>His answer is a combination of making sure the thing >you buy is defective, and or deficient, or of making >it obsolete, and parcelling out improvements (and >even fixes) as slowly as possible.
>Hence changing Word and Excel's formats, changing the >OS to break old applications, shipping bugs, security >issues, etc.
>It just hit me yesterday--I've oft noted the harm he's >done selling lousy software, but I just realized...he >breaks our tools. My superb DOS file compare, search >routine, editor, directory utility, parallel port- >operated interfaces, truly nifty ISA A/D board... broken.
>The advance of civilization has been one of building >tool upon tool, hand tools ==> machines ==> machine >tools ==> better machines ==> better tools. Same for >software. And he breaks ours.
>Thanks Bill.
I was just reading that right before Russia invaded Georgia, there was a cyberattack on Georgia's basic network infrastructure launched from the Botnets that Bill Gates created through the above policies. I can only conclude that Microsoft's ongoing refusal to make a version of windows that cannot be remotely controlled by criminals is now
>>That's Bill Gate's major innovation--his solution to the
> question "How can you make loads of money off a product
>>that never breaks, and never wears out?"
>>His answer is a combination of making sure the thing >>you buy is defective, and or deficient, or of making >>it obsolete, and parcelling out improvements (and >>even fixes) as slowly as possible.
>>Hence changing Word and Excel's formats, changing the >>OS to break old applications, shipping bugs, security >>issues, etc.
>>It just hit me yesterday--I've oft noted the harm he's >>done selling lousy software, but I just realized...he >>breaks our tools. My superb DOS file compare, search >>routine, editor, directory utility, parallel port- >>operated interfaces, truly nifty ISA A/D board... broken.
>>The advance of civilization has been one of building >>tool upon tool, hand tools ==> machines ==> machine >>tools ==> better machines ==> better tools. Same for >>software. And he breaks ours.
>>Thanks Bill.
> I was just reading that right before Russia invaded > Georgia, there was a cyberattack on Georgia's basic > network infrastructure launched from the Botnets that > Bill Gates created through the above policies. I can > only conclude that Microsoft's ongoing refusal to make > a version of windows that cannot be remotely controlled > by criminals is now
I see tha the balance of your above missive has been excised by billy.boy.tools.inc
>His answer is a combination of making sure the thing >you buy is defective, and or deficient, or of making >it obsolete, and parcelling out improvements (and >even fixes) as slowly as possible.
>Hence changing Word and Excel's formats, changing the >OS to break old applications, shipping bugs, security >issues, etc.
>It just hit me yesterday--I've oft noted the harm he's >done selling lousy software, but I just realized...he >breaks our tools. My superb DOS file compare, search >routine, editor, directory utility, parallel port- >operated interfaces, truly nifty ISA A/D board... broken.
>The advance of civilization has been one of building >tool upon tool, hand tools ==> machines ==> machine >tools ==> better machines ==> better tools. Same for >software. And he breaks ours.
>Thanks Bill.
I was just reading that right before Russia invaded Georgia, there was a cyberattack on Georgia's basic network infrastructure launched from the Botnets that Bill Gates created through the above policies. I can only conclude that Microsoft's ongoing refusal to make a version of windows that cannot be remotely controlled by criminals is now a serious threat to our national security.
> I was just reading that right before Russia invaded > Georgia, there was a cyberattack on Georgia's basic > network infrastructure launched from the Botnets that > Bill Gates created through the above policies. I can > only conclude that Microsoft's ongoing refusal to make > a version of windows that cannot be remotely controlled > by criminals is now a serious threat to our national > security.
One thing that may save us is that some parts of the US government are still using older versions of the Microsloth products. This means that although all of the computers can be taken over, the method is not the same for all of them. Many businesses are staying with NT or XP and not xxxgrading to Vista so we may gain a little strength through diversity.
In many ways the security folks who work for the government are threir own worse enemy. They want uniformity in the systems and procedures.
>>>That's Bill Gate's major innovation--his solution to the >>question "How can you make loads of money off a product >>>that never breaks, and never wears out?"
>>>His answer is a combination of making sure the thing >>>you buy is defective, and or deficient, or of making >>>it obsolete, and parcelling out improvements (and >>>even fixes) as slowly as possible.
>>>Hence changing Word and Excel's formats, changing the >>>OS to break old applications, shipping bugs, security >>>issues, etc.
>>>It just hit me yesterday--I've oft noted the harm he's >>>done selling lousy software, but I just realized...he >>>breaks our tools. My superb DOS file compare, search >>>routine, editor, directory utility, parallel port- >>>operated interfaces, truly nifty ISA A/D board... broken.
>>>The advance of civilization has been one of building >>>tool upon tool, hand tools ==> machines ==> machine >>>tools ==> better machines ==> better tools. Same for >>>software. And he breaks ours.
>>>Thanks Bill.
>>I was just reading that right before Russia invaded >>Georgia, there was a cyberattack on Georgia's basic >>network infrastructure launched from the Botnets that >>Bill Gates created through the above policies. I can >>only conclude that Microsoft's ongoing refusal to make >>a version of windows that cannot be remotely controlled >>by criminals is now a serious threat to our national >>security
Certainly secure Windows networks do exist -- I have one in my home lab. It isn't hard to do, either; just set up a hardware firewall (FreeSCO is good) a sowtware firewall (Zone Alarm is good) and a malware scanner (Kaspersky is good), keep up with the updates, and don't download from untrusted sources, and Bob's your uncle.
