Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#802 Dec 05 2011 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you know anyone who pays for Chrome or Firefox?

That's like saying having a lot of home viewers watching NBC over CBS isn't important to NBC because home viewers don't directly mail NBC a check.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#803 Dec 05 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Giberish Boy wrote:
You can't seriously be arguing that the various open and near-open software vendors out there are actually competing with MS in terms of market profitability.


Quote:
but that doesn't mean that it has more of a monopoly today in the areas it was most monopolistic back in the 90s. Which was exactly the point I was making



Your points sure line up thats for sure. No one can compete with Microsoft!!!!!, But it isn't nearly as monopolistic as it was in the 90's.


Are you retarded. I miswrote that. I meant to say that it's not "less of a monopoly today". Double negative got me is all. Did you seriously read me saying over and over "MS is more of a monopoly today than it was in the 90s", then find one example of me writing the exact opposite and think "hahaha! I got him!". Really?

That's pretty darn pathetic.

Quote:
I love when people argue with themselves for my amusement.


Change one word and there's no self-arguing. Holy hell. How weak must your position be to do that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#804 Dec 05 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
you miss wrote that and I am retarded?

and what double negative? There isn't one.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#805 Dec 05 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,201 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is. Apple's gains in the market have nothing to do with MS's control over the computer operating system market.


Well, unless we are forward thinking and recognize that what we consider a computer today is going to look as dated as a green screened monstrosity running DOS in 20 years...

If you don't think tablet COMPUTERS are computers, then sure, maybe you have a point. What all the rest of us who are not completely myopic can see is that while MS O-systems might dominate the desktop computer market now, Android and Apple are solidifying their hold in high growth areas of computing. (Cell phones, tablets, laptops)

The expertise/patents/profits they are gathering while they do so will put MS at even more of a disadvantage in the long term as more and more consumers move towards these forms of computing.


Edited, Dec 5th 2011 4:11pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#806 Dec 05 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
you miss wrote that and I am retarded?


Yeah. For not realizing that when someone says "X>Y" 10 times in a row, and then one time in the midst of making a larger point says "X<Y, just as I've been saying all along", means that the guy made a mistake when he wrote it down, and isn't actually completely reversing his position.

Quote:
and what double negative? There isn't one.


"Doesn't" and "less". And actually, even my change isn't exactly what I intended when I wrote that (but I don't feel like going back and changing it again). What I was really trying to say is that this doesn't mean that MS is not more of a monopoly today than it was back then. Which is, quite honestly, a freaking obnoxious sentence.


What I'm trying to get across is that in any area in which MS was monopolistic back then it is *more* monopolistic today.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#807 Dec 05 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Oh I wasn't aware you knew what you were talking about since you haven't really had a coherent argument at all over the last few pages. So I wasn't aware that I was actually arguing with anyone who was trying to make a point.

Also less is not a negative. Less fat that is a positive for a lot of people, less air is probably a negative, but we could always drop the bullsh*t and you could just say you don't know what your talking about at all (over the last 2 rants youve had). But then again it is 200x much more fun this way too.

Spin on.






Quote:
What I was really trying to say is that this doesn't mean that MS is not more of a monopoly today than it was back then. Which is, quite honestly, a freaking obnoxious sentence.


I agree it is an obnoxious sentence/claim., which is why I found it odd you would say with impunity that it is more of a monopoly when it isn't at all. Now that we agree that MS is less of a monopoly than it was can you stop channeling Alma for a bit?




Edited, Dec 5th 2011 7:38pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#808 Dec 05 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Oh I wasn't aware you knew what you were talking about since you haven't really had a coherent argument at all over the last few pages. So I wasn't aware that I was actually arguing with anyone who was trying to make a point.


Um... Then why the big production about how I'd contradicted my earlier statement, if I didn't have a consistent earlier statement? You're really going to go down this road?


Quote:
Now that we agree that MS is less of a monopoly than it was can you stop channeling Alma for a bit?


No. We can't. Because in every single market area where MS was using monopolistic methodology back in the mid 90s, it is using them more so today. It leverages the use of application software to force users to run its OS either as client or server (or both) far more today than it did back then. It has spread out and nearly controls messaging systems today (an area it was barely competing in back then).

You're far too focused on the consumer facing application. That's not where the money is. Surely you can see that in a world full of free-downloads for software, that the money and control is really elsewhere. At least, I can hope you can see this.

How do you think those companies make money, giving away their browsers, and letting you download stuff for free? You honestly never thought about this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#809 Dec 05 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you know anyone who pays for Chrome or Firefox?

That's like saying having a lot of home viewers watching NBC over CBS isn't important to NBC because home viewers don't directly mail NBC a check.


No. It's like saying that the company that sells the HDTV cameras which film the TV shows, and the HDTVs that they're watched on, doesn't really care about which channel you watch, as long as they can force all the networks to broadcast in the format which their stuff uses. That's closer to how MS fits into the market right now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#810 Dec 05 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Smiley: oyvey

You know if this discussion took place 10 years ago id probably agree with you. 10 years ago software companies (primarily games) avoided Apple OS because it was to small of a market, the size contrast between PC and Apple was huge. But today I can go to the GameStop grab a game off the shelf and use it for PC or MAC. This implies that the gap has closed and thus MS share of the market (or monopoly if you will) is shrinking.

This is based on Apples huge popularity spike with Imacs,Ipods,Ipads. Apple has expanded their market and at the same time increased their popularity in the Desk Top market. (this is large in part to the universal synchronization of Apple products something MS has only recently released for their various OS's).

How you can sit their and say MS has not lost market share is absurd. Then again you also claimed that the US government never stepped in and regulated a company ever in the countries history so I can see why you would believe this too.

