Linux-Advocacy Digest #656, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 20:12:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and I
> > > don't get back all that money in the form of government services?
> > > If so, then we have a society Robin Hood would be quite proud
> > > of.
> >
> > The more fortunate are paying for the benefit of not having the
> > less fortunate starving in the streets.
>
> Now, isn't that exactly an argument I could use to say that even if
> you never get paid social security benefits, they payroll tax wasn't
> stolen from you, because you got the benefit of not having the less
> fortunate starving in the streets?
Yes. But what comes along with the idea of preventing people from
starving in the streets in the assumption that you yourself won't be
allowed to starve if it ever comes down to that. If you eliminate social
security you eliminate that safety net.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 16:14:16 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You could maintain it if the market is too small to support more than
> > one supplier. You could maintain it if you have a valuable trade
> > secret
> > that nobody else has been able to figure out. Fair Isaac would be a
> > candidate for an example of the latter; they are the people who
> > calculate your credit worthiness. Their formula for evaluating credit
> > worthiness is their trade secret. All three of the national credit
> > bureaus use Fair Isaac. All somebody has to do to break their hold on
> > the market is invent a better formula. Nobody has done so.
>
> ...and all Fair Isaac has to do to get in trouble with the Feds is
> something simple, like telling their customers "if you buy information
> from any new competitor, we'll increase our rates by 50%," or any of a
> number of simple anticompetitive things.
But, you see, that won't work, because if they competitor's forumla has
greater predictive power than Fair Isaac's, the customer will simply
tell them to go to hell. It's not so much like the situation we have
with Microsoft, where companies like Dell have to have access to Windows
to survive. There aren't huge switching costs for a formula like there
are for retraining people on an alternative OS and losing out on
software availability. Once you've created a better product in FI's
market, there aren't many barriers left.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[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 20:16:52 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> underlying problem with the whole SS system. Until people are
> willing to confront the fact that there is nothing in the structure
> that even resembles a true retirement system, then there will be
> no solving the mess.
Which is probably why most of my generation realizes that our chances of ever
seeing SS before death (as they keep raising the age when you qualify for
benefits) are slim to none. That's why most of us are putting money into
401(k)s and other retirement plans."Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
Oh, cut the bleeding heart crap, will ya? We've all got our switches, lights,
and knobs to deal with, Striker. I mean, down here there are literally
hundreds
and thousands of blinking, beeping, and flashing lights, blinking and beeping
and flashing - they're *flashing* and they're *beeping*. I can't stand it
anymore! They're *blinking* and *beeping* and *flashing*! Why doesn't somebody
pull the plug! - Buck Murdoch - Airplane 2.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:18:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8npmf2$k8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > One might note that the two main players in this particular case,
>> > Office and IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's
>> > opinion.
>>
>> Again, that's true _now_. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for
>> competitors to bother, so there is no serious competition.
>
>With Office, it's been true for a very, very long time. Back to the Windows
>3.1 days.
Oh, yea! Remember when we figured we'd have desktop applications
aplenty from *everybody* who wanted to make applications competing for
our business, instead of just Microsoft pushing new crap on top of old
crap? Hoo-WEEE! I can't *wait* for that OS pre-load market to open up.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 20:17:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
>
> Many incidental technologies generally flow from such efforts.
Yes, and this is the only positive side of the whole thing. It would be
far more efficient to simply invest the money in basic research in the
first place, however.
> > At worst, it will waste much more and start a another cold war.
>
> I believe this is doubtful.
China has already stated it will enhance its offensive nuclear
capability as a direct response to US deployment of missile defense. To
me that sounds like the first step in a happy little arms race.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:18:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Some facts:
>> The Anti-trust investigation against MS began in 1989.
>
>snippage
>
>Yea that's the time the government crawled up Microsofts ass and spent
>18,000 man hours looking for ANY prosecutable offence and had to stand
>before a judge and say, "We've found no prosecutable offences your honor". I
>would venture to guess that 1 in 50 large corporations could be so pure.
