Linux-Advocacy Digest #685, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:45:20 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > We should slowly let them starve to death? That's worse!
> >
> > NAME ONE PERSON who is starving to death in the United States....
>
> http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/30years/30years.pdf
>
> "...between 1988 and 1994, 4.1% of the U.S. population lived in families
> that report sometimes or often not getting enough food to eat."
>
> That's 12 million people.
It's also not 12 million people who are going to die, even if they are
malnourished. I'd prefer to be malnourished than dead.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:47:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >> At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
> >
> >Many incidental technologies generally flow from such efforts.
>
> "Star Wars" is not landing a man on the moon, I'm afraid.
Then why don't you explain the technical reasons why it's likely to
produce fewer spinoffs?
Oh, I remember. You just post your feelings and facts be damned.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:48:04 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There are several problems with that.
>
> 1. A "safety net" can mean a lot of different things. For some people,
> it's only meant to cover the most dire emergencies. For others, it's
> meant to cover every little thing that could go wrong -- and ends up
> being a way of life.
>
> 2. I have sufficient savings and insurance to provide my own safety net.
> Barring that, I have a family. Then a church. The argument you're facing
> is that people should rely on their own resources _first_. What's
> happening is that they're relying on the government first.
To extend your reasoning a little... suppose I want to voluntarily opt
out of this government insurance program? Why can't I? Suppose I'm
confident in my ability to take care of myself. I should be able to opt
out, and save at least part of my money. But I can't. I'm forced to
buy a "safety net" that I don't want, and that everyone admits might not
be there if I should somehow actually ever need it.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:50:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > We should slowly let them starve to death? That's worse!
> >
> > NAME ONE PERSON who is starving to death in the United States....
>
> http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/30years/30years.pdf
>
> "...between 1988 and 1994, 4.1% of the U.S. population lived in families
> that report sometimes or often not getting enough food to eat."
Which is not the same as starving to death.
>
> That's 12 million people.
>
> I'd give you names, but it's easier for you if I don't, isn't it?
Actually, it wouldn't matter to Aaron.
I just want to point out that there are a lot of positions between his
and ZnU's on this topic and that one could argue that there are not as
many poor people as the Democrat's claim without going to Aaron's
extreme.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: 27 Aug 2000 19:55:04 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:58:54 GMT, Joe Ragosta wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The small private school my kids used to go to cost $3,300 per student.
>I believe the tuition was about half the expense (an endowment paid the
>rest). So, for $6,600 per student, we got class sizes of no more than 20
>students, quite adequate facilities, and an education that put the kids
>(on average) at about the 75th percentile, based on SAT scores.
The population for this school is somewhat self-selected.
I will note again that you cannot make meaningful comparisons with respect to
the quality of education without controlling for the ability of incoming
students. ( And even then, there are other issues to consider like the fact
that the parents are more concerned about their child's educations )
So the nit I want to pick is that you can't attribute the SAT scores to
"quality of education" without more evidence, though it seems unlikely that
the quality of education was "bad" ( as that would require us to believe
that these kids were all budding rocket scientists )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:58:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> Penn State, in fact, has such a large alumni association that it is not
> considered a public institution.
And T. Max proves once more that his ignorance won't stop him from
posting lies.
Penn State _is_ considered a public institution. At least by anyone who
knows what they're talking about.
Please point to a single source that considers Penn State to be Private.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: 27 Aug 2000 20:00:33 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:19:38 GMT, Mike Marion wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>The fact that _anyone_ can graduate from High School without basic skills like
>reading shows that there's a serious problem.
Would you care to back up your bold claim with some statistics ?
>> Japan don't have any minorities, due to their policy of racial exclusivism.
>> Do you think that America's minorities would do substantially better if
>> you just moved them to Japan ?
>
>Japan also damn near drives their students insane with the pressure to succeed
>at any cost. Kids at the start of their school career already feel like
>they've failed and won't get into a good college if they have one bad class.
Your rhetoric has no scientific merit.
I'm going to repeat myself here -- note this:
To show that an education system is inferior, you need to control for the
ability of incoming students.
You cannot naively assume that the kids enterring both systems have equal
ability ( they do not. )
You cannot use rhetoric and anecdote as a substitute for factual evidence.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:05:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> "See Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210,
>> 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ('Because the ability of consumers to turn to other
>> suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive
>> level, the definition of the 'relevant market' rests on a determination
>> of available substitutes.'). "
>>
>> Apple computers do not constitute an alternative supply of
>> Intel-compatible PC operating systems.
