Microsoft does it again, bailout style!

[KBZ]

Microsoft wants to tax you to fix their malware issues

I really don't know what to say to this, it's just wacky. Their OS is already something of an oppressive experience, and now that they have a monopoly they don't feel like they should have to pay to fix their own problems? I call poop!

[Ex-Cyber]

I think they see some of these problems as not really being their fault. I'd sympathize with that viewpoint more if I were convinced that the majority of botnet nodes were just stupid/uneducated people being fooled by malware, but it seems like the worst Windows botnets have been spread primarily through security holes.

[neorichieb1971]

Surely its because the system is DOS based. Put some of that data on a chip that can't be modified and i'm sure some of these loop holes will go away. It will also boot up quicker. If you look at Windows, its just millions of files which to my eyes can be manipulated very easily. It would make restoring to factory settings very easy as well, just have a boot up which boots exclusively from a chipset.

[Ed Oscuro]

I would agree that computer security is incredibly important today, along the lines of a public health issue even (there are some superficial similarities between responding to computer issues and health ones and those similarities will probably become more, rather than less), but I'm not at all convinced that you need the government to take it over. Certainly as the article points out Unix and BSD do a pretty good job with security. Most of the security issues people face are either social engineering or (for the stuff Microsoft could use a "tax" to fix) clever programming finding holes in components running on Windows - too much bloat but other programs offer holes too so that will always be around. It's certainly possible to set up Linux with holes, and all the comments in the articles about becoming one's own mechanic seem to me to ignore that there is a lot of overhead with Linux that people simply don't have time for, same as becoming your own doctor. We have public health services after all. It doesn't stop smart people from learning about their own health though.

Surely its because the system is DOS based. Put some of that data on a chip that can't be modified and i'm sure some of these loop holes will go away. It will also boot up quicker. If you look at Windows, its just millions of files which to my eyes can be manipulated very easily. It would make restoring to factory settings very easy as well, just have a boot up which boots exclusively from a chipset.

Windaz hasn't been DOS based since 2000 was released at the end of the last decade (I used ME, seemed fast at release but that was just the hardware).

[antron]

I don't think he meant DOS, as in MS-DOS, but an operating system on a disc that can be modified.

Just run Linux.
Play games on a console.

[Drum]

Just run Linux.
Play games on a console.

lol >:(

[mesh control]

"oppressive"

[KBZ]

Just run Linux.
Play games on a console.

lol >:(

Probably not a horrible idea. I use windows everyday for gaming but it gets frustrating having to defrag or reformat every couple months and looking for pirated versions of the software needed to truly enjoy an OS. It's just that I've grown up with pc fps and consoles don't offer the same experience.

pc health is a real problem though. It needs to be fixed and I see some good arguments that it isn't totally Microsoft's fault that all this malware exists. However, would they be such a target if they didn't have the monopoly they have now?

[Ganelon]

No, it's not their fault and no, Windows likely isn't horribly filled with holes relative to everything else. But running to the government (which will in turn force money from the general people against our will) is sickening. You brought the child into the world and bullied every other kid down; now it's your turn to support the child. Less spending, less taxes.

[Specineff]

LOL, Microsoft.

[Fuzzypants]

I'd like microsoft if they'd just leave the code alone so I can install any OS I desire on any pc I buy. I'd much rather have my XP then a 7 or vista

[GaijinPunch]

No, it's not their fault and no, Windows likely isn't horribly filled with holes relative to everything else.

I can buy the fact that Microsoft is targeted 100x more than other OS's (even though I constantly see people trying to breach my Linux box) but I don't see how it can be deemed "not their fault". Internet safety in general, no, but they have more money than God. You'd think they could make a non-shoddy product.

[Fuzzypants]

You'd think they could make a non-shoddy product.

exactly

[Jockel]

Just run Linux.
Play games on a cab or console.

[BulletMagnet]

Consumers did not ask for these antitrust actions - rival business firms did. Consumers of high technology have enjoyed falling prices, expanding outputs, and a breathtaking array of new products and innovations...Increasingly, however, some firms have sought to handicap their rivals by turning to government for protection.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly and seamlessly any corporation can go from "Stay off my back, you anti-innovation, Socialist leeches" to "Please help me, Big Brother! I've always loved you!" Short-term personal convenience really is the only thing that ever matters on the top floor.

[Ex-Cyber]

The common "it's targeted more because more people run it" explanation makes sense for general viruses and trojans, but not so much for worms; the major worms have used IIS exploits to compromise servers, even though Windows/IIS is far from being the most popular web server.

