Linux-Advocacy Digest #791, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) (Mike Stephen)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (Andres Soolo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:38:13 GMT
> "The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements:
> (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
> willful acquisition [384 U.S. 563, 571] or maintenance of that power
> as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a
> superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. "
Two notes:
"Willful acquisition or maintainance" means you acquire and mean to
acquire or maintain and mean to maintain monopoly power. Furthermore,
the "as distinguished from" is a pretty big BUT. It would seem to
validate what we've been saying all along. Superior product, business
acumen, or historic accident are legitimate routes to monopoly.
Obviously, state-granted monopolies, like those that result from
natural monopoly grants or intellectual property, are also exempt
from censure under the Sherman Act.
After reading through what you write, Mr. Devlin, I'm noticing a
marked tendency to a definitions game. Misfortunately, linguistics
doesn't work like that. When ordinary speakers of the English
language say "monopoly" they mean one thing, and you would, if
you could, have them mean another.
It's not going to happen. Moreover, if you'd like to communicate
effectively you will have to disavow yourself of this habit.
I recommend that you turn to a simple dictionary to get some
idea for how your fellow human beings use and mean this word.
It may help you avoid senseless arguments on usenet, for example.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:40:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>If it is true that Apple is not factoring the OS cost into the overall price
>of the computer, then Apple must changed their actions in that reguard.
I'm not sure what you mean by "factoring in the cost". To me, the
concept of "factoring in" means it isn't a direct cost to speak of.
>I still recall when they used to sell the Apple ][ and the Apple ][+, same
>hardware, different firmware, different price. During the time of the
>overlap of AppleDos and ProDos, same hardware different OS, different price.
I've only ever dealt with the Macs, except casually.
>Now that there is only one OS shipped with any one model of hardware it
>could be that it is still happening but you don't have the basis for the
>comparison.
Which is to say there is nothing to compare, I'm afraid. Yes, the costs
of MacOS are certainly part of the price of a Macintosh computer system,
just as the cost of the paint on a car is part of the price of the car.
The costs of the computer operating system in the PC market, however, is
not part of the cost of the computer, because computer manufacturers
don't have their own OS. They "resell" licenses, straight-up. I paid
the OEM money for a license to Windows, but it isn't the OEM's product.
It is the fact that the OEM must pay Microsoft for each license they
sell, and the license agreement itself is not with the OEM, but with
Microsoft, that makes the situation plain as a direct cost to the
consumer, though the consumer never has any idea how much it is, these
days.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:41:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> According to the current legal precedent as I read it, Apple would not
>> have a claim should someone reverse engineer their ROMs in order to
>> produce Mac clone computers. This disassembly (though possibly not
>> direct decompiling) would probably be covered by the copyright issues
>> discussed in Vault v. Quaid and Sega v. Accolade, allowing for anyone
>> who has a reasonable justification for reverse engineering and even
>> copying software (whether in ROM or disk file) in order to compete on
>> production of a non-protected work (the Mac 'platform').
>
>Remember the Apricot computer and the Pineapple computer?
No. :-)
Tell me about them.
--
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: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:42:17 GMT
> The only hogwash in this discusssion is the crap you post. You are
> obviously neither a lawyer or smart enough to be a high school graduate.
Interestingly, however, I've noticed that in the last 20 or so
messages that I've read, it appears to be the one who stoops to
insults and epithets is YOU.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:46:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >The OEM licence isn't transferable anyway. So even if you could take your
>> >compaq restore cd and install the OS on a different computer you'd be
>doing
>> >it in violation of the license agreement. That's why Full OEM versions
>cost
>> >40 bucks.
>>
>> Define "different computer".
>
>It wouldn't matter.
I'd have to say you're wrong on that.
>I see where your attempting to go. Show me a EULA
>example, and I'll tell you what the qualifying hardware is, because it will
>explain it in that certain EULA.
They're all pretty much the same. And none that I've ever seen
mentioned anything other than "the computer system". As in
(paraphrasing; I'm sure not going to track it down for JS/PL) "this
product is part of the computer system on which it was purchased".
Something about being purchased as a bundle. Certainly no mention of
"motherboard" or "hard drive".
