What a load of nonsense. This is about abuse of monopoly power. How is that going to dissuade companies from developing new products and services?
Answer: It's not. It might dissuade companies lucky enough to be in a monopoly position from abusing that power, and that's a good thing.
Under current anti-trust laws, if a company's prices are above their competitors, they can be charged with monopoly pricing. If they price below their competitors, they can be charged with predatory pricing. And if they match their prices with their competitors, they can be charged with collusion. So no matter what they do, the company is in violation of the anti-trust laws. Enforcement of these laws is left purely to the discretion of the government. Do we really want to give these same goons more control over private companies?
And you think America or Europe are? Or pretty much anywhere, for that matter. How many violent individuals do you need before your theoretical capitalist utopia descends into anarchy?
That is a topic for another thread. The short version is, if a society is violent, mystical and uncivilised, then a true free market won't arise in the first place. There is a certain amount of crime that a free market can deal with, and lots of competing solutions will ensure that the most effective systems survive, whatever that may be. If you are actually interested, have a listen to this:
This is the problem with iE, everytime you use a browser to browse the web partly only the browser gets expose to the web, with iE not only does the browser gets expose but so does the entire OS cause iE is not a separate app iE is part of Windows, so eveytime iE gets expose it also exposes the entire windows, hijack iE and that's it your in, hijack any other browser and you my friend still have a lot of work to reach the OS
I would argue that Internet Explorer 7 & 8 on Vista is safer than Safari, because IE runs in Protected Mode with the least privileges. It has less permission than a standard user (your account). Any flaw in the browser is not executed automatically, because it'll be stopped by UAC (unless UAC disabled by the user, then you're SOL).
You realize that Safari has that RSS feeds flaw that "allows files to be read from a users hard drive"? Or the fact that an exploit in Safari allowed a hacker to take over OS X?
Interestingly, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
No, Apple's the only OEM for Mac OS X, they can't be forced to license it or support it on 3rd party hardware (assuming governments know their place in the world), so they can bundle any apps they want. You can quit the Finder and never touch it or use it if you use a 3rd party implementation like Path Finder or just don't bother with either and use bash or zsh or something like I do. But it is rather annoying that Apple treats the Finder as essential even though it and the Dock are both non-essential and are not needed for a functioning system as long as you have a proper shell (either CLI or GUI) to replace it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
You have to have a way to navigate through your OS. Otherwise you wouldn't have any way to get to your apps, documents, etc. Finder is tied to the OS yes, but its not effecting 90% of the computing population either. It doesn't have a huge monopoly like Microsoft does.
Apple isn't preventing those apps for being installed to replace the finder app. Running an update may screw up something, but Apple isn't doing it on purpose. Its just part of installing something overtop of an essential part of the OS. Apple shouldn't be made to go out of its way to make sure all 3rd party finder type apps work with an OS X update. Its up to the 3rd party vendor to make sure it works properly.
You could say the same thing for QuickTime which is also built into the OS. Its an essential part of the OS and once uninstalled certain things won't work properly. But Apple isn't preventing VLC or Flip4Mac, the old Windows Media Player for OS X from being installed either.
If everyone was made to not tie things into your OS you would have an OS that IMO works half-ass, not at all, hard to integrate features into it, etc. You have to draw the line somewhere. The way Microsoft is doing IE now I don't see an issue with it. If you don't like IE, you can install another browser and use it. Far as I'm concerned, this is a stupid claim in the EU.
Quicktime != Quicktime Player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It's not that different to the IE setup, you can delete the Safari app but the system framework is still there for other programs to use. That's supposed to be why updating Safari requires a reboot on OS X.
I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.
Also, just to throw out another thought on the topic: What about iTunes?
iTunes is bundled with every Mac and is basically a web and HD browser. I don't know if it too is embedded deeply into the OS but I would argue it's as good a candidate for that as Safari and I would not be surprised to find the system become unstable without it. Anyone know the answer?
There are music library alternatives I am sure, but it's a solid that they won't be able to connect to the iTunes store, so that's kind of a lock out in a similar way to MSIE isn't it? I'm not saying I believe in this route, but the situation kind of seems like something the EU would be upset about in a similar way and for similar reasons.
iTunes is a wrapper for Quicktime (for playback), just trash it if you don't want it and install something else. Personally I think the iTunes store would be better off in a web browser though, Apple would reach a larger audience since anybody using any music player that supports AAC files on any platform could use it, but if Apple wants to be stingy they can just lose sales to other music stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The part that I know about is in /System/Library/WebKit.framework - that's where the rendering engine is behind Safari. From what I'm told, that's why you can't update Safari without rebooting, when most other browsers can install/update and run immediately, because the system framework needs to be updated.
