This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Hires Ralph Reed As Lobbyist
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
Re:Picking fundy lobbyst proves stupidity of MS. (Score:2)
When Pat Robertson, and his ilk were running the Christian Coalition, most Americans thought they were whacked out right-wing freaks, much more to the right of most Conservative Republicans, a year after they hired Reed, public opinion shifted significantly in their favor, much to my dismay. While most Americans still didn't agree with all of their rhetoric, many Americans felt that their moral stance was justified.
MS needs a high profile political presence these days. And what better time than now to attack the issue with a presidential election coming up. The Democrats have a weak position this year, and a weaker candidate. GBush is a weak candidate, but the MS vs. DOJ case is sort of a pivot point for a lot of people because it is so public, everyone has an opinion, even people that know nothing about MS, except that they 'make all that 'puter stuff, right?'.
Remember, Ralph Reed and MS aren't trying to sway those of us who pay attention, whether we agree or disagree. They are trying to get Ma and Pa in Podunk, Kentucky, who are fence sitters in the political sense. Repeating the phrase like OOG:
BIG GOVERNMENT BAD! SEE HOW BIG GOVERNMENT STIFLE COMPETITION! HURT POOR BILLGATES!
So that Ma and Pa Podunk will start to think that the DOJ has done a bad thing to MS. Most Americans don't decipher the news, we listen to sound bytes, and choose the side that seems the most reasoned.
It is who we are, and why people like Ralph Reed can succeed in leading the sheep to the slaughter.
But Ralph Reed IS. (Score:5)
McCain, evil. They preach a peculiarly nasty
strain of evangelical fundamentalism, one that
would have Americans sniping Slepians and
crucifying Shepards. While Bill Gates may have
gotten a bad rap, cozying up to nutcases like
Ralph Reed doesn't help.
Re:Resumes (Score:2)
Besides, no one considers Slashdot to be a neutral news site, it's about Open Source and all. Every story will be baited against Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, etc. It's been this way since the beginning. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying don't expect the unbiased reporting your crappy typical media claims. At least they're up front with it here.
Huh? (Score:2)
Now if you want some talk of buying your way to political friends, how about that party late last week where Bill Gates gets to sit right next to Bill Clinton at the dinner? Then ask yourself, who has more power currently? Bush isn't even a clear winner, so "buying" some aide of his isn't a sure thing to coming out on top of the anti-trust case. On the other hand, get the ear of Clinton for an evening, and poof the DOJ could magically decide it'll accept MS's plea bargain.
How's that for conspiracy theories? It's more plausible than just hiring an aide to a maybe-president-in-a-year guy.
Grammer check is also wrong for American usage. (Score:2)
MS is NOT Satan, nor is Mr Gates. (Score:2)
While many people call Bill Gates Satan, us geeks need to settle down. He represents many things that are wrong with the computing industry today. However that does not make him satan. Lets keep some perspective here folks. Evil is complex, and you don't want to confuse some sins (which we all have though we won't admit to)
Put it anouther way, If both Bill Gates and I get to heaven (or hell, suspend your disbelief in my religion if you must) I'd like to spend some time over a cup of coffee remembering. Sort of like today I can go to a high school reunion and have a enjoyable conversation with the brute who used to beat me up all the time.
Bill Gates is a man. He is mortal, despite his access to essentially unlimited amounts of money. You don't have to like his empire, but lets leave personal attacks for polititions.
You're kidding right? (Score:2)
We have a two-party system going here. The existing government won't let that change because it's what keeps us from ever effecting changes. Unless the democrat and republican candidates are just completely repulsive to the vast majority of voters, no third party candidate stands a chance of winning because people don't want to "throw away their vote" by voting for someone that they think doesn't have a decent chance of winning. Instead of changing to a voting system that allows us to vote without fear of wasting our votes, the government is determined to keep the current system in place. For the majority of office holders, the current system is what got them into office, and they want to keep the system because it's more likely to allow them to get reelected.
Then there's the cost of running a campaign. If you don't have the cash, nobody will have a clue who you are. I'm not old enough to run for any real office, and I don't have the kind of money it takes to run a campaign anyway. So, I guess I'm stuck with the current choices.
Re:Come on! (Score:2)
Near as I can tell, he was referring to the article, and a list of some of Microsoft's past transgressions. Which part didn't you understand?
Re:You're kidding right? (Score:2)
but they seem to forget that the underlying philosophy of the American system has historically been Hippocratic: First, do no harm.
