Linux-Advocacy Digest #560, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:12 GMT
On 08/21/2000 at 01:39 PM,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Because I believe that people should not be
> found liable in civil or criminal actions
> based on laws that are too vague to allow a
> potential defendendant to reasonably predict
> what is legal and what is not.
That argument was tossed out in 1903 or so. It was the argument used by
both the meat packers and Standard Oil. Law is based upon statute and
precedent. The precedent regarding monopoly power was set three generation
before Gates was born.
> > > Fairness requires the same notice for civil
> > > liability as for criminal punishment.
> >
> > Ummm, no.
> >
> > Under our criminal justice system, criminal and civil cases are treated
> > differently. For example, criminal case require that guilt be proven
> > "beyond reasonable doubt." Civil cases merely require "a preponderance
> > of evidence".
> That well known difference reserves punishment
> for those who are clearly guilty. Since civil
> actions and criminal actions alike are founded
> on the concept of wrong-doing ("tort"), the
> question as to just what is to be deemed "wrong"
> is equally important to guide people who are
> to be expected to obey the law.
Ignorance of the law is not and never was justification for breaking the
law. Gates couldn't be credible were he to claim he didn't know what he
was doing was breaking the law.
> So, do you think people should be liable under
> laws subject to arbitrary interpretation? Try
> to forget about Microsoft for a moment. Pretend
> you want to preserve rule by law.
> Don't you find it curious that the Sherman act
> is written in the language of a criminal statute
> but never enforced as one? Want to guess why?
You show a total ignorance of the subject. In another message I named one
person I knew who went to jail for breaking the anti-trust laws. I also
mentioned that he was one of seven executives of various firms who all
served sentences in prison for breaking the anti-trust laws. They were not
the first and likely others have been similarly punished since.
As I stated in another posting, executives of the automobile industry are
scrupulous in avoiding even the appearance of possible violation of the
Sherman act. If the dolts who gave us the Edsel, any Chrysler product from
1950 to 1988, the finned monsters of the late 50's and early 60's, etc.
are smart enough to understand and obey the Sherman Act, then Gates is as
well.
Moreover, IBM has learned well the identical lesson MS is being taught.
IBM executives, particularly Thomas J. Watson, Jr., were smart enough to
realize that IBM was indeed wrong and to amend its behavior and corporate
culture. To this very day, IBM'ers are very conscious of the terms of the
consent decrees they entered with the DOJ. They are taught them and
reminded of them throughout their careers.
If the law is good enough for IBM, GM, Ford, Chrysler, GE, Westinghouse,
Square D, Intel, etc. ad nauseum, it is good for MS as well.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:11 GMT
On 08/21/2000 at 01:49 PM,
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The idea of notice is common to all laws that people
> are supposed to obey. People have to be able to
> determine what acts are legal and what acts are not
> if the laws are to guide behavior. Do you really
> misunderstand this idea so badly that you think it
> does not apply absent words in the Sherman act?
Does a highway patrolman have to warn people not to speed, not go through
a stop sign, stay in lane, etc.? Does the Federal Aviation Administration
have to warn pilots to obey Air Traffic Control regulations before taking
actions for breach? Does the vice squad have to warn prostitutes before
arresting them? Does the narcotics squad have to warn dope dealers before
arresting them?
Your argument is absolutely a sign of immaturity and/or culpable
ignorance. How old are you? You write as if your intellectual development
ended at age 10.
>
> > By your logic, I could go rob a local bank and say I never received
> > notice that robbing that particular bank would be illegal.
> A better analogy would be a law that could never
> withstand a constitutional challenge. Suppose
> the anti-robbery laws made it a crime to submit
> a withdrawal slip with a mean look on your face.
Well, idiot, the Sherman Act passed Constitutional muster nearly a century
ago. Just how much notice should be required beyond that?
> > The laws are quite clear. There's no
> > requirement for the government to notify either me or Microsoft that
> > some particular activity might be illegal.
> It is the law itself which is required to put
> people on notice as to what it forbids. And
> the Sherman Act does not clearly indicate that
> Microsoft's portion of the O.S. market should
> be considered a monopoly. It is not clear.
If it is not clear, how do you explain that the electrical products
industry, the automobile industry, the aircraft manufacturing industry,
the meat packing industry, the securities industry, the insurance
industry, and the banking industry to name just over a handful understand
and comply with the Sherman Act? How do you account for the fact that
major companies have seminars, etc. regarding what is and is not legal
under the Sherman Act?
(You wrote the following and then quote it in a reply)
> refer to winner-takes-most situations is quite an
> achievement in stretching a vague concept, but it
> is still too vague to constitute fair notice of
> the sort that deflects constitutional challenges
> to vague laws used to deprive people of property
>or liberty.
Read Lee Iacocca's autobiography. He clearly refutes your assinine,
childish, stupid claim. Read numerous decision of the Supreme Court. Read
for example, Standard Oil v US, US v. American Tobacco, Schechter Poultry
v. US, US v Aluminum Corporation of America (Alcoa) for starters. Then
also study Dr. Miles Medical Co. v John D. Park & Sons Co. a 1911 decision
regarding pricing. Likewise study the railroad cases from the 1890's
through the 1910's when the Court established as law the protection of
consumers from high prices resulting from monopoly power.
Anyone who reads a summary of the Sherman and Clayton acts without
learning the manifold Supreme Court decisions arising therefrom is a total
moron.
> I have read that law. The provisions under which
> Microsoft has been prosecuted require that it be
> found to hold monopoly power. (There has been no
> finding or suggestion of price fixing.) At any
> rate, the law as written is too vague to guide a
> company. Its meaning has been developed mainly
> by case law and, in this case, by a (stretched)
> extension of case law.
The law as written and as interpreted for over 100 years is patently clear
to most industry executives in regard to the practices MS has been found
guilty of committing. Why is it unclear to you? Is it because you are a
moron or because you didn't study the entire body of the law which
includes the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, numerous amendments thereto and
literally hundreds of Court opinions arising thereunder?
> >
> > Have you ever run a company? I didn't think so.
> Irrelevant.
What is relevant is "Have you ever held a job in which you could violate
the anti-trust laws?" If not, unless you are a member of the bar, you are
not competent to comment.
> > The laws are plenty clear to guide a company. If Microsoft chose to
> > ignore the laws, that's their problem--not the problem of the law.
> Vague laws and the government's willingness to
> apply them are everybody's problem. That is
> one of the stepping stones to tyranny.
That statement out of context is true. However, in the context of this
discussion it is prattle. The DOJ has applied the anti-trust laws
continuously and vigorously for 100 years or more. The law is not vague
when read and understood in light of the case law arising from enforcement
of the law.
Laws cannot be read and interpreted in a vacuum. They must be read and
interpreted in context of legislative intent and court precedent.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:15 GMT
On 08/22/2000 at 02:22 AM,
joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> MS has lawyers and the reason MS has lawyers is for legal
> advice. MS's lawyers either gave bad advice or they gave
> good advice that was not followed.
In all likelihood the latter. Gates has repeatedly shown total disregard
for any law which he doesn't like. Read a book published in the early 90's
by two reporters from Seattle. It is a scathing indictment of Gates' and
his total disregard for laws while still being basically a puff piece for
him and MS. The book is called Hard Drive.
> You'll NEVER see an Intel Executive use the damning langauge MS
> Executives used in e-mails.
> Intel trains their execs on Anti-trust laws and enforces
> a strict policy.
Intel learned its lessons well when challenged in Court by AMD. It also
accepted the findings of the Court regarding AMD's rights and acted
accordingly. This is not something MS has ever done.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:09 GMT
On 08/21/2000 at 05:16 PM,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said in response to Larry
Brasfield:
> > Anybody smarter than a half-wit can see that my
> > post concerns the definition of "monopoly". I do
> > not recall claiming anything about "OBSTRUCTION
> > OF TRADE". Perhaps you could show otherwise.
> A monopoly which doesn't abuse it's position in the marketplace is
> legal.
> A monopoly which obstructs trade IS illegal.
Don't waste your effort arguing with a total moron. Brasfield has shown a
complete, utter, incomprehensible, culpably ignorant conception of
anti-trust laws. He's a total idiot.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:16 GMT
On 08/22/2000 at 03:07 AM,
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The Constitution isn't really vague. It's just that after
> two hundred years of "penumbrances" and so forth, its been
> interpreted into vaguosity. The various pieces of absolute
> language used in the Constitution by the framers really
> were intended. These were a people who had just fought a
> bitter Revolutionary War in order to throw off a yolk they
> rather didn't like; the Constitution was their way of saying "Never
> Again."
You have a distinct lack of knowledge about our History. The Declaration
of Independence was indeed our way of saying "Never Again". The
Constitution was the result of our forefathers' recognition that a central
government with real power was essential to survival as a nation. The
Constitution is a living document and was so intended by the founding
fathers. It's genius is that it has survived for over 200 years with only
a few significant amendments after the Bill of Rights. The 3 Civil War
amendments were significant as were the 16th (Income Tax), 17th (direct
election of senate) and 19th (Right of women to vote).
Other than the 18th and 21st (the first should never have been ratified
and the latter would have been unnecessary had not the assholes in the
Congress at the time been smart enough not to propose the first), the
other were more housekeeping in response to vastly changing conditions.
Look at what they did.
11th - Merely restates what most recognized, that the US Courts had no
jurisdition over suits against states.
12th - Fixed a problem not foreseen in 1787 whereby a President and VP
could be of opposing parties.
20th - Changed the date of the inauguration of the new president/vp from
March to January. March was set given the lack of roads and time to travel
in winter. By the time of the 20th amendment, modern travel and roads made
this too long a "lame duck" period.
22nd - Encoded into law the precedent set by George Washington and honored
by every President until FDR who showed that a megalomaniac like FDR could
become a dictator.
23rd - Changed the status of residents of Washington somewhat by allowing
them to vote in Presidential elections.
24th - Really should have been a law rather than an amendement. Outlawed
the poll tax in national elections.