I think that can be deleted, but any programs that use it probably won't work anymore. I'm told that Apple Mail uses it. Maybe a couple of the WebKit-based browsers use the framework too.
Mail and Dashboard both use WebKit yes, but WebKit still != Safari, although whenever Safari is updated, Apple also updates WebKit, if you don't like that just don't update either as WebKit will still be updated in the service packs, 3rd-parties also use it, like NetNewsWire and the HTML bundle in TextMate. I think WindowServer is updated every time Quicktime and WebKit are updated as well, you don't really need to restart the entire OS, just kill WindowServer, but form a user's perspective it's going to be more or less the equivalent of restarting since any process depending on the WindowServer process will also be killed as if they were crashed, so it's usually easier to just restart anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
While it would be nice for more people to know what the requirements for a monopoly is, they would be better off looking it up on the wiki than listening to this drivel. This is the second time in less than a week you have managed to squeeze in this long wacky conspiracy theory of yours about governments and monopolies.
Please just stop.
You have no idea what a monopoly is and your attempts to redefine it single-handedly are doomed to fail.
If you really want to advance this nonsense, do what everyone else does and write a book about it. If you sell a few hundred thousand, then maybe we should listen to your crazy ideas, but until then I think you should just tie down your tin-foil hat a bit tighter and hunker down in the damp cardboard box you no doubt call home.
This is the problem with iE, everytime you use a browser to browse the web partly only the browser gets expose to the web, with iE not only does the browser gets expose but so does the entire OS cause iE is not a separate app iE is part of Windows, so eveytime iE gets expose it also exposes the entire windows, hijack iE and that's it your in, hijack any other browser and you my friend still have a lot of work to reach the OS
IE was properly separated from Trident in Vista.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgntscrawn
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
Apple is the only OEM for Mac OS X, they can bundle any software they like, just like any OEM for any OS can bundle any software that they like.
All in all, the EU is wasting their time, and probably their tax-payers money (I'm curious, do citizens of it's constituent countries pay taxes to the EU, or through proxy through their country?) because any OEM that's interested enough will just bundle a different browser, and many do, IE is usually left on there though so it's up to the user to actually well, choose to use the bundled alternative, and if they don't, oh well, it's a shame but they have the right to their own choice in browsers as well.
Any flaw in the browser is not executed automatically, because it'll be stopped by UAC (unless UAC disabled by the user, then you're SOL).
Alas, UAC is disabled by most people because it pisses them off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinN206
You realize that Safari has that RSS feeds flaw that "allows files to be read from a users hard drive"? Or the fact that an exploit in Safari allowed a hacker to take over OS X?
You realise that all browsers have flaws? What matters is which ones are exploited. Beyond that, it looks like as Windows' security increases, malware is moving more and more towards a Trojan method - exploiting the user not software security flaws. And there's very little that coders can do to protect users from Trojans.
All in all, the EU is wasting their time, and probably their tax-payers money (I'm curious, do citizens of it's constituent countries pay taxes to the EU, or through proxy through their country?)
By proxy. Member states pay fees to the EU.
In terms of representation, the EU's political workings consist mainly of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The Council consists of the heads of state of each member state, and are therefore elected directly. Members of the European parliament are also elected. The Commission is not elected, but their role is chiefly the implementation of directives from the Parliament and proposing new legislation.
Alas, UAC is disabled by most people because it pisses them off.
You realise that all browsers have flaws? What matters is which ones are exploited. Beyond that, it looks like as Windows' security increases, malware is moving more and more towards a Trojan method - exploiting the user not software security flaws. And there's very little that coders can do to protect users from Trojans.
I realize that all browsers have flaws whether discovered or not. What I am saying is that UAC with Protected Mode in Vista mitigates flaws from IE7,8 from enabling a complete OS take-over.
UAC doesn't bother me at all, but that's just me. I get prompted only once during start-up (because a hardware simulation program is not Vista compatible), and anytime I change system settings.
It completely blew my mind, very innovative solutions, and the guy is good at presenting his ideas.
For some reason, I did listen to that. And it was drivel, from start to finish. It's chock full of unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims and ideal scenarios. Picking it apart stupid illogical point by stupid illogical point would take too long so I won't.
BTW, I also found this. How surprising (not) that the drivel you're spouting emanates from a cult.
For some reason, I did listen to that. And it was drivel, from start to finish. It's chock full of unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims and ideal scenarios. Picking it apart stupid illogical point by stupid illogical point would take too long so I won't.
Interestingly, i have no way of knowing that you are being honest. If you had never even listened to it, or you actually had no logical counter-arguments, but just pretended to be above it all, your post would actually read EXACTLY as it does.