>
>Apple provides a different OS. But there is a barrier to switching,
>namely the cost of purchasing new hardware and software. The question
>is, does this barrier prevent so much switching that the barrier
>effectively creates separate markets? I'm not convinced that it does,
>especially where corporate purchases are invovled. Of course, even if
>you include Apple in the relevant market, Microsoft still has market
>share that leads directly to a conclusion of monopoly, so whether Apple
>is included is irrelevant IMO.
I'm sorry, any suggestion that having to purchase a whole new computer
in order to replace an operating system constitutes an alternate supply
of Intel-compatible PC OSes is obvious enough evidence that Apple is not
part of the relevant market, as they do not provide either
Intel-compatible PC OSes nor Intel-compatible PCs. If PC OSes
themselves were routinely replaced by "just getting a new computer", I'd
see your point. But the upgrade behavior of Microsoft alone is enough
to refute that claim in their defense; they do sell after-market
upgrades, and so they obviously they don't consider the market to make
buying a new computer a feasible alternative to replacing an operating
system.
>> >If you're so inclined, you might check out U.S. v. DuPont (1956) for a
>> >Supreme Court case that turned entirely on the definition of the
>> >relevant market. DuPont was sued for monopolization of the market for
>> >cellophane. DuPont argued this was not the relevant market, and they
>> >won:
>> >
>> >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=351&invol=377
>>
>> Yes, I've heard about the famous cellophane case, but only through
>> popular wisdom. Thanks for the source. I'll be interested in reading
>> the courts decision directly, as I can't see how cellophane ('round
>> these parts, we just say "saran wrap") is not a market unto itself.
>
>Then I assume you will side with the dissenting opinion, which does make
>some excellent arguments.
That may well be. I've not yet had time to get into it, actually.
Perhaps I'll do so now, so I can comment before the weekend is over.
--
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: Joe Ragosta <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:07:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Träger) 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.
> >
> >Then why do you keep saying that merely "profiteering" should bring a
> >civil punishment on a company?
>
> You misunderstand, still, the phrase "civil injunction" as I have used
> it.
Oh, I get it.
That's another of those words that you want to change the meaning of
because your feelings are different than the way everyone else in the
universe defines it.
If you'd stick to terminology that the rest of the world uses, perhaps
you wouldn't look so foolish.
>
> >> [...]
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >You're misquoting him.
>
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting him, at all, though I obviously am not
> quoting him, as he never met you or responded to you on Usenet, AFAIK.
There's this thing called a "book". If you really believe that Smith
said that, feel free to do this thing called "read" to see what he said.
Last time I checked, Usenet is not the only source of information in the
world. Perhaps that's your problem. You never realized that there's a
world outside of Usenet.
> [...]
> >> >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.
> >
> >Then why do you keep saying that if my profit margins are higher than
> >you think they should be ("profiteering"), then I should be hit with a
> >civil injunction?
>
> It isn't "hit with" a civil injunction, its "subject to" civil
> injunction, which means courts, judges, police, press reports, and the
> full array of mechanisms for uncovering and preventing unethical
> behavior in society.
So your feelings lead you to change the meaning again.
NOW, you're taking an absolutely simplistic position. "If you charge
lots of money for a product, the government might look into whether you
have a monopoly or not".
That's a syllogism. Look it up -- if you can find a dictionary on Usenet.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:10:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...endless ad hominem and style over substance arguments deleted...]
>OK. Then where's the factual evidence to back up your position. You
>don't have any. You merely assume that it's true.
I presume it is true, as it fits all of the available evidence, so far
as I am aware. I have justified my position through reason and evidence
(you might not have realized what all that "quoting from precedent" was
all about, but that's called 'backing up your position' among those less
prone to heated squabbling and more interested in reasoned discussion
than yourself), and still await any attempt to confront, let alone
refute, that position. Your protests that no argument against my
position is necessary is simply yet another of your logical failures.
I'm reasonably sure that it is based on your inability to even
comprehend what my position is, and your implied insistence that this is
not due to your own lack of ability is rather empty in that regard.
--
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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:10:56 GMT
In article <39a920af$13$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >There are several problems with that.
>
> >1. A "safety net" can mean a lot of different things. For some people,
> >it's
> >only meant to cover the most dire emergencies. For others, it's meant
> >to
> >cover every little thing that could go wrong -- and ends up being a way
> >of
> >life.
