Global Warming News

[Pilot]

Your math is faulty here, as the solar panals do not produce 80 watts per year.
If I am not mistaken, they produce 80 watts per hour or 350,400 watts per year assuming an average of 12 hours of daylight per day.

The math may be faulty, but so are the claims for the solar power. The 80 watts per hour are under ideal conditions--noon on a sunny day. Morning and afternoon, they produce a lot less unless they track the sun. If they do track, there is still a loss as the light goes thru a thicker atmosphere when the sun is low. And if they are located at higher latitudes, their efficiency is reduced, again because of low sun angles. Furthermore, after a lot of careful research, I have noticed that there are cloudy days now and then.

Solar is coming along and in a few years they will have more efficient cells, but the only arguments I see for solar electrical generation now are to provide power in remote locations and to fund a budding industry that can only get by with subsidies. And that second argument, I don't really like.

OTOH, solar water heating is a different story and I think we should encourage that economically, thru subsidies or other means based on solar efficiency for a site or an area--more so for SoCal and Arizona than western Oregon.

 

[Pilot]

Coal vs. nuclear: If find this from Wiki to be interesting:

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[8][9] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[10] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste has been linked to the death of 20,000 people each year.[11] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[12] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[13]

The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[14]

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Coal vs. nuclear: If find this from Wiki to be interesting:

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[8][9] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[10] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste has been linked to the death of 20,000 people each year.[11] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[12] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[13]

The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[14]

Thanks for the backup info, I remember reading about exactly how dangerous wood burning was both health and safety wise.
I am actually considering installing solar panels on a little house that I am rehabbing here, I think that for S. Cal it probably makes a lot of sense, not so sure about back east.(Interestingly SDGE won't pay you if you start spinning the meter backwards, they will issue you a "credit")
I keep hearing about you guys shoveling out and it just breaks my heart .(I was going to try and post a picture of the new peacock that appeared on our driveway the other day, but I didn't want to make you guys feel bad
Vis a Vis the Constitution, I,m still waiting for the alternative that we are going to use.
Here's one: How about We "give" people everything that they "need", and then the people return everything that they "can". Loren, Dave, sound okay?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer,
I don't feel that Wikipedia was a pretty middle of the road source. I did google France etc. but did not come up with a clear description of their method. Not sure cherry picking is a fair accusation.
No answer on the Constitution dilemma. Looks like there is a possibility of major changes if the people desire.

My 2 cents on power. Home usage of power is rated in KWH. (Kilowatt Hours) It takes 1 kwh to power a 1000 watt light bulb for an hour (or a 100 watt light bulb for 10 hours) An 80 watt solar panel producing the rated amount for 10 hours would produce 800 watt hours or .8 kwh. We don't pay for watts or kilo watts or mega watts but for these things over a period of time. (watt hours, kwh, or mega watt hours) Not sure if this clarifies things or confuses??? Watts per hour doesn't make sense though I've seen it used many times.

Loren

Google "French Nuclear Waste Disposal" Don't know why the link didn't work. Probably because I'm an analog guy in a digital age!

 

[Chuck52]

Vis a Vis the Constitution, I,m still waiting for the alternative that we are going to use.
Here's one: How about We "give" people everything that they "need", and then the people return everything that they "can". Loren, Dave, sound okay?

No need for an alternative. You interpret the constitution your way and others will interpret it their way. The Supremes are only "activist" when their interpretation disagrees with yours. Some conservatives like to rant about how the constitution is so clear in its intent that no interpretation is required, but again, that only follows an "interpretation" by the Supremes they don't like. The devil is in the details, and the Constitution is too short to have enough details, so we keep "interpreting" them in.

Chuck

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

It's interesting. From reading all these posts, I believe that the two of you (dave1949 & FallbrookFarmer) are at slightly opposite ends of the middle and yet are not really all that far apart in your beliefs. It leaves me wondering what comments from real extremists would look like...probably not as entertaining. I think you guys are having too much fun with this thread. As for myself, I vary between both of you on different parts of various issues. I also feel the need to commend both of you on the energy you have spent to look up and document the things you have posted. This thread has been both educational and enlightening for me. :thumbsup:

And on that note...it's time for bed.

