I propose a "Denial of usefullness" attack on the NSA

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Alan Browne, Sep 7, 2013.

  1. Alan Browne

    Howard Guest

    Certainly in the current state America is in, yes. A permanent state of
    fear sadly.
     
    Howard, Sep 12, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Rod Speed Guest

    Not just the current state America is in, its been true for centurys
    now in the great democracys and right thruout the West and
    most other places like Japan and China for centurys too.

    It’s a VERY fundamental feature of human nature. That sort of
    dramatic event will always be much easier to find money for.
    While that may be true, it isn't what drives that.

    Britain in the 19th century wasn’t like that, and it was still
    much easier to find large amounts of money for war and
    other events like that than it was for the other stuff.

    That was even true of Germany under
    Bismarck and France with Napoleon too.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 12, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Fred Moore Guest

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by
    menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
    --H. L. Mencken
    Hey! It's good for business and keeps the peons in place. Oligarchs and
    plutocrats LOVE that.

    Behind every great fortune there is a great crime.
    --Honoré de Balzac

    USA: Best government money can buy!
    A Plea for Caution From Russia
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-ru
    ssia-on-syria.html>
    Questioning American narcissism, er, I mean exceptionalism?!? Heresy!

    truth:
    When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
    carrying a cross.
    --Sinclair Lewis

    wisdom:
    "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
    formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
    the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the
    foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
    -- Winston Churchill, Nov 21, 1943

    infiinite wisdom:
    "In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious
    consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates
    adverse consequences."
    -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004

    transcendence:
    Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle
    -- Plato

    reality:
    Values are a type of emotional illusion common to children, idiots, and
    non-engineers.
    -- Dilbert
     
    Fred Moore, Sep 12, 2013
    #63
  4. Alan Browne

    Rod Speed Guest

    There was nothing imaginary about 9/11, WW1, WW2.
    That wasn’t what produced WW1 and WW2.
    There wasn’t with Gate's great fortune, or Brin's or Buffet's.
    It hasn’t come to any of the great democracys.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 12, 2013
    #64
  5. Alan Browne

    Howard Guest

    Some rather depressing comparisons to have to chose ....
     
    Howard, Sep 13, 2013
    #65
  6. Alan Browne

    Rod Speed Guest

    True, but they are situations where all of those countrys
    who were attempting to spend a hell of a lot on the sort
    of thing that you prefer to see money spent on that found
    it a lot easier to spend a lot more on full wars instead.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 13, 2013
    #66
  7. Alan Browne

    Michael Eyd Guest

    Am 12.09.2013 23:56, schrieb Rod Speed:
    Well, I don't know about Brin or Buffet (just because nothing's known to
    the public doesn't mean there was none... ;-) ), but for Gates there is
    proof: Microsoft was found guilty of charges of anti-competitive
    behavior (or what the exact reason was, but it was something similar to
    that) for their attempts to make the Internet Explorer the #1 browser in
    the market. They were fined in both the US and the EU with very high
    fines and only barely managed to get around the fate of Ma Bell - being
    broken up.

    Proof enough?

    Best regards,

    Michael
     
    Michael Eyd, Sep 13, 2013
    #67
  8. Alan Browne

    Rod Speed Guest

    We do.
    It does with the GREAT CRIME being discussed.
    Doesn’t qualify as a GREAT CRIME and that
    wasn’t what produced his great fortune.
    No, that isnt illegal, let alone a GREAT CRIME.
    No they were not, because that was not illegal.
    Nope.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 13, 2013
    #68
  9. Alan Browne

    Michael Eyd Guest

    Am 13.09.2013 09:15, schrieb Rod Speed:
    Well, what's a great crime if not a crime which gives you big money? At
    least here in this context...
    But it helped a lot keeping Microsoft not only afloat (had they missed
    the Internet train completely, chances are high they would've gone belly
    up), but even increasing their market dominance.
    The attempt in its own right is perfectly ok, but the means used by MS
    were not. And they were found guilty on those.
    They were for the reasons stated above.

    May I just cite from Wikipedia
    (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft>, fourth paragraph): "In the
    1990s, critics began to contend that Microsoft used monopolistic
    business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to
    deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its
    software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S.
    Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in
    violation of antitrust laws."

    From the same article, section "1995–2005: Internet and the 32-bit
    era": "On April 3, 2000, a judgment was handed down in the case of
    United States v. Microsoft,[33] calling the company an "abusive
    monopoly";[34] it settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2004."

    Same paragraph: "In March 2004 the European Union brought antitrust
    legal action against the company, citing it abused its dominance with
    the Windows OS, resulting in a judgment of €497 million ($613 million)
    and to produce new versions of Windows XP without Windows Media Player,
    Windows XP Home Edition N and Windows XP Professional N."