>
> >2. I have sufficient savings and insurance to provide my own safety net.
> >Barring that, I have a family. Then a church. The argument you're facing
> > is
> >that people should rely on their own resources _first_. What's
> >happening is
> >that they're relying on the government first.
>
> You can't get enough government assistance to live, if you have your own
> resources. Those who do are about as far down the ladder as a person can
> be
> in this society.
Wrong. The government "poverty levels" are too high.
I earned far less than the poverty level (not much more than half) when
I was in graduate school and I did just fine. Even had some money for
luxuries.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:12:43 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[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.
>Been down in a hole for the past five years or what? OEM computers are jammed
>full of non Microsoft software
You've been around long enough to have read the Findings of Fact. It's the
forced loading of the OS that controls the sale of other software -- Your
statement begs the question; are you an M$ paid shrill or just an idiot who
refuses to learn.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:14:13 -0400
Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>ZnU wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
>> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Marion
>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Perry Pip wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > And you want my taxes to pay for vouchers for that shit? No way.
>> > > >
>> > > > As someone who started out in public schools, then switched to
>> > > > private school, I can say without a doubt that the education I got at
>> > > > the private school was _much_ better then I could've gotten in the
>> > > > public system. My parents sacrificed a lot for my sister and I (and
>> > > > we both let them know that we appreciate what they did) to go to
>> > > > private school. I have plenty of friends that went to public school
>> > > > that wish they could've also gone to private school and talk about
>> > > > how bad they were/are.
>> > >
>> > > It depends where you live. In rich suburbs, the public schools are of
>> > > very high quality. They're properly funded. In inner cities, they're
>> > > woefully underfunded, and they're horrible.
>> >
>> > You might want to check your facts.
>> >
>> > The funding level in some of those inner city schools isn't very
>> > different from suburban spending.
>>
>> In 1992 in New York state the richest (suburban, of course) school
>> district spent $38,572 per student vs. $5,423 for the poorest (inner
>> city).
>>
>> In Texas, it was $42,000 vs. $3,098.
>>
>> In Illinois, it was $16,700 vs. $2,276.
>>
>> > Money doesn't solve problems.
>>
>> No, but good teachers, good equipment and good facilities do, and money
>> pays for all of that.
>Evidently, this man has never been in the military.
>The majority of my military training, the classes have either been held
>outside (i.e. ***NO*** teaching facility), or some minimal resources
>structure. I once had a class on military digital telephone communications
>in a building that was literally falling apart. No heat, broken windows,
>roof was leaking like a seive, no electricity--the unit sponsoring the class
>had to bring in
>a generator on a trailer just so we could have electricity for the overhead
>projector (the facility was an old missile silo site south of Detroit...and
>the surface buildings had not been maintained in the slightest since the air
>force abandoned the site).
>And yet...despite tall of that....we learned the material.
Now tell us that you went there everyday for nine months and that if you were
10 or 12 or 15 that it would not have bothered you or affected you ability to
learn at all!
>The problem with the public schools is *NOT* the quality of the
>facilities...no...the problem with the public schools is what
>material is being presented by the teachers...and what is not.
You need to quite you job and spend a year as a substitute teacher in K-12. If
you're really lucky, and open your mind you just might learn how different the
world is from your own narrow views.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:12:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Carter has devoted his post-presidential life to public service, for
> > which he's been widely given honors and respect, as he deserves.
>
> Quite true. Carter was an awful President, but seems to be
> an outstanding humanitarian. Credit where credit is due.
Actually, in retrospect, Carter was a decent President. He didn't do
much.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:14:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> >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.
>>
>> You mean draw a distinction between, say, willful acquisition and
>> maintenance of monopoly power, as distinguished from superior products,
>> business acumen, or accident of history?
>
>What I am saying is that under the popular (rather than legal)
>definition of maintenance, the latter items also qualify as maintenance.
Which is one of the reasons I try to make it quite clear that it is not
appropriate to base casual reference to law on popular definitions of
legal terms. The question isn't whether one could ingenuously confuse
willful maintenance with fortunate happenstance, the question is whether
that has any bearing on the law, and what precisely is illegal or not
illegal in terms of monopolies. I don't *care* whether 'popular wisdom'
cannot distinguish between willful maintenance of monopoly and superior
product, business acumen, or accident of history; the point is that the
courts not only 'care', they routinely are called on to distinguish the
two, because appearances and popular wisdom aside, they are not at all
the same thing.
--
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
******************************
