft evil, but the reality is that they were often much more complex than the simple scenarios portrayed on here. Boohoo, Microsoft actually used the extended data flags in the Kerberos spec. Boohoo Microsoft designs their own graphics architecture. Boohoo Microsoft stole Marc Andreeson's lunch, or rather his 7th vacation home. Boohooo Microsoft won't let me patch my warez copy of XP.
Most of them were laughable, and were people picking and choosing, and then surrounding in bias and hyperbole, what they would FUDify.
Being a monopoly isn't illegal, and in some industries (such as software) is the natural state. I had a problem with some of their activities with partners, but it wasn't the clear villain/victim often portrayed. Of course I'm in the land of Slashdot, where every year is the year that Linux will abolish Microsoft (hell I remember hearing it was the "Year of Linux" about 4 or 5 years ago), to flipping and crying that Microsoft is a monster monopoly.
2. The crushing Netscape to make way for the blight of the net known as IE
I was using IE to create internal webapps half a decade ago that Mozilla is just beginning to be able to partly accomplish. IE was, by a long ways, the leading browser technology for some time. Blight indeed. Netscape, led by Andreeson, was declared as the replacement for Windows, and the fact that Microsoft challenged the threat is hardly surprizing. It's also interesting that Netscape, the company that basically released their browser for free to consumers to undercut commercial offerings (such as SpyGlass), all to entrench themselves to be able to sell to the backoffice, is sainted in this imaginary revised history.
3. Stolen/copied/embraced/bought out technologies from the DOS days to the present
Um, okay. I'm sure the bought out people are just so sad, sitting on their millions, and we should villify Microsoft for that.
Give me a break. Historically Microsoft had some transgressions (kinda expected for a company of that size), but overall they were a fairly responsible, considerate company. Lately, perhaps as the revenue stream gets threatened, that has changed.
This is all speculation, and it's not even Microsoft basher speculation for the most part, it just seems to be journos trying to get a scoop by making stuff up.
No doubt we'll see how it all evolves, and by the theoretical rules of the USPTO this should all be cleared up (i.e. you can't run and patent someone else's released invention and then tell them to pay you). My problem comes from the fact that Microsoft is playing these games. e.g. presuming that David Kaefer knows what he was commenting about, Microsoft is playing along and seeing how far they will get. That is most certainly not cool. Furthermore I'm not buying the B.S. "defensive patent" explanation for Microsoft recent nonsense patent flurry. I do think this is a corporate direction Microsoft is turning.
I develop with Microsoft software. My desktops are all Windows desktops (though I run Linux in virtual sessions). I target the Microsoft environment because, in my analysis and for the industry I target, it is the best choice. I've even been accused on Slashdot of being a Microsoft astroturfer countless times for shooting down misguided and misinformed anti-"M$" FUD. While I've been a bit put off by some of Microsoft's prior actions, I could always see their position. I have never owned a Mac, and I don't own an iPod.
Yet this action absolutely disgusts me.
Microsoft seriously risks turning off, and scaring away, the people who have the influence and persuasive power and technical know-how to maintain Microsoft's position. Hearing some scumbag talking about "licensing their innovation", when he's really talking about a deplorable abuse of the patent system, really makes one ponder what's the next (we already got hints from the sad reality that Microsoft considered buying Claria). Previously it was Microsoft the Evil to the conspiracy theorists and the people with an axe to grind. The title is becoming more real to the mainstream.
If anyone is wondering, 500 megawatts can power about 500,000 homes.
I worked on projects for large methane->power facilities in California (and across the US), which turned landfill belchings into fuel for large engines. One of these facilities, in a dinky little building, put out about 6MW all day long. Not quite 500MW, but it was pretty impressive given that it was methane that would otherwise have been flared off uselessly.
For context, typical new nuclear power plants produce around 600-1200MW.
the gym has the same 8 hours open as you work then you are quite fucked up or should the gym open for a longer time? maybe 24/7?
Sentences and paragraphs. Look into them.
