Utopias and Dystopias

[Murky]

Obviously it would be better if there were no poor people to begin with, but to continue to use Mr. Gates as an example, let's forget about his philanthropy and dwell on Microsoft. While you could say that he charges too much for it, it's a popular operating system which has allowed great improvements to be made in information technology and therefore the economy as a whole. Sure, people pay plenty to use Microsoft's system and programs, but that allows them to better their business, hire more employees, etc.; it's an investment that pays benefits to more than just Gates.

Call it extracting from the economy if you want, but how much of that economy would be in the shape it's in without Microsoft in the first place?

Cue Erik Mesoy in 3, ...2, ...

It's difficult to say for certain but without Microsoft's monopoly there would likely be more competing product offerings. Maybe we would be better off without so many people owning personal computers with MS windows on them. Maybe society as a whole would be more physically active and fit.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It's difficult to say for certain but without Microsoft's monopoly there would likely be more competing product offerings. Maybe we would be better off without so many people owning personal computers with MS windows on them. Maybe society as a whole would be more physically active and fit.

First there are competing products. Lots of them. And I guess if we didn't have computers we would be more physically fit but none of this has anything to do with the subject of this thread.

Even if Microsoft is the spawn of Satan, the company doesn't become any nicer if Bill Gate's suddenly decides to become a hermit and live on rice for the rest of his life. So Bill Gates wealth doesn't harm anyone. In fact his generation of wealth has done quite the opposite.

But I will agree with one thing, there can be no Utopia where there is an annoying Microsoft Word paperclip.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

It's difficult to say for certain but without Microsoft's monopoly there would likely be more competing product offerings.

Depends on what is meant by "without"; there would be more competing product offerings with Microsoft's monopoly if they published their protocols instead of forcing would-be competitors to develop their own protocols from scratch and/or reverse-engineer Microsoft's protocols.

Maybe we would be better off without so many people owning personal computers with MS windows on them.

If this means a decrease in people owning computers rather than a change, I'm not sure about that. I do agree that we'd be better off if a greater fraction of the computer-users used different operating systems, as this reduces monoculture risks as seen in the report CI:TCoM. Of course, this goes for any and all operating systems. Quote:
"Most of the world’s computers run [any name here] operating systems, thus most of the world’s computers are vulnerable to the same viruses and worms at the same time. The only way to stop this is to avoid monoculture in computer operating systems, and for reasons just as reasonable and obvious as avoiding monoculture in farming."
Security procedures are different matter from monoculture risk, and one I'll cover somewhere else if you like.

Maybe society as a whole would be more physically active and fit.

Meh, my idea of utopia involves evolving (or bootstrapping) towards immortal being of pure energy...

 

[punkbass2000]

new-agey

Is this a term synonymous with "truthiness"?

 

[Fifty]

Is this a term synonymous with "truthiness"?

nope

TEN CHARACTERS!!!​