General Discussions

**cbwm** · 02-29-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Here is my question why is an American based bossiness paying a fine to EU, if I was Microsoft I would say no thinks I don’t want to pay it, I mean what are they going to do?

Keep them from selling their software in the E.U., file against them in international court, and embargo their bank accounts in the U.S.(This happened with Exxon vs. Hugo Chavez/Amaco). Another fun trade game to play would be to apply a Microsoft only tax, making their software extremely expensive to buy.

Sorry Cat, when you do business internationally, you do business by their rules, and I can say this from personal experience. I think Microsoft is in defiance of the European government because they share your sentiments. "You need us more than we need you". I've always felt the employee who tries to make himself/herself indispensable is the first employee you need to fire. Again, all around a tell tale sign that Microsoft is not the kind of company you want to do business with.

By the way, the phenomenon of everyone jumping in to defend Microsoft is predictable as well. Costa Rica recently passed a trade agreement with the U.S. which forced Costa Rica to break up it's monopolies (Insurance, Telecom, Power, etc). So many people worked for these monopolies, they saw laws which made the market more competitive as a threat to their lively hood. The unions and monopolies organized marches in the streets, and rumor has it, the power company started systematically turning off power to the nation a few hours a day before the vote, to let the citizenry know what would happen if they passed the legislation. That kind of behavior, and Microsoft's defiance, only demonstrate the true nature of what you are dealing with. The trade agreement passed, and with luck Costa Rica citizens will soon benefit from an influx of real competition.

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-29-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

I've always felt the employee who tries to make himself/herself indispensable is the first employee you need to fire.

If that isn't the most idiotic thing anyone has ever said around here, that's definitely top 10 material. I can't believe anyone would say something that stupid and be serious about it. Wow.

If you're the owner of a business, then you want your employees to be as productive and as much of an asset to your organization as they can possibly be. The more of an asset they are, the more of a profit you'll turn. The side effect of this increase in productivity is that they become more indispensable to the organization.

You don't fire someone for doing what they can to better your organization, and if you're that worried about someone becoming indispensable, then you train multiple people in the key roles of your organization. That's your fault as the leader of the organization, not the employee's.

That was six shades of wrong.

**cbwm** · 02-29-2008, 02:47 PM

Clearly you've never run an organization of any kind, and if so not successfully. I highly recommend you read "The One Minute Manager" as a starting point. Its a short read, no more than 50 pages or so. Employees who get promoted replace themselves, not entrench themselves.

Your statement does illustrate a basic difference in thought process though, which I think underscores the reasons why we disagree on practically every other area.

**Learning Newbie** · 02-29-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I think Bill Gates took advantage of what we call “The American Dream”. They saw an opportunity that no one else saw and that is why Microsoft is the biggest success in computers and not IBM. I don’t know of anything that MS has done wrong, I put the blame (If you think that Microsoft’s’ success is a bad thing) not on how “MS crushed the competition” but rather the arrogance, short-sighted, or poor business skills, of the other companies.

Very well said. Especially the part about the American Dream. No parent can honestly tell their child to grow up to be like Barak Obama or Rupert Murdoch (since his vile name was dropped), because if a child doesn't grow up with all the benefits of riches and membership in the upper class, that child will never be like Obama or Murdoch. Bill Gates was above average for middle class - his dad was a lawyer and his mom a banker. He was a smart nerd who applied the heck out of himself. Anyone at that time who had access to a personal computer (to learn about the environment from a market and tech perspective) could have taken his place.

IBM broke with their tradition when they made the "personal" computer. The only reason it took off is because some rouge business unit was given permission to make the thing with non IBM parts so it was affordable as a personal machine. But Big Blue hated it, and maintained their IRS like corporate death grip policy, which turned consumers away. Microsoft tried something that caught the market like wildfire. You can argue about the way they approach the market - but you can also run Linux or Umbuuuutttuuu if you want. They even make FireFox and Star Office for it, it's more convenient now than ever to shun Microsoft if you make that choice. Bill Gates isn't holding a gun to anybody's head, he's successful because people willingly buy his swag.

And some, like the guy who started this thread, have a personal distaste for the internal workings of some Microsoft products, and so they want Big Government to step in and rescue these poor victims by regulating the market.