Edited, Dec 5th 2011 8:31pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#811 Dec 05 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Smiley: oyvey

You know if this discussion took place 10 years ago id probably agree with you. 10 years ago software companies (primarily games) avoided Apple OS because it was to small of a market, the size contrast between PC and Apple was huge. But today I can go to the GameStop grab a game off the shelf and use it for PC or MAC. This implies that the gap has closed and thus MS share of the market (or monopoly if you will) is shrinking.


You're kidding, right? You're lucky if there's one endcap of PC games at GameStop, and I can't remember how many years it's been since I've even seen a software section for Apple computer systems. It's all console gaming today, so that's a pretty piss poor direction to go.

Quote:
This is based on Apples huge popularity spike with Imacs,Ipods,Ipads. Apple has expanded their market and at the same time increased their popularity in the Desk Top market.


Yes on the first, absolute negative on the second. How the hell do you think that Apple has expanded their Desk Top Market? They gave up competing on it and went in the handheld appliance direction instead. It was a smart decision, but it was driven out of the absolute fact that they could no longer even pretend to be competing with MS for the desktop computer market.

Quote:
(this is large in part to the universal synchronization of Apple products something MS has only recently released for their various OS's).


Dude. You really need to smoke less pot.

Quote:
How you can sit their and say MS has not lost market share is absurd.


Are you actually trying to argue that MS's share of operating system sales is lower today than it was 15 years ago? Are you nuts?! Even in the home market, this is simply not true (the exact opposite is). But you're also only looking at a small portion. MS has massively increased its market share in the server space over the last decade or so. The big money is in licensing products to companies. That's why you can buy a Windows install for your home box for a hundred bucks and download home linux distros for free. They all do that because they want people installing their OS on their home systems, so that they can leverage that into sales in the business area. But MS is way ahead in that area. Way way way ahead. And it has steadily gained ground over time.

Do you have any idea how many web servers ran on a windows operating system 10 years ago? Do you know how many run on windows today? Mail servers? Calendaring systems? Meeting scheduling? Name service, account verification, network management systems, document sharing? That's where MS has focused over the last 10+ years, and that's where it's gained massive market share. The stuff you buy/download for home use is only the tip of the iceberg. Enterprise level licensing and service contracts is where the money is.


Quote:
Then again you also claimed that the US government never stepped in and regulated a company ever in the countries history so I can see why you would believe this too.


No. I never said that. I said that when government does step in and regulate companies, it rarely actually does so in ways which benefit the consumers, or which actually limit the monopolistic aspects of the company or industry. Usually, it just shifts the company's focus from a free market product methodology (which usually benefits consumers but hurts competition), to a government regulation methodology (which usually hurts consumers).

My point is that government regulation isn't the solution. It's usually the problem. Or did you forget that the start of this whole part of the conversation was me pointing out that there are two directions you can go when you have too much corruption between public/private players (which if you recall is the whole argument of the OWS folks when it comes to the banking industry): You can either get government out of regulating the market, or get government more into regulating it. My argument was that more regulation is the wrong direction. My semi-rhetorical question about free market monopolies was intended to show that government has at best not helped, and at worst has been the cause of most monopolies (or at least the implementation of the worst aspects of them). When people piped up with Microsoft as an example, my counter was that MS's ability to use its money in ways which forced people to buy its products *increased* after the government got involved.


It certainly didn't decrease. Now maybe you have some magical connection to all of this which trumps that of someone who's worked in enterprise level IT for the entire time frame we're talking about, but I highly doubt it.

Edited, Dec 5th 2011 5:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#812 Dec 05 2011 at 10:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you know anyone who pays for Chrome or Firefox?
That's like saying having a lot of home viewers watching NBC over CBS isn't important to NBC because home viewers don't directly mail NBC a check.
No. It's like saying that the company that sells the HDTV cameras which film the TV shows, and the HDTVs that they're watched on, doesn't really care about which channel you watch, as long as they can force all the networks to broadcast in the format which their stuff uses. That's closer to how MS fits into the market right now.

I think you managed to miss your own point Smiley: laugh

You're aware, I assume (since you know literally 200x more than anyone!), that the good people at Firefox directly profit from people using their browser even if the profit is not directly paid by the user. Or maybe you weren't and you need to literally know 201x more than me to noodle that one out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#813 Dec 06 2011 at 12:02 AM Rating: Excellent
I'm not really following this thread, but if we're discussing MS vs other companies, internet connected devices is a very important metric to consider.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#814 Dec 06 2011 at 4:53 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
You're kidding, right? You're lucky if there's one endcap of PC games at GameStop, and I can't remember how many years it's been since I've even seen a software section for Apple computer systems. It's all console gaming today, so that's a pretty piss poor direction to go.


Way to miss the point champ.
Quote:

10 years ago software companies (primarily games) avoided Apple OS because it was to small of a market, the size contrast between PC and Apple was huge. But today I can go to the GameStop grab a game off the shelf and use it for PC or MAC. This implies that the gap has closed and thus MS share of the market (or monopoly if you will) is shrinking.


Quote:
No. I never said that. I said that when government does step in and regulate companies, it rarely actually does so in ways which benefit the consumers, or which actually limit the monopolistic aspects of the company or industry. Usually, it just shifts the company's focus from a free market product methodology (which usually benefits consumers but hurts competition), to a government regulation methodology (which usually hurts consumers).


You never said that. You said the government doesn't step in and regulate companies that are or are approaching monopoly status. You were so confident you asked for at least 1 example, someone said MS, and I added 5 more cases where the government stepped in and said no (and there is at least half a dozen more I didn't list.)

Quote:
Are you actually trying to argue that MS's share of operating system sales is lower today than it was 15 years ago?


