All new MacPros are quads!!

[lex_strooder]

how many years do I need to have an oppinion about a platform... just asking...
and all "my friend has this and says that" arguments are so invalid...

i know i do alot of "normal" music better on mac (read logic), while the huge range of vst's on the PC got my experimental juice flowing

and why would i need EnergyXT in logic... just do it in the environment

[seclusion]

So is anyone using a MacPro yet??
If so what do you think?? Screemin!!
Somebody mentioned that the Apple Ram has big huge heatsinks on them, different from non-appleized ram
I don't know if that matters?
I have just gone from a AMD 3500+PC and Sonar 5.2 to a G4 1.25 and Logic, I had always used Logic until a couple years after Apple bought them out.
Other then I'm finding the G4 can't do what I what, plugs, softsynths, exs, audio tracks, yada yada.
I'm not ditching PC, the AMD 3500+ with 2 gigs of ram could easily be upgraded toa X2 4600+ for like $300 now
But my workflow in Logic is soooo much faster that I'm really leaning towards a $3500 MacPro...
Because in the end I just want to get stuff done!
Later

[spaceman]

I wonder.. how much faster do you get 'stuff done' in Logic on a dual 2.7 G5 compared to a Mac Pro? the latter is undoubtedly a way faster machine but what is the real life gain really? Some faster encoding, faster import, faster time stretching and the likes, more tracks (more than the kazzilion you can run on a G5 already).. but is that really where you 'lose' time?

[egbert]

I wonder.. how much faster do you get 'stuff done' in Logic on a dual 2.7 G5 compared to a Mac Pro? the latter is undoubtedly a way faster machine but what is the real life gain really? Some faster encoding, faster import, faster time stretching and the likes, more tracks (more than the kazzilion you can run on a G5 already).. but is that really where you 'lose' time?

Scrolling graphics and audio file editing is probably a place where a fast machine with fast graphics and hard-drives helps workflow but speed for me is mainly about
1. being able to throw on all my best plugins and still have the mix playback without stutters
2. being able to record and play samplers with low latency buffers - it is way better for edrums to be able to work with 128 samples or smaller buffer size.

[VicDiesel]

I wonder.. how much faster do you get 'stuff done' in Logic on a dual 2.7 G5 compared to a Mac Pro?

I'm on a Dual 2.0 and I'm not switching any time soon. The tests have not shown a landslide performance gain. My previous machine was a 800MHz G4, so that one needed to go, but I may skip this round.

Victor

[jones-y]

I wonder.. how much faster do you get 'stuff done' in Logic on a dual 2.7 G5 compared to a Mac Pro?

I'm on a Dual 2.0 and I'm not switching any time soon. The tests have not shown a landslide performance gain. My previous machine was a 800MHz G4, so that one needed to go, but I may skip this round.

Victor

Very similar boat here. Upgraded from a 933MHz G4 to a dual 1.8 G5. Feeling no sort of squeeze or pinch here...

The _only_ reason I even consider switching is because the switch to Intel means insanely lower prices!!! Basically a low end Core Duo Mac Book or Mac Mini is nearly as fast as my Dual G5.

[machinesworking]

I wonder.. how much faster do you get 'stuff done' in Logic on a dual 2.7 G5 compared to a Mac Pro?

I'm on a Dual 2.0 and I'm not switching any time soon. The tests have not shown a landslide performance gain. My previous machine was a 800MHz G4, so that one needed to go, but I may skip this round.

Victor

Very similar boat here. Upgraded from a 933MHz G4 to a dual 1.8 G5. Feeling no sort of squeeze or pinch here...

The _only_ reason I even consider switching is because the switch to Intel means insanely lower prices!!! Basically a low end Core Duo Mac Book or Mac Mini is nearly as fast as my Dual G5.

