Except that there is really no competition in infrastructure, government or privately-owned. There can only be one set of roads, one power network, one telephone network. I would rather entrust these to a government with citizens in which to answer than a corporation with shareholders.
I know there is not a re-defining going on. My point is that that definition is crap. "Cleared the neighborhood" is extremely vague terminology and very UNscientific. If they're going to make a definition of the word planet--a final, concrete rock-solid definition--why is the terminology they've chosen so subjective? It's going to create a mess because every astronomer and every schoolteacher in the world is going to have his/her own definition of "neighborhood." This definition won't settle a thing. It will fragment the scientific community and cause even more debate.
For example, using this new definition, I could argue that Saturn (or any planet with rings for that matter) is not a planet because it has not "cleared the neighborhood" around it. There are BILLIONS of ice particles around it! Sure, you could argue that those are rings, and the fact that they orbit saturn only proves that it is in fact a planet, but the definition they came up with doesn't make that distinction now does it?
On the other hand, my definition (which should be amended to say that it must orbit a star to exclude other stars, pulsars, and black holes) is concise and clearly defines the boundary for what a planet is. I didn't create that definition for the expressed purpose of including Pluto. Pluto is no different than the other planets in the solar system, except that it's small and far away. Defining a planet by distance from it's sun or size alone is tricky. Mercury is not much bigger than Pluto, so if we exclude Pluto and include Mercury because of their size, we have a very thin line defining planet from non-planet.
First off, nowhere in any of these articles did the term millions come up. That was a gross exaggeration by a poster here. They're not even sure if there are hundreds, so we're talking about a much smaller number here.
The fact is, defining a planet is pretty easy.
Planet: A Celestial body that is spherical or spheroid in shape due to its own gravity, not a satellite, that spins about a well-defined axis
Simple, concise, and I'm not even a damn astronomer. It's much better than "has cleared the neighborhood." Serioulsy, wtf is up with that? That's REALLY scientific and not completely vague at all.
Changing the definition of "planet" just because we don't want to make school children have to memorize more than 100 things is nothing but pure laziness on our part.
"He is single handedly pulling this country out of the mess the Clinton years produced."
Yeah, I sure hated that mess of economic prosperity and a budget surplus with no national debt. Bush says "I wanna go to mars!" and cuts NASA funding. He spends hundreds of billions on a war started on false information. Because of that war the region is now destabalized, on the verge of a Civil war, and now a haven for terrorists. Bush has done nothing but created a mess, the biggest mess this country has faced in a long time.
But if you want to keep swallowing the soma peddled by that drug-addict Rush Limbaugh, than by all means, it's a free country (for now).
This is how Best Buy is acting. They got popular and successful because of the wide-open warehouse environment and the friendly non-pushy, non-comission sales staff. Before then you bought things like TV's at Sears or ABC Warehouse, where you'd get assailed by oily salesmen recently fired from the used car lot down the street. They provided what customers wanted.
Now, they are making the same mistakes that ABC and Sears did: selling ultra-high-priced extended warranties and basing their entire business from it. They don't realize that it takes real salesmanship to sell these things, as most people are aware they are usually total ripoffs. They expect 17-year-old Joe Highschool making $8 to sell these useless warranties, with no incentive other than he gets to keep his job. That's a real recipe for success I tell ya!
Now, they have to open 300 new stores a year to maintain the same profit levels. It's kind of sad when people refuse to learn from mistakes of the past.
DOH, i meant..
I *next page* love *next page* reading *next page* Tom's Hardware *next page* articles, *next page* they *next page* are so *next page* informative.
From TFA: "It isn't only aging operating systems, however, that have their support lapse. Windows XP Service Pack 1 will be retired for good on Oct. 10, and users are being advised to start planning now for completing upgrades to XP Service Pack 2, which has been touted for its security improvements."
This is a non-issue. Service Pack 1 is not an Operating System, it's a major bug fix/addon revision. Service Pack 2 has all the features SP1 has, plus it's a free upgrade to even pre-SP1 Windows XP. This is not the same as Windows 98 being retired and a business buying new software (and most likely hardware as well) as a result. I can just run Windows Update to get service pack 2, it adds features but it doesn't change the way the core of Windows works or make it incompatible with any of my software. Did I mention it's free?
