Linux-Advocacy Digest #644, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
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? (Eric Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
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? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Just converted
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 03:11:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
>In fact, in some cases, a monopoly could be good for consumers.
True, but none are good for the market.
>(such as when you have low barriers to entry but large economies of
>scale. A monopoly would be able to take advantage of the economies of
>scale, but if they raised prices much, someone else could try to enter
>the market).
If there are low barriers to entry, then someone else will, even if the
monopoly doesn't raise prices "much", or at all, for that matter.
Someone else may be more efficient, you see, and the free market's
'job', as it were, is to reward efficiency.
--
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 03:12:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8o3bun$l4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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."
>
>or Microsoft Works
No, that would be, truly, an oxymoron, as has already been widely noted.
--
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 03:13:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> No, that one's an oxymoron, and a famous one at that.
>
>"Hmmm. You keep saying that. I don't think that word means
>what you think it means."
>
>--Inougo Montoya
:-)
I'm almost glad I made the mistake, just to give you an excuse to post
that quote. <G>
In point of fact, I've used the word 'oxymoron' three times on Usenet
within the last six months. But I was mistaken in this example.
--
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: 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 03:14:33 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> [...]
> >I consider Social Security to be fundamentally broken. Look at what it
> >was originally supposed to do... provide for a few years of
> >retirement...
>
> I strongly disagree. Social Security was not originally supposed to be
> a retirement plan. It was intended to be security for society; a right
> to expect that some would not starve while other's remained wealthy.
Then how come anybody who was "starving" didn't qualify for its benefits
unless they happened to be old?
> >Maybe you should throw your support behind Nader instead of Gore.
>
> The more obvious it becomes that Gore will win (instead of Bush; I don't
> have anything against him in particular, except that he is a
> Republican), the more likely it is that I will, indeed, vote for Nader.
I would never vote for Nader but I would love to see him and Buchanan
allowed into at least one of the debates. I saw Nader on Crossfire a
couple weeks ago and it was interesting to see him hilight some of
Gore's hypocritical behavior. That's a good thing. Buchanan can to the
same to Bush.
It forces the major candidates to fully justify all of their positions,
instead of just being able to ignore certain things because they assume
they have all the extremist voters locked up and don't need to defend
their moves toward the center. Of course, the major parties got burned
by Perot and Ventura when they were allowed into the debates, so forget
about either of them allowing a real discussion anymore...
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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 03:17:12 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> [...]
> >Can't say I'm too confident about Gore either. If you think the fact
> >that he's promised to do it means he will actually do it, well, I have a
> >few bridges to sell you. Truth of the matter is, they both assume the
> >good economic times will continue, and if they don't, their promises go
> >out the window even if they really *did* intend to keep them.
>
> I'd say given your cogent argument, you're ethically required at this
> point to provide us with your reasonable alternative to Gore or Bush.
> We all know they're both unacceptable. The question for the voter is
> which is least unacceptable, I'm afraid.
I voted for McCain in the primaries. Unlike Bush or Gore, I could have
some enthusiasm in casting a vote for McCain. IIRC McCain's tax cut
package was about half the size of Bush's, and was characterized largely
by including a lot more people in the 15% bracket.
As for the question of whether Bush or Gore is less unacceptable, I
haven't made up my mind yet, and don't expect to do so until I see the
two of them debate.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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 03:16:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Oh, you can keep the market share, if you're able. But, no, you're not
>> allowed to maintain the monopoly power. That's monopolizing, and its a
>> crime.
>
>If you use "maintain" in the legal sense, yes. If you use it in the
>general sense, then no.
In this particular case, I can't see that there's any difference. To
maintain is to maintain.
>I think a lot of the arguments in this thread are going on because one
>person uses the first sense and somebody else misreads it as have been
>used in the second sense, or vice versa.
On other issues, you are correct. But the entire point of anti-trust
law (statute and precedent) is that a free market is a competitive
market. Which means unless you "willfully" maintain such power, you
aren't going to be able to maintain it at all. Adam Smith worked that
out centuries ago.
--
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 03:19:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Shocktrooper in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > But why did they have to start by pulling the rug out from under the
>> > consumer? Monkeying around with the method of setting market rates for
>> > kilowatts, suppliers (and, eventually, consumers) have had to pay up to
>> > 1000% increases on electrical rates. The whole "crisis" that afflicted
>> > the west coast last month wasn't because there wasn't enough
>> > electricity; it was because somebody figured out how to profiteer on it.
>>
>> Actually, it was *exactly* because there wasn't enough electricity.
>>
>> How did you manage to miss all of the "California is on the razor's edge
>> of blacking out" stories in July and early August?
