Steve Schacher

quote:Some moron asked if he thought it was fair that US troops were firing on the retreating Taliban forces. What ever happened to the cliche "All is fair in love and war?"

quote:As I recall, monopolies stifle innovation. That's why they're frowned upon. Yes, Microsoft invented the Word format. Yes, they have proprietary rights to it. The problem is that the Word format has become a de facto standard on the Windows platform. I'll explain why that's a legal issue in the next paragraph. I must have missed the explanation. What paragraph are you refering to? Word becoming a de facto standard is not a problem to me. It is the market choosing. I remember when WordPerfect was a dominant word processor. They couldn't sustain the market because the GUI wasn't there or they couldn't get it there fast enough. How well did WordPerfect integrate with Lotus 1-2-3 (wasn't that the spreadsheet)? quote:Does Microsoft's anti-competition practices constitute antitrust due to its monopoly? That is the heart of the question. If a company makes a suite of products, is it within its rights to make those products as compatible with each other as possible? If I buy Word, Excel, Access, and Powerpoint, don't I want to be able to share content with each tool as easily as possible? Do I have an obligation or legal requirement to make the content shareable with Lotus Notes too? Why would I want to do anything to make a competitor's product more desirable than my own? There is a difference between unfair business practices and good business. If I make a computer that runs some software better than other software, then some people might buy that computer and some may not. If I make a computer that runs all software equally well, then chances are that the market will decide that that computer is a better deal than one with performance limitations. If I write software that works better with other software of mine, and if people want that softare and don't need other competitive software, is that my fault or is that good business? Now, if I collude or coerce manufactures to put barriers in place to prevent fair competition, that is not good, and is illegal. But if I don't do that, if I simply make a product that more people want than the competitors do, then that's tough luck on the competitors. How come you don't see many buggy whip manufacturers anymore? Because people don't want the product anymore. Is that the fault of the automotive industry? Was Ford's monopoly the reason that buggy whip manufacturers went out of business? quote:That's because Microsoft designed Explorer as the default file management app for the Windows desktop environment. The desktop environment has been integrated with the kernel, thus ensuring that any competing desktop environment is incompatible with software written for the OS (Norton Navigator doesn't count because it's just an extension of the Windows desktop). There's nothing wrong with providing a desktop environment for convenience, but when it's coded specifically to prevent other desktop software from working by a monopolistic developer, it becomes a probable antitrust practice. I don't agree with this either. It's just building a better product. Now, if Microsoft colluded with Intel and AMD to make an instruction set that only ran Microsoft software, then you'd be onto something. But just making better software because you've been at it longer and built up a better library of routines, well, call it better planning, better design, better management of your long-range business plan, but don't call it anti-trust. No one has a "right" to a market. Successful companies have gone out of business when the landscape changed from under them. Look at the railroads. Look at the post office. The only thing that companies have a right to expect is fair business practices, meaning that companies follow the accepted accounting protocals, that companies do not engage in predatory pricing, that companies do not undermine other companies' business relationships, etc. But this does not include companies making a better product or making a product that more people want or perceive to be better, or at least perceive to be better for them. [ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Here's a column by Michael Kelly of the Washington Post entitled All-Negative, All the Time An excerpt: quote:"Good evening, and welcome to 'All Is Lost,' the nightly public affairs program produced by National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp. Tonight we discuss what has been called America's war against terror. I am your host, Perfectly Modulated Voice of Reason. "With me, in our Washington studio, are: Fabled Newsman Who Was There When Saigon Fell . . . Scientifically Trained Impartial Scholar . . . and Bureau Chief of Second-Rate Regional Monopoly Newspaper Who Is Desperate to Be Hired by the New York Times. From London, we are joined by our European affairs analyst, Loathes America and Prays for Its Swift Destruction. "First, today's war news...

