Re: Boycott Microsoft

In article <6jfjqs$srj$1@cdshub.cdc.com>, "Mark A. Peters" <Mark.A.Peters@nothere.cdc.com> wrote: >Somehow I missed Mr. Hunter's little gem about my name. I love seeing >opponents resort to name calling, since that's a sure sign that they have no >actual argument to make, and most likely that they don't believe what they >believe on the basis of arguments anyway. > >I guess I don't qualify as a "self-serving hypocrite" since I don't work for >Microsoft, don't program for Windows, and would rather use a Mac instead of >this PC I have to use at work. Damn, another dream destroyed! > >Allegations about "fraud and corruption" by Microsoft are complete BS - I was hoping I could get through this thread without raising my voice, but.... It seems to me, back in '94, an OS came out title DOS 6.0. This was a Microsoft release I believe! It included this great new feature for doubling your Hard Disk space, turns out though the programming code used in this add-on was identical to something currently on the market. But Microsoft didn't create this code, no one sat up late at night, in Redmond, pulling out their hair to make it work. Nope, someone took it upon themselves to just borrow a bit here and a byte there. And call it their own! If they can do this and get caught, how many times have they done this and not been found out?? Seems to be a rather large shred of your evidence! the JarHead >there is not one shred of evidence to back up these claims, and the same >goes for claims that Microsoft stole ideas and/or software. Furthermore, >the current attacks on Microsoft aren't based on any such accusations, >despite the fact that you can bet your bottom dollar they would be if the >government thought there was any merit to them. The attacks on Microsoft >are simply an example of what happens when envy-ridden mediocrities feel >safe in letting their envy show because productive ability and success are >so widely hated in our society. > >I'm not surprised to see the "good of the many" mantra and the case of >Socrates offered up to justify vilification of Microsoft. Both of these are >actually examples of _totalitarian_ approaches to government. Socrates was >not accused of a crime, he was simply accused of espousing unpopular ideas. >The question of whether Socrates should be allowed to live or be killed was >put to a vote of the general population. That is an example of _unlimited_ >majority rule, i.e., tyranny by the majority. As with all forms of tyranny, >the mantra of the "good of the many" is always invoked to justify it. > >Mark Peters > -- J & J Consulting Jared & Jamie Hay