Post #104,016
5/29/03 5:20:44 PM
|
Lawyer math
When they donate copies of Internet Explorer to schools, they take a tax write-off of the full retail price (which no one has ever paid directly).
When they actually have to exchange value-for-value, it costs Microsoft three-quarters of a billion dollars to get someone to agree to use it.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #104,032
5/29/03 8:08:59 PM
|
Re: Lawyer math
IE is free
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #104,033
5/29/03 8:44:09 PM
|
I thought it was part of the OS? It's EXPENSIVE!
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #104,034
5/29/03 8:46:07 PM
|
Yes...
But his point was they had to PAY AOL $750 Million to use IE vs something else. Versus they way it typically goes, that the USER PAYS for the right to use it. Rather than the "provider pays them to use it".
Microsoft PAID AOL/TW to use IE (which is Free) instead of anything else.
I'd only use something BAD if I was paid a gorgeous amount of money to USE it. Other than that... NO.
| [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg] - IT Grand-Master for Anti-President | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] |
THEY ARE WATCHING YOU. The time has come for you to take the last step. You must love THEM. It is not enough to obey THEM. You must love THEM. PEACE BEGETS WAR, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, STRENGTH IN IGNORANCE.
|
Post #104,195
5/30/03 7:29:48 PM
|
Um....
Versus they way it typically goes, that the USER PAYS for the right to use it.
Surely you're not saying that the consumer isn't ultimately going to pay for this, are you?
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #104,072
5/30/03 9:25:45 AM
|
Oops
I meant to say MS Office in the first line. But Greg still got the main point.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #104,039
5/29/03 9:32:20 PM
|
My reading of the spin: TW trumped AOL.
The following is just my speculation:
TimeWarner wants protection for its copyrighted works, but wants to be able to distribute them over the internet easily. MS controls that gateway through its control over the OS.
TimeWarner is angry at Case and the rest of the AOL crew because they haven't delivered on the (vastly overhyped) promise of the internet. They don't have a grudge against MS the way the Netscape people do.
Netscape isn't much more than a cost these days. Apache and MS took the HTTP server business. MS controls the browser market, so TimeWarner has to be able to work with them to distribute their content.
MS probably would have lost if the court case went forward, but who knows how much they realistically would have had to pay in damages. Lawyers would have been a huge expense for AOLTW and the case would have dragged on for years. TW needs to have an agreement with MS now to end the (probably small) drag that Netscape is to the company, and more importantly, have a way to distribute music and films before the market is taken by Apple and others.
So, AOLTW takes what appears to be a big settlement (but really isn't that expensive to MS), but - more importantly - they have a way to get their content out there in a way that's blessed by our "favorite" monolpolist - MS. They aren't paying AOLTW to use IE. AOLTW is getting a payment to drop the suit and getting back in MS's good graces. A cost center will be marginalized or eliminated (Netscape), they'll have cheaper distribution (AOL will be pushed - to some extent - by MS), and they'll not be left behind if/when music and movies on demand are feasible.
And MS gets to crush the corpse of Netscape, they have a big antitrust suit out of the way, and they have a way in to start marginalizing MSN if necessary.
Imagine, if you will, the following in the not-too-distant future:
1) AOLTW spins off AOL. (Quite likely if the "high tech" sector doesn't start growing rapidly soon.)
2) MS spins off MSN. (Not too likely at the moment, but who knows. They can keep eating its losses for a long time, but why if AOL is on its own?)
3) MS buys AOL. Then "knifes the baby" of MSN.
Result: MS practically owns the internet, just a few years later than they originally planned.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #104,041
5/29/03 9:47:34 PM
|
Re: My reading of the spin: TW trumped AOL.
Ted Turner ain't too happy neither.
But as always, he's cool about it. You get the feeling that he doesn't like dealing with idiots, but forces himself to once in a while.
-drl
|
Post #104,050
5/29/03 10:58:04 PM
|
right how many years was he married to watsername?
dealt with that idiot long enough. :-) maybe she could suck golf balls thru a garden hose.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #104,073
5/30/03 9:26:14 AM
|
watsername? -- Hanoi Jane
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@attbi.com|Joe]
|
Post #104,101
5/30/03 11:18:23 AM
|
Re: right how many years was he married to watsername?
She got religion - Southern religion - and I can well understand how he must have recoiled.
He's got a new gal in her 20s to keep him busy.
-drl
|
Post #104,190
5/30/03 6:25:33 PM
|
At the time - we had YAN pre-Iraq Spin City happening.
Her gaffe - sitting at an A-A gun - was equivalent to Dukakis in the tank: rilly stupid. As to her opposition, early-on - to the same kinda Dubya-spin BS as we gots to face AGAIN - in the present coup d'etat:
Right On, Jane! It *was* as fucked then as This is Now. Diss her for your visceral sloganphilic cheap thrills, as you are genetically disposed. (And toss in however you imagine she might be in bed: that's always a Clincher! re any female, piggo)
I demur.