Quote:
BTW, I also found this. How surprising (not) that the drivel you're spouting emanates from a cult.
It's fine if you don't want to research things deeply - you probably know the best way to spend your time. But if you're going just lightly skim something in an attempt to dig up dirt (rather than show genuine curious interest), please at least be honest about it.
My source for economics and history is the Mises institute, a respected school of thought in free market economics. One of their main proponents was Friedrich Hayek, who won a Nobel prize for his contributions to economics. These are the people who were warning of the coming economic crisis while all of the intellectuals and talking heads in the media were hyping up the bubble. So, not a cult by any means. Most of the ideas in that podcast I mentioned were originally developed by these and other economists. Famous (although flawed) figures like Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul and even Noam Chomsky will back up many of these points. I must admit, I don't feel too much motivation to try and convince you of anything - i mean, just given the way you've responded. So we can consider this dropped if you wish.
So do you believe that the majority of Americans that voted for President Bush should be punished as well? I mean, that would only be fair, right?
Actually, the Americans that voted for Bush have already been punished. Just ask them about their 401k balances. Even I, who didn't vote for moron boy got punished. But Microsoft? Those guys are still ahead enjoying their illegally acquired monopoly, still enjoying the slap, no, tap on the wrist that the Bush DoJ gave them.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Bill Gates and the MS brass and probably most of Microsoft's employees in Seattle are liberals. But in 2000 they decided to act like whores and supported a candidate whose policies they would normally disagree with because he was promising to let them avoid justice.
How about you, did you vote for the imbecile? If you did, are you still happy and proud about your boy's performance?
Actually, the Americans that voted for Bush have already been punished. Just ask them about their 401k balances. Even I, who didn't vote for moron boy got punished. But Microsoft? Those guys are still ahead enjoying their illegally acquired monopoly, still enjoying the slap, no, tap on the wrist that the Bush DoJ gave them.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Bill Gates and the MS brass and probably most of Microsoft's employees in Seattle are liberals. But in 2000 they decided to act like whores and supported a candidate whose policies they opposed because he was promising to let them avoid justice.
How about you, did you vote for the imbecile? If you did, are you still happy and proud about your boy's performance?
It's not illegal to have a monopoly, just illegal to abuse your power as a monopoly, think of it as a practical joke from the Government, they entice you to build as big a company as you can, and then punish you for doing so.
Interestingly, i have no way of knowing that you are being honest. If you had never even listened to it, or you actually had no logical counter-arguments, but just pretended to be above it all, your post would actually read EXACTLY as it does.
Indeed, this is true. You'll just have to trust me
The podcast is nearly half an hour long. To pick apart the whole damn thing would take me hours and I really don't have the time.
One of the most preposterous moments was that concerning a water supply company and what could happen in free-market conditions to stop them charging exorbitant prices. Every single method suggested - especially that of another company installing their own pipes - is ludicrously impractical.
The ideas suggested in the podcast do sound all lovely and super until you start to figure out how it would work in the real world - and the depressing conclusion is that it really wouldn't. A lot of the theory of communism sounds simply wonderful. Then you try and put it into practice and it turns out to be total shit. And the problem with both of these theories is that it assumes the best of people without taking account of any of the darker sides of humanity. Utopia is only possible if everybody is perfect, all the time, and that simply isn't going to happen. This isn't to say that the current system we have is perfect, I just think it's the least-bad option.
There's an underlying supposition that there exists a way to structure society that would lead to utopia and unlimited individual freedoms. Well sorry, but that's an oxymoron.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly, just illegal to abuse your power as a monopoly, think of it as a practical joke from the Government, they entice you to build as big a company as you can, and then punish you for doing so.
How exactly is this a practical joke? You said it yourself - having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing it is. How is this a problem?
How exactly is this a practical joke? You said it yourself - having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing it is. How is this a problem?
I don't think it's a problem, PG&E has a monopoly on electricity in the San Francisco Bay Area for example, paying $1000 a month for electricity would completely suck and my generation takes it as a given that electricity is a public utility that everyone should have access to, in the case of Microsoft I never agreed that they did have a monopoly, but having one wouldn't be illegal if they did, but if they abused their power as a monopoly or just plain abused their power as a company, the power that they gained from building the biggest damn company they could and employing thousands of employees and investing billions into their software and marketing for, and then using their popularity as an OS and software vendor to bend OEMs to their will putting other software vendors on a sacrificial altar, they would (and have been) punished for it. I can't see that as anything except a joke, even if I agree ultimately with the outcome because I don't want the entire software market controlled by Microsoft.
To start off with, I apologise for 'writing you off' so quickly - i just assumed you were trolling. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Indeed, this is true. You'll just have to trust me
The podcast is nearly half an hour long. To pick apart the whole damn thing would take me hours and I really don't have the time.
