On May 20, 12:00 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard J.deBoynePollard-
newsgro...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Indeed. And the algorithms that are employed to perform the operations
so described are recursive.
Actually, they almost never are. Iterative algorithms are almost
always used to avoid a stack
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Swaroop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PLS HELP..I am working on socket programming as part of my final year
project. I want to know how to set a timeout on read api that reads
from a socket. Is it possible using
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not
involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of
fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is.
Wrong. Either your definition of
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity
to distinguish between, as you put it, guns and arguments. You
always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other
than microsoft
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another straw man. I'm not trying to oblitarate that difference
No matter how many times I quote to you where you specifically do
exactly this, you insist you aren't. Yes, you are. You equate metaphorical
force with
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS.
To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
talk about something
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is
one case where the word theft was used (while earlier in the thread,
actual physical force had been used
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to actual use
of force.
I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you
to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about the
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, let me just make my opinion very clear on this and then I'll just
leave this thread altogether.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges so whatever conclusion you
manage to draw from that is in my
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to actual use
of force.
I'm sorry, that's just
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:28:46 +0200, Peter T. Breuer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would
simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business
sells only
Roedy Green wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not imposed in
any sense except that it's one of the conditions for buying Windows
wholesale
Roedy Green wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:07 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to
other
Paul Rubin wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But there is no law against that type of conduct, *unless* you
are a monopolist. So your conclusion hinges on the determination
that Microsoft had a monopoly, and that hinges on the definition of
the market. That's a different
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:49:27 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
Microsoft demanded you pay them per machine you sold under the table
Roedy Green wrote:
The tactic Univac/Burroughs/Prime used, at least for big sales, was
for example invite the potential customer to view some installation to
talk to a satisfied client about how they were using their gear. There
might be a convenient client in say ... Las Vegas.
Yep,
Sibylle Koczian wrote:
David Schwartz schrieb:
When you are not in the majority, you are going to face
inconveniences. You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to
buy a new car without seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so
that's the way they're packaged.
What a stupid
Roedy Green wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:31:41 GMT, Roedy Green
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :
I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick
to compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must
buy a copy of
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the
advantages of competing products.
Well, it should have, because that's
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
snip
competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell
Big Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)
Rather odd comparison don't you think ?
No, it's dead on.
A better comparison
Paul Rubin wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The appeals courts upheld that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. However, both a finding of yes, Microsoft had a
monopoly and a finding of no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly
would both have been within the trial
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people.
That's a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't
uphold
Roedy Green wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business
with you if you broke your agreements with them.
I am going to summarise
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation).
No, it's not up to the store. In all the cases I mentioned, it's the
manufacturer of the product that imposes the restrictions and the
manufacturer of the product is not the store owner.
I don't
Iain King wrote:
Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work?
No.
It would only be
fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet.
Huh?
Places which sell Whoppers
are Burger King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell
Big Mac's.
Right. The Burger King corporate
Iain King wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS
product to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.
Right, I get that. You owed your
Roedy Green wrote:
1. it was a threat to destroy a business -- e.g vandalise tens of
thousands of dollars of property. For all practical purpose they
threatened to steal my business. It would be roughly the same dollar
value as threatening to burn down a large house.
No, it was a
David Schwartz wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
If the trial court
determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established
legal fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it.
I just found this article: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=88
I don't agree with all
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:
I would think that if I set up a shop and wanted to have the word
Microsoft as part of the shop name, there would be some rules
dictating what products I could and could not sell, yes. Wether those
rules are set forth in a law somewhere or Microsoft set them
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger
patties wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless
you take the whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package.
With very few limits, companies do get
Paul Rubin wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice
illegal for a company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they
did, I'm going after Doctor's Associates and Kenmore.
Of course it's legal for non-monopoly
Paul Rubin wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course it's legal for non-monopoly companies. You seem to think
Microsoft's illegal monopoly is an irrelevant detail. It is not.
What is an illegal monopoly?
It's what Microsoft still stands convicted of having.
http
Espen Myrland wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is an illegal monopoly?
The opposite of a legal monopoly. For example, in Norway we have
Vinmonopolet, a monopoly which are the only one allowed to sell
wine and spirits to the public.
Seriously, I have no idea
John Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is an illegal monopoly?
A monopoly that acts in certain ways, abusing its monopoly power. There's
nothing inherently illegal about having
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's an important point that no
court
ever found that Microsoft illegally acquired a monopoly. So to
characterize
the monopoly
, and refuses to discuss the issue. Ironically,
while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals with guns -
after all, they're white collar criminals - David Schwartz called the
DOJ official who were investigating MS criminals with guns pointed
out [MS officers] heads.
I can't
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ironically, while no one else has so much as compared MS to criminals
with
guns. I defy you to find *one* place where I complain that MS behavior
is
equated to the actual use of force where that is not in fact done in
Mike Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a huge difference to the non-techy consumer. One of the
buggest reasons Linux has had a reputation of being harder to use
than Windows was the fact that Linux had to be installed, while
Windows just booted up.
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation
most
Eike Preuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, except that's utterly absurd. If every vendor takes their tiny
cut of the 95%, a huge cut of the 5% is starting to look *REALLY* good.
Sure, that would be true if the market would be / would have been really
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
entropy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.
... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No they aren't. A pc o/s is something you load on an IBM pc, and an IBM
pc is an open format. There is no microsoft computer, and there is no
such thing
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
claim 1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please)
judgment 1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering
exclusive wholesale deals (please define)
Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other
operating
Paul Rubin wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get
permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not
let you also sell Big Macs in the same store, even if McDonald's had
no objection.
Why do you
Roedy Green wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and
other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every
machine you sell
Roedy Green wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 18:05:45 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.
