Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Les Cargill · Guest

Mike wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn>t
understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
electricity."

no, it>s like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were first
invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the methods of
transmission
[/quote]
Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.

[quote]such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft
demodulator in your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
[/quote]
No, that literally is Qualcomm...

[quote]but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to
use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the process
to line their own pockets.

[/quote]
Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don>t care for it
much myself, but there it is.

[quote]

Or worse yet - let>s set the price of software at "free" and see where
that gets you.

charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing authority
by monopolizing commodity applications.
[/quote]
Meh. Office, for example, doesn>t cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.

[quote]if the industry ever got to the
point where there was real competition there would be no need to charge
for software because all the producers would be focused on adding value
as opposed to lock in.
[/quote]
Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
"developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and better
apps.

People don>t want good software. They want what everybody else is having.

[quote]with the value-add model the paycheck comes from
service & support, actually helping people be more productive, as opposed
to monopolistic coercion.

[/quote]

It *can* work. It doesn>t work very often. There>s no good solution for
DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have - *tend*
to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don>t ) and certain
comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for production work, I
fear.

I>ve tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not always*.
But it>s hard.

(BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing that>s
had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on 'Doze. And
I *HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script pipes/languages
to do anything on a 'Doze box:)

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill · Guest

Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:09:51 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
snip
The ADDA only allocated $200M in *grants*. Hardly seems the stuff of
panics. I am also not sure that burbs or urban matters much - heck, with
gentrification, people could get in a lot more trouble in urban
properties, where values soared.

Yes. They could. But that has __NOTHING__ to do with the "Community
Reinvestment Act" that targeted areas that were _NOT_ growing and
prospering. The trick that the rightards play is the intertwining of the
CRA with the Bush "Initiative to increase minority ownership" and the two
are totally separate and distinct animals. The primary abuses of the
Bush initiative were in NEW berbs and they were not primarily black. I
have seen speculation that they were Latino by the folks that are anti-
immigration. It just depends on which variety of rightard you happen to
ask. So when we review the bidding we see that Clinton>s sin was CRA, but
that this sin had little is anything to do with the current mess. The
Bush initiative, OTOH, was the accelerant in this particular Molotov
cocktail.

[/quote]
INteresting. I>m still skeptical - it appears to me to be an extension
of the concept.... and I>ve always maintained that Bush, like most
POTUS, would keep whatever worked from his predecessor, sometimes
extending these things.

IMO, it>s hard to get anything partisan out of this, because there>s
so little difference.

Oh, and there>s *this* little bit 'a fun:

"Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp., called
the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
by high down-payment costs, he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.

[quote]But more importantly you will find that the problem isn>t really these
mortgages either but the tools used to back such financial escapades.
This is where we get into the credit swap derivative markets and the
_REAL_ financial mess; the self induced euphoric notion of endless
bubbling and "PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURE".

It was caused by the total lack of any oversight or regulation of these
very highly leveraged "financial insurance" instruments.

I don>t think reinsurance is the villain of the piece. Now, it is
*entirely* possible ( even likely ) to *abuse* it. But you really do get
to extend more leverage that way. Just not as much as was extended.
Reinsurance is a pattern I recognize from signals processing. It really
does create more "bandwidth" by randomizing "failures.", assuming I>m
not misapplying a metaphor.

Maybe I have seen too many Mamet plays, but the idea of a martinet
"sales manager" whipping the troops to bring in more contracts while
screaming "coffee>s for closers" has far too much resonance. And since
that>s the last line of defense for filtering high risk borrowers....

It is the same as the commodities futures markets but for the fact that
there is no way to know how many of these "bets" are out there and
whether the people that made the "bets" have any backing should the deals
go against them..
[/quote]
I *thought* that there were globally available stats as
decision aids, and that firm specialization was supposed to
help self-regulate this - one firm would specialize in one
kind of reinsurance.