The problem is that you have to take extra steps such as descibed above to secure Windows. When grandma buys a new PC and runs it on a DSL line for a few years without updating it, it becomes part of a botnet. And there are a *lot* of grandmas out there.
That's interesting. Not many Linux users have "X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118" in their headers. Some do, though; Forte Agent runs under WINE if you don't mind it crashing on close...
>You WinHater FuckTards really make me sick.
Why would you become so emotionally involved over someone's OS preference?
> So is Bill a businessman, or a thief?
You probably aren't aware that I am a libertarian. A transaction where a willing buyer buys something -- even if that something is crap -- from a willing seller can never be theft.
> Remember, your answer tells us a lot about your character.
No it doesn't.
--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." -Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_ Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
>Why would you become so emotionally involved over >someone's OS preference?
Because he's Always Wrong.
>> So is Bill a businessman, or a thief?
>You probably aren't aware that I am a libertarian. >A transaction where a willing buyer buys something > -- even if that something is crap -- from a willing >seller can never be theft.
It is if the seller violated law and ethics in restricting your choices.
>>Why would you become so emotionally involved over >>someone's OS preference?
>Because he's Always Wrong.
Ah. That explains the preference for Windows over Linux. :)
>>> So is Bill [gates] a businessman, or a thief?
>>You probably aren't aware that I am a libertarian. >>A transaction where a willing buyer buys something >> -- even if that something is crap -- from a willing >>seller can never be theft.
>It is if the seller violated law and ethics in >restricting your choices.
Do you mean a seller restricting a buyer's choices during the transaction where a willing buyer buys something from a willing seller, or do you mean the seller doing something outside that transaction? I said that a transaction where a willing buyer buys something from a willing seller can never be theft, but I didn't say that the seller or the buyer couldn't do thinhgs outside that transaction wiich are theft.
The phrase "willing buyer buying from a willing seller" implies that either can choose to restrict the choices of the other. I would like to be paid $10,000 per hour, but all my clients are conspiring to restrict me from that choice. My clients who would no doubt like to only pay me $1 per hour, but I am restricting their choices by refusing to accept a job at that rate.
In the same way, as long as Microsoft doesn't stop me from buying a Macintosh or installing Linux, selling Windows is not theft. This is not to say that MS does not engage in unethical and illegal business practices, just that selling a copy of Windows is not one of them.
> >>Why would you become so emotionally involved over > >>someone's OS preference?
> >Because he's Always Wrong.
> Ah. That explains the preference for Windows over Linux. :)
> >>> So is Bill [gates] a businessman, or a thief?
> >>You probably aren't aware that I am a libertarian. > >>A transaction where a willing buyer buys something > >> -- even if that something is crap -- from a willing > >>seller can never be theft.
> >It is if the seller violated law and ethics in > >restricting your choices.
> Do you mean a seller restricting a buyer's choices > during the transaction where a willing buyer buys > something from a willing seller, or do you mean > the seller doing something outside that transaction? > I said that a transaction where a willing buyer buys > something from a willing seller can never be theft, > but I didn't say that the seller or the buyer couldn't > do thinhgs outside that transaction wiich are theft.
> The phrase "willing buyer buying from a willing seller" > implies that either can choose to restrict the choices > of the other. I would like to be paid $10,000 per hour, > but all my clients are conspiring to restrict me from > that choice. My clients who would no doubt like to > only pay me $1 per hour, but I am restricting their > choices by refusing to accept a job at that rate.
> In the same way, as long as Microsoft doesn't stop me > from buying a Macintosh or installing Linux, selling > Windows is not theft. This is not to say that MS does > not engage in unethical and illegal business practices, > just that selling a copy of Windows is not one of them.
When the "willing seller" makes fraudulent claims about his product, or fails to inform the buyer of defects in his product, or refuses to repair known defects in his product, he is a criminal.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:24:03 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:16:27 +0000, Guy Macon > >Some dorkwad wrote: >>>You WinHater FuckTards really make me sick.
>>Why would you become so emotionally involved over >>someone's OS preference?
> Because he's Always Wrong.
Except John was asking the fucktard why he was so up-in-arms over you. :-)
>>> So is Bill a businessman, or a thief?
>>You probably aren't aware that I am a libertarian. >>A transaction where a willing buyer buys something >> -- even if that something is crap -- from a willing >>seller can never be theft.
> It is if the seller violated law and ethics in restricting your > choices.
Caveat Emptor, dude. If the guy is violating the law, have him rousted, or just don't do business with him.
Richard Henry wrote: >When the "willing seller" makes fraudulent claims about >his product, or fails to inform the buyer of defects in >his product, or refuses to repair known defects in his >product, he is a criminal.
But not a thief. Those first two are fraud, not theft, and the last isn't even wrong in the case of defects the seller didn't know about before the sale -- unless the seller offered a warranty or guarantee of some sort.
A transaction where a willing buyer buys something from a willing seller can never be theft. It can be fraud, but not theft.
>> When the "willing seller" makes fraudulent claims about >> his product, or fails to inform the buyer of defects in >> his product, or refuses to repair known defects in his >> product, he is a criminal.
> But not a thief. Those first two are fraud, not theft, > and the last isn't even wrong in the case of defects > the seller didn't know about before the sale -- unless > the seller offered a warranty or guarantee of some sort.
> A transaction where a willing buyer buys something from > a willing seller can never be theft. It can be fraud, > but not theft.
Precisely why can it not be theft by fraud? Theft is a deed, fraud is a method.
