Skylab72

Do not mean to say that. I only demand value for value, McD does not make the cut for me, but thousands consume happily. Not an issue. Precisely! That is why businesses who defraud the the less affluent are all the more heinous.

I'm busted. I drive a Mercedes, and ride a BMW.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for BG. Just one single point relative to MSFT vs DOJ. The subject of the case was the "browser wars". I personally documented and provided to my employer at the time and they in turn to an involved attorney, evidence that MS-IE programmatically prevented the down load of three specific browsers. In my book that is FRAUD, totally apart from any malfeasance found via antitrust. It is MY computer and I have the sole right to say what it is to be used for. MSFT has repeatedly and persistently stolen the work of my machine running on my electricity, to perform tasks I did not and would not approve, and in this specific case while REFUSING to do a task I gave the command to do. That is fraud.

Indeed, from the lexicon of AR novels, he seems to have a "second handers" taste and a "second handers" integrity.

Your responses sound more to me like you never started reading. I have no need to defend a position to someone whose mind is closed, and who seems to prefer being a bully.

Not just already possible, already available. People did not chose them either because they were already familiar with a similar MS product or when that was not the case, they were unaware or unconvinced the alternative product was superior. Anyway, some alternatives were not... Well actually, I do. The model-T was mediocre engineering even for the time. But it's shortcomings became 'lovable quirks' as it's popularity grew. Please remember that Henry's contribution to the auto industry was not the cars that he built. It was the manufacturing methods. And yes even McDonald's. I have not eaten one of their sandwiches since the sign in front of store#4 in Cahokia, Ill rolled over to 500,000 sold. Hopefully you can tell that was a while back. "Acceptable mediocrity" is not my thing in hamburgers, particularly considering McDonald's documented nutritional failings. At least they are working on that last part. McDonald's innovation was not product, but marketing. Do you see a pattern?

When I first read your response Nicky, I thought you were joking. Then the follow on material showed me you were serious, so I will deal with your opener later. First, I must assert that you misquote me. I never said "his products have no value". Such an assertion is clearly untrue. The value of a piece of executable code is it's ability to satisfy some need, or set of needs, computer users may have. People who voluntarily pay their hard earned money for MSFT software clearly find value in it. You then go on to assume I at some point I was in 'direct competition' with Bill Gates. That to is just not the case. Consumer software for personal computers never attracted my attention professionally. The 'tech revolution' was a candy store for me, and I 'competed' in multiple areas, all quite profitably. Before Mr. Gates came on the scene I had been assimilated by the 'military industrial complex' and before 'Windows' was a viable product, I was busy producing the code that allowed so-called 'smart bombs' to fly down the exhaust stack of a designated target. By the time I chose to abandon the MIC, and return to 'private industry', I chose the telecom industry for market trend reasons. Seven years before Gates and the MSFT crew discovered they needed to 'compete' relative to the internet, we built out the infrastructure the nascent internet needed to explode into public consciousness, why would I care to 'compete' with someone lagging my focus by a decade? Again you assume I consider Mr. Gates my inferior. I do not. I consider him a younger contemporary in the computer business who happens to be very successful financially. Some of his friends I hold in high enough esteem to personally be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. My ONLY point is that from an O'ist ethical point of view Mr. Gates, does not, has not, and unfortunately may never, measure up to even the most modest of standards. You noted my assertion the industry would have done fine without the Gates factor, and asked, why did it wind up using so much MSFT product (relying on him). Good question. In several posts I have alluded to the one stroke of brilliance that assured the success of MSFT, and that is Mr. Gates saw, understood, and figured out how to take advantage of a market phenomenon I call "The demand stickiness of familiarity in software". I use that phrase to denote the preference all computer users have for the software with which, they are familiar. Learning how to use new software in the twentieth century, was often a chore. That fact seriously skews the demand for any given software product among all those already familiar with it's behavior. Bill is the world champion at turning that concept into cash. I tip my hat. Now for the think before you speak department: You say, "I have heard every possible critique of Microsoft's products there is, already. So I'm not really interested in another rundown." Oh, Really!?! I offer civil conversation about facts and you reply in essence, 'don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up'. Did no one ever teach you the old saw about the similarity between a mind and a parachute? Both are ONLY useful when they are open. Then you begin a sentence with, "If your ambition was to beat those who are your inferiors (as it should be)". My my, enjoy playing the bully do you? Frankly I have no such desire. My inferiors get along fine with a little help from me when I am so inclined, and the rest of the time they are pretty much on their own. When I compete it is largely in-class, and I have run in some impressive classes. Did not always win, but my losses were more instructive than the wins. And I always played by O'ist ethics.