>For the most part, if you buy a major name
>OEM computer system the operating system that came with it cannott be
>tranferred to a different system. And some manufacturers create installers
>that look at the BIOS to verify, although that doesn't mean that BIOS is
>the qualifying hardware.
Boy, are you confused. If it doesn't mean that the BIOS is qualifying
hardware, why precisely do they look?
>That's the gist of it. I'm not going to waste time
>arguing the minute details of certain EULAs until you scan and post a
>particular one. I'm certainly not going to sort through a wall of boxes
>looking for an old OEM EULA.
Why bother, when you can just mis-remember it to suit your fancy, and
then confabulate it with OEM driver installations?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stephen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:47:54 GMT
On Sun, 1 Sep 3900 06:57:58, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 09/01/2000 at 01:38 AM,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > >People would rather put the money towards domestic programs, Social
> > >Security, and tax cuts, in that order, before they paying off existing
> > >debts.
>
> > I feel your pain. But it isn't domestic programs that put us into debt;
> > Americans would have probably ranked things the same way before there
> > was any debt. And the debt, it seems, came from defense spending,
> > bureaucracy, and corporate welfare, more than social spending or
> > undertaxation.
>
> What a load of Pure Bullshit! You are a flat out liar and typical Algore
> apologist. Go to Hell and stay there.
>
> It was the damn social welfare programs started by Roosevelt and expanded
> by the Johnson Administration which caused the huge debt we are all
> saddled with.
>
> Social Security abuse alone represents 80% of the debt. It was passed as a
> retirement supplement. It has become a huge transfer of wealth vehicle
> from the working class to the lazy, incompetent, drug infested misfits of
> America. Social Security was never meant to be the support of those too
> lazy, drug addicted, etc. SSI payments alone are greater than the interest
> on the debt.
>
> The Democratic administrations and congresses of the past 50 years have
> expanded the second biggest waste - government agencies beyond all reason.
> For God's sake, there are three times as many federal employees per capita
> today than there were in 1945 when more than 70% of those on the federal
> payroll were in the armed forces in wartime.
>
> Look at welfare. Only 29 cents of every dollar extracted from the working
> people gets to the recipients. The rest is wasted by lazy, incompetent,
> dishonest "civil servants".
>
Hey Germer.... Your true colours are again showing you for what
you are. A bigotted redneck. I will refrain from referring to
you in the same manner that you refer to others, but suffice it
to say, I am delighted the Canadian authorities have made you no
longer welcome in my country.
Is ther anything I can do to reinforce your reluctance to visit
Canada? Please let me know how we can keep you south of the
49th.
>From the Desk of Mike Stephen
Micro$oft has performed an illegal operation,
and will be shut down.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:50:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Actually, this is no longer the case. Direct3D now surpasses OpenGL in most
>of the recent advances in 3D technology. The problem is that OpenGL is
>controlled by comittee and takes years to change the standard. They have an
>extension mechansim, but every vendor implements these extensions
>differently, forcing a developer that wants to use the new features into
>supporting each vendors version of those features.
Well, I don't know the details, nor do I care to, but I'd say a FUD
alert is called for. Seems to me that OpenGL is a standard, and
Direct3D is Microsoft proprietary technology, which in the past has
generally shown itself to be a pile of crap. Now, that might just be
reverse FUD, but the facts do speak for themselves.
[...]
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:52:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >No they don't. If anything, Apple controls Sorensen. DivX was (IIRC),
>JVC.
>> >DVD is Phillips. DivX and DVD are based on MPEG, and DVD encryption is
>> >controlled by someone else -- Microsoft licenses their key.
>> >
>> >Microsoft does not control any of them.
>>
>> Yea, and Microsoft doesn't control the SPA or the W3C, either.
>
>Actually, Microsoft pulled out of the SPA after it drafted a letter of
>support for the DOJ trial.
LOL! I missed it. Do you have any details?
>Microsoft is heavily involved with the W3C, but
>certainly not to the level of being able to control it. In fact, the W3C
>often goes with competing versions (XML for instance).
If they influence it at all, its a bad thing, OK?
>> Yes, we know. And then they get to re-read the documentation to keep up
>> with MS-Churn (tm) if they should ever be so lucky as to establish a
>> market (temporarily).
