teehee

"I suspect they'll be angry for the sole reason they tend reflexively to hate Microsoft."

Bill Gates as the worlds richest person for the don't know how many years in a row is of course a prime target for those who don't believe in money paid for services/goods rendered....

Which is funny because he probably also donates the most money to charity than at least 98% of the world (doesn't he have his own charity to begin with?)

The SCOTUS made these rulings? When did they start following and ruling correctly on current laws instead of making their own? I must have missed something. What changed? LMAO

I know more than a few Righties and Independents that have no love for Microsoft either. I don't think its a political thing.

Microsoft attracts ire for a number of reasons. No doubt some are political -- there are quite a few people who regard material success as inherently unjust -- but some are technological, and others are about its marketing strategies.

I'm a user and admirer of several Microsoft products. Their development tools are unparalleled in my experience -- and I have 39 years' experience. But even I am disturbed by their "Embrace and Enhance" attitude toward standards, which appears to aim at the proprietarization of every emerging digital standard on Earth.

I dislike the thought of having to use Internet Explorer because a significant proportion of Websites won't display properly in anything else. And I really dislike the thought of having C++ "extended" beyond the ANSI standard for Microsoft's .NET / "managed code" convenience, such that C++ source code must be closely scrutinized before it can be ported.

IBM did similar things in its time of hegemony, which suggests that market dominance itself brings on the disease. However, I can't suggest a cure that would be compatible with American traditions of market freedom.

I always love it when a weak argument is centered around an accusation that "they" hate something or another. Of course, the "they" is always "liberals". A weak argument made even weaker. Just once I'd like to see some evidence of who "they" are.

Oh, I'm a "liberal" and "I" love buying microsoft products.

Supreme Court Backs Police in High-Speed Injury Cases

A police officer who deliberately rammed a car he was chasing, leaving the 19-year-old driver disabled, acted lawfully to protect others from harm, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday. No doubt.

You can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs....

I would suggest looking at the video and reading the ruling before making snide comments.

The MS issue is confusing as heck. I read the article slowly and I still don't have a good grasp of the issues involved. Most interesting:

"Legal experts said that if Microsoft had shipped copies of the software overseas rather than a single master disk, the court would have found patent infringement.

"What's interesting is that the Supreme Court relied on this paper-thin distinction between where the copying occurs as the foundation for its analysis," said San Francisco-based patent litigator Andrew Leibnitz."

Huh? A paper thin distinction indeed. I wonder if this ruling could eventually bite MS in the behind.

Re: Supreme Court Backs Police in High-Speed Injury Cases

You've got to love this quote from Justice Scalia concerning the lower court's lying misrepresentation of the driver's reckless and endangering actions:

"Indeed, reading the lower court's opinion, one gets the impression that [the suspect], rather than fleeing from police, was attempting to pass his driving test . . ."

I am sorry for the kid, but if you break the law, endanger others, and run from the police it is YOU who are responsible for the consequences, not the police.

"[Gates] probably also donates the most money to charity than at least 98% of the world (doesn't he have his own charity to begin with?)"

Prior to creating the Gates Foundation (read tax loophole), Gates had a reputation for being anything but a philanthropist.

He had to do something with that money or the U.S. government would have taken about 55% of it in estate (death) taxes. He puts the money in a foundation and puts his kids on the board of directors. The estate tax is bypassed and the kids are set for the rest of their lives.

He [Gates] had to do something with that money or the U.S. government would have taken about 55% of it in estate (death) taxes.

I seem to recall reading something years back that Gates planned to leave only a couple million to his children. My interpretation of the intent being that they were 'safe' but the sum wouldn't completely remove their need to pursue their own success.

This stuck with me because I firmly believe that one of the worst things you can do for your children is to hand them everything they could want. It kills their motivation to succeed. That is, comfort is the enemy of motivation.

You can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs....

I LOL'd.

I suspect they'll be angry for the sole reason they tend reflexively to hate Microsoft.

Well, I'm not angry about the decision as it is the correct one, albeit barely so. And I dislike Microsoft not because they are successful, but because they make terrible, yet ubiquitous, products.

In reference to the SCOTUS ruling on hi-speed police chases...

"No doubt.

You can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs"

What a swinish statement. A 19yr old is paralyzed for life for speeding at that's your pig response to a tragedy?

"&" for "at"

This stuck with me because I firmly believe that one of the worst things you can do for your children is to hand them everything they could want. It kills their motivation to succeed. That is, comfort is the enemy of motivation.

And of course you can apply this to democrats and all their entitlement programs. But of course they want to stop motivation. Motivation gets in the way of their power and control.

The 19 year old should have stopped when told to, either by loudspeaker or the red lights on the cop car's roof.

I have NO sympathy for these idiots. In chases such as this, and we have lots of them, innocent people are killed or injured by some lunatic driving 100 mph running from the cops.

A 19 year old is a grown adult, with adult responsibilities.

"What a swinish statement. A 19yr old is paralyzed for life for speeding at that's your pig response to a tragedy?"

No, the 19 year old is paralyzed for life because of his reckless driving, disdain for authority (in the guise of refusing to accept punishment for breaking the law), AND for speeding.

I would bet the facts of that case might show the officer in the right to have rammed the reckless car.

Answer me this question, if you specifically told your kid not to do something, then your kid does it anyway. When you catch your kid doing "it", you give your kid a slap on the wrist (give him/her a time-out in their room), only to find out your kid has escaped punishment by climbing out his/her window.....

what would be the proper response?