One of the most preposterous moments was that concerning a water supply company and what could happen in free-market conditions to stop them charging exorbitant prices. Every single method suggested - especially that of another company installing their own pipes - is ludicrously impractical.
These sorts of 'collective problems' have actually already been solved in the real world. Property developers will build roads inside neighbourhoods, and ensure that they are maintained as part of the package of buying a home. If your disaster scenario happens, neighbourhoods which have expensive water provided by one company will be less desirable and will have lower property values than those with better more competitive agreements. Property developers and neighbourhoods need to attract home buyers. Think creatively from their perspective - what would you do as a real estate company or property developer to solve this problem? The same applies with power lines, gas, and anything else like that. If I bought a new home, I would want a guarantee that I have at least 2 choices for each service. Or, at the very least, a written guarantee that my water prices would remain stable.
And, there is a market price limit on water, electricity or gas: if you charge too much, people will just buy water tanks, solar panels, delivered gas tanks and other decentralised solutions. Even digging underground to create a second set of pipes might be cheaper than paying for all of the bloated government overhead and waste in the existing system. Private services are often half or a third of the price of government equivalents. Who knows what other options will exist in a free market - one thing's for sure, though: the government is NOT the most efficient provider of these services. I suggest that you try and come up with some solutions of your own - clearly, the case is not as 'closed' as you think.
Quote:
The ideas suggested in the podcast do sound all lovely and super until you start to figure out how it would work in the real world ...
...There's an underlying supposition that there exists a way to structure society that would lead to utopia and unlimited individual freedoms. Well sorry, but that's an oxymoron.
Who mentioned utopia? All I'm talking about is to stop artificially subsidising violence. Think of all of the wars, drug users thrown in jail, badly educated children and economic crises that the government is actively provoking. All of this is unnecessary. Sure, there will always be bad people in the world - but today, many good people are being subsidised by tax dollars to do bad things, massively multiplying the natural amount of violence in society. People are over 30 times more likely to be killed by an agent of their own government than by a criminal, so clearly there is something fishy going on here.
People are over 30 times more likely to be killed by an agent of their own government than by a criminal, so clearly there is something fishy going on here.
That does sound fishy. Where do you get that stat?
That does sound fishy. Where do you get that stat?
Roughly 200 million people were killed by own governments in the 20th century, excluding wars, and excluding deaths from malaria after DDT was banned. This compares with about 6 million private homicides globally, in the same period. I will get stats.
Good, go live in Somalia. There's hardly any government there. It's a libertarian paradise.
I'm a Classical Liberal [Libertarian] of the Jefferson/Paine/Adam Smith constructs and it truly astonishes me how what is being passed off as Liberterianism is nothing but some borderline anarchist state who can't grasp that even an Anarchist nation needs a solid National Infrastructure for us to enjoy the level of lifestyle we've become accustomed to enjoying.
The thought that we should just privately fund the Rails and not create a solid, regionally connected, heavy-freight and highspeed lightrail system with a mixed funding system [private and public] is one of the reasons I can't endorse the LP party. Add to the fact we'd rather not build regional canals to regulate flood conditions and droughting in the Southwest, to adding a jointly funded/managed modular power grid, to build out new rails to transport alternative fuels or power zones to transport the collected solar, pebble-bed nuclear and wind power output only adds to my annoyance of the obvious.
I don't care what party you associate your leanings towards, if their isn't a modern multi-layered national infrastructure this Democratic Republic will crumble, sooner rather than later.
Suck it up, hire engineers from the traditional disciplines [hand waiving over here] and let's get this piece of crap '45 Packard we call our national infrastructure and instead of rebuilding the globe, after we blow it up or disrupt it, fix our own and lead the world in advancement.
Comments
What a load of nonsense. This is about abuse of monopoly power. How is that going to dissuade companies from developing new products and services?
Answer: It's not. It might dissuade companies lucky enough to be in a monopoly position from abusing that power, and that's a good thing.
Under current anti-trust laws, if a company's prices are above their competitors, they can be charged with monopoly pricing. If they price below their competitors, they can be charged with predatory pricing. And if they match their prices with their competitors, they can be charged with collusion. So no matter what they do, the company is in violation of the anti-trust laws. Enforcement of these laws is left purely to the discretion of the government. Do we really want to give these same goons more control over private companies?
That is a topic for another thread. The short version is, if a society is violent, mystical and uncivilised, then a true free market won't arise in the first place. There is a certain amount of crime that a free market can deal with, and lots of competing solutions will ensure that the most effective systems survive, whatever that may be. If you are actually interested, have a listen to this:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...take_2_320.mp3
It completely blew my mind, very innovative solutions, and the guy is good at presenting his ideas.
