Generally--it's the past perfect, indicating a completed action.
It can lead to problems, though: I had a legal writing paper come back with "p.v." all over it, so I took it back to the instructor to ask what that meant.
"Passive voice. You're not supposed to use that."
2 things: 1) You are supposed to *avoid*, not never use, the passive voice (but I left this out, as it seemed beyond her.)
2) "That's the past perfect,not the passive."
"tee-hee. I always had trouble telling those apart."
I managed to supress the groan . . .
hawk, now trying to figure out if the abbreviation for Amanda is 'manda or 'Manda . . .
I started in EE, but moved to the Engineering Physics program taking a Nuclear Scienses emphasis.
THree Mile Island happened, nearly all reactor orders were cancelled, and the Nuclear Engineering Division of GE didn't send anyone to take the two graduate classes I needed for the degree (and they weren't going to offer them for a single undergraduate:), so I ended up in straight physics.
I answered the Navy's ad for nuclear engineers, but they diverted me to fly--but I have no coordeination, so I got an honorable discharge and a plain ticket home.
I'd enjoyed the limited legal analysis in the Naval Law class, and chose law school over a Ph.D. in aviation engineering.
After five years of that, I landed back in graduate school for a Ph.D. in Econ, and ended up leaving with a degree jointly in econ and stat . . .
Most people don't move this much, but take the courses/major that interestyou. As long as you have enough math, you can pretty much move from anything to anything--but it really helps to learn your calculus and linear algebra young.
Bork *expected* the crisis to escalate upon the firing (as would *anyone* who gave it serious thought). He was also concerned about the justice department--he was the only senior official left, and *someone* had to mind the store.
To suggest that he thought that this would in *any* way assist the coverup is to be willfully ignorant. Suggesting that integrity was at all involved in the Borking of the nomination shows a loose grip on reality--put the crack pipe down.
>IANAL, but there must be more to consumer
>'benefit' that simply tomorrow's retail prices.
Of course there is, and the analysis is not that simplistic. I'm not going to be able to explain detailed economic analysis in a page or two (and If I did, it would publish in a journal, not here).
Price is the example. Consumer welfare is the standard. Bork isn't out on the fringe of the Chicago school that thinks one firm is enough for competition (it's an honest argument; I just don't buy it).
If it created monopoly power, Bork would be against it.
Note that Bork was highly suspicious of the predatory pricing argument, as (at the time he wrote) there were other explanations for all the past cases. Microsoft seemes to be a better example, and possibly the first.
Again, Bork is saying that microsoft's pattern of behavior is *bad*, and anti-competitive--andthis from the father of the school of thought that opened the way for more mergers.
I am an attorney; this is not legal advise. Contact an attorney licensed in your jursidiction if you need some.
Robert Bork is the #1 authority on modern antitrust law, with Richard Posner (who served as a mediator in this case) a close #2.
Modern antitrust law is essentially what Bork & Posner suggested would better protect consumers in a series of law beginning inthe late 60's. They pointed out that the current state of the law made no sense, conflicting wsith itself and the economics it dealt with (Brown Shoe, Bork's favorite: Brown & Kinney, with 5% and 1% of the manufacturing & sales markets for shoes, wanted to merge. DoJ blocked this (successfully with the USSC) on the grounds that it would allow them to sell a product of comparable quality at a lower price than their competitors . . . aren't you grateful for such protection?)
Anyway, Bork is seen as a rabid conservative, which is inaccurate (though he's now a conservative on many issues), but he wasactually a screaming leftist (borderline socialist) who learned some economics and changed his positions based on them--to achieve the original goals.
Bork argued that the sole legitimate test of the competition was whether it benefitted or hurt the consumer: if consumers will see lower prices from the merger of ten firms down to 3, than it is a pro-competitive merger. He also arugued that the law should protect competition, not the other competitors.
His antitrust rules are *not* republican--the Clinton administration pretty much took the same path.
I went deeply into the GPL a couple of years ago for LyX. I still couldn't quite figure out exactly what it meant (and I *am* a lawyer, and also hold a Ph.D. in economics & statistics . ..)
I *am* sure that it doesn't say what the FSF claims--and now that you mention it, the static linking bit is FSF rather than GPL, isn't it?
Darren's doesn't seem to have a distributable-as-a-whole under the licence requirement, however.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, hire an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. If you have antitrust problems, you can afford it!
I' really surprised this took so long. With the justice/states win, it's a much simpler action. Netscape (or whatever it's called *this* week) really just has to prove harm and damages, whereas Caldera faced the entire burdern for DR-DOS--and settled for over half a Billion (low, I think).