I would agree that we are probably in agreement in the definition of the problem, It's how to arrive at the solution.
As you have probably guessed, I am a more market solution type of guy, while Loren, and Dave feel that government is a more effective way to solve a problem(Right?)

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

No need for an alternative. You interpret the constitution your way and others will interpret it their way. The Supremes are only "activist" when their interpretation disagrees with yours. Some conservatives like to rant about how the constitution is so clear in its intent that no interpretation is required, but again, that only follows an "interpretation" by the Supremes they don't like. The devil is in the details, and the Constitution is too short to have enough details, so we keep "interpreting" them in.

Chuck

One of the greatest strengths of the Constitution(IMHO)is its elegance. If one sits and reads it, it becomes clear that
some very very intelligent men spent many hours in taking what can be very complex issues, and reducing
them to everyday language that could be understood by
virtually everyone.
It's true that one can take one phrase or group of words and construe them in a way that may make the meaning ambiguous, but if one reads it as a plain language document, interpretation is less of a problem(IMHO).
Please, if you would, tell me the section, that you feel is so ambiguous that it needs to modified,changed. Or do you feel that we should start from scratch?
I would like to think that we can agree on what our basic system of government is.

 

[Pilot]

One of the greatest strengths of the Constitution(IMHO)is its elegance. If one sits and reads it, it becomes clear that
some very very intelligent men spent many hours in taking what can be very complex issues, and reducing
them to everyday language that could be understood by
virtually everyone..

James Madison practically wrote the whole thing himself.

 

[dave1949]

I would agree that we are probably in agreement in the definition of the problem, It's how to arrive at the solution.
As you have probably guessed, I am a more market solution type of guy, while Loren, and Dave feel that government is a more effective way to solve a problem(Right?)

I like markets. I also like a government that can ride herd on people's baser instincts. Complain about the growth of government if you must, but realize that much of the growth of government is the result of people doing stupid things, and the majority of them were involved in a business. This doesn't mean business is evil, it just means a business has enough money and works on a large enough scale to cause real problems. An individual could do the same given the resources.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill is a perfect example. Lacking a government with a big enough stick, how many of those spills would occur and how diligently would they be cleaned up? If history is a guide, the answer would be dismal.

I think you operate on the assumption that a multitude of market activities will result in the greatest good, like a hill of ants or hive of bees. First, we need to define 'good' and second, history demonstrates that without any regulations, most of the 'good' tends to end up the hands of a very few, very wealthy people. Unfortunately for some people, they can never have enough and often their gains are ill-gotten. Robber Barons earned the name, you know?

Example: While the descendants of Sam Walton were becoming some of the wealthiest people in the world, their employees (excuse me, associates) were being arm twisted into working for free. Aside from mobs burning the stores, who will correct that other than a government? Which action would you prefer?
Dave.

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFramer,
I don't agree that government is by any means the only way to take care of a desired service. I think it pays to be specific with a given issue. I believe in a publicly funded army and all state, town, county police forces. Our use of "Black Water" has not saved money from what I have found and we have lost too much control of what they do. K-12 school should be public and there should be affordable post secondary education so that we can train the best and brightest even if they are poor. Fire and emergency protection is often publicly funded and sometimes covered by volunteer fire departments. Also as we do with SCHIP, Medicare, Medicade and many other programs, much of our population on some medical needs. What I would like to see is much different than what we have but it would include a basic level of coverage for including preventative medicine. There would be a copay depending on income for most visits with incentives to use the appropriate treatment (clinic visit instead of going to the ER. As is the case now with Medicare there are limits and private insurance gives a higher level of coverage. I am clearly in favor of one government agency (instead of the many that exist now) to oversee healthcare. I know that many disagree but I am not saying that we give everything to everybody for free - that's nuts.
Many regulatory agencies should be insulated as much as possible from business and corporate interest. I feel the best group to do this is by Federal, State or local governments.
You don't know my view when you state -quote "Here's one: How about We "give" people everything that they "need", and then the people return everything that they "can". Loren, Dave, sound okay?"
I think it makes much more sense to discuss specific topics or proposed solutions than to throw labels around and tell others what they think. I just feel that calling someone heartless or a facist would seem to not serve no constructive purpose. That statement is not directed at anyone -just an example.

