Actually, the definition of "computer" is a bit more complicated than that. Your definition is certainly descriptive of its modern use (especially if by "technically" you mean "in terms of modern technology"), but the word's history reveals something more.
Like most English words, it has Latin origins: computo/computare. Broken down, this basically translates to "calculate/reckon/sum".
To save all this confusion, I propose we use the word "bitswitcher". As in, "I need to upgrade my Personal Bitswitcher."
The The United States Department of State and The United States Department of Defense (which controls the US military) are both organizations of the United States government that use Windows OS. Am I wrong about that? I've only lived in this country for a couple of years, apologies if I'm wrong.
As I said, I didn't want to start a Win/Linux debate. Perhaps I should have emphasized the phrase "if they hadn't secured it properly". The horse is not Windows, the horse is impropperly secured systems in many organizations of the United States government in spite of international press stories that explicitly state impropperly secured systems were a contributing factor in breakins.
I don't want to trigger a Windows/Linux debate, but relevant is this quote from a recently slashdotted interview with McKinnon:
"I found out that the US military use Windows," said Mr McKinnon in that BBC interview. "And having realised this, I assumed it would probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."
The Pentagon warned earlier this year that China's army is emphasizing hacking as an offensive weapon. It cited Chinese military exercises in 2005 that included hacking "primarily in first strikes against enemy networks."
If true, that speeding tickets can produce profit for a system already funded by taxes does not prove that speeding tickets can even meet the expenses of a system without tax funding.
"Unless you've been living in a cave, you'd know..." Ah yes, the old "everyone knows" argument. "Everyone knows" the world is flat. "Everyone knows" the earth is in the center of the universe. Or, to quote a famous literary figure: "It is a truth universally acknowledged..."
I did not intend to suggest that there are not staff members assigned only to handling traffic issues, but rather that the law enforcement involved in regulating traffic issues extends beyond any specific percentage of police resources. Heck, if you count manufacturers of the computer systems and software makers, printers, etc. - it extends beyond police resources altogether! Thus, you cannot prove only a percentage of the force to be singularly responsible for speeding fines because the responsibilities involved overlap. My apologies for the misunderstanding - clearly this lame duck thinks too quickly for you!
That ActiveX has not been removed does not prove that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent", as in "with the intent that malware take advantage of ActiveX") left Microsoft Windows open for malware.
In one of the trolling attacks you most recently posted to our happy litle thread, you seemed to suggest that my knowing how to write ColdFusion scripts (CF is listed in my profile) could somehow imply I believe CF to be "hot": don't confuse capability with endorsement. Most of us are physically capable of murder, yet few people endorse murder. Not that I'm comparing CF to murder.
In another fluff statment, you challenged me to name a good Microsoft product. Excepting security issues, the general quality of Microsoft's software is not relevant to our debate. It is true that I have not named one good piece of Microsoft software throughout the course of our debate. However, it is also true that I have not named the Brazillian soccer team members in the 2006 world cup. Neither of these would enhance our debate as both are irrelevant (that people can switch from Microsoft tools to TP tools does not excuse unfairly persecuting them for not doing so). Perhaps I will name a good Microsoft product if you can provide me with a good reason to name a good Microsoft product. At this stage in the debate, I probably will not.
In another attack, you suggested that I am a hypocrite for not using Microsoft products. As you admitted in the attack text, my reasoning has been that people should not be unfairly persecuted for using Microsoft products. Please, do not confuse arguing against unfair practices (such as fining victims and introducing legislation that would stifle OSS projects) as arguing that people should not use non-Microsoft products, or that people should be persecuted for using non-Microsoft products!
I am now unwilling to extend this debate any further. These are my reasons for halting this debate:
You have no faith in your "solution". Your unwillingness even to attempt contacting authority figures who could apply your "solution" reveals that not even you have faith in your wacky schemes. Your revealed lack of faith in said authority figures suggests you didn't expect these schemes to work or even be introduced in the first place.
Personal attacks. Your arguments are becoming more and more personal in tone. You have attacked my profile, claiming it is ridden with "buzzwords", launched an unfounded accusation of hypocrisy, accused me of cave-dwelling, begun to use masked and unmasked profanity, and implied lack of intelligence on my part for failing to swallow your unfounded claims.
Uncontrolled feelings. Your use of masked and unmasked profanity combined with a more and more frustrated tone suggests this discussion is causing you unnecessary tension. It will be better for both of us if t
Says you, and you have not been able to reasonably defend or justify that opinion.