25th - Fixed a problem not foreseen in 1787 when even the Presidency was a
part time job. A response to changing times and conditions inconcievable
200 years earlier.
26th - Set the voting age at 18 throughout the US in federal elections.
This most likely also could have been done by law rather than amendment.
27th - Deals with congressional pay raises. Housekeeping. Could have been
done by law as well.
And despite your claim of vaguosity, bull! Our Constitution is far less
vague than any other modern nation's. Hell, England doesn't even have a
written constitution. Talk abou vague.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:53:14 GMT
On 08/21/2000 at 08:36 PM,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
> Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don't you find it curious that the Sherman act
> > is written in the language of a criminal statute
> > but never enforced as one?
> People have been sent to jail for price fixing...
Absolutely. One such felon was named George E. Burens who was a senior
official (VP if memory serves) of GE. He was the father of a classmate
back in 1956-7 when he served time for price fixing along with 6 other
executives of electrical equipment manufacturers. Westinghouse and Square
D were two of the other companies.
The automobile industry executives are very, very conscious of the
anti-trust laws. Read Lee Iacocca's book to see the extent that auto
industry execs have to go to be safe. They don't socialize, belong to the
same country clubs, attend weddings, etc. for fear of anti-trust
allegations. They even had to petition the Government to help keep
American Motors in business by sharing technology to avoid breaking the
law.
If the law is clear enough for the electrical equipment industry and the
auto industry, it shouldn't be hard for someone as bright as Gates (whose
father is a lawyer) to comprehend. He knows the law, he chose to break it.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zk Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:58:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> If I ever start an obnoxious 'anti-troll' sig like you, Aaron, I will
>> >> definitely include this. You've made the archive at least.
>> >>
>> >> Now will you please abandon the "confirmation bias" which prevents you
>> >> from realizing that your sig is not only obnoxious but useless and
>> >> meaninglessly annoying?
>> >
>> >It is far from useless. It has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the number of
>> >hit-and-run attacks by the individuals named within...which is
>> >EXACTLY what I designed it to do.
>> >
>>
>> I have a question for you. How SIGNIFICANTLY has it
>> increased the number of 'I hate Aaron's sig' postings? I
>
>Only among idiots who don't bother to consider the PURPOSE and EFFECT
>of my .sig... in which case, no great loss.
>
>
Well, there are plenty of people that have heard your
rationalization of your sig. We have heard your purpose
and effect bullshit story over and over. And a lot of us
seem to be pretty reasonable and intelligent people.
Oh well, I guess I knew it was going to end this way. I
seriously thought that you occassionally posted with some
meaning, but lately it's been one liners (with an entire
400 line post attached) and that idiotic sig.
So *PLONK*.
Buh, bye! Thanks fer playing.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:59:50 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >True...but the Unix shell is even MORE ACCESSIBLE to novice users.
>
> But not the Unix shell syntax. There's just no way.
They USE The Unix shell syntax every time they type a command.
What could be more accessible than that?
>
> [...]
> >What I like about the Unix shells that were specifically designed
>
> Precisely my point.
>
> >with programming in mind ( Bourne-shell "sh" and Korn shell "ksh")
> >are:
> All right! At last someone's gotten over their shyness. I'm willing,
> no eager, to try to believe that the Unix shell is every bit as easy or
> accessible for automating simple tasks in rudimentary macro-style
> fashion to people who never need to, aren't able to, and *don't have any
> talent to* develop complex software programs. Let's see what comes of
> this list:
>
> >1: totally accessible to new users
>
> Aye. Just start typing. But what does that have to do with syntax?
The syntax of Basic and sh are equally obscure to the novice.
>
> >2: very comfortable learning curve -- programming is merely an
> > extension of the basic command line which every user uses.
>
> Aye. But that's kind of the problem, you see. I'm not sure if its a
> cop out to say that its possible that someone who is good at programming
> couldn't possibly know how comfortable the curve is for people who would
> make lousy programmers. Plus, do you really want the problem of VB
> users who think they're programmers to be compounded even further by
> making everyone who manages to work out a couple macros to think they're
> a "real programmer"? Perhaps we need to consider returning to that old
> "3rd generation/4th generation language" bit. That's really the
> problem, you know, and why VB is such an abomination.
>
> >3: fully structured (no reliance upon goto's)
>
> Is this really of value when you're *only* going to use something for
> truly trivial things? Perhaps you all simply over-estimate (still,
YES! It promotes organized thinking, something which is a NECESSITY
to solve any task of even moderate complexity
> despite my pleas) the kind of work that I figure can be done in BASIC.
>
> >4: full documentation is available online
>
> Well, that's *purely* implementation, though we could chalk up "entirely
> integrated", but that just goes back to point 1.
>
> >5: Numerous working shell scripts, available for casual inspection
> > are litered throughout any Unix system. In my junior
> > year at Purdue, one day I was quite surprised to discover
> > that the command "lpr" (on BSD systems) and many others
> > are actually shell scripts.
>
> Certainly, this makes shell scripting easier to learn. Does it make
> shell scripting syntax any easier to use without years of practice?
>
Purdue teaches it to freshman who have never used a computer before.
What does this tell you?
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
