In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, DeMoN_LaG says...
>
>JTK wrote:
[snip]
>> Good, we're finally getting somewhere.
>
>Not really. I still find you annoying,
Yeah, I still got it.
> you still have no idea what you
>are arguing about.
>
No, you still have no idea what I am arguing about.
[snip]
>>>>You didn't get an OS with your web browser?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. Just IE.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'd bitch if I was you.
>
>I do, every time I see "Iexplore.exe caused a General protection
>fault..." followed by a blue screen
>
Well at least it's constructive.
>>>>>Um, ok. Mozilla is free. Mozilla is the software people are
>>>>>developing. You make it sound like someone on the outside works on the
>>>>>instant messaging code and is then prohibited from using it. Anything
>>>>>contributed to mozilla.org is free for public use, and free to use in
>>>>>any commercial product.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Really? So I could take Maozilla, bundle it with my own Instant Messaging
>>>>utility (supporting both AOL's proprietary IM and non-proprietary,
>>>>standards-based ones), rework the email reader to read not only regular pop3 and
>>>>imap email, but also AOL email, and, oh, say MSN email, rename it "Crapzilla",
>>>>rip out the XUL thereby at least doubling it's speed, give it away (sans source
>>>>of course), and not expect AOL to be on my ass in a New York minute?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You could go ahead and build AOL Email and IM support into it. At that
>>>point AOL would step in and block your software, because that is their
>>>PRIVATELY OWNED service.
>>>
>>
>> Right, a user would have to pay AOL to get AOL email, and AOL wouldn't even have
>> to spend time working on the client, because I'd have Crapzilla and it'd by
>> default be better than any software to ever be touched by the greasy hands of
>> AOL. So what's AOL's bitch?
>
>
>Gee, Outlook nor Outlook Express can access AOL mail either. Go figure,
>jackass.
>
Wow, good completely-unrelated point. Gets a bit frustrating when you've dug
yourself in so deep that you can't insult your way out, doesn't it, poop-eater?
>>> MSN Email also, would end up being blocked by
>>>MSN because they OWN and generate a PROFIT from that service.
>>>
>>
>> If I had AOL email and IM in it, I somehow doubt I'd get any flak from MS.
>
>
>No, but they would get huge amounts of flak if they put MSN Messanger
>and support for hotmail. As would Eudora or any other email client if
>it had support for proprietary services
>
Forgot that period again.
And no, they wouldn't, as long as I had AOL in it too. MS would do the smart
thing and let AOL use the heavy-handed tactics and look like the bully.
>>> If you
>>>were to include support for some web based email somehow, and the
>>>company didn't have a problem with it, then you could do what you wanted
>>>with it
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>
>
>The reason that everyone can make a POP3 email client is that no one
>owns POP3. It's an open standard. Like http and ftp. No one entity
>owns them. AOL, on the other hand, has a propriatary system for their
>email. They own it. Just as MS owns the system for Hotmail.
>
And this relates to web-based email how? If we're going to have a pointless
debate, you're going to have to at least not just type random sentences.
Sharpen up here for me Mr. Lag.
>>>>>Are you missing a few brain cells or something?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Well, since, as you say, my lips have been stuck to Bill Gates' rectum for so
>>>>long....
>>>>
>>>
>>>So Bill Gates' farts kill brain cells?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well you seem to be the expert of all things lower-GI here, you tell me.
>>
*That* one shuts you up? Wow, I'm dealing with a regular village elder here.
>>>>> So you mean I just sit down
>>>>>and type:
>>>>>Ok computer, I want a W3C complient web browser, and all the source for
>>>>>it, hit enter and then suddenly a couple hundred million lines of code
>>>>>pop up and I get a web browser? No, not quite. It takes a very, very
>>>>>long time to write a web browser.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Fixed cost. How much does it cost to deliver each browser, Mr. Lag? That's
>>>>variable cost. The class I mentioned above will show you graphs and everything
>>>>that will hopefully make the difference clear, once you're able to absorb the
>>>>concepts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>We are discussing costs.
>>>
>>
>> I am. I'm not quite sure what you're discussing.
>
>
>No one has any clue what you're discussing.