In any case, what a load of nonsense - my grocery store is open 24 hours. My gym is open from 6am to 11pm, every day (OMG!), covering virtually any personal schedule. My dentest has a changing schedule so he can fit you in whether you want 9am or 7pm, though you might have to wait a week. Virtually everyone has around the clock phone support, and of course the internet never sleeps. The 1950s called, and they want your tired hyperbole back.
What you pointed out has to do with the synchronization of mankind, and it is a problem rather than a benefit. I don't want to go to the gym at exactly the same time as everyone else, nor do I want to drive on the highway or go to the restaurant. I'd like it people were spread out more.
DST does NOT give you any more hours of daylight! Days are just as long, nights are just as long no matter what fiddling you do to your clock. The earth's rotation is the same, the sun's movement across the sky is the same, the phases of the moon are the same.
I believe his point is simply that with a "static" work schedule, and a philosophy that the day doesn't begin until you leave for work, DST gives him more usable hours of sunlight at night (because during the DST months he is going to work at 8am - 4pm, even if the clock pretends that it's 9-5pm. As such, he has from 4 - 8:30PM real time, instead of 5PM - 8:30PM.
The same benefit would be derived by leaving for work earlier, or making use of the pre-sunlight hours.
As an aside, and this is about other posts - DST is during the summer. During the winter it is "normal hours". We have DST during the summer theoretically to take advantage of the very early sunrise.
The only other solution is to shift your work schedule to get back those lost hours of daylight in the summertime, like the company I worked for in Indiana did.
This is exactly how people should adapt to the increased sunlight hours during the summer - get up earlier and go to the gym, do gardening, whatever, during the copious hours before work if your work hours are static throughout the year. Alternately if you're an employer then adapt your hours (or even better adapt flexible hours for the majority of workplaces where it isn't detrimental to do so).
The idea of changing the clock to force it on everyone is ludicrous, and it's imperfect anyways as there remains tremendous sunlight "waste" during the height of summer (in my area the sun rises just before 8am in the height of winter, and at 5am in the summer). In the past, when life was much more synchronous and people needed direct and immediate contact with others to a vastly greater degree, it was necessary for this mass coordination, but today we live largely asynchronous, queued and disconnected lives, and everyone clogging the streets at 8am and 5pm is insanity.
The linked article was barely longer than the submission, and probably shorter than a large number of Score: 5 posts that will appear in response to it.
The gist, it seems, is that because Microsoft has given the world some good, usable software, we owe it a debt of gratitude. Sorry, but my gratitude is limited to the fees I voluntarily paid Microsoft. I don't need to love them, or to agree with any of their tactics.
The Microsoft as of late is a patent-hungry company looking to maximize its existing revenue streams (we knew that day would come), and has seriously considered unbelievable options like purchasing Claria. It is really hard to feel love in my heart for something like that. It is also difficult to sit in awestruck amazement at the great achievements of Microsoft when they are pulling in $40 billion or so a year to support their endeavor. Look at what small shops like BeOS, with a smaller budget than Microsoft spends on lunches, achieved in such a short period of time.
I do think Microsoft makes some great software, and it remains my platform of choice, but I owe them no debt, nor do I need to bias my opinions of some of their actions because I like VS.NET.
The primary link is down, and people have to resort to mirrors. If Slashdot karma is all it takes to get people to help the system, then it seems pretty cheap.
This sounds absolutely nothing like "phishing", but rather like targeted trojans to gain access to priviledged info (getting some bank employee to launch a trojan). I'm fairly certain this has happened all along. Maybe the article summarizes the IBM information incorrectly.
When I first read the article summary, I thought it was going to describe indirect phishing - e.g. trolling for ancillary info about someone such that one can "recover" the account. e.g. Many accounts can be accessed by claiming a forgotten password, and answering trivial questions like D.O.B. or mother's maiden name, both of which a phisher could get fairly easily.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Like many environmentalists, he cared more about animals than people.
Boy, you're a good little sucker, aren't you?
Calling Hitler an environmentalist, or proponent of animal rights, is ridiculous. Hitler didn't give a shit about any living thing, and forsook meat (with many transgressions) only because he believed that it caused cancer. He was driven by self-preservation, not moral consideration for animals. I don't eat rats, but that doesn't make me a rat lover.