No that would be a retarded argument considering the cost of actually getting a computer is a fraction of the cost it was 15 years ago. This means that MS OS sells more now then it did 15 years ago. What I am arguing is that MS OS has lost market share because it is not the only OS in the computing market. Apple OS, Android both are doing much better than MS OS in the handheld/mobile markets.


Question is why are you so adamant about refusing to acknowledge that MS presence in modern computing is virtually non existant. Desk Tops are not the only computing devices, focusing solely on one aspect of the market to prove your point is retarded. Sure MS is doing great in desk tops (and laptops) but it has no presence in the new mobile/handheld markets. The only reason MS is relevant in Desk Tops is because it made itself available for all manufacturers just like Android has done in the mobile/handheld market.

If MS was the big scary monopoly you are trying to make it out to be then they would be at the forefront of the new market. They are not. Which is why the company is losing money, losing market share, and not even close to the level of the monopoly on the computer market that they were 10 years ago.


Edited, Dec 6th 2011 5:55am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#815 Dec 06 2011 at 5:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you know anyone who pays for Chrome or Firefox?
That's like saying having a lot of home viewers watching NBC over CBS isn't important to NBC because home viewers don't directly mail NBC a check.
No. It's like saying that the company that sells the HDTV cameras which film the TV shows, and the HDTVs that they're watched on, doesn't really care about which channel you watch, as long as they can force all the networks to broadcast in the format which their stuff uses. That's closer to how MS fits into the market right now.

I think you managed to miss your own point Smiley: laugh

You're aware, I assume (since you know literally 200x more than anyone!), that the good people at Firefox directly profit from people using their browser even if the profit is not directly paid by the user. Or maybe you weren't and you need to literally know 201x more than me to noodle that one out.

I was going to point this out, but it was late, I was full of TheraFlu, and I realized I just didn't care.
#816 Dec 06 2011 at 5:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,633 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
and what double negative? There isn't one.

"Doesn't" and "less".
Smiley: lol Thank you for that, I haven't genuinely laughed at someone in a while. I'm not usually the type to make a personal attack like that but I wanted you to know you made me happy.

I'm glad that caught my eye, I haven't actually read the majority of his posts because I stop reading each post at the first fallacy. The fun part is that assuming he is wrong because of them is a fallacy on my part but he seemed to be having fun not giving a @#%^ so I don't give a @#%^!

[someone insert an image that is appropriately gangster as @#%^.]

Edit: cites.
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Edited, Dec 6th 2011 6:41am by SillyXSara
____________________________
Mistress Darqflame wrote:
Sorry, anything representing or remotely resembling a dildo is a nono.
gigasnail wrote:
i'm lighting the freak signal here, sara help me out ~
Redding wrote:
Same ol' Sara now with 50% less hidden penis
#817 Dec 06 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You're kidding, right? You're lucky if there's one endcap of PC games at GameStop, and I can't remember how many years it's been since I've even seen a software section for Apple computer systems. It's all console gaming today, so that's a pretty piss poor direction to go.


Way to miss the point champ.
Quote:

10 years ago software companies (primarily games) avoided Apple OS because it was to small of a market, the size contrast between PC and Apple was huge. But today I can go to the GameStop grab a game off the shelf and use it for PC or MAC. This implies that the gap has closed and thus MS share of the market (or monopoly if you will) is shrinking.


I'm not sure how repeating the same statement again makes it any less absurd. Where you go doesn't matter. I haven't seen a MAC game on a shelf in any store for a long time. You used to have a MAC section, a PC section, and then a console game section. Now, you have a number of console and handheld game sections, a small PC section and no MAC section. It's an irrelevant point given how most games are purchased today, but you're wrong even on your own silly side point.

Quote:
Quote:
No. I never said that. I said that when government does step in and regulate companies, it rarely actually does so in ways which benefit the consumers, or which actually limit the monopolistic aspects of the company or industry. Usually, it just shifts the company's focus from a free market product methodology (which usually benefits consumers but hurts competition), to a government regulation methodology (which usually hurts consumers).


You never said that.


Huh!???

gbaji wrote:
Here's a neat test: Quick! Think of a monopoly. Baring that, think of a company which we have to regulate to prevent becoming a monopoly (or had to in the past). Got one? Got five? Write the name(s) down.



Now... Did that company operate in a way which required government licensing, land use, application of eminent domain on their behalf, etc? I'm quite sure that you'd have a hard time thinking of any monopoly or near monopoly in the history of the US that wasn't created because of government intervention itself. Either land rights for railroads, licensing/easements for utilities, broadcast licenses for telecoms, or some other similar arrangement. It's hard to look at the history of "bad business" and not see that overwhelmingly it's not a free market which creates such problems, but government intervention which does. Now in some cases, we have no choice. Can't have 50 companies ripping up the street every week to run stuff into people's houses, so we have to grant licenses to companies via geography to operate such things.



My argument all along has been that government regulation rarely prevents monopolies, but either creates them directly, or makes them worse. Microsoft is just an example of the government making things worse. How the hell did you read all of those posts by me and manage to fail to get this? Shall I continue?

Here's me specifically saying that government action made MS's monopolistic actions worse:

gbaji wrote:
Do you know when Microsoft first started lobbying? After it began to get sued by everyone and their brother under laws passed by competitors and it realized that it had to play in the same "control the regulators" game to survive. Do you know when it really started manipulating the market in unfair ways? After that happened. While some of its business practices beforehand (bundling stuff with their OS for example) was a but pushy, they could be worked around (and quite often were).


Here's me emphasizing that point:

gbaji wrote:
Because of government regulation, Microsoft gets to sell OS licenses for pretty much every employee at every publicly traded corporation in the US. Guaranteed income (and massive leverage into other parts of the market). That happened because of government regulation, not because MS used their own market power to bundle "free" utilities into their OS package.


