 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Erm. Since when?
Mono is an open-source .NET implementation. |
the small fact that .net is still light-years ahead of mono kinda means that mono isn't quite .net.
quote:
And Asher too: Apple just doesn't have a monopoly in the legal downloads market. |
i never said it did.
quote:
Oh, and where did I say that I like Apple? I just don't, so stop presuming. |
i never said, nor presumed you liked apple. i merely pointed out that apple does many of the same things that microsoft does, and yet it's always microsoft that's the bad guy.
quote:
And that's the problem with America, voting for governments so idiot they can't even trust them. You're the only western country that can't trust its government, and you desserved it. If you can't trust your government to regulate OSes, you've already lost. Better luck in two or three millenia, where you may rise again. |
i wouldn't trust any government in the world with os regulation. you can see what a bang up job they did for numerous things.
let's see, what are some regulatory success stories?
ah, yes, telecommunications. but wait, in every single country that had an explosion of telecommunications, it came right after the government stopped running the phone companies.
hm, what about airlines? oh, wait, in countries that have large-scale use of their airways, it happened after the government stopped running them.
what about the telly and radio? oh, wait, in every single democratic government in the world, deregulation from the government helped create a vibrant media.
also, are you saying that other western nations trust their government? japan, skorea, and taiwan seem to have trouble doing that. britain isn't looking so hot. spain just threw out its last one. i didn't know putin was trustworthy.
you're afraid of microsoft limiting your information flow. microsoft is a private company; private companies don't have that great a track record in staunching information flows against them.
the us government is, well, a government. numerous governments have had much success limiting information flow. *cough*China*cough*, or even germany, russia, italy, skorea, taiwan, japan, britain, spain, the entire eastern bloc...
you're willing to trust something that has consistently proven to work against the good of the common man, while i am more willing to trust that the profit motive will scare them away from such behavior.
quote:
Now seriously, just make it constitutional and untouchable. "Embed" free flow of information in it. |
and we can see how well the amendments work now in the area of marriage and body rights.
quote:
BTW, you're an idiot to trust the private sector more. Why don't you give them elections, police and human rights management? |
you're a numbskull if you think i trust the private sector to any great degree. more than the government, yes. but i was one of those loudmouthed ****** who protested diebold's *****ing about how their precious secrets about how their voting software sucks was being let out. what have you done lately?
as far as police and human rights management, they're in a completely different league from software. police protection of human rights which are inalienable are things the government can do, and usually does do rather well. ensuring that the libraries are stocked with uncensored copies of incindinary books and allowing people to check them out without noting it on their records, well, that's something governments don't do so well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:34
|
|
By the way, even the DOJ thinks the EU ruling is lame. 
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04...critique_1.html
quote:
DOJ criticizes EU's ruling on Microsoft
Commission's order could stifle innovation, antitrust chief says
By Joris Evers, IDG News Service March 25, 2004
The European Commission's order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could stifle innovation and help Microsoft's rivals instead of promoting fair competition, the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust chief said Wednesday.
Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate in a statement also said the record €497.2 million ($613 million) fine levied on Microsoft by the European Commission (EC) is "unfortunate." It surpasses fines the Commission has imposed on price-fixing cartels and that may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities, Pate said.
The U.S. government fought its own antitrust battle with Microsoft, a case that was filed in 1998 and settled in 2002. Although the government proposed a breakup of Microsoft, it never proposed that Microsoft remove any part of Windows and for a reason, Pate said.
"Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences," Pate said. "Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it."
The U.S. settlement with Microsoft provides "clear and effective protection" for competition and consumers by preventing misconduct by Microsoft that would inhibit competition in the area of middleware applications such as the Web browser and the media player, Pate said.
"The U.S. experience tells us that the best antitrust remedies eliminate impediments to the healthy functioning of competitive markets without hindering successful competitors or imposing burdens on third parties, which may result from the EC's remedy," he said.
The U.S. continues to be active in its enforcement of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and this work has resulted in substantial changes to Microsoft's business practices, according to Pate.
The EC's decision to require Microsoft to share details of the technologies used by its server products to communicate with Windows clients is similar to the U.S. approach to curtail Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior, Pate noted.
"Like the U.S. decree, the EC decision appears to focus on providing competing software developers with the opportunity to build products that communicate and interoperate with Windows-based PCs. The details of the EC's requirements on this point remain to be seen," he said.
Despite the criticism -- or "divergence" as Pate calls it -- the U.S. and the European Union have a good relationship on competition matters, he said.
The European Commission earlier on Wednesday at the close of a five-year investigation into the Microsoft's business practices in Europe ruled that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist. The Commission fined Microsoft and ordered the company to offer a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player software within 90 days and disclose within 120 days the details of the software interfaces used by its products to communicate with Windows.