[Ganelon]

I can buy the fact that Microsoft is targeted 100x more than other OS's (even though I constantly see people trying to breach my Linux box) but I don't see how it cannot be deemed "not their fault". Internet safety in general, no, but they have more money than God. You'd think they could make a non-shoddy product.

I mean it's not their fault in that they're not showing gross negligence to protecting their systems and ultimately, we have a choice of OSs but are still buying them. Then again, my fondest memories were of playing games on MS-DOS, where the main viruses to be afraid of were those downloaded from bad Usenet downloads. I've been with MS my whole life (although for the last few years mostly on a MacBook Pro for convenience) so I can't hate them.

Honestly, I hope these are just the words of an incompetent VP and not Microsoft's new directive to their lobbyists. If I have to start paying for MS's QA, my opinion will shift very quickly (as with pretty much everything else funded by tax dollars that I see no benefit to, namely big banks).

[kengou]

The market share argument doesn't really work. Windows is just really shoddy and riddled with holes and exploits. In the webserver market, unix-based systems dominate the market share and still they don't have nearly the amount of exploits that windows servers have.

For the desktop side of things, here's a bunch of reasons macs (and linux by extension; it's all unix-based) are just inherently more secure than windows:
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/wi ... s-os-x-489

This probably doesn't all apply to the latest OS releases such as windows 7, which I hear is much more secure than XP. Even so, I think it's interesting reading.

[GaijinPunch]

I mean it's not their fault in that they're not showing gross negligence to protecting their systems and ultimately, we have a choice of OSs but are still buying them.

The problem is we can't roll back the clock, and an entire office upgrading to a different OS is simply expensive and (more importantly) risky. People use it at work, they wanna use it at home (for the most part). I wonder how different the world would have been had Apple not been so fucking stupid in their infancy.

[KBZ]

I mean it's not their fault in that they're not showing gross negligence to protecting their systems and ultimately, we have a choice of OSs but are still buying them.

The problem is we can't roll back the clock, and an entire office upgrading to a different OS is simply expensive and (more importantly) risky. People use it at work, they wanna use it at home (for the most part). I wonder how different the world would have been had Apple not been so fucking stupid in their infancy.

They're still pretty stupid. With their endless lawsuit threats against smaller companies. They just threatened HTC saying it's infringement to use a "multitasking OS" (android) on a phone since that's what Apple uses.....and last I heard, the iphone had multitasking disabled by default!

The big picture I see from all this is that any company will go to any length to maintain whatever choke hold they have over the market and their customers. They paint themselves blue whenever the government tries make things fair for others, and paint themselves red whenever they see a way government can be used in their favour.

[BulletMagnet]

The big picture I see from all this is that any company will go to any length to maintain whatever choke hold they have over the market and their customers. They paint themselves blue whenever the government tries make things fair for others, and paint themselves red whenever they see a way government can be used in their favour.

Of course, we're constantly encouraged (if not threatened) to take them at their word and follow their lead without question in the former case, and then somehow assume that it's really the government's fault that the companies are acting contrarily (and that giving said companies even more power across the board will solve everything) in the latter. I wonder how many times we're going to have to get royally screwed over from both ends by the corporate set before we finally decide to wise up and view private consolidations of power with a mere fraction of the innate (and well-advised) distrust we view public ones with.

[JoshF]

I wonder how many times we're going to have to get royally screwed over from both ends by the corporate set before we finally decide to wise up and view private consolidations of power with a mere fraction of the innate (and well-advised) distrust we view public ones with.

That will happen when conservatives figure out corporations are structurally identical to those Stalinist governments they say they hate so much, i.e. never.

[Ganelon]

It seems you don't understand the opposing viewpoints then. I have no doubt companies will be evil given enough authority. Thankfully, our laws are anti-monopoly so any company pursuing that path risks self-destruction. So assuming they don't, then they're playing fairly within the realms of the economic game.

We aren't paying Microsoft (yet) to develop better OSs; shareholders and its past success fund its current efforts. If the government were equally self-sufficient on its own programs without demanding tax (which won't happen anyway with public schools, defense, law enforcement, welfare, etc.), then even if we hate government, at least we wouldn't be paying for it. That's the crux of the argument behind why fiscal conservatives don't trust the government; its track record is absolutely horrendous (on a monetary scale) in a cost-value comparison.

The reason public opinion is probably now more heavily against large corporations than ever is because of this bailout mess, which is again the government intruding into companies that ought to fall (by helping instead of hurting as usual) regardless of the potential ramifications. If Bush was a real fiscal conservative instead of a complete money-grubbing fraud, he wouldn't have wasted our tax dollars supporting private sector failures. It's certainly not fair to us that we get nothing after 20 years of unparalleled success and then stuck with the bill when the strategy finally turns sour.