Five months ago I was able to acquire a dual 2.5 for basically nothing. Two months ago a guy in the paper sold a dualcore 2.16 Macbook Pro with 2Ghz of RAM and a 7200rpm HD to me for $1,300. I have no intention of getting any new computers for at least three to five years. It's only about the music to me, and a single 2.5 would be enough.
I've hooked up two computers via ADAT in order to use more soft synths in the past, I can't see any situation where these two computers wouldn't do?

[BONES]

2GHz of RAM? Nice one.

What do you do with the desktop machines you don't use anymore, do you sell them with no OS or Linux?

I either cannabilise them for componenets or give them away with some legal OS or other [Linux or old Windoze].

How do you legally keep reinstalling the same copy of XP?

Because its mine and I can install it on any one computer I like.

Every laptop you buy with Xp on it has a certain amount of the price that goes towards the copy of XP on it, and if you only have one copy of XP, then, again, how are you able to use this one copy you have for your laptop and desktop/shuttle?

The OS on my laptop belongs to Autodesk, the OS on my shuttle belongs to me. Its teh same one that was in my last PC and will be in my new one when I finish building it. As I'll be cannabalising the drives out of the current one, the old one will probably end up with Linux on it.

Right, leveraging their monopoly to destroy Netscape didn't affect anybody at all, nope....

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard about. Microsoft give away a free internet browser, much as Apple do with Safari, and somehow its leveraging their monopoly to destroy a competitor? of all teh really bad thigns they may or maynot have done, that is the lamest thign to go after them over. And for the record, none of that seems to have made FireFox any less useful. In fact in terms of features and functionality its way ahead of IE so I don't see how the demise of Netscape hurt anyone in the short, medium or long term, except maybe for those who lost their jobs, but that happens whenever companies merge or are absorbed.

you see Apple as a less ethical alternative

I believe I sadi I don't see them as any more ethical, which is quite a different thing. basically, they all suck.

Anyway. I think we can all agree that any Mac product is light years ahead of this queer little shoebox
http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Bareb ... allery.asp

Really? How many drives can you put in a macMini or even an iMac? Can you RAID them? Do Apple even have an external SATA socket in any of their machines? The SN27P2 has one on it's own bus so I can hook up an external RAID and get the same performance as an internal one. i.e. 3Gbit/sec. Cool, huh?

Moral, the term, is derived from religion, I wouldn't use it as an explanation for right and wrong.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse again. religion is yet another attempt to codify right and wrong, to give society a workable structure. There was right and wrong long before their was religion.

... but it's right and ethical in a capitalism to use people to your advantage when you can. It's called business.

No it isn't. It may be legal but I think any right-thinking person would see it as exploitation.

It's the difference between saying "Legal doesn't mean right." and saying "It might be legal, but it's not right in my opinion." One states that your view is backed by the nature of man etc. and the other states your opinion.

It seems the difference is that your opinion of right and wrong is subject to interpretation. Mine is not and its why society sickens me to my heart. It is filled with and run by people completely lacking in moral fibre.

But my workflow in Logic is soooo much faster that I'm really leaning towards a $3500 MacPro...
Because in the end I just want to get stuff done!

But do you need that much power to do it? I assume that Apple will release dual-core machines once they've fleeced all the early adopters so it might bwe smart to wait a few months and see what happens. I can't believe they won't have products to fill the chasm between the iMac and quad-core MacPro because that surely has to be the biggest segment of the market.

[Lunch Money]

I see your point, but I simply don't share the conclusion. Laws are never entirely objective. Moral, the term, is derived from religion, I wouldn't use it as an explanation for right and wrong.

Sorry to everyone else for the off-topic. I find these discussions interesting still...