I actually considered that there is some benefit to a perpetually semi-paralyzed government, but I think that there comes a point where it's gone downhill far enough that we need a real change. We can't get that with the current system. When I think of a better voting system, I think of a cascading-vote type system. You rank the candidates from your favorite down to the one whom you would not let pet your dog. Then, the votes are tallied and the candidates who got the fewest votes are tossed out and those ballots are re-counted using the next-favorite candidate that is still in the race. Repeat until you have a winner. This system would still allow people to vote for the status-quo if they feel it is doing a good job. Fringe interests still won't have that much influence, but a widely-appreciated third-party candidate would have a much better chance of getting into office simply because people wouldn't fear wasting their vote by voting for him.
Re:Come on! (Score:2)
Yep. That was it. I read at 0, so I didn't see the post he was replying to. My mistake.
Let me explain... (Score:4)
Umm... can you give me an example of a software company that doesn't play hardball like MS?
Software companies, just like any other type, are free to play hardball if they want, unless they are a monopoly, at which point they play by a different set of rules. There is good reason for this. The US, more than any other nation I can think of, demands that its companies compete. Many other nations are much more protective of their "champion" corporations. They do what they can to shield them from competition. That's one reason why our economy is so strong and we are a major center of innovation. We don't let our corporations get so fat and happy that they lose their edge, or at least if they do get that way, we don't try to protect them from the consequences (usually, although there have been some significant exceptions where corps have been bailed out by the government).
Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. While that is not illegal, it is not considered to be beneficial to competition or our economy in general. That is why we have anti-trust laws. Under those laws, Microsoft is not allowed to use its monopoly power to prevent competitors from entering and competing in that market. They are not allowed to create artificial barriers to entry. They are not allowed to leverage their monopoly in one market to try to dominate another market. They are not allowed to "play hardball" like non-monopoly companies. This is for the good of competition. We assume that competition is good for innovation and for consumers because it helps produce the best products at the best prices.
I'd suggest that a new set of rules was in order, but govt. restraint of the software industry will only slow the economy and the progress of technology.
I don't see how people can go throwing these kinds of assumptions around when history shows us exactly the opposite. Go read this article [prospect.org] and get back to me. It's not specifically about Microsoft, or even anti-trust in general. It's about open access to infrastructure, namely phone and cable networks, but it does help to illustrate why regulation is often the best way to keep innovation alive rather than leaving it up to a single corp or handful of corps. We make the rules based on what serves the country best, not what serves the big corporations best. These corporations have no deity-given rights to protection from our government. We decided to give them certain protections and privileges, but it is done on our terms. The terms that serve the country. Now, it hasn't always worked, but we've gotten this far and we're doing better than most. I don't think that anti-trust laws or regulation in general should be chucked out the window just because people don't want to offend the country's biggest... err second biggest corporation. Yes they've been wildly successful. They also broke many laws to keep themselves on top and to get rid of the competition. That doesn't fly here, or at least it shouldn't. It remains to be seen whether Microsoft can buy a political fix for its legal problems.
Yet here we all are reading Slashdot, using an OS(Linux) we got for free that is eating at Microsofts share.
Saying that we shouldn't use Linux because its getting in the way of profits that should rightfully belong to Microsoft is like saying we should all stop breathing because nobody is getting rich even though we are consuming oxygen. Ok, so it's not exactly the same. The point is that if it can be made or had for free, or very cheaply, then it will be hard to make money on it. In this case, distributed effort has helped to produce a very good operating system that can be had for very little cost. Operating systems aren't the only products affected by this. Try selling ice to an eskimo sometime.
The best thing we could do to solve the MS problem is to ignore them.
Ignoring them would be foolish in the extreme. Doing so would simply allow them to build more and more artificial dependency into their products and raise the cost more and more for a company to switch to something else. If we stand idly by while Microsoft works even harder to achieve a stronger customer lock-in, we will end up losing a lot of ground. If Microsoft is allowed to own the standards, how can anyone else compete?
By going to the government and asking them to solve this, we are inviting the government in to regulate everything, including Linux and Open Source.
You talk like the DOJ is moving into new territory here or something. Anti-trust laws have been on the books for over 100 years. This is nothing new. It's not opening any new doors or creating any new type of regulation. They are simply enforcing the law. As I said before, the US bases its laws on the assumption that competition is good. Therefore, a lack of competition is bad, and attempting to use monopoly power to maintain that lack of competition is illegal.