So in short, yeah, companies are just as bad, but we have a choice on whether to purchase their stock or let them to their own means. I don't mind paying for the basics of government costs but anything beyond should be kept as minimal as possible or possibly funded only by those who use the services. That's the creed of the fiscal conservative (well, at least my own).

[BulletMagnet]

I have no doubt companies will be evil given enough authority.

That puts you a ways beyond most conservative types that I know/have read, who seem to believe (or are at least willing to say they do) that The Magic of the Market would somehow keep private enterprises from ever misbehaving or giving consumers a bad deal...if only we'd remove the remaining modicum of regulations on them that haven't already been deep-sixed! Whether the current setup is "anti-monopoly" enough is up for debate, I think, but regardless it is nice to meet someone who leans right but doesn't subscribe wholesale to The Gospel of Reagan once in awhile.

That's the crux of the argument behind why fiscal conservatives don't trust the government; its track record is absolutely horrendous (on a monetary scale) in a cost-value comparison...So in short, yeah, companies are just as bad, but we have a choice on whether to purchase their stock or let them to their own means.

The current state of health care around here (which exists mostly due to the efforts of the industry itself) would seem to (at the very least) serve as an exception to that first sentence, considering that we spend two to three times as much as most other "advanced" nations whose systems involve a larger government role, and get results that are no better (and in some cases decidedly worse) than theirs. Granted, those countries don't operate under the same circumstances as we do, and definitely have their own innate problems, but the "conventional wisdom" which states that anything closer to "socialized medicine" than we have now is by default an abject failure and shouldn't even be considered within the debate strikes me as the rhetoric of unchallenged corporate dollars than anything else. Seriously, after all the insistence that "real competition" is what's needed to bring down costs and improve outcomes, why the vehement opposition to the public option? If it's so obvious to consumers that the government can't do anything right, why is the private sector so deathly afraid of having to compete with it?

As for your second thought, I agree to a point, certainly, but again would hold up the health care industry as (at the least) an exception - health care is not designer shoes, auto detailing, or video games. It's a necessity, and people either need to have it in some form or watch their quality of life (or lack thereof) drop like a stone. And no, I'm not at all discounting the role of personal responsibility when it comes to keeping oneself in good health (again, another topic), but when not only are your choices limited by location, but (more importantly) the entire industry, no matter where you buy, is built on the concept of taking money for a service and then refusing to provide that very service as often as possible, any true consumer choice (i.e. the option to find something better) pretty much vanishes. That sort of stunt is especially easy to pull when you provide something vital, as opposed to a commodity not everybody wants or needs, yet, again, all we ever hear is that the "real" solution is to continually deregulate and avert our eyes even further. Has the government played a role in screwing up health care, as well as most everything else that's screwed up around here? Of course it has. Does that mean, however, that I'd prefer to have an already-shamelessly-cutthroat private sector (in health care and elsewhere) with even freer reign to do as it pleases, especially when it's shown itself, time and time again, perfectly willing to abandon its precious "free market" principles as soon as it smells government dollars or a competitive advantage? I see no more reason to let CEOs run loose than I do members of Congress.

The reason public opinion is probably now more heavily against large corporations than ever is because of this bailout mess, which is again the government intruding into companies that ought to fall...

I don't think it's so much the bailouts themselves (everyone knows that the recession would be even worse if they'd all gone down) as the fact that 1) The guys who caused this catastrophe are by and large still right where they were (and in a few cases sitting in the Obama cabinet) before they ruined the economy, 2) Are still practicing the same failed, dangerous routines that got us into this mess, as if it had never happened, and 3) Used a hunk of the bailout money to give themselves bonuses for a job well done. I think in this case, if the government had taken further initiative (not less) to demand true reform from these institutions people wouldn't be nearly as sour about the whole situation as they are - clearly, The Invisible Hand isn't doing the job.

To steer things back on topic a bit, whether an OS like Windows qualifies as a true "necessity" in this day and age is another matter, not to mention whether this proposal ever actually goes through or not. That said, I definitely understand where fiscal conservatives (real ones, not the "tax cuts for the rich solve everything" sort) are coming from, and very much agree with what they say about not trusting the government implicitly - where they and I usually diverge is when they insist that private enterprise, despite being driven by many of the same vices as the public sector, somehow shouldn't have to operate under the same sort of scrutiny. As I said before, though, you seem to travel that road a ways more cautiously than most, which I very much appreciate.

