On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> The Macintosh IS a PC... and for their platform they ARE controling who
for the purposes of this debate macintosh is *not* a pc -- pc is defined
as intel-compatible hardware (I know, I know, *technically* the mac is a
'personal computer', but that's not how we're defining pc)
> makes the hardware, who makes the OS, Who can license their product to
> VERY extreme degrees... they are keeping other vendors like BeOS from
> alowing thier OS to run on thier current platforms... to get apple juice
> you have to buy thier cups, napkins, straws, AND glasses! Since you
> stating that they aren't in the same field as microsoft.. then what ever
> field they are in THEY have a monoply!
They have control over a product. Other people sell desktop machines, but
only apple sells macintosh. Other people sell OSes that run on PCs, but MS
sells windows, which has a majority of the PC OS market.
It would, btw, be different if MS manufactured hardware, which they don't
(at least not to any meaningful degree, I do know about the trackballs,
mice and keyboards :P ) (meaningful, btw, would be if they were the only
folks who manufactured hardware that was compatible with their OS, and
probably that hardware would have to comprise a majority of a computer
system, though I imagine that would be a bit arguable)
> If you want to survive playing by microsofts rules and want to use thier
> product..
I don't mind that you slaughter english (I do it all the time), but could
you please try to make the kills in places that don't leave fourteen
different ways to parse your sentence :)
What on *earth* did you mean by that?
> hmm maybe this will be answered later.. but I don't understand how a
> product they made becomes an object someone else can control...
Because they have more power. Because they were acting like a bully. The
teachers leave us alone until we start hitting other children. Same basic
principle here.
My right to use my bullhorn in any way I wish does *not* include the right
to keep you up all night.
> I don't belive this is the case... VAlinux systems, penguin computing,
> thelinuxstore, etc... have been doing just fine.. heck microway sells both
> types of systems and sells linux systems for less...
The linux places don't sell windows stuff.
The places that sell both likely have different business plans than the
average OEM. Also, it's my perception that MS has chilled a bit (a bit!)
in the face of DOJ scrutiny (if someone has proof they didn't, I'll change
my mind :) )
> to maintain a cheap computer with MS product business.. certianly..
to maintain a *competetive* computer with choice of MS product business
> people that they HAVE to sell thier aquawidgets to me.. the aquawidget
> people have just (in your eyes) pummled me to death.. I'm guessing we have
nopers, because you can always get another aquawidget, it would be more
like they had the major aquawidgets everyone wanted, no one else wanted
any other kind of aquawidget, and they refused to sell to *just you*
because your hair was funny.
> someone is a right.. in my eyes atleast.. so perhaps it's right for big
> vinnie to pummel me ;)
I'll remember that next time I see you
> As stated earlyer there are other choices...
as you failed to notice earlier there aren't..
> ahh you hit one of my "stopgap" trees :).. to me this is physical assult
> against the rights of another..
<sigh> of course, you're the one who said 'insert magic here' when I asked
why people have rights, so you're being at least as whimsical as I :)
see bullhorn example above.
> the "power" they own is one that was created by customer demand.. once
> customer demand goes away.. it's gone... the "abuse" as you see it.. I
Of course, they are lying and doing other such stuff to keep customer
demand up.
> personaly prefer "ruthless and bullyness"... or perhaps just ness :) hehe
somehow that was particularly apt
> ANYWAYS.... at what point is something "abuse of power" when someone
> creates a product and selectivly sells it to people...
When that person has monopoly power and uses it to completely destroy
anyone who is even possibly in competition with them.
> again consumer demand drives corporate decisions... unless government
BS. Consumer ignorance allows corporates to get away with a lot. Corporate
controlled media keeps consumers ignorant.