Re:MS is NOT Satan, nor is Mr Gates. (Score:5)
You're partially right. Bill Gates is not Satan. He is merely a henchman of Satan. Satan wouldn't be caught dead with a haircut like that.
Seriously though, I don't know if there is really any point in separating attacks on his empire from attacks on him personally. It amounts to the same thing. He IS Microsoft. Sure, he has his minions to do the day-to-day stuff, but there is no doubt that he runs the show. I'll agree that it's overkill to call Microsoft evil in the traditional sense, but we are talking about a company that has been breaking the law, and is now trying to use its money and power to influence politicians to keep from being severely punished.
One could argue that any of us would likely try to fight back and change the law if we felt we were being unjustly prosecuted for something, but I certainly feel that if that were the case, I'd do it openly and try to make an argument that stands on its own merit rather than simply getting an exception made for me under the table. The problem is that Microsoft has tried several times to make a public argument, but they always twist the facts and leave out the parts that don't look so good in the light of day. That doesn't work in court though, so many of these facts were brought to light and, in the end, that's why they lost the case. The facts simply contradicted their arguments almost entirely.
Re:Anyone remember when Slashdot was cool? (Score:3)
To me...it looks more like MS is actually buying G.W. off through Ralph Reed.
Spare me. (Score:2)
Oh. oops. Didn't think so.
I'm sure you've also studies the twenty-odd "proofs" for the existence of God and found them all lacking?
No? Oops.
You sound like someone who rejects God not out of disbelief, but out of stubborn willfulness. Possibly you should study a bit and then come back and talk.
--
James said it all... (Score:2)
I wonder what Reed's response to that would be? I guess he would p[robably try to narrow the context.
--
How nauseating. (Score:4)
The Christian right even nauseates me, and I'm a Christian! Or maybe it nauseates me especially because I'm a Christian.
*sigh*
--
Not Christian bashing... (Score:5)
Furthermore, they are not representative of all Christians, or even the majority. There are many Christians who are content to live out Christ's message of judge-not-lest-ye-should-be-judged and being generally decent to their fellow human beings without declaring holy war against those whose values don't match theirs. And if I remember correctly, Christ had something to say about the hypocrites who make a point of wearing their "righteousness" as a badge of pride.
I'm not a Christian myself, but I have the greatest respect for those who are and live a decent life, rather than using their Christianity as an excuse to hate or condemn those who don't share it. Unfortunately, that's what most of the Religious Right seem to do.
[OT] Capital Gains vs. Earned Income (Score:2)
I always thought the Work Ethic was a more important "Christian virtue" - how is it moral to tax *earned* income at twice or thrice the rate of "capital gains" (a fancy way to say, unearned income from investments, disproportionately owned by wealthy Americans)?
This is not to disparage you personally, MattXVI, just to raise awareness about what I percieve to be a particularly egregious example of Ralph Reed's craven, self-interested behaviour at the helm of the Christian Coalition.
Smells pretty stinky to me.
-Isaac
This basically shows Microsoft is out of touch (Score:2)
Secondly, they pick a man who's basically been labelled as an extremist lumped in with the likes of Pat Buchanan and David Duke and expect public support.
Let's not ignore that it's totally blatant. They're nuts if they think this is going to help them in any way!
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto [nai.net]: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
Re:What MS needs (Score:2)
They've already defined it. If you try to get on their playing field, they'll level you.
Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
use their enormous ill-gotten wealth to
brainwash the whole public into liking them,
having failed to convince a single judge.
Raph hates Linux. Here's why: :-) (Score:2)
[sandeen@Lager linux]$ grep --recursive -i fuck */*
arch/i386/kernel/mtrr.c:/* Some BIOS's are fucked and don't set all MTRRs the same! */
arch/mips/kernel/irixelf.c:#if 0
arch/mips/kernel/irixioctl.c: * irixioctl.c: A fucking mess...
arch/mips/sgi/kernel/setup.c: * fucking with the memory controller because it needs to know the
arch/sparc/kernel/head.S:
arch/sparc/kernel/process.c:
arch/sparc/kernel/sunos_ioctl.c:
arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace.c:/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
arch/sparc64/kernel/process.c:
arch/sparc64/kernel/ptrace.c:/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
arch/sparc64/kernel/binfmt_aout32.c:
arch/sparc64/mm/init.c:
drivers/block/cmd640.c: * These chips are basically fucked by design, and getting this driver
drivers/cdrom/sbpcd.c: CURRENT=req->next;
drivers/net/sunhme.c:/* Only Sun can take such nice parts and fuck up the programming interface
drivers/net/sunhme.c:
drivers/net/sunhme.c:
drivers/net/sunhme.c:
drivers/scsi/esp.c: * how bad the target and/or ESP fucks things up.