[GaijinPunch]

They're still pretty stupid. With their endless lawsuit threats against smaller companies. They just threatened HTC saying it's infringement to use a "multitasking OS" (android) on a phone since that's what Apple uses.....and last I heard, the iphone had multitasking disabled by default!

I don't know who at Yahoo/Skype blew who at Apple, but those are the only two non-native applications I've seen that use multi-tasking. If you jailbreak your phone, there's an application called "Backgrounder" which is a hack, but works beautifully pre 3.0... and somewhat well after that. So yeah, Apple sucks massive cock as well... don't get me wrong. I really only bought a Macbook Pro b/c it is native Unix under all the fancy bullshit, and that's what I need for work. And other than videos in bed and porn in the can I only use my laptop for work.

I also love how iPad was totally copyright by Fujita years ago, yet, here we are.

I have no doubt companies will be evil given enough authority. Thankfully, our laws are anti-monopoly so any company pursuing that path risks self-destruction. So assuming they don't, then they're playing fairly within the realms of the economic game.

The problem I have with this is that to actually sue a company like Microsoft or Apple for anything you have to have deep pockets. The little guy can easily get litigated off the planet before anything even happens.

That will happen when conservatives figure out corporations are structurally identical to those Stalinist governments they say they hate so much, i.e. never.

Haha... I should repost some of the "anti-socialist" poppy cock some of my God-fearing Christian friends from Texas post on their Facebook page every fucking day. The same people that label everything Obama-related as Stalinist will go off on some homophobic tangent about stripping gays of their rights not realizing they are embodying what they claim to hate. I can't believe I turned out to be as good as I did coming from one of the few places that's a more detached bubble than Japan!

The current state of health care around here (which exists mostly due to the efforts of the industry itself) would seem to (at the very least) serve as an exception to that first sentence

My problem w/ insurance from big business is if they want to fuck you, they're going to fuck you, and I know a lot of people who's asses have been turned inside out by an insurance company doing just that. People that have a problem with NHS (who in my vast experience are only people that have either only spent 3 days in a country with said health care, or never left their own) argue "they don't want a politician deciding how sick they are". Well... they've already got a prick in a suit deciding that. I, for one, can tell you, you'll have a far better idea of what will be covered if you're using the governments program. Don't like it? Buy up with private.

I still don't see the vehement hate for NHS full stop. Then again, it's always been the same for legalization of marijuana for me. If someone who does nothing but preach of the evils of marijuana and has never smoked it gives me some song and dance about why it shouldn't be illegal as it's a gateway drug and this and that I usually tell them they're clueless as well. What can I say... it's hard being more educated and experienced than basically everyone.

[Ganelon]

That puts you a ways beyond most conservative types that I know/have read, who seem to believe (or are at least willing to say they do) that The Magic of the Market would somehow keep private enterprises from ever misbehaving or giving consumers a bad deal...if only we'd remove the remaining modicum of regulations on them that haven't already been deep-sixed! Whether the current setup is "anti-monopoly" enough is up for debate, I think, but regardless it is nice to meet someone who leans right but doesn't subscribe wholesale to The Gospel of Reagan once in awhile.

The thing is, I think when companies are forced into real competition, they have to behave well or else lose their business. And because of the hugely important stakes, competition must be enforced. That's what drives the "magic hand." Beyond that, let's keep the regulation at a minimum.

The current state of health care around here (which exists mostly due to the efforts of the industry itself) would seem to (at the very least) serve as an exception to that first sentence, considering that we spend two to three times as much as most other "advanced" nations whose systems involve a larger government role, and get results that are no better (and in some cases decidedly worse) than theirs. Granted, those countries don't operate under the same circumstances as we do, and definitely have their own innate problems, but the "conventional wisdom" which states that anything closer to "socialized medicine" than we have now is by default an abject failure and shouldn't even be considered within the debate strikes me as the rhetoric of unchallenged corporate dollars than anything else. Seriously, after all the insistence that "real competition" is what's needed to bring down costs and improve outcomes, why the vehement opposition to the public option? If it's so obvious to consumers that the government can't do anything right, why is the private sector so deathly afraid of having to compete with it?

I'm deathly afraid of it because of the burden it puts on middle class tax payers (or the cuts that will be forced upon us) in order to pay this new system off. Plus, with 32 million new Americans, how will I ever see my doctors? Right now, it takes 1 month to see my doctor, 2 months to see my dermatologist. How much longer do you expect me to wait? And even though I've dutifully had my income deducted for health care insurance all these years, now even if I had a pre-existing condition, insurers would be forced to accept me? What's the meaning of "insurance" then? The majority of people who have had lingering issues will now flood doctors' offices and cost an insane amount. And now folks who develop minor issues but no prior insurance will go to the doctor ASAP?