A little more math on the 80 watt solar panel - if it averaged 65 watts of output for 10 hours a day for 365 days a year the power output would be
65 watts x 10 hrs x 365 = 650 watt hours x 365 = 23720 watt hours or
about 237.25 kwh for the year. At 15 cents per kwh it would produce $35.59 worth of electricity. Watts per year makes no sense; power is measured in kwh, mega watt hours or tera watt hours.

Note that the World Nuclear Association may be a bit biased and not take into account the full cost or health danger for the next 10000 years for its nuclear wastes.

I do enjoy the discussion when it stays civil and have learned much from many of you,
Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I like markets. I also like a government that can ride herd on people's baser instincts. Complain about the growth of government if you must, but realize that much of the growth of government is the result of people doing stupid things, and the majority of them were involved in a business. This doesn't mean business is evil, it just means a business has enough money and works on a large enough scale to cause real problems. An individual could do the same given the resources.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill is a perfect example. Lacking a government with a big enough stick, how many of those spills would occur and how diligently would they be cleaned up? If history is a guide, the answer would be dismal.

I think you operate on the assumption that a multitude of market activities will result in the greatest good, like a hill of ants or hive of bees. First, we need to define 'good' and second, history demonstrates that without any regulations, most of the 'good' tends to end up the hands of a very few, very wealthy people. Unfortunately for some people, they can never have enough and often their gains are ill-gotten. Robber Barons earned the name, you know?

Example: While the descendants of Sam Walton were becoming some of the wealthiest people in the world, their employees (excuse me, associates) were being arm twisted into working for free. Aside from mobs burning the stores, who will correct that other than a government? Which action would you prefer?
Dave.

So many Liberal Shibboleths, so little time!
When you speak of baser instincts, are you referring to mobs of people harassing AIG executives at there homes,or perhaps the President of the US suggesting that if AIG didn't go long with the program, he might not stand in the way of those mobs? Those kinds of baser instincts?
I would agree with you that the growth of government has been facilitated by "stupid" people who actually believe that the government is actually going to give them something for "free".
What "real problems" does business cause? Giving people employment, producing goods and services that people actually want,paying taxes at a greater rate than the general populace? Those kinds of problems?
Let me use Bill Gates(the richest person on earth) as an example of one of those robber barons that you deplore.
How many jobs has he created? How many millionaires has he created? How much good(medically,educationally,businesswise, etc,etc) has he created? That kind of Robber Baron? Were he's gains ill gotten? Or did he produce a product that was wildly successful, and by so doing made the economy bigger, thereby making the pie bigger for everyone, rather than squabbling over who gets a bigger slice.
Exxon Valdez spill. Some fish died, some birds died.
If you were to go there today, would you see any evidence of the spill? If you want some real evidence of ecological disasters, go to the former Soviet Union or Eastern Block countries, why doesn't the press make an issue of those truly horrendous events?
So if the Walton's became rich by delivering products to markets more efficiently, than there competitors who had to use union labor, you feel that "mobs burning their stores" are a correct response, or that government(readoliticians who are beholden to unions for their campaign contributions) should somehow "control them.
Check out what just happened in Chicago(One of the strongest unions cities in the country) when Wall-mart wanted to open a store. There were about 100 applicants for every job. And Dick Daley used his first veto in twenty years in office to override a vote to keep them out.

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer:

RE:Google "French Nuclear Waste Disposal" Don't know why the link didn't work. Probably because I'm an analog guy in a digital age!

I didn't say I got no hits - just stated it looks like it is mostly in temporary storage and they are studying and working on long term storage. Lots like what we are doing.

France’s Radioactive Waste Management Program - Fact Sheet

In 1991 they authorized a 15 year study and are now drilling in a clay area and looking for a granite site for high level materials (and long half-life). Does this sound like a clear and solid 10000 year program is set.

How much of these future costs or dangers are factored into their costs or is it to be passed on to their children?