Ashton
|
Post #104,248
5/31/03 9:08:21 AM
|
Hanoi Jane
[link|http://www.moorej.org/jane/|Hanoi Jane Fonda chosen as one of the "100 Most Important Women of the 20th Century"] In July 1972 Jane travels to North Vietnam and tours the area for 2 weeks.
During July, 1972 she made six broadcasts over Radio Hanoi.
From the one on July 14, 1972 she said;
"This is Jane Fonda speaking from Hanoi, and I'm speaking particularly to the U.S servicemen...I don't know what your officers tell you...but [your] weapons are illegal and that's not just rhetoric...The men who are ordering you to use these weapons are war criminals according to international law, and in the past, in Germany and Japan, men who committed these kinds of crimes were tried and executed."
Another broadcasts quoted Ho Chi Minh and had references to President Nixon as a "new-type Hitler", along with messages to the South Vietnamese soldiers to desert, "You are being used as cannon fodder for U.S. imperialism."(AFJ,May'88--Personalities)
Addressing herself to the men on the aircraft carriers in the area; "Use of these bombs or condoning the use of these bombs makes one a war criminal." When addressing herself to the pilots of the American planes she continued with; "Examine the reasons given to justify the murder you are being paid to commit." Upon her return to the U.S. she then addressed cheering students; "I bring greetings from our Vietnamese brothers and sisters."
Jane formed the Indochina Peace Campaign which was anti-Nixon and pro Hanoi. [link|http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/hanoijane.net|<"Aid and Comfort"] By examining Fonda's childhood motivations, her radicalization, her POW "audience," her activities in North Vietnam, and through a detailed analysis of the American law of treason, "Aid and Comfort" makes the case that more than sufficient evidence existed to indict and convict Jane Fonda for the crime of treason. I opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq. But I will not support Saddam. I feel that Bush's invasion of Iraq is/was illegal, but I will not call the service men and women who were required to fight war criminals. I think that Bush's regime has lied to the world, but I will not call the exPOW's liars and that the deserved what they got. The protests against the Vietnam war helped bring an end to a badly mismanaged and totally wrong war. But those same protests when used against the soldiers who had to fight and die, stigmatized the survivors. Hanoi Jane polarized the American population. It was no longer opposition to the war, but vilifacation of the soldiers. FWIW I don't know, nor care how she is/was in bed. Restore honor and dignity to the US. Impeach Bush, NOW!
|
Post #104,353
6/1/03 4:32:28 AM
|
Treason,
like history, is defined by the more powerful / the 'winner' of the moment. I don't know how (given the tenets of Nuremburg) one separates individual performance of illegal orders with.. the illegal orders.
Maybe (even today re 1972 events) analysis is mostly one form or another of the problem expressed,
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism" via mmoffitt
Next to all flavours of religiosity - surely Patriotism (and it's polar mate, Treason) is second in the slathering-on of conformity with the mob - at risk of stoning, literal or worse.
Ashton
|
Post #104,359
6/1/03 9:09:42 AM
|
Points taken
I agree with most of what you stated.
Kill the prisoners - illegal order. Doing so would be illegal act.
Kill all the civilians - illegal order. Doing so would be illegal act.
Attack that village, where resistance originated - legal. Intentional killing non-combatants during or after would be illegal.
Invade Iraq 'cuz I don't like Saddam, illegal order. Top commanders should have resisted. Once that order gets down to grunts, it's no longer up to them to refuse. Now it's politics.
Can't really speak to the Air Force. However, using '70s technology, drop bombs at this location would be a wide area. Deliberately targeting a non-combatant building (on one without military significance) may be illegal. Don't know.
Everyone, even Jane Fonda, has the right to resist and oppose what is perceived as wrong. No disagreement there. Treason? Nah, Dubya has committed more acts of treason. What is/was "wrong" "inflammatory" with her remarks is/was the attack on the individual soldiers. They were obeying their legal orders, they suffered and died. And she dissed them. Her statements contributed to public sentiment that the soldiers were wrong and should be vilified. That stigma is still strong today. Most Vietnam vets are wary of identifing themselves as such. Our troops were not Nazi SS deliberately killing civilians. Yes, there are documented cases of such things occurring, but those were the anomalies.
Fonda's actions were a disservice to the troops fighting.
Restore honor and dignity to the US. Impeach Bush, NOW!
|
Post #104,735
6/4/03 2:00:01 AM
|
Agreed, then.
One of the crass stupidities of the Vietnam era was precisely this opprobrium against mere pawns in the larger ugly political scam -- and the mania of [Again!!] One Man at the top + a hierarchical system for power dispensation - fostering the kind of corruption seen livid in '03.