This is the problem with iE, everytime you use a browser to browse the web partly only the browser gets expose to the web, with iE not only does the browser gets expose but so does the entire OS cause iE is not a separate app iE is part of Windows, so eveytime iE gets expose it also exposes the entire windows, hijack iE and that's it your in, hijack any other browser and you my friend still have a lot of work to reach the OS
I would argue that Internet Explorer 7 & 8 on Vista is safer than Safari, because IE runs in Protected Mode with the least privileges. It has less permission than a standard user (your account). Any flaw in the browser is not executed automatically, because it'll be stopped by UAC (unless UAC disabled by the user, then you're SOL).
You realize that Safari has that RSS feeds flaw that "allows files to be read from a users hard drive"? Or the fact that an exploit in Safari allowed a hacker to take over OS X?
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/121689
http://brian.mastenbrook.net/display/27
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_hack/
Protected Mode in IE7, 8 for Vista & Windows 7: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/09/528963.aspx
Under current anti-trust laws, if a company's prices are above their competitors, they can be charged with monopoly pricing.
Only if they are a monopoly in the first place. If said company has only 5% market share, they can't be done for "monopoly" anything.
If they price below their competitors, they can be charged with predatory pricing.
Presumably only if they are pricing stuff at or below cost (in an attempt to drive competitors out of business).
And if they match their prices with their competitors, they can be charged with collusion.
And the charge will only turn into conviction if there was actual collusion.
Sorry, I'm failing to see the problem here.
Interestingly, there are 3rd party programs which can compete with the Finder, and I don't think you can remove the Finder from the Mac OS. Is apple being anti-competitive by bundling the Finder with their OS, or does this principle only apply with web browsers? If so, why?
No, Apple's the only OEM for Mac OS X, they can't be forced to license it or support it on 3rd party hardware (assuming governments know their place in the world), so they can bundle any apps they want. You can quit the Finder and never touch it or use it if you use a 3rd party implementation like Path Finder or just don't bother with either and use bash or zsh or something like I do. But it is rather annoying that Apple treats the Finder as essential even though it and the Dock are both non-essential and are not needed for a functioning system as long as you have a proper shell (either CLI or GUI) to replace it.
You have to have a way to navigate through your OS. Otherwise you wouldn't have any way to get to your apps, documents, etc. Finder is tied to the OS yes, but its not effecting 90% of the computing population either. It doesn't have a huge monopoly like Microsoft does.
Apple isn't preventing those apps for being installed to replace the finder app. Running an update may screw up something, but Apple isn't doing it on purpose. Its just part of installing something overtop of an essential part of the OS. Apple shouldn't be made to go out of its way to make sure all 3rd party finder type apps work with an OS X update. Its up to the 3rd party vendor to make sure it works properly.
You could say the same thing for QuickTime which is also built into the OS. Its an essential part of the OS and once uninstalled certain things won't work properly. But Apple isn't preventing VLC or Flip4Mac, the old Windows Media Player for OS X from being installed either.
If everyone was made to not tie things into your OS you would have an OS that IMO works half-ass, not at all, hard to integrate features into it, etc. You have to draw the line somewhere. The way Microsoft is doing IE now I don't see an issue with it. If you don't like IE, you can install another browser and use it. Far as I'm concerned, this is a stupid claim in the EU.
Quicktime != Quicktime Player.
It's not that different to the IE setup, you can delete the Safari app but the system framework is still there for other programs to use. That's supposed to be why updating Safari requires a reboot on OS X.
WebKit != Safari, for more Frameworks != Application examples, please visit http://developer.apple.com/documenta...CH210-BBCBEAJD
I'd like it if someone who is in the know could post a definitive statement on this. We have people higher up in the thread arguing that Safari *isn't* deeply embedded in the OS and others that are saying it is.
Also, just to throw out another thought on the topic: What about iTunes?
iTunes is bundled with every Mac and is basically a web and HD browser. I don't know if it too is embedded deeply into the OS but I would argue it's as good a candidate for that as Safari and I would not be surprised to find the system become unstable without it. Anyone know the answer?
There are music library alternatives I am sure, but it's a solid that they won't be able to connect to the iTunes store, so that's kind of a lock out in a similar way to MSIE isn't it? I'm not saying I believe in this route, but the situation kind of seems like something the EU would be upset about in a similar way and for similar reasons.
iTunes is a wrapper for Quicktime (for playback), just trash it if you don't want it and install something else. Personally I think the iTunes store would be better off in a web browser though, Apple would reach a larger audience since anybody using any music player that supports AAC files on any platform could use it, but if Apple wants to be stingy they can just lose sales to other music stores.