drivers/scsi/esp.c: * phase things. We don't want to fuck directly with
drivers/scsi/esp.c:
drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h:/* Am I fucking pedantic or what? */
drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c: * how bad the target and/or ESP fucks things up.
drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c: * phase things. We don't want to fuck directly with
drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c:
drivers/video/tgafb.c:
fs/binfmt_aout.c:
include/asm-mips/mmu_context.h:/* Fuck. The f-word is here so you can grep for it
include/asm-sparc64/system.h:
lib/vsprintf.c: * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up
---
The Sanctity of Success (Score:4)
I found this in an editorial in my local paper [austin360.com]
In addition to being a painstaking reporter, Tarbell was a moralist. She viewed anti-competitive practices as corrupting as well as unlawful. Here are a few of her comments on the intertwined oil and railroad industries -- as exciting, novel and wildly profitable in the early 1900s as computers and the Internet are now.
Pretty applicable, eh? Especially considering it was written 100 years ago.
---
Not christian bashing but fundy bashing! (Score:2)
A fundy is a moron who wants to impose his
religious beliefs upon others.
In the US we have Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed,
Jerry Foolwell and many more.
Tweak UI (Score:2)
Give Tweak UI [cnet.com] a try. This handy little utility lets you customize things in Windows, including whether Network Neighborhood appears on your desktop. You can also reduce other Windows annoyances like the animated "Click here to begin" message that bumps into the Start menu when you log in. I highly recommend Tweak UI for anyone stuck using Windows.
What MS needs (Score:3)
>The Microsofties need a foot in the door among the Bush crowd so that their calls to a Bush White House are answered. Hiring one of the
>candidate's consultants as their own consultant is a time-honored method to do so. Now they just need a similar friend from the Gore team.
No, they had their day in court. They spent it shooting holes in their foot, unable to even mitigate the charges that they abused their market position to destroy competitors with better products. (This assumes, of course, that they didn't employ such abusive tactics.)
And what are they doing now? Trying every behind-the-scene trick to save their sorry hineys. They & thier flacks whined about keeping government out of the high-tech business, & now that they've shown themselves unable to follow any rules, & requiring some kind of government intervention Billg & Co are smoozing big time with the lobbyists & other Beltway types to protect what they have stolen.
Microsoft: the Standard Oil Trust of our generation.
Geoff
Interesting Details at NYtimes (Score:5)
About hiring Reed, the nytimes writes-
"Microsoft's aim, the company says, is to curry favor with the apparent Republican presidential nominee,"
To do this, Reeds's firm would do this-
"A series of e-mail messages from John Pudner, senior project manager for Century Strategies, laid out a detailed plan by Mr. Reed's staff and his contractors to recruit senior Bush supporters
from around the country in an effort to undermine the government's suit.
The Bush supporters -- and the e-mail showed that Mr. Pudner isscreening them carefully to make sure they are influential within the campaign -- are being asked to write letters to Mr. Bush saying they believe the government's case is misguided, and that the American people oppose it."
They get $300 a letter. Classy.
More info at-
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/04/bizte
On the good side, the man in charge of the committee that approves justice dept officials is Orrin Hatch, a big microsoft foe. The state atty generals are also involved with the case- GW can't just fire them.
Re:Wonderful. Thank you, Slashdot. (Score:3)
"The Christian Right is neither".
A match made in heaven (pun intended) (Score:5)
________________________________
Isn't this a conflict of interest ? (Score:2)
Is there a law against this, or is it still legal to influence presidential candidates this way ?
The more and more big business "invests" in politicians, the less the rest of us , the "poor masses" have a voice. We need campaing finance reform !!!
Did you read the article ? (Score:2)
for the U.S. presidency, to lobby Bush regarding the government's antitrust case
And my oh my, watch the language, Mr. Reed wouldn't approve.
Re:Not Christian bashing... (Score:3)
Not only are not all (nor most) Christians part or in agreement with the "Christian Coalition" but many of us are not even considered Christians by them !!! I'm Catholic BTW, and I'm sick of fundamentalist fanatics calling the us sons of Satan or the Pope the antichrist. Why don't they tell Pat Robertson to get off TV for a while and travel like the Pope to places like Cuba & Israel. Not asking for contributions but for peace, freedom and forgivenes..