It's a small excuse that - Vietnam was the first blatant example of such a travesty.. to continue, even enhanced, for many years. By the end, even in their splendid isolation sans battlefied cel-fones: one has to presume that Something of public unrest + reasons for same did reach these troops. But at first, excesses were inevitable - people, mostly young ones + the few; the older wiser who saw the scam, had to improvise. Callow youth, yet not so callow as the sheep they meant to wean from the flock IMhO.
Public presure was ignored then resisted by the same mindless propaganda slogans as the farRight puts out -unmodified- today. And many believe, also today - "Hey We Coulda WON That!" - (whatever the fuck that might actually mean).
No idea how 'we' will get out of the monentum that Rove has successfully built - against all Reason. There must be a critical mass of insouciant marlowes: only that could explain the present (and loaded) "polls" being believed. I have no idea, as each day brings the threat of a next escalation into Empire-space.
Pshaw.
Ashton
|
Post #104,214
5/30/03 11:10:40 PM
6/1/03 4:18:12 PM
|
Nailed
I think you've got it pegged. \r\n\r\n I'm slightly annoyed that none of the press seems to see this. \r\n\r\n I'm more than slightly annoyed that some folks who really ought to know better are dismissing this with irrelevant comments (but that's a personal style, too...). \r\n\r\n Agreed: TW & MSFT have ganged up on AOL. Don't write off Netscape, er, Mozilla, though, I think it will live. And note that the MSIE portion appears to be a 7 year license, not a requirement to use, though I suspect with TW in charge, Microsoft's browser is firmly entrenched. \r\n\r\n Later: Yep: [link|http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1509&ncid=738&e=6&u=/afp/20030530/tc_afp/us_internet_aol|Microsoft-AOL partnership to boost digital media, other areas]. Quoted in full as Yahoo expires articles. \r\n\r\n \r\nTechnology - AFP
\r\nMicrosoft-AOL partnership to boost digital media, other areas
\r\nFri May 30, 7:18 PM ET
\r\n\r\n\r\nNEW YORK (AFP) - A broad partnership between longtime tech rivals\r\nMicrosoft and AOL Time Warner will accelerate use of the Internet as a\r\nplatform for films, music and other content in digital format, analysts\r\nsay.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nThe move to bury the hatchet between the world's largest software firm\r\nand the world's largest media-entertainment company is also positive for\r\nthe entire technology and Internet sector, according to industry\r\nwatchers.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"It is wonderful to have an agreement of that scope and that magnitude\r\nby companies that know how to move industries forward," said Jon Potter,\r\nexecutive director of the Digital Media Association, a trade association\r\nthat includes both firms.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"There are all sorts of ways the deal between these companies will\r\nbenefit each other and will benefit the industry at large."\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nThe deal announced Thursday settles for 750 million dollars a private\r\nantitrust suit that alleged Microsoft used its dominance to crush\r\nNetscape, the maker of the Internet browser that was acquired by America\r\nOnline and is now part of AOL Time Warner.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nBut more importantly, the two tech titans agreed to work together in a\r\nvariety of areas, especially to promote digital media -- a way to\r\ndeliver Hollywood films, music and other forms of entertainment via the\r\nInternet and personal computers.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nAOL Time Warner, whose empire includes Hollywood's Warner Brothers\r\nstudios, Warner Music and a vast publishing operation including\r\nmagazines such as Time and Sports Illustrated, will get a number of\r\nbenefits from collaboration with Microsoft.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"AOL Time Warner has an enormous content business," said Potter. "It is\r\nbetter for their content business if Microsoft has a way to help them\r\nmonetize it."\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, Microsoft will get a wider audience for its Windows Media\r\nPlayer, the software used for "streaming" audio and video, he said.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nPotter said that even though the two firms remain rivals, they have\r\ncollaborated in the past in efforts to fight spam and piracy of music\r\nand films, for example.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"They're both clearly interested in pushing the digital media\r\nmarketplace forward and finding ways for all companies to work\r\ntogether," he said. "Competitors often find ways to work together and to\r\nstill compete aggressively."\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nPotter dismissed the notion that the partnership will shut out smaller\r\ncompetitors such as RealNetworks, which makes software competing with\r\nWindows Media.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"The rising tide will lift lots and lots of boats, including\r\nRealNetworks," he said.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"This is not a merger of AOL and MSN," he said, referring to Microsoft's\r\nInternet service.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"If they can collaborate on standards, I don't see why RealNetworks or\r\nYahoo won't be in the room."\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nIn their joint statement Thursday, the two companies said they would\r\n"collaborate on long-term digital media initiatives that will accelerate\r\nthe adoption of digital content."\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nIn addition, Microsoft agreed to provide the AOL online service with a\r\nnew distribution channel for its software to certain PC users worldwide\r\n-- by providing AOL software discs to some PC manufacturers.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nThe companies said they also would study ways to make their popular\r\ninstant messaging (news - web sites) software products compatible.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nFrom a financial point of view, it is "a positive move" for AOL, gets\r\nsome cash that will help cuts its 30 billion dollar debt, said Standard\r\nand Poor's analyst Heather Goodchild.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n"What is perhaps most noticeable is that in all the terms and conditions\r\nof the agreement it is either AOL getting something, or both sides\r\nseemingly equally benefiting," said Bear Sterns analysts.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nIn addition to the unexpected cash windfall, the settlement is an\r\nimportant symbolic and strategic move for AOL, Smith Barney Citigroup\r\nsaid. "There are more important battles, in our view, than fighting over\r\nshare of the browser market," the broker added.\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nBut Ed Black of the anti-Microsoft Computer and Communications Industry\r\nAssociation said the settlement "is a relatively small price to pay for\r\nillegally crushing the company that brought the World Wide Web to most\r\nconsumers."\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\nAOL shares rose 2.5 percent to 15.22 and Microsoft gained 0.86 percent\r\nto 24.61 in closing trade.\r\n \r\n --\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
Edited by kmself
June 1, 2003, 04:18:12 PM EDT
|
Post #104,481
6/2/03 9:26:51 AM
|
Wow
My [link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/FUDMicrosoftAOLPartnership|response].
