May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Sancho Panza on 20 Oct 2009 09:16 "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:15hnd5lsvbkjj36i86buo33jcttsbcs8pp(a)4ax.com... > Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Sancho Panza" > <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> said: > >> >>"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:qmtmd5t9f52nkt3fdl2du6qljd5uj1ch44(a)4ax.com... >> >>> There was a time when only the very wealthy could afford to live like >>> Larry does. Ordinary people lived in cities, villages, or other such >>> settlements where they could pool their resources. >> >>The U.S. standard of living has progressed hugely. > > The current U.S. standard of living is unsustainable. It is based on > the wobbly foundation of cheap gasoline, "free" roads, and "free" > parking. Gee, some of us thought that it might be based on resources, motivation, ingenuity and the "free" will and "free-dom" to use them wisely
From: pbj on 20 Oct 2009 09:24 On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:56:48 +0000, Brent wrote: > On 2009-10-19, pbj <postittothenewsgroup(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:36:10 +0000, Brent wrote: >> >>> On 2009-10-19, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> gpsman wrote: >>>>> On Oct 19, 9:00 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Explain how a monopoly or cartel can endure without government >>>>>> intervention on behalf of the monopoly or cartel. >>>>> >>>>> Microsoft. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ha ha. I get it! (for those scoring at home gpsman is being >>>> sarcastic.) >>> >>> You give him too much credit. I'll wager he thinks microsoft is a >>> monopoly because of the anti-trust charges and large market share. >>> >>> For the benefit of gpstroll I'll explain it... Microsoft like walmart >>> became a target because of being large, profitable, and lacking paid >>> political protection. Political types can smell money and they will >>> attack to get it. What's the use of running a protection racket if the >>> threats are never carried out on those who aren't paying? That >>> explains the anti-trust action. Once microsoft started paying >>> protection it pretty much just went away. >>> >>> Microsoft is and has never been a monopoly. It has engaged in various >>> questionable business practices by leveraging that market share. It >>> got that market share because it a) got the business from IBM for an >>> OS. b) businesses wanted to stick with IBM. c) Apple (and others) used >>> their OSes as a way to sell their hardware. >>> >>> The current MacOS comes from NeXTSTEP which was odd in that it ran on >>> NeXT, Sun, Hp, and intel PC hardware. Mac's hardware is now largely >>> based on standard intel PC hardware. If MacOS were offered for Intel >>> machines in general their OS market share would grow. However their >>> hardware sales would fall like a stone. Apple wants to retain their >>> hardware business even if it's just becoming standard stuff in stylish >>> packaging. >> >> Hoo, boy. I just gotta x-post this one to COLA. >> >> Have fun, guys, and don't get blood on the carpet. :-) > > Why? Because I left out linux? No, because I thought the guys over there would get a good laugh out of your claim that Microsoft has never been a monopoly.
From: Brent on 20 Oct 2009 09:35 On 2009-10-20, Sancho Panza <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > > "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:15hnd5lsvbkjj36i86buo33jcttsbcs8pp(a)4ax.com... >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Sancho Panza" >> <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> said: >> >>> >>>"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>news:qmtmd5t9f52nkt3fdl2du6qljd5uj1ch44(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> There was a time when only the very wealthy could afford to live like >>>> Larry does. Ordinary people lived in cities, villages, or other such >>>> settlements where they could pool their resources. >>> >>>The U.S. standard of living has progressed hugely. >> The current U.S. standard of living is unsustainable. It is based on >> the wobbly foundation of cheap gasoline, "free" roads, and "free" >> parking. It would be sustainable if it were free market. > Gee, some of us thought that it might be based on resources, motivation, > ingenuity and the "free" will and "free-dom" to use them wisely The USA is an empire in decline. Ingenuity is to be punished. Motivation is to be crushed. Resources are to be controlled. While China makes trade deals for resources the US Federal Government bombs people with borrowed money from China. China makes money and friends. The US Federal Government goes deeper into debt using the productivity of the people as collateral for the sake of connected interests while creating more enemies. The US standard of living is going down. Going down big time. What's sad is that it was all avoidable.
From: Brent on 20 Oct 2009 09:55 On 2009-10-20, pbj <postittothenewsgroup(a)nospam.com> wrote: > No, because I thought the guys over there would get a good laugh out of > your claim that Microsoft has never been a monopoly. It isn't and hasn't been. There have always been other OS choices. There continue to be other OS choices. Microsoft could lose their advantage over night if suddenly corporate politics changed such that they were no longer the safe choice. A microsoft system that crashes every 5 minutes is easily blamed on microsoft. The chooser's job is safe. Choose something else, say linux, and a power supply burns out and it's going to look very bad on the person who chose it. Never mind the machine hadn't been down for a year... that idiot should have gone with microsoft! Yeah, that's being extreme but there have always been other choices, better choices for performance, but it isn't a performance based culture making the decisions on what to buy. Microsoft would be a monopoly if and only if it could remove other choices, new competition, and so on. It can't do that without the aid of government. Microsoft is stuck with buying the competition or using its present market share to bully customers into not buying something else. Now if someone significant would call microsoft's bluff and tell them to take a hike when they did that, it could be the beginning of the end. All of microsoft's nasty business practices wouldn't work if people making purchasing decisions at companies had the balls to call the bluff.
From: chrisv on 20 Oct 2009 10:15
Brent wrote: >It isn't and hasn't been. There have always been other OS choices. There >continue to be other OS choices. I see you enjoy showing the world what an ignorant, simple-minded fool you are. How odd. Microsoft's lawyers must be totally incompetent, eh? They could have gotten those anti-trust cases *immediately* dismissed, by simply stating "There is no monopoly. Anyone can buy a Mac." Sheesh! "Monopoly power in the market" DOES NOT EQUAL "complete, 100% inability to obtain an alternative" Idiot. |