Laws ARE meant to be entirely objective. That fact that humans are incapable of absolute black and white objectivity doesn't change their intention. That's why they're laws. That's why courts follow precedence. The law of your region says, "If you steal over $5,000 worth of goods, and are proven to have been a thief, you will serve 2-5 years in prison." You are charismatic. The judge likes you. He knows you only did it to prevent Big Guido from knocking out your kneecaps. He is still required to give you 2-5 years. A judge's very job is to be as impartial and weight the evidence as objectively as humanly possible. Now, sentencing allows him to bear a bit of morality ("The crime was particularly vile, so you will get the maximum.") but the law itself is objective.

I'm not saying it always works that way in the real world, and especially in certain countries. But in Australia and most of the Western World (for lack of a better term) that IS the expectation by the populace, by the governing body (the people who appoint and accredit judges and laywers), and by the executors of the laws themselves.

To your other point--

Morals are simply NOT derived from religion. That's a false definition. It would take me several paragraphs to explain why, but I'm hoping that you'll just believe me when I tell you that it's common knowledge that religion is just another way (like secular law) of codifying a particular culture's "moral" perspective. In other words, religion = law. Not religion = morality. Morality is actually still fairly actively debated... most 'liberal' perspectives hold that morals are intrinsic to human feeling. In other words, in a world without laws, we would STILL know in our hearts that killing your friend is an objectionable thing. Other people hold that morals are in fact taught, with religion being one tool to bring such moral learning to the people. These are mainly 'conservative' people. They think that without the word of God, mankind would have no control of itself. That in a world without law in general, we would kill our friends or whoever with impunity and never really think of it as "wrong."

I see nothing right about most religions. to me, a society as a whole creates the ideas of right and wrong, or the ethics of that society. Two hundred years ago I could marry a ten year old, today that's not considered right, but back them it was pretty normal.
The laws allow me to pay a man three times less than I make to do the same job, it's not what I consider right, but it's right and ethical in a capitalism to use people to your advantage when you can. It's called business.
It's the difference between saying "Legal doesn't mean right." and saying "It might be legal, but it's not right in my opinion." One states that your view is backed by the nature of man etc. and the other states your opinion.

Again, you don't see the "right" in religion, which actually shows that you agree with my earlier point. A religion doesn't give you a sense of what's "right" or not. So you, too, feel that it's intrinsic. Not sure why you made the earlier point, then.

Indeed, I'm a bit puzzled by your approach-- you are likely of most of the same opinions as me... but wires are getting crossed or something. Legal doesn't mean right. Because man can create laws that are unethical or amoral. That was what BONES was saying. That's certainly not something that can be argued with, so it's not exactly an "opinion" but an inarguable statement of logic and fact. "It might be legal but it's not right in my books" is exactly the same statement, though I think it's more accurate to expand it to something more like, "It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it's right in everyone's books." You just didn't read it that way.

Greg

[machinesworking]

Sorry to everyone else for the off-topic. I find these discussions interesting still...

So do I! Just got the upgrade to 7.2 Logic, and instead I'm replying.

Laws ARE meant to be entirely objective. That fact that humans are incapable of absolute black and white objectivity doesn't change their intention. That's why they're laws. That's why courts follow precedence. The law of your region says, "If you steal over $5,000 worth of goods, and are proven to have been a thief, you will serve 2-5 years in prison." You are charismatic. The judge likes you. He knows you only did it to prevent Big Guido from knocking out your kneecaps. He is still required to give you 2-5 years. A judge's very job is to be as impartial and weight the evidence as objectively as humanly possible. Now, sentencing allows him to bear a bit of morality ("The crime was particularly vile, so you will get the maximum.") but the law itself is objective.

I'm not saying it always works that way in the real world, and especially in certain countries. But in Australia and most of the Western World (for lack of a better term) that IS the expectation by the populace, by the governing body (the people who appoint and accredit judges and laywers), and by the executors of the laws themselves.

Right, the law is meant to be objective in practice, but it isn't. It's meant to be made up of rules that are right for the society that votes them in, or allows them to exist in the case of totalitarian states. In a democracy the law is the subjective ethical standard of the majority, and of course the rich and powerful, imposed upon the masses. Basically the law is always "right" for the majority of the people, or at the least it's right enough, it will do, in the case of dictatorships that flourish.