It's not as if Microsoft were making customers buy a new $129 license for every minor service pack release, or worse yet, changing the name of the OS for each bug fix and feature addition in order to justify it, that would be unethical.
That's an interesting point about the product activation.
I was going to say how expecting your software to be supported forever is like expecting Ford to make parts for the '65 Mustang indefinently. But if Ford had a feature where the car had to communicate with central headquarters in order to start, I would expect them to at least extend that feature of it. What they may end up doing (Microsoft) is discontinuing XP but make the servers still accept activation keys. It isn't difficult.
"In all our desktops, we've seen maybe 5 viruses in the last year, and absolutely zero adware. Why? We train EVERY user (at their cost) with 4-8 hours of "Don't do this" training. They listen."
If everyone was like you and your customers, then a lot of computer problems would never exist. Kudos.
P.S. I'm not saying everyone is forced to use Microsoft. I'm saying effectively everyone in a certain market is forced to use WINDOWS without having to go to extreme measures (building a computer is extreme to a lot of people believe it or not). The fact that Windows is not as prolific in the enterprise market doesn't change the fact that it's a monopoly in the home PC market.
Classic "I am the world" fallacy. Your usage is the enterprise market, not the average consumer market. Microsoft is not a monopoly in the enterprise market, far from it actually. Hey, I agree that for certain things, Windows is the best thing to use, like Media Center for example. BUT, the average consumer is not like you. The average consumer is not running several enteprise applications for several different networks. The average consumer is going to walk into Circuit City/Best Buy and not be able to choose what operating system he/she wants. That's like saying "well, you don't HAVE to have the car manufacturer's software in your car, I built my own car so you have a choice." Maybe you can build a car, but most people can't and won't. I can argue that the power company is not a monopoly because you can move to another country and have a different power company, so you do have a choice. It's just not practical to go through those ends to avoid price-gouging. It's also not practical for most people to build a computer and install Linux on it to avoid Windows. A monopoly can exist in just one market. Your situation really doesn't apply because you built your own "infrastructure" and chose Windows. It'd be like me generating my own power and choosing to hook it up to the local power-lines. I see your point, but it just doesn't apply to most people.
Did you even read what I posted? Basically Microsoft INADVERTENTLY helped FOSS because killing Netscape gave rise to Firefox, the browser that 10% of us use and love. If it weren't for Microsoft, there would be no firefox. Firefox is Free and Open Source, therefore Microsoft's actions gave rise to a popular FOSS application.
But what about the oil monopoly now? Is it good for consumers? Sure it isn't just one company now, but what choice to I as a consumer have regarding gas prices? All gas stations in every town and city in America raise and lower their prices at almost exactly the same time. I have no choice in the matter. There are several different faces, but when you get down to the knitty-gritty, it's all the same oil, with one entity controlling the pipelines. Competition provides incentive for a company to lower it's prices. If Rockerfeller had no competition to begin with, he would have had no incentive to lower prices the way he did. Perhaps businesses were more consumer-oriented back then, but greed has taken over today. Concern is more for keeping shareholders happy and profitting in the short-term, even to the point of hurting the company itself in the long-run.
"Microsoft is not a monopoly. There is too much choice in that market, and Microsoft spends a huge amount of money in keeping themselves at the top of the game -- and they have millions of happy consumers to prove it.
Wow, you really need to get your head out of the sand. TOO MUCH CHOICE? Are you blind or just ignorant? Name one PC manufacturer (I mean IBM PC compatibles) that offers a product to the home desktop market without Microsoft Windows installed. Can I go to Circuit City and buy such a computer? No? They ARE a monopoly, no matter what any neo-con book says. Sure, I can delete windows and install Linux on my computer, but I still paid the liscensing fee for Windows through the cost of the hardware. And HAPPY Microsoft customers? Have you never heard of viruses, mal-ware, spyware? I can bet you that no consumer is happy with Microsoft when they pay Geek Squad to re-format their hard drive and re-install the OS. No consumer is happy when security holes and sloppily-written software routines are exploited while MS drags its feet fixing them. Microsoft is not successful because they have the best prices or a quality product, quite the contrary, they're successful because they've created a mass of STUPID computer users that don't know any better. They've created a world where 95% of people aren't even aware of a Microsoft-alternative, and not everyone has the cash to just go blow on an Apple. Add to that the fact that The US Supreme Court concluded that Microsoft *is* an illegal monopoly.