Darn, this topic really hits a nerve with me !
Update -- Reed apologizes (Score:5)
Re:Maybe satanic to us... (Score:2)
MS + Ralph Reed + Domestic Partners? (Score:3)
-jon
Thou really shouldst.... (Score:2)
I mean, just so you can get the gist of it and all....
Re:MS is NOT Satan, nor is Mr Gates. (Score:2)
If me'n Bill end up the same place, I'll call it Hell regardless of what the sign on the door says.
--
Re:Interesting Details at NYtimes (Score:3)
Even classier when you realize how much of that $300 came from the tithes little old ladies squeeze out of their meagre incomes in hopes of bettering their prospects for the afterlife.
Won't they be surprised when St. Peter says "No, we didn't get any donations from you - the money you intended for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked went toward keeping the world's richest man on top of the heap instead."
--
2 * lusr = winner ? (Score:4)
Nine months ago, GW was riding high in the polls and had a war chest several times the size of all his foes' combined. But after spending all that loot, he now enjoys bare parity with Al Gore in the polls. (He probably hopes Bill Gates doesn't give him more money to spend!)
Nine months ago, Bill Gates was riding high in the IT world, raking in the cash and laughing off Consent Decrees. But after blowing a huge wad of cash on lawyers, he is now the pariah of the IT world, viewed as an arrogant ass as well as a crook by anyone who followed the DOJ suit, and the traditionally pro-MS trade rags are openly questioning the sense of migrating to W2K.
Imagine what these two guys will accomplish if they pool their talents and resources.
--
Re:But Ralph Reed IS. (Score:2)
I don't want to see Ralph Reed dead. I want to see him discredited, exposed as the bigot he is. Or else for him to renounce his past bigotry. But unfortunately, as long as there's that miniscule but vocal group of people as bigoted as him, neither is particularly likely.
--
MS Marketing Campaign (Score:3)
They feature Bill looking sad and long-suffering while he talks about how Microsoft is going to keep innovating despite the attempts of the government to stop them from innovating. The problem is, it comes off something like this:
Hi. I'm Bill Gates, president of Microsoft. At Microsoft, we're running scared. The revolving doors just don't stop spinning anymore, what with developers leaving in droves in anticpation of no more insta-stock millionaires. Not only that, but the shadow of Sun's boot poised above our heads is slowly driving us all insane. Frankly, we just hope we can get Windows ME out before we get disemboweled by class action suits filed by ravenous consumers.
We'll keep innovating, though. Why, just the other day, we came up with the concept of symbolic links, so you see... we'll be fine. Really. Buy Win2K! Please!
---
Its kinda sad, in a way. You know they are sucking when they have to trot Bill out on parade.
Ugh. This is how it starts...
It could be worse... (Score:2)
--
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
To be fair you are correct, this is what all major companies do so it's nothing unusual. It does seem sort of wrong though when you consider how many decisions are based on money and power instead of right and worng.
But alas...such is the state of the modern world.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3)
This is a lot more interesting as a Ralph Reed story than as a Microsoft story. It just means that by delivering South Carolina for Bush, he's finally completed the transition from Outsider Activist to Insider Deal-Maker.
It also means ol' Ralph is starting to cash in big-time.
The Microsofties need a foot in the door among the Bush crowd so that their calls to a Bush White House are answered. Hiring one of the candidate's consultants as their own consultant is a time-honored method to do so. Now they just need a similar friend from the Gore team.
Re: Microsoft hedges their political bets. (Score:3)
I did see a nice blurb a while back, when M$ realized that lobbying might be a good idea. It was basically a list of who they had donated too, correlated with the list of names on a "Dear Colleague" letter about how the DOJ was unfairly targeting an innovator. It read like, and was probably based upon, a Microsoft Press Release (v8.2)
--
Re:Makes good sence to me... (Score:2)
God created the universe. Gates created BASIC, and bought or stole everything else, starting with QDOS.
Churches ask for voluntary contributions. Microsoft levies a tax.
Christ heals the lame; Gates makes your computer lame.
Christ once pulled money out of the mouth of a fish; Microsoft is constantly finding ways to pull money out of you from a different orifice.
The Pope is spending this year confessing the sins of the Catholic Church; Microsoft either won't admit that it has done any wrongdoing at all, or doesn't understand it.