Just two at last count: you and the Savior, jesus X. I suspect the rest of the
crew here has had at least a few years of college and taken an Econ 101 class,
and hence knows the difference between fixed and variable costs.
> As soon as you totally lose
>an issue
That's happened when now?
> you say "Mozilla sucks"
I said that when now? When it comes right down to it, it of course does, I just
don't recall putting it in such a lowbrow manner. Sounds more like your style
actually.
> and start ranting about not being able
>to check your AOL mail through it or something.
I don't even HAVE AOL mail. Is this more of that random sentence debate method?
> You completely avoid
>the fact that NO OTHER EMAIL CLIENT IN THE WORLD except for AOL's
>proprietary clients can access it either
>
What is it with you and forgetting the periods at the end of a paragraph? You
don't forget in the middle of a paragraph.
>>> You said it requires no labor.
>>>
>>
>> I said nothing of the sort. I said software has no variable cost. I also said
>> you're way out of your league here, and need to take an economics class in order
>> to look like less of a fool in this discussion.
>>
>> God, why do I bother.
>
>
>I don't know, why do you?
>
I'm a sucker for trying to enlighten the ignorant.
>>> It does
>>>require labor. Not physical labor, but labor indeed. There are people
>>>working on this project who probably spend 2 or 3 late nights a week, up
>>>till the wee hours of the morning trying to finish up a snippet of code,
>>>or fix a bug, or gain some performance. And they aren't doing it for
>>>money. They are doing it because they believe in the project, and they
>>>are taking time from their day to sit and fix something because they
>>>want to.
>>>
>>
>> Do they do this on each individual copy of Mozilla? Or do they do it once, and
>> then each copy is "produced" without any labor?
>
>
>Mozilla is open source. It is also a web browser. The web is not
>static. The web change, and evolves. These people who do so much great
>work here, will continue to do so until they quit. There will be new
>standards for them to code, performance gains make, and documentation to
>write. It's a never ending job
>
Is that a fixed cost, or a variable cost? Don't answer before consulting an
econ book.
>>> If you don't understand that, go away.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you at long last understand the difference between "fixed" and "variable"
>> cost, my dear Mr. Lag? If you don't understand that, shut your word hole.
>
>
>Fixed: Static. Unchanging
>Variable: Dynamic. Changing
>
Oh, so close. But I asked you about fixed and variable ***COSTS***, as the
terms are commonly used in business and economics. Don't make me get out the
charts and graphs.
[snip]
>>
>>
>>>>--
>>>>JTK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ya know, if you used a real newsreader it would put "-- " instead of
>>>"--", because then other real newsreaders (like, hey!, Mozilla) could
>>>strip your signature off automatically
>>>
>>
>> This better? I have to apologize, I am not nearly nerdly enough to have known
>> that you needed a space after the two minuses. And I'm using a web-based
>> newsgroup "reader", which Maozilla won't interface to to do such wonderful
>> things for me.
>
>*gasp* You are going to say that Mozilla can't access a web based news
>service through the news client???
No, I just did say it. Sheesh, now you can't tell the difference between past
and future?!?!
> Oh my god, how has this feature been
>left out.
It'd impact AOL's bottom line.
> I mean, IE has had this for, what, 5, 10 years now? Oh? IE
>doesn't have this feature? What is this?
"This" is you going off the deep end yet again. I'm using IE to use this
web-based newsreader. IE doesn't have a newsreader.
Holy Christ.
> No browser/news client
>anywhere has this feature?
Not to my knowledge, no. Sure seems like somebody could really be...
innovative... and add it to theirs. Especially if there was an "Open" one
around, somewhere.
> Oh, so you are a jackass too?
No, I'm more of a "brick hithouse". Skidmark.
> Wow, I'm
>impresssed. You lost the argument for yourself.
Well I'd pretty much have to lose it myself, wouldn't I? I mean seriously,
considering the "competition"... hehehehe, I can't even type the word with a
straight face!
> Genius
Punctuation-forgetter.
--
JTK
"One does not hate as long as one has a low esteem of someone, but only when
one esteems him as an equal or a superior." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche,
Beyond Good and Evil
