Linux-Advocacy Digest #915, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 06:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Phil B)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Stefaan A
Eeckels)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (sandman)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! ("by")
Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway? (D. Spider)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil B)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 03:17:28 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On 09/03/2000 at 08:31 PM,
> > "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >> >
> >> > The cost per student for the private schools is the tuition. They get no
> >> > other funding.
> >> >
> >
> >> Not true.
> >
> >> Religious schools receive large amounts of money from their affiliated
> >> church.
> >
> >That is far, far, far, far, far from a universal truth. In SOME Roman
> >Catholic dioceses, the diocese provides some funding. In others, not a
> >cent. There is NO hierarchy for the Quakers. Each Meeting is totally
> >independent and there is no central organization which provides funding of
> >any sort to Quaker schools. Ditto for the plethora of indpendent Christian
> >schools which are only related to a single church.
>
> Yes, "church". As in "single church". Local church. Parish church.
> Congregation. I think these are what Joe's been trying to say all
> along, Bob. Others have mentioned it as well. Private schools have
> non-tuition funding, quite often. Some of them quite a bit of it, in
> fact. I wonder if anyone's thought to look for a correlation with
> *that*, rather than the per-student expenditures and/or income?
>
(Apologies in advance if the following provides more detail about
Quakerism than anyone reading this thread would otherwise want to know,
but most will probably just attribute it to impending senility and move
on... <g>)
In the case of the Quakers, if memory serves, it is true that there is
typically no direct affiliation between local Quaker Meetings [or
congregations...] and Quaker schools, in contrast to the ties of community
and membership that often exist between other types of private religious
schools and some kind of local 'sponsoring' parish or diocese.
(Frequently, in fact, Quaker schools will have made some kind of provision
for establishing their own Meetings on campus grounds, so in these cases,
it almost becomes a matter of the school supporting a Meeting, instead of
the other way around... <g>)
A minor nit-pick regarding Bob's comments above, but in terms of the
overall religious organization, FWIW, there is in fact a certain
hierarchy, whereby all individual Quaker Meetings are grouped regionally
into what are called Yearly Meetings, which often address broader
administrative and fiscal concerns in addition to questions of Quaker
religious practice, both nationally and worldwide. In matters of
education, in particular, the Friends Council on Education is a central
sounding board in the U.S. for helping teachers and administrators decide
general issues of Quaker school policy, for advice and discussion on
upholding Quaker values in education today, and etc. The influence of
these more centralized organizational bodies on specific Quaker schools
and/or on specific Quaker Meetings is quite indirect and essentially
non-financial in nature, however, so I think Bob's general point still
stands, in that regard... (As compared to most human organizations and
institutions of any kind, I would also tend to agree that Quakers tend to
favor a more open and non-hierarchical structure than most; yet at the
same time, I have a certain amount of difficulty envisioning the Quakers
I've known as representing or promoting a completely de-centralized
anarcho-libertarian individualism, either in concept or in practice, for
whatever that is worth... YMMV... <g>)
Even where there would naturally be an indirect affiliation of some kind,
eg., where a Quaker school might recruit Quaker pupils from a local Quaker
Meeting or where a Quaker Meeting might be comprised to some degree of
alumni or faculty and staff from a nearby Quaker school, I would venture
to guess that Quakers will still typically remain in the minority within
the student populations of Quaker schools as a whole... This being so, it
is doubtless also the case that in order to have their children attend a
Quaker school, some Quaker parents might have to send them halfway across
the country instead of just across the street, viz. to a
neighborhood/parish school, esp. given the fact that something like 85% of
all Quaker private K-12 schools in the country are located to the east of
Indiana and half of the rest are in California...
In any event, given such a highly decentralized and indirect linkage
between Quaker Meetings and Quaker schools, at least in terms of local
'sponsorship' and direct financial support at the parish (or
equivalent...) level, it is clear that Quaker schools must rely on other
sources for funding, as Bob suggests. And yet, to the best of my
knowledge, it is not the case that Quaker schools rely entirely on student
tuitions for that funding.
See the fiscal information for one of the NJ district Quaker schools that
Bob mentioned in the original post, for example, at:
http://www.mfriends.org/alumni.html
(viz. the various fund-raising drives and capitalization programs listed
under 'Supporting Moorestown Friends School'...)