Calling millions of Microsoft "customers" happy when they're FORCED to buy the OS and UNAWARE of alternatives is a lot like Microsoft claiming 90% market share on a browser that they FORCE people to use and is installed by DEFAULT on 95% of PCs today.
the only monopolies that exist are those that are created by the State
I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this. Are you saying that the state created Microsoft? AT&T? Standard Oil? Comcast? Before you say "well there are competitors to each and every one of those companies," think about what a real monopoly is. A monopoly is an organization that controls the entire market in a certain area. Sure, there are more cable companies than Comcast, or SBC, or Roadrunner, but do I as a consumer have a CHOICE? No, because certain geographical areas are relagated to one company. If I want Roadrunner, too f'n bad, only Comcast is available in my area. If I want another power company, too bad, only Consumer's Energy has wires going to my house. This is not choice, and it is not competition, it's pseudo-competition.
That said, it's IMPOSSIBLE not to have a monopoly in the infrastructure market. What gets me is that there is only one element of infrastructure that is government-controlled: The Interstate system. All in all, the interstate system works very well for us. It was quite a mess during the dawn of the railroads with multiple rail companies with different rail widths. When infrastructure is concerned, a monopoly does need to be in control, it just won't work any other way. However, the entity in control shouldn't be allowed to artificially inflate prices and fleece consumers on basic commodities, like electricity or water. This is why regulation is NEEDED, so you don't have rich fat-cats in ivory towers fleecing the poor for every last dime in order to buy their gold-plated ferraris. The oil cartel is a VERY good example of how people are experiencing economic hardship because of pseudo-competition.
What possible purpose could this serve? Let's not spend our time on cancer/AIDS research, lets make EVEN MORE BOTHERSOME misquitoes. These scientists should be shot. The only thing misquitoes ever did for mankind was provide a plot for Jurassic Park.
Yes, but a lot of us have a choice for long-distance carriers. We also have a choice to not use land-lines at all in favor of cell-phone/VOIP service. None of this would have happened if AT&T would have been allowed to keep the pipes all to themselves.
I disagree. Complete "freedom" in either the market or society is never a good thing. John D. Rockerfeller had complete "freedom" to use extortion, threats, and bribery to build an oil monopoly and squash competitors. Government intervention split the company and now using his methods is illegal. It also split the big AT&T telcom monopoly. If it weren't for government intervention, we would still be overpaying for land-line service. The EU is currently leveraging fines against Microsoft for not providing accurate API documentation to third parties. A free market NEEDS regulation, because when left to it's own devices, eventually a shark is going to come along and swallow up the competition, creating a predatory monopoly. Without government to step in and provide a deterrent against this, any free market will eventually implode.
I agree w/ that. I continue to scratch my head at people like my aunt and my mother, who continually INSIST that they NEED the $500 MS-Office Professional edition when they don't do anything that OpenOffice.org can't do. I scratch my head at people who buy a $200-$300 operating system so they can surf the web and type letters. These people are the PERFECT market for a simple Linux desktop. Why are they paying these exhorbitant fees when another perfectly good product is sitting there, ready to be installed, for FREE (as in freedom)? It's not like they're going to be compiling source code or doing any console work. Drivers in ubuntu are pretty darn easy to install now, if they're not automatically detected and installed. It truly boggles the mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that there is really no competition in infrastructure, government or privately-owned. There can only be one set of roads, one power network, one telephone network. I would rather entrust these to a government with citizens in which to answer than a corporation with shareholders.
