but that's simply not addressable unless Windows kills all non-standard installers and forces them to play by Microsoft's rule
But Microsoft can't do that. Microsoft lets users do whatever they want to with their computers.
... because it's illegal.
Nothing else matters at all. If it's against the law, then it is what it is.
So the American Revolution was illegal and should have never happened because nothing else matters?
It represents the people, but in a horrible proportion unlike the house. In what world does that make sense?
The Senate makes sense in this http://www.thisamericanlife.or... world (summary: a city where the majority of the people want to send their children to private school, so they actively sabotage the public school system).
For a law to get passed the majority of people have to agree upon it (the House), and the majority of different kinds of people have to agree upon it (the Senate). So what the Senate does is protect the minority. Ideally there might be some way to repurpose the Senate to be based on race or socio-economic situation, but I don't now how realistic that would be to implement. So the Senate is based on geographic location. Texans are different than Californians which are different than New Jersians, etc. I realize it's not ideal for every possible representation for every "kind" of person, but it is something.
In the first few decades after the American Revolution, there were some bad examples of a 51% majority abusing the 49% minority. So the idea of a bicameral legislation was created to be a forcing function to prevent the current 51% majority from creating abusive laws.
It is not a government's job to educate its citizens about values that it wants to promote.
I can see that being a good thing. Citizens with experience have a better chance at knowing which values are sustainable and those which are self destructive feel that it's worthwhile to find multiple ways to inform the populace of that experience. So if they want to government to do that they can. But if the idea is to create entertainment to educate the citizens, that entertainment needs to compete with existing entertainment.
One of the CRTC jobs is to ensure Canadian TV content gets created and we are not stuck with 100% American programming and Canadian culture disappears entirely. If everyone starts watching all their TV on Netflex and similar services, Canadian TV could all but disappear.
So if Canada got rid of the CRTC they could pay less in taxes, and get to watch what they want to watch? Dear me, whatever shall we do?
Then why did they appear before the Commission at all? If they truly do not operate in Canada, then nothing the CRTC does affects them and they could blow off the whole thing with impunity.
Because they have Canadian customers (both subscribers and producers of shows), and if a deal could be worked out by talking, they might as well try to talk.
It's not about favouring Canadian production companies so much as encouraging Canadian content for cultural reasons. Being so close to the USA leaves us vulnerable to sort of being swamped, culturally.
Given that the only show I'm watching right now is Continuum (and via Netflix) should I be feeling culturally swamped by Canada right now?
The vendor is a different party. Hence you cannot buy a "HP" or "Sony" or "Samsung" or "Asus" computer without Windows on it.
Wait, what? Every single last vendor you mentioned there sells devices that run OS's which are competitors to Windows. All of those vendors sells devices with Android, some sell Chromebooks, and some even sells computers with Linux.
Most people do not. Keep trolling for Microsoft.
Really? How many people do you know (who don't read Slashdot) go shopping for Cellular service without also purchasing a phone from the Cellular provider at the same time? How many people do you know expect an ISP to provide a modem when they order 'internet' service. I would love to make it illegal to prevent the same companies from providing both the service and the device to access the service, but that never flies. When something goes both the device manufacturer and the service provider will blame the other one for why your experience isn't working.
I'm aware that there are no technical limitations preventing swapping out hardware to interface with different services, but that's not what the voting public wants.
You mean we can't have a check-box on the PC vendor's web page where we configure our device, which lists several operating systems?
You can. But people will freak out when that checkbox would say "Linux + $80". They would think "But Linux is free". While it is a free OS, the OEM wouldn't get subsidies from bloatware providers which help subsidies the cost of the computer.
If Google decides to discontinue all Google services in Germany as a result, would that really be a "win" for the German consumer?
It can be, if German consumers are left with options that do conform to the law.
But do they make their money back though ads and forcing users to use Google Search and Google email, etc.. Or do they make money licencing their OS?
They actually pay vendors to put Android on devices, because of the increased revenue they get from active Android users.
A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.
Normal people don't like that though. Let's say that you try and sell product A to somebody that requires product B to function. This person has neither used nor ever had interest in A or B. Most people aren't interested in one or the other. Normal people want an A+B product where somebody else has worked out all of the compatibility problems.
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde
