begin quoting DJA as of Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:27:47PM -0700: [snip] > That's because we tend to roll up the whole history of a monopoly into > one big burrito. That includes making the motivation and method used by > a company to eventually become a monopoly as part of the definition of > monopoly.
True. > Of course what we are really talking about is one company's (in this > case Micro$oft's) /implementation/ of a monopoly - including the > processes, methods and means it used to get there. Kind of like making a > case study the definition. Yup. Not that that's a good idea (making the case study the definition). Goliath was a big guy, a bad guy, and died at the hands of a little guy. Therefore, big guys are bad guys and easily killed by little guys.... > So, there's your researched (but rather sterile) definition of monopoly, > and then there's us geeks' corrupted (but more humanistic and certainly > more entertaining) definition. No place for sober thought, eh? -Stewart "Not impressed with humanistic, but entertaining is good" Stremler
pgp2z3OhaBaex.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
