For crying out loud, it takes one bit in, one bit out, and a couple of transistors & resistors. *presto*, rs-232. There was even one that just plugged into the game paddle port on the Apple II.
And if memory serves, you needed the expansion unit on TRS-80, and even then, it only gave you room for a card for rs232, not the actual port.
Unless, of course, you're talking about much later models . . .
And isn't $99 a bit steep for one of those these days?
>you can't exactly 'tack' against the solor wind...
Are you sure? Extend the lines on one size of the sail. The craft will be
off-center, and you should get outward and lateral thrust
as dictated by the cosine and sine of the angle at which the
craft protrudes.
I expect you could similarly steer with the magnetic sail by shifting the
generation unit relative to the main craft, creating such
an angle.
These won't give you outright directional control, but they could affect
the direction of your outward motion from the wind, or your
inward fall from gravity . . .
And the return trip could come by decelleration in orbit, and then
steering along the trajectory . . .
One day at Iowa state, while leaving the den o the quantitative geneticists (I worked for one of them) in Kildee hall, I noticed a bit of plastic on the floor. As I got closer, it turned out to be a computer key. And sure enough, it was the escape key, which had taken its mission a bit too seriously.
I found it hysterical, but realized that there were tragically few people with whom I could share my amusement . . .
And even before that, in the '30's, Dr. Atanasoff and his graduate student Berry gave their initials to the ABC at Iowa State, which was electronic and digital. Programability left a lot to be desired, though:) [It solved sets of 17 equations in 17 unknowns].
This was the computer that led to the invalidation of the ENIAC patents--many were for things already done on the ABC, which the ENIAC designers had axctually examined.
Two replicas of the ABC were built, one to tour, and one to live in the Smithsonian. One was fired up to solve a problem.
hawk
p.s. scrounge around http://www.iastate.edu to find lots of articles and pages onit.
Don't we need a ribbon cutting ceremony? Send that perjuring excuse for a president up there, send him out to cut the ribbon, then while he makes one of his long-winded speeches, every else hops back in the lander, takes off, and . . .
:)
You see, if we leave enough oxygen & food for the rest ofhis term, he's not incapacitated, the veep doesn't take over, but he still can't do anything. We'd be safe from government for a good four months . . .
:)
hawk, who should probably fix his computer instead of worrying about this
For the record, I *am* a hard-core free-market type, and am firmly in the Bork/Posner camp on antitrust law. Indeed, over time the market *will* break the microsoft monopoly without government intervention--but in the meantime, consumers are suffering starggering hands at the hands of the monopoly, and chances at economic growth are being permanently lost.
While I am an attorney, this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
But you may take my economics as absolute truth:)
I read the entire Starr report. I read the entire Findings of Fact. I read the entire Conclusions of Law.
I could only make it about ten pages into this, even wearing boots (O.K., I'm wearing the pythons today, and I don't want them permanently stained:)
It is sheer an utter nonsense, the type of lying that is normally done with statistics rather than economics. If this were submitted as a field exam by a graduate student, he would fail . . .
Start with the "low price strategy" as applied to Windows. Complete rubbish. Yes, MS may have charged less than it might have, but the evidence has shownn--and there are explicit findings in the FoF--that microsoft used its monopoly power to charge nearly double the competitive price for windows. This is the *only* part of a desktop computer whose price has risen rather than decreased over the last 20 years.
The argument about not pricing high because the OS is a small percentage of the system cost and therefore a large increase in OS price would only be a small increase in system price is similarly specious: microsoft *has* raised the price in this regard. Furthermore, he seems to be willfully ignoring the fact that MS holds a "contestable monopoly"--it *can