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFramer,
I don't agree that government is by any means the only way to take care of a desired service. I think it pays to be specific with a given issue. I believe in a publicly funded army and all state, town, county police forces. Our use of "Black Water" has not saved money from what I have found and we have lost too much control of what they do. K-12 school should be public and there should be affordable post secondary education so that we can train the best and brightest even if they are poor. Fire and emergency protection is often publicly funded and sometimes covered by volunteer fire departments. Also as we do with SCHIP, Medicare, Medicade and many other programs, much of our population on some medical needs. What I would like to see is much different than what we have but it would include a basic level of coverage for including preventative medicine. There would be a copay depending on income for most visits with incentives to use the appropriate treatment (clinic visit instead of going to the ER. As is the case now with Medicare there are limits and private insurance gives a higher level of coverage. I am clearly in favor of one government agency (instead of the many that exist now) to oversee healthcare. I know that many disagree but I am not saying that we give everything to everybody for free - that's nuts.
Many regulatory agencies should be insulated as much as possible from business and corporate interest. I feel the best group to do this is by Federal, State or local governments.
You don't know my view when you state -quote "Here's one: How about We "give" people everything that they "need", and then the people return everything that they "can". Loren, Dave, sound okay?"
I think it makes much more sense to discuss specific topics or proposed solutions than to throw labels around and tell others what they think. I just feel that calling someone heartless or a facist would seem to not serve no constructive purpose. That statement is not directed at anyone -just an example.

A little more math on the 80 watt solar panel - if it averaged 65 watts of output for 10 hours a day for 365 days a year the power output would be
65 watts x 10 hrs x 365 = 650 watt hours x 365 = 23720 watt hours or
about 237.25 kwh for the year. At 15 cents per kwh it would produce $35.59 worth of electricity. Watts per year makes no sense; power is measured in kwh, mega watt hours or tera watt hours.

Note that the World Nuclear Association may be a bit biased and not take into account the full cost or health danger for the next 10000 years for its nuclear wastes.

I do enjoy the discussion when it stays civil and have learned much from many of you,
Loren

1000% agreement on keeping the discussion civil!
I have often thought that ***** bin Laden succeeded in the 9/11 attacks on one level that in someways he did divide the country. At the end of the day, hopefully we can all agree that we are all Americans, and while we may squabble and fight amongst ourselves, when the time comes, we can unite, and show the world,that we are in fact, the greatest country on Earth.
That having been said, let's argue some more
Personally, I feel that the base of our current fiscal crisis was the easy access to credit that characterized the 1990s-mid 2000s.
I like explain by making the person I am talking to a banker. So Congratulations Loren, you now own your own bank.
So I come in and say I would like to borrow $500000 to buy a medium priced house here in California.
And you, being a prudent person, want to do a virtual proctological exam, to make sure that you get your money back. ( I am sure many of you have had a similar feeling,applying for a loan!)
Now lets say that yours is a federally chartered bank(as most are) and the govt says that there are certain groups that they feel are "underserved" by your bank.
(Janet Reno"If you don't make these loans, we will be looking at your charters very carefully")and the govt says that they will guarantee that you won't lose any money, because they have federal agencies that will buy the loans.
Now you can make the loans(making Uncle Sam happy)make your loan originator fees, and then push the paper out the door. Everybody's happy, right? Only until the market collapses, as it had to, and the taxpayers are stuck with the bill. But certain politicians keep getting elected, because some people believe that there is something called a "Free lunch"Thanks Farney Brank, keep wanting to "roll the dice"with the taxpayers money.

 

[dave1949]

