Linux-Advocacy Digest #646, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jack
Troughton)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Forrest
Gehrke)
Re: Just how dense is Aaron? (Ed Cogburn)
Need Advice (Linux Training Website) (Scott Moseman)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (mark)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (mark)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (mark)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451783.q2e4^-.00000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 11:13:34 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:05:50 -0400, Eric Bennett wrote:
>So from a practical point of view, maybe you object to public education,
>but if we assume that it results in a lower tax burned for you overall,
>would you really still object? Would you rather pay more taxes to
>incarcerate people instead of paying less in taxes to educate them?
Oddly enough, he didn't bother to answer this. Actually, I'd conjecture
that his contempt for these people runs so deep that he'd be willing to
may more money provided that it makes them suffer.
>Maybe you dispute that education lowers taxes this much, but suppose
>that it did. Would you still oppose public education funding, solely on
>ideological grounds?
It's also funny that he didn't answer this.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Aug 2000 11:25:06 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:46:55 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> -Children are already the responsibility of their parents.
>>
>> And children are punished for the sins of their parents?
>
>Darwinism in action.
Darwinism is about "survival of the fittest", not "survival of the fattest".
Your support for children being punished for their parents sins places you
in direct opposition with true meritocracy.
>> A large and angry underclass that will resent the upper class.
>
>And how is this any different from current conditions?
>
>Welfare slobs resent the upper class right now.
"Welfare slobs" are not a "large" class.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:09:59 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:28:34, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>> The fact that so many citizens wouldn't recognise the Constitution if it
>> were staple to their forehead helps as well.
>
>Sad, but true.
>
Wow, are you guys ever arrogant.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montr�al PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:52:59 GMT
> > Let's reexamine the long suffering example again. You are using an
office
> > productivity application. You are working on a document that consumes 5
Meg
> > stored in a non-XML file. You are given the option of saving it in
either
> > XML or the program's native format. You choose the XML file format.
When
> > you examine the file you have just saved you find the XML the following
XML
> > "tokens" the the start of the file.
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> > <!DOCTYPE RST "http://localhost/fubar.dtd>
> > <RST>
> > <R ID="0" >
> > <F0>
> >
> > Followed by 6.5Meg of data of the follow kind
> >
> > alahasdfnaxvc9qweafva8712345lkf0asdf
> >
> > Followed by the closing tags:
> >
> > </F0>
> > </R>
> > </RST>
> >
> > What have you gained?
>
> Who's me? The casual web browser, the company vice president, the
> programmer?
> Answer: nothing unless you know what the hell it is.
> If two companies wanted to share the data then they would agree on a
> method of encryption. If someone wanted to share it with the whole world
> then they would make it nice simple english (swahili whatever).
>
> IanP
This is really getting close to what the origional post was all about! Only
it is isn't what is in the document that I want to know, but the information
that is typically "encrypted" into the installation program! I want to know
what files, directories, configuration settings, etc. that a program relies
on in order to be operational. I know this information is in the install
program the developer provided. Thus I often uninstall and reinstall the
program to try to fix the program (success rate: 20 percent).
The problem is that every software component is handed to me in the same,
encrypted format (a pile of installs from various venders). No meta
information about how these structures are supposed to be interrelated. No
single and separate "installation" facility (or what I would call a
"Software Rendering Facility") for collecting and tracking this information.
Perhaps the developer doesn't WANT me to know what they are going to do to
my computer's storage in order to install their program. Well, in that
case, I don't want their product. I am sick and tired of having a dead
machine because some stinking DLL or registry setting is screwed up, and I
haven't got any reasonable way of figuring it out. In fact, I have such a
laptop (a four week old, top of the line Dell with a dead Windows 98)
sitting right over there in the corner.
My point is we have gotten past the idea that the writer is responsible for
laying out each page in a document. Let's get over the idea that each
developer has the responsibility for laying out my storage.
There is little to hide when it comes to how to install software. So why
don't developers just lay out what they need done in plain English (or
swahili whatever) already!
------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:04:10 GMT
david raoul derbes wrote:
> And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those who think the
> inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing should perhaps read
> Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.
>
> David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At the top tax rate of 55% which is applied very quickly at the level
of an Iowa family farm valuation , or an average small business
this is confiscation. I doubt Jefferson or Madison can be found to
back you up--particularly Jefferson who believed
in a non-industrial agrarian America. Your own example is proof
of this confiscatory tax rate.
//
Forrest Gehrke
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:09:43 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how dense is Aaron?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
> >
> > No, you're going to deal with it. Your going to spend most of
> > your usenet time in c.o.l.a. embroiled in flames over your sig, wasting
> > your time as well as eveyone elses. If I chose to ignore you from now on,
> > I suffer no penalty, but there will always be someone else who complains
> > about your sig, which then starts another flame war. Think about all
> > the time your going to be wasting defending a pointless sig, time lost
> > to fighting the battles that you want to fight here, never mind all the
> > people who will no longer read *anything* you have to say because
> > they've killfiled you over your stupid sig. Just how dense are you?
>
> Isn't it hypocritical to waste bandwidth discussing wasted bandwidth...
You started this trend, I'm just learning from you .... you aren't
shutting me up that easily.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Scott Moseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Need Advice (Linux Training Website)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:00:17 GMT
http://www.linuxtrainingonline.com/
I am building the above website, and wondering what
people's opinions would be of the route I take to
fund the project. Do I look for capital funding and
then charge for use of the website, or do I try and
get companies to provide free hardware/colocation
and make the website free to all visitors?
I would prefer the "open source" type of route, but
am unsure what people think of the ability of that
method to have much success. Obviously, it would
require help from the Linux community for dumping
info into the database and such.
Thanks,
Scott Moseman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:12:48 +0100
In article <Dh3p5.7509$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8o0cue$6cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Yes, the first OS that they developed.
>> > Still it was a liscensed Sys V port
>> > if I recall correctly.
>>
>> Close - Sys V came out in 1985. Xenix was a variant of Version 6
>> UNIX which was distributed among the Schools in 1979.
>
>Sorry, that was unthinking of me... I'm so used to just typing Sys V when
>talking about AT&T unix.
>
>> > Microsoft paid royalties to AT&T.
>>
>> Correct. And Gates didn't want to pay royalties on the product
>> it sold to IBM. Conversely, IBM had just lost a major portion
>> of it's Series 1 market to CP/M, and may have figured that UNIX
>> on the 8088/8086 was too likely to blow away the IBM Proprietary
>> markets mentioned above.
>
>I don't recall MS ever selling Xenix to IBM.
>
>> I was programming for Series 1 (EDX 2.x and EDX 3.x) and CP/M
>> machines when the first IBM PCs came out. They were expensive,
>> they didn't run much software, and they didn't support hard drives.
>> Even the floppy drive was an expensive option (but a popular one,
>> thank goodness).
>
>The IBM Winchester driver was one of the first hard drives for personal
>computers. IBM PC's had BASIC in ROM, so they often didn't need a disk
>drive for early applications. 123 was the magic bullet though.
>
>> Back in those days, IBM and Microsoft wanted you to jump right into
>> the middle of BASIC-IN-ROM. Much of this was to be certain that
>> CP/M-86 didn't start taking back the IBM market.
>
>No, I think it was just because IBM didn't invest much money into the PC
>architecture at first.
>
>> > Lots of people have NT source code liscenses.
>> > Bristol, Mainsoft, Compaq,
>> > IBM, the US government...
>>
>> How many of those licenses are current?
>>
>> How many people get to look at this source code?
>>
>> How much does it cost?
>>
>> What are the legal consequences of looking?
>>
>> (I know many of these answers, but you're the one making the case).
>
>All that is irrelevant. Your argument was lack of source code. My argument
>is that it's available if you absolutely need it. Price is not an issue for
>a company like AT&T.
Price is an issue for all companies. The idea that large companies have,
simply because they are large, infinite funds, is at best flawed.
Or were you joking?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:16:47 +0100
In article <8o09sj$31r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>In article <8o0730$av$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I Snippped/pasted my exact quote from the initial posting that
>> triggered this entire subthread. I said it took 10 minutes
>> to reboot a large NT server. In fact, I even understated my
>> case. Most NT Servers I've dealt with recently seem to need
>> about 1-2 GIGABYTES of RAM and take 10 minutes to reboot.
>
>"On some of the really big systems, I have to wait for as much as an
>hour from boot to fully functional availability."
>>
>> And although Windows 2000 is much FASTER, it requires much more
>> RAM than NT 4.0 did. I've managed to milk decent performance out
>> of Win2K by using a dedicated swap drive and 128 Meg of RAM, but
>> that swap is VERY Busy. Most single drive systems need around 256 meg
>> of RAM for Workstations and at LEAST 1 gig for Enterprise Edition.
>> Add to this, nearly 1-3 gig of swap space.
>
>Our Win2K Advanced Server Systems run on 256MB for the most part - and
>about 300MB or page file. Of course, we haven't got any huge memory
>hogging running applications on them - at the moment it's just basic
>file & network services, serving about 80GB worth of data.