Oh, is that why Microsoft agreed to a consent decree?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:18:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <8o0tv0$cqq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > > In article <8npmf2$k8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > One might note that the two main players in this particular case,
>>> > > > Office and IE, *are* superior products, in pretty much everyone's
>>> > > > opinion.
>>> > >
>>> > > Again, that's true _now_. Microsoft has made it unprofitable for
>>> > > competitors to bother, so there is no serious competition.
>>> >
>>> > With Office, it's been true for a very, very long time. Back to the
>>> > Windows 3.1 days.
>>>
>>> Which only serves to demonstrate that Microsoft has a very long history
>>> of this sort of thing.
>
>>Oh, for fuck's sake, grow up.
>
>That is exactly what we would like you to do. But we also have come to
>understand that you can't. -- It is because you work for M$?
>
>>Is it _that_ hard to admit, even to yourself, that Office is the most popular
>>suite because it is, and has been for a long time, the _best_ suite ? Office
>>has been being reviewed and voted as the best office suite pretty much since
>>the application category itself was first created.
>
>Only according to ragazines the bow to M$ for the advertising dollars. --
>Time you you grow up and figure out how things are controlled by M$.
I guess its worth pointing out the irony that folks like Mr. Smith are
quite convincing in proving how necessary anti-trust enforcement is.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:18:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Tr�ger) wrote:
[...]
>So there should be a free market until someone says that a company is
>charging too much, then you throw out the free market?
No, then you investigate whether or not there is a free market, or
whether monopolization has prevented competition from providing a free
market.
[...]
>> So when there IS profiteering, it's an indication that there is no free
>> market, but a monopoly.
>
>Wrong. It means that consumers value a product highly.
Adam Smith disagrees with you.
>My company makes a product with an extremely high profit margin, yet
>we're one of the smaller companies making this product.
>
>OTOH, you could have a monopoly with an extremely low profit margin.
>
>Profit margin is not an indication of whether a monopoly exists.
Absolute profit margin isn't. Relative profit margin certainly would be
"an indication". According to the courts, its even evidence, though
obviously not conclusive in its own right.
>> > A civil injunction, by definition, is the complete opposite of a free
>> > market system.
>>
>> It is neither, it's an external means of reinstating a free market.
>
>That would be true ---- IF (and only if) the civil injunction could only
>be applied when there was evidence that someone broke the laws.
Uh, yea. That's the idea of courts, you see.
>That's not what T. Max is advocating (and, it appears, you seem to be
>supporting him). He is advocating a civil injunction any time someone
>makes more profit than he deems acceptable.
"Civil injunction" means the right and responsibility of the courts to
provide judgement, Joe. Sorry if you misinterpreted it. If that's the
only reason you've been scorching the walls with your rhetoric, then you
can flame off.
>THAT is not a free market system. By any rational stretch of the
>imagination.
According to the 1890 Congress, at least, it was, and they haven't been
contradicted by any Congress since.
[...]
>> So you don't oppose monopolies (Microsoft's included)?
>
>I'm not opposed to monopolies. I'm opposed to lawbreaking monopolies.
According to the Sherman Act, monopolizing is illegal, so the phrase
"lawbreaking monopolies" is, quite frankly, redundant.
Thanks for giving me the chance to clear that up.
>AND, the issue isn't about monopolies, anyway. T. Max (and, again, you
>by association) is saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to earn
>too much money. That has nothing to do with monopolies (other than his
>rather bizarre assumption that if a company makes lots of money it must
>be a monopoly).
Must you divorce the term "profiteering" so entirely from its
definition? In all respects except the concept and the term, within the
definition, 'unreasonable' (or "exorbitant", in other dictionaries),
there is no magical distinction between a company making money and
someone taking advantage of a limited supply of necessary goods.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: prof�i�teer
Pronunciation: "pr�-f&-'tir
Function: noun
Date: 1912
: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable
profit especially on the sale of essential goods
during times of emergency
- profiteer intransitive verb
You are getting whacked out by my contention that having a very high
profit margin and a very large market share is indicative of
monopolization. This is not worth getting whacked out about, even
though it is true.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:18:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>But, again, T. Max is arguing that charging a lot of money is prima
>facie evidence of guilt.