quote:To those saying that "capitalism" is good and that this encourages competitors to make a better product I say: You CANT get into the OS market vs microsoft. quote:Let's examine those choices more carefully. You can buy a computer that has Windows or DOS in it, or you can not buy a computer at all. Some choice. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the choices were offered and taken decades ago (sorry if you all missed out on voicing your opinion when it mattered). The marketplace settled on its OS; trying to introduce a new one now is an exercise in futility. Therefore, decrying the lack of choices now is not a fault of Microsoft being a monopoly, its the reason that Microsoft became a monopoly. Their product won the consumer base, and Microsoft was rewarded with the business. It's called success, and most entrepeneurs strive for it. It's a shame that we feel compelled to tear people down once they "make it." quote:Go to Add/Remove programs in the control panel. Click on the Windows Setup tab. There's your list. If you double click on the Accessories option with the check mark you can pull out Word Pad and Paint along with a host of other programs. Also, check your filetype associations. This is where you indicate what program is launched when you click on a filetype. If you don't want Wordpad or Notepad to launch on .txt files, then change the association for .txt files to something else. [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:There is a big difference between a patent and a de facto standard. Imagine if a drug company imposed aspirin as the proprietary de facto standard for relieving headaches. That company could then coerce pharmacists into selling aspirin as the exclusive headache reliever. The result is that competitors who produce more effective drugs like paracetamol can't sell it. Consumers who go into those pharmacies will see that only aspirin is available, thus it is the only choice. Well, first off, aspirin is not the de facto standard for headaches (dare I say acetaminophen, ibuprofen?). We can imagine all sorts of horrors and then put preventative measures in place to stop them before they happen. Secondly, nobody is proposing any de facto standard when it comes to biologicals. I'm talking about computer software. The coercion aspect seems less diabolical when we're discussing personal computers rather than than personal medication. I don't believe that corporate boards think in such ways when they develop their business plans. quote:When you have a majority of games that use Direct3D as the exclusive API for 3D acceleration, you have a large number of consumers that are not being served because they use competing OSes. How can you have a majority of games on the market, and at the same time have a large number of consumers who are not being served? Are we talking 51%-49%? quote:It's like having a television that only receives 1 out of 4 networks because it's not a specific brand. Do you have one of those? You're arguing a theoretical extreme that hasn't happened yet. On the one hand, we can accept the scenario as one in a realm of possibilites and therefore put protective measures in place, or we can wait for it to happen and then put punitive measures in place. quote:The solution would be to engineer an equivalent DX API for the other OSes, but Microsoft not only refuses to do it, it also prevents others from doing it because it would threaten the monopoly. Who is engineering it? There are billions of people on this planet. Who else is doing this? How is Microsoft stopping this from happening? This sounds like trying to build a better mousetrap. quote:No. The monopoly was given to Microsoft by IBM and other PC manufacturers when those companies collaborated to push DOS as the de facto standard OS by bundling it in its OEMs. Who is IBM? My name is Steve Schacher. How did IBM give them the monopoly when I chose whether or not to purchase the product? Sure, you can argue that my choices were limited, but one choice was to walk away and not buy at all. Therefore, I must have perceived some value to me in the exchange. -------------------------- I must be in one of my moods tonight, because I was going to go through this and dissect it line by line, word by word. But as I was going through it, I was growing more and more weary. I decided to stop, and try again tomorrow after reading the whole thing in its entire context -- you lose the holistic message when you parse it into its smallest parts. But then I said to myself, Myself, I wrote some damn good stuff! And I don't want to just delete it! So I'm posting what I wrote to this point. Don't flame me for it. I'm tired and I'm going to go to bed.