    Section "2006–10: Windows Vista, mobile, and Windows 7": "The European
    Union imposed another fine of €899 million ($1.4 billion) for
    Microsoft's lack of compliance with the March 2004 judgment on February
    27, 2008, saying that the company charged rivals unreasonable prices for
    key information about its workgroup and backoffice servers."

    So alone the EU fined about 2 billion US-$ - AFAIK the highest fines
    ever imposed world-wide. Add to that the fines the US imposed - if
    that's not proof of some serious mischief, I don't know which planet
    you're living on...
    Hm, let's see what e.g. the The Seattle Times has in their archives. Ah
    yes, on May 11, 2011 the article "Long antitrust saga ends for
    Microsoft" was published
    (<http://seattletimes.com/html/microsoft/2015029604_microsoft12.html>).
    May I cite the second paragraph? "The company barely escaped being split
    up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its
    stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to
    cripple competitors, such as Netscape's Navigator Web browser."

    Or let's take a look at NCSU
    (<http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/commerce/anticompetitive/dominance/microsoft/study.php>):
    "In June 2000, Judge Thomas Jackson ordered Microsoft to be split into
    two companies." Though this ruling was later changed in appeals, seeing
    it written in a court ruling is in my world 'a direct hit'.
    I would consider rethinking your statements... ;-)

    Best regards,

    Michael
     
    Michael Eyd, Sep 13, 2013
    #69
  10. Alan Browne

    Rod Speed Guest

    That particular thing didn’t, and its not even a minor crime either.
    No, it did nothing of the kind and wasn’t
    even illegal either, let alone a great crime.
    That wouldn’t have happened even if they
    had not bothered to do any browser at all.
    No, they would not have done that even if
    they had not bothered with a browser at all.
    That was due to something else entirely, becoming
    what most chose to use OS and Office wise.
    That is just plain wrong. What they did, including
    IE with the OS was not illegal, let alone a crime.
    No they were not, because including IE with their OS
    was not illegal, let alone a crime or a great crime.
    That is nothing like your claim about attempting to make IE #1.
    But not of doing what you claimed about IE.
    Nothing to do with your claim about trying to make IE #1.
    Nothing to do with your claim about trying to make IE #1.
    Nothing to do with your claim about trying to make IE #1.
    Nothing to do with your claim about trying to make IE #1.
    Nothing to do with your claim about trying to make IE #1.
    Nothing to do with your claim about trying to make IE #1.
    Nothing to do with your claim about trying to make IE #1.
    Just because some stupid journo claims something...
    Just because some stupid journo claims something...
    Because he had no capacity to do that.
    But never came even close to seeing them get what happened to AT&T.
    No need, you were just plain wrong.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 13, 2013
    #70
  11. Alan Browne

    Michael Eyd Guest

    Am 13.09.2013 12:31, schrieb Rod Speed:
    If you think so, be my guest - I will certainly not argue on that level
    any more...

    Michael
     
    Michael Eyd, Sep 13, 2013
    #71
  12. His mind is made up. Don´t confuse him with the facts.
     
    Bernd Fröhlich, Sep 13, 2013
    #72
  13. Alan Browne

    Howard Guest

    Ehhhhh I think it'll take me a few weeks to figure that sentence out ...
    I'll get back t'ya.....

    LOL
     
    Howard, Sep 13, 2013
    #73
  14. Alan Browne

    AV3 Guest


    Not nearly. First of all, you are comparing apples and oranges. Ma Bell
    wasn't broken up for being a monopoly. It was a legitimate monopoly
    granted at a time when it was thought sound policy to have a uniform
    national telephone network, so remote and rural areas would be
    guaranteed equal service to that in more densely populated areas. After
    many decades, perhaps too many, it was determined that there had been
    mass emigration from rural areas to towns and cities, so the no longer
    needed monopoly was discontinued. The constituent regional corporations
    of AT&T took over their local networks and began operating
    independently, so AT&T's constituents retained control of the monopoly
    pieces.


    The result has been various degrees of profitability in the old
    constituent corporations, and the remote and rural areas are worse off,
    but too underpopulated to raise a noticeable protest. Every fall I visit
    Lake George, New York, where old landline telephones maintain
    old-fashioned telephone service, there are no cell phone towers for
    miles around, and wi-fi is spotty and self-provided. There are no
    Starbucks or other providers of public access to wi-fi.


    As for Microsoft, one overturned judgement offering to break it up does
    not amount to a conviction for criminal actions. What Mencken meant by
    "crime" was rapacious competition to bankrupt competitors and buy-outs
    of their ruined assets and murderous attacks on employees who tried to
    unionize and correct dangerous working conditions in mines and factories.


    Microsoft was justly convicted of unfair practices to gain a monopoly of
    the browser operating in its OS. Their excuse for refusing to unlock
    their OS to other browsers was rightly laughed out of court. It was a
    shady business practice but not criminal.