Where? I never claimed any such thing.
[...]
>> It's quite possible that your example company takes advantage of the
>> lack of replaceability in a particular market.
>
>Nope. Merely greater perceived value. Competitive products could easily
>be swapped in. Our customers choose not to do so.
If your marketing, rather than your competitive merit, is responsible
for that perception, you have committed a crime.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:18:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lars Tr�ger in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>No, there IS a free market, until a company has monopoly power, and thus
>can (but doesn't have to) charge too much without the customers being
>able to do much against it. Then the free market is gone - and all
>without government intervention.
Am I to believe that people are learning from my arguments, or is this
merely an arrogant delusion? Very well put, Lars. I don't mean to
sound like I'm the only one aware of this; it is quite clear in
precedent:
"Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition."
"The offense of monopoly power under � 2 of the Sherman Act has two
elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power [...](2) the willful
acquisition or maintenance of that power [...]"
[...]
>> My company makes a product with an extremely high profit margin, yet
>> we're one of the smaller companies making this product.
>
>Well according to you, you either profiteer or you are not in a free
>market. Make up your mind.
Let me defuse that, if I can. I'll admit that according to Joe's
misrepresentation of my argument, your sentiment is accurate. But Joe
hasn't given anyone any reason to believe that his "extremely high
profit margin" is in any way atypical of a large number of competitors
in his market.
>> OTOH, you could have a monopoly with an extremely low profit margin.
>
>Joe, it's time for a vacation.
>
>> Profit margin is not an indication of whether a monopoly exists.
>
>"In a free market system, there's no such thing as profiteering. The
>concept doesn't even exist. If the customer is willing to pay the
>vendor's price, a transaction occurs and the price was not excessive.
>If the price is excessive, the customer doesn't pay and no transaction
>occurs. A civil injunction, by definition, is the complete opposite of a
>free market system."
You have my admiration, Lars. Very well done. Regardless of whether
Joe recognizes it, you punctured his argument fatally with his own
quote; quite a coup.
[...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:18:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>SmartSuite is good for markets that don't require interaction with
>other PC users, but since most Windows/Office users seem to be unable
>to load Lotus documents (even Lotus Spreadsheets make the younger users
>nuts), it's still the Lotus user's oblication to import Microsoft
>documents into Smartsuite. Microsoft keeps adding delightful new
>features to make this more and more difficult.
I do believe you've just invented a new word, Rex. It's obvious that it
was a typo, but somehow "oblication" seems to work quite well, I think,
as a term meaning "an obligation dictated by external forces
characterized by financial control without ethical justification".
Microsoft places and oblication on application providers to support
Office compatibility. This is monopolization, and is illegal (though
not yet, and possibly never, prosecuted.)
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:18:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Not only that, but customer's expectations keep changing.
>Back in the days of the Apple II, people were delighted with
>Applewriter (on a 40x16 screen) and Visicalc (all 256 rows by 24
>columns :-). Heck, with the MITS ALTAIR, we were thrilled if
>we could get Micro-soft Basic loaded without breaking the
>paper tape. :-)
>
>(Gawd I'm a dinosaur :-).
I tried, OH, how I tried, to use that funny little "wordprocessor" on my
Commodore 64 (with fastload cartridge and *2* floppy drives!). It just
never ever seemed 'right'. I finally decided I needed to get a 128 so
that I could have an 80 column screen, and it was still not quite
useful; a typewriter was far superior.
It wasn't until WordStar (2000 is the first version I used, though I've
used earlier since then) that I managed to get any productive work done,
document wise, on a microcomputer.
WordPerfect 4.2 made all versions of WordStar obsolete, and I'd still
rather have Word for Windows 2.0 than even WordPerfect 5.0, other than
the fact that WfW can't do complex professional documents worth a shit.
And, of course, its gotten worse since then.
I'd still rather have Word 6.0 (gasp) than most of the GEM and Unix
wordprocessors I've used, though.