The part that I know about is in /System/Library/WebKit.framework - that's where the rendering engine is behind Safari. From what I'm told, that's why you can't update Safari without rebooting, when most other browsers can install/update and run immediately, because the system framework needs to be updated.
I think that can be deleted, but any programs that use it probably won't work anymore. I'm told that Apple Mail uses it. Maybe a couple of the WebKit-based browsers use the framework too.
Mail and Dashboard both use WebKit yes, but WebKit still != Safari, although whenever Safari is updated, Apple also updates WebKit, if you don't like that just don't update either as WebKit will still be updated in the service packs, 3rd-parties also use it, like NetNewsWire and the HTML bundle in TextMate. I think WindowServer is updated every time Quicktime and WebKit are updated as well, you don't really need to restart the entire OS, just kill WindowServer, but form a user's perspective it's going to be more or less the equivalent of restarting since any process depending on the WindowServer process will also be killed as if they were crashed, so it's usually easier to just restart anyway.
While it would be nice for more people to know what the requirements for a monopoly is, they would be better off looking it up on the wiki than listening to this drivel. This is the second time in less than a week you have managed to squeeze in this long wacky conspiracy theory of yours about governments and monopolies.
Please just stop.
You have no idea what a monopoly is and your attempts to redefine it single-handedly are doomed to fail.
If you really want to advance this nonsense, do what everyone else does and write a book about it. If you sell a few hundred thousand, then maybe we should listen to your crazy ideas, but until then I think you should just tie down your tin-foil hat a bit tighter and hunker down in the damp cardboard box you no doubt call home.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...plete_monopoly
This is the problem with iE, everytime you use a browser to browse the web partly only the browser gets expose to the web, with iE not only does the browser gets expose but so does the entire OS cause iE is not a separate app iE is part of Windows, so eveytime iE gets expose it also exposes the entire windows, hijack iE and that's it your in, hijack any other browser and you my friend still have a lot of work to reach the OS
IE was properly separated from Trident in Vista.
Surely this would mean that Apple could be in the firing line as well. Safari, and what about iLife? If MS got done for bundling in Media Player, surely Apple would be "stifling the market" for photo editors, movie editors etc etc...
Apple is the only OEM for Mac OS X, they can bundle any software they like, just like any OEM for any OS can bundle any software that they like.
All in all, the EU is wasting their time, and probably their tax-payers money (I'm curious, do citizens of it's constituent countries pay taxes to the EU, or through proxy through their country?) because any OEM that's interested enough will just bundle a different browser, and many do, IE is usually left on there though so it's up to the user to actually well, choose to use the bundled alternative, and if they don't, oh well, it's a shame but they have the right to their own choice in browsers as well.
Sebastian
Any flaw in the browser is not executed automatically, because it'll be stopped by UAC (unless UAC disabled by the user, then you're SOL).
Alas, UAC is disabled by most people because it pisses them off.
You realize that Safari has that RSS feeds flaw that "allows files to be read from a users hard drive"? Or the fact that an exploit in Safari allowed a hacker to take over OS X?
You realise that all browsers have flaws? What matters is which ones are exploited. Beyond that, it looks like as Windows' security increases, malware is moving more and more towards a Trojan method - exploiting the user not software security flaws. And there's very little that coders can do to protect users from Trojans.
All in all, the EU is wasting their time, and probably their tax-payers money (I'm curious, do citizens of it's constituent countries pay taxes to the EU, or through proxy through their country?)
By proxy. Member states pay fees to the EU.
In terms of representation, the EU's political workings consist mainly of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. The Council consists of the heads of state of each member state, and are therefore elected directly. Members of the European parliament are also elected. The Commission is not elected, but their role is chiefly the implementation of directives from the Parliament and proposing new legislation.
More information as always from Wikipedia:
EU parliament
EU council
EU commission
Alas, UAC is disabled by most people because it pisses them off.
You realise that all browsers have flaws? What matters is which ones are exploited. Beyond that, it looks like as Windows' security increases, malware is moving more and more towards a Trojan method - exploiting the user not software security flaws. And there's very little that coders can do to protect users from Trojans.
I realize that all browsers have flaws whether discovered or not. What I am saying is that UAC with Protected Mode in Vista mitigates flaws from IE7,8 from enabling a complete OS take-over.
UAC doesn't bother me at all, but that's just me. I get prompted only once during start-up (because a hardware simulation program is not Vista compatible), and anytime I change system settings.
If you are actually interested, have a listen to this:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...take_2_320.mp3
It completely blew my mind, very innovative solutions, and the guy is good at presenting his ideas.