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
Cheers,
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:41:40 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Humans are programmed (by selfish /genes/) to act in a selfless manner.
> And they are so programmed because altruism and cooperation are
> absolutely necessary for any functioning society. Social dilemnas
> (like whether to contribute to public television) cannot be resolved
> by selfish people. A society composed of purely selfish people would
> immediatiely collapse because public funding of social necessities
> cannot be justified on the basis of enlightened self-interest.
This is a marvellous example of the danger inherent in anthropomorphism.
Genes aren't selfish, and genes don't program. Genes carry information
that can cause creatures to behave in a certain way across generations.
Thus, behaviour that enables the creature to reproduce better than
a creature not carrying the gene (or combination of genes) in question
will result in more instances of the gene (or combination) in future
generations.
The analogy with programming (which currently refers to the
deterministic fashion computers execute programs) is that human
behaviour is dependent more on experience than on innate directives.
The gene combination that causes adaptive behaviour has been
a lot more successful than the combination causing mandatory
selflessness (as exhibited by ants), even though the combination
that gives us the need to classify fellow humans as closer or
further removed from ourselves is as strong as in ants.
Humans act selfless towards people they recognise as genetically
close. You're more enclined to favour your children than your
brothers and sisters, whom you'll favour more than your nieces
and nephews, and so forth. There's ample evidence that people
_do_ favour their offspring, or nepotism wouldn't be a problem.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 05:14:00 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
[snip]
>"While the Court agrees with plaintiffs, and thus holds that Microsoft
>is liable for illegal tying under § 1, this conclusion is arguably at
>variance with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
>Circuit in a closely related case, and must therefore be explained in
>some detail. Whether the decisions are indeed inconsistent is not for
>this Court to say. "
>
>>By shorthand, I generally accept that a finding that the browser is a
>>distinct product/market, eg no tech tying, is the kiss of death for
>>Microsoft (except as to remedies).
>
>How could anybody even question whether browsers were a separate market
>from operating systems, or that Microsoft combined the two by
>'integrating' IE into Win98? Even Microsoft must admit this. They just
>don't understand why its illegal, they can't deny they did it.
Are you saying reasonable people can't disagree on this?
This is classic Max. When the trier of law is the anybody, ie the appeals
court, then most lawyers know enough to just keep their mouths shut so as
not to change the situation, and let the opposition argue with the
decision-maker. :)
In other words, judges are usually very stubborn if they haven't taken a
view. This is because most of them have heard it all and are not likely to
be easily persuaded once they take a view. Both Jackson and the appeals
court are living proof of this.
This is basically why the DoJ got its hired gun in there. Boies was expected
to, and did, sling enough mud by adding all these marginal instances such as
RealAudio/RealPlayer. In the profession, that's called innuendo, and is
basically the same thing as spin in the media.
Of course, RealAudio has the dominent position on the client. So much for
preventing competition.
The DoJ case is about Microsoft preventing competiting middleware from
exposing APIs.
Netscape could "expose APIs" until the end of time and they wouldn't be able
to create a meaningful development platform.
Netscape browser, of course, was little more than a dumb terminal. Adding
Java just doubled the trouble. Java was basically hype to sell Sun servers.
Had it been good technology, Sun and Netscape would be ruling the desktop at
this point.
Now Microsoft is trying the same OS on an OS with its .NET Platform.
The Java Platform is continuing the hype, has the server software mindshare
and what is happening. It doesn't scale.
If Sun can't get EJB to scale within about a year, it will lose that
mindshare.
What's the difference? When Microsoft has a problem, they call in experts.
Like Jim Gray for transaction processing. All the language researchers
around the globe to develop its Intermediate Language with its Common Type
System and Metadata interfaces. Guys like Bertrand Meyer, who is the creator
of Eiffel and a leading light of OO, especially on components and their
contracts.
And Sun? There's always McNealy, a real brilliant guy to lead Java into the
tech frontiers. At Sun, there's like a bunch of fundamentalists trying to
deal with techology.
Like Max trying to deal with the law.
>
> [...general confabulation snipped...]