Here's me answering Joph when he missed what I was talking about:

gbaji wrote:
No. I said that it's rare for the free market to generate monopolies, but that in that rare case, we absolutely can and should have just enough government regulation to prevent them from using an unfair market advantage to further extend control/power. The problem is that currently it seems like the government acts most to institutionalize monopolistic behavior and not the other way around.


Here's me emphasizing that point:

gbaji wrote:
Yup. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that instead of teaching Microsoft the lesson that they should not bundle software in their OS in order to leverage that power into market share into the applications market, Microsoft learned the lesson that "thou shalt not be a large corporation without buying political cover". Microsoft is more of a monopoly today than it was in the mid 90s, yet it suffers no lawsuits, and gets no negative press.

Do you think that government intervention helped or hurt?


I could go on and quote a dozen more paragraphs from me all repeating over and over that my point is that government regulation tends to do more harm than good. Can you please accept that this *is* my point and maybe stop tossing strawman arguments around so you can stomp on them?

Quote:
You said the government doesn't step in and regulate companies that are or are approaching monopoly status.


No. I said that government does regulate those companies, but that it's regulation rarely actually prevents the monopolistic actions and usually makes them worse.

Quote:
You were so confident you asked for at least 1 example, someone said MS, and I added 5 more cases where the government stepped in and said no (and there is at least half a dozen more I didn't list.)


Two people said MS. And my response was then and is now that MS became more of a monopoly *after* the government stepped in to regulate it than it was before. Which still fits with my broader argument that government regulation isn't the solution to our market problems.

I've also freely stated that government *should* regulate to prevent monopolies. But the problem is that it doesn't seem to actually do this. What it does is take the monopoly (or potential monopoly) and turn it into some kind of public/private partnership which gives the government a piece of the action more or less in return for looking the other way. In return for lobbying cash, the politicians provide political cover for the company.

That's exactly what happened with Microsoft. And I still say you'd be hard pressed to provide examples (in the last half century or so at least), where the US government has actually stepped in to prevent monopolistic abuse by a company and in which the market became more free (less bound to corruption and abuse) as a result. Feel free to find examples. Like I said, folks tossed out MS, but it doesn't violate the argument I'm making at all. If anything, it's a perfect example of exactly what I'm saying. We can argue that MS was building a monopoly (and might even have been one) at the time the government did step in, but that government regulation didn't really do anything about MS's monopoly. It didn't break the company up. It didn't force them to stop bundling software (like browsers) into it's OS. All it did was toss some relatively toothless requirements at it. Saying "You get to keep the control of the industry, but you have to make it a bit easier for other software developers to write stuff to work with your software" is hardly an act to prevent monopoly.

Quote:
No that would be a retarded argument considering the cost of actually getting a computer is a fraction of the cost it was 15 years ago. This means that MS OS sells more now then it did 15 years ago. What I am arguing is that MS OS has lost market share because it is not the only OS in the computing market. Apple OS, Android both are doing much better than MS OS in the handheld/mobile markets.


Ok. But you're mixing markets. How many times do I have to explain that those are not the same market?


Question is why are you so adamant about refusing to acknowledge that MS presence in modern computing is virtually non existant. Desk Tops are not the only computing devices, focusing solely on one aspect of the market to prove your point is retarded. Sure MS is doing great in desk tops (and laptops) but it has no presence in the new mobile/handheld markets. The only reason MS is relevant in Desk Tops is because it made itself available for all manufacturers just like Android has done in the mobile/handheld market.

Because those are two different markets. Microsoft isn't a leader in operating systems running the computer in your car either. Nor do they control the software systems which run your DVR, Blueray, and Television. I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be attempting to argue that MS does not have more of a monopoly in the computer market today than it did 15 years ago because if we add in a bunch of new handheld devices which didn't exist 15 years ago, it doesn't have a large a hold in that market. That's beside the point though. Those are appliances, not servers. You don't generally download things *from* your handheld device. You download *to* them. You usually are downloading *from* some sort of actual computer server somewhere. And today, the odds of that server running on MS (or MS somehow getting a licensing piece of the pie) is much higher today than it was 15 years ago (or even 10 years ago).

MS doesn't need to compete more than a small amount in that handheld market, because as that market grows, it automatically makes more money on the backend server side of the business. Don't you see that? All they care about is that the devices use a model that continues to provide that cash flow.

If MS was the big scary monopoly you are trying to make it out to be then they would be at the forefront of the new market. They are not.

Lol! If you knew how deeply involved MS is in manipulating the standards used by mobile devices today, you'd realize just how hysterical that statement is. They aren't at the front because they learned that it's easier to make money from the back. Less public perception that they're running things that way. They don't need to be at the forefront to make money. In fact, it's better for them not to.

I could probably spend a dozen paragraphs explaining the complex licensing arrangement involved in the mobile device market to you, but you likely would not understand it, and it's entirely possible I'd be violating some kind of NDA or something. You'll just have to take my word for it that MS is far far more involved in that market than Joe average public thinks. They don't control the individual devices, but they absolutely have a finger in the software written on them and how it interacts with other software. It's not "magic" that allows you to browse online stores and download stuff to those devices. It's a hell of a lot of standards and license agreements which make it happen. Lots of companies get pieces of that pie.

Edited, Dec 6th 2011 6:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#818 Dec 06 2011 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
ya thats a lot of words backpedaling.

Quote:
Here's a neat test: Quick! Think of a monopoly. Baring that, think of a company which we have to regulate to prevent becoming a monopoly (or had to in the past). Got one? Got five? Write the name(s) down.