I'm not sure where we established that. Maybe in your mind, right after we proved that the US military is holding designs for flying saucers and NASA faked the moon landing. ("But the evidence people! Look at the evidence!") Also, your belief that "these people" deserve to have their pockets picked makes me slightly less confident in your status as the savior of the internet.
That ActiveX has not been replaced does not prove that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent") left Microsoft Windows open for malware.
As I said, I have never had a problem with File Explorer displaying the true extension of any files. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just that if it has happened, it hasn't caused me any problems. In fact, I hadn't even noticed. And it doesn't prove that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent") left Microsoft Windows open for malware.
Unless you wear a tinfoil hat, Windows Genuine Advantage (which, as explanation for others reading this conversation, recently fell to spyware accusations due to its undisclosed "phoning home" to Microsoft) does not prove Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent") left Microsoft Windows open for malware.
Unless you can prove a percentage of the police force is dedicated only to issuing speeding fines, the whole police force is part of the running cost of the system by which those fines are issued and collected. There are also printing costs, collection costs, cost of arrest and jailtime of nonpayers... Also, you have not shown that speeding tickets more than pay for that force or the system by which speeding fines are issued and collected.
That you claim a police force did only their minimum work, causing a government to rethink its policy on some undisclosed matter, does not prove that speeding tickets pay for that force or the system by which speeding fines are issued and collected, indefinitely or even temporarily.
As stated before, I currently only use Windows for testing and prefer not to use it as my main operating system of choice. November last year, I began using Ubuntu Breezy as my main OS. In January, I was fortunate enough to acquire a Mac/OS X equipped machine. That I do not wear a tinfoil hat and accuse Microsoft of demonic acts and inviting malware and call every Windows user an idiot does not make me a "Wiondow fanboi". That's just another one of your wild, wacky assumptions, I'm afraid.
I am not convinced you have faith in your proposed "solution" to internet crime (punishing its victims). If you are serious, you will contact one of the following people before posting your next reply:
Jean Charest is the Premier ministre du Québec. If you speak Fax, you can call him at (418) 643-3924. His English/Frog-speaking phone is available by dialing the numbers (418) 643-5321. Parentheses are not numbers. Hyphens are not numbers either.
Stephen Harper is the current Premier ministre du Canada. Call him: (613) 992-4211. Ask for Ol' Blue Eyes.
I already gave you the number for the White House (I pulled it from the intro to H2G2, by the way. Resourceful, non?) You said you'd be calling the wrong country. You forgot: the internet is accessible globally; for your approach to have any real effect, it would need to be enforced globally. Yes, it'll be a lot of work, but just think: you'll be an international hero!
In your next comment, please explain which of these people you called, why, and describe their response. If you do not do so, I will have to assume that you have no real faith in your proposed "solution".
I've seen another tactic at a UK bank to protect login: online customers are given a security password generated by the bank in addition to a regular password and "secret information" entry. The generated security password is never requested in full. Instead, several random characters from the password are requested at login; i.e., "What is the 3rd character of your security password? What is the 1st character of your security password? What is the 5th character of your security password?"
If the user falls prey to a fishing attack only once, the odds are against that phisher being able to collect a combination of password characters he can expect to see repeated on the real bank login page.
The bank as used this login system for several years now.
If you dictate, you can fine people for whatever you wish. That doesn't make it good, or right.
We've already established that the end user can be doing everything in their power to keep their system free from Malware and still suffer a Malware attack that results in some phishing e-mails being sent from their machine. Unless Microsoft Windows is banned, that their system runs on Microsoft Windows is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are suggesting they be fined for something not in their control.
The existence of ActiveX does not prove that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent") left Microsoft open for malware.
Interesting, I've never had a problem with File Explorer displaying the true extension of any files. But it doesn't prove that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent") left Microsoft open for malware.
That the task list does not report all "tasks" does not prove that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent") left Microsoft open for malware.
That your local police force experienced loss does not prove that money received from speeding fines alone could cover the running cost of the system by which those fines are issued and collected in entirety.
That tickets and fines in part subsidize my local police is not evidence that money received from speeding fines alone could cover the running cost of the system by which those fines are issued and collected in entirety.