>>My view is that the browser, the web middleware client will subsume the
OS,
>>as part of a larger process where the Client subsumes the Server,
especially
>>via clusters.
>
>Well, assuming that this isn't just the random babblings of a
>'visionary', which is what it sounds like, you might be right.
The pre beta is out, people are programming with it.
"At the heart of the .NET platform is a common language runtime engine and a
base framework. All programmers are familiar with these concepts. I'm sure
many of you have at least dabbled with the C runtime library, the standard
template library, the MFC library, the Active Template Library, the Visual
Basic® runtime library, or the Java virtual machine. In fact, the Windows
operating system itself can be thought of as a runtime engine and library.
Runtime engines and libraries offer services to applications, and
programmers love them because they save time and facilitate code reuse. See
Microsoft .NET Framework Delivers the Platform for an Integrated, Service-
Oriented Web at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0900/Framework/Framework.asp
It may appear on the client with the browser, on the traditional client, on
a device (with the economy JIT runtime), on the traditional server or the
home server.
Is middleware in general a product?
Is the .NET Platform middleware a product or a feature? Will middleware ever
be sold as a separate product?
Is the Java Platform a product?
It can appear on any of the above, but in order to maximize Sun server
sales, you might say it's client side development has lagged. :)
But due to Max's favorite idiom, ie competition (from the .NET Platform),
the Java Platform might just get religion and start doing useful things on
the client. Halleluia!
Watches Max extend tushie in a certain direction.
The competition will be fun to watch.
Probably neither the client nor the server worlds can prevent competition at
this point, due to the web, which has opened everything up, and whoever
doesn't move on is doomed.
Sun worst fear would be the .NET Platform running on the Linux OS (both
client and server systems) sold by Dell.
Oh Scott: The network is not the computer; the network is a link. And that
is your worst headache. In a few years, people will be doing on a cheap
cluster of Linux home workstations for what you currently charge a million
dollars.
Call it the revenge of the Ghost of the NCSA, named Boewulf, for joining
with Netscape after they ripped off the NCSA's Mosaic intellectual property.
:)
Oh, and another thing, they can't be crashing because Java servlets can
scale. If you don't fix this, Sun is history. Just some free advice.
The difference between us is that I say it's an issue, whereas you say you
know for sure, and anyone, including one probable trier of the appeals case,
who disagrees is not using the proper "RULE OF REASON" and are therefore
stupid because they don't know how to use big legal words in the same
fashion that you do, ie that inimitable Jailhouse Lawyer style.
2 + 2
>But it
>hasn't already happened, so I think you should read these words from
>Judge Jackson, as well. He is discussing his grounding in the
>precedential cases, Parish and Kodak.
>
>"In both cases the Supreme Court instructed that product and market
>definitions were to be ascertained by reference to evidence of
>consumers' perception of the nature of the products and the markets for
>them, rather than to abstract or metaphysical assumptions as to the
>configuration of the 'product' and the 'market.'"
There will be much, much more to it.
>
>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>
>--
>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: sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:25:17 +0200
In article <YGXr5.8510$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Which OS allows you to DnD onto the Task manager (or similar app)?
>
> > If "DnD" means Drag-n-Drop, MacOS does. It's built-in task manager allows
> > for documents to be dragged and opened in a running application.
>
> You can drag a document onto the little Task Icon in the upper right corner
> of the menu bar?
Of course not, but you can DnD to the Task manager, which was the question you
asked. The icon in the upper right is only the menu to display and optionally
open the Task manager window which you can drag to. DnD to menues are absurd in
my eyes. And for the second part of you question, all task manager (similar)
apps, like DragThing allows for Drag'n'Drop.
> > > > They're still repersented as buttons, only less useful (see above).
> > > That depends on the OS. NT displays tasks in a list.
> >
> > Yeah, well, and as buttons.
>
> Not in the task manager.
The 'Task'-bar is not a Task manager?
> > > The start button is not part of the task bar. They are two seperate
> > > pieces of functionality.
> >
> > Yes, well... They are part of the same thing, right? As both are a part of
> > explorer.exe? The "Home" button in Netscpae is a part of the toolbar in
> > Netscape even if they are two seperate pieces of functionality :)
>
> No. that's like saying the apple menu is the same thing as finder.
