May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Sancho Panza on 23 Oct 2009 09:09 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hbq4jj$dcf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 2009-10-22, Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick > <Popeye(a)finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:7kbf8lF395b6pU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Otto Yamamoto wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Well, let's see. Should I start the list with Edward R. Morrow, or >>> Walter >>> Cronkite. I need to be careful because the list is so long that quota >>> is >>> a concern. >> >> No President, or Presidency in living history has been as ill-treated >> as >> Bush. >> >> Not by any comparison. >> >> To the detriment of the nation and it's citizens. >> >> And it won't be corrected in our lifetimes. > > No President, or Presidency in history has spent as much and centralized > and power in the executive as Bush > > Not by any comparison. Try Lincoln or F.D.R., in dollar-adjusted terms, of course.
From: chrisv on 23 Oct 2009 09:21 RonB wrote: >The problem being that, once a company has reached practical monopoly >status, they can freeze out competition. They do this in many ways -- >dumping their product, threatening to withhold their product from >companies who attempt to sell a competing product, purposely design >software so it won't run with a competitor's product -- or simply taking >a competitor's product if they can't buy it. Microsoft has been involved >in all these practices over the years. > >So it's not just a matter of them being big and successful -- it's how >they use their success and size to hammer down potential competition. > >And what people tend to forget when they laud Microsoft's business >acumen, is that Microsoft's monopoly was built on the back of IBM's >original PC monopoly. It was a matter of pure, dumb luck. Luck is a big part, to be sure - getting that early boost to be market leader in a market that really lent itself to having a defacto-standard product. Even so, it takes the occasional dirty deed to consolidate that monopoly, as new technologies and threats come-along.
From: Brent on 23 Oct 2009 10:03 On 2009-10-23, Sancho Panza <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hbq4jj$dcf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 2009-10-22, Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick >> <Popeye(a)finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> "Larry Sheldon" <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:7kbf8lF395b6pU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> Otto Yamamoto wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Well, let's see. Should I start the list with Edward R. Morrow, or >>>> Walter >>>> Cronkite. I need to be careful because the list is so long that quota >>>> is >>>> a concern. >>> >>> No President, or Presidency in living history has been as ill-treated >>> as >>> Bush. >>> >>> Not by any comparison. >>> >>> To the detriment of the nation and it's citizens. >>> >>> And it won't be corrected in our lifetimes. >> >> No President, or Presidency in history has spent as much and centralized >> and power in the executive as Bush >> >> Not by any comparison. > > Try Lincoln or F.D.R., in dollar-adjusted terms, of course. Nope. Bush jr. outspent them too. Don't worry, Obama is going to make look Bush Jr. seem cheap the way things are going.
From: Floyd Rogers on 23 Oct 2009 10:17 "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote > Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: .... > And what people tend to forget when they laud Microsoft's business acumen, > is that Microsoft's monopoly was built on the back of IBM's original PC > monopoly. It was a matter of pure, dumb luck. Actually, it's even more amusing than that, and wasn't luck. It was the cloning of IBM's BIOS that allowed other firms to manufacture clones, that allowed Microsoft to sell MS-DOS to everyone. IBM realized that they would be charged with monopolistic practices - they already had been forced to sell their OS/360 separately so that people could run it on Amdahl and other clones 10-12 years before. So, an SEC monopoly lawsuit against IBM directly led to Microsoft dominating the PC OS marketplace. FloydR
From: Free Lunch on 23 Oct 2009 10:52
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:17:10 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogyuds(a)hotmail.com> wrote in misc.transport.road: >"RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: >... >> And what people tend to forget when they laud Microsoft's business acumen, >> is that Microsoft's monopoly was built on the back of IBM's original PC >> monopoly. It was a matter of pure, dumb luck. > >Actually, it's even more amusing than that, and wasn't luck. > >It was the cloning of IBM's BIOS that allowed other firms to >manufacture clones, that allowed Microsoft to sell MS-DOS to >everyone. IBM realized that they would be charged with monopolistic >practices - they already had been forced to sell their OS/360 >separately so that people could run it on Amdahl and other clones >10-12 years before. > >So, an SEC monopoly lawsuit against IBM directly led to Microsoft >dominating the PC OS marketplace. > >FloydR > That, and the decision of IBM to include a program loader (DOS) free and try to charge for the 'real' operating system (CP/M). |