Microsoft has the full right to do what it wants with Windows.
No. That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute. One cannot simply use its property to for instance kill people with it. One has to keep to the law. The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour, that is what the punishment is about.
I see it differently. Microsoft has a history of abusing its monopoly powers. Abusing monopoly powers is against the law. The extra screens are a punishment to Microsoft because the abused their monopoly powers; they cannot play nice, so competition is forced upon them.
If I were you I would be angry at Microsoft: its conduct causes your extra effort when installing Windows. Then again, geing angry at Microsoft is not likely to change anything, since you are not their main customer and are not even in the group of main customers. Dell, HP, Acer, etc. are.
Being angry at the EU on this point is like being angry at gravity because it broke a vase when someone slipped that vase from his fingers.
Humorous, but this is exactly what we should be fearing. If this decision is used as a precedent, imagine the implications.
The precedent is: abuse your monopoly powers in the EU and you will get slapped. I very much like this precedent. I am a fan of Neelie Kroes' work in going after companies that are anti-competitive and damaging to the free market.
For Windows--or any operating system--a list of all programs that could possibly compete with those included in the OS would have to be listed.
No, that is simply the punishment (this time) for Microsoft. This punishment is in no way precedent for any company that simply ships OSes and abides by (EU) law.
+1, Funny
For those who do not get the joke: go here and search for 'No synthesizers'.
If person A writes a book and person B makes copies of that book and distributes them, person B infringes upon person A's ability to profit from that book.
Infringe upon someone's ability to make a profit? And that is illegal? It is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
If person A relies upon proceeds from that book in order to pay rent, person B has effectively cheated person A out of rent money.
So? Person A has chosen a very bad business model. He should try something else to make the rent.
In this case, person A should have some legal recourse. Person A should be able to sue for relief.
So if I were to sell bread for 10 a loaf and my next door neighbor sells the same bread for 2 a loaf, he infringes on my ability to make a profit and I can sue him for that? Is that your point?
You do not have the right to own anything you want simply because it's easy to get it for free.
Do you mean to say that we should pay for the sunrise every morning? Or that we should pay for the O2 we consume when we breathe? And 'own'? You seem to be confusing property (which you can own) with ideas and stories. Ideas and stories are not property. Copyright does not make stories 'owned' by anyone.
I wasn't talking about the scientific theory, I was talking about the model itself being dependent on life being present (...)
Yes, it is very hard to model something that does not exist. Do you always claim such obvious facts?
But let's go back to your original statement:
Not to mention that a lot of the evolution(1) theory is unprovable itself because of lack of evidence and the constrained testing. Evolution(2) also relies on Abiogenesis (...) [numbers mine]
So you talk about evolution as a scientific theory on point (1), and then bring up evolution at point 2, but it is not the evolution theory? As evolution can be interpreted as observable evolution as well as the scientific theory and model of evolution, it is ambiguous to not explicitly specify which of the two you are referring to. Calling me an idiot because of this miscommunication is unnecessarily rude in my book.
It was still E-coli bacteria and no one connected with the experiment that I know of has claimed it to be a new species outside of a variant of the existing species (...)
What you say could be right in that you may not know anyone who has made such claim. However, please re-read my original post: it says 'speciation'. Now look at the title of the quoted article: "Mechanisms of diversification and speciation (...). It is right there. This is a scientific paper stating facts. Do you still want to go against this article? Please write a scientific rebuttal.
You can participate in science. If you have different findings that contradict this scientific report, do your own experiments and put the results up for peer review. That is how science works. Don't bring up strawman arguments abouts dogs and 1 generation. Put up or shut up is an appropriate US expression, I believe.
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.