To me that says think of a monopoly or company the government stepped in to prevent being a monopoly. Got 1/5 write down names.

or is theirthere a double negative in their I missed that could possibly mean anything other than that?


Nor do they control the software systems which run your DVR, Blueray, and Television.

oh ya this disagrees with you:

http://store.sony.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=20153&langId=200&catalogId=100803&identifier=S_Tablets

Quote:
Control the living room.
Whether it's your TV, Blu-ray Disc™ player, stereo or cable box, control everything right from your tablet. Best of all, the built-in universal remote controls not only Sony products but lots of other brands, too3. Share, view and transfer personal video, photos and music to your DLNA compatible PC, TV or speakers2.


Id say manipulating the software to play movies, play music change channels is indeed controling the software that lets those things run.

And I gave up there cuz the rest is likely going to require me put 200x more effort then I want to.

(oh and that sony tablet runs on android, not windows.)



Edited, Dec 6th 2011 11:27pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#819 Dec 07 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
ya thats a lot of words backpedaling.

Quote:
Here's a neat test: Quick! Think of a monopoly. Baring that, think of a company which we have to regulate to prevent becoming a monopoly (or had to in the past). Got one? Got five? Write the name(s) down.


To me that says think of a monopoly or company the government stepped in to prevent being a monopoly. Got 1/5 write down names.


Yes. But that's only half of it. The other half is to examine the degree to which the government was/is involved in creating/maintaining said monopoly. My point was that government regulations don't help us so much as hurt us in this area. This is sorta important when were asking whether the solution to public/private corruption is *more* government regulation or *less*.


The point with Microsoft is that to whatever degree you think it was a monopoly back in the mid 90s, it is *more* of one today. It absolutely has more market share and deeper control over the market areas it was competing in back then today than it had back then. No amount of pointing to other new markets in which it doesn't have as much control changes that fact. The browser-war monopoly thing didn't have to do with wireless handheld devices used to control appliances in your home either, did it? If you look only at the market MS was competing in back then and ask if it has more or less control of that market today, the answer absolutely is: yes.

So the best we can say is that the government's actions in the late 90s didn't prevent MS from gaining more control over that market. And it can be easily argued (as I have) that MS's lobbying (which began as a direct result of that 1998 DoJ lawsuit) is what has allowed it to gain significant market power in that same area. So the government's intervention in this case seems to have hurt the situation, not helped.


Which is precisely the argument I'm making. I'm arguing *against* "more regulation" as a solution to the problem. Because if history is any indicator, that regulation rarely helps and usually just makes things worse. It changes a free market issue into a public/private corruption issue. And those are usually worse. The free market has an amazing ability to correct for imbalances. What's funny is all the stuff you bring up *are* free market responses to MS's actions. Linux didn't appear because of government regulation. The introduction of opensource code didn't come from government regulation. The creation of smaller appliance based computing devices didn't happen because of government regulation. That was all the free market looking for other ways to make money with computers than just desktops and servers.


The free market parts worked. It's the government regulatory parts which haven't. So why on earth would anyone argue for more government regulation of these industries?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#820 Dec 07 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,522 posts
Quote:
The free market parts worked. It's the government regulatory parts which haven't. So why on earth would anyone argue for more government regulation of these industries?


lulz
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#821 Dec 07 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
The free market parts worked. It's the government regulatory parts which haven't. So why on earth would anyone argue for more government regulation of these industries?


Didn't you say that the government hasn't stepped in and regulated companies?

Quote:
Here's a neat test: Quick! Think of a monopoly. Baring that, think of a company which we have to regulate to prevent becoming a monopoly (or had to in the past). Got one? Got five? Write the name(s) down.


What's your point againabout now?



Edited, Dec 7th 2011 7:55pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#822 Dec 07 2011 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The free market parts worked. It's the government regulatory parts which haven't. So why on earth would anyone argue for more government regulation of these industries?


Didn't you say that the government hasn't stepped in and regulated companies?


Holy F'ing Cow. It's like arguing with a broken record. Didn't I just correct you for making the same wrong claim?

gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
You said the government doesn't step in and regulate companies that are or are approaching monopoly status.


No. I said that government does regulate those companies, but that it's regulation rarely actually prevents the monopolistic actions and usually makes them worse.



And this kids is why pot smoking is bad for you, M'kay?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#823 Dec 07 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
I dunno, I'm presently cheering on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger block. Seems like the government is doing a dandy job of preventing a monopoly there.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#824 Dec 07 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
catwho wrote:
I dunno, I'm presently cheering on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger block. Seems like the government is doing a dandy job of preventing a monopoly there.


We'll see what happens over the next 5 years though. I'm going to predict that the government will step in to regulate said merger, allowing it with specific requirements the government wants. And while it's possible that said requirements will act to protect and help the end users, if history is any indicator it'll more likely sacrifice the consumer for the sake of government control and money funneled into the right government hands.

It's possible that government *can* do the right thing. It's just that when there's so much money involved, human nature inevitably steps in, and corruption occurs. Government is made up of people, and those people absolutely can and will use their regulatory powers to benefit themselves (or their own pet policies) in some way. I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for a clean action here. Never know though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#825 Dec 07 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The free market parts worked. It's the government regulatory parts which haven't. So why on earth would anyone argue for more government regulation of these industries?


Didn't you say that the government hasn't stepped in and regulated companies?


Holy F'ing Cow. It's like arguing with a broken record. Didn't I just correct you for making the same wrong claim?

gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
You said the government doesn't step in and regulate companies that are or are approaching monopoly status.


No. I said that government does regulate those companies, but that it's regulation rarely actually prevents the monopolistic actions and usually makes them worse.