No, actually it's like saying that the Apple menu is a -part- of the Finder,
which it is. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 02:30:42 -0700
Hmm, I see things differently.
If we're talking about copying files here, isn't it better to say 'make
a copy of the file' instead of 'make an image of the file' ?
But that doesn't really matter. Maybe the Unix/Linux terminology is the
original and thus the 'correct' one (99% don't care), but in the long
run, it doesn't matter which terminology pervails because it's just
semantics.
On the pragmatic side, given the fact that there're more windows users
out there, given the fact that a significant portion of their users come
from windows background, given the fact that unix/linux technies can get
by with either terminology, and given the fact that regular windows
users will be stuck when they encounter unfamiliar jargon, Red Hat
should have used the windows terminology.
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ok0o3$d3s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> DES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give
Linux a
> : try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red
Hat for
> : their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days.
Yes I
> : did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody
language!!! For
> : those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now
means
> : "driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things
easy for
> : us!
>
> You are correct that the terminology differs some. But you
incorrectly
> attribute the differences to Linux deviating, when it was Windows that
> deviated from the terminology that preceeded it in the UNIX world.
The
> fact that you learned the Windows terminology first doesn't mean it
> was first.
>
> Oh, and Image does not mean "copy". Copy can both be a verb and a
noun.
> Image is typically only a noun. It means "the thing you got when you
> copied."
>
> And server does not mean driver. Server means server, as in it sits
> there and waits for network connections (I assume you are talking
> about the X server here). The X server waits for programs to connect
> to it to make little windows on your screen and draw in them. The
> fact that it *also* contains video drivers doesn't change this.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.windows.advocacy,comp.os.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:46:59 GMT
It appears that on 15 Aug 2000 15:49:38 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Coulouris) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>
>>Wow, one of my hobbies is to try to figure out the latest coniving
>>scheme of MS, but I totally missed this one. Probably because I don't
>>pay much attention to the 'gaming consoles' like the X-Box is 'supposed'
>>to be.
>>
>>However unlikely it might be, I wouldn't be completely suprised if this
>>actually had a bit of truth about it.
>>
>>--
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
>Well, with broadband access becoming more widespread and PXE coming along,
>this sort of thing seems plausible, maybe even desirable. Your
>computer/xbox/whatever would netboot from your local provider, and the OS
>rental fee could be lumped in as a "value-added" ISP service. Ostensibly it
>would reduce complexity for the user, as the OS could fetch new components
>as necessary and the user wouldn't have to worry about upgrades. Basically
>the xterm/thin client/etc. concept applied to the masses.
>
>This of course hinges on a robust, scalable, secure implementation.. :-)
>
>-George
So they'll run *nix behind the firewall ;^)
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 05:14:00 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
[snip]
>"While the Court agrees with plaintiffs, and thus holds that Microsoft
>is liable for illegal tying under § 1, this conclusion is arguably at
>variance with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
>Circuit in a closely related case, and must therefore be explained in
>some detail. Whether the decisions are indeed inconsistent is not for
>this Court to say. "
>
>>By shorthand, I generally accept that a finding that the browser is a
>>distinct product/market, eg no tech tying, is the kiss of death for
>>Microsoft (except as to remedies).
>
>How could anybody even question whether browsers were a separate market
>from operating systems, or that Microsoft combined the two by
>'integrating' IE into Win98? Even Microsoft must admit this. They just
>don't understand why its illegal, they can't deny they did it.
Are you saying reasonable people can't disagree on this?
This is classic Max. When the trier of law is the anybody, ie the appeals
court, then most lawyers know enough to just keep their mouths shut so as
not to change the situation, and let the opposition argue with the
decision-maker. :)
In other words, judges are usually very stubborn if they haven't taken a
view. This is because most of them have heard it all and are not likely to
be easily persuaded once they take a view. Both Jackson and the appeals
court are living proof of this.
This is basically why the DoJ got its hired gun in there. Boies was expected
to, and did, sling enough mud by adding all these marginal instances such as
RealAudio/RealPlayer. In the profession, that's called innuendo, and is
basically the same thing as spin in the media.
Of course, RealAudio has the dominent position on the client. So much for
preventing competition.