Do you think, if you asked the average consumer, they would *want* it to
be against the rules to lable foods? Do you think they would want
pollution? Do you think they would want their private information traded
around? Do you think they would want their tax money to go into
subsidizing corporate interests? Do you think they would want new foods to
be incompletely tested and released anyway? Do you think they would want
drugs that could cause permanant neurological damage given to their
children by their doctors? Do you think they want clothes that cost more
per piece than the folks who make them make *per month*? (and I'm not
talking high fashion here, by any means. And I know you're going to say
something about how no one is forcing folks to work in sweatshops and cost
of living blahblahblahblahblah, but even accounting for cost of living,
they make chickenscratch, and if you don't own land, how else are you
supposed to eke out a living besides working in the only industry
available...as I said before, choosing between x and death just isn't much
of a choice)
And that's just the stuff on my desk right now...maybe I should make up a
special file: 'bad stuff that consumer demand isn't making the
corporations stop'
> cheaper product that isn't "UL"... if there was no government regulation..
> I think you would quickly find "UL" type markings on food items..
I don't know that you would. Certainly, does the average person care about
the UL thing (probably not). I'd point out also that fire (the risk from
shoddy electrical equiptment) is a lot more clearly caused by bad
electrical equiptment than cancers/heart diseases/allergies/illnesses both
physical and mental are caused by nutritionally depleted and chemically
altered foods.
> how so?
<blink>
you're joking, right?
I have stuff, I have resources to do things. You have nothing, you watch
me do things.
This would probably not be a big deal except that we live in a closed
system. Certainly, by almost anyone's reckoning, if I choose to cut down a
tree on my property, I'm not infringing on your rights. However, if I have
a majority (or even a significant minority) of the treed land in the
world, and I start cutting down trees, we're all going to be hurting. (and
remember, power begets power and money begets money. That the first
million is the hardest is almost a truism)
> corporations make money based on demand.. as an end result consumers make
> the choice.. I would hardly consider this "life run by corporations".. I
> will admit that I'm enslaved by job.. though my job is not my life.. just
> most of it :)
I wasn't speaking of my job
and corporations make their own demand
and consumer choice is a non-choice in many cases
> How do they tell me what I can eat? Shoppers Food Warehouse and Fresh
> Fields have huge selections of food..
and you think SFW and Fresh Fields are what? Farmer's coops? clowns?
> Would you rather the government control the media more?
I'd rather media be decentralized -- I'd rather corporations didn't exist
and each newspaper was it's own newspaper, rather than a part of some
media conglomeration
> Ohh.. DO explain this one to me PLEASE!... The laws of the land seem to
> control what can be worn more then corporations.. I'm very confused by
> this..
Name one place where you can go to get clothing that isn't corporate
controlled
Now name a place where a person with anything like a normal income could
go
Thrift shops. If you're really lucky you can find a few people who design
and make their own clothing and sell it at a flea market or somewhere else
that's accesible and affordable. It's hard, though.
> the things you read.. exsist because of demand.. this is a good thing
> right?
The things I read exist because some editor (who's job is controlled by
the publishing coorporation, most likely. I read a lot of alternative
press, so this is much less true for me than for the average U.S. Citizen,
and this is *still* very true for me) decided it was 'fit to print'... How
can consumers demand something they aren't offered?
> To control education is to control thought. Give that a thought :)
Don't insult me.
I'm not arguing that the government should take over everything..this
isn't some zero sum game where the only folks who can hold power are the
corps or the government
And you *know* how I feel about public education.
*and* education is very limited (somewhere between 12-16 years for most
people these days?), media is life long and you're saturated with it for
most of your waking hours.
> to some degree I think it's a battle that mainstream media is fighting,
> but I think they realize that the battle to slow down the internet is
> being lost... and that they are causing MORE intrest, not less..
> certainly anytime I see a "look at this site.. see how horrible the net
> is!".. I WANT TO SEE IT :) hehe
Yes, but *why* do they find the internet to be threatening? Why do they
feel they need to fight it?
> I'm sorry if I"ve tarnished it.. in anyway...
I wasn't implying that you tarnished it. I was implying that perhaps that
should tell you something about the value of your views (in the sense of
their own value, not in the sense of the value of *your* views)
> Young woman brings WTO to it's knees by BREATHING FIRE!! (film at 11)
ha. only if they get my gender right...have you spoken to mindy lately? :)
Vinnie
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