>
>Um, because of restrictive licensing that prevented other electric companies to sell
>their surplus electricity to the consumers in
>the affected areas?
What "restrictive licensing" are you imagining? A public utility is not
a 'licensing' issue.
>If you did not have quasi-monopolies for electric authorities you wouldn't have this
>happen.
If you didn't confuse public utilities with commercial monopolies you
would not have this happen. Is that what you mean?
--
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: 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 03:23:22 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that most people can't manage to overcome the
> "distractions" of poverty, so they end up poor. In contrast, anyone born
> into an "elite" family has their success virtually guaranteed, even if
> they're not very bright (take a look at George W. Bush).
Tell that to Michael Andreas:
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/business/dailynews/adm980917/index.ht
ml
One nice thing about this article is that it ties back into the earlier
antitrust discussion in this thread and the incorrect claims that were
made about antitrust never being criminally enforeced.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 03:24:47 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd rather see them starve to death before they start doing damage.
>
> You are a hazard to the liberatarian party. With adherents
> like you, it's no wonder our support is so low.
>
Maybe you can get him to join the Reform Party. (Hey, it helped the
Republicans get rid of Buchanan...)
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
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 03:25:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>You're making so many absurd assumptions that it's hard to know where to
>start:
Am I?
>1. You assume that a temporary monopoly can't be harmful. It can.
Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
>2. You assume that a permanent monopoly is definitely harmful. It may
>not be.
The U.S. Congress say's you're wrong.
>3. You assume that high prices are prima facie evidence that a company
>has a monopoly. It isn't.
The U.S. Supreme Court say's you're wrong.
>4. You assume that a temporary monopoly can be overcome by a free
>market. It may not.
Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
>5. You assume that a "harmful" monopoly can not be overcome by a free
>market. It can.
The U.S. Congress say's you're wrong.
>Your understanding of these issues hovers right around the 2nd or 3rd
>grade level. Perhaps if you'd concentrate on provable theories rather
>than insane conspiracy crap you might be more believable
I say you're wrong.
--
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 03:28:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> The primary goal of advertising is supposed to be to increase your
>> sales, by providing information to potential customers about your
>> product and its competitive advantages. As it performs that function,
>> its perfectly legitimate, if somewhat obnoxious.
>
>But every time your sales increase, so does your market share.
Says who?
>> FUD, certainly, should be considered a Section 1 (restraint of trade)
>> violation. Don't you agree?
>
>I think it depends on the FUD.
Well, see, here's where I can't follow you. Because the law cannot
"depend" as much as you indicate by this statement. It doesn't depend
on the statements of the vendor, it depends on the effect of the
statements. Which is, of course, what defines the difference between
FUD and 'information'. So it doesn't depend on the FUD. It defines if
it is FUD.
>I don't look too kindly on monopolists
>preannouncing vaporware to prevent sales of upcoming challengers of the
>monopolist. But I'm not sure it should reach the point of illegality...
>by this time, people who trust Microsoft preannouncements have got to be
>very naive folks.
Microsoft still willfully maintains monopoly power, does it not?
--
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: 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 03:37:14 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In this particular case, I can't see that there's any difference. To
> maintain is to maintain.
How about if I draw a distinction between direct, intentional
maintenance through behaviors like dumping, vs. indirect maintenance
that comes about because of pro-competitive behavior, like providing
high-quality products. Both of these result in the monopoly power being
preserved, and thus both can be described as "maintenace", but only the
former is illegal.
> On other issues, you are correct. But the entire point of anti-trust
> law (statute and precedent) is that a free market is a competitive
> market. Which means unless you "willfully" maintain such power, you
> aren't going to be able to maintain it at all.
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.
> Adam Smith worked that
> out centuries ago.
Funny thing is, Adam Smith didn't think you could solve it by trying to
pass antitrust legislation...
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:32:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o7o0g$da1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux has crashed for me when the applications aren't coded very well --
> just run Netscape under Linux for example. Many people consider Linux
more
> reliable because they run undemanding console mode applications - not GUI
> apps. or anything remotely complex.
What do you mean crashed? Did the program crash possibly with a sigsegv?
Did X die? Or did the entire OS die? If so, which kernel were you using
and how did you determine that the entire OS died?
> Windows, OTOH, allows many programs to access hardware directly or almost
> directly, such as DirectX. This adds an element of instability, because
if
> the hardware driver isn't absolutely perfect, it can open the system up to
> vunerabilities.
Which would be the fault of the OS or the admin.
> Well DUH! That's the whole point of an application. Windows wins hands
> down here with server apps., middleware, and of course your normal desktop
> apps.
Based on what parameters?
> and games.
Yes there are more games for Window than Linux, but then WIndows has never
been as good a gaming platform as Dos was.
> Linux can't even begin to think about considering touching
> Windows 3rd party support in both apps. and drivers.
Yea those non disclosure agreements and orther non-competition clauses did
give Microsoft an advantage with some markets.
At the same time though, Windows can't even begin to think about considering
touching
Linux's haardware support. Linux supports more hardware than modern Windows
can ever hope to touch. No matter what size system you need Linux is there!
Where is Windows?
> I don't believe you. I've got RedHat 6.2 and it isn't any faster or
slower
> than my Windows 2000 installation (or even my NeXT TurboColor
> workstation)... Internet access relies more on your network setup and of
> course network conditions.
And what evidence is there to believe you?
> The Windows 2000 TCP/IP stack (and now the Windows ME stack -- not the
95,98
> stack) is highly optimized and is just as fast or faster than Linux's
TCP/IP
> stack.
And proven to be stable?
> Legacy games? What about the latest games such as MS Allegiance or Diablo
> 2?
Yes, them too. If he is leaving the world of Windows for Linux, then they
are Legacy games for him.
> And, I agree with you on the last point. Normal people (not OS geeks)
> are always going to use Windows because of the easy of setup, ease of use,
> wide application support and driver availability and being compatible with
> everyone else.
Careful you are on thin ice and there is crackling sounds all around you.
"easy of setup"? What do you mean by that? Easy for whom and under what
circumstances?
"ease of use", easy for whom and to do what? Some things can be easy with
windows and athers can be real bears. With Linux you have the choice of
working environments and can do most thing very easily, most often more
easily than with Windows.
"Wide application support"? There far are more application programs
available for Linux and unix that Windows could never hope to support. Many
come right with the distributions, with Windows they are extra purchases.
"driver availability" please expand on that, since I can not believe that
you are suggesting the Windows supports as much hardware as Linux does.
"being compatible with everyone else"??? Who is everyone else? What
hardware platforms are you considering.
> Linux is nothing new or special. If you want a real OS in the UNIX arena,
> check out Solaris or HP-UX.
You maybe correct in that Linux is nothing new, Linux is based on proven
technology. Linux has proven itself while Windows is still playing catchup
and offering vapor dreams. However, Linux is something special, depending
on your opinion it is either unix or is based on unix. What you learn by
running Linux can be transfered directly to any other unix you may
encounter. Linux runs on more hardware platforms than any other unix.
Linux can run on anything from a PC, Mac, or Amiga to minicomputers, to
mainframes. I dare say that whatever new feature Windows may comeout with
it will already be old hat with Linux. If Linux had existed in the late
70's or early 80's, Windows would not have existed today.
------------------------------
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 03:38:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> The primary goal of advertising is supposed to be to increase your
>> >> sales, by providing information to potential customers about your
>> >> product and its competitive advantages. As it performs that
>> >> function,
>> >> its perfectly legitimate, if somewhat obnoxious.
>>
>> > But every time your sales increase, so does your market share.
>>
>> Wrong, because the market itself also grows.
>
>With a zero-time limit, it only grows because of the additional sale you
>made.
>
>And, by the way not all markets grow. Do you think advertising should
>be illegal in markets that are not growing?
Section 2 of the Clayton Act, a statute equal to the Sherman Act in
providing the fundamental fabric of anti-trust action:
"[...T]he Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation and
hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits,
and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities
or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in
greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account
thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of
commerce[...]"
IOW: if "the market" only grows because of additional sales (not
additional demand), the FTC has the responsibility to set prices.
--
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 03:40:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Just because you made a sale does not mean the market grew. It means
> one of the potentials became a buyer.
Just because they became a buyer doesn't mean they aren't still a
potential buyer. The market is not a pie chart.
--
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 03:44:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other than
>> as a pseudonym.
>
>You said "'JS/PL' isn't a real person." That's not saying that he's
>using a pseudonym.
According to your interpretation, maybe. It is equivalent of saying
"'John Galt' isn't a real person", in my interpretation (and since I'm
the one that said it, I have slightly more say than you in its meaning.)
You may note that "John Galt" has posted several times to Usenet.
>I'm a real person -- no matter what I call myself. I could sign my
>letters "Marie Antoinette" and I wouldn't become any less real.
Goody for you. Does that make 'Marie Antoinette' a real person? No,
the fact that she was a real person is what makes her a real person.
Would you be a real person if you posted as "an imaginary character"?
Would that make 'an imaginary character' a real person?
>You need to learn that some people can read so you're not going to get
>away with nonsense like that
You need to realize that there are literally millions of people on this
planet, and only thousands posting to Usenet. And neither group would
for a second consider that I actually threatened "JS/PL's" life, whoever
he might be.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
