The Sinister Microsoft
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Revolting. I have to learn how to use Linux more than I currently do. Bunch of bastards. This should be a lesson to all the clueless pro-capitalist ignorants out there. Capitalism is NOT a good economical system and yes, there are alternative. Only thing lacking is will to change for the better. If people would act a bit less like lazy sheeps, tyrans like Bill Gates & Co wouldn't be allowed to do that.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The reality of all this is that Microsoft has realized that they just can't compete with Linux without the force of law. Rather than producing better technology than the free-software people can deliver - and with billions of dollars in the bank, I'm making a large and perhaps specious assumption that several thousand people working in their free time can't compete with that - Microsoft has chosen, as an organization, to change the rules with which competition takes place.
Can't use word to defame Microsoft?
Can't use VC++ to make free software?
OEMs have to pay licensing even without a Windows install?
That's all changing the rules. If Microsoft actually made their technology worth its while, those rule changes wouldn't be needed. They'd just make their products better, so compelling that there wouldn't be a reason to make a different choice.
The fact that they make those changes suggests to me that Microsoft just can't compete.
Can't use word to defame Microsoft?
Can't use VC++ to make free software?
OEMs have to pay licensing even without a Windows install?
That's all changing the rules. If Microsoft actually made their technology worth its while, those rule changes wouldn't be needed. They'd just make their products better, so compelling that there wouldn't be a reason to make a different choice.
The fact that they make those changes suggests to me that Microsoft just can't compete.
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Can someone show me where in the EULA it states that I cannot criticise MS with Office? I guess there is always Notepad lol.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
It's there.
It's also been in most of their SDKs since the late 90s. I remember seeing it in their "software agent" kit (for making your own talking paper clip) in '98.
It's also been in most of their SDKs since the late 90s. I remember seeing it in their "software agent" kit (for making your own talking paper clip) in '98.
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Has an EULA successfully been enforced by the courts? I would imagine that the simple read this and click here would hardly be binding in any serious court?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Fails miserably on the test of informed consent - that consent without which no contract is binding. It's very rare indeed to see it tested in the courts though. The last time of note was when they prosecuted a German company for selling perfectly legitimate (i.e., not pirated) copies of Windows second-hand. Breach of the EULA, the MS lawyers said. Not a binding contract, irrelevant, the German company replied.
MS not only lost the case, they got into a deal of trouble with the judge for bringing a frivolous action and had to pay costs. It was written up on The Register at the time, might be worth hunting down.
MS not only lost the case, they got into a deal of trouble with the judge for bringing a frivolous action and had to pay costs. It was written up on The Register at the time, might be worth hunting down.
It is not my intent to start a WWIII here, but I'm just curious : what are (and I presume there are at the very least another two since you used the ploral "are") the viable alternatives to capitalism ? Also, since the original statement wasn't very clear on this part, are those or some of those alternative economical systems good or at least better than capitalism?CougTek said:
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
State Monopoly Capitalism: (USSR 1919 till about 1950)
Mixed Economy: (Australia 1949 - 1980, many other places)
Facisim: (Germany 1930 - 1945, Japan 1900 - present, USA 1850 - present)
Fudalisim: (Europe 500AD - 1789AD, China 5000BC - 1900 AD)
Hunter-Gathering: (Australia 10,000BC - 1798AD, many other times and places)
Anarchism: (Red Hill Technology 1991 - present)
Tannin's legendary spelling mistakes: (1959 - present)
Mixed Economy: (Australia 1949 - 1980, many other places)
Facisim: (Germany 1930 - 1945, Japan 1900 - present, USA 1850 - present)
Fudalisim: (Europe 500AD - 1789AD, China 5000BC - 1900 AD)
Hunter-Gathering: (Australia 10,000BC - 1798AD, many other times and places)
Anarchism: (Red Hill Technology 1991 - present)
Tannin's legendary spelling mistakes: (1959 - present)
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
Ah, but you forget the ever encompassing, and always controversial: theology.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
While I won't argue that there are some elements of facism in the US government, I'd like to put forth that the better term to describe our modern government is "Oligarchy".
Although it was decidedly less so under our previous chief executive.
My gay, herbalist, druid friend has also suggested to me from time to time that the world would be a much better place if we just let women run things. Apparently Matriarchy worked pretty well for Druids.
Although it was decidedly less so under our previous chief executive.
My gay, herbalist, druid friend has also suggested to me from time to time that the world would be a much better place if we just let women run things. Apparently Matriarchy worked pretty well for Druids.
While some of the timestamps rised my eyebrows slightly (e.g. what the hell do you suppose was going on in USSR in 1951-1991? Or why do you define that Japanese fascism came about in 1900?), that's not the point. Because my question was about economical systems, not social or government - after all Coug believes capitalism sucks as an economical system!Tannin said:
Feudalism is a form of government rule. Mixed economy is
Would you like to propose any economical systems as alternatives to capitalism?
Sol
Storage is cool
HellDiver said:
Enlightened Despotism has always been a favorite of mine.
Failing that we could give Plato's republic a go. I don't know that these replace capitalism per se but they both sound like a bit of a lark.
I always thought that communism was a nice idea that just never really worked, no accounting for human nature I guess.