I really expected this, at the latest, after the appellate court upheld the findings of fact. Regardless of the remedy imposed (there will be a remedy; the question is what. And contrary to popular belief and MS press, the appellate court did *not* rule out a breakup; they tossed everything done after the judge went wild), the basic findings still exist.
MS was found to take actions for the sole purpose of harming netscape as a product to remove it as a threat to Windows (not to explorer; it was the weapon, not an end). MS just can't spin this away.
However, netscape didn't make *all* that much on the browsers; though they got revenue, the browser's real purpose was to create a market for server software (and later, to grab eyeballs for ads by controlling the startup page). I'm not sure that there's that much to be recovered here (though it will be tripled).
You were able to go 500 miles without having to stop and screw the forward right sparkplug back in? Good thing those things had engine pans, or the plugs for my 74 superbeetle would have killed me.
and once, for good measure, It dropped *two* plugs: I felt the hesitation, worse then usual, and pulled over to put the usual plug back in. It was still sluggish. I went back, and an extra one fell out.
Yes. Netscape 3 rarely crashed on linux. The separate windows (and lower memory requirements) were one of the reasons I continued using StarOffice 3 even into the 5.0 era.
It wouldn'thave been so much installing an OS to usethe browser, but starting with the OS in the first place and not having a need forwindows.
Ithas 8 L1 caches, but they're not 8 times as large. Come to think of it, how do the cache sizes compare? Doesn't each athlon have about 4 times the celery's, equalizing thimngs?
also, it seems more likely that one big cache wouldhave what you need than a collection of little ones *all* having it.
I also noticecd that I used 9 words for each array element in my stucture. *doh*. 8 would have exactly alligned it in terms of memory fetch operations (one or two; I forget)>
Anyway, isn't the 1900 athlon somewhere in the broad range of 3 800 celerys?
My new workstation (yes, it's finally coming, for those whohave been wondering; the purchase order goes to main campus today):
$4800: 2xAthlon 1900, 2gb ddr.
My memory and bus are significantly faster. I believemy total processing power is equal or close under most applications.
Then I get a few things that aren't in that bundle:
2x18gb cheetah 15000rpm u160
4x 9gb cheetah 15000rpm u160
21" sony monitor & video card
scsi cdrw
It doesn't attempt to control linking and inclusion. Viral (gpl) means that if you use A, which is any license, and B, which is GPL, under many (not all) circumstances, your final output must be GPL.
This lets the two pieces, mix, match,mate, link, whatever without trying to control the output.
It was the obvious solution to M bundling browsers with operating systems: netscape should have responded by including an operating system with the browser.
lot's of engineers for wine would have been nice, too, but bundling netscape, a bsd (or linux), and the (then) personal use version of staroffice, and they could have kicked a good chunk of the low-end clean out from under microsoft.
That's overstated. Think of the alternative: zero unemployment means that noone is training for better jobs between jobs. No social mobility. You can't change employment. It all comes down to *why* people are unemployed.
the first time, close to forever:). For updates, though, it shouldn't be too bad--just let it run overnight. You can also interrupt the make update and do it in pieces.
The 55, 65,.08, 21, and other such requirements are unconstitutional. The powers of Congress are spelled out in the Constitution; to conclude that the feds can use the purse to order states to pass laws outside federal authority is to remove all limits on federal power--a bizarre position, when the Constitution is fundamentally a document of restraint on said power.
I'm a Nevadan. We took the 55 to the Supreme Court. While it was waiting for oral arguments, our spineless Attorney General accepted the 65 as a win, and ruined his career by dropping the matter.
I'm an economist. I back free trade, including unilaterally dropping tariffs (at least inthe general case--if you're willing to bear the losses while waiting, you can sometimes bludgeon someone else into trading freely).
I would also like to see every last subsidy eliminated (OK, I'll give a certain amount of leeway for subsidies that actually keep military production capacity available, and a lot to those that actually use sound economics to subisidize a public good or eliminate a public bad [though I can't name any meeting the "sound economics" part:) ]).
I'd be hard pressed to take 400 words to describe free trade, yet NAFTA is 400 pages--primarily exceptions and regulatory bodies . . .
And as a free trade economist, I *want* the government knocking down monopolies, as they tamper with my precious free markets . . .
And as for the Ukraine piracy, no, I don't think it's in our interests to do this--the losses to american consumers from the higher prices will probably be higher by orders of magnituded than the damage from the piracy. There's better uses for our resources.
Still, though, the claim that we're doing something sinister, or that Ukraine is being mistreated, is just plain silly and ignores history.
Free Trade between nations is a fairly recent thing (and a good idea, but that's another issue). The U.S. is telling Ukraine that unless Ukraine behaves in the modern manner (not pirating intellectual property), the U.S. will not allow Ukrain to make some of its export wihout or with low tarriff, but instead must pay tarriffs (as has been traditionally required). That's it.