Microsoft will challenge the ruling, a process that could keep the battle rumbling until 2009, it said. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
i wouldn't trust any government in the world with os regulation. you can see what a bang up job they did for numerous things.
|
Not hard at all, just pass strict privacy laws *ahem, no DRM*.
quote:
let's see, what are some regulatory success stories?
ah, yes, telecommunications. but wait, in every single country that had an explosion of telecommunications, it came right after the government stopped running the phone companies. |
Yeah. How popular were cellphones in the 80s already? And how good is outsourcing to India? and what about the workers who lost their union? and did you know that while international rates went down, local rates skyrocketed (well, in Canada and Europe, from what I can attest).
quote:
hm, what about airlines? oh, wait, in countries that have large-scale use of their airways, it happened after the government stopped running them.
|
No one was flying in the 80s. But as we all know, privatizations has created a huge forward pressure on salaries and service, not talking about passenger space.
quote:
what about the telly and radio? oh, wait, in every single democratic government in the world, deregulation from the government helped create a vibrant media.
|
 that's the best one. Why don't we ask Putin, Berlusconi, or even Rupert Murdoch?
quote:
also, are you saying that other western nations trust their government? japan, skorea, and taiwan seem to have trouble doing that. britain isn't looking so hot. spain just threw out its last one. i didn't know putin was trustworthy.
you're afraid of microsoft limiting your information flow. microsoft is a private company; private companies don't have that great a track record in staunching information flows against them.
|
Yeah, the government can't run a airline, so it shouldn't enforce privacy rights. 
quote:
the us government is, well, a government. numerous governments have had much success limiting information flow. *cough*China*cough*, or even germany, russia, italy, skorea, taiwan, japan, britain, spain, the entire eastern bloc...
you're willing to trust something that has consistently proven to work against the good of the common man, while i am more willing to trust that the profit motive will scare them away from such behavior.
|
How is the government going to monitor you, if it passes a law forbidding corporations to do it? You make it unconstitutional for everyone. That's the point: the companies don't get it, the government won't neither. That is, unless they send their police-coders and force Microsoft to do it. 
quote:
you're a numbskull if you think i trust the private sector to any great degree. more than the government, yes. but i was one of those loudmouthed ****** who protested diebold's *****ing about how their precious secrets about how their voting software sucks was being let out. what have you done lately? |
Last time I protested, I was arrested because someone in the crowd had a molotov cocktail made with an empty plastic bottle. Apparently I'm a dangerous anarchist or something like this.
quote:
as far as police and human rights management, they're in a completely different league from software. police protection of human rights which are inalienable are things the government can do, and usually does do rather well. ensuring that the libraries are stocked with uncensored copies of incindinary books and allowing people to check them out without noting it on their records, well, that's something governments don't do so well. |
No. The Internet and software is the best way ever to monitor the population. What do you think I fear? Do I care if Microsoft makes an advertising profile for me? not much. What I fear is M$ teaming with the government to share DRM info- what are my books, my writings, my e-mails, etc.
Stop M$ before the governments are tempted. That means pressuringt them right now.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Not hard at all, just pass strict privacy laws *ahem, no DRM*. |
again, i don't see what's wrong with drm.
quote:
Yeah. How popular were cellphones in the 80s already? And how good is outsourcing to India? and what about the workers who lost their union? and did you know that while international rates went down, local rates skyrocketed (well, in Canada and Europe, from what I can attest). |
cellphones were popular for yuppies, but were unable to acheive nearly the same amount of market penetration that they do now.
outsource to india? personally, i don't think it's that bad of a problem. what's good for india and what's good for trade is good for the country. i'm unapologetic about my faith in the free market.
unions? unions are good for keeping the companies in balance, bad when they shoot themselves in the foot: case in point, that dumbass United mechanic's union, whose refusal to cooperate with management forced united to declare bankruptcy. it was the only union to refuse.
and local rates? on land lines, sure. but if you have a cell phone, i fail to see the issue.
quote:
No one was flying in the 80s. But as we all know, privatizations has created a huge forward pressure on salaries and service, not talking about passenger space. |
more people were flying the 80s than had cell phones. try again.
quote:
that's the best one. Why don't we ask Putin, Berlusconi, or even Rupert Murdoch? |
1. putin is government. he's the very definition of a moscow insider. try again.
2. berlusconi is again government. he does own some media outlets, but again, he's a rome insider. try again.
3. rupert murdoch doesn't have a media monopoly anywhere in the world. try again.
quote:
Yeah, the government can't run a airline, so it shouldn't enforce privacy rights. |
hey genius, i had no idea you had such trouble reading my engrish. the government has a nasty habit of treading on privacy rights when it feels threatened, therefore should not be given as much leeway as you seem pleased to give it.
quote:
How is the government going to monitor you, if it passes a law forbidding corporations to do it? You make it unconstitutional for everyone. That's the point: the companies don't get it, the government won't neither. That is, unless they send their police-coders and force Microsoft to do it. |
1. i recall reading something about something called echelon, which did something like listening to some people's things or some such. i suppose it's not very important.