**cbwm** · 02-29-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

And some, like the guy who started this thread, have a personal distaste for the internal workings of some Microsoft products, and so they want Big Government to step in and rescue these poor victims by regulating the market.

More accurately phrased, the E.U. is penalizing Microsoft for unfair business practices and I am applauding it. Big difference. By the way, I also like the story of Bill Gates. It IS a uniquely great american tale. Like that of Joe Kennedy and Al Copone.

**Learning Newbie** · 02-29-2008, 04:50 PM

Jealousy, is it? That "American Dream" stuff sure sounds romantic when it's spun for the neo con benefit. But when just anyone realizes it, without your permission, it turns into a stigma somehow?

You claim to be pro capitalism anti communism, pro industry, pro business rights. When it's all in theory that republicanism is great, but when it comes to the real world, you seem to object pretty strongly for no good reason to the things you claim to believe in.

Are you just upset that Bill Gates showed the initiative to make something the market responded to? You were going on and on about how a platform an industry needed to innovate was harmful to society and the economy, but you seem to have forgot that one. You're applauding the EU, but you're also suggesting you'd love to see the same kind of Liberal Activist Judges who appointed GWB our president regulate Microsoft out of business. I know you don't hate Microsoft as a result of them giving plenty more to the Republican party than to the Democrats. And it's not quality - no offense, but I honestly don't believe you could write an operating system as good as Windows 1.0.

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-29-2008, 05:17 PM

Hey, no slagging Rupert Murdoch! Anyone who owns a network that can air train wreck entertaining shows like Cheaters is okay in my book. It's one of the few shows not created by Vince McMahon that I can still stomach once in a while.

Seriously, John just said what I've been saying for years to geeks who take anti-MS stance. Mark Knopfler put it best in song (all hail Mark and the guitar genius that he is):

Quote:

Shut up and deal. Let's see you...do better.
Shut up and deal. Let's see you...get it on.
Shut up and deal...and put it all together.
Let's see you...do it all.

Oh yeah, and John's right about the regulation issue. Seems to me that you're nothing more than a left-wing in right-winger's clothing. **** posers.

**serandfae** · 02-29-2008, 06:36 PM

Here's where we begin to see anti-trust legislation starting to work on a global scale--and make no mistake, it'll work. This isn't some mamsy-pamsy UN decree; the EU has teeth, and it's not afraid to bare or use them. But this is still a slap on the wrist when you're talking about a corporation like Microsoft.

I made a comparison with Wal-Mart earlier--they've been repeatedly fined for price gouging when opening new stores, in order to run the mom-and-pops out of business. They've been fined, repeatedly, and Wal-Mart has kept paying the fines. Unless you live in a very small town, there will still be other places to shop, sure, but Wal-Mart's still not going to hurt at all for business. The way they've grown is phenomenal, and they have a bottom line larger than Switzerland's GDP. And you can't help but admire their success. But they have a dark side that has to be watched, and they are the biggest example in retail why there's a need for a regulated free market.

I'm sure that anyone who knows Microsoft's marketing history can draw several parallels. Bill Gates built his software empire using Sam Walton's marketing strategies. Admirable? Yes. To be watched? Like a hawk. I mean, who's surprised about this? I'm fascinated by the EU exhibiting more cahones than our own government has with Bill Gates.

**cbwm** · 03-01-2008, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

Seriously, John just said what I've been saying for years to geeks who take anti-MS stance.

I think this must be the 10th post where you've implied that anyone who thinks Microsoft's crap is anything less than caviar is a geek. Wake up and smell the feces. Bill Gates is the king of the geeks, and you are one of his low ranking minions. If you want to see a non geek, technically savvy CEO, maybe you should have a look at Larry Ellison. The guy races sailboats around the south pacific in a race many people have died in. Gates reminds me of Monty Burns. Feeble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I honestly don't believe you could write an operating system as good as Windows 1.0.

I'd sooner p*ss barbwire, or stick needles in my eyes. Are you implying Gates wrote Windows 1.0 himself?

Look guys, I know my pro-Bush statements add fuel to your fire, but your arguments are getting ridiculous. Nobody I know of, Republican or otherwise is in favor of monopolies and unfair business practices. Are you saying you are? I suppose you could shift to the line of reasoning that implies Gates hasn't used unfair business practices, though that would go against pretty much every book written on the subject, and every decision issued by the U.S. and E.U. courts on the matter. There is really no argument here.