And this kids is why pot smoking is bad for you, M'kay?


hey I quoted what you wrote word for word its not a claim. It is what you wrote. Ergo what the @#%^ is the point you arguing. Its changed 3-4 times in the last two pages. At least try and keep your argument straight.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#826 Dec 07 2011 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
I dunno, I'm presently cheering on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger block. Seems like the government is doing a dandy job of preventing a monopoly there.


We'll see what happens over the next 5 years though. I'm going to predict that the government will step in to regulate said merger, allowing it with specific requirements the government wants.



I don't know what I am talking about.

Quote:
AT&T's decision to withdraw its application to obtain T-Mobile USA's mobile spectrum license at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission raises a question about whether the company's proposed acquisition is still active, the U.S. Department of Justice has said.

AT&T decided to withdraw the application after the FCC announced that staff there had found the US$39 billion merger contrary to the public interest. The FCC had intended to refer the license application to a hearing before an administrative law judge
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#827 Dec 08 2011 at 2:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,879 posts
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
I dunno, I'm presently cheering on the AT&T/T-Mobile merger block. Seems like the government is doing a dandy job of preventing a monopoly there.


We'll see what happens over the next 5 years though. I'm going to predict that the government will step in to regulate said merger, allowing it with specific requirements the government wants. And while it's possible that said requirements will act to protect and help the end users, if history is any indicator it'll more likely sacrifice the consumer for the sake of government control and money funneled into the right government hands.

It's possible that government *can* do the right thing. It's just that when there's so much money involved, human nature inevitably steps in, and corruption occurs. Government is made up of people, and those people absolutely can and will use their regulatory powers to benefit themselves (or their own pet policies) in some way. I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for a clean action here. Never know though.


I've been bouncing around a theory of percentile compensation for persons who report ethics violations where a party employed by the US Gov't stood to gain financially from corrupt activity. I'm thinking the best way to keep them honest is to chum the waters if they get greedy. Unfortunately their are still some abuse case holes in it though. Partly due to being unsure of where to tune the numbers for optimal results.

Trying to limit regulatory capture while also not poisoning the justice system is a tough line to walk.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 3:59am by Timelordwho
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#828 Dec 08 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandi wrote:
hey I quoted what you wrote word for word its not a claim.


Sigh. This...


Quote:
Didn't you say that the government hasn't stepped in and regulated companies?


... is not quoting me "word for word". It's you making a claim about what I said earlier. In this case, a false claim. And worse, a claim I had already refuted the last time you made it:


gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
You said the government doesn't step in and regulate companies that are or are approaching monopoly status.


No. I said that government does regulate those companies, but that it's regulation rarely actually prevents the monopolistic actions and usually makes them worse.



So you claimed I said something. I said "No. I didn't say that, I said this". And instead of you trying to find a quote showing me saying what you claimed I said, you just repeated the same damn claim! Thats... insane.

What's really bizarre is that this entire sub-thread is me attempting to show how government regulation rarely prevents the monopolies (or other free market abuses). It was part of my earlier point that you can either regulate more or less, and I think we should lean towards "less". But then, the ability to follow a conversation is one of the skills you lose when you smoke a lot of pot.

Quote:
It is what you wrote.


No, it's not. It's what you wrote when making a claim about what I wrote. You have yet to provide a quote showing me actually writing that.

Quote:
Ergo what the @#%^ is the point you arguing. Its changed 3-4 times in the last two pages. At least try and keep your argument straight.


My argument has not changed once. What has happened is that I say X. Someone then responds by claiming I said Y. I respond with "No. I didn't say Y, I said X". Then someone says claims again that I said Y. I tell them again, that I didn't say Y, I said X. It's like you somehow *want* my argument to be different than what it is, and no amount of me telling you that's not it dissuades you from assuming it is anyway. It's freaking bizarre behavior.

For the last freaking time: I am not arguing that government never regulates companies. I am arguing that when it does so, the results of said regulation is often worse than had they not regulated at all. Government regulation changes companies which may be using their market position to their advantage but which are still subject to free market responses, into companies which use their government lobbying to their advantage and which are no longer as subject to free market responses.

Microsoft is a great example of this. Bundled browsers ended up not being a big deal in the long run. Other players in the market figured out ways around it and today we're in no worse shape in that area than we were back then. Basically, the governments actions didn't have any effect on that outcome (whether you consider that good or bad is subject to opinion of course). However, as a result of the lawsuit, MS started lobbying in order to protect itself. The result being that today it influences regulations and standards setting bodies in ways which absolutely do hurt consumers and force people to purchase their products in ways in which all their free market power would not cause.


Government intervention did not help the situation. It made it worse. How many times do I have to clearly explain this to you before it sinks into your brain?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#829 Dec 08 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
What's really bizarre is that this entire sub-thread is me attempting to show how government regulation rarely prevents the monopolies...

...and failing so hard at it.

Well, that's not so much "bizarre" but rather "status quo Gbaji" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#830 Dec 08 2011 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
What's really bizarre is that this entire sub-thread is me attempting to show how government regulation rarely prevents the monopolies...

...and failing so hard at it.


Only because there are some incredibly thick headed people on this forum. I've twice mentioned how SOX regulations (along with some standards setting regulations) have given MS vastly more power to force itself into the market than it ever had before.


Oh. Funny thing happened yesterday in the form of a quarterly company report that had me laughing about the earlier bits regarding MS and mobile devices when I heard it. But I should just listen to what random people on the interwebs say since they have access to internal industry numbers, profit positioning, market projections, and whatnot. Oh wait... they don't!

Interesting side bit and/or blatant marketing stunt. Should catch the next couple Chargers home games (and some bowl games coming up, not sure). Can't say more than that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#831 Dec 08 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Only because there are some incredibly thick headed people on this forum.