That tariffs hurt the receiving country more then the shipping country, or at least more than is collected, is another economics issue entirely:)
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh,the state of pre-schooleducation in the US . . .
:)
hawk
>running thru your head all day...
Over my dead body!
We almost didn't name her Amanda over concern that she might be called Mandy . . . And I've threatened a friend or two who started to use it . . .
As Johny Fever noted, there's a place for Barry Manilo, but it's not on the publoic airwaves . . .
hawk
Generally--it's the past perfect, indicating a completed action.
It can lead to problems, though: I had a legal writing paper come back with "p.v." all over it, so I took it back to the instructor to ask what that meant.
"Passive voice. You're not supposed to use that."
2 things: 1) You are supposed to *avoid*, not never use, the passive voice (but I left this out, as it seemed beyond her.)
2) "That's the past perfect,not the passive."
"tee-hee. I always had trouble telling those apart."
I managed to supress the groan . . .
hawk, now trying to figure out if the abbreviation for Amanda is 'manda or 'Manda . . .
THree Mile Island happened, nearly all reactor orders were cancelled, and the Nuclear Engineering Division of GE didn't send anyone to take the two graduate classes I needed for the degree (and they weren't going to offer them for a single undergraduate
I answered the Navy's ad for nuclear engineers, but they diverted me to fly--but I have no coordeination, so I got an honorable discharge and a plain ticket home.
I'd enjoyed the limited legal analysis in the Naval Law class, and chose law school over a Ph.D. in aviation engineering.
After five years of that, I landed back in graduate school for a Ph.D. in Econ, and ended up leaving with a degree jointly in econ and stat . . .
Most people don't move this much, but take the courses/major that interestyou. As long as you have enough math, you can pretty much move from anything to anything--but it really helps to learn your calculus and linear algebra young.
hawk
Bork *expected* the crisis to escalate upon the firing (as would *anyone* who gave it serious thought). He was also concerned about the justice department--he was the only senior official left, and *someone* had to mind the store.
To suggest that he thought that this would in *any* way assist the coverup is to be willfully ignorant. Suggesting that integrity was at all involved in the Borking of the nomination shows a loose grip on reality--put the crack pipe down.
hawk
>'benefit' that simply tomorrow's retail prices.
Of course there is, and the analysis is not that simplistic. I'm not going to be able to explain detailed economic analysis in a page or two (and If I did, it would publish in a journal, not here).
Price is the example. Consumer welfare is the standard. Bork isn't out on the fringe of the Chicago school that thinks one firm is enough for competition (it's an honest argument; I just don't buy it).
If it created monopoly power, Bork would be against it.
Note that Bork was highly suspicious of the predatory pricing argument, as (at the time he wrote) there were other explanations for all the past cases. Microsoft seemes to be a better example, and possibly the first.
Again, Bork is saying that microsoft's pattern of behavior is *bad*, and anti-competitive--andthis from the father of the school of thought that opened the way for more mergers.
hawk
Robert Bork is the #1 authority on modern antitrust law, with Richard Posner (who served as a mediator in this case) a close #2.
Modern antitrust law is essentially what Bork & Posner suggested would better protect consumers in a series of law beginning inthe late 60's. They pointed out that the current state of the law made no sense, conflicting wsith itself and the economics it dealt with (Brown Shoe, Bork's favorite: Brown & Kinney, with 5% and 1% of the manufacturing & sales markets for shoes, wanted to merge. DoJ blocked this (successfully with the USSC) on the grounds that it would allow them to sell a product of comparable quality at a lower price than their competitors . . . aren't you grateful for such protection?)
Anyway, Bork is seen as a rabid conservative, which is inaccurate (though he's now a conservative on many issues), but he wasactually a screaming leftist (borderline socialist) who learned some economics and changed his positions based on them--to achieve the original goals.
Bork argued that the sole legitimate test of the competition was whether it benefitted or hurt the consumer: if consumers will see lower prices from the merger of ten firms down to 3, than it is a pro-competitive merger. He also arugued that the law should protect competition, not the other competitors.
His antitrust rules are *not* republican--the Clinton administration pretty much took the same path.
hawk, esq.
>line reports user-available memory in bytes.
yeah, but they still had more bytes than I'll have megs in my new workstation, by an order of magnitude! (but not 2 orders
hawk
I went deeply into the GPL a couple of years ago for LyX. I still couldn't quite figure out exactly what it meant (and I *am* a lawyer, and also hold a Ph.D. in economics & statistics . .
I *am* sure that it doesn't say what the FSF claims--and now that you mention it, the static linking bit is FSF rather than GPL, isn't it?