Environmentalists absolutely caused the outages in California.
Bleeeeeet! Bleeeeeeet! You're a good little soldier for the cause.
This has been thoroughly debunked in every way, and it has been shown, publicly, that the energy crisis was, in the end, manufactured by Enron and friends. Ken Lay and friends thank you for your brainless and idiotic support, though.
Interesting that you say this given that a raging debate on JOS during the release week of this article featured an endless stream of readers mortally offended that Joel casually dismissed service type developers (e.g. the financial industry, etc). The vast majority of "developers" out there don't work for shrinkwrap shops, but rather get their bread and butter making VB forms and so on, and many of these people were offended by Joel's article.
I doubt the "environmentalists" (which I would hope that every member of the human race is, except for maybe Hitler) forced the change anymore than they caused the power outages in California (which all the clucking little right-wing sheep were bleating about, while Enron and friends were laughing their asses off at how stupid some gullible folks are).
I've lost interest - you needn't bother replying, since I won't bother reading.
Boy, what a lame cliche that is. You clearly have no clue about basic economics, or even what made the US great while the USSR and other idealistic but completely contrary to human nature cesspools wallowed, so it's pretty futile.
Of course you can't justify _why_ their products are so much more valuable than anyone elses except through vague emotional appeals & attacks, but whatever...
Um, everyone can benefit from intellectual protections. Who the hell is us versus them, unless you're mentally deficient and the only worthwhile creation is your menial labour?
You buy a CD. The CD is your private property - you paid for the physical product, didn't sign a contract giving up your rights, etc.
And the creator didn't give you a license or special waiver allowing you to do whatever you want with it. You didn't buy the music, you bought the right to some specific uses of that CD (such as private play). If you don't like it, don't buy it, or buy from someone offering it in the public domain.
Important clue: a free market doesn't include getting special laws passed to protect your bad business model.
That's a terrible clue, because it's entirely wrong. We absolutely adapt our laws to provide an appropriate balance.
If somebody can take your idea & do it better than you can
This is just mind boggling, and comes from outer space, as it clearly doesn't originate in rational thought.
Your problem...Society would do just FINE without...
Sorry, but what a load of nonsense. Any artist that is motivated by altruistic desires, and has no need for monetary reward, is fully capable of forsaking any protections, and of releasing their goods in the public domain - nothing in the current system limits this. Amazing how few people actually have that sort of motive, though, isn't it?
Since IP laws function by overriding basic property rights related to REAL property (preventing people from doing whatever they want with their own real private property)
Mind giving some examples of this? Sounds like standard selfish rhetoric (e.g. If I paid a penny for this I should be able to do anything and everything that I want. I paid a large sum for my house and property, but I can't turn it into a farm, and I can't even park derelict vehicles in the front yard. Property rights aren't absolute, and have concessions where they invade the rights of others).
If you make enough of those, you deserve to go out of business. Most honest businesspeople wouldn't expect to get special laws passed that would support their bad business model though.
"Bad business model" is such a ridiculous piece of terminology, but it's like a mantra around here. Well let's say I start a band of thieves robbing pizza guys. Would being in the pizza business then be a "bad business model"? Of course that's bullshit, and we have laws, and enforcement, to protect their business.
There's _always_ incentive to do that - you want to stay ahead of the competition
But you see, without IP protection, you can't because they're right up with you the second you release something. Who in the world would spend $200 million making a movie if they knew that rival film companies could pirate it immediately, or that pirates could freely distribute it without fear of retribution? No one would. Yeah, I know the story, all hollywood movies and mainstream music is garbage anyways, now give me my torrents of them!
How can we pretend to have a true capitalist market when you can somehow monopolize ideas like this?
It's called property rights, and it's one of the most important elements of a capitalist economy. If you put your brainpower and effort into developing something, yet it gives you no competitive advantage (because everyone else could call it their own with no property rights, intellectual or otherwise), you'll have zero motiviation to develop something original: All of the money will be in racing to the bottom and just duplicating what everyone else is doing. In the Soviet Union there were few benefits to inventing or excelling, and the result was that most technical innovation from the Soviet Union was the result of espionage in the US industrial complex.
