Science and Technology news... :: View topic

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Oct 9, 12:57 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]zzbun...@netscape.net wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
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.
Well, that>s OBVIOUSLY how they made it,

Nope.

since the IBM and AT&T imbeciles didn>t even
realize it until GE started to foreclose on the idiots.

Utterly mangled all over again.
[/quote]
It doesn>t matter, since what you>re STUPORING about is BUSH,
CLINITON,
DONALD TRUMP, and Fannie MAE IDIOTS,
not *computers, science, engineering, ECONONICS and CASH FLOW*.

[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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:16 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 12:57 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

zzbun...@netscape.net wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
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.
Well, that>s OBVIOUSLY how they made it,

Nope.

since the IBM and AT&T imbeciles didn>t even
realize it until GE started to foreclose on the idiots.

Utterly mangled all over again.

It doesn>t matter, since what you>re STUPORING about is BUSH,
CLINITON,
DONALD TRUMP, and Fannie MAE IDIOTS,
not *computers, science, engineering, ECONONICS and CASH FLOW*.
[/quote]
Or more specifially, you>re farting BREA about MORONIC *U.N.-
NOMICS*.
not *ECONOMICS*.

[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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Rod Speed · Guest

zzbunker@netscape.net wrote
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Thats called sarcasm, stupid.

Did you miss the emoticon ?

[quote]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]
Thats nothing like how MS actually made its money.

Rod Speed · Guest

zzbunker <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote
[quote]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,,
[/quote]
Nope.

[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*.
[/quote]
They werent that either.

Rod Speed · Guest

zzbunker@netscape.net wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
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.

Well, that>s OBVIOUSLY how they made it,
[/quote]
Nope.

[quote]since the IBM and AT&T imbeciles didn>t even
realize it until GE started to foreclose on the idiots.
[/quote]
Utterly mangled all over again.

[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.[/quote]

Jerry Kraus · Guest

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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
[/quote]
So, why haven>t these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

Maybe, because there>s no money in it?

Or, maybe, because it>s too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement? So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?

Jerry Kraus · Guest

On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

So, why haven>t these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

Maybe, because there>s no money in it?
Or, maybe, because it>s too big and too dangerous to do in your basement?

Or maybe its just a hell of a lot harder to do.

So, you need some government control and direction to invent it?

Not to invent it so much as to make it viable.

I dont recall too many fission nukes were developed in someone>s basement either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Now, now, Rod. I>ve already warned you about agreeing with me.
People will start to talk.

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

So, why haven>t these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?
[/quote]
Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs, risc++, Post AT&T fiber optics,
Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

[quote]
Maybe, because there>s no money in it?

Or, maybe, because it>s too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement? So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?[/quote]

Jerry Kraus · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

So, why haven>t these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs, risc++, Post AT&T fiber optics,
Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

Maybe, because there>s no money in it?

Or, maybe, because it>s too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement? So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics. Good point. We>ve had quite enough of stupid,
greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do. Thanks for
the feedback.

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

So, why haven>t these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*..
Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs, risc++, Post AT&T fiber optics,
Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

Maybe, because there>s no money in it?

Or, maybe, because it>s too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement? So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics.
[/quote]
Well, you>re seeing the only thing real *ENGINEERS* invest in
retarded *PHYSICS*.,
which is post-AT&T fiber optics, post-ford batteries, post GM
Holograms,
XML, On-Line-Banking, On-Line Publishing, laser-guided lasers, CD
+rw, DVD-stack,
HDTV, Optical Computers, Adaptive PV Cells, Adaptive Piezo, All-In-
One Printers,
USB, and Cruise Missiles.
Since they don>t call Physicists imbecile IBM mathematicians, for
no reason.

Good point. We>ve had quite enough of stupid,
[quote]greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do. Thanks for
the feedback.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Rod Speed · Guest

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

So, why haven>t these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

Maybe, because there>s no money in it?

Or, maybe, because it>s too big and too dangerous to do in your basement?
[/quote]
Or maybe its just a hell of a lot harder to do.

[quote]So, you need some government control and direction to invent it?
[/quote]
Not to invent it so much as to make it viable.

I dont recall too many fission nukes were developed in someone>s basement either.