Christ was crucified because the political powers of the day couldn't control him; today, we're not sure if Gates will get crucified by the political powers, or simply co-opted.
Finally, have you ever seen a church enter the Blue Screen of Damnation?
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
YEESH! (Score:2)
Do I have to smiley-caption these things? I was following up on a joke!
Anyone who seriously compares Microsoft to God needs their head and/or stock options examined.
Re:Didn't you know... (Score:5)
What could they have been thinking? (Score:2)
I mean, you cannot fault his political skills, but hiring him for this is like putting an ungrounded lightning rod on a leaky gas tank.
Hiring the founder of the Christian Coalition is not going to bring Microsoft any new friends with libertarian leanings; nor is Ralph going to deliver his normal constituency who don't give a shit about Microsoft's issues.
In any case, isn't Mr. Reed's expertise in retail, direct marketing politics? I could see them hiring some respected, retired politician like Sam Nunn (not that he'd be available), who could open doors for them. I doubt very much any active politican is glad to see Mr. Reed coming, unless he's going to be bringing a bunch of votes with no strings attached.
Re:What could they have been thinking? (Score:2)
The point is I don't really think many republicans really care much for Mr. Reed, except for those of his precise stripe. Gov. Bush may hire him, but somehow I doubt he listens much to Mr. Reed except where delivering the votes of the religious right is concerned.
Re:What could they have been thinking? (Score:2)
This is what I'm trying to understand -- what is he supposed to be doing, exactly. I understand hiring him as a political consultant. The article states, however, that he was hired as a lobbyist:
Microsoft has hired a senior consultant to the Republican presidential campaign to lobby against the anti-trust case brought by the current administration against the software company.
.
This doesn't really make any sense. Who is he supposed to "lobby"? I suspect the article is inaccurate.
Re:There is no Good vs. Evil anymore (Score:2)
Is he? IIRC the panzertanks lost!
Yes, the Pope was on the wrong side in WW2, but hasn't the Catholic church been like that as far back as we can remember?
Thimo
--
Re:Wonderful. Thank you, Slashdot. (Score:2)
2) This is being reported because Ralph Reed is a BIG name in lobbyists, with enormous name regognition.
3) "people who believe in anything not made of silicon" are not by default christian.
I appear to have been trolled.
-nme!
Public Opinion and MS (Score:4)
First off, have you seen the recent fuzzy-feeling Microsoft commercial? Bill Gates looks like he's in a kids' school computer lab. He talks about when he and is friends decided to harness the power of the home computer and make lives better for everyone. And he expresses his hope to have the freedom to inovate in the future. Its a nice public opinion piece. No products... unless you count positive public opinion of Microsoft as one. I feel that there's a good reason for this add to show up on primetime TV.
The reason is simple. The public is beginning to sour towards Microsoft.
Last year I told this story here but I'll go ahead and tell it again as it still applies...
I was sitting at my desk when someone in the office space behind me began loudly bitching about Microsoft. Was it a fellow Unix admin browsing Slashdot and having a go at some trendy MS bashing? Was it one of my NT admin friends who make their living from supporting one of the nation's largest Microsoft installations... but still grumble at various failings of the products?
No.
The loud complaints were being issued by a decisively non-technical budget analyst who had just lost her work to Windows instability. She stared at a blue screen blaming Microsoft for her woes.
Think about this for a minute. The point is subtle, but a major one. A year or so earlier, she probably would have blamed computers. But now its no longer computers that are at fault - it was the products from Microsoft that caused her grief.
The cracks in Microsoft's public relations wall are beginning to show. There's no flood of public outcry yet; you're just as likely to run in to people on the street who either do not care or don't know anything but Windows. You're always going to find people who very deturminely support Windows and Microsoft. But more and more, I'm finding people who hold Microsoft in a less favorable light.
Re:Wonderful. Thank you, Slashdot. (Score:2)
/.
Re:Maybe satanic to us... (Score:4)
Maybe that's true in the US. Here in the UK there is (in my experience) considerable dissatisfaction with MS products. Maybe it's because of things like that unremovable "Network Neighborhood" icon which is the wrong spelling in this country, or perhaps it's things like the Word grammar checker having a go at you for using perfectly legitimate British English constructs. I imagine it's true that the further you get (culturally) from Seattle, the greater the proportion of people who see MS as menaces and not as gods.