Kenada: LOL! But you're absolutely right. What Microsoft has done is overcome what happened during the Beta-VHS wars. Can you imagine what the PC-world would be like if we went through that again? [ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

How is Microsoft's controlling of proprietary property any different from drug companies protecting the patents on their formulas? If MS wrote its software (or acquired it through buyouts/mergers), then why shouldn't they be entitled to recoup the R&D costs by not allowing competitors to copy the code and make knock-off software (like generic drugs)? Microsoft, in my opinion, is a legal monopoly due to the fact that the market gave them the monopoly through their purchases. Yes, Microsoft was strong-arming manufacturers to bundle their browsers for a while, but they're past that. If that is their only "crime," then breaking them up is a punishment that does not fit the crime. Make them pay a fine if we must, but breaking them up is revenge, not punishment. If they are so hated, then why do people line up at midnight to buy their latest software? It has to be more than advertising hype (unless the fact that they're lining up at midnight is the hype). Also, where's the harm? The government tried to make the argument that innovation was being stifled because of Microsoft's monopoly, but wasn't Microsoft still being innovative? How do you explain the PC revolution without the fact that Microsoft had an operating system that was sufficient for most consumers? We can argue theoretical innovations that didn't take place due to Microsoft, but we could also argue innovations that did happen. Who's to say that one actual innovation was or wasn't worth the innovations that never happened? Who's to say that theoritcal innovations that didn't happen, didn't happen because the other startups were mismanaged, or didn't have the capital to see the venture through? I don't think the consumers were harmed by Microsoft being a monopoly. I think it's just the opposite -- consumers have been served. I also remember the government trying to make a case around the fact that they were being charged something like $85/copy for Windows when Microsoft said the production cost was something like $45. The government felt that they should have only been charged the $45, therfore Microsoft was "gouging" them (the government loves that word). I'm rambling now, since these thoughts are coming at me in random order. I'll stop now. [ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

I do agree with the strict definition of an OS. It is the software/firmware necessary to operate the computer as a machine, not to run the computer software that people want their computers for. I'm trying to evolve the definition of OS by evolving the definition of a peripheral, while at the same time preserving the boundaries between operating system software and application software. The difference between the browser and Excel (or Quicken or games) is that it is not an application per se, but a utility whose purpose is to communicate with servers across all platforms. It allows your local PC to exchange content with (or launch applications on) other PCs connected to the network. If the network is a peripheral (not just the ethernet card in your PC, but the other ethernet cards on the other networked PCs as well), then why wouldn't the software that makes this happen be considered an extension/expansion of the OS?

quote:I'm not trying to "win" anything here. I just like the discussion. Me, too. Think about a human body. We all have appendices, but we don't need them anymore. We probably have things that we didn't have earlier, and that we can live without, but that make our bodies healthier. Are they "essential" to the original design of the body? Maybe not. Does that diminish their value to the body? Does that alter the minimum definition of what the body is? (I know, it's a weak argument, but I don't have the medical background to give a specific example of biologically recent evolution to make my case, but I hope you get my point). Anyway, I've made my point, I'm just playing now.

Dying a natural death... The judge was removed because of bias. The natural conclusion is that the punishment (splitting up the company) was excessive because of said bias. The fact that the states are accepting settlements in lieu of breaking up MS, plus the fact that a Republican administration is not pushing the issue, is in my opinion, the natural death. On the definition of the OS: I can go either way. I'm taking the evolutionary perspective. The definition that I presented (and you agreed with) is the textbook definition. However, how does one factor in the enhancements to the Pentium processor that Intel made specifically for browser multimedia performance? The CPU is the heart of the computer. The CPU has an instruction set designed specifically for the performance of the web. Does that not make the web a peripheral to the CPU? Why, then, have special instructions designed specifically for it? Remember when RISC (reduced instruction set computing) microchips first came out? That was also an enhanced processor that was designed to optimize the instruction set in order to boost performance for mostly scientific processing. I am making the argument that when the CPU is altered specifically to compensate for peripheral processing rather than letting application software accomodate the peripheral, then that peripheral processing becomes a part of the operating system. Since web processing is accounted for by changes to the CPU, I argue that the web (nee internet) has now evolved to be a peripheral managed by the operating system.