We (assuming 'we' govern) cannot fine people for using Microsoft Windows without either triggering an antitrust case or creating standards Operating Systems must attain to (standards which Microsoft Windows does not attain to and is therefore unfit for use). In the first case, we have an antitrust case with good cause. In the second case, we create litigation that stifles OSS OSes. Remember: if such litigation were introduced, Microsoft is one of the few OS-developing companies that has the money to survive it. In the end, we'd have a better Microsoft OS - but we may only have a Microsoft OS! Other OSes may struggle to cut through that kind of red tape.
Unless you support it with evidence, I will not accept your claim that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent") leaves Windows open for malware.
Unless you support it with evidence, I will not accept your claim that police fines alone could cover the running cost of the system by which those fines are issued and collected in entirety.
Not American? No excuse! Call the Governor General! Call the Prime Minister! Call your Lieutenant-Governor! Call your Premier!
Good going on the Ubuntu CDs. They'll come in handy when Canada bans Windows. You'll be a national hero.
Contributory negligence only applies in a situation where there is contributory negligence, hence the name. We have already established that a user can be running antimalware tools/a fully up to date system and still be attacked. Therefore, they are doing everything they can to ensure their system is up-to-date: Microsoft hasn't issued any factory recalls on their Windows version, their system told them it was okay. Therefore, they are not negligent. Again, negligence is not the issue. Bad software is a contributing factor in the issue. Evil software (also known as malware) is the real issue. Again: negligence is not the issue.
That word again: negligence. Look it up in the dictionary: n. Not the issue.
Charge people for using Windows! And here I was worried you'd come up with a solution that fell into the dictionary definition of antitrust!
No taxes, eh? Pays for itself, eh? Oh, I get it! It's just like how speeding fines pay for the police department! That's right, we won't need people to man this system, it'll be fully automated! How silly of me! We'll have automatic programmers to write it, automatic telephone staff to respond to complaint/payment calls, automatic researchers and developers not working to update and not improve it (Why would it need improvement? It's perfect!), automatic policemen to enforce it! If anything, it should make the governments of the world profitable as well as peacable! (We've already established this is the thing that will bind all nations together in peace and harmony.) I think you may have really hit on something here. Call your senator right away! Cancel that! Call The President! He'll know what to do. We'll see your ideas come to fruition just months (No! Weeks! No! Days!) from now. I'm sure of it.
I'm not being sarcastic.
Honest.
Welcome to the internet: ISPs who stop people from accessing it only, please. If you ignore this, we'll get our robots onto you. As soon as you pay the fine to cover the cost of powering them. Thanks.
Do not collect $200. Do not pass GO.
Go on! Call him! It'll be fun! His number's (202) 456-1414.
If you don't call him, clearly you don't have as much faith in your little scheme as you claim to.
Again, these aren't cases of equipment negligence, they're cases of equipment sabotage. If someone sabotages your brakes in a way you don't notice until they stop working, you may not be responsible for any accident incurred.
Maybe you would like internet licensing and insurance to be introduced to keep the idiots out? Of course, we'll need to throw in an internet tax to cover the expenses of licensing. That's how we keep our roads safe and clean! Besides, it's not going to help you - the internet's a global network. Ooh, wait, I know! Let's sit representatives of every political border down and get them all to agree on something! Yours could be the unifying ideal to end all wars! That idiots should be banned from the internet! It'll work! Honest!
It seems we're going in circles dicussing your opinion of Laws That Should Be and What Malware Does. It's entirely possible that the malware victim uses little enough processing power and bandwidth they don't notice the single malware app sending e-mail messages. Accusing a victim of idiocy and fining him as a criminal is an interesting approach to solving crime. Maybe next time I hear someone complain about their being murdered, I'll see what they think of your theory: they're an utter idiot for falling for the old being-shot-in-the-head trick. Again though, we're roving in circles around your unsupported personal opinions.
On the bright side, it seems that you're very anti-Windows. At least we both seem to agree that Windows is a poor choice of operating system. I personally use Mac OS X Tiger (laptop) and Ubuntu GNU/Linux (desktop/fileserver) as my main operating systems. My wife uses a Windows XP (Home) desktop for games and websurfing, and I currently use my old Windows XP (Pro) laptop for testing until I install XP Pro on her desktop (I use Remote Desktop for testing). Keep preaching the good word, they'll listen someday. Word of advice though, speaking purely from a marketing perspective: calling potential switchers idiots may not be a good tactic in making a case for Windows alternatives. For some reason, most people respond badly to personal attacks.