To your other point--

Morals are simply NOT derived from religion. That's a false definition. It would take me several paragraphs to explain why, but I'm hoping that you'll just believe me when I tell you that it's common knowledge that religion is just another way (like secular law) of codifying a particular culture's "moral" perspective. In other words, religion = law. Not religion = morality. Morality is actually still fairly actively debated... most 'liberal' perspectives hold that morals are intrinsic to human feeling. In other words, in a world without laws, we would STILL know in our hearts that killing your friend is an objectionable thing. Other people hold that morals are in fact taught, with religion being one tool to bring such moral learning to the people. These are mainly 'conservative' people. They think that without the word of God, mankind would have no control of itself. That in a world without law in general, we would kill our friends or whoever with impunity and never really think of it as "wrong."

Moral, the term is derived from Christianity, and is intrinsically entwined with religion in my opinion. To describe a view of right and wrong that comes from the heart/nature etc. and from the law as well, I would use ethical, since it doesn't get tied into religious interpretations of right and wrong, and it's more likely to be considered a fluid way of thinking about beliefs. When you talk of morals I tend to think of a person with a totalitarian view on a subject, such as a religious person who is against abortion, zero room to discuss the human, and logistic elements of the subject. Though two people without a religious bias on the subject can have opposite views, and later decide that the other is right, without feeling that they are ethically shaky in the least for changing their opinion.
Basically I separate entirely morality and ethics, because I think in practice it seems to me there is a slight, but quantifiable difference in the terms, and since it's possible to use ethics in every case were morality is brought up, I do.

Again, you don't see the "right" in religion, which actually shows that you agree with my earlier point. A religion doesn't give you a sense of what's "right" or not. So you, too, feel that it's intrinsic. Not sure why you made the earlier point, then.

Indeed, I'm a bit puzzled by your approach-- you are likely of most of the same opinions as me... but wires are getting crossed or something. Legal doesn't mean right. Because man can create laws that are unethical or amoral. That was what BONES was saying. That's certainly not something that can be argued with, so it's not exactly an "opinion" but an inarguable statement of logic and fact. "It might be legal but it's not right in my books" is exactly the same statement, though I think it's more accurate to expand it to something more like, "It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it's right in everyone's books." You just didn't read it that way.

Greg

Legal means right, because right itself is a term derived of the human condition. the law is the meter by which we judge our view of right an wrong. My sense of right and wrong is of course valid to me, but I realize that you might not share my views, and that it's possible that my viewpoint is less fluid and not as capable of holding up to the light of day as yours. I recognize right and wrong as a game we play. I realize my view of right and wrong to be subjective, it's an internal standard, I realize I'm possibly wrong. Since I have no religious basis for my ethics, I have to decide for myself what I believe.

I think there is very little that can be truly described as right or wrong with no room for interpretation, killing, raping, lying as wrong, the big ones make sense, the rest is subjective opinion.

But look at the mess me and Bones get into with tech talk? I enjoy it, because he's not a stupid person, but we are at opposite ends about what we think is ethically wrong. I think Apple acting within the limits of the law, and doing whatever they can to survive as a corporation is within what I would consider my ethical boundaries, Bones does not. Bones cannot see how Microsoft leveraging their monopoly to destroy Netscape, because they considered Netscape a threat, is ethically wrong, and I of course disagree, and much of the reason I do is because I think they did so in an illegal fashion. That they stepped outside the law to win that battle made me ill, but probably Bones can't see it as that big of a deal. Bones has invested pages on KVR to the reasons he thinks that Windows and PC's are better in every way to macs and OSX. It does his argument no favors to admit that Apple are playing by the rules whereas Microsoft have bent them to the point of lawsuits from the US government, and all of europe basically.
The fact is they both suck, both have shoved their weight around, both have their pluses and minuses, but I use macs and he uses PC's, the heart to a degree, taints the concept of what is "right". Its the human condition isn't it?