I think the ultimate comprimise could be corpratism - the corperate state. Basically capitalism where the state is a gigantic corperation which owns everything and employs everyone. If you have unemployed people you just invent a few new jobs as igh up the power structure as justafiable and then shuffle people in, promoting and starting new people in baseline jobs. Move everyone arround occationally to keep them happy and make people apply for jobs to ensure everyone is where they should be.
The whole thing is run by a CEO and board of directors who are answerable to the citizen/shareholders. Everyone votes, everyone gets a pay check and job satisfaction, anyone who is unhappy gets deported to a third world country as a part of a major trade agreement to supply them with baby formula. Its all good.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
That's not terribly different from Oligarchy, in which powerful business leaders (in the US, powerful businesses, since our laws treat corporations as people) control the functions of government.
The problem with that system is, those who fall outside the sphere of interest to the oligarchs might as well cease to exist.
The problem with that system is, those who fall outside the sphere of interest to the oligarchs might as well cease to exist.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Sol, your "corpratism", for all it's suspect spelling, is an almost exact description of the system usually known as State Monopoly Capitalism.
(Tannin - you - are complaining aboout Sol's spelling?)
(Shutup Tea,)
Dates, HD, were off the top of my head and inexact. As was my entire post, really, I was just having a little fun.
Mercutio, thankyou, that was the word I was looking for.
HD again: "what the hell do you suppose was going on in USSR in 1951-1991"? Crime, decay, and official corruption on a grand scale, mostly. Err ... come to think of it, much the same as 1991 - present, I guess.
Feudalism is a form of government rule and and economic system. The economic system takes priority though, as generally speaking, the forms of government are shaped by the means of production and distribution, much more so than the other way around. Read some Marx. Or anyone, for that matter. Even lunatics like Milton Freidman pretty much accept this one. Or just ponder Mercutio's point: it leads you in the same general direction.
Mixed economies actually work very well indeed. So far as raw economic efficiency goes (i.e., completely ignoring human needs and happiness, just measuring the GNP) they are about the same as capitalist and oligaric-fascist economies.
So far as the total benefit goes, they are way out in front of both. Most of the trult civilised countries in the world either have mixed economies or used to have them and are now very sorry that they fucked it up. In the former category: Germany, all of Scandinavia, Austria and perhaps France are examples. In the latter category, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom. Except that the UK is a special case: in purely economic terms they stuffed their mixed economy up right royally, and their new, slimmed-down post-Thatcher one is going tolerably well.
But that last is more a matter of having to all but destroy the old system, no matter what it was, because it was so ossified that it could never be competitive, and thus having to build a whole new system which, as it happened, came about at the very time that Thatcher's thugs were at their lunatic worst. Still, even they couldn't manage to build a worse system than the old one had been.
Anarchism is indeed a valid economic system. It's very closely related to capitalism, but stresses individual free choice much more highly and de-emphasises the roles of both government and accummulated private wealth.
(Tannin - you - are complaining aboout Sol's spelling?)
(Shutup Tea,)
Dates, HD, were off the top of my head and inexact. As was my entire post, really, I was just having a little fun.
Mercutio, thankyou, that was the word I was looking for.
HD again: "what the hell do you suppose was going on in USSR in 1951-1991"? Crime, decay, and official corruption on a grand scale, mostly. Err ... come to think of it, much the same as 1991 - present, I guess.
Feudalism is a form of government rule and and economic system. The economic system takes priority though, as generally speaking, the forms of government are shaped by the means of production and distribution, much more so than the other way around. Read some Marx. Or anyone, for that matter. Even lunatics like Milton Freidman pretty much accept this one. Or just ponder Mercutio's point: it leads you in the same general direction.
Mixed economies actually work very well indeed. So far as raw economic efficiency goes (i.e., completely ignoring human needs and happiness, just measuring the GNP) they are about the same as capitalist and oligaric-fascist economies.
So far as the total benefit goes, they are way out in front of both. Most of the trult civilised countries in the world either have mixed economies or used to have them and are now very sorry that they fucked it up. In the former category: Germany, all of Scandinavia, Austria and perhaps France are examples. In the latter category, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom. Except that the UK is a special case: in purely economic terms they stuffed their mixed economy up right royally, and their new, slimmed-down post-Thatcher one is going tolerably well.
But that last is more a matter of having to all but destroy the old system, no matter what it was, because it was so ossified that it could never be competitive, and thus having to build a whole new system which, as it happened, came about at the very time that Thatcher's thugs were at their lunatic worst. Still, even they couldn't manage to build a worse system than the old one had been.
Anarchism is indeed a valid economic system. It's very closely related to capitalism, but stresses individual free choice much more highly and de-emphasises the roles of both government and accummulated private wealth.
Sol
Storage is cool
I knew somone had to have come up with it before as it sounds almost good enough to fool some poor sods into accepting it.
I think if I want to invent a truly unique governmental/econoimic system I'm going to have to resort to basing it entirly on cheese and bad puns.
Still thrashing out which of those will be the main currency.
I think if I want to invent a truly unique governmental/econoimic system I'm going to have to resort to basing it entirly on cheese and bad puns.
Still thrashing out which of those will be the main currency.