[quote]Current estimates are that there are $50T in such
unregulated futures. IT is fair to say that there is a buyer and a
seller on each side and so the exposure is NOT $50T.
[/quote]
Not at all.

[quote]The problem is that
there is no policeman as there is in a futures exchange that is capable
of policing the participants by insuring that the "bettors" actually have
the funds to "back" their bets.
[/quote]
Yeah, that>s a problem. IMO, that verges on fraud.

[quote]The current meltdown is exactly because
some of the bettors did not have the funds. It is not the little people
on the bottom that unable to pay that is the cause of the Commercial
paper market freeze-ups. It is the big boys and their get rich and stay
rich leverage and political pig shit.
[/quote]
Well, I certainly don>t see it exactly that way.

--
Les Cargill

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: Re: Warren Buffet begs for Cash

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:55:42 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

[quote]
"Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp., called
the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
by high down-payment costs, he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.
[/quote]

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/files/nat_mortgage_news.png

Les Cargill · Guest

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:55:42 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

"Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp., called
the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
by high down-payment costs, he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/files/nat_mortgage_news.png
[/quote]
Exactly.

--
Les Cargill

Rod Speed · Guest

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus wrote
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote
V <vf...@aol.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html

Aw, c>mon Warren. ?Don>t you have enough money? ?Do you really
have to tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up
your multi- billion dollar empire? ?Go screw yourself, Warren.
?You are protecting no one but yourself.

Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
affecting no one but himself and his rich buddies. ?The
majority of Americans are so poor now that they no longer have
anything to lose, and Warren knows it. ?So, he is whining to the
government. ?"Give me money!! ?Give me money!! ?I want my money!!"

Sorry, Warren. ?You lose your money through inflation, or the
markets collapse, or both. ?You have destroyed the American
economy through your greed and stupidity. ?Live with it,
Warren. ?You earned it.

Well spoken post Jerry.

Buffet wants his stocks to keep going up. So of course he is for
supporting Wall Street at the expense of the financial reamout
of the taxpayer.

Buffet says his kids will have a better life than he and their kids
will have a better life their parents and on and on in perpetuity.

Maybe that is for a billionaire but not for the average Joe or Jane.

Have you ever known a rich man eagerly take losses in their investments
to help out the taxpayer from being further buried in debt?

Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?

What is this nonsense? Buffet has said he>s leaving his money to
charity, his kids have had enough. Buffett has warned against
these market excesses for 10 years now. He pleaded for
regulation. He>s pleaded that the rich should be taxed and that
the Bush tax cuts and fiscal policy are strangling America.

He agrees with 95% of what you boys say. WHy are you seeking to burn him if effigy?

Because he>s begging to prop up a corrupt system. Buffet>s system must die. It is evil.

There>s nothing evil *about* it.

Take Dairy Queen. It was in a succession crisis - it hadn>t been
properly set up for the deaths of key players. Buffet pumped a
little cash in against massive instrastructure and made it productive
again. In case you don>t know, DQ was everywhere in towns too
small for a McDonalds ( back when there were such towns ). So it
wasn>t an unimportant company.

It>s not bleeding edge - he>s bought "junk car" companies - but
it>s honorable enough work. I>m not a fan because his approach
does not really solve capital formation problems, but there>s
nothing inherently wrong with it.

As the Bishop said, during the crusade againt the heretical
Cathars at Caracasonne, in Provence, in the Middle Ages:
"Kill them all. Let God sort them out!"

This approach will prove effective, in dealing with the current American Capitalist elite.

Nope, no one will actually be stupid enough to try it, you watch.

Might not be necessary. Most of them may have blown their
brains out by the time the Dow gets down to 1,400 and their
bank accounts and real estate have become worthless.
[/quote]
Didnt even happen during the great depression. Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

[quote]Happy Days are Here Again...
[/quote]
Lay off the whacky weed, child.