Darren's doesn't seem to have a distributable-as-a-whole under the licence requirement, however.
hawk, esq.
I' really surprised this took so long. With the justice/states win, it's a much simpler action. Netscape (or whatever it's called *this* week) really just has to prove harm and damages, whereas Caldera faced the entire burdern for DR-DOS--and settled for over half a Billion (low, I think).
I really expected this, at the latest, after the appellate court upheld the findings of fact. Regardless of the remedy imposed (there will be a remedy; the question is what. And contrary to popular belief and MS press, the appellate court did *not* rule out a breakup; they tossed everything done after the judge went wild), the basic findings still exist.
MS was found to take actions for the sole purpose of harming netscape as a product to remove it as a threat to Windows (not to explorer; it was the weapon, not an end). MS just can't spin this away.
However, netscape didn't make *all* that much on the browsers; though they got revenue, the browser's real purpose was to create a market for server software (and later, to grab eyeballs for ads by controlling the startup page). I'm not sure that there's that much to be recovered here (though it will be tripled).
hawk, esq.
You were able to go 500 miles without having to stop and screw the forward right sparkplug back in? Good thing those things had engine pans, or the plugs for my 74 superbeetle would have killed me.
and once, for good measure, It dropped *two* plugs: I felt the hesitation, worse then usual, and pulled over to put the usual plug back in. It was still sluggish. I went back, and an extra one fell out.
hawk
:)
Yes. Netscape 3 rarely crashed on linux. The separate windows (and lower memory requirements) were one of the reasons I continued using StarOffice 3 even into the 5.0 era.
It wouldn'thave been so much installing an OS to usethe browser, but starting with the OS in the first place and not having a need forwindows.
hawk.
also, it seems more likely that one big cache wouldhave what you need than a collection of little ones *all* having it.
I also noticecd that I used 9 words for each array element in my stucture. *doh*. 8 would have exactly alligned it in terms of memory fetch operations (one or two; I forget)>
Anyway, isn't the 1900 athlon somewhere in the broad range of 3 800 celerys?
hawk
no, of course not.
also "link to", and in certain circumstances, "distribute with."
hawk
My new workstation (yes, it's finally coming, for those whohave been wondering; the purchase order goes to main campus today):
$4800: 2xAthlon 1900, 2gb ddr.
My memory and bus are significantly faster. I believemy total processing power is equal or close under most applications.
Then I get a few things that aren't in that bundle:
2x18gb cheetah 15000rpm u160
4x 9gb cheetah 15000rpm u160
21" sony monitor & video card
scsi cdrw
would I really get any more from this unit???
This lets the two pieces, mix, match,mate, link, whatever without trying to control the output.
hawk
lot's of engineers for wine would have been nice, too, but bundling netscape, a bsd (or linux), and the (then) personal use version of staroffice, and they could have kicked a good chunk of the low-end clean out from under microsoft.
hawk
hawk
hawk
I dunno.
the first time, close to forever
hawk
I'm a Nevadan. We took the 55 to the Supreme Court. While it was waiting for oral arguments, our spineless Attorney General accepted the 65 as a win, and ruined his career by dropping the matter.
hawk
I'm an economist. I back free trade, including unilaterally dropping tariffs (at least inthe general case--if you're willing to bear the losses while waiting, you can sometimes bludgeon someone else into trading freely).
I would also like to see every last subsidy eliminated (OK, I'll give a certain amount of leeway for subsidies that actually keep military production capacity available, and a lot to those that actually use sound economics to subisidize a public good or eliminate a public bad [though I can't name any meeting the "sound economics" part
I'd be hard pressed to take 400 words to describe free trade, yet NAFTA is 400 pages--primarily exceptions and regulatory bodies . . .
And as a free trade economist, I *want* the government knocking down monopolies, as they tamper with my precious free markets . . .
And as for the Ukraine piracy, no, I don't think it's in our interests to do this--the losses to american consumers from the higher prices will probably be higher by orders of magnituded than the damage from the piracy. There's better uses for our resources.
Still, though, the claim that we're doing something sinister, or that Ukraine is being mistreated, is just plain silly and ignores history.
hawk
hawk
Free trade is something that we do recipricolly, not because other nations are entitled.
hawk
Free Trade between nations is a fairly recent thing (and a good idea, but that's another issue). The U.S. is telling Ukraine that unless Ukraine behaves in the modern manner (not pirating intellectual property), the U.S. will not allow Ukrain to make some of its export wihout or with low tarriff, but instead must pay tarriffs (as has been traditionally required). That's it.
That tariffs hurt the receiving country more then the shipping country, or at least more than is collected, is another economics issue entirely
hawk