I know there is not a re-defining going on. My point is that that definition is crap. "Cleared the neighborhood" is extremely vague terminology and very UNscientific. If they're going to make a definition of the word planet--a final, concrete rock-solid definition--why is the terminology they've chosen so subjective? It's going to create a mess because every astronomer and every schoolteacher in the world is going to have his/her own definition of "neighborhood." This definition won't settle a thing. It will fragment the scientific community and cause even more debate.
For example, using this new definition, I could argue that Saturn (or any planet with rings for that matter) is not a planet because it has not "cleared the neighborhood" around it. There are BILLIONS of ice particles around it! Sure, you could argue that those are rings, and the fact that they orbit saturn only proves that it is in fact a planet, but the definition they came up with doesn't make that distinction now does it?
On the other hand, my definition (which should be amended to say that it must orbit a star to exclude other stars, pulsars, and black holes) is concise and clearly defines the boundary for what a planet is. I didn't create that definition for the expressed purpose of including Pluto. Pluto is no different than the other planets in the solar system, except that it's small and far away. Defining a planet by distance from it's sun or size alone is tricky. Mercury is not much bigger than Pluto, so if we exclude Pluto and include Mercury because of their size, we have a very thin line defining planet from non-planet.
First off, nowhere in any of these articles did the term millions come up. That was a gross exaggeration by a poster here. They're not even sure if there are hundreds, so we're talking about a much smaller number here.
The fact is, defining a planet is pretty easy.
Planet: A Celestial body that is spherical or spheroid in shape due to its own gravity, not a satellite, that spins about a well-defined axis
Simple, concise, and I'm not even a damn astronomer. It's much better than "has cleared the neighborhood." Serioulsy, wtf is up with that? That's REALLY scientific and not completely vague at all.
Changing the definition of "planet" just because we don't want to make school children have to memorize more than 100 things is nothing but pure laziness on our part.
because the only reason to use a non-Microsoft OS is that it's the most popular.
What a snooze-fest! You would have to pay me to listen to Three Doors Down.
Ted Stevens jokes will not get old for a long, long while. It is a glorious time to be alive.
"He is single handedly pulling this country out of the mess the Clinton years produced."
Yeah, I sure hated that mess of economic prosperity and a budget surplus with no national debt.
Bush says "I wanna go to mars!" and cuts NASA funding. He spends hundreds of billions on a war started on false information. Because of that war the region is now destabalized, on the verge of a Civil war, and now a haven for terrorists. Bush has done nothing but created a mess, the biggest mess this country has faced in a long time.
But if you want to keep swallowing the soma peddled by that drug-addict Rush Limbaugh, than by all means, it's a free country (for now).
So when does someone get fired for all the ultra-pushy salesman that put you through hell if you want to cancel?
This is how Best Buy is acting. They got popular and successful because of the wide-open warehouse environment and the friendly non-pushy, non-comission sales staff. Before then you bought things like TV's at Sears or ABC Warehouse, where you'd get assailed by oily salesmen recently fired from the used car lot down the street. They provided what customers wanted.
Now, they are making the same mistakes that ABC and Sears did: selling ultra-high-priced extended warranties and basing their entire business from it. They don't realize that it takes real salesmanship to sell these things, as most people are aware they are usually total ripoffs. They expect 17-year-old Joe Highschool making $8 to sell these useless warranties, with no incentive other than he gets to keep his job. That's a real recipe for success I tell ya!
Now, they have to open 300 new stores a year to maintain the same profit levels. It's kind of sad when people refuse to learn from mistakes of the past.
DOH, i meant..
I *next page* love *next page* reading *next page* Tom's Hardware *next page* articles, *next page* they *next page* are so *next page* informative.
I love reading Tom's Hardware articles, they are so informative.
From TFA: "It isn't only aging operating systems, however, that have their support lapse. Windows XP Service Pack 1 will be retired for good on Oct. 10, and users are being advised to start planning now for completing upgrades to XP Service Pack 2, which has been touted for its security improvements."