I suppose you could go down the "Microsoft writes quality software" argument, but John has already conceded that they don't on a previous thread. That leaves me arguing the point with Adam, and we already know he doesn't believe in facts or statistics making that a complete waste of time.

By the way, good point on Wal-mart Tim. Wonderful company and a great success story. God forbid the day come when they are the only real choice.

Oh, and I know it is off topic, but did I mention Bush has gotten the Democrat dominated congress to pass most of his legislation as a lame duck? **** hes good!

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-01-2008, 01:04 AM

You're right...arguing anything with you is a waste of time. Not because you're right...you're not even close to right. You're delusional and completely incapable of processing an independent thought, nor are you capable of recognizing when someone else is right because it goes against your viewpoint.

You choose to cite a series of pseudo-statistics and so-called facts from unknown sources, and on the rare occasions you do provide sources they usually come from the mainstream media, which is known for sensationalistic reporting and journalistic bias that would make even the most seasoned of spin doctors blush. I've already used an unbiased, sourced statistic to prove you wrong on one occasion, and so has John. Given enough time, we'll probably do it again...and again...and again. You just don't want to acknowledge it because it means everything that you believe to be true is now a great big fat disgusting bold-faced lie...and let's face it, who wants to acknowledge that they're that far gone?

Don't twist my words, either. I do believe in statistics when they're gathered via unbiased means, it can easily be determined that the source of the statistic gathered the statistic in an even-handed and unbiased manned, and it can easily be determined that the statistic hasn't been skewed in any way, shape, or form. In a good number of cases, the statistics become meaningless and as such, also become pseudo-statistics.

As far as the argument of books written on the MS subject is concerned, there are two major flaws that have always existed:

1) The lesson Google unwittingly taught the web community recently (and one that went largely unnoticed). When Microsoft made their most recent offer to Yahoo!, a high-ranking Google official named Dwight Drummond wrote this blog post. One particular passage stands out:

Quote:

Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft -- despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses -- to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet? In addition, Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts. And between them, the two companies operate the two most heavily trafficked portals on the Internet. Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors' email, IM, and web-based services? Policymakers around the world need to ask these questions -- and consumers deserve satisfying answers.

The geek community jumped all over it...with 2090 Diggs. Here are some comments.

Quote:

Is it going to come down to this? Google = Open/Good VS. Microyahoo = Closed/TheMan

Quote:

That's some serious stuff Google says 'bout Microsoft and Yahoo.
What a courage, how straight..

Google's right! Microsoft is evil! Yahoo! should be open! YAHHHH everyone rally around Google!

There were, and still are, a few people smart enough to realize the political move that Google was making...because look who "offered to form an alliance with Yahoo!" in fairly short order after the blog post was made. The majority, however, bought Google's stance, as they will every time someone says Microsoft is evil.

It's an automatic cash machine if used right; Microsoft is bad and monopolistic, everyone should stay away from them, buy my Open Source alternative. Geeks are the most suggestible people on the planet that way. It's been demonstrated time and time again; if you say Microsoft is bad, you'll get a following.

2) The reason no positive books have been written about Microsoft and any of the legal issues is simple; they wouldn't sell. A good writer understands his/her audience and will write accordingly, and people aren't going to want a story with a happy ending. They want dirt. They want mudslinging. They want trash. (I know, because I like dirt, mudslinging and trash myself).

You're actually pretty lucky, cbwm. You've got a bunch of people in this forum who aren't sheep and who do get it (like John and Forrest), and you can draw from those people and learn. Or...you can sit there with a 4-year-old child's pouty face on and complain without any real point or reasoning until you're blue in the face. It's your choice.

**cbwm** · 03-01-2008, 02:18 AM

Sorry, your post was very long so I'll summarize it back to you to make sure I got it right:

1) I'm wrong and thick headed (this took a paragraph to say)
2) I speak lies, while you speak truth, as evidenced by unreferenced other posts. I believe lies.
3) You do believe in certain statistics, if they serve your needs.
4) The books written about Microsoft's unfair business practices are not factual because of something someone from Google wrote on a blog about a potential MS/Yahoo merger .
5) Factual books showing Microsoft was fair in its business dealings would have been written, except that they wouldn't sell.

