On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:51:02 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > "Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion >> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be >> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others. > > Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit. > > Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm > hungry after 10.
Burger King doesn't take actions to prevent you from going to another vendor who will stay open after 10PM, as you very well know. Nor is Burger King a monopoly -- if they refuse to open after 10 in the face of great demand, they only harm themselves. As I said a few days ago, it is not the place for either us or the government to care about the success or failure of any specific vendor, but only about the health of the entire market. As there is no shortage of competition in the fast food market, the harm done to you by Burger King's refusal to open after 10PM is not sufficient for anyone to care. If there is significant demand, then Burger King will merely harm themselves by refusing to open because they will lose customers to those vendors who do open, and if there is insignificant demand, then why should anyone care? -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