Googling previous stories on slashdot only turned up more hearsay regurgitations of the $10k story being kicked around - no links to FBI documents or other evidence to support what so far seems to be something of an urban myth. You also seem reluctant to reveal your source in suggesting that law enforcement and criminal prevention teams are disinterested in internet crime.
I used the term crime prevention, which includes a lot more than just law enforcement. When they advise security standards to protect against (and therefore prevent) crime, yes: both the FTC and Mozilla act as crime prevention teams.
I also said, do you have anything to support your claim that, for the sake of argument law enforcement authorities are disinterested in Internet crime. Thus far, you have given only your opinion and some irrelevant observations. I'm curious if you saw any statistics when forming your opinion, or whether perhaps it arrived in a dream.
Law enforcement teams especially should not waste resources launching smear campaigns against Microsoft. They are more concerned with enforcing law.
Just out of curiosity: I've heard the $10,000 story kicked around before, but never seen any supporting documents from the FBI. Where did you read about this story? Do you have a link to an FBI document explaining this?
You're assuming all malware victims are people who know their computer is not working properly.
You are therefore suggesting all malware victims are deliberately avoiding repairing their OS for reasons uncited.
For no good reason, I hope you are assuming they are not using antimalware/antispyware tools. Even if they are: when new exploits arise, makers of such tools need to release new protective updates. For example, Microsoft took a week to release a patch in response to the WMF exploit. Such patches cannot be written immediately. Should people be punished for not knowing about a piece of malware for which no patch exists?
You're assuming malware is as obvious to the average user as a bald tire. The average user (the home/work office user who wants to check his mail and go) does not have the time or skills to pamper his computer. Not using the computer is not a solution: computer use is demanded by his employer.
Wilful drunkenness while driving does not compare with the unintentional effects of malware-victim PCs. Being a victim is not a deliberate act. There is no reason to assume a malware victim is even aware of being such.
Microsoft has committed no crime in releasing a buggy OS. If such a thing were a crime, the red tape preventing the release of new OSes would stifle most OSS OS projects.
If, though, the cause of malware is in Microsoft's hands, why are victims being fined for Microsoft's perceived crime?
If getting rid of Windows is the priority, this is the priority: improving the alternatives. Few people will want to go out and buy a whole new computer, which rules out Mac. I suggest you advertise alternative PC OSes; Linux distributions such as Ubuntu especially. Please contribute to such projects if you truly want them to succeed and replace Windows as the population's OS of choise!
What was to become the US Constitution was triggered by the Annapolis Convention, a meeting chiefly concerned with limitations of commerce under the Articles of Confederation. This of course triggered the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 where the discussion was continued resulting eventually in the US Constitution. Freedom from the control of the British crown had already been accomplished; what was needed was protection of livelihoods. Most of the original signees had some interest in business, commerce, or made their living in the legal system.
I want to make this clear: my comment was not a criticism of the United States, but a comparison of two different outlooks both formed from different histories.
Your own opinion of the EU/Microsoft case is inconsequential.
Well, this isn't the evidence I was hoping for (I was hoping for some actual statistics you'd used in forming your opinion - it turns out you just hadn't seen the drastic measures you were hoping to see.)
The Mozilla group advertises the security advantages of its Firefox browser. Unfortunately, it lacks the funding for a TV campaign, but a donation effort was successfully made for a two page ad-spread in the NYT. If you're hoping for anti-Microsoft campaigns launched by the government, I'm afraid you'll have to wait on. Microsoft would yell "Antitrust!" before the first ad reached TV. There are no standards of what an application/operating system should accomplish. Unlike a drunk driver, Microsoft is not breaking any laws.
Apple released such a campaign, but it only briefly mentioned OS X's security advantages over Windows. Again: home user desktop Linux distros lack the funding for a TV campaign, the government is not in the position to launch such a campaign.
Fine victims of malware, you mean? Maybe we should also fine victims of burglary for having houses so insecure they were broken into and thus contributed to the takings (and therefore prolonged the lifestyle) of a burglar.
The national wallet won't like it, won't stand for it, no sir. Unfortunately, that transition would cost a lot of money in contracts, support, downtime, retraining, installation, replacement of software tools, research, etc. It's a good goal, but it will take a long time to happen.
There are already good OSS alternatives to most major office products. OpenOffice.org is the most frequently cited. It operates on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X with X11 (included on the installation disc).
That's your solution? "Accept it"? It won't work, accept that!
