South Korea is stuck with Internet Explorer for online shopping

Post by huxley » Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 4:59 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #42

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any real economist. Any real economist can cite many monoplies that arise through market forces alone. > Inevitably, if any industry is profitable, competition will arise. This is not true. There are many different definitions of "profit", and there are many cases where an industry that makes a real business profit will not support a competitor that makes an economic profit. The obvious example is markets with very…

> He became dominant through backroom deals and anti-competitive practices. Backroom deals AKA corruption. Corruption and regulation are two sides of the same coin. Had the market been perfectly competitive (ie. state governments not succumbing to corruption) the monopoly likely would not have formed and lasted. Your only example merely proves my point. Try to find a monopoly that has arisen in an open market, free f…

Post by criley2 » Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 5:05 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #63

jessaustin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where to start. Eh, you might reserve that tone for posts in which you're mostly correct. Ma Bell was not in any real sense broken up at any point in time. Presumably you're referring to the consent decree that took effect in 1984, but it's also possible you've been fooled by the fig-leaf Comm Act of '96. The result of all that mummery is that right now we have 2.5 phone companies in the USA (which organ…

I don't see why Capitalists are so often misguided about their Ideology. Capitalism is not a system of capital ownership that encourages competition directly, it is a system of capital ownership that encourages greedy[1] people to greedily control capital in a way that most benefits themselves, and by proxy, their company, and by proxy, the economy. There is no competition inherent in private capital ownership, but i…

Post by sp332 » Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #63

jessaustin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where to start. Eh, you might reserve that tone for posts in which you're mostly correct. Ma Bell was not in any real sense broken up at any point in time. Presumably you're referring to the consent decree that took effect in 1984, but it's also possible you've been fooled by the fig-leaf Comm Act of '96. The result of all that mummery is that right now we have 2.5 phone companies in the USA (which organ…

I don't see why Capitalists are so often misguided about their Ideology. Capitalism is not a system of capital ownership that encourages competition directly, it is a system of capital ownership that encourages greedy[1] people to greedily control capital in a way that most benefits themselves, and by proxy, their company, and by proxy, the economy. There is no competition inherent in private capital ownership, but i…

Post by kippetlong » Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 5:12 PM UTC

gkanai wrote: post #13

I covered this on my blog in 2007: http://kanai.net/weblog/archive/2007/01/26/00h53m55s My blog post was heavily covered in Boing Boing, Slashdot, Salon, etc. at the time.

Post by viraptor » Tue, Nov 05, 2013, 5:15 PM UTC

flomo wrote: post #69

viraptor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what exactly is needed? What is stopping someone from writing a FF extension that will capture all activex object tags and replace them with something doing the same operations in FF's chrome? Is the auth protocol completely unknown? Is the activex control obfuscated more than is possible to reverse-engineer?

Such a thing was created many years ago: http://www.adamlock.com/mozilla/plugin.htm One could guess that it was never included by default because Mozilla did not want to encourage the use of ActiveX controls.