:-P On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Rod Trent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yep…probably just shoulda let the thread die. Just sayin’… > > > > *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2009 6:46 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: BS: Microsoft leads browsers in malware, phishing defense > > > > I really, really thought long and hard about sending this response. > Ultimately, I decided it was important, not to refute your contentions, > which I do (that's a bonus) :-), but to call on Mr. Buff to ask him to stop > bring political ideology into these discussions. > > > > I'm really sick and tired of this misguided right wing conservative > BUNK (theory) that markets are always efficient and government intervention > is always bad. Recent circumstances PROVE that markets are NOT efficient > and a lack of government intetervention because of DEregulation (repeal of > Glass-Stegall) was bad. That's my first point of contention with your > email. > > > > My second point of contention is with your intimation that Microsoft is not > a monopoly or that laws limiting monopolies are "smelly stuff". Microsoft's > OS's are on ~90%+ of computers (1). Wikipedia defines a monopoly as: > Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic > competition<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition>for the > good <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_(economics)> or > service<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics)>that they provide > and a lack of viable substitute > goods <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good>. I'll leave it as an > exercise to the reader as to how one supplier or a few suppliers of a > particular good is bad but will point to the oil industry and OPEC and the > summer of 2007 as a possible example. > > > > Finally, I'm calling you out. It was 7 hours after the comment was made, > one might consider the thread dead. You added nothing technical or material > to the discussion. You chose not to demonstrate or prove how Microsoft > isn't a monopoly, yet took the opportunity to make clear how you felt about > anti-trust laws. This also isn't the first time that you revived a "dead" > thread to make a political comment. On August 15th, after Stu had asked the > list members to cease commenting on the Salaries thread you sent an email > three days after all discussion had ended bringing it all back to life with > nothing but your political opinion. I'm only bothering to comment at all, > because you, sir, seem to want to inject your political opinion into many > threads, but yet don't provide any basis or fact behind your opinions. > > > Here's what I hope: that some day all people, whether they are American or > otherwise realize that concentrating any power into any organization has a > risk of corrupting whether that organization is government or a corporation, > and when you combine the two you get a geometric increase in the rate of > corruption (example, see the past 8 years and currently ongoing). > > > > (1) http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp > > > > Yes, I am completely aware that I am responding to this thread over an > hour after your email appeared (it was initially just a few minutes) and > potentially keeping the thread alive. I am not afraid to debate, but it's > quite clear that you and I are diametrically opposed on the ideological > spectrum and will likely not change each other's minds. Further, I find > your quote from the August 15th email referenced above from the Daily > Oklahoman to be completely true and will have what some liberals would > consider to be conservative values. I have a nuanced political ideology and > hold positions that are both liberal and conservative and depend on the > issue, much like the recently deceased Robert Novak or the esteemed former > Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who is representing gays and lesbians in their > fight against California Prop 8, and finally Theodore Roosevelt, the > Republican Preseident who is largely instrumental in developing the modern > framework of antitrust laws. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 07:15, Ben Scott<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:54 PM, John Gwinner<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Personally, I always wondered why Ford can sell cars with 'dealer > >> installed' tires (known to be fatally defective at one time), but > >> selling a PC with a browser bundled is somehow different. > > > > Because Ford does not have a monopoly on the automotive market. > > > > Microsoft got (and gets) in trouble for using its monopoly powers in > > ways which violate anti-trust laws. Not simply for shipping their > > browser with their OS, and not simply for being a monopoly, but using > > their monopoly to promote their browser. > > > > -- Ben > > Beg to differ. > > They get in trouble because they are successful, and therefore the > antitrust laws are applied to them. Antitrust laws are a crock of > smelly stuff. > > I'm no fan of MSFT, but the antitrust laws that it, and Intel, and > others, have been slammed with are unjust and unAmerican. I expect > this, unfortunately, of the EU, but hope some day that the Americans > will wake up and learn that freedom is their friend, not the > government. > > Kurt > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