Well, this is an interesting topic. Microsoft was guilty of having a product that everyone wanted. You can't fault them for that, since that is what a market-based economy is all about. So what if Microsoft saw that Netscape nurtured the browser market to the point where it was viable enough for a dominant product to take over. IBM did this with the PC, waiting to see if the market would develop before venturing into it with the AT (I think), and it revitalized them. The complaint against Microsoft was that they used unfair business practices by bundling their browser with their operating system and then forced the PC manufacturers to include their browser if they wanted the OS. If there was a violation of anti-trust laws, it was the forcing of the browser, not the domination of the marketplace that was at issue. There are two kinds of monopolies: one is when the marketplace rewards a successful product by their purchases, and the other is when a company absorbs or puts out of business (through predatory pricing) all the competitors. The former is considered okay, the latter is illegal. Remember when the Japanese were dumping microchips on the US market below cost in order to drive out American chipmakers? That was predatory pricing. Microsoft didn't do that, but the bundling thing came close. However, one can take an evolutionary perspective and say "what is an operating system?" The classical definition is that an OS is what lets the CPU talk to the peripherals. Everything else is application software. In the old days, the peripherals were memory, the video screen, the storage devices, the input devices, the output devices, the network, and perhaps the IPL. Today, the network has been expanded to include the internet and the world-wide-web. Can the internet be considered a peripheral to the computer? If the internet is a peripheral device, then the software necessary to access the internet could be considered as operating system software, especially if the OS (and the CPU in recent models) is optimized to communicate with it. If that is the case, then one can argue that browser software that is optimized to run with the operating system is a Good Thing, since all one is doing is expanding the operating system to enhance the performance of yet another peripheral to your computer. The marketplace has already said that simpler computer operation and integrated software suites are preferred over separate software packages that must be configured to run with other separate software packages. Most users are not computer scientists (as evidenced by the recent computer training software commercials on TV), and they just want to buy a computer and have it work when they turn it on. Personally, I believe that the whole thing was a Democrat plot to knock Gates down a peg or two because he wasn't "spreading the wealth" to the elite's satisfaction. I posted a history of Gates' political donations that began only after the suit was filed, and made to mostly Democrat organizations, but they were on the old board and are no longer accessible. I'm glad to see this die a natural death.

quote:All these 'third world' countries crying because all their people are staraving Check out this Associated Press story, Zimbabwe Evicts 1,000 White Farmers Here's an excerpt: quote:The Zimbabwean government on Monday banned 1,000 white farmers from cultivating their fields and gave them three months to vacate their homes as part of its "fast track" land redistribution plan. The government has targeted 5,000 white-owned commercial farms, about 95 percent of all farms owned by whites, for seizure and redistribution to landless blacks. In a government gazette released Monday, President Robert Mugabe invoked special powers forcing the 1,000 farmers who had already received notification their land was being seized to stop all work on it, regardless of whether they had crops waiting to be harvested or appeals of the seizures pending in court. They were given three months to leave their houses. Lands and Agriculture Minister Joseph Made said the government would begin allocating plots on the farms to 51,000 black families. Zimbabwe, which normally runs large food surpluses, is now facing serious food shortages. The United Nations World Food Program announced last week plans to begin a large-scale aid program next month to assist more than half a million hungry Zimbabweans. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Kofi Annan. And, no, I'm not kidding. How many countries are there, about 190 or so? Annan is from Ghana. The UN is going to do what the UN will do, so let's get them out of the USA where they can do what they will do without the safe harbor of the United States to back them. Maybe if they were headquarted in Afghanistan, things would be different in the UN. I think the UN diplomats rather like the luxury of living in New York City. Maybe living in Kabul (or whatever would take its place), would be humbling. Then New York can turn the United Nations building into low-rent housing for the homeless, or perhaps a new World Trade Center. Did you know that the United Nations building has its own submarine facility right there on the East River?

quote:What Adolf Hitler did was brilliantly evil. He took a minority (Knowing that a majority usually has more power) and made them scapegoats. He gave the people a common enemy to unite them. This sounds a lot like Clinton's triangulation strategy. Clinton would pit one group against another and then claim the middle ground.