Rod Speed · Guest

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1906@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 11:53 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

So, why haven>t these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

Maybe, because there>s no money in it?
Or, maybe, because it>s too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement?

Or maybe its just a hell of a lot harder to do.

So, you need some government control and direction to invent it?

Not to invent it so much as to make it viable.

I dont recall too many fission nukes were developed in someone>s basement either.

Now, now, Rod. I>ve already warned you about agreeing with me.
[/quote]
I didnt agree with you, stupid.

Mike · Guest

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

[quote]Mike 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:

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.

no, the FCC controls the standards:

.. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.
[/quote]

so? the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard and there>s no
monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
standard. it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as
opposed to one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a
standard that everyone uses.

[quote]"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

That>s nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at all?

My statement stands.
[/quote]

yes and it does a fine job of refuting a point that has nothing to do
with anything i>ve said (see above).

[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...

Uh... hello?
[/quote]

my comment was about when radio & tv were first invented so i>ll reply to
your qualcomm comment right after you explain how a company founded in
1985 has anything to do with it.

[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.

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

i disagree, we don>t need the hucksters.

Do you live in a jar?

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).

*Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild, then. No
dance before the tune, sir.
[/quote]

if that>s your defense for the hucksters then i rest my case.

[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.

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...

In context, it>s SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360) cost more,
much more, than people were willing to pay.

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.

Hello?
[/quote]

what? you expect me to respond to your statement:

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

ok, fine. my response is that the statement is ludicrous, i believe
people want great software but because of the microsoft monopoly they are
stuck with crap.

[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.

it>s hard because of microsoft.

That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what the exit-path
*avoids*.
[/quote]

if in order for a non-microsoft system to be usable for the average
person it must be able to interact seamlessly with microsoft formats
then, yes, there is no other place to put the blame for incompatibility
then on microsoft which is responsible for the ever-changing closed
(proprietary) formats and the relentless effort of preventing open
standards from being established.

[quote]
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.

Can>t go over it, better go around it.
[/quote]

it>s the difference between doing what>s in the best interest of
advancing technology for the benefit for everyone vs. the monopoly-
centric viewpoint of serving ones own interest at the expense of everyone
else.

[quote]
Except *they don>t*. Which is my point. Trying to fight culture with
knives... isn>t going to work very well.

Ooooh... my knife is *sharp*. Yeah, so what?

(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]

Les Cargill · Guest

Mike 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:

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.

no, the FCC controls the standards:

... and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.[/quote]

[quote]"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]
That>s nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at all?

My statement stands.

[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...

[/quote]
Uh... hello?

[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.

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

i disagree, we don>t need the hucksters.
[/quote]
Do you live in a jar?

[quote]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]
*Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild,
then. No dance before the tune, sir.

[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.

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]
In context, it>s SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360)
cost more, much more, than people were willing to pay.

[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.

[/quote]
Hello?

[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.

it>s hard because of microsoft.
[/quote]
That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what
the exit-path *avoids*.

[quote]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]
Can>t go over it, better go around it.

Except *they don>t*. Which is my point. Trying to fight culture with
knives... isn>t going to work very well.

Ooooh... my knife is *sharp*. Yeah, so what?

[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]
-

Les Cargill

Les Cargill · Guest

Mike wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike 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:

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.

no, the FCC controls the standards:

.. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.

so? the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard
[/quote]
It was developed 100% by people working for
Sarnoff. It might be the single
biggest leap in electronics transmission of
its time. It packed amazing amounts of data
into a small space, well ahead of even the electronics to
support it.

Have you ever seen a vertical hold knob on a TV? No? The
vertical hold knob was there because of thermal oscillator
drift before there were PLLs. You had to manually tune
the oscillator from a knob on the front of the set. We
used to call it "the flippin' knob" because the frames
of the picture would roll vertically until
you stopped it with the knob.

The standard was well in advance of *component level
support*. And a million companies bloomed from it.

[quote]and there>s no
monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
standard.
[/quote]
Sure there is. You just don>t see it because it>s not
explicit. What was RCA worth in 1960? Who was
the dominant player in TV technology? RCA.