Perhaps you can point out to me the factual evidence to support your case which seems to be so clearly missing. I guess I could say it is factual that someone did indeed create that blog entry

. Your post is pure opinion. Your conclusions are misguided. I guess I should be thankful you didn't try to explain away the court decisions that also went against Microsoft.

Look, I'm not trying to attack you when when I say you don't believe in facts, statistics, or printed evidence. I'm just pointing out an obvious truth. I'm sure if the facts, statistics, and evidence supported your argument, you would be more than happy to acknowledge their validity.

I remember our last Microsoft discussion, you tried to discredit the emails confiscated from Microsoft computers which clearly showed illegal business practices as conjecture and non-factual. These are the same emails which won the conviction against Microsoft in a U.S. court of law. I know, I know, these are judges legislating from the bench, except... oh wait, their rulings didn't really create any new legislation or go against existing law. hmmm. Did I mention that given Bush's supreme court justice appointments, including the appointment of the chief justice, Republicans can bask in the afterglow of his presidency for many years to come? Sorry, off topic.

**ForrestCroce** · 03-01-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbwm

If you want to see a non geek, technically savvy CEO, maybe you should have a look at Larry Ellison. The guy races sailboats around the south pacific in a race many people have died in. Gates reminds me of Monty Burns. Feeble.

What does that have to do with the quality of the software each man is/was ultimately responsible for? Oracle is one of the better database engines around, but that's because of how it's implemented. What an employee who doesn't write or architect the code does for entertainment in his off hours has nothing to do with the software the company makes. It stands or fails on its own merits.

I go hiking all the time in mountains where other people have died. I also wrote software that can tell you what language an unknown string of text is. I don't know what that says about whether I'm a geek, but it probably doesn't say anything about the quality of the software.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbwm

Look guys, I know my pro-Bush statements add fuel to your fire, but your arguments are getting ridiculous. Nobody I know of, Republican or otherwise is in favor of monopolies and unfair business practices. Are you saying you are?

This is the second time the word monopoly has come up in this thread ... up 'till now it's been more of a slug fest. I don't think your pro-Bush rhetoric has much to do with that; if you hadn't brought the Kennedy family up, I don't think this thread would have stopped being about Microsoft and turned into another political debate. Endlessly fascinating as the Kennedy's are, they have nothing to do with Microsoft's business practices.

Maybe I shouldn't be talking about other peoples' attitudes and opinions, but I really don't get the impression Adam thinks anyone who doesn't love Microsoft is an idiot. Although it can certainly come off that way. I use a lot of MS-ware, and a lot of non-Microsoft-ware. I paid sticker price for Photoshop CS 3, because it's best in breed software that I have a constant need for. It had nothing to do with bringing down the evil empire. MS doesn't make the best software in the world, but they don't make the worst by any stretch of the imagination, either.

**D-Block** · 03-01-2008, 06:11 PM

I don't care what illegal activities Microsoft is doing, if they hired me, I would continue to do what they ask. Microsoft for president.

**cbwm** · 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

What does that have to do with the quality of the software each man is/was ultimately responsible for?

I was just responding to the "geek" speak Adam kept using. His argument was, if you are like Microsoft, you are not a geek, if you dislike Microsoft, you are a geek. I have to agree, it is a strange highschoolesque angle to take, but I thought what the hell, a conversation has a life of its own. Lets follow that path and see where it takes us. By the way, what classifies someone as a geek probably belongs on it's own thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Block

I don't care what illegal activities Microsoft is doing, if they hired me, I would continue to do what they ask. Microsoft for president.

What if they asked you to bury a body.... or two. Compromising photos involving midgets and lamas?

**Learning Newbie** · 03-03-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

I'm fascinated by the EU exhibiting more cahones than our own government has with Bill Gates.

I think this explains cbwm's stance - it's pretty obvious he admires Bill Clinton for sicking Janet Reno on Microsoft with all sorts of antitrust lawsuits. Heck, it looked realistic for a while that Microsoft would be broken up into two or three companies, one for Windows, one for Office, and possibly another one for other applications. George Bush has sat back and let them do anything they please, because GWB is even more beholden to corporate power, befitting his status as an elephant. That explains why cbwm can't stop saying glowingly positive things about Clinton and has such an intense personal hatred for GWB, when you look at the Microsoft angle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

Unless you live in a very small town, there will still be other places to shop, sure, but Wal-Mart's still not going to hurt at all for business.