2. technically, companies can't invade foreign countries, but the government can. just because personal freedoms are enshrined in the constitution doesn't mean that the government--or corporations, for that matter--will follow them. besides, it's already been established by the courts that the companies can monitor what is done on their hardware on their clock. try again.
3. you have a double negative there. "companies don't get it, the government won't neither" means that the companies don't, but the government will. small, nitpicky point.
quote:
No. The Internet and software is the best way ever to monitor the population. What do you think I fear? Do I care if Microsoft makes an advertising profile for me? not much. What I fear is M$ teaming with the government to share DRM info- what are my books, my writings, my e-mails, etc.
Stop M$ before the governments are tempted. That means pressuringt them right now. |
this clearly shows that you don't quite understand drm.
drm=digital rights management, meaning that if you buy something, there's proof you paid for it. it does not mean that it keeps track of your writings and your e-mails. it does not censor what you read. it does not censor what you download, nor what you send.
stop the government before it gets tempted, no matter who the company is in charge.
look, what it boils down to is this: microsoft isn't a knight in shining armor, and they're definitely not a good force in the computing world, but they sure as hell aren't the bad guy.
i'm curious, what platform are you posting from? if you're that worried about microsoft domination of your information flow, i suggest migrating to linux. poly's safe because it's apache on unix, which is not-microsoft. i'd stay away from apple, because you seem terrified of drm, or at least your concept of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
There was a thread on this not long ago. Ashcroft was publicly favorable to a bill that would outlaw any computer with no TCPA chip in it that would allow real time monitoring of every user. |
(sigh)
no, not quite.
drm != tcpa.
and ashcroft wasn't talking about the tcpa at all in that bill, but rather that he wants all carriers of telecommunications to make their software have backdoors. this would be people like verizon, bellsouth, att, and so on. he also wanted backdoors into other software, too, like windows. this has little to do with tcpa.
so, now i'm absolutely mystified. you're more scared of microsoft, which has thus far shown no inclination to do such things, while wanting to trust the government, which has?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
QCubed, I see the very nature of your idiocy. Obviously my point is government will monitor with the help of consumer products. That's what the FBI wants to do.
So before you lecture me about ECHELON, tell me: would there be anything like this if the people had stood up against it in the first place?
Stop OS monopolies, stop the alliance between corporations and neocons to monitor the world. Both are LINKED. So instead of lecturing me on dictatorships, tell, me, why should you be opposed to a regulation that would forbid the exact opposite of what you denounce? Because, of course, when a government passes a regulation it means the opposite in the law books? Why don't you encourage that the rest of the free world, which for the most part doesn't have anything like the NSA and Echelon, take the steps RIGHT NOW to avoid it, and moreover avoid electronic surveillance?
And your statement about Berlusconi and Putin show how sadly clueless you are. Neocon government=corporation. That was my point. Bush, Berlusconi and Putin are pretty much demonstrating it. We call them the new oligarchs. They run the media, the World Bank, etc, they have billions in overseas account (maybe not Bush, though).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I find it so fascinating that you've built your whole arguments consistently on what you think will "obviously" happen in the future.
"Obviously", TCPA, which is designed to use hardware to protect data, is somehow going to monitor user's actions. Obviously, "M$" is going to have something to do with this.
"Obviously", since DRM may in the future use TCPA, it is evil...
That's some stellar logic. You must study under Agathon. |
OK. First, I know that TCPA != DRM, that's fine. TCPA will be its natural extension, though; it will do DRM and more.
BTW, didn't you know that the US authorities are interested in the Google bar spyware to get info about the population? If there's a buck to be made, or some backdoor political reward with it, why should Google refuse?
Do you really think there would be no advantage for a corporation to control as much as it can? If there is a buck to be made, M$ will be part of it. It's not even likely: that would be their DUTY towards the shareholders.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Once again.
TCPA is, and will be, independent of the internet.
Comparing this to the Google Bar, which has to be connected to the internet is absurd.
You've got no case whatsoever into saying TCPA will somehow report all activity to Microsoft. You've not even tried making a case, which is the sad part, yet you assume it's already proven or something.
TCPA is hardware-based local security. It's based on public-key cryptography and drivers in the software. It's like PGP, but more advanced and harder to crack. Somehow equating this to some spyware thing is incredibly stupid. |
 First they put the chip in it. They slowly increase its power. In the spawn of, maybe, 8, 13, 19 years, it becomes related to the Internet, and it's fine because everyone has been used to it.
Of course, the ultimate goal of any DRM is to report activity on anything with a copyright to a central server. Who with a buck to make would settle for less?
My point from the beginning has been: they will someday, unless we prevent them. Wouldn't you be delighted, as CEO of Microsoft, if you could have a way to monitor so that piracy becomes impossible, and to have yourself backed by the government while doing this?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2004 12:07
|