NTSC is a masterpiece - shame it>s dying in February. But
it was 100% developed in RCA laboratories, and it took a
very long time for others to catch up to RCA.

[quote]it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as
opposed to one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a
standard that everyone uses.

[/quote]
*All* standards are privately developed, and *all* standards are
developed with an eye towards competitive advantage.

Go grep the company names on the IETF standards documents. The
name "Cisco" will figure quite prominently.

[quote]
"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

That>s nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at all?

My statement stands.

[/quote]
Weakly, if at all. It was in the enlightened self interest of Sarnoff
et al to publish the standard *as* a standard to... achieve lock-in.

Uh oh. Now how did that work again? Who was the dominant player in
television in 1960 again?

So of what value would 1000 different television protocols have been?

None. That>s what.

[quote]

yes and it does a fine job of refuting a point that has nothing to do
with anything i>ve said (see above).

[/quote]
Aw sheesh. Ignore it at your peril. The marketplace *provided incentives
for otherwise intolerably arrogant people to play nice*. They
didn>t do it out of altruism, boy.

[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...

Uh... hello?

[/quote]
*Knock knock*...

[quote]
my comment was about when radio & tv were first invented so i>ll reply to
your qualcomm comment right after you explain how a company founded in
1985 has anything to do with it.

[/quote]
Qualcomm hold patents on just bout every wireless protocol in use today.
Some are open, some are not.

I dunno... maybe there are... parallels or something.... ?

[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.

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

i disagree, we don>t need the hucksters.
Do you live in a jar?

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).

*Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild, then. No
dance before the tune, sir.

if that>s your defense for the hucksters then i rest my case.

[/quote]
Well, I>m not sure I can explain it to you if you>re committed
to ignoring it. And that>s fine. Suffice it to say that
ten million interested potential customers is a whole lot better than
ten, a thousand, ten thousand.

Especially for media tech, *mass* is interesting. Narrow isn>t.

[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.

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...

In context, it>s SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360) cost more,
much more, than people were willing to pay.

[/quote]
<further ignore-izance...>

[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.

Hello?

what? you expect me to respond to your statement:

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

[/quote]
Right.

[quote]ok, fine. my response is that the statement is ludicrous, i believe
people want great software but because of the microsoft monopoly they are
stuck with crap.

[/quote]
They want it. Otherwise you are submitting in front of everybody
that they somehow wandered zombie like under he pure personal
charisma of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to buy the stuff.

Hell, for all I know, the "crap" part made it "better" in terms
of the marketplace. After all, nobody wants to listen to those
propeller heads, do they?

(you should see where I am going with this..?)

[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.

it>s hard because of microsoft.
That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what the exit-path
*avoids*.

if in order for a non-microsoft system to be usable for the average
person it must be able to interact seamlessly with microsoft formats
then, yes, there is no other place to put the blame for incompatibility
then on microsoft which is responsible for the ever-changing closed
(proprietary) formats and the relentless effort of preventing open
standards from being established.

[/quote]
:) You should actually blame the lousy formats on those who originated
them. M$ started Word outta a company called Samna ( which they
aquired). I once had to write a *parser* for the bloody things, and
all the docs were from Samna.

I honestly think that M$ doesn>t *care* about open anything, they
just cared (past tense) about what they offered. There>s no conspiracy,
just "WTF?" on their part. They didn>t *think* about it.

[quote]
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.

Can>t go over it, better go around it.

it>s the difference between doing what>s in the best interest of
advancing technology for the benefit for everyone vs. the monopoly-
centric viewpoint of serving ones own interest at the expense of everyone
else.

[/quote]
But the people you are talking about have expanded the footprint of
technology more than Bell Labs itself.

Sword-swallowing at the dinner table isn>t interesting. it>s nauseating.
Sword-swallowing in the *circus* is interesting. I won>t hold
circus builders in contempt, because they make sword swallowing
entertainment instead of vaguely unsettling.

The people who create the context in which a product is interesting
are just as responsible for the utility of the product as those who
cerate it outright.

[quote]
Except *they don>t*. Which is my point. Trying to fight culture with
knives... isn>t going to work very well.

Ooooh... my knife is *sharp*. Yeah, so what?

(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]
--
Les Cargill


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 6 of 10