>
>Actually, the Excel file format hasn't changed since Excel 5 (well, it has
>been backwards compatible. Excel 5 can read Excel 2000 documents (binary,
>not HTML)).
Putatively. And "backwards compatible" for Microsoft is "incompatible
or at least potentially problematic" for anyone else.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:53:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>I'll accept that as an admission that you accept what I said as fact.
Well, that would be incredibly unethical and intellectually dishonest of
you, but there's not much I can do to stop you.
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>> Pardon me, Erik, but I'm not responding to your post because its rather
>> late, and I can only entertain one ankle-biter at a time at the moment.
>> Try to misdirect somebody else's discussion for a little while, nKay?
>>
>> --
>> 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! =-----
>
--
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: Courageous <[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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:53:34 GMT
> >I would like to suggest that if someone makes a claim like
> >"but the rich don't pay taxes!" and then can't explain in at
> >least vague language how that could be, then that person has
> >a very weak position indeed.
>
> I don't believe he made such a claim.
As the message thread has gone on for quite some days, I had
no memory of what was originally said, except for its general
vein. However, since you became insulting and rude, I went to
the trouble of following the reference thread. What was said
was this:
"A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
country."
Since whoever this person was seems to be unable to back this point in
any fashion at all, I suggest we let this matter drop, and call a spade
a spade: this is an unsubstantiated sentence which hasn't been backed
in any way. Please don't do yourself the intellectual injury of demanding
that I attempt to prove a negative.
> I must again point out, however, that hyperbole used dishonestly is not
> hyperbole, but merely dishonesty. Since I must presume you know what
> his claim was (that there were rich people who pay no taxes,
> effectively), it isn't untoward to suspect that you are mis-quoting him
> rather dishonestly in misrepresenting his claim to begin with.
You are rude, insulting, and have a self-important view of yourself.
You need to turn inward and not outward in order to find what you
are looking for.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:59:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The difference in behaviour between a psychopath with a long view
>> and a normal person is minimal.
>
>Criminal psychopaths are untreatable, have high recividism rates,
>and are able to infiltrate all elements of society. Normal criminals
>are the exact opposite. This is not "minimal" from any perspective.
Well, maybe from a generally useless theoretical perspective.
>>"Good" corporations have a long view.
>
>The only good corporations are cooperatives (modulo the very rare
>private corporation working in a market where its employees have
>it by the balls).
Better yet, their customers, but only in a very large market.
>> When they become publicly traded and are pushed by share-holders and
>> analysts to maximize quarterly returns ... But I would argue that it
>> is the share-holders who are ultimately being psychopathic by proxy,
>> not the corporation.
>
>Same thing. Why is it that people feel the need to discuss the metaphysics
>of corporations when someone proves they are undesirables in the extreme?
You noticed that, too? <G>
[...]
>> Narrowly, ignoring the fact that humans are irrational and therefore
>> their self-interest is not definable by Spock.
>
>On the contrary, one could easily argue that it is in people's
>self-interest to /become/ Spock ...
One could easily argue otherwise, as well. But I guess that's what
makes it 'self-interest', eh? :-)
Corporations are fine, I think, as long as they have charters stricter
than "make money", and anti-trust laws are more fully enforced.
--
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: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:59:36 GMT
> >Nope, this explicitly says that Microsoft already had ONE monopoly,
> >and was attempting to use that in order to gain a SECOND monopoly.
>
> Both were in violation. See that? Both?
Yes. I agree with this.
> batteries of lawyers, it would be clear and easy to understand. Popular
> wisdom is leading you astray. Think harder. :-|
Patronizing someone is seldom ever a good conversational gambit.
C//
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: 1 Sep 2000 08:02:28 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I say "might probably" because the DNS system is, in many ways, the
> "achilles's heel" of the Internet, and it wouldn't surprise me if news
> of a hack were somewhat muted, if not suppressed, so as not to seem to
> be inciting unrest by causing the public to become concerned about the
> danger.
Who could have that kind of power?
And who would be interested in actively preventing panic?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"I don't believe in astrology. But then I'm an Aquarius, and Aquarians
don't believe in astrology."
-- James R. F. Quirk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