So many Liberal Shibboleths, so little time!
When you speak of baser instincts, are you referring to mobs of people harassing AIG executives at there homes,or perhaps the President of the US suggesting that if AIG didn't go long with the program, he might not stand in the way of those mobs? Those kinds of baser instincts?
I would agree with you that the growth of government has been facilitated by "stupid" people who actually believe that the government is actually going to give them something for "free".
What "real problems" does business cause? Giving people employment, producing goods and services that people actually want,paying taxes at a greater rate than the general populace? Those kinds of problems?
Let me use Bill Gates(the richest person on earth) as an example of one of those robber barons that you deplore.
How many jobs has he created? How many millionaires has he created? How much good(medically,educationally,businesswise, etc,etc) has he created? That kind of Robber Baron? Were he's gains ill gotten? Or did he produce a product that was wildly successful, and by so doing made the economy bigger, thereby making the pie bigger for everyone, rather than squabbling over who gets a bigger slice.
Exxon Valdez spill. Some fish died, some birds died.
If you were to go there today, would you see any evidence of the spill? If you want some real evidence of ecological disasters, go to the former Soviet Union or Eastern Block countries, why doesn't the press make an issue of those truly horrendous events?
So if the Walton's became rich by delivering products to markets more efficiently, than there competitors who had to use union labor, you feel that "mobs burning their stores" are a correct response, or that government(readoliticians who are beholden to unions for their campaign contributions) should somehow "control them.
Check out what just happened in Chicago(One of the strongest unions cities in the country) when Wall-mart wanted to open a store. There were about 100 applicants for every job. And Dick Daley used his first veto in twenty years in office to override a vote to keep them out.

Bill Gates! Ha Ha. How is it that the biggest piece of crap ever programmed became the dominant desktop operating system and software suite? Must have been the technical excellence :laughing: Until Bill got married and his wife started fronting for him, the man could hardly be called human. You really don't understand the history of Microsoft at all.

Walmart, unions, blah blah blah. I guess by your moral compass cheating people out of their wages is okay? You are putting lipstick on a pig here. For you it isn't about people, it's about unions vs Walmart. Very sad.

Exxon Valdez - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council -
Again, you are not well informed. Nor did you answer the question - without some government, who rides herd on Exxon-Mobil?

Funny you should mention AIG in your parade of crooks. Wah, Wah, Wah, the government stole my morals and made a thief out of me -
Dave.

 

[keegs]

Funny you should mention AIG in your parade of crooks. Wah, Wah, Wah, the government stole my morals and made a thief out of me -
Dave.

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Bill Gates! Ha Ha. How is it that the biggest piece of crap ever programmed became the dominant desktop operating system and software suite? Must have been the technical excellence :laughing: Until Bill got married and his wife started fronting for him, the man could hardly be called human. You really don't understand the history of Microsoft at all.

Walmart, unions, blah blah blah. I guess by your moral compass cheating people out of their wages is okay? You are putting lipstick on a pig here. For you it isn't about people, it's about unions vs Walmart. Very sad.

Exxon Valdez - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council -
Again, you are not well informed. Nor did you answer the question - without some government, who rides herd on Exxon-Mobil?

Funny you should mention AIG in your parade of crooks. Wah, Wah, Wah, the government stole my morals and made a thief out of me -
Dave.

As you asked the question, How DID it become the most used operating system in the world?
And btw you obviously misunderstood my response, The Robber Barons actually built something, unlike, well say, community organizers.
As to Bill Gates, never have met the man, and wouldn't know his personal habits, you?

Have you ever actually talked to an employee of Wal-Mart, I have, and they indicated that they were happy with their situation. Perhaps you're getting your info from the Daily Kos or Huffington Post?
As to being "not well informed" I guess your right,I only read 3 daily newspapers, and spend at least an hour perusing the net everyday for news. And I guess that reading two three books a week wouldn't count,because they wouldn't be on the "approved" list. Oh well. My Bad.
BTW Might I refer you to an incident in American History called the Bonus Marchers, as to how well the government treats some of its citizens.
AIG to best of my ill informed information shows me a company that offered a legal service to people that wanted to purchase it. Show how does that qualify for suspension of basic police protection? Does the fact the AIG insured congressional pensions , or that the fact that AIG stock quadrupled in value while "our dear leader" was castigating them, cause any cognitive dissonance, or perhaps, you will continue to believe in the Potemkin villages that are being constructed in front of your face, wait, don't look behind the curtain!!!
btw when your through googling the big words, please repost!