Michael Coburn · Guest

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:56:58 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

[quote]retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:55:42 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

"Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp.,
called the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
by high down-payment costs, he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/files/nat_mortgage_news.png

Exactly.
[/quote]
Just this evening I had a rightard repeat AGAIN how the Clinton support
insistence on extending the CRA was the CAUSE of this mortgage meltdown.
The facts are totally against such an assessment, but what else do they
have. The Republicans controlled the entire government from 2001 - 2007
and I would say that they still control all but the House. If the CRA
needed changing and Freddie needed to pursue a tighter course then the
Republicans should have got er done. They instead encouraged Fannie and
Freddie to support the Bush Housing initiative and they passed the
American Dream Downpayment Act that greatly exacerbated the problems.

But once a rightard has swallowed the lies (s)he will not ever desert
them. To do so would illustrate how utterly stupid (s)he is. They have
nothing else. They cannot win any election on what they have done or on
what they are likely to continue to do. They must fabricate all the lies
they can and feed them to the rightard base.

Les Cargill · Guest

Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:56:58 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:55:42 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

"Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp.,
called the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
by high down-payment costs, he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/files/nat_mortgage_news.png
Exactly.

Just this evening I had a rightard repeat AGAIN how the Clinton support
insistence on extending the CRA was the CAUSE of this mortgage meltdown.
[/quote]
It is very confusing. There are lots and lots of ways in which
overlending occurred. CRA did not occur in a vacuum - it
looked successful; people cloned it or extended the concepts
behind it into other systems.

So I can easily see people making that mistake ( I made it myself
until I saw the data). A subsidy drives up price; we had
lots of different subsidies (relaxing down payment
requirements acts as a subsidy).

[quote]The facts are totally against such an assessment, but what else do they
have. The Republicans controlled the entire government from 2001 - 2007
and I would say that they still control all but the House.
[/quote]
I, again, don>t think that matters too much. Demolickans or
Republicrats... might as well be buckets of chicken. There>s
little innovation in those spheres, and rather thin rhetorical
differences.

[quote]If the CRA
needed changing and Freddie needed to pursue a tighter course then the
Republicans should have got er done. They instead encouraged Fannie and
Freddie to support the Bush Housing initiative and they passed the
American Dream Downpayment Act that greatly exacerbated the problems.

[/quote]

The motives behind the lending spree were mostly honorable at
the top levels - we want low interest, full employment
and no inflation. We thought we could to that, and for ten
or more years, we could. Only when GDP growth due to
domestic production dropped below a threshold did it back up.

Winding back to say, 2003, we were all just glad the 2001
recession wasn>t a horrible one.

[quote]But once a rightard has swallowed the lies (s)he will not ever desert
them. To do so would illustrate how utterly stupid (s)he is. They have
nothing else. They cannot win any election on what they have done or on
what they are likely to continue to do. They must fabricate all the lies
they can and feed them to the rightard base.
[/quote]
Disagreements based on point of view do not qualify as fabrications.
This isn>t easy, and *in my opinion*, the vilification of people and
not arguments does not help, in either direction.

Seriously, the whole thing makes Ron Paul look like a
prophet if you look at it from the right angle. How
realistic is *that*? Not very. But there>s a great
deal of "hmmm" to that observation....

--
Les Cargill

zzbunker · Guest

On Oct 7, 6:43 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn>t
understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
electricity."

no, it>s like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were first
invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the methods of
transmission

Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.

such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft
demodulator in your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts..

No, that literally is Qualcomm...

but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to
use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the process
to line their own pockets.

Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don>t care for it
much myself, but there it is.

Or worse yet - let>s set the price of software at "free" and see where
that gets you.

charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing authority
by monopolizing commodity applications.

Meh. Office, for example, doesn>t cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.

if the industry ever got to the
point where there was real competition there would be no need to charge
for software because all the producers would be focused on adding value
as opposed to lock in.

Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
"developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and better
apps.