It's interesting how you chose to start that particular sentence. The irony is that in any major city in America, you'll find no WalMart. Look at San Francisco, New York, LA, and any other world class city. What do they all have in common? No WalMart within the city limits. What else do they have in common, that could explain this? They all have living wage ordinances, and WalMart chooses not to do business in any city because of this. People who want to spend $0.37 on a sweater (and then whine about American jobs being lost!!!) will drive 5 or 10 miles outside of Minneapolis to get to a WalMart.

**cbwm** · 03-03-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I think this explains cbwm's stance - it's pretty obvious he admires Bill Clinton for sicking Janet Reno on Microsoft with all sorts of antitrust lawsuits. Heck, it looked realistic for a while that Microsoft would be broken up into two or three companies, one for Windows, one for Office, and possibly another one for other applications. George Bush has sat back and let them do anything they please, because GWB is even more beholden to corporate power, befitting his status as an elephant. That explains why cbwm can't stop saying glowingly positive things about Clinton and has such an intense personal hatred for GWB, when you look at the Microsoft angle.

Well, nobody is perfect, even Dubya. But lets not forget that it is the DA that prosecutes, not the President. At least Ol' Janet "two balls" Reno got something right after that massive screwup in Waco.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

It's interesting how you chose to start that particular sentence. The irony is that in any major city in America, you'll find no WalMart. Look at San Francisco, New York, LA, and any other world class city. What do they all have in common? No WalMart within the city limits. What else do they have in common, that could explain this? They all have living wage ordinances, and WalMart chooses not to do business in any city because of this. People who want to spend $0.37 on a sweater (and then whine about American jobs being lost!!!) will drive 5 or 10 miles outside of Minneapolis to get to a WalMart.

That is one explanation. Another might be the cost of realty in the inner cities compounded by the problem of finding the amount of floorspace required to accommodate a Walmart. I was amazed to see San Francisco shoehorn in a Costco as a complete floor in a multi story building.

**Learning Newbie** · 03-03-2008, 03:36 PM

It's amazing how much useable space there is in San Francisco. You could easily fit 20 WalMarts into the vacant space in Hunters Point. But WalMart won't pay a living wage, so when they're faced with a chioce between paying one and not doing business in a city, they take the 2nd option. Which is what we're seeing in the EU with Microsoft.

I agree about Waco being a screw up. As you'd put it, that compound was full of "the kind of people who need to be killed". They should have just filled the compound with poison gas and sealed it off. Or, to accomidate the gun nuts, any lawful Texas citizen should have been allowed to come shoot an Anti American cult member. Still, Janet Reno (Man Coulter's brother?) got it right in the end - it was just less entertaining than it could have been, right?

**cbwm** · 03-03-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

It's amazing how much useable space there is in San Francisco. You could easily fit 20 WalMarts into the vacant space in Hunters Point. But WalMart won't pay a living wage, so when they're faced with a chioce between paying one and not doing business in a city, they take the 2nd option. Which is what we're seeing in the EU with Microsoft.

Well, you COULD fit a Walmart on hunters point, but the customer's would risk getting stabbed, shot, or robbed getting in and out. Regard paying a "living wage" I hope you aren't referring to the hiring of Unions. Ive actually only shopped at Walmart once in my life, but I've always love hearing about they're refusal to work with Unions. At the end of the day, the choice belongs to them regarding what they pay and whether they hire Mafia connected union organizations. Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of their employees forcing them to work there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I agree about Waco being a screw up. As you'd put it, that compound was full of "the kind of people who need to be killed". They should have just filled the compound with poison gas and sealed it off. Or, to accomidate the gun nuts, any lawful Texas citizen should have been allowed to come shoot an Anti American cult member. Still, Janet Reno (Man Coulter's brother?) got it right in the end - it was just less entertaining than it could have been, right?

Awww, where is the Liberal compassion. I know you're just kidding. Besides, I find it easy to think Adam could easily have found himself inside that building, given his distrust of the government, and I know you don't want him dead.