I don't disagree with your opinion on the matter, I can see your perspective on it. You asked why I think the way I do, and I hope I'm doing OK in explaining?

[Lunch Money]

Sure, you're explaining it fine, but here's where our wires are crossed and not likely to align:

- The term "moral" is certainly not derived from Christianity, and nor are they inextricably tied together. "Morality" is simply a subjective judgement of what is 'right' and 'wrong.' People might share similar senses of morals due to their upbringings, and that might include Christianity for some, but that's neither here nor there-- humans had a sense of morality long before Christ even walked the earth, so how can they be linked?

- "ethics" and "morals" share a definition. They are synonyms. There's no true difference between the words per se, but our cultural biases might cause us to favour one word or the other in different circumstances. So, I cannot agree that they are different things. If your argument hinges on a difference between ethics and morals, then we're at an impasse.

- I've already granted that laws are sometimes used in amoral ways, or may have been designed by amoral people. But the laws themselves are objective and aren't even most commonly used to define what's right and wrong. They're used to define boundaries in which individuals in a society can co-exist with one another. Since laws are in and of themselves objective, and morality/ethics are subjective, "Legal doesn't mean right" is the textbook definition of a logical conclusion that follows from the two premises. It can't really be refuted.

---

Too much babble from me, though. It comes down to this: a logician must be able to propose a counter-example. The INSTANT a counter-example causes the premise to fail, the argument is won.

BONES' premise: "Legal does not mean right."

Since you disagree, your premise must be: "Legal means right." Any other premise would mean that BONES' statement is already correct.

There are many countries in the world in which you are guilty until proven innocent. An official, even a corrupt one, charges you with a crime, and you rot in jail and might even be executed, because the "justice" system is not concerned with giving you a fair trial. This follows their legal system (ie. laws) perfectly. Yet, you and I know that it's just not "right."

So, I have presented a case in which Legal does not mean right. The argument is won. Straight up. The fact that Legal and "right" CAN coincide sometimes (often, if we're lucky!) is irrelevant.

Voila!

Greg

[machinesworking]

Right, leveraging their monopoly to destroy Netscape didn't affect anybody at all, nope....

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard about. Microsoft give away a free internet browser, much as Apple do with Safari, and somehow its leveraging their monopoly to destroy a competitor? of all teh really bad thigns they may or maynot have done, that is the lamest thign to go after them over. And for the record, none of that seems to have made FireFox any less useful. In fact in terms of features and functionality its way ahead of IE so I don't see how the demise of Netscape hurt anyone in the short, medium or long term, except maybe for those who lost their jobs, but that happens whenever companies merge or are absorbed.

I think you should read up on this more, it's not at all that simple, Microsoft saw Netscape as a real threat to their OS, it all started when one of the heads of Netscape said that the browser would replace the OS in a few years. There's a 50 page article in Wired about the US lawsuit on Microsoft, and it's not all anti MS, but the evidence is there.that's not the only source, I'm sure there are other documents about it.
The main thing that pissed me off was they sent a letter to Compaq stating that if Compaq did not instal Explorer instead of Netscape, they would pull their license for Windows OEMs. That is total monopoly leveraging to me, period. Compaq simply would not survive as a company if they did that, and they knew it. They already forced Netscape to give away the browser by making theirs free, which you know was a direct financial hit to Netscape, but nothing to MS..... They really didn't need to take it any further, and threaten Compaq, but they did. I can rationalize the fear of MS, and understand the desire to battle Netscape at all costs, the decision to include the browser in the OS, the decision to leverage their financial superiority by giving away IE, but the Compaq deal?? no way, not a chance! To me that's beyond being a bully, it's being a gang banger.

... but it's right and ethical in a capitalism to use people to your advantage when you can. It's called business.