 

[Chuck52]

Was it in some "how to argue with your liberal friends" that you and my own best friend learned that bit about how it is up to your opponent to teach you? What part of the Constitution is open to interpretation? The whole thing! If you only see black and white, it is easy to see the document as "simple" and "straightforward". It only requires that everyone else agree with your interpretation, and it is your interpretation. Just as most modern Americans have only a vague idea of the religious beliefs of the "Founding Fathers", we also cannot possibly see into their minds concerning their construct, the Constitution. If You really believe that none of those gentlemen would, if alive today, align themselves with the more liberal parts of our present political thought, you truely are egocentric.

I personally suspect some of them would be very, very conservative today. Some would probably make your hair fall out with their "progressive" ideas. Remember, they were reacting against a civilization where inherited privilege meant everything. Certainly, some thought of themselves as self-made men, but others surely recognized that chance has a strong affect on success.

For all his flaws, Jefferson must surely have recognized that some of his slaves were at least the intellectual equals of some of his white friends...he was after all, not an idiot.

So, you think you know what he meant? Amusing.

Chuck

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I agree and wish to withdraw my flippant remark at the end`of my post. My apologies

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Was it in some "how to argue with your liberal friends" that you and my own best friend learned that bit about how it is up to your opponent to teach you? What part of the Constitution is open to interpretation? The whole thing! If you only see black and white, it is easy to see the document as "simple" and "straightforward". It only requires that everyone else agree with your interpretation, and it is your interpretation. Just as most modern Americans have only a vague idea of the religious beliefs of the "Founding Fathers", we also cannot possibly see into their minds concerning their construct, the Constitution. If You really believe that none of those gentlemen would, if alive today, align themselves with the more liberal parts of our present political thought, you truely are egocentric.

I personally suspect some of them would be very, very conservative today. Some would probably make your hair fall out with their "progressive" ideas. Remember, they were reacting against a civilization where inherited privilege meant everything. Certainly, some thought of themselves as self-made men, but others surely recognized that chance has a strong affect on success.

For all his flaws, Jefferson must surely have recognized that some of his slaves were at least the intellectual equals of some of his white friends...he was after all, not an idiot.

So, you think you know what he meant? Amusing.

Chuck

Forgive me if I don't understand the gist of your opening, but as to the "interpretation" of the Constitution, I must
demurely disagree.
I would posit that the position of a "Liberal" has been remolded into one that would not be recognized by Madison,Jefferson, Franklin et al.
A truely "liberal" position would be the like of Voltaire and
I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Would you say that is a modern day "liberal" position? I would say not.
Again, what would a "conservative" today, if not a liberal of the Framers time,position be on say national defense.
If you truly believe that all of the Constitution, is somehow so vague, as to be subject to constant interpretation, I would truly be saddened, and concerned that we as Americans, at the end of the day cannot, believe in the national motto E Pluribus Unum.

 

[dave1949]

As you asked the question, How DID it become the most used operating system in the world?
And btw you obviously misunderstood my response, The Robber Barons actually built something, unlike, well say, community organizers.
As to Bill Gates, never have met the man, and wouldn't know his personal habits, you?

Bill Gates made much his money the old fashioned way, lying, cheating and stealing.
United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Microsoft has been in and out of court in the US and Europe for years. Most of the charges revolve around anti-trust and monopoly laws. Microsoft repeated some of the IBM bundling tactics used to dominate the commercial mainframe market in the late 1970's and early 1980's - which put them in court too.

Okay, so alls fair in war and business. The real issue to me is the number of better quality products developed by software entrepreneurs that Microsoft, due to it's market position, was able to scuttle, or incorporate a similar but of poorer quality product into Windows OS, and give away for free - just to keep any competition away. Sure Bill made many millionaires, he also made money on every one of them by keeping it all in house.

If you take a clear eyed view at the reliability and stability of Microsoft products, they are on a par well below industry software performance standards. Add in the security flaws and you have even more to object to. How much has Microsoft's sloppy security cost the business world - to date? Even if you lose nothing, the expense of tracking and applying endless updates is atrocious. If Bill had to give a dime to every user for every nonsense reboot, he would be broke. It was not technical excellence that got Bill where he is.

Bill and Melinda Gates are doing great charity work. I think you will find that the foundation and active philanthropy began after they married in 1993.

Yes, Bill and Waltons are out there redistributing the wealth they chiseled out of hard working Americans.
Dave.