Good question. No one. The guys at SUN came as close as anyone I know of. But even there... Your statement sounds reasonable, though I can imagine an O'ist who could object on moral grounds, but tolerate MSFT for pragmatic reasons. I my self agree with you to the point, that I compute in a Microsoft free environment, and I tolerate the MSFT influence in the server space for similar pragmatic reasons. I do blacklist IIS servers as I become aware of them, however. This forum is hosted by 1&1 and I am familiar with their stack. They indulge MSFT centric customers as one must in that market, but their admins are talented at keeping objectionable MSFT behaviour in check.

Interesting thought, but I can imagine a "perfect" future capitalist that would not need to keep things like Bill Gates from happening. Such a "perfect" system would however, give victims of business malfeasance some hope of reasonable recourse for their injury. I agree, strictly from the viewpoint of leveraging government power for profitability, MSFT never really tried that approach. Moreover the whole IP debate, does as you say, have a complexity that invites debate. Reasonable observers can and do have differing opinions. Additionally I would suggest that it would be hard to describe a market system that, a priori, tried to prevent the rise of unethical tradesmen, as free. Once unethical behavior is detected however, it behoves a moral system to offer recourse to the victims. Where I would caution you is the blanket characterization of Mr. Gates as 'bad'. As with any individual whose total impact has been multiplied to such an enormous scale, both the good and the bad are amplified. We all have our virtues and our vices. Like you I have had periods where Mr. Gates vices gave me a really bad attitude toward him, but the damage is done, and I honestly think very little additional harm will be forthcoming from MSFT.

May I suggest the industry he had such a powerful impact on would have done quite nicely without him. There were thousands of us laboring to bring compute power to the masses, and the one unique contribution of Mr Gates, while both brilliant and shrewd, did not 'define' the industry. I have never denigrated his intelligence, nor his business acumen, nor the power of the juggernaut of Redmond. I suggest ONLY that as an O'ist model he is lacking.

Bill Gates is NOT representative of Capitalism qua capitalism. He is representative of capitalism as practiced in the USA in the latter half of the twentieth century. Capitalism is an UNKNOWN ideal. The result of his existence is unpleasant, he himself is quite personable when he wants to be.

Well Nicky, if you are using a Microsoft platform for this interchange then no, I have not 'created' anything you are using to talk right now. I am on a Unix platform. On this side I admin the whole stack, and do have bits of my own code enabling this conversation. But that is not the point. We agree in essence then on everything, his money is his to use as he sees fit, and I have no call to nor do I desire to affect Mr Gates in any way. My only exception would be our evaluation of the value of the product(s) of Microsoft. I have no desire to ignite software religious wars on a philosophical forum, so suffice it to say my opinions of Microsoft derive from fifty plus years as a computer science professional. They are based in code review, objective performance tests, real world utilization, and dealing with the consequences of using Microsoft products in both large and small shops over a thirty year period. I stand by those opinions and am willing to discuss them only if you are willing to discuss facts and be civil. My point here is simply that from an objectivist ethical point of view, Mr Gates and the company he founded, both leave a great deal to be desired should an O'ist want to use them as a model for behavior. BTW perjury is criminal. Have you read the transcript of Mr Gates testimony during Microsoft v DOJ? Better yet have you watched the video?

