ROFL
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| techiem2 May 11, 2009 10:52 PM EDT |
"Waaah! People using other browsers will mean they default to Google instead of MSN! Waaaaah!" |
| Alterax May 11, 2009 11:23 PM EDT |
*snickering* Sounds about right! |
| tracyanne May 11, 2009 11:41 PM EDT |
Aw gee, even when I do use IE I don't use MSN, poor Microsoft. |
| tuxchick May 11, 2009 11:43 PM EDT |
I weep. Oh wait, no I don't! |
| caitlyn May 12, 2009 1:26 AM EDT |
Me neither. Microsoft just doesn't like competition. I was happy to read that the Obama administration is looking at tougher anti-trust law enforcement in the U.S. Anyone else thinking DOJ vs. Microsoft, round 2? If so I just hope DOJ does a better job this time than last time and has people that actually understand the technologies involved. |
| bigg May 12, 2009 5:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft argues that the result would be lessened competition in the highly prized Internet search market. In other words, if Microsoft can't misuse its monopoly, it will hurt competition? I'd like to see an attorney try to use that argument in court without busting out laughing. It's as credible as the "Failure to File" syndrome that was claimed in tax evasion lawsuits a few years ago. |
| jsusanka May 12, 2009 9:01 AM EDT |
I use google because it runs on any computer I am working on including my phone. Microsoft still just doesn't get that concept. You definitely can't say the same about their products. The search engine market is a level playing field. That is what microsoft doesn't like they were too busy trying to lock up their monopoly on the desktop and browser to notice the search engine market. They are free to come up with their product and to make it run on any computer. Then maybe I would use it but they are too blind to see that as an advantage. So looks like I am still going to use the evil google who just wants EVERYONE to use their products not just the users of one operating system. They are just trying to distract the actual subject which is their illegal behavior on the desktop. So please microsoft lets stay on the subject. |
| TxtEdMacs May 12, 2009 9:25 AM EDT |
Quoting: ... I'd like to see an attorney try to use that argument in court without busting out laughing.I have to assume you know nothing about legal arguments as used in courts. Take even a case involving a serious breach of the law, in arguing for their clients you will hear a shopping list of what the lawyer hopes some jurors will buy, which includes mutually exclusive scenarios. For example, even if you believe the weapon used in the robbery murder that supposedly has my client's finger prints on it you should know he was not the one commiting that crime because he loaned that weapon out for the day and was purported to be across town involved in a bank robbery. The photo of that masked person who fled without harming anyone nor taking any cash is my client as he will now readily admit. Should that be too hard to swallow, he has a smudged sauna ticket with a date time stamp that proves he could not have dressed in time to be at the site of either crime ... What is being sought is a juror that buys into some argument that either gets the client off or at worse is convicted of the lesser crime. Despite lawyers being officers of the court, the theory in adversarial justice is that spirited competition between opposing sides will lead more often to the "truth". Many times that is not the case, with the innocent or the lesser guilty charged and convicted of crimes that are far beyond their misdeeds. Take a single case my son saw, in an urban area: a person living in the city was arrested for dealing in drugs (from the amounts involved he was probably a user to at worst a small time dealer) the supposed clients (suburbanites) somehow walked away without being identified or charged. With this bloated charge the case was illegally shifted to another county with a reputation of harsh enforcement of the drug laws. Despite the paucity of real evidence and illegal procedures in a supposedly liberal state, this person settled for years of imprisonment. All because he lacked the wealth to buy a good defense. I am afraid the Law as practiced is just not a laughing matter. Had I the power, I would not legalize drugs, but I would stop all imprisonments of users that had not committed any other crime, I would confiscate as much drugs from the dealers to supply the hard core users (at no charge) and offer the best medical programs for those that would like to be rid of the habit. Note that even hard core users manytimes wish to quit and the attractiveness of drug usage diminishes in eyes of most youth when they see only those at the lowest rungs of life desire it. It loses its mystique, it's dirt cheap, if it's not free those pushing it look like bums as would its users. The flash of wealth and power will be gone. YBT P.S. Sorry, got carried away. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!