May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Otto Yamamoto on 21 Oct 2009 23:38 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:52:07 -0400, Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick wrote: > What the liberals did, in their desperation and inability to win an > election, was to defile the prestige of the Presidency for their own > political gain, right down to their aid and comfort to our enemies. > > The rules are set now, and the Right didn't start them. Let's see. Reagan 8 years, Bush 41 4 years, Bush 43 8 years; and 12 years of republican congressional majorities. Plus a sledge-hammer presence in the media during all that time. Name a 'liberal' commentator equivalent to Rush, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, et. al. And they still couldn't subdue the 'liberals' or 'set the rules' to their favour. Pretty pathetic, I'd say. -- 'Smoking is Healthier than Fascism'
From: Miles Bader on 21 Oct 2009 23:39 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Is microsoft unethical? certainly. But it's obvious that people put up > with it or even like it. Why? Because people making the decisions want > cheap hardware they can get from many vendors and an OS choice that won't > get them fired no matter how bad it goes. If that later perception fails, > MS is in for a world of hurt. Yeah, but that's been true for _decades_, but Microsoft has always been skillful enough to play the system in order to maintain its dominance and head off perceived threats. Much of this has involved not making their products better, but destroying competitors, and leveraging their dominant position to strong-arm others into cooperating with them. Certainly many people are OK with MS's software -- it's hardly the _worst_ stuff out there -- but it's very questionable whether MS would be in its position of dominance today without all the nasty stuff. -Miles -- Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious.
From: RonB on 22 Oct 2009 00:04 Larry Sheldon wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> It is so effective that it has a 90% market share, you buffoon. > > So it does not have by definition, a monopoly. Then neither did AT&T. -- RonB "There's a story there...somewhere"
From: gpsman on 22 Oct 2009 02:12 On Oct 21, 11:25 pm, Otto Yamamoto <ros...(a)yamamoto.cc> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:47:58 -0700, hancock4 wrote: > > I hope you're right. But it seems these days too many everday people > > get wrapped up in extreme positions. During the Bush years liberals > > blamed anything and everything, like late pizza delivery, on Bush. > > Today, conservatives blame it all on Obama. > > I'd say your statement proves my point quite handily. Statements in no way constitute proof. If you'd care to refrain from further substantiating that you're an idiot of the remarkable variety, I suggest immediately smashing your keyboard to smithereens. If a hammer isn't handy, it won't be able to tell the slightest difference from your head. ----- - gpsman
From: Hadron on 22 Oct 2009 07:45
Miles Bader <miles(a)gnu.org> writes: > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> Is microsoft unethical? certainly. But it's obvious that people put up >> with it or even like it. Why? Because people making the decisions want >> cheap hardware they can get from many vendors and an OS choice that won't >> get them fired no matter how bad it goes. If that later perception fails, >> MS is in for a world of hurt. > > Yeah, but that's been true for _decades_, but Microsoft has always been > skillful enough to play the system in order to maintain its dominance > and head off perceived threats. Much of this has involved not making > their products better, but destroying competitors, and leveraging their > dominant position to strong-arm others into cooperating with them. And working with creating stable APIs with third parties (HW and SW) while open committees twiddled their fingers. DirectX developed so quickly in conjunction with new HW for a reason. And then came the games .... > > Certainly many people are OK with MS's software -- it's hardly the > _worst_ stuff out there -- but it's very questionable whether MS would > be in its position of dominance today without all the nasty stuff. > > -Miles Can you name one competitor for the desktop OS that they "silenced"? IBM screwed up. Apple were always aiming for the yuppies and pony tails and Linux was non existent. |