Re:Not Christian bashing... (Score:2)
figures (Score:4)
I wonder if Ralph will certify Microsoft products "Holiness Approved" and convince members to use only Microsoft products. With any luck Microsoft has just shot itself in the foot by alienating those will any sense left in them.
Re:Evil shall support it's own (Score:2)
Evil shall support it's own (Score:4)
BG: With the help of Microsoft, has tried to keep us in a "computing dark-ages" by pushing bad operating systems
RR: Wants to take away your social freedoms
BG: Wants to take away your computing freedoms
RR: Thinks God is on his side
BG: Doesn't give a shit whose side God is on, as long as he has money and power
RR: Makes me want to swear whenver I hear his name
BG: Makes me swear whenever I use his products
RR: One of the perfectly corrupt by-products of 80s Reagan-era greed
BG: Ditto
And to see all of them tied together with Governor Bush just makes me ache inside. Ugh
... but could be his adherent ! (Score:2)
What makes MS & BG evil in my eyes is not what they did, but they persist in thinking they did no wrong. Not as a ploy, but I believe genuinely. BillG doesn't understand that what he did was wrong. This is amoral, and amorality is evil. Malevolence [of which there was plenty toward other corps] is not necessary for evil to exist.
Their blythe rejection of the very reasonable settlement offer -- no breakup, no open source, no "stopping innovation" just a price list for all buyers (NYTimes) -- is merely confirmation. And utterly stupid.
CC website runs on Linux/Apache (Score:2)
This might also be good time to time take another look at Jesux [geocities.com].
APwire: Reed's firm halting MS lobbying efforts (Score:3)
Unfortunately I can't figure out whether this means Reed is doing this on his own, or that Reed AND the firm have changed their minds about helping MS.
Makes good sence to me... (Score:2)
"Closed source"
We were not meant to understand everything God does.
"FUD"
We were not meant understand god's will but if we don't follow God's will we go to hell.
"Monopoly"
"Worship no other Gods but me"
Need I say more?
Re:MS is NOT Satan, nor is Mr Gates. (Score:2)
BTW, IANAC, but "it is easier for a man to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven". I really doubt you will be having that cup of coffee with Mr. Gates, in this lifetime or the next.
Waste of money (Score:2)
Unfortunately, in the US the media is predominantly Liberal in its leanings, and this gives a tremendous advantage to the Democrats. The Republicans have less chance of winning the election than Microsoft has of hiring RMS.
I agree ..... (Score:2)
Now the usual complaint about this sort of system (proportional systems in general) is that it encourages coalitions and compromise (I think that's a good thing in a political system) which results in deadlocks - however the US political system seems to be designed to encourage that sort of thing anyway (many in the US seem proud of this quality) so maybe it's a perfect fit.
Shudder! (Score:4)
Mind you it does seem that the minions of satan and those of heaven are teaming up .... might really signal the end of the world :-)
There is no Good vs. Evil anymore (Score:2)
While the good sits by on the sidelines waiting for it to all fall apart, so that the good can take over.
It's kind of funny that someone affiliated with a "Christian" orginization would side with a large corporation like Microsoft, since they represent what most would say is the ultimate evil... money. How hippocritical is that?
Re:Ralph Reed's trend line (Score:2)
The OO way (which is The Only True Way (TM), beside Organized Religion (TM)) tells us that
- PatRobertson ISA Antichrist
- BillGates ISA Antichrist
Therefore, RalphReed should have a WorkFor(Antichrist*) method. Or WorkFor(Antichrist&) maybe.This way anybody who conforms to the Antichrist interface can get RalphReed to work for him.
DISCLAIMER: I am not an American. I am not a Christian. I don't know who this Ralph Reed is. I don't know who this Pat Robertson is. I am poking at the parent post, not at American politics or Christianity. Now please send your thugs away. Please. Pretty pl...[BANG! THUMP! SPLAT!] OK folks. Congrats. Another anti-American heathen went to hell where he belongs. Who's next on our list?
--
Re:Isn't this a conflict of interest ? (Score:2)
Anyway, as a Christian, I could make a good case that limited government is a moral objective. HOW limited is the issue between most American politicians. High capital gains taxes discourage people from investing for the future - which is a prudent thing for a person and a family. Prudence is an important Christian virtue, particularly when it relates to the future of one's family. It might not appeal to many of us here, but Reed's formulation isn't far-fetched at all. It bears pointing out, too, that most Democrats voted for the most recent capital gains tax cut, and Mr. Clinton (no pawn of Ralph Reed) signed it.