Yeah, it's always everyone else's fault.

Hell, if nothing else maybe you can salve your ego by saying you were right but you're just an exceptionally shitty teacher.

Quote:
But I should just listen to what random people on the interwebs say since they have access to internal industry numbers, profit positioning, market projections, and whatnot. Oh wait... they don't!

I'll remind you of this next time a study comes along that doesn't fit your ideology so you start throwing scare quotes around "experts" and consider your job done.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#832 Dec 08 2011 at 9:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Only because there are some incredibly thick headed people on this forum.

Yeah, it's always everyone else's fault.

Hell, if nothing else maybe you can salve your ego by saying you were right but you're just an exceptionally shitty teacher.


Nah. I think I'll go with that it's very hard to get people to challenge their own assumptions. What else can you conclude when you can show clear examples of how frequently government regulation fails to prevent market abuses, but instead often results in public/private corruption, but some people continue to insist that the solution to the problem is *more* government regulation.

It's the same kind of people who dismiss/deride anyone who argues against funding for "green energy" as global warming deniers and/or haters of the environment, then turn around and bitch and moan about evil corporations like GE not paying their fair share in taxes. They clearly can't see past the surface level rhetoric of the issues, but they sure do feel strongly about them anyway!

Quote:
Quote:
But I should just listen to what random people on the interwebs say since they have access to internal industry numbers, profit positioning, market projections, and whatnot. Oh wait... they don't!

I'll remind you of this next time a study comes along that doesn't fit your ideology so you start throwing scare quotes around "experts" and consider your job done.


I call people "experts" when their own personal fortunes are not tied to actually ever being right about anything Joph. Which is the case with a good portion of those who conduct and manage the sorts of studies you're talking about (and moreso with those who analyze them for public consumption). I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the conclusions of people who have no vested interest to be right and every vested interest to derive the results the folks paying their salaries want.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 7:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#833 Dec 08 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,522 posts
Wait, you mean people who have no good reason to bias a study? Yeah, those bastards never conduct good research.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#834 Dec 08 2011 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Nah. I think I'll go with that it's very hard to get people to challenge their own assumptions.

Of course you will.

Quote:
I call people "experts" when their own personal fortunes are not tied to actually ever being right about anything Joph.

Which, fascinatingly, is only an issue when their results don't match your ideology Smiley: laugh

Quote:
I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the conclusions of people who have no vested interest to be right and every vested interest to derive the results the folks paying their salaries want.

Or people who have no vested interest in being accurate but vested every interest in arguing their ideology and insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with their flawed "I know literally 200x more than you" remarks is just refusing to "challenge their own assumptions", amirite?

Ah, you. Predictable as always Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#835 Dec 09 2011 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,191 posts
Haha. "They're not experts unless they say what I want them to say."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#836 Dec 09 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I call people "experts" when their own personal fortunes are not tied to actually ever being right about anything Joph.

Which, fascinatingly, is only an issue when their results don't match your ideology Smiley: laugh


No. It's an issue when their results fly in the face of logic, reason, and easily observable fact. That my ideology happens to coincidentally be based on logic, reason, and facts, is why it so often appears that way to you. Smiley: wink

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the conclusions of people who have no vested interest to be right and every vested interest to derive the results the folks paying their salaries want.

Or people who have no vested interest in being accurate but vested every interest in arguing their ideology and insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with their flawed "I know literally 200x more than you" remarks is just refusing to "challenge their own assumptions", amirite?


You're mixing cases though. Me deriding so-called "experts" and their studies in other threads is one thing (with one set of reasons for doing so). Me dismissing some random person's beliefs about the effect of the governments actions on Microsoft's monopolistic power is something entirely different. In this case, I'm acting on my own direct knowledge of the damn subject and information I have access to because I've worked in the field in question during the entire time period in question. I've watched the industry change over that time period and I can tell you that MS has vastly more influence and control today than it did 15 years ago.

Given that no one has presented even a shred of reason or support for the opposing position, it's kinda hard to take the arguments seriously. It's like I'm the adult getting a bit tired of explaining for the nth time why ducks can't actually talk in the real world no matter how often they do in cartoons.

Quote:
Ah, you. Predictable as always Smiley: smile


Yeah. Cause you're not predictable at all! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#837 Dec 09 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. It's an issue when their results fly in the face of logic, reason, and easily observable fact.

Much as it is logical, reasonable, and easily observable that the sun circles the Earth! I see it all now.
#838 Dec 09 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Haha. "They're not experts unless they say what I want them to say."


Nope. It's that expert opinions should not be blindly accepted. Doubly so when they fly in the face of logic and reason.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#839 Dec 09 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. It's an issue when their results fly in the face of logic, reason, and easily observable fact.

Much as it is logical, reasonable, and easily observable that the sun circles the Earth! I see it all now.


Except that you got it backwards. The "experts" of the day insisted that the sun circled the earth because that's what everyone knew was true and anyone who said differently was ridiculed (or worse). The logical, reasonable, and easily observable facts showed that the movements of other objects in the sky proved that the earth must revolve around the sun.

Sadly, despite the easy availability of such evidence, it still took centuries to get the "experts" to stop insisting otherwise.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#840 Dec 09 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Haha. "They're not experts unless they say what I want them to say."


Nope. It's that expert opinions should not be blindly accepted. Doubly so when they fly in the face of logic and reason.


There is irony in this post. I just can't quite put my finger on it though...
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#841 Dec 09 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Criminy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Haha. "They're not experts unless they say what I want them to say."


Nope. It's that expert opinions should not be blindly accepted. Doubly so when they fly in the face of logic and reason.


There is irony in this post. I just can't quite put my finger on it though...