... and were told not to by a
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. Microsoft said you can sell Windows
and other operating systems, but there will be a charge for every
machine you sell without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy
Windows
Mike Schilling wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to
other with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs
Paul Rubin wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.
Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's
conduct was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company
had ever done
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you need to look up extortion in a dictionary. I can walk
up
to you and say if you want me to mow your lawn, you must pay me $1 every
time you smoke a cigarette. So long as you can say no and all that
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Essentially, Microsoft asked for exclusive arrangements. That is,
arrangements wherein you could not sell competing products if you wished
to
sell Microsoft products. That's not even remotely unusual.
It
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:06:36 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, we will only sell
Windows wholesale
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3) there are plenty of other OSs that are developed or could be
developed but which cannot get a foothold or even manage to be put on
the shelves because the majority product producer insists on charging
hardware
Eike Preuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shouldn't it be my right as a seller, to decide that I want to sell an
operating system 'that nobody wants' _as well as_ operating systems that
'everybody wants'?
Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a
seller
to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may
not
No it is not their right! That would be a discriminatory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
such heavy handed agreements
John-Paul Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz wrote:
If nobody wants these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to
be able to sell them. If people want them, then he could have shown
Microsoft the door.
If only 5% want another
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.
Of
Martin P. Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not Bill Gates wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +, Not Bill Gates wrote:
Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
You don't care that innovation in
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties.
McDonald's are not in the business of wholesale distribution of burger
patties so your statement is simply sited in the wrong universe of
discourse.
I
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
based
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course he cares. He is a shill. He licks that hand that feeds him.
In an indirect sense. The company I work for does get a lot of sales
because we are anyone but Microsoft. So we actually profit from people's
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft had something you need so badly that you could not go into
business without it. So they demanded from you that you pay them what
their
software was actually worth to you. That is not extortion. Everyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.lang.perl.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is about whether we're talking *ABOUT* America, you idiot. It's
as
if he said the press has no freedom, and I replied, if you want to talk
about some country
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
His comments are not applicable to America. They are applicable to a
country where the government owns the economy.
No reply is needed to his comments except to point out that they only
apply to a communist or totalitarian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not that I care much since eggs bring on a rather strong reaction
within me, but his arguments were totally false.
So you maintain that the United States government owns its economy?
It might be instructive to google for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you need to look up extortion in a dictionary. I can
walk up to you and say if you want me to mow your lawn, you must
pay me $1 every time you smoke a cigarette. So long as you
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:33 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
I think you need to look up extortion in a dictionary.
In the days prior to Win95, Microsoft
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, not at all. It is the gravest act of self-contradiction to
maintain
that one should be allowed to pursue one's own interest while denying
that
same right to others.
This is perhaps the most ignorant thing
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:02:44 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
I see you are a totalitarianist or perhaps a communist. If you want
to
live in America and discuss things that are relevent to America, let me
know
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not saying Microsoft did not know the law. I am saying that no
rational person could have expected the law to be applied to Microsoft
that
way it was. The law *must* put a person on notice of precisely what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.lang.perl.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Sorry, but nobody but the government actually owns property. In most
places, you can't make non-trivial changes to your
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David claimed that everyone had a right to do whatever they wanted
with their property. This is simply false throughout most of the
civilized world - zoning laws control what kinds of business you can
run on your property,
Matt Garrish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd be interested in hearing what you think a right is?
A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's
decision is sovereign.
In Florida, for example, you have the right to gun someone down if
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Instead, you outline a class of actions and tag them
all as illegal. That's why we have laws against assault and battery
and unsafe driving. And laws against exercising monopoly
Matt Garrish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's
decision is sovereign.
Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's
rights if those rights are not codified or even
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AC
You wouldn't be this Alan Connor would you:
http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/why/connor.html
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
There is no way Microsoft could have expected the
market to be defined in this way and no way to argue that Microsoft had
any
reason
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or
even
encouraged when done by small businesses in a competitive market can
easily become
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a
monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's success. Microsoft is one
special interest, out of a potentially unbounded number of possible
players in the
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:10:24 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
If the deal didn't give you more than it cost you, all you had to do
was
say 'no'. I understand the frustration at being forced
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or even
encouraged when done by small businesses in a competitive market can
easily become harmful and bad for the economy when done by a monopolist or
Mike Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
An employee who refuses to act as directed, claiming that he's thinking of
the shareholders' interests, can be fired for cause. His only recourse
would be to become a shareholder (not hard), and then get the
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want
an
engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately
Peter T. Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.
In other words, what they did was wrong because it was them who did it.
It is fine if anyone else does, just not fine if Microsoft does
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying
the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:34:55 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An
executive who devoted his company to his community against his
Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rethink what you are saying. You'll see that what you propose as
reasons for one, is actually for the other.
Nonsense. It is plain error to change what someone said and claim they
said it, even if you think that what you
Luke Webber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna...
I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations.
Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation
to their
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:18:31 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the
obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
failure to provide the services they contract to provide
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:21:55 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
I don't think any of it bordered on force or fraud. However, their
obligation to their shareholders requires them to do anythign
John W. Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Meyer wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not Microsoft's obligation to be fair. It is Microsoft's
obligation to push their vision of the future of computing, one with
Microsoft's
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths
Aragorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.
A psychopath is someone who lacks ethics and/or the ability to respect
his fellow human being. They
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.
That's almost
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.
That's
Roedy Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Oct 2005 13:21:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote or quoted :
Yes, he deserves credit for what he did. He nevertheless created a
false impression in what he said. If he hadn't created that false
impression, there would
John Bokma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you think that MS, based on something that might (or might not
happen) somewhere in a future, burned a lot of money?
Yep. Why do you think Microsoft tried to balkanize Java?
No: the historical fact is that MS
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
