May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 20 Oct 2009 10:37 On 2009-10-20, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > 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! LOL. it's nice that you can cut my posts way down and then substitute your own nonsense so you have something to knock down. There have been all sorts of choices other than microsoft. Anti-trust laws and the cases that come from them have about as much to do with monopolies as going after Martha stewart had to do with insider trading, aproximately nothing. They have everything to do with POLITICS. You're too ignorant to understand how the american system actually works. Microsoft does. > "Monopoly power in the market" DOES NOT EQUAL "complete, 100% > inability to obtain an alternative" Defining your own terms doesn't help you. Microsoft is not a monopoly and has never been one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / ..... (alone or single) + polein / ...... (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1][clarification needed] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly monopoly (plural monopolies) 1. A situation, by legal privilege or other agreement, in which solely one party (company, cartel etc.) exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it. 2. An exclusive control over the trade or production of a commodity or service trough exclusive possession. A land monopoly renders its holder(s) nearly allmighty in an agricultural society 3. The privilege granting the exlusive right to exert such control Granting monopolies in concession constitutes a market-conform alternative to taxation for the state, while the crown sometimes bestowed a monopoly as an outrageous gift > Idiot. Yeah, that would be you. Tell me, how did microsoft gain and retain this monopoly you claim they have?
From: Brent on 20 Oct 2009 11:57 On 2009-10-20, pbj <postittothenewsgroup(a)nospam.com> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:28:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: > >> Brent wrote: >> >>> chrisv wrote: >>>> 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." >> >>> (snip irrelevancies, errors, lies, and definitions that do not rebute >>> my point) >> >> Tell it to the judge(s), simpleton. >> >> "Anyone can buy a Mac, judge!" >> >> "Case dismissed!" >> >> *Guffaw* >> >>>> Idiot. >>> >>>Yeah, that would be you. >> >> Nope. You, as you prove again below. >> >>>Tell me, how did microsoft gain and retain this monopoly you claim they >>>have? >> >> Only an idiot would ask such a question. Sheesh, you think I'm going to >> do a treatise for you? > > Rex already did one. Brent was... overwhelmed. <g> That 300+ line post proving my point that monopoly comes from government? LOL.
From: chrisv on 20 Oct 2009 12:06 Brent wrote: >Translation: You have nothing to argue so you snip and insult. Sad. very >sad indeed. No, what's really sad is that you think your idiocies and lies are worth rebutting on a point-by-point basis. "It's all politics! Monopolies and trusts are unrelated!" I have no desire to have this blow-up into a massive sniping over all your idiocies and errors. The fact that you think their cannot be a "monopoly" unless it's 100 freaking percent of the market, shows how unworthy you are of anything more than a quick spanking, simpleton. > (snip idioces about televisions) I guess I've "lost the arguement" since I will not do a massive treatise on Microsoft's history for you (and that IS what it would take). Your asking me "Tell me, how did microsoft gain and retain this monopoly you claim they have?" wasn't a *stupid* question, it actually sealed your victory! Bully for you.
From: Dave C. on 20 Oct 2009 00:21 On 20 Oct 2009 00:56:20 GMT Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam014(a)Zierke.com> wrote: > > Dave C. schrieb: > > > > There was a ad on TV a while ago, claiming that a freight train > > could move a ton of cargo 436 miles on a gallon of fuel. That sounds > > impressive. DAMNED impressive. > > BNSF claims 470 miles, and it's the the system average, not the > theoretically possible load. > > > But when you run the numbers for an > > 18-wheeler...the truck can move that ton of cargo 160 miles on a > > gallon of fuel. > > What's the /average/ load of an 18-wheeler? 12 tons? 15 tons? The AVERAGE is 20 tons. Very rarely will you see an 18-wheeler hauling less than that, as it is considered a waste of money. For example, 35,000 pounds (17.5 tons) would be less than a full load, which is wasting money. If an 18-wheeler made a movement with 12 or 15 tons, it is likely that a dispatcher somewhere would be fired, or severely disciplined. Trucking companies do not like to move trucks empty, and at less than 20 tons, they consider that empty. > > Okay, let's say 15 tons. Achieving 10.5 mpg might be possible with > extremely disciplined driving, and a speed considerably below the > speed limit. 8MPG is easily doable if you have the right equipment for the job. At highway speeds. -Dave
From: Brent on 20 Oct 2009 12:24
On 2009-10-20, chrisv <chrisv(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > Brent wrote: > >>Translation: You have nothing to argue so you snip and insult. Sad. very >>sad indeed. > > No, what's really sad is that you think your idiocies and lies are > worth rebutting on a point-by-point basis. "It's all politics! > Monopolies and trusts are unrelated!" You learn how the US economy really functions, maybe we can have a conversation on a deeper level. Instead, all you do is fling insults, so I'll keep it simple for you. > I have no desire to have this blow-up into a massive sniping over all > your idiocies and errors. The fact that you think their cannot be a > "monopoly" unless it's 100 freaking percent of the market, shows how > unworthy you are of anything more than a quick spanking, simpleton. You really do like that strawman don't you? But alas, that's all it is. The fact that you cannot address the actual points I make but snip them and insert your own words for them is extremely telling of how weak your view is. >> (snip idioces about televisions) > I guess I've "lost the arguement" since I will not do a massive > treatise on Microsoft's history for you (and that IS what it would > take). Your asking me "Tell me, how did microsoft gain and retain > this monopoly you claim they have?" wasn't a *stupid* question, it > actually sealed your victory! Bully for you. Since you cannot answer such a simple and 'stupid' question, it shows that indeed you don't have a clue. Merely making emotional knee-jerks of insults because someone disturbed your little illusionary bubble. But go ahead and rehash all of microsoft's unethtical business practices and I'll nod and agree that they are evil and bad. But they still aren't a monopoly. If the people who purchases OSes in large volumes decide to grow some balls and refuse to do business with such a company, MS would need to change or die. |