All of this has nothing to do with the ABSURD software patents that have been granted as of late, though. Property rights should only apply to things that are actually novel and unique, and bring something interesting to the table. Some of the obvious, dumbass patents that have been granted over the past 10 years are absolutely deplorable (and it is disgraceful that Microsoft is hopping in that bed).
If Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD has taught us anything, it's obviously better to have an overzealous, point-missing war over two completely incompatible formats.
Yes, it probably is. It's called capitalism, and it's a sort of technology Darwinism where hopefully the best of the best survive. Yes, there are exceptions, but I prefer it over some central government resolution to declare whatever half-assed proposal comes first the standard.
Let them fight it out for a while, undoubtedly stealing the best of each other's ideas, and then introduce something great.
A "Beta" does not have to be feature complete. It's a TEST version.
Most betas in this world are feature complete, or almost entirely feature complete. The "beta" title indicates that the quality is likely unrefined. Of course this is evident from your next point...
A "Release Candidate" is feature complete.
A RC is, exactly as the name says, a candidate for going gold. It's after all of the features AND bugs have hopefully been implemented, and in most cases it should largely be the same as what is eventually released.
That's funny, because I could have sworn that some form of IE's User-Agent accounts for 90% of my webservers hits (300 Mill a month).
You're absolutely correct - I intended to add a limiting clause on that to refer to people involved in the computer industry professionally - developers, and so on. Obviously I didn't mean the market at large. This was evident by my follow-up statement.
Slashdot Mirror
The taxpayers already paid for them once. Why should they have to pay twice?
Because the underpricing doesn't benefit all taxpayers, but rather a small-subsection of them. If the county charged fair market value (which I wouldn't think would much more for a 3+ year old notebook, but the crowds say otherwise) then the funds would go in the general coffer, benefitting all taxpayers (as a tax-funded institution).
The obvious point here should be that the county was sellign them too cheap
Exactly - this obviously wasn't an efficient marketplace. It's possible the county was doing it almost as a public service, underpricing for the citizens of the county. Of course most of those people rushing for the PCs probably plan on selling them anyways - watch for a rash of iBook auctions.
No, I'm not going to explain every detail of the history of Microsoft's business practices here. My point is, I'm astonished that you could be disgusted by this and none of the other things they have done.
I'm hardly unaware of all of the claims of Microsoft evil, but the reality is that they were often much more complex than the simple scenarios portrayed on here. Boohoo, Microsoft actually used the extended data flags in the Kerberos spec. Boohoo Microsoft designs their own graphics architecture. Boohoo Microsoft stole Marc Andreeson's lunch, or rather his 7th vacation home. Boohooo Microsoft won't let me patch my warez copy of XP.
Most of them were laughable, and were people picking and choosing, and then surrounding in bias and hyperbole, what they would FUDify.
1. The whole MS monopoly thing
Being a monopoly isn't illegal, and in some industries (such as software) is the natural state. I had a problem with some of their activities with partners, but it wasn't the clear villain/victim often portrayed. Of course I'm in the land of Slashdot, where every year is the year that Linux will abolish Microsoft (hell I remember hearing it was the "Year of Linux" about 4 or 5 years ago), to flipping and crying that Microsoft is a monster monopoly.
2. The crushing Netscape to make way for the blight of the net known as IE
I was using IE to create internal webapps half a decade ago that Mozilla is just beginning to be able to partly accomplish. IE was, by a long ways, the leading browser technology for some time. Blight indeed. Netscape, led by Andreeson, was declared as the replacement for Windows, and the fact that Microsoft challenged the threat is hardly surprizing. It's also interesting that Netscape, the company that basically released their browser for free to consumers to undercut commercial offerings (such as SpyGlass), all to entrench themselves to be able to sell to the backoffice, is sainted in this imaginary revised history.
3. Stolen/copied/embraced/bought out technologies from the DOS days to the present
Um, okay. I'm sure the bought out people are just so sad, sitting on their millions, and we should villify Microsoft for that.