    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <> ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <> ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poÅta adreso por Äusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
     
    AV3, Sep 14, 2013
    #74
  15. Alan Browne

    Rod Speed Guest

    No. There was never any attempt to gain
    a monopoly of the browser in its OS.
    That isnt what happened either. You were
    always welcome to add any browser you liked.

    The complaint was about it being included
    in the OS and it not being possible to delete
    it from the OS, an entirely different matter.

    And that wasn’t about attempting a monopoly
    either, just about giving IE a real advantage over
    the alternatives, particularly in being what was
    there by default. Nothing even remotely like any
    monopoly when you were always free to add any
    browser you liked to what was there by default.
    No, it wasn’t even that.
    Correct.

    Even the other unfair practice of giving those
    who chose to sell Win with the hardware they
    sold a much better price for Win if they installed
    it on all the hardware they sold wasn’t illegal,
    and was only arguably an unfair business practice,
    particularly when the main alternative was quite
    literally free.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 14, 2013
    #75
  16. Alan Browne

    Michael Eyd Guest

    Am 14.09.2013 04:38, schrieb AV3:
    <lots of comments on Ma Bell snipped>

    I'm not discussing at all the Ma Bell case, therefore I won't answer to
    these parts.
    It was a conviction, as it was a judgement issued after a trial. That in
    the end it wasn't kept is another point - unless you want to make the
    point the first trial was completely unfair and not according to legal
    standards. IMHO this judgement is sufficient for my claim.

    Anyway: In court the old rule applies "Three judges, four opinions"... ;-)
    Well, I don't know what he meant, for me big (business) crime starts way
    before that point.
    Oh, now that's interesting: You get convicted, but it was not
    'criminal'? Perhaps I'm missing something here in my command of the
    English language (which is by no means my native tongue), but for me
    this does not really fit...

    Best regards,

    Michael
     
    Michael Eyd, Sep 16, 2013
    #76
  17. Alan Browne

    AV3 Guest


    You were discussing Ma Bell when you brought it into the discussion. I
    refuted your mistaken assumptions about the case. Case closed.


    No, a reversed judgement means it was wrongly made. It no longer counts.
    There is no longer a conviction, fine, condemnation, etc. The judgement
    of a higher court cancels that of a lower court. Only the judgement at
    the highest level of appeal counts. No one is a felon or a former felon
    whose conviction has been reversed.


    See above.


    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <> ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <> ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poÅta adreso por Äusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
     
    AV3, Sep 16, 2013
    #77
  18. Alan Browne

    Michael Eyd Guest

    Am 16.09.2013 17:04, schrieb AV3:
    I brought it into the discussion just as an example of what almost
    happened to MS. I did nowhere start a discussion about that case - and I
    will not go there now.
    I didn't make any assumptions about that case at all. I just stated (and
    you didn't state differently) that Ma Bell was split up into the Baby
    Bells. Full stop. Now, is that correct or not?
    Agreed, nevertheless there was a judgement out ruling that MS was to be
    taken apart. It was (for various reasons) not upheld in the end, but it
    was a legal judgement. Had MS not appealed, it would still stand today -
    and MS would be split up by now. That is what I call 'close to being
    taken apart'. If you don't, be my guest, but for me that was as close as
    MS could get to this happening, without it happening in the end. And no
    more was I stating...
    Oh, MS was not found guilty in the end? MS was cleared of all charges in
    the highest level of appeal? Sorry, my records (and my memory, and my
    cites, ...) tell me differently... ;-)

    Best regards,

    Michael
     
    Michael Eyd, Sep 16, 2013
    #78
  19. Alan Browne

    AV3 Guest


    You equated that the threatened break-up of MS with the "break-up" of Ma
    Bell, a still inappropriate comparison. Bell's legitimate monopoly was
    voided and parts of Ma Bell legitimately inherited the pieces of its
    former legal monopoly. MS was threatened with a punishing break-up for
    illegal monopoly practices.


    MS was not convicted of criminal activity, only lesser charges. No
    "crime" in the Mencken sense or any other sense was committed.


    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <> ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <> ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poÅta adreso por Äusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
     
    AV3, Sep 16, 2013
    #79
  20. Alan Browne

    Rod Speed Guest

    No it did not. There was never any possibility what so ever of
    MS being broken up because that was never going to happen.
    You brought it up, and got the story completely wrong.
    Yes you did, you assumed that there was any
    possibility of MS being broken up. There wasn’t.
    No, you stated that that could have happened to Microsoft.

    It couldn’t.
    It is not correct that Microsoft was in that situation as a result
    of attempting to make their browser #1 in the market. There
    was nothing illegal about that, so that could not have resulted in
    Microsoft being broken up because there was no crime committed.
    So there was no crime, let alone a great crime.
    More fool you. It was never even close to being taken apart.
    You're wrong.
    Not of attempting to make their browser #1. Nothing illegal about that.

    Nothing illegal about including it with their OS either.
    No they don’t with that claim of yours about attempting to make their
    browser #1.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 16, 2013
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.