Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:34:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>
>
>>A) I don't much care if people wander off topic from time to time -
>> that's what filters are for. But as a matter of general courtesy
>> is it too much to ask that the subject line be so marked?
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
>>B) Rhetoric is not Reality. "Crime" has a very specific definition.
>> It always has one or more of Fraud, Force, or Threat.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Jaywalking is a crime. So is littering. So is merely belonging to certain
> organisations, such as the German Nazi party or any number of allegedly
> terrorist groups. Walking around naked in public is a crime, and in many
> places in the world, including the USA, you then become a "registered sex
> offender" for the rest of your life. (So much for doing time and wiping
> the slate clean.)
>
> Possession of many substances is a crime in the USA, and not just drugs
> of addiction. There is no Fraud, Force or Threat involved in growing
> cannabis in your backyard, or selling pornography to teenagers, or driving
> without a licence.
>
> Possession of banned books is a crime in many countries, and yes even in
> the 21st century there are many, many banned books. If legislation being
> urged on the US Senate by the MPAA is passed, manufacturing, selling and
> possibly even possession of analog to digital devices will become a crime
> -- not just a civil offense, or a misdemeanor, but a felony.
There is a difference between what is *illegal* and what constitutes
a *crime*. There are many things that are illegal that ought not to
be (you mention several) becauase they do *not* meet the standard of
Fraud/Force/Threat. These are laws that are inflicted by the majority
upon the minority because most people are nosey and want to tell
everyone else what to do. Anti-trust laws also fit in this category.
<SNIP>
>
>>Just because *you*
>> don't like market outcomes doesn't make it a "crime".
>
>
> In civilizations that believe in freedom for human beings, freedom is not
> unlimited. There are actions which remain forbidden, even though that
> limits individual freedom. Bill Gates is not permitted to lock you up
> against your will: his freedom to restrict others' freedoms is severely
> curtailed.
>
> In civilizations that believe in free markets, freedom is also not
> unlimited. There are actions which are forbidden, because those actions
That's right - you cannot use fraud/force/threat. The rest is nobody's
business. But your claim that government mut place restrictions
on free markets is bogus. It likely springs from a polluted understanding
of just what the role of government ought to be and how markets actually
work.
>
>
>>C) Hate Microsoft all you want. But those of us old enough to have
>> actually done this for than 10 minutes recall the days where every single
>> hardware vendor was also a unique software and systems vendor.
>> Absent a Microsoft/Intel-style de facto standard, you'd never have
>> seen the ascent of Linux or Open Source as it exists today.
>
>
> Nonsense again.
>
> Real standards, like TCP/IP which is the backbone of the Internet, aren't
TCP/IP was NOT an open standard originally. It came into being at the
hands of a monopoly (government) and at the point of a gun (forced taxation).
> controlled by any one company. Anyone can create a TCP stack. Nobody but
> Microsoft can create a competing version of Windows. TCP/IP became a
So what? This does not make Microsoft a monopolist. It makes it a sole
source vendor. What gives Microsoft their market power is
*their customers* who feel they are getting a good deal. No one forces
their customers to buy the products, and there are real alternatives
available. Just why, do you suppose, people continue to use Windows
is large numbers when Linux/BSD is *free*? Because they hate
Windows? Because Microsoft is overcharging or cheating them? Get
a grip. Microsoft succeeds because it serves its customer base.
They do it on a scale that makes everyone else jealous and instead of
outcompeting Microsoft, they go whining to the DOJ about how unfair
the world is.
> standard long before Microsoft even acknowledged it's existence. So did
> ASCII, the IBM BIOS, and serial ports, to name just a few. Does the term
> "ISO standard" mean anything to you?
I have been a member of many standards committees including POSIX,
ANSI, and X/OPEN. Standards committees do not *set* standards, they
codify existing common practice - well the successful standards do.
That's why POSIX 1003.1 is an embraced standard and X/Open is a footnote
in technology history. Durable standards are always set by *practice*
first. This usually means some interesting combination of users
and vendors solving problems. Microsoft helped standardize the
PC platform and thus set de facto standards because in the early days
people wanted to sell hardware and considered OSs a nuisance. So,
they built their hardware achitectures to best take advantage of
MS-DOS and then Windows. To argue that Microsoft had no influence on
the commoditization and standardization of hardware is utterly absurd.
P.S. Unlike you (it sounds like), I actually worked in the industry during
the evolution from Altairs to TRS-80s/Apples to PCs. Microsoft was
and enormous accelerant to the growth and acceptance of PCs in
business and non-technical settings. As I said, I prefer Unix,
but everyone in this profession owed Microsoft an enormous debt.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