For some reason, I did listen to that. And it was drivel, from start to finish. It's chock full of unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims and ideal scenarios. Picking it apart stupid illogical point by stupid illogical point would take too long so I won't.
BTW, I also found this. How surprising (not) that the drivel you're spouting emanates from a cult.
For some reason, I did listen to that. And it was drivel, from start to finish. It's chock full of unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims and ideal scenarios. Picking it apart stupid illogical point by stupid illogical point would take too long so I won't.
Interestingly, i have no way of knowing that you are being honest. If you had never even listened to it, or you actually had no logical counter-arguments, but just pretended to be above it all, your post would actually read EXACTLY as it does.
BTW, I also found this. How surprising (not) that the drivel you're spouting emanates from a cult.
Its on the home page, actually:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/
It's fine if you don't want to research things deeply - you probably know the best way to spend your time. But if you're going just lightly skim something in an attempt to dig up dirt (rather than show genuine curious interest), please at least be honest about it.
My source for economics and history is the Mises institute, a respected school of thought in free market economics. One of their main proponents was Friedrich Hayek, who won a Nobel prize for his contributions to economics. These are the people who were warning of the coming economic crisis while all of the intellectuals and talking heads in the media were hyping up the bubble. So, not a cult by any means. Most of the ideas in that podcast I mentioned were originally developed by these and other economists. Famous (although flawed) figures like Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, Ron Paul and even Noam Chomsky will back up many of these points. I must admit, I don't feel too much motivation to try and convince you of anything - i mean, just given the way you've responded. So we can consider this dropped if you wish.
So do you believe that the majority of Americans that voted for President Bush should be punished as well? I mean, that would only be fair, right?
Actually, the Americans that voted for Bush have already been punished. Just ask them about their 401k balances. Even I, who didn't vote for moron boy got punished. But Microsoft? Those guys are still ahead enjoying their illegally acquired monopoly, still enjoying the slap, no, tap on the wrist that the Bush DoJ gave them.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Bill Gates and the MS brass and probably most of Microsoft's employees in Seattle are liberals. But in 2000 they decided to act like whores and supported a candidate whose policies they would normally disagree with because he was promising to let them avoid justice.
How about you, did you vote for the imbecile? If you did, are you still happy and proud about your boy's performance?
Actually, the Americans that voted for Bush have already been punished. Just ask them about their 401k balances. Even I, who didn't vote for moron boy got punished. But Microsoft? Those guys are still ahead enjoying their illegally acquired monopoly, still enjoying the slap, no, tap on the wrist that the Bush DoJ gave them.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Bill Gates and the MS brass and probably most of Microsoft's employees in Seattle are liberals. But in 2000 they decided to act like whores and supported a candidate whose policies they opposed because he was promising to let them avoid justice.
How about you, did you vote for the imbecile? If you did, are you still happy and proud about your boy's performance?
It's not illegal to have a monopoly, just illegal to abuse your power as a monopoly, think of it as a practical joke from the Government, they entice you to build as big a company as you can, and then punish you for doing so.
Sebastian
Interestingly, i have no way of knowing that you are being honest. If you had never even listened to it, or you actually had no logical counter-arguments, but just pretended to be above it all, your post would actually read EXACTLY as it does.
Indeed, this is true. You'll just have to trust me
The podcast is nearly half an hour long. To pick apart the whole damn thing would take me hours and I really don't have the time.
One of the most preposterous moments was that concerning a water supply company and what could happen in free-market conditions to stop them charging exorbitant prices. Every single method suggested - especially that of another company installing their own pipes - is ludicrously impractical.
The ideas suggested in the podcast do sound all lovely and super until you start to figure out how it would work in the real world - and the depressing conclusion is that it really wouldn't. A lot of the theory of communism sounds simply wonderful. Then you try and put it into practice and it turns out to be total shit. And the problem with both of these theories is that it assumes the best of people without taking account of any of the darker sides of humanity. Utopia is only possible if everybody is perfect, all the time, and that simply isn't going to happen. This isn't to say that the current system we have is perfect, I just think it's the least-bad option.
There's an underlying supposition that there exists a way to structure society that would lead to utopia and unlimited individual freedoms. Well sorry, but that's an oxymoron.
It's not illegal to have a monopoly, just illegal to abuse your power as a monopoly, think of it as a practical joke from the Government, they entice you to build as big a company as you can, and then punish you for doing so.
How exactly is this a practical joke? You said it yourself - having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing it is. How is this a problem?
How exactly is this a practical joke? You said it yourself - having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing it is. How is this a problem?