Re: Microsoft hedges their political bets. (Score:2)
Microsoft hedges their political bets. (Score:5)
It's interesting to note that Microsoft gives about the same amount of money to each party. Like most companies, they hedge their bets. This article has more details. [yahoo.com]
Re:You're kidding right? (Score:2)
I also thought this might be preferable, but I realized that this "paralysis" consists of large chunks of my tax money being flushed down a pork-smelling toilet.
Regarding your voting scheme, I vaguely remember reading about a similar voting scheme where everyone just assigned a numeric value based on preference to the candidates, and whoever got the most overall score won. It supposedly had similar characteristics to your stated preferences - fringe interests weren't likely to be elected, and widely popular candidates were likely to be elected no matter what party they belonged to (which might not be a good thing in some people's eyes :)
It would be cool if there was some kind of straightforward TEST (for both governing "skills" & ethics) we could make candidates take, except I haven't any clue how we would make such a test fairly.
I guess any system which involves humans in positions where they can collect too much power, is just ripe for exploitation.
They're backpedaling... (Score:2)
According to Yahoo, "A company headed by former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed said Tuesday it made "an error we regret" when it asked influential Republicans to lobby presidential candidate George Bush on behalf of Microsoft..."
The full article [yahoo.com]
Re:Anyone remember when Slashdot was cool? (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
Yes, but now it's potentially the next president's right hand man. Well, maybe not "right hand", but someone who might have a particular influence over someone whose party is normally big business oriented (and I say that as a republican, although I vote with my conscience, not my party).
----------
CORRECTION: judge-not-lest-ye-should-be-judged? (Score:2)
This is the most misunderstood and misused verse in the Bible. Christ was referring to the judging of others' eternal salvation. He was saying that you shouldn't judge whether someone is going to heaven or hell because only God can know what's really in a person's heart. He was NOT referring to judging behavior. This verse pertains only to a person's salvation!
In fact, Christ demands that Christians reprimand and correct others when they commit sins. Judgment of the morality of behavior is absolutely necessary for a moral society. How could Christ have possibly opposed this?
Resumes (Score:2)
It seems like the text of the topic is very baiting, and this thread will immediately degenerate into anti-Christian anti-Republican immaturity.
Every company has lobbyists. Big deal. Thats how business is done nowadays. It's not right, but that's the system. A more balanced blurb would have been "Microsoft hires anti-trust Lobbyists." This place has been going down the tubes lately, with sensational stories.
Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design
Come on! (Score:4)
And what about this reference to Satan? MS is not satan! They may have stifled competition, thumbed their noses at Judges, bully OEMs, forced Go out of business, dumped Internet Explorer, write sneaky code to make compatible products incompatible, misrepresented their committment to OS/2 ... but they are not evil.
Comment removed (Score:5)
more evil than satan himself (Score:2)
--
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
That what I think.
Look out (Score:4)
an attempt to subvert the constitution (Score:2)
Re:Ralph Reed's trend line (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
Hmm. And consider when black people weren't allowed to vote. If they hadn't been able to lobby either, do you think they'd be able to vote today?
Not all those whose interests deserve consideration are legal voters.
This isn't a new thing. (Score:5)
Check out the MSNBC article [msnbc.com].
kwsNI
Didn't you know... (Score:5)
tcd004
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/04/12/mic
The Ralph Reed-Redmond connection
All this MS whining reminds me of a fable (Score:3)
Let's beat the wolves without selling our souls, OK?
Microsoft Just Bought G.W. Bush's Ear (Score:4)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
You really think so? (Score:2)
That's what Bush said. Just because you've hired the man's consulting firm doesn't put you in bed with him.
UPDATE: Reed Apologizes for Bush/Microsoft Work (Score:2)
The consulting firm founded by Ralph Reed apologized today for encouraging "a small number of individuals" to express their views about the Microsoft case to George W. Bush, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. The firm said it would halt the contacts...
"We are not hoping or expecting that any different administration will pull back or withdraw this (antitrust) case," [Microsoft spokesman Dan] Leach added. "We believe and we fully expect that we will win this case on appeal."
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Washington, D.C.
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft is now a political party (Score:2)
Ralph Reed's trend line (Score:2)
Pat Robertson = Antichrist
Ralph Reed now works for Bill Gates
Bill Gates = Antichrist
So, what does this say about Ralph Reed?
Oh Dear God NO...TWO greater evils together... (Score:3)