No it isn't. It may be legal but I think any right-thinking person would see it as exploitation.

So your boss making more than you is wrong? I have an employee who is knowledgeable in my trade, and at one point a job we did was coming in at a nice sum. We don't pay this guy much, and I talked with my business partner about giving him a bonus, and bam! he misses a few days in a row.... hard to justify the bonus... He's OK with his salary because we allow him to be flexible with his hours, he's given time off basically whenever he asks for it. We realize he isn't a full time employee, and he probably won't be working for us full time six months from now, but if we allow him to miss days, and give him some slack that way, we can ask him to help us a year from now when we need an extra body somewhere. That's using somebody to your advantage, but in return they believe they have the better deal. I fail to see that as exploitation.

It's the difference between saying "Legal doesn't mean right." and saying "It might be legal, but it's not right in my opinion." One states that your view is backed by the nature of man etc. and the other states your opinion.

It seems the difference is that your opinion of right and wrong is subject to interpretation. Mine is not and its why society sickens me to my heart. It is filled with and run by people completely lacking in moral fibre.

See my post above to lunch money on my views on your interpretation of what is right. I simply do not see you as being the end all of ethical behavior. you of course have every right to disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that I think you believing that your interpretation of ethics is somehow an objective opinion, well to me, that is what leads to these people lacking in "moral behavior", they believe that they are doing the right thing too, without room for outside opinion. GWB is a perfect example. I would bet money he believes what he is doing is right, and moral, no room for debate.

[machinesworking]

Sure, you're explaining it fine, but here's where our wires are crossed and not likely to align:

- The term "moral" is certainly not derived from Christianity, and nor are they inextricably tied together. "Morality" is simply a subjective judgement of what is 'right' and 'wrong.' People might share similar senses of morals due to their upbringings, and that might include Christianity for some, but that's neither here nor there-- humans had a sense of morality long before Christ even walked the earth, so how can they be linked?

- "ethics" and "morals" share a definition. They are synonyms. There's no true difference between the words per se, but our cultural biases might cause us to favour one word or the other in different circumstances. So, I cannot agree that they are different things. If your argument hinges on a difference between ethics and morals, then we're at an impasse.

Quick dictionary explanation of the difference between morals and ethics....

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin moralis, from mos, mor- 'custom,' (plural) mores 'morals.' As a noun the word was first used to translate Latin Moralia, the title of St. Gregory the Great's moral exposition of the Book of Job, and was subsequently applied to the works of various classical writers.

THE RIGHT WORD
You can be an ethical person without necessarily being a moral one, since ethical implies conformity with a code of fair and honest behavior, particularly in business or in a profession (: an ethical legislator who didn't believe in cutting deals), while moral refers to generally accepted standards of goodness and rightness in character and conduct—especially sexual conduct ( | the moral values she'd learned from her mother).In the same way, you can be honorable without necessarily being virtuous, since honorable suggests dealing with others in a decent and ethical manner, while virtuous implies the possession of moral excellence in character (: many honorable businesspeople fail to live a virtuous private life). Righteous is similar in meaning to virtuous but also implies freedom from guilt or blame (: righteous anger); when the righteous person is also somewhat intolerant and narrow-minded, self-righteous might be a better adjective.Someone who makes a hypocritical show of being righteous is often described as sanctimonious —in other words, acting like a saint without having a saintly character.

- I've already granted that laws are sometimes used in amoral ways, or may have been designed by amoral people. But the laws themselves are objective and aren't even most commonly used to define what's right and wrong. They're used to define boundaries in which individuals in a society can co-exist with one another. Since laws are in and of themselves objective, and morality/ethics are subjective, "Legal doesn't mean right" is the textbook definition of a logical conclusion that follows from the two premises. It can't really be refuted.