I don't think it's a problem, PG&E has a monopoly on electricity in the San Francisco Bay Area for example, paying $1000 a month for electricity would completely suck and my generation takes it as a given that electricity is a public utility that everyone should have access to, in the case of Microsoft I never agreed that they did have a monopoly, but having one wouldn't be illegal if they did, but if they abused their power as a monopoly or just plain abused their power as a company, the power that they gained from building the biggest damn company they could and employing thousands of employees and investing billions into their software and marketing for, and then using their popularity as an OS and software vendor to bend OEMs to their will putting other software vendors on a sacrificial altar, they would (and have been) punished for it. I can't see that as anything except a joke, even if I agree ultimately with the outcome because I don't want the entire software market controlled by Microsoft.
Sebastian
Indeed, this is true. You'll just have to trust me
The podcast is nearly half an hour long. To pick apart the whole damn thing would take me hours and I really don't have the time.
One of the most preposterous moments was that concerning a water supply company and what could happen in free-market conditions to stop them charging exorbitant prices. Every single method suggested - especially that of another company installing their own pipes - is ludicrously impractical.
These sorts of 'collective problems' have actually already been solved in the real world. Property developers will build roads inside neighbourhoods, and ensure that they are maintained as part of the package of buying a home. If your disaster scenario happens, neighbourhoods which have expensive water provided by one company will be less desirable and will have lower property values than those with better more competitive agreements. Property developers and neighbourhoods need to attract home buyers. Think creatively from their perspective - what would you do as a real estate company or property developer to solve this problem? The same applies with power lines, gas, and anything else like that. If I bought a new home, I would want a guarantee that I have at least 2 choices for each service. Or, at the very least, a written guarantee that my water prices would remain stable.
And, there is a market price limit on water, electricity or gas: if you charge too much, people will just buy water tanks, solar panels, delivered gas tanks and other decentralised solutions. Even digging underground to create a second set of pipes might be cheaper than paying for all of the bloated government overhead and waste in the existing system. Private services are often half or a third of the price of government equivalents. Who knows what other options will exist in a free market - one thing's for sure, though: the government is NOT the most efficient provider of these services. I suggest that you try and come up with some solutions of your own - clearly, the case is not as 'closed' as you think.
The ideas suggested in the podcast do sound all lovely and super until you start to figure out how it would work in the real world ...
...There's an underlying supposition that there exists a way to structure society that would lead to utopia and unlimited individual freedoms. Well sorry, but that's an oxymoron.
Who mentioned utopia? All I'm talking about is to stop artificially subsidising violence. Think of all of the wars, drug users thrown in jail, badly educated children and economic crises that the government is actively provoking. All of this is unnecessary. Sure, there will always be bad people in the world - but today, many good people are being subsidised by tax dollars to do bad things, massively multiplying the natural amount of violence in society. People are over 30 times more likely to be killed by an agent of their own government than by a criminal, so clearly there is something fishy going on here.
How exactly is this a practical joke? You said it yourself - having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing it is. How is this a problem?
Here's an approach I find helpful:
1) Define abuse.
2) Double check your definition by applying it to the EU's behaviour and see if they are guilty as well.
3) Decide whether it is really appropriate for the EU to be regulating Microsoft.
People are over 30 times more likely to be killed by an agent of their own government than by a criminal, so clearly there is something fishy going on here.
That does sound fishy. Where do you get that stat?
That does sound fishy. Where do you get that stat?
Roughly 200 million people were killed by own governments in the 20th century, excluding wars, and excluding deaths from malaria after DDT was banned. This compares with about 6 million private homicides globally, in the same period. I will get stats.
Good, go live in Somalia. There's hardly any government there. It's a libertarian paradise.
I'm a Classical Liberal [Libertarian] of the Jefferson/Paine/Adam Smith constructs and it truly astonishes me how what is being passed off as Liberterianism is nothing but some borderline anarchist state who can't grasp that even an Anarchist nation needs a solid National Infrastructure for us to enjoy the level of lifestyle we've become accustomed to enjoying.
The thought that we should just privately fund the Rails and not create a solid, regionally connected, heavy-freight and highspeed lightrail system with a mixed funding system [private and public] is one of the reasons I can't endorse the LP party. Add to the fact we'd rather not build regional canals to regulate flood conditions and droughting in the Southwest, to adding a jointly funded/managed modular power grid, to build out new rails to transport alternative fuels or power zones to transport the collected solar, pebble-bed nuclear and wind power output only adds to my annoyance of the obvious.
I don't care what party you associate your leanings towards, if their isn't a modern multi-layered national infrastructure this Democratic Republic will crumble, sooner rather than later.
Suck it up, hire engineers from the traditional disciplines [hand waiving over here] and let's get this piece of crap '45 Packard we call our national infrastructure and instead of rebuilding the globe, after we blow it up or disrupt it, fix our own and lead the world in advancement.