I have long failed to understand why O'ists seem to have a tendency to laud Bill Gates. From my perspective as, an O'ist since 1961, a computer science professional since 1969, and the son of a capitalist who started ran and sold three businesses, I have always found him to be a poor example at best, and reprehensible at worst. None of that is to imply the man is not highly intelligent. Nor do I fail to understand that he understood one key principle in economics of the software industry, both well enough, and far enough before anyone else, to assure his and his firm's ascendancy in the American market place. However, his behavior, his words, and his legacy are all of one moral stance, a looter, not at all similar to a moral O'ist.

Yeah, I said it. I think irrationalism is crazy.

The OP reminds me of discussions of mental health I read in a Psyc course some time back. There was a distinction drawn between two basically different types of mental illness. Neurosis on the one hand, defined as perceiving reality reasonably well, but reacting to those perceptions in inappropriate ways. While the other, Psychosis, was defined as failing to perceive reality with consistency or failing to perceive reality accurately yet responding reasonably rationally to that which is perceived. The approach one takes with people who make these outlandish (to an O'ist) assertions depends on your best judgment of which of these two categories best fits them. That said I would refer you to JASKN's warning above, mental illness can be very intractable. However in the GROSSEST of oversimplifications, comfort the neurotic and protect them from the people who abused them into this behaviour, and gently confront the behaviours that are self destructive first. Then for the psychotic, cajole them into believing you are an ally, then carefully present bifurcating choices where both alternatives are more realistic than their default position, until they loose/forget their way back to the psychotic state. Good luck.

Awww, come on guys. This kind of discussion goes with the turf in philosophical circles. Witness: If Hegel had written the whole of his logic and then said, in the preface or some other place, that it was merely an experiment in thought in which he had even begged the question in many places, then he would certainly have been the greatest thinker who had ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic. — Søren Kierkegaard, (Journals, 1844) How is that for a 'citation'... BTW RailRoad Man, does this quote give you another way to view Hume?

There is no consensus. The science is indeterminate.

He did not recant, he just issued a loud 'You misunderstood'.

Ambiguous is the phrase 'the state'. Man must NOT live for any state but a rigorously constrained one. Your most common contradictions (more than I care to address) are conflations of concepts that do not easily mix. Yes Karl Marx's 1884 manuscript opens with a stinging indictment of his followers. He goes on to expose several misapplications of his methods. By the end I was sad for the man, both because he never finished the manuscript, and because he felt so misunderstood. Your characterization of Objectivism as black&white is a misunderstanding as well. I see in Objectivists, a deep understanding of the shades of grey. It is a source of much discussion, the reason for this forum in fact. I like to say 'the devil is in the details'. However, we are trying to point out that we have some FUNDAMENTAL metaphysical premises, that we will NOT compromise. Stubbornly challenging those on this forum usually results in deterioration of civil discussion.

BkGrnd Protest Family includes Jew, Cath, Protest, Buddhst, NewAge, plus a few Athest, Agnost, Nostic, some of which sort of overlap... We do have lively arguments.

OH NO, OP asked for Background NOT current status...

So I see.

That, sir, is an excellent example of 'double-think'. You twist your own words, and have clearly never read Marx last manuscript.

Progress of sorts... Unfortunately we have not yet gotten to capitalism. It would be a great candidate for what is next, though the probability still seems low. Ilya, may I assume you have not ever read Marx's 1894 manuscript? This thread is frustrating to read. It sounds like a conversation between the architects of the Tower of Babel.

On another tangent: "Shadow Government" is an interesting concept that, as yet, has too many definitions to be useful in civil conversation. It can refer to anything from Russian Oligarchs, to the Tri-Lateral Commission, to 'the corporate elite', to an Hierarchy of Ancient Adepts. Please let us define our arbitrary groupings of players by their real properties, not by their presumed function.