Its easy to be a dinosaur. The trick is that we're mammals, Rex. We
seem to evolve much more quickly, and have bigger brains. ;-)
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:18:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>There was no such thing as "Office 2.0" The first version of Office was
>4.0.
>
>But, Word 2 and Excel 3 (or was it 4?) Run fine under NT. These would be
>analagous to an "office 2.0" if it had existed.
Define "fine".
>> Try reading Offire 2000 documents with Office 95.
>
>No problem for Word and Excel (you do have to download the Word 2000 filters
>from MS though). The Excel format hasn't changed much since Excel 5.
Define "no problem" I've had lots of problems converting document that
MS insisted would be "no problem" with their or anybody else's filters.
[...]
>> It's a very effective business strategy if customers are ready,
>> willing, and able to pay for hardware and software upgrades
>> every 3 to 12 months (required for any organization of over
>> 1000 users).
>
>Or just get the new filters.
Every 3 to 12 months, yea, and take your chances.
[...]
>Think about this for a moment. If the dialog took keyboard and mouse focus,
>then that means it was accepting keyboard input. A simple enter key or
>escape key would get out of it.
>
>I never saw anything like this happen.
Then you don't have very much experience, do you?
[...]
>And those old Windows PC no longer work? Windows magically stopped working
>just because new versions came out? Applications miraculously stopped
>functioning just because time went on?
Network effect. Ain't it a bitch.
>> 10 years is ancient for a computer, but there are still SPArC 10s
>> and 20s being sold on e-bay. They're like the eveready bunny,
>> they keep going and going and going...
>
>And there's still 286's being sold on ebay. So what?
So the Sparc's are still viable systems, and the 286's aren't, that's
what.
[...]
>> Imagine the first TV interview where the CEO of a huge company like
>> Federal Express is sitting in an interview, is asked how his company
>> is doing at the moment, pulls out his Ipaq/Linux hand-held with
>> wireless modem, hits a button, and you can see a second-by-second
>> of target verses actual revenue, expenses, and earnings.
>
>So you do live in a fantasy world. This isn't likely to happen. Ever.
True, but its the same fantasy world that Microsoft pushes, and despite
being a fantasy, its a lot more doable with Linux than it is with
Windows.
>Most CEO's I've met (especially from huge companies) don't even know how to
>turn on their PC. They have assistants to do that stuff. I'll bet Michael
>Eisner doesn't even have a PC in his office, much less a laptop or handheld.
Well, that's what happens when the monopoly OS is utter crap.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:19:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I guess if you misquote someone badly enough you can tell them they're
>wrong. Oops, you just did.
Yea, funny how that works, huh?
>You and T. Max seem to be the ones who think it's illegal to charge what
>the market will bear.
You see?
>Please point out the specific laws which make it illegal to put any
>price tag on your product, assuming that no _other_ laws are being
>broken.
Well, duh. Its the other laws which are being broken, Joe. You have a
popular misconception that "what the market will bear" is the same as
"what the customer is incapable of avoiding".
>IOW, what law says I can't double the price for my products tomorrow if
>I wish?
The law of supply and demand, maybe?
>Come on--you and T. Max both keep saying this is illegal. Show me where.
No, we don't, Joe. You just keep misquoting us to suit your own ends.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 20:19:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric
> > > > Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At
> > > > > least, that his will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is
> > > > > cutting more taxes than Gore, but he is also spending less
> > > > > than Gore on programs like health care.
> > > >
> > > > And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile
> > > > defense.
> > >
> > > As I recall, the early astronautic program was even more fucked
> > > up (or are all of those films of rockets going sideways, falling
> > > over, or even falling backwards just latter day fakes?)
> >
> > The problem is, the missile defense system is bad even if it works.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> What's bad about it? It maintains superiority, which is good. Unless
> you think NOT being the most militarily superior country is
> desirable. U.S. Strength is maintaining peace. If China doesn't like
> the fact that we are building the ability to stop first strikes in
> mid launch, I'd have to say - to bad.
It's an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