I think a society decides what is right and wrong, therefore a society being a subjective force IMO, makes subjective laws. You even state that in practice, the law is rarely if ever objective, yet you want to apply a black and white interpretation to the law, it's objective, therefore.... Laws to me are all that defines what is right and wrong in a society, the rest is opinion.

Too much babble from me, though. It comes down to this: a logician must be able to propose a counter-example. The INSTANT a counter-example causes the premise to fail, the argument is won.

BONES' premise: "Legal does not mean right."

Since you disagree, your premise must be: "Legal means right." Any other premise would mean that BONES' statement is already correct.

There are many countries in the world in which you are guilty until proven innocent. An official, even a corrupt one, charges you with a crime, and you rot in jail and might even be executed, because the "justice" system is not concerned with giving you a fair trial. This follows their legal system (ie. laws) perfectly. Yet, you and I know that it's just not "right."

So, I have presented a case in which Legal does not mean right. The argument is won. Straight up. The fact that Legal and "right" CAN coincide sometimes (often, if we're lucky!) is irrelevant.

Voila!

Greg

Sure that all works, if you think of the world as binary, no shades of grey, just either or.
You're assuming I believe as you do, or that the people of that country should believe as you do, or that I believe that "right" for you, and the rest of society, is something that can be defined by my subjective interpretation of it. Legal means right to me, simply because we cannot define what is right for anybody else except for ourselves IMO. The law defines what is right to us because we have to have a consensus on what we define as right. Therefore we can come to the conclusion that something is right, but there is always room for disagreement. That official believes that they are doing the right thing by killing that person, they believe their interpretation of what is right. Politics prove over and over that people have different opinions about what is right and wrong.
Basically, I believe that the law is the interpretation of what is right that you can hold any individual or organization up to the scrutiny of with the most amount of objectivity you can. the law being the consensus on what is right at the time. Other than that it's subjective opinion. Objectivity is hard to come by IMO.
I don't have to disagree with Bones's ideas on a subject to disagree with the conclusion. I can have the same opinion about the reasons he comes to the conclusion 'legal doesn't mean right' without thinking that his conclusion makes sense.

[BONES]

There should only be one right, it should be an absolute. You can have as many shades of grey as you want but they will all be shades of wrong. And your dictionary definition takes it up the arse. Moral and ethical are two sides of the same coin, you cannot be one without also being the other. Moral simply refers to belief, where ethical refers to action. You can be a moral persoon without ever showing it but you can only be judged as ethical by your actions.

So your boss making more than you is wrong?

It is if he's doing it solely at my expense.

That's using somebody to your advantage, but in return they believe they have the better deal. I fail to see that as exploitation.

That is very different to taking advantage of someone, don't you think? OTOH, a pimp makng money off a drug-addicted prostitute is taking advantage of someone else's situation for their own ends.

See my post above to lunch money on my views on your interpretation of what is right. I simply do not see you as being the end all of ethical behavior.

That's because you want to have wiggle room. You're too big a coward to set a standard and maintain it regardless of temptation. That's why religions have the concept of forgiveness. Pah!

[egbert]

Microsoft give away a free internet browser, much as Apple do with Safari, and somehow its leveraging their monopoly to destroy a competitor?

That is not what MS did.

Netscape gave away the browser and wanted to make their money on the Web Server. The game when they set out was that you could buy NT workstation and install Netscape's web server software on it ( a few hundred bucks to Netscape) and turn any vanilla NT PC into a webserver.

MS screwed Netscape by changing the game. They introduced a partial cripple (just a few lines in a hidden configuration file) into NT workstation which limited the number of web connections it could sustain simultaneously - making NT workstation unusable for web servers.

They then offered a higher spec/higher cost version of NT - NT Server or some such - which would allow large numbers of connections BUT they bundled MS's own web server product with that version of Windows. Simple really - they totally snookered Netscape because anyone who had a copy of Windows which would allow many web connections already had free web server software.

The "murder" of Netscape by MS has resulted in lasting acrimony.