Subject:
|
Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:32:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper,
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:04:24 GMT, "Scott E. Sanburn"
> <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote:
> > Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> > > So now antitrust laws are bad too?
> Irrelevant to a court case. The law is the law, and if it is being
> broken, it must be prosecuted. Not just ignorerd because some
> politicians feel the law is unjust.
Well, considering the law in this case is something crafted against
monopolies, which IMHO, Microsoft did not do. When you lower prices on
items, and produce a product, instead of raising prices, it is bad law.
I think this whole case is government going after companies which they
do not like. It is a political case, not a law breaking case.
>
> How would you feel if the second was effectively repealed in the way
> you're apparently trying to get the antitrust laws to effectively be
> repealed?
I don't know what you are asking here. If it is truly an monopoly case
or whatever, go for it. I don't think it was. It was all politics. The
Justice department has been out of control, doing things it was never
intended to, run by a woman who should not be there and an
Administration that favors political minorities over qualifications.
Janet Reno should have been ousted a long time ago, and shame on the
Republican majority that did not do so. (I.E. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.)
this whole Microsoft thing is the same.
> > government being totally out of control. I wonder if they are going to
> > go after LEGO, for being a monopoly of building bricks, too. I will
>
> But it isn't. Lego is not a monopoly, and what's a lot more important,
> it doesn't do monopolistic practices.
That was just a joke, BTW!
> It doesn't force toyshops to
> sell a lego set with every playmobil castle sold if they want to sell
> lego at all, they don't make "additional sets" that are completely
> useless without the basic set, and use unpublished hooks to hold the
> additional sets and the basic set together.
Well, that is another area, I was referring to the Justice Department
going after Microsoft for a Monopoly. The market made Microsoft what it
is today, brought about by the need for a standard. If Microsoft did do
some things wrong, that is one thing, as mentioned above. I don't think
they have.
Tell me a product that does better than Microsoft, who can compete with
them, and have all the software to support it. UNIX? Linux? Computer
software is an instance where you need a universal standard. An IBM-PC
Clone and Microsoft are it. I have been working on computers since I was
4, and I can remember the days when there was IBM DOS, Radio Shack DOS,
OS/2, Apple IIe BASIC, Commodare 64, etc. etc. etc. I also remember the
nightmare of configuring boot disks, operating systems, autoexec.bat and
config.sys, for multiple software packages just to run it. A total
nightmare. Microsoft came in, and took care of that. I don't seem a
quarter of the time doing that anymore.
> > never forget when Janet Reno, and the prosecuting attorney were up to
> > the press conference, smiling, almost in sheer joy announcing this
> > verdict.
>
> And well she should be. Microsoft has been doing Evil things.
Oh yes, "EVIL" things. It makes me really sad when people, such as you,
are HAPPY when the government can effectively destroy one of the most
successful companies ever made. It is really sad.
> They've
> held the development of software back over the past 10 years, instead
> of promoting it.
Yeah, like what? All the programs I have been using for years have
vastly IMPROVED since the Microsoft Windows standard came into place,
like AutoCad, for instance. And others.
> That wouldn't be so bad if our society didn't depend
> on computers like it does, but as it is, Microsoft is responsible for
> a big part of the slump in productivity increase over the past years.
How? I don't see this, I see a boom in software readiness and
reliability, and better and faster programs. Maybe you are referring to
something I don't notice.
> > These people don't even know how to use computers half the
> > time, but somehow they can find Microsoft guilty? I don't think so!
>
> "These people" meaning who?
Well, lets see, Al Gore "Whose FINGER do you want on the
CONTROL-ALT-DELETE Button, for starters. The judge in this case, when it
started (Saw it on CNN), had to have the attorneys demonstrate how to
operate and use a computer. And yet he is supposed to understand the
dynamics of this case? I'm sorry, that is a factor to consider.
> The judge? If you're saying he doesn't
> know how to use computers, and how that is relevant to the case, I'd
> like to see documentation.
See above.
Well, Jasper, leftists like you seem to be in love with the idea of
government officials blasting away at corporations for anything, from
the environment, to wages, etc. but for me, it is a scary presedent, and
when Big Brother comes knocking on your door, don't come crying to me.
This whole case was involving, initially, Microsofts addition of
Internet Explorer to the Windows 95 / 98 platform, started by Microsofts
competitors, namely Sun Microsystems, Netscape, and Corell
(Wordperfect). The presidents of these firms also happen to be big
contributors to the DNC and Clinton / Gore. Then it just happens to find
Microsoft doing all these "EVIL" things, as you see. It's politics and
government interference, plain and simple. Not cracking down on "EVIL"
Corporations doing "EVIL" things. Selling out to the CHI-Comm's, adn
giving them nuclear ballistic missile technology, I consider that EVIL.
Scott S.
________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn -> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Work Email ->
ssanburn@aeieng.com
Systems Administrator / CAD Operator - Affiliated Engineers, Inc ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| (...) You used this as your SIG at one point, and I commented on it elsewhere, but since you bring it up here I thought I'd throw in an observation from a Moderate's viewpoint. Obviously Al is alluding to the nuclear "red button" of the Cold War (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| (...) IIRC (and I am pretty darn sure I am), he had them demonstrate how a computer could function/not function with out IE installed. Again, IIRC, the Microsoft attorneys couldn't demonstrate conclusively that removing IE had any adverse effects. (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| (...) Microsoft has 80%+ market share in the consumer OS market. It is _by_bloody_definition_ a monopoly. (...) Amendment, BTW. (...) Kenn Starr should have been fired a long time before all the trouble started. If I didn't know better, I'd think he (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
| (...) Irrelevant to a court case. The law is the law, and if it is being broken, it must be prosecuted. Not just ignorerd because some politicians feel the law is unjust. How would you feel if the second was effectively repealed in the way you're (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