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #104,493
6/2/03 10:19:06 AM
|
Not all the press are blind.
[link|http://salon.com/tech/col/leon/2003/06/02/unholy_alliance/index.html|This guy] seems to get it. (Salon article, Watch the ad if you don't have a subscription) But the closer you look at the provisions of the agreement, the better it appears for Microsoft. As part of the deal, AOL is also receiving a license to Microsoft's Windows Media technology and is agreeing to cooperate on instant messaging and digital rights management services. These are all areas that Microsoft has, with good reason, targeted as crucial markets of the future. Microsoft has always wanted a piece of every online transaction: If it controls the Web browser, and the content distribution technology, and the digitial rights management software, well, $750 million suddenly seems like chump change if it means getting the largest media corporation and largest online service in the world to use your software. AOL, after all, was desperate to begin paying down its $23 billion in debt. Far from admitting guilt, it looks as though Microsoft took advantage of AOL's need for cash to establish another major beachhead for its products.
So, Microsoft wins, again. After doling out spare change from its $46 billion cash reserves to make sure that the one company with the resources and technology that could have been a threat to it no longer poses a challenge, Microsoft is exactly where it intended to be from the beginning -- ruling the roost, ensuring that its software is ubiquitous. Neither the federal government nor the world's biggest media corporation can stop it. Is there anyone else left? -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where's Osama? Where's the WMD? Where's the Anthrax killer? Where's the report of the investigation on 9/11?
|
Post #104,498
6/2/03 10:45:45 AM
|
Gillmor too
From the S.J. Mercury "Murky" News: [link|http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5975716.htm|Microsoft to settle Netscape lawsuit.] \r\n\r\n \r\nThe two companies also announced agreements aimed at increasing consumer access to digital content and ensuring their technologies work smoothly together. AOL will license Microsoft's Windows Media 9 software for playing online content. AOL also will license Microsoft's Internet Explorer browsing technology royalty-free for seven years.\r\n \r\n\r\n Like I said. Wait, no. Like you said. \r\n\r\n Dan [link|http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/001055.shtml#001055|hisself]: \r\n \r\nThe digital content deal is the real story here. OK, sure, Microsoft is paying off AOL in part to get rid of an antitrust claim that could have cost billions -- but which Microsoft can now settle on the cheap, relatively speaking, because AOL is so hard up for cash. \r\n\r\nBut the key is AOL's push toward Windows Media software, solidifying Microsoft's growing control over what we all read, listen to and watch online. Real Networks will be the big loser corporately, and of course customers are the biggest losers of all. \r\n\r\nThe deal is as fundamentally anti-customer as you could possibly imagine, because Microsoft and the entertainment cartel (AOL is a member in good standing of the cartel) are working to create read-only content. They are in league to block fair use, to create a pay-per-view world for all kinds of digital material, and that includes software as well as entertainment. \r\n\r\nMore depressingly, the settlement is another victory for Microsoft and its monopolistic practices. A payment of $750 million, for a company with more than $45 billion in the bank, is a rounding error. From Microsoft's perspective, it surely must be a great investment, because it turns out to cost small change to break the law to kill a competitor in order to keep the monpoly. \r\n --\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #104,504
6/2/03 11:05:07 AM
|
Only good to come out of this
At some point, TimeWarner will learn the truism that a Microsoft partner is simply an enemy they haven't gotten to yet. When that happens, we get to see whether Microsoft or the RIAA/MPAA have the really big lawyers.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