Give me a break. Historically Microsoft had some transgressions (kinda expected for a company of that size), but overall they were a fairly responsible, considerate company. Lately, perhaps as the revenue stream gets threatened, that has changed.
This is all speculation, and it's not even Microsoft basher speculation for the most part, it just seems to be journos trying to get a scoop by making stuff up.
No doubt we'll see how it all evolves, and by the theoretical rules of the USPTO this should all be cleared up (i.e. you can't run and patent someone else's released invention and then tell them to pay you). My problem comes from the fact that Microsoft is playing these games. e.g. presuming that David Kaefer knows what he was commenting about, Microsoft is playing along and seeing how far they will get. That is most certainly not cool. Furthermore I'm not buying the B.S. "defensive patent" explanation for Microsoft recent nonsense patent flurry. I do think this is a corporate direction Microsoft is turning.
I develop with Microsoft software. My desktops are all Windows desktops (though I run Linux in virtual sessions). I target the Microsoft environment because, in my analysis and for the industry I target, it is the best choice. I've even been accused on Slashdot of being a Microsoft astroturfer countless times for shooting down misguided and misinformed anti-"M$" FUD. While I've been a bit put off by some of Microsoft's prior actions, I could always see their position. I have never owned a Mac, and I don't own an iPod.
Yet this action absolutely disgusts me.
Microsoft seriously risks turning off, and scaring away, the people who have the influence and persuasive power and technical know-how to maintain Microsoft's position. Hearing some scumbag talking about "licensing their innovation", when he's really talking about a deplorable abuse of the patent system, really makes one ponder what's the next (we already got hints from the sad reality that Microsoft considered buying Claria). Previously it was Microsoft the Evil to the conspiracy theorists and the people with an axe to grind. The title is becoming more real to the mainstream.
If anyone is wondering, 500 megawatts can power about 500,000 homes.
I worked on projects for large methane->power facilities in California (and across the US), which turned landfill belchings into fuel for large engines. One of these facilities, in a dinky little building, put out about 6MW all day long. Not quite 500MW, but it was pretty impressive given that it was methane that would otherwise have been flared off uselessly.
For context, typical new nuclear power plants produce around 600-1200MW.
4500 acres of solar collectors? This must throw hardcore environmentalists into a infinite loop.
the gym has the same 8 hours open as you work
then you are quite fucked up
or should the gym open for a longer time?
maybe 24/7?
Sentences and paragraphs. Look into them.
In any case, what a load of nonsense - my grocery store is open 24 hours. My gym is open from 6am to 11pm, every day (OMG!), covering virtually any personal schedule. My dentest has a changing schedule so he can fit you in whether you want 9am or 7pm, though you might have to wait a week. Virtually everyone has around the clock phone support, and of course the internet never sleeps. The 1950s called, and they want your tired hyperbole back.
Not so ludicrous, I think
What you pointed out has to do with the synchronization of mankind, and it is a problem rather than a benefit. I don't want to go to the gym at exactly the same time as everyone else, nor do I want to drive on the highway or go to the restaurant. I'd like it people were spread out more.
DST does NOT give you any more hours of daylight! Days are just as long, nights are just as long no matter what fiddling you do to your clock. The earth's rotation is the same, the sun's movement across the sky is the same, the phases of the moon are the same.
I believe his point is simply that with a "static" work schedule, and a philosophy that the day doesn't begin until you leave for work, DST gives him more usable hours of sunlight at night (because during the DST months he is going to work at 8am - 4pm, even if the clock pretends that it's 9-5pm. As such, he has from 4 - 8:30PM real time, instead of 5PM - 8:30PM.
The same benefit would be derived by leaving for work earlier, or making use of the pre-sunlight hours.
As an aside, and this is about other posts - DST is during the summer. During the winter it is "normal hours". We have DST during the summer theoretically to take advantage of the very early sunrise.
The only other solution is to shift your work schedule to get back those lost hours of daylight in the summertime, like the company I worked for in Indiana did.
This is exactly how people should adapt to the increased sunlight hours during the summer - get up earlier and go to the gym, do gardening, whatever, during the copious hours before work if your work hours are static throughout the year. Alternately if you're an employer then adapt your hours (or even better adapt flexible hours for the majority of workplaces where it isn't detrimental to do so).