>Win2K professional ran on my laptop faster than NT 4.0 ever did - in 96
>MB of memory. The only blue screen I ever had was with InoculateIT...
>
>>
>> I have several Linux servers that run quite comfortably in 64 Meg plus
>> as large (128 meg) swap area. High performance workstations running
>> Netscape with Memory leaks tends to suck up more memory.
>>
>Linux certainly does have lower memory requirements. Given that memory
>is so cheap it really isn't an issue
No, I guess it just pushes up the price of running win2k compared to
linux. If you're a small organisation, maybe that's not a problem.
If you have several thousands of 'seats', that could come into
millions.
Not really an issue? Buy Microsoft and keep paying, it looks to me.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:21:11 +0100
In article <8nmrtg$o04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Perhaps another way of looking at this would be to consider
>> schroedinger's cat; this is similar - it is not possible to
>> know if it can or cannot be done until it has been done.
>
>Now there is an interesting way of looking at it, NT is half ported and half
>unport to every platfor there is. Just like the half live and half dead
>schroedinger's cat. <G>
>
>
what can I say, but griiiiiin :)
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:39:08 GMT
In article <wIHp5.361$v3.5096@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(david raoul derbes) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >david raoul derbes wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> >> Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me
> >> >it
> >> >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
> >> >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could
> >> >trouble
> >> >farmers.
> >>
> >> You are very much mistaken.
> >>
> >> At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the
> >> government
> >> for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the
> >> government,
> >> she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> >>
> >> She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
> >> the process.
> >>
> >> And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax.
> >
> >I don't think that inheritance taxes are wicked per se. What I do
> >think is that the entry point ought to be very, very high (and,
> >to turn over a new legislative leaf, have the entry point be
> >in year-indexed dollars).
>
> In fact, the entrance point for inheritance tax *is* very high,
> 1.3 million. Unfortunately, we crossed it. But that is the law,
> and I intend to obey it.
Actually, it's considerably lower than that. It's currently around $700
K, IIRC.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:40:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <cofp5.293$v3.4018@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>
> > >Statistically, the wealthy pay a far, far higher percentage of their
> > >income in taxes than the poor. I can't believe anyone would even
> > >question that fact.
> >
> > What percentage do the wealthiest pay in this country? According to my
> > father-in-law, who used to work for H. & R. Block, 39.3%. Last year,
> > my wife and I were in the 32% bracket, and believe me, we earn a
> > hell of a lot less than most people we know; I'm a schoolteacher
> > and my wife is an artist. We have investments. No one would call
> > us wealthy.
>
>
> Their tax rate is 25% greater than yours. That's a good bit higher,
> don't you think?
>
> And in some states--like here in New York--the same thing is true for
> state income taxes.
Not to mention that the wealthy lose many or most of their deductions
through the Alternative Minimum Tax.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:41:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> >But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> >> >"rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> >> >Reagan
> >> >and Bush administrations?
> >>
> >> Continued profiteering by media conglomerates and other mega-corps,
> >> mostly. The political office-holders have nothing to do with it
> >> (other
> >> than that Republicans and Democrats have been fatally lax in
> >> anti-trust
> >> enforcement, for the most part).
> >
> >cue soundtrack.........
> >
> >(your conspiracy theories are only slightly less comical than your
> >theories on business)
>
> They are not conspiracy theories; they are observations. I have no
> delusion that purposeful intent is in any way involved in the problem.
Or that they had any validity outside of your own mind.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:43:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >God damn profiteering! Everybody gets to profiteer except you Max. Some
> >day
> >you'll get even with all those god damn profiteers! You probably fall
> >asleep
> >at night grumbling about all the god damn profiteers.
>
> No, everybody seems to *want* to profiteer except me. I figure they
> just don't have any confidence in their ability to provide fair value
> for an honest profit.
No. It's just that for most people, earning fair value for an honest
profit means charging the price you want to charge and seeing if
customers will pay it.
You seem to be the only one (plus maybe letour) who thinks that some
outside group should decide when prices are too high.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451783.q2e4^-.00000000001
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:44:29 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain why he's apparently
parroted "Slava's" question; indeed, he continues to hide
information about this "Slava." And he's still plagued with "parrot"
syndrome, as well as his illogical conclusion regarding misattributions.
Lastly, he clearly doesn't understand the concept of a digest, given that he
keeps posting so-called "digests", yet still responds one
article at a time. Typical! With such material as he provides -- and so
much! -- one can't resist poking the body to see if it's alive. It's not,
folks.