This is a non-issue. Service Pack 1 is not an Operating System, it's a major bug fix/addon revision. Service Pack 2 has all the features SP1 has, plus it's a free upgrade to even pre-SP1 Windows XP. This is not the same as Windows 98 being retired and a business buying new software (and most likely hardware as well) as a result. I can just run Windows Update to get service pack 2, it adds features but it doesn't change the way the core of Windows works or make it incompatible with any of my software. Did I mention it's free?
It's not as if Microsoft were making customers buy a new $129 license for every minor service pack release, or worse yet, changing the name of the OS for each bug fix and feature addition in order to justify it, that would be unethical.
*cough*Apple*cough*
That's an interesting point about the product activation.
I was going to say how expecting your software to be supported forever is like expecting Ford to make parts for the '65 Mustang indefinently. But if Ford had a feature where the car had to communicate with central headquarters in order to start, I would expect them to at least extend that feature of it. What they may end up doing (Microsoft) is discontinuing XP but make the servers still accept activation keys. It isn't difficult.
"In all our desktops, we've seen maybe 5 viruses in the last year, and absolutely zero adware. Why? We train EVERY user (at their cost) with 4-8 hours of "Don't do this" training. They listen."
If everyone was like you and your customers, then a lot of computer problems would never exist. Kudos.
P.S. I'm not saying everyone is forced to use Microsoft. I'm saying effectively everyone in a certain market is forced to use WINDOWS without having to go to extreme measures (building a computer is extreme to a lot of people believe it or not). The fact that Windows is not as prolific in the enterprise market doesn't change the fact that it's a monopoly in the home PC market.
Classic "I am the world" fallacy. Your usage is the enterprise market, not the average consumer market. Microsoft is not a monopoly in the enterprise market, far from it actually. Hey, I agree that for certain things, Windows is the best thing to use, like Media Center for example. BUT, the average consumer is not like you. The average consumer is not running several enteprise applications for several different networks. The average consumer is going to walk into Circuit City/Best Buy and not be able to choose what operating system he/she wants. That's like saying "well, you don't HAVE to have the car manufacturer's software in your car, I built my own car so you have a choice." Maybe you can build a car, but most people can't and won't. I can argue that the power company is not a monopoly because you can move to another country and have a different power company, so you do have a choice. It's just not practical to go through those ends to avoid price-gouging. It's also not practical for most people to build a computer and install Linux on it to avoid Windows. A monopoly can exist in just one market. Your situation really doesn't apply because you built your own "infrastructure" and chose Windows. It'd be like me generating my own power and choosing to hook it up to the local power-lines. I see your point, but it just doesn't apply to most people.
Did you even read what I posted? Basically Microsoft INADVERTENTLY helped FOSS because killing Netscape gave rise to Firefox, the browser that 10% of us use and love. If it weren't for Microsoft, there would be no firefox. Firefox is Free and Open Source, therefore Microsoft's actions gave rise to a popular FOSS application.
But what about the oil monopoly now? Is it good for consumers? Sure it isn't just one company now, but what choice to I as a consumer have regarding gas prices? All gas stations in every town and city in America raise and lower their prices at almost exactly the same time. I have no choice in the matter. There are several different faces, but when you get down to the knitty-gritty, it's all the same oil, with one entity controlling the pipelines. Competition provides incentive for a company to lower it's prices. If Rockerfeller had no competition to begin with, he would have had no incentive to lower prices the way he did. Perhaps businesses were more consumer-oriented back then, but greed has taken over today. Concern is more for keeping shareholders happy and profitting in the short-term, even to the point of hurting the company itself in the long-run.
"Microsoft is not a monopoly. There is too much choice in that market, and Microsoft spends a huge amount of money in keeping themselves at the top of the game -- and they have millions of happy consumers to prove it.