The DoJ case is about Microsoft preventing competiting middleware from
exposing APIs.
Netscape could "expose APIs" until the end of time and they wouldn't be able
to create a meaningful development platform.
Netscape browser, of course, was little more than a dumb terminal. Adding
Java just doubled the trouble. Java was basically hype to sell Sun servers.
Had it been good technology, Sun and Netscape would be ruling the desktop at
this point.
Now Microsoft is trying the same OS on an OS with its .NET Platform.
The Java Platform is continuing the hype, has the server software mindshare
and what is happening. It doesn't scale.
If Sun can't get EJB to scale within about a year, it will lose that
mindshare.
What's the difference? When Microsoft has a problem, they call in experts.
Like Jim Gray for transaction processing. All the language researchers
around the globe to develop its Intermediate Language with its Common Type
System and Metadata interfaces. Guys like Bertrand Meyer, who is the creator
of Eiffel and a leading light of OO, especially on components and their
contracts.
And Sun? There's always McNealy, a real brilliant guy to lead Java into the
tech frontiers. At Sun, there's like a bunch of fundamentalists trying to
deal with techology.
Like Max trying to deal with the law.
>
> [...general confabulation snipped...]
>>My view is that the browser, the web middleware client will subsume the
OS,
>>as part of a larger process where the Client subsumes the Server,
especially
>>via clusters.
>
>Well, assuming that this isn't just the random babblings of a
>'visionary', which is what it sounds like, you might be right.
The pre beta is out, people are programming with it.
"At the heart of the .NET platform is a common language runtime engine and a
base framework. All programmers are familiar with these concepts. I'm sure
many of you have at least dabbled with the C runtime library, the standard
template library, the MFC library, the Active Template Library, the Visual
Basic® runtime library, or the Java virtual machine. In fact, the Windows
operating system itself can be thought of as a runtime engine and library.
Runtime engines and libraries offer services to applications, and
programmers love them because they save time and facilitate code reuse. See
Microsoft .NET Framework Delivers the Platform for an Integrated, Service-
Oriented Web at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0900/Framework/Framework.asp
It may appear on the client with the browser, on the traditional client, on
a device (with the economy JIT runtime), on the traditional server or the
home server.
Is middleware in general a product?
Is the .NET Platform middleware a product or a feature? Will middleware ever
be sold as a separate product?
Is the Java Platform a product?
It can appear on any of the above, but in order to maximize Sun server
sales, you might say it's client side development has lagged. :)
But due to Max's favorite idiom, ie competition (from the .NET Platform),
the Java Platform might just get religion and start doing useful things on
the client. Halleluia!
Watches Max extend tushie in a certain direction.
The competition will be fun to watch.
Probably neither the client nor the server worlds can prevent competition at
this point, due to the web, which has opened everything up, and whoever
doesn't move on is doomed.
Sun worst fear would be the .NET Platform running on the Linux OS (both
client and server systems) sold by Dell.
Oh Scott: The network is not the computer; the network is a link. And that
is your worst headache. In a few years, people will be doing on a cheap
cluster of Linux home workstations for what you currently charge a million
dollars.
Call it the revenge of the Ghost of the NCSA, named Boewulf, for joining
with Netscape after they ripped off the NCSA's Mosaic intellectual property.
:)
Oh, and another thing, they can't be crashing because Java servlets can
scale. If you don't fix this, Sun is history. Just some free advice.
The difference between us is that I say it's an issue, whereas you say you
know for sure, and anyone, including one probable trier of the appeals case,
who disagrees is not using the proper "RULE OF REASON" and are therefore
stupid because they don't know how to use big legal words in the same
fashion that you do, ie that inimitable Jailhouse Lawyer style.
2 + 2
>But it
>hasn't already happened, so I think you should read these words from
>Judge Jackson, as well. He is discussing his grounding in the
>precedential cases, Parish and Kodak.
>
>"In both cases the Supreme Court instructed that product and market
>definitions were to be ascertained by reference to evidence of
>consumers' perception of the nature of the products and the markets for
>them, rather than to abstract or metaphysical assumptions as to the
>configuration of the 'product' and the 'market.'"
There will be much, much more to it.
>
>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>
>--
>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
******************************