Here's what I think: After we're done in Afghanistan, we should relocate all the survivors into temporary housing and then rebuild the flatland into a new modern city. This city should be named United Nations City and become the new home of the United Nations. Then the UN can relocate out of New York City and into a region that is centrally located between Europe, Asia, and Africa, in the heart of an historically troubled region. Either do away with Afghanistan completely and divide the land amongst the bordering countries, or create a new international United Nations zone that is independent of any nation and occupies the former Afghanistan. Either way, the UN moves out of New York City. Think of jobs for the people of Afghanistan. They can learn the construction business like Bin Laden did, or they can learn service-related skills to support the new businesses that will emerge. Bringing the UN to that region will offer a wealth of possibilities to the locals, as well as create a new "World Diplomatic Center" that is more easily accessible accessible to many people.

quote:Just one question: How does Shabazz get so much publicity if the so-called 'liberal media' ignore his entire forum? I did not say 'liberal media,' at least not in this thread. Both conservative and liberal media are giving him publicity. They're using him, the media, that is. That's the simple answer. Shabazz has to think that he's getting something out of it by going on the air. He know's what they're going to say to him. He know's how he's going to come across, especially with those goons standing behind him whenever he's on TV. People like Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes also have to think that they're getting something out of it. I don't know if it's The Scoop, or The Exclusive, or just the chance to show everyone what side they're on. The media control the cameras, so in the end it will be the media's purpose that will weigh the most in deciding who get's what publicity.

quote:Maybe I should create a similar thread for the Australian Federal Election that's coming up. Maybe you should. Then we would really see how Ameri-centric we all really are. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Good one. In both cases, the winner only had a plurality, not a majority of the voters. Looking back, you can really see what a difference that makes.

The problem, as I see it, is that this event was held at the National Press Club in Washington. That forum has always been used for thoughtful speech and debate between journalists and invited guests. Having Shabazz and his crowd at that forum gives it a sense of legitimacy that is troubling. I do agree that Shabazz has the right to free speech and the right to assemble, but organizations don't have to go out of their way to enable him to exercise his rights. For the journalism profession to be mostly silent about this after letting him use their favorite speech forum, says a lot. People are still shy about publicly confronting certain "protected" groups, and may be reluctant to criticize Shabazz openly. That may be why he gets the publicity that he does, because there is no loud, national opposition voice to challenge him. The extremes of Political Correctness.

quote:Imagine if the USA had three major candidates instead of two, and one of them got 36 percent while the others got 25 percent (the smaller parties always get some of the votes). Bill Clinton, because of Ross Perot. The numbers are different, but the concept is the same.

And of course, Majel Barrett played two characters in TOS, Deanna's mother in TNG and DS9, and the computer voice in all.

Diana Muldaur also played the blind woman in the TOS episode with the ambassador who makes you go mad by looking at him.

Jaguar, That the Weyun dude that Badgerius is talking about. The Vorta clones.

quote:The guy who played Weyoun also played like 2 other characters in DS9. I believe he only played one other character -- the Ferengi Tax Collector who was always after Quark. There was the one episode where Sisko dreamed he was a sci-fi writer in the 1950's. In that episode, all the actors played conventional characters without their usual make-up -- perhaps that is the other character you are thinking of? Star Trek has always had a history of reusing actors. It's kind of like a family tradition. Voyager had the episode where Tuvok and Paris were stranded on the planet with an atmospheric barrier that speeds up time and they met a woman who helps them escape. Remember how the episode began with a flashback to Tuvok as a child receiving training from a Vulcan priest? That priest was played by the same actor who played the slave master in TOS where Kirk, Checkov and Uhura were training to fight on Triskellian where the brains in the bubbles were wagering on the outcome.

quote:A free copy of original everquest full and everything. I'm not saying thats a bad thing. But all i think this is a evil ploy to get newbie gamers in there grasp. Uhhh... Didn't Derek do the exact same thing when he released BC3K v1.07 to the public for free? For Derek, it was to reclaim his reputation, but releasing the original version for free was a strategy that worked.