To the digest improper:
[0]
What can you expect, eh? Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:45:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <8o3bun$l4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> -- snip --
> >>
> >> > The term "abusive monopoly" is an oxymoron;
> >>
> >> Hmm, I think you mean "the term 'abusive monopoly' is redundant."
> >>
> >> Kind of like "violent explosion."
> >>
> >
> >But he'd still be wrong.
> >
> >It's entirely possible to have a monopoly which abuses its position.
>
> Not really. It is impossible to have a monopoly which does not abuse
> its position, by definition.
Wrong. Show me your definition.
What if I were an ultimately benevolent person who really didn't need
money and I ruled a monopoly with an iron fist. I set prices as low as
they'd be with enormous competition. How would that be abuse of my
position?
I didn't say it's likely. But you keep coming up with premises that make
certain assumptions, then use them to prove the same assumptions. It's
called "circular logic".
>
> >In fact, in some cases, a monopoly could be good for consumers.
>
> True, but none are good for the market.
Non-sequitor.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:52:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> [...]
> >> Have you compared the income disparity during the Reagan years to the
> >> administrations before that? The tax structure the Republicans set up
> >> is what the Demos had to work with during the past 8 years. It wasn't
> >
> >So you're saying that the Democrats can't take credit for the economy's
> >growth for the past 8 years?
>
> No.
I see. So the Republican policies of the 1980's were completely
responsible for the current income inequality, but had no impact on the
economy's growth?
Can you say "hypocrite"?
>
> >I spent 5 years in graduate school earning well under $5,000 per year,
> >living in Ithaca, NY (which isn't a cheap place to live). Not only did I
> >have to pay my living expenses, about 20% of that gross income went for
> >books.
>
> So?
So, it's pretty obvious that the poverty level is too high. It doesn't
really reflect "poverty".
>
> >I know what it's like to be broke. I also know what it's like to make
> >soemthing of yourself.
>
> And you assume that you can generalize your personal experience to make
> you somehow an expert in economics for no apparent reason.
Nope. But I've learned enough economics to be able to discuss things
rationally -- something you've failed to master.
>
> >> which allows rampant monopolization and restraint of trade to be
> >> confused with competition and free markets. The "growth by
> >> acquisition"
> >> method being institutionalized. The rampant ignorance, and even more
> >> rampant encouragement of ignorance, within the market.
> >
> >You seem to be an expert on ignorance.
>
> I've studied it quite a bit. I have a lot of knowledge about ignorance,
> it turns out. As well as some personal experience, of course. I'm not
> pretending to be omniscient. Just smarter than you are.
About ignorance? Sure.
About virtually anything else, I doubt it.
You ceratainly haven't shown much knowledge in this thread.
>
> >Where have I advocated monopolies?
>
> Why does everyone always insist that I have to quote things back to them
> in order for them to know what they said? You have blatantly and
> specifically advocated unethical business conduct. I am not going to go
No, I haven't. I've advocated that businesses should be able to set
whatever price they want on their product (unless they're breaking a
predatory pricing law) and the customer can then choose to buy it or not.
YOU somehow defined that as unethical since you keep advocating that
prices should be limited by some party outside of the transaction.
> back and get the quote for you, but it was quite direct. Something
> about ethics taking a back seat to profits, or at least that was my
> impression. You can either try to remember what quote I'm thinking of,
Your impression was wrong.
> and correcting my interpretation if you think I've got it wrong, or
> posturing and insisting you've never said such a thing.
I'm saying that business and ethics each have their own rules. You're
trying to apply your personal ethics to everybody else.
>
> You advocate monopolies, but only because you don't know what a monopoly
> is.
Nope. I advocate that a business should be able to set their own prices,
in general. You are the one saying that that makes them a monopoly.
Which is absurd, btw.
>
> >> Its got very little to do with politics, or the capital gains tax, or
> >> the income tax, or any other tax. Its profiteering, plain and simple;
> >> that's what increases the disparity between the profiteers and the
> >> consumers.
> >
> >I see. So your position is that making a lot of money is wrong, by
> >definition. [...]
>
> Still unable to present anything but straw men, eh? Why the hell do you
> even bother posting.
That's funny, I just quoted what you said above.
>
> >It doesn't matter how I make lots of money (or how my
> >company makes lots of money). As long as someone else is making less
> >money, I must be profiteering.
>
> It doesn't matter how much money you or anyone else is making. If you
> are conducting business unethically, you are conducting business
> unethically, and it cannot to be tolerated in a civilized society.
That's possibly true.
But you go one step further and say that if I make more money than you
think is appropriate, I'm guilty of unethical behavior and should face
civil injunctions.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
