Microsoft Break-up Broken

Microsoft Won't Be Broken Up is an Associated Press story (thanks Adrenaline Vault) with the news that there will be no further follow-up to the anti-trust-related break up of Microsoft ordered last year (story) that was subsequently reversed by an appeals court (story) which vacated the breakup order "on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the remedial order." According the new report, "The Bush administration, reversing the Clinton White House legal strategy against Microsoft, told the software manufacturer Thursday it no longer seeks to have the company broken up. The department also said it will not pursue the bundling issues in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant."
View : : :
70.
 
Re: Individualism
Sep 7, 2001, 17:28
anon@134.197
70.
Re: Individualism Sep 7, 2001, 17:28
Sep 7, 2001, 17:28
anon@134.197
 
"This philosophic statement would be hilarious if it weren't so common. Who do you suppose 'everyone' is? They are individuals. There is no such organism 'society' or 'the whole.' There are only individuals."

No "society"? Give me a break... that's completely untrue. Not everyone has a 100% unique opinion on everything, people tend to agree with one another. That's the idea behind representative democracies (too many individuals to participate in a direct democracy, so we have to take advantage of the fact that many people will vote in common ways.) Social trends, etc...

While everyone IS a unique individual, our minds have a wonderful capability to abstract things, and we can view people in groups, or as a society.

Also, what I find peculiar is that you say my philosophical statement would have been funny, if it wasn't so common. If it were a unique statement, would it have been funny, or "senseless", or stupid? Apparently you don't think like an individual, Mr. Invidual. You really are just a cog in the wheel.

Anyhow, I feel there should be a pretty high minimum standard for the living conditions of people. You should only be able to sink to a fixed low (unless you forcefully WANT to go lower.) This minimum standard should fluctuate as a society gets more or less properous, instead of being absolute.

It's not feasible to do such a thing in the US, at least not to the standard I would deem fair, but there are countries (such as Denmark) which do this quite well. Of course, Denmark is far wealthier per person than the US... they can guarantee nobody goes homeless.

But it's only impossible within our current framework of thinking. Maybe in the future, it really will be possible, if so choose it.

"And, if that is "the way things work" (in reference to darwinism), then how is it you think "humanity" can overcome it? You mean, you think humanity can fight reality? This is an example of what I stated previously, social subjectivism. Thinking that 'somehow' the group or the collective or "humanity" can overcome anything (the law of identity even), just as long as they 'will' it to be."

It depends on how you look at life. If you want to apply survival of the fittest to every individual, then so be it.
But we can think of humanity as a whole (regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, etc.) and support it, to ensure our survival.

"Of course one has to take care of "#1," selflessness is not a virtue. Since I don't care to write a book explaining it to you, I'll point out that selflessness, i.e. self-sacrifice, was Hitler's philosophy (and communism's, nazism's, fascism's, and is socialism's), how did that work out again? "

Once again, you show us a one-sided propoganda-based viewpoint.

Nazism and fascism were definitely not about selflessness in the sense I mean it: devotion to the good of others.

Nazism was highly selective, based on race, and on brutality.

The most well known examples of selfless people are many of the Christian saints. Their stories were recorded eventually. Wether you adhere to their religion or not, you must admit their lives were truly remarkable. Perhaps they don't fit your bill of what life is about, but many of these people lived satisfying lives, not only to themselves, but to others as well. There's no harm in that. There have no doubt been many, many people who have lived lifestyles devoted to the good of others, but many are unknown.

"There is no curse of prosperity. Rational self-interest is the cause of prosperity. Which is a reason so much of the world has lacked such; the philosophy that has dominated the world is selflessness. There is no virtue to humility, humbleness or self-sacrifice; this has been proclaimed for two thousand years, and it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The middle ages, which were dominated by self-sacrifice, humility, and humbleness were the darkest period in recorded human history. "

Your viewpoint is tainted with tainted with philosophy, as everyone's is, but I have the feeling you feel your philosophy is absolute. Humans are not fully rational, nor ought they be, in my opinion. We are both rational and non-rational, and this balance is vital to our identity.

Being humble has never been dominant code of behavior. Look at history... So much has been about greed, nationalism, individual prosperity... often at the expense of others. There have always been rulers, and much of history has been dominated by a rigid class system.

I wonder what your "virtues" are...

As for the middle ages, this is another poorly thought out example. The middle ages had to happen. They weren't necessarily a time of darkness.

Sure, life wasn't peachy-keen in A.D. 600-1500, but the middle ages were a time of great political turmoil and set the stage for the Renaissance.

Europe found crucial parts of its identity in those often unfortunate times. The middle ages were responible for the formation of European nations, which ended up, in a way, ruling the world.