The idea of changing the clock to force it on everyone is ludicrous, and it's imperfect anyways as there remains tremendous sunlight "waste" during the height of summer (in my area the sun rises just before 8am in the height of winter, and at 5am in the summer). In the past, when life was much more synchronous and people needed direct and immediate contact with others to a vastly greater degree, it was necessary for this mass coordination, but today we live largely asynchronous, queued and disconnected lives, and everyone clogging the streets at 8am and 5pm is insanity.
The linked article was barely longer than the submission, and probably shorter than a large number of Score: 5 posts that will appear in response to it.
The gist, it seems, is that because Microsoft has given the world some good, usable software, we owe it a debt of gratitude. Sorry, but my gratitude is limited to the fees I voluntarily paid Microsoft. I don't need to love them, or to agree with any of their tactics.
The Microsoft as of late is a patent-hungry company looking to maximize its existing revenue streams (we knew that day would come), and has seriously considered unbelievable options like purchasing Claria. It is really hard to feel love in my heart for something like that. It is also difficult to sit in awestruck amazement at the great achievements of Microsoft when they are pulling in $40 billion or so a year to support their endeavor. Look at what small shops like BeOS, with a smaller budget than Microsoft spends on lunches, achieved in such a short period of time.
I do think Microsoft makes some great software, and it remains my platform of choice, but I owe them no debt, nor do I need to bias my opinions of some of their actions because I like VS.NET.
The primary link is down, and people have to resort to mirrors. If Slashdot karma is all it takes to get people to help the system, then it seems pretty cheap.
This sounds absolutely nothing like "phishing", but rather like targeted trojans to gain access to priviledged info (getting some bank employee to launch a trojan). I'm fairly certain this has happened all along. Maybe the article summarizes the IBM information incorrectly.
When I first read the article summary, I thought it was going to describe indirect phishing - e.g. trolling for ancillary info about someone such that one can "recover" the account. e.g. Many accounts can be accessed by claiming a forgotten password, and answering trivial questions like D.O.B. or mother's maiden name, both of which a phisher could get fairly easily.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Like many environmentalists, he cared more about animals than people.
Boy, you're a good little sucker, aren't you?
Calling Hitler an environmentalist, or proponent of animal rights, is ridiculous. Hitler didn't give a shit about any living thing, and forsook meat (with many transgressions) only because he believed that it caused cancer. He was driven by self-preservation, not moral consideration for animals. I don't eat rats, but that doesn't make me a rat lover.
Environmentalists absolutely caused the outages in California.
Bleeeeeet! Bleeeeeeet! You're a good little soldier for the cause.
This has been thoroughly debunked in every way, and it has been shown, publicly, that the energy crisis was, in the end, manufactured by Enron and friends. Ken Lay and friends thank you for your brainless and idiotic support, though.
Interesting that you say this given that a raging debate on JOS during the release week of this article featured an endless stream of readers mortally offended that Joel casually dismissed service type developers (e.g. the financial industry, etc). The vast majority of "developers" out there don't work for shrinkwrap shops, but rather get their bread and butter making VB forms and so on, and many of these people were offended by Joel's article.
I doubt the "environmentalists" (which I would hope that every member of the human race is, except for maybe Hitler) forced the change anymore than they caused the power outages in California (which all the clucking little right-wing sheep were bleating about, while Enron and friends were laughing their asses off at how stupid some gullible folks are).
I've lost interest - you needn't bother replying, since I won't bother reading.
Boy, what a lame cliche that is. You clearly have no clue about basic economics, or even what made the US great while the USSR and other idealistic but completely contrary to human nature cesspools wallowed, so it's pretty futile.
Of course you can't justify _why_ their products are so much more valuable than anyone elses except through vague emotional appeals & attacks, but whatever...
Um, everyone can benefit from intellectual protections. Who the hell is us versus them, unless you're mentally deficient and the only worthwhile creation is your menial labour?
You buy a CD. The CD is your private property - you paid for the physical product, didn't sign a contract giving up your rights, etc.