Personally, I disdain the thoughtless media circus that circles around drunkards, especially minors. However, their crime could easily have threatened others lives, not just the wallets of those fall for some scam or another. Again, though, you're talking about punishing victims. These aren't people whose tires are bald, these are people whose tires were slashed while they were driving. Also, again, there are no standards as to what software products should be able to accomplish. If there were such standards, they would serve to choke and not to boost OSS initiatives. GNU/Linux and other OSes would be caught in litigation's red tape, fees and possibly fines before they could launch.
They're called identity theft awareness campaigns. The FTC has launched such campaigns. The EU has launched such campaigns. In the USA, several banks have launched such campaigns in joint effort. I'm not aware of any current community involvement, but that doesn't prove it's not happening.
It's true. I'd never heard of a mail-in rebate until I moved to the US. European law in general is more interested in protecting the consumer where United States law is more interested in protecting business. Microsoft is another company that handled that difference badly - they laughed off the EU's warning shots until fines were discussed.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the definition of "computer" is a bit more complicated than that. Your definition is certainly descriptive of its modern use (especially if by "technically" you mean "in terms of modern technology"), but the word's history reveals something more.
Like most English words, it has Latin origins: computo/computare. Broken down, this basically translates to "calculate/reckon/sum".
To save all this confusion, I propose we use the word "bitswitcher". As in, "I need to upgrade my Personal Bitswitcher."
I agree. I think we need to introduce more orthogonal terminology.
The The United States Department of State and The United States Department of Defense (which controls the US military) are both organizations of the United States government that use Windows OS. Am I wrong about that? I've only lived in this country for a couple of years, apologies if I'm wrong.
As I said, I didn't want to start a Win/Linux debate. Perhaps I should have emphasized the phrase "if they hadn't secured it properly". The horse is not Windows, the horse is impropperly secured systems in many organizations of the United States government in spite of international press stories that explicitly state impropperly secured systems were a contributing factor in breakins.
Because they're on the green.
For a bunker shot, they'd use a sand wedge.
Joke answer: because they invented it!
I don't want to trigger a Windows/Linux debate, but relevant is this quote from a recently slashdotted interview with McKinnon:
Source here
Even if it is considered right to treat such breakins so seriously: how many times must the horse bolt before the barn door?
Of course, that's what the bayonet is for!
Your idea reminds me of old adventure game manuals!
If true, that speeding tickets can produce profit for a system already funded by taxes does not prove that speeding tickets can even meet the expenses of a system without tax funding.
"Unless you've been living in a cave, you'd know..." Ah yes, the old "everyone knows" argument. "Everyone knows" the world is flat. "Everyone knows" the earth is in the center of the universe. Or, to quote a famous literary figure: "It is a truth universally acknowledged..."
I did not intend to suggest that there are not staff members assigned only to handling traffic issues, but rather that the law enforcement involved in regulating traffic issues extends beyond any specific percentage of police resources. Heck, if you count manufacturers of the computer systems and software makers, printers, etc. - it extends beyond police resources altogether! Thus, you cannot prove only a percentage of the force to be singularly responsible for speeding fines because the responsibilities involved overlap. My apologies for the misunderstanding - clearly this lame duck thinks too quickly for you!
That ActiveX has not been removed does not prove that Microsoft intentionally (as in, "with intent", as in "with the intent that malware take advantage of ActiveX") left Microsoft Windows open for malware.
In one of the trolling attacks you most recently posted to our happy litle thread, you seemed to suggest that my knowing how to write ColdFusion scripts (CF is listed in my profile) could somehow imply I believe CF to be "hot": don't confuse capability with endorsement. Most of us are physically capable of murder, yet few people endorse murder. Not that I'm comparing CF to murder.
In another fluff statment, you challenged me to name a good Microsoft product. Excepting security issues, the general quality of Microsoft's software is not relevant to our debate. It is true that I have not named one good piece of Microsoft software throughout the course of our debate. However, it is also true that I have not named the Brazillian soccer team members in the 2006 world cup. Neither of these would enhance our debate as both are irrelevant (that people can switch from Microsoft tools to TP tools does not excuse unfairly persecuting them for not doing so). Perhaps I will name a good Microsoft product if you can provide me with a good reason to name a good Microsoft product. At this stage in the debate, I probably will not.