It's not about irony. It's about an unfortunate lack of critical thinking ability among most of the human population which requires them to resort to simply picking the "experts" they want to believe. That choice is usually arbitrary, but they'll cling to it like glue anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#842 Dec 09 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
Something like this?



____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#843 Dec 09 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,191 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's about an unfortunate lack of critical thinking ability among most of the human population which requires them to resort to simply picking the "experts" they want to believe.
Ahaha. So instead of people that spend their lives researching and studying topics, or the people who's jobs it is to work with/as the topics in question, we should just take your word for it! Smiley: laugh!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#844 Dec 09 2011 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,522 posts
Of course, lolgaxe. Otherwise you're a communist.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#845 Dec 09 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's about an unfortunate lack of critical thinking ability among most of the human population which requires them to resort to simply picking the "experts" they want to believe.
Ahaha. So instead of people that spend their lives researching and studying topics, or the people who's jobs it is to work with/as the topics in question, we should just take your word for it! Smiley: laugh!


No. You should pay attention to the arguments I use (anyone uses) for my/their positions and then apply your own thinking to them. The very fact that you express this in terms of "this guy's opinion vs that guy's" is why you're doomed to failure. Do your own thinking. It's shocking to me how often I'll lay out a complete argument for a position, expecting someone to counter with another argument, only to get "you're wrong because so-and-so says so". That's great for so-and-so, but that's a crappy reason to take a position on something.

EDIT: Oh. And the complete icing on the cake is when I lay out an argument based on pure logic/reason, and someone says "Cite?". Um... There is no cite. I'm doing logic here. You don't need a citation for that. You need critical thinking skills is all. Anyone can do it, but most people choose not to, apparently preferring the safety of just letting others do their thinking for them.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 3:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#846 Dec 09 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,522 posts
The problem is that your arguments are always grounded in revisionist history (and never supported by actual studies), employ extensive use of logical fallacies, switch stances every page or two per thread, or successfully argue against a strawman.

Usually it's a combination.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#847 Dec 09 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,191 posts
gbaji wrote:
You should pay attention to the arguments I use (anyone uses) for my/their positions and then apply your own thinking to them
What's really funny is that's what people actually do, but you're the fastest to tell them how they're not thinking for themselves and how you're this authority on everything so we should just take your word on everything. My cite would be when we argued UCMJ, where I was telling you pretty much verbatim what policy and the laws were, and your argument was, literally "That's not right, I just feel it should be this way."
gbaji wrote:
when I lay out an argument based on pure logic/reason
It's like you're trying to say something slightly more absurd with each post! I'm dying here.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#848 Dec 09 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The problem is that your arguments are always grounded in revisionist history (and never supported by actual studies)...


Lol! So since my arguments counter experts you believe are correct, I must be wrong? Isn't that exactly the "letting others do your thinking for you" that I was talking about?


Quote:
...employ extensive use of logical fallacies...


Or someone insists that I'm using fallacies instead of actually making an argument themselves.

Quote:
...switch stances every page or two per thread...


No. The sheer number of times someone insists "But you said...", and I say "No, I didn't", followed by an exact quote of what I actually said, only to have them repeat "But you said..." again a few posts later is amazing. This is sheer perception. People don't like to argue against my arguments, so they twist my words around, re-interpret it in interesting ways, and then argue against that instead. And when I attempt to correct them and restate my position, they insist I'm changing my stance.

I don't do this. I have *never* done this. And no amount of other posters repeating the claim will make said claim true.


Quote:
...or successfully argue against a strawman.


And that's ironic given how often my own positions are mis-stated and then argued against.


What's funny is that in this very thread (actually might have been the AA thread, I lost track), I can show direct examples of someone saying something, me arguing against *exactly* what they said, them insisting that they didn't say that, and me quoting them saying *exactly* what I said they said. And... I can show a direct example of someone claiming I said something, me correcting them and quoting *exactly* what I actually said (which was not what they claimed), and them insisting that I said it and was changing my stance. What the hell?


Yet, somehow in your mind, I'm the one who changes his stance and attempts to change people's arguements to use as a straw man. That's some selective reading there. Can you find quote of me doing this? Cause I can show quotes of others doing it to me easily.

Quote:
Usually it's a combination.


used when others argue against, me? Absolutely. But there's that whole "see most in others, that which you know is in yourself" thing going on here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#849 Dec 09 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,191 posts
gbaji wrote:
So since my arguments counter experts you believe are correct, I must be wrong?
When the basic flaw in your logic is that you automatically assume your argument did, in fact, counter said expert ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#850 Dec 09 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You should pay attention to the arguments I use (anyone uses) for my/their positions and then apply your own thinking to them
What's really funny is that's what people actually do, but you're the fastest to tell them how they're not thinking for themselves and how you're this authority on everything so we should just take your word on everything.


If your argument relies on someone else providing a conclusion for you, then you are not applying critical thinking skills. If your supporting source is data and you then use that data to arrive at a conclusion, then you are thinking for yourself. If your supporting source is someone else saying "This is the answer", then you are not.

It's amazing how many people not only fail to use the first method, but even when it's pointed out to them absolutely can not see how they are different. Remember the whole "facts vs opinion" argument we had some months ago. Amazing how many people could not tell the difference. For most people, opinions they agree with are "facts". They have no objective means by which to tell the difference. That was frankly a bit of a surprise to discover. I've always assumed that most people posting here knew that they were using weak arguments, but did so because it was easier and they had lots of voices supporting them, so they didn't have to make stronger arguments. But that thread made me realize that many posters here apparently just can't tell fact from opinion at all.


Shocking. And it makes critical thinking impossible.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#851 Dec 09 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
So Republicans and Democrats disagree on what things are fact and what things are opinion? Fascinating. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (36)