People don>t want good software. They want what everybody else is having.
[/quote]
And that>s why idiot people get what people-people deserve, which is
spam.
And the people who know how computers, science, electronics, sound,
light, progress,
and engineering works, make optical computers, post GE fiber optics,
post Ford batteries,
post GM Holograms, adapative PV Cells, adaptive piezo, laser-guided
lasers,
CD+rw, DVD-stack, HDTV[], XML, USB, AUVs, and AAVs rather than
more
meteorology crapola stuff for the relativity wanks.

[quote]
with the value-add model the paycheck comes from
service & support, actually helping people be more productive, as opposed
to monopolistic coercion.

It *can* work. It doesn>t work very often. There>s no good solution for
DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have - *tend*
to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don>t ) and certain
comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for production work, I
fear.

I>ve tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not always*.
But it>s hard.

(BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing that>s
had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on 'Doze. And
I *HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script pipes/languages
to do anything on a 'Doze box:)

--
Les Cargill[/quote]

Jerry Kraus · Guest

On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]it>s hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything from
spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse engineered
from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce
continuous upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
everyone.

[/quote]

This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does
not encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful
technologies. There>s no money in it. The money>s in controlling
standardized, existing technologies, and discouraging the development
of fundamentally new technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates,
and Microsoft do.

Mike · Guest

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

[quote]Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn>t
understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
electricity."

no, it>s like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were
first invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the
methods of transmission

Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.

[/quote]

no, the FCC controls the standards:

"The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by the
United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to resolve the
conflicts that arose between companies over the introduction of a
nationwide analog television system in the United States. In March 1941,
the committee issued a technical standard for black-and-white television
that built upon a 1936 recommendation made by the Radio Manufacturers
Association (RMA). ...
In January 1950 the Committee was reconstituted to standardize color
television. In December 1953, it unanimously approved what is now called
simply the NTSC color television standard (later defined as RS-170a). The
updated standard retained full backwards compatibility ("compatible
color") with older black-and-white television sets. Color information was
added to the black-and-white image by adding a color subcarrier of 4.5 Ã—
455/572 MHz (approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video signal. In order to
minimize interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound
carrier, the addition of the color subcarrier also required a slight
reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second to 30/1.001 (very
close to 29.97) frames per second, and changing the line frequency from
15,750 Hz to 15,734.26 Hz."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

[quote]such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft demodulator in
your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.

No, that literally is Qualcomm...

but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to
use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the
process to line their own pockets.

Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don>t care for it much myself,
but there it is.

[/quote]

i disagree, we don>t need the hucksters. what we need is corporations
competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust laws
and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices (ie.
microsoft>s sole business strategy).

[quote]

Or worse yet - let>s set the price of software at "free" and see where
that gets you.

charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing
authority by monopolizing commodity applications.

Meh. Office, for example, doesn>t cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.

[/quote]

the cost is astronomical, it>s the amount of microsoft>s total revenue,
hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for what? commodity
software...

[quote]if the industry ever got to the
point where there was real competition there would be no need to charge
for software because all the producers would be focused on adding value
as opposed to lock in.

Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
"developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and better
apps.

People don>t want good software. They want what everybody else is
having.

with the value-add model the paycheck comes from service & support,
actually helping people be more productive, as opposed to monopolistic
coercion.

It *can* work. It doesn>t work very often. There>s no good solution for
DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have - *tend*
to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don>t ) and certain
comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for production work, I
fear.

I>ve tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not always*.
But it>s hard.

[/quote]

it>s hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything from
spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse engineered
from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce
continuous upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
everyone.

[quote](BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing that>s
had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on 'Doze. And I
*HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script pipes/languages to do
anything on a 'Doze box:)[/quote]

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it>s hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything from
spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse engineered
from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce
continuous upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
everyone.