Much of the problems in the middle ages were due to a result of a lack of virtues. Who ruled Europe? Kings, feudal lords, knights, and the clergy. Many of these people were simply ruthless and semi-barbaric. This upper class went to church, and in the case of the clergy, proclaimed their beliefs, but did not adhere to them.

They abused their positions of power... Kings did not often get off their high horses to lend peasants a helping hand. Bishops of the time period participated in battle, despite not being allowed to do harm to others. They used maces instead of blades in combat, so as not to draw blood. Torture was often done under the orders of clergymen, even though it was not administered by them (since they were not allowed to do harm to others, they found secular officials to do the job under their guidance.)

These sorts of things certainly did not happen because people cared for the well being of others, did they?
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
6.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@65.89
10.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
14.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@216.148
103.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
anon@64.164
2.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@63.207
3.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@217.81
4.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
5.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@12.26
9.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
7.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@128.194
87.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
94.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
8.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
11.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@128.194
28.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
12.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
17.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
18.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@216.148
30.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@134.197
31.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
36.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
42.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@134.197
46.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
48.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
13.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@4.3
15.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@65.89
16.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
25.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
19.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
20.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
21.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
23.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
24.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
22.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@207.13
26.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
27.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
29.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@209.3
32.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
33.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@134.197
35.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
37.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@209.42
41.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
49.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
52.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
34.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@4.3
38.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@158.252
39.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
anon@64.167
40.
Sep 6, 2001Sep 6 2001
43.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
44.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@64.231
45.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
47.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
50.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@62.49
51.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@62.49
53.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
54.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.2
56.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
58.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
60.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
55.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
 70.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
 Re: Individualism
anon@134.197
78.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
80.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
86.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
anon@134.197
91.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
96.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
97.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
      Re: Individualism
98.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
       Re: Individualism
anon@158.252
99.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
        Re: Individualism
101.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
         Re: Individualism
anon@158.252
100.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
       Re: Individualism
57.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
59.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@4.35
61.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
62.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
64.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
65.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
63.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
66.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
67.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
68.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@65.169
72.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
79.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
82.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
84.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
     Re: Capitalism
anon@208.190
89.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
     Re: Capitalism
92.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
      Re: Capitalism
93.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
       Re: Capitalism
anon@209.112
95.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
       Re: Capitalism
69.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@207.140
71.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
73.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
74.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@134.197
81.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
83.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
    socialism
anon@208.190
88.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
     Re: socialism
anon@158.252
90.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
      Re: socialism
85.
Sep 8, 2001Sep 8 2001
    Re: $LAVE$
75.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
76.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
77.
Sep 7, 2001Sep 7 2001
anon@158.252
102.
Sep 9, 2001Sep 9 2001
anon@63.202
104.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
105.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
anon@213.3
108.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
106.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
anon@158.252
107.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
114.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
anon@134.197
109.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
110.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
111.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
112.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
113.
Sep 10, 2001Sep 10 2001
115.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
116.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
119.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@194.102
120.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@154.11
118.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@62.202
121.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
122.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
123.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
126.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
128.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
129.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
anon@158.252
130.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
132.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: Capitalism, etc.
anon@158.252
133.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: Capitalism, etc.
anon@158.252
137.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
146.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
124.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
anon@63.73
125.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
127.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
131.
Sep 12, 2001Sep 12 2001
138.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
117.
Sep 11, 2001Sep 11 2001
anon@147.51
134.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@158.252
135.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@24.240
139.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
141.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@24.240
140.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@158.252
143.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@24.240
144.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@158.252
145.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@63.183
149.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
150.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
151.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
      Re: same ol' story
anon@65.204
152.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: same ol' story
153.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
        Re: same ol' story
155.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
158.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
162.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
          Re: same ol' story
163.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
           Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
164.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
            Re: same ol' story
167.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
             Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
168.
Sep 15, 2001Sep 15 2001
              Re: same ol' story
165.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
           Re: same ol' story
anon@63.150
166.
Sep 14, 2001Sep 14 2001
            Re: same ol' story
169.
Sep 16, 2001Sep 16 2001
             Re: same ol' story
170.
Sep 16, 2001Sep 16 2001
              Re: same ol' story
171.
Sep 16, 2001Sep 16 2001
              Re: same ol' story
anon@24.240
172.
Sep 17, 2001Sep 17 2001
               Re: same ol' story
173.
Sep 17, 2001Sep 17 2001
                Re: same ol' story
174.
Sep 17, 2001Sep 17 2001
                 Re: same ol' story
anon@63.150
154.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
        Re: same ol' story
anon@63.150
156.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
157.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
          Re: same ol' story
anon@24.240
159.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
       Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
160.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
        Re: same ol' story
anon@24.240
161.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
         Re: same ol' story
anon@158.252
136.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
142.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
147.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
148.
Sep 13, 2001Sep 13 2001
anon@63.150