In another attack, you suggested that I am a hypocrite for not using Microsoft products. As you admitted in the attack text, my reasoning has been that people should not be unfairly persecuted for using Microsoft products. Please, do not confuse arguing against unfair practices (such as fining victims and introducing legislation that would stifle OSS projects) as arguing that people should not use non-Microsoft products, or that people should be persecuted for using non-Microsoft products!
I am now unwilling to extend this debate any further. These are my reasons for halting this debate:
Yes, it simply provdes a good additional protection for user login information.
I am not convinced you have faith in your proposed "solution" to internet crime (punishing its victims). If you are serious, you will contact one of the following people before posting your next reply:
In your next comment, please explain which of these people you called, why, and describe their response. If you do not do so, I will have to assume that you have no real faith in your proposed "solution".
I've seen another tactic at a UK bank to protect login: online customers are given a security password generated by the bank in addition to a regular password and "secret information" entry. The generated security password is never requested in full. Instead, several random characters from the password are requested at login; i.e., "What is the 3rd character of your security password? What is the 1st character of your security password? What is the 5th character of your security password?"
If the user falls prey to a fishing attack only once, the odds are against that phisher being able to collect a combination of password characters he can expect to see repeated on the real bank login page.
The bank as used this login system for several years now.
Hope that helps.
Again, these aren't cases of equipment negligence, they're cases of equipment sabotage. If someone sabotages your brakes in a way you don't notice until they stop working, you may not be responsible for any accident incurred.
Maybe you would like internet licensing and insurance to be introduced to keep the idiots out? Of course, we'll need to throw in an internet tax to cover the expenses of licensing. That's how we keep our roads safe and clean! Besides, it's not going to help you - the internet's a global network. Ooh, wait, I know! Let's sit representatives of every political border down and get them all to agree on something! Yours could be the unifying ideal to end all wars! That idiots should be banned from the internet! It'll work! Honest!
It seems we're going in circles dicussing your opinion of Laws That Should Be and What Malware Does. It's entirely possible that the malware victim uses little enough processing power and bandwidth they don't notice the single malware app sending e-mail messages. Accusing a victim of idiocy and fining him as a criminal is an interesting approach to solving crime. Maybe next time I hear someone complain about their being murdered, I'll see what they think of your theory: they're an utter idiot for falling for the old being-shot-in-the-head trick. Again though, we're roving in circles around your unsupported personal opinions.
On the bright side, it seems that you're very anti-Windows. At least we both seem to agree that Windows is a poor choice of operating system. I personally use Mac OS X Tiger (laptop) and Ubuntu GNU/Linux (desktop/fileserver) as my main operating systems. My wife uses a Windows XP (Home) desktop for games and websurfing, and I currently use my old Windows XP (Pro) laptop for testing until I install XP Pro on her desktop (I use Remote Desktop for testing). Keep preaching the good word, they'll listen someday. Word of advice though, speaking purely from a marketing perspective: calling potential switchers idiots may not be a good tactic in making a case for Windows alternatives. For some reason, most people respond badly to personal attacks.
Googling previous stories on slashdot only turned up more hearsay regurgitations of the $10k story being kicked around - no links to FBI documents or other evidence to support what so far seems to be something of an urban myth. You also seem reluctant to reveal your source in suggesting that law enforcement and criminal prevention teams are disinterested in internet crime.
What was to become the US Constitution was triggered by the Annapolis Convention, a meeting chiefly concerned with limitations of commerce under the Articles of Confederation. This of course triggered the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 where the discussion was continued resulting eventually in the US Constitution. Freedom from the control of the British crown had already been accomplished; what was needed was protection of livelihoods. Most of the original signees had some interest in business, commerce, or made their living in the legal system.
I want to make this clear: my comment was not a criticism of the United States, but a comparison of two different outlooks both formed from different histories.
Your own opinion of the EU/Microsoft case is inconsequential.
Well, this isn't the evidence I was hoping for (I was hoping for some actual statistics you'd used in forming your opinion - it turns out you just hadn't seen the drastic measures you were hoping to see.)
Got it in one! Although I intended to reference the original comedy sketch!
"Look at the conviction rates. As close to zero as you can get. Heck, look at the number of people charged. Not all that many, are there."
Which brings me back to my original question: interesting, but do you have any evidence of this?
It's true. I'd never heard of a mail-in rebate until I moved to the US. European law in general is more interested in protecting the consumer where United States law is more interested in protecting business. Microsoft is another company that handled that difference badly - they laughed off the EU's warning shots until fines were discussed.
Actually, we go, "Oi, you! Noooooo!"