This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does
not encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful
technologies. There>s no money in it.
[/quote]
Well, there>s not supposed to be all that much in mathematical
software,
which is why the people with science, a.i., engineering,
progressive mentalities
invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
booking,
post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
parallel processors,
Elibraies(), HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing, On-Line-Banking,
CD+rw, DVD-stack,
Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
guided lasers,
GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB, and left microsoft keep the crank
"Windows" stuff.
Since the "Windows" are quite literally 1942 IBM-FCC Headhunter
legalese crapola,
rather than windows of anything.

The money>s in controlling
[quote]standardized, existing technologies, and discouraging the development
of fundamentally new technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates,
and Microsoft do.[/quote]

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Oct 8, 6:55 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it>s hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything
from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse
engineered from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft
puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to make it at as
difficult as possible for those groups trying to establish standards
that would be for the benefit of everyone.
This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does not
encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful technologies.

How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.

There>s no money in it. The money>s in controlling standardized, existing
technologies, and discouraging the development of fundamentally new
technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates, and Microsoft do.

How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.- Hide quoted text -
[/quote]
Not odd at all. Since Microsoft found out very very quickly
that you don>t make any money crates for Intel You make
money by going way over of the buisness intellilects of
the AT&T bridge wanks, and go straight to Wal-Mart

[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote]

zzbunker · Guest

On Oct 8, 10:27 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]zzbun...@netscape.net wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
Les Cargill wrote
it>s hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything
from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse
engineered from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft
puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to make it at as
difficult as possible for those groups trying to establish
standards that would be for the benefit of everyone.
This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does not
encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful technologies.
How odd that every single one has come out of
capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
There>s no money in it. The money>s in controlling standardized,
existing technologies, and discouraging the development of
fundamentally new technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates,
and Microsoft do.
How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
Not odd at all.

Thats called sarcasm, stupid.

Did you miss the emoticon ?

Since Microsoft found out very very quickly that you don>t make any money
crates for Intel You make money by going way over of the buisness
intellilects of the AT&T bridge wanks, and go straight to Wal-Mart

Thats nothing like how MS actually made its money.- Hide quoted text -
[/quote]
Microsoft mostly made it>s money making by capitalizing on the
idiocy of
the GM Stuper Computer WANKS,, so they deserve their money.
Since they were obviously the first of the idiot software
companies that
realized that computer *architecture*. has nothing to do with
*SCIENCE*.

[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Rod Speed · Guest

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1906@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it>s hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything
from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse
engineered from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft
puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to make it at as
difficult as possible for those groups trying to establish standards
that would be for the benefit of everyone.

This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does not
encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful technologies.
[/quote]
How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.

[quote]There>s no money in it. The money>s in controlling standardized, existing
technologies, and discouraging the development of fundamentally new
technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates, and Microsoft do.
[/quote]
How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Oct 8, 11:31 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]zzbunker<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
Les Cargill wrote
it>s hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything
from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be
reverse engineered from the constantly changing assortment that
microsoft puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to make it
at as difficult as possible for those groups trying to establish
standards that would be for the benefit of everyone.
This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does not
encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful technologies.
How odd that every single one has come out of
capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
There>s no money in it. The money>s in controlling standardized,
existing technologies, and discouraging the development of
fundamentally new technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates,
and Microsoft do.
How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
Not odd at all.
Thats called sarcasm, stupid.
Did you miss the emoticon ?
Since Microsoft found out very very quickly that you don>t make any
money crates for Intel You make money by going way over of the
buisness intellilects of the AT&T bridge wanks, and go straight to Wal-Mart
Thats nothing like how MS actually made its money.
Microsoft mostly made it>s money making by capitalizing on the idiocy of the GM Stuper Computer WANKS,,

Nope.
[/quote]
Well, that>s OBVIOUSLY how they made it, since the IBM and AT&T
imbeciles
didn>t even realize it until GE started to foreclose on the idiots.

[quote]
so they deserve their money.
Since they were obviously the first of the idiot software companies that
realized that computer *architecture*. has nothing to do with *SCIENCE*..

They werent that either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Economy Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 5 of 10