I'm totally for limiting insurer compensation, which has indeed grown uncontrolled. And insurers have been getting greedier by covering less and less operations. So change is definitely necessary to put them in their place. But all this other socialized health care affects my quality of life while helping many who never bothered managing their own in the first place. Some I know are out of work or trying their best to make ends meet; others are living the good life and taking advantage of what should be given only to the seriously needy. Just this weekend, I saw a lady with a Coach bag (real or fake?) in a supermarket pay for a very nice set of groceries (nicer than what I eat and without even looking at sales) with food stamps and then drive off in a nice Toyota SUV. When I see that, it's hard not to consider the fairness of social programs...

As for drug companies, the reason medicine costs so much is because we encourage medicine makers to research new ways to cure diseases. It's no wonder the US is at the forefront of new medicine because the drug companies earn so much and can reuse a good chunk into scientifically discovering new cures. There's a grey area here because once the patent is off in 20 years, then prices diminish dramatically for the parent company; this is good for competition but hurts the drug creator, who only has about a decade normally to make as much money as they can from a new drug before the generic drug making leeches copy and take up the market.

In all, there's no way this new system can be paid off (less taxes? uhh...) and I find it pitiable when anyone believes that nonsense. And some small businesses who have predominantly young, healthy employees will be paying a lot to insure their employees. I think it's a shame that the choice isn't there anymore. But then, what's the general consensus on Medicare? Some think it's great to have a program that provides insurance to the elderly. But now, it's killing us paying for it. Can't each person pay for themselves instead and I pay less if I use it less? Apparently not, because the government feels too many won't save up enough upon retirement so that they're forcing everyone to pay for the elderly. I don't think that's fair either.

I don't think it's so much the bailouts themselves (everyone knows that the recession would be even worse if they'd all gone down) as the fact that 1) The guys who caused this catastrophe are by and large still right where they were (and in a few cases sitting in the Obama cabinet) before they ruined the economy, 2) Are still practicing the same failed, dangerous routines that got us into this mess, as if it had never happened, and 3) Used a hunk of the bailout money to give themselves bonuses for a job well done. I think in this case, if the government had taken further initiative (not less) to demand true reform from these institutions people wouldn't be nearly as sour about the whole situation as they are - clearly, The Invisible Hand isn't doing the job.

See, I don't think that's fair to all the companies (well, the few) that did restrain themselves. Plus, I highly doubt my personal life would be worse off if some of the major financial institutions had gone tumbling, even though millions of others who put their money in likely would. There's a risk in giving money to any private institution (even FDIC insured). Larger companies don't deserve 1-ups just because they're large and would cause a bigger hole when they're gone. But at least neither of us are hypocrites. I'm for no giving and no taking; you seem to follow a more liberal view. When Bush decided on the bailouts after years of espousing free market rhetoric, I felt sick...

The problem I have with this is that to actually sue a company like Microsoft or Apple for anything you have to have deep pockets. The little guy can easily get litigated off the planet before anything even happens.

That's true, but if they ever get too evil, politicians get a lot of kudos points for forcing a big, nasty corporation to kneel. After all, how many came to call against GTA San Andreas to get their morality kudos points? It's low brow but sometimes, it actually works to balance things out.

BTW, I'm all for legalizing marijuana. Government shouldn't interfere in the pleasures of the people. There's a difference between moral conservatism, which I find reprehensible, and fiscal conservatism.

[Ed Oscuro]

From Microsoft to marijuana...well done team!

[Ex-Cyber]

The thing is, I think when companies are forced into real competition, they have to behave well or else lose their business. And because of the hugely important stakes, competition must be enforced. That's what drives the "magic hand." Beyond that, let's keep the regulation at a minimum.

"Real competition" often fails to materialize when the market is left to its own devices (Standard Oil, anyone?). Many, many things are simply not ideal commodities. Windows is actually a pretty good example; you can't meaningfully switch to another supplier to get it, and there are pretty major costs involved in switching to a comparable but incompatible replacement.

[GaijinPunch]

From Microsoft to marijuana...well done team!

Technically inclined people tend to look at things generalized. "Fuck Big Government" rears it's head in a lot of ways, and all the ones I listed are the same thing, just a different "evil". I just find that most people on the right side are hypocrites as well... I also find that people on the left keep their mouth shut more, so maybe that's really the only difference.

[Ed Oscuro]

I guess this was just my way of saying "boy you people have a lot of time to spare." Not being in the thick of this one lends a different perspective than usual...I really don't see myself reading through all of a BulletMagnet (just singling him out unfairly, he usually writes sensible things) post in this thread, heh.