Wow, you really need to get your head out of the sand. TOO MUCH CHOICE? Are you blind or just ignorant? Name one PC manufacturer (I mean IBM PC compatibles) that offers a product to the home desktop market without Microsoft Windows installed. Can I go to Circuit City and buy such a computer? No? They ARE a monopoly, no matter what any neo-con book says. Sure, I can delete windows and install Linux on my computer, but I still paid the liscensing fee for Windows through the cost of the hardware. And HAPPY Microsoft customers? Have you never heard of viruses, mal-ware, spyware? I can bet you that no consumer is happy with Microsoft when they pay Geek Squad to re-format their hard drive and re-install the OS. No consumer is happy when security holes and sloppily-written software routines are exploited while MS drags its feet fixing them. Microsoft is not successful because they have the best prices or a quality product, quite the contrary, they're successful because they've created a mass of STUPID computer users that don't know any better. They've created a world where 95% of people aren't even aware of a Microsoft-alternative, and not everyone has the cash to just go blow on an Apple. Add to that the fact that The US Supreme Court concluded that Microsoft *is* an illegal monopoly.
Calling millions of Microsoft "customers" happy when they're FORCED to buy the OS and UNAWARE of alternatives is a lot like Microsoft claiming 90% market share on a browser that they FORCE people to use and is installed by DEFAULT on 95% of PCs today.
the only monopolies that exist are those that are created by the State
I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this. Are you saying that the state created Microsoft? AT&T? Standard Oil? Comcast? Before you say "well there are competitors to each and every one of those companies," think about what a real monopoly is. A monopoly is an organization that controls the entire market in a certain area. Sure, there are more cable companies than Comcast, or SBC, or Roadrunner, but do I as a consumer have a CHOICE? No, because certain geographical areas are relagated to one company. If I want Roadrunner, too f'n bad, only Comcast is available in my area. If I want another power company, too bad, only Consumer's Energy has wires going to my house. This is not choice, and it is not competition, it's pseudo-competition.
That said, it's IMPOSSIBLE not to have a monopoly in the infrastructure market. What gets me is that there is only one element of infrastructure that is government-controlled: The Interstate system. All in all, the interstate system works very well for us. It was quite a mess during the dawn of the railroads with multiple rail companies with different rail widths. When infrastructure is concerned, a monopoly does need to be in control, it just won't work any other way. However, the entity in control shouldn't be allowed to artificially inflate prices and fleece consumers on basic commodities, like electricity or water. This is why regulation is NEEDED, so you don't have rich fat-cats in ivory towers fleecing the poor for every last dime in order to buy their gold-plated ferraris. The oil cartel is a VERY good example of how people are experiencing economic hardship because of pseudo-competition.
What possible purpose could this serve? Let's not spend our time on cancer/AIDS research, lets make EVEN MORE BOTHERSOME misquitoes. These scientists should be shot. The only thing misquitoes ever did for mankind was provide a plot for Jurassic Park.
Yes, but a lot of us have a choice for long-distance carriers. We also have a choice to not use land-lines at all in favor of cell-phone/VOIP service. None of this would have happened if AT&T would have been allowed to keep the pipes all to themselves.
I disagree. Complete "freedom" in either the market or society is never a good thing. John D. Rockerfeller had complete "freedom" to use extortion, threats, and bribery to build an oil monopoly and squash competitors. Government intervention split the company and now using his methods is illegal. It also split the big AT&T telcom monopoly. If it weren't for government intervention, we would still be overpaying for land-line service. The EU is currently leveraging fines against Microsoft for not providing accurate API documentation to third parties. A free market NEEDS regulation, because when left to it's own devices, eventually a shark is going to come along and swallow up the competition, creating a predatory monopoly. Without government to step in and provide a deterrent against this, any free market will eventually implode.
As long as they don't interfere with me sending an internet, more power to 'em.
I agree w/ that. I continue to scratch my head at people like my aunt and my mother, who continually INSIST that they NEED the $500 MS-Office Professional edition when they don't do anything that OpenOffice.org can't do. I scratch my head at people who buy a $200-$300 operating system so they can surf the web and type letters. These people are the PERFECT market for a simple Linux desktop. Why are they paying these exhorbitant fees when another perfectly good product is sitting there, ready to be installed, for FREE (as in freedom)? It's not like they're going to be compiling source code or doing any console work. Drivers in ubuntu are pretty darn easy to install now, if they're not automatically detected and installed. It truly boggles the mind.