And the creator didn't give you a license or special waiver allowing you to do whatever you want with it. You didn't buy the music, you bought the right to some specific uses of that CD (such as private play). If you don't like it, don't buy it, or buy from someone offering it in the public domain.
Important clue: a free market doesn't include getting special laws passed to protect your bad business model.
That's a terrible clue, because it's entirely wrong. We absolutely adapt our laws to provide an appropriate balance.
If somebody can take your idea & do it better than you can
This is just mind boggling, and comes from outer space, as it clearly doesn't originate in rational thought.
Your problem...Society would do just FINE without...
Sorry, but what a load of nonsense. Any artist that is motivated by altruistic desires, and has no need for monetary reward, is fully capable of forsaking any protections, and of releasing their goods in the public domain - nothing in the current system limits this. Amazing how few people actually have that sort of motive, though, isn't it?
Since IP laws function by overriding basic property rights related to REAL property (preventing people from doing whatever they want with their own real private property)
Mind giving some examples of this? Sounds like standard selfish rhetoric (e.g. If I paid a penny for this I should be able to do anything and everything that I want. I paid a large sum for my house and property, but I can't turn it into a farm, and I can't even park derelict vehicles in the front yard. Property rights aren't absolute, and have concessions where they invade the rights of others).
If you make enough of those, you deserve to go out of business. Most honest businesspeople wouldn't expect to get special laws passed that would support their bad business model though.
"Bad business model" is such a ridiculous piece of terminology, but it's like a mantra around here. Well let's say I start a band of thieves robbing pizza guys. Would being in the pizza business then be a "bad business model"? Of course that's bullshit, and we have laws, and enforcement, to protect their business.
There's _always_ incentive to do that - you want to stay ahead of the competition
But you see, without IP protection, you can't because they're right up with you the second you release something. Who in the world would spend $200 million making a movie if they knew that rival film companies could pirate it immediately, or that pirates could freely distribute it without fear of retribution? No one would. Yeah, I know the story, all hollywood movies and mainstream music is garbage anyways, now give me my torrents of them!
How can we pretend to have a true capitalist market when you can somehow monopolize ideas like this?
It's called property rights, and it's one of the most important elements of a capitalist economy. If you put your brainpower and effort into developing something, yet it gives you no competitive advantage (because everyone else could call it their own with no property rights, intellectual or otherwise), you'll have zero motiviation to develop something original: All of the money will be in racing to the bottom and just duplicating what everyone else is doing. In the Soviet Union there were few benefits to inventing or excelling, and the result was that most technical innovation from the Soviet Union was the result of espionage in the US industrial complex.
All of this has nothing to do with the ABSURD software patents that have been granted as of late, though. Property rights should only apply to things that are actually novel and unique, and bring something interesting to the table. Some of the obvious, dumbass patents that have been granted over the past 10 years are absolutely deplorable (and it is disgraceful that Microsoft is hopping in that bed).
If Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD has taught us anything, it's obviously better to have an overzealous, point-missing war over two completely incompatible formats.
Yes, it probably is. It's called capitalism, and it's a sort of technology Darwinism where hopefully the best of the best survive. Yes, there are exceptions, but I prefer it over some central government resolution to declare whatever half-assed proposal comes first the standard.
Let them fight it out for a while, undoubtedly stealing the best of each other's ideas, and then introduce something great.
A "Beta" does not have to be feature complete. It's a TEST version.
Most betas in this world are feature complete, or almost entirely feature complete. The "beta" title indicates that the quality is likely unrefined. Of course this is evident from your next point...
A "Release Candidate" is feature complete.
A RC is, exactly as the name says, a candidate for going gold. It's after all of the features AND bugs have hopefully been implemented, and in most cases it should largely be the same as what is eventually released.
That's funny, because I could have sworn that some form of IE's User-Agent accounts for 90% of my webservers hits (300 Mill a month).
You're absolutely correct - I intended to add a limiting clause on that to refer to people involved in the computer industry professionally - developers, and so on. Obviously I didn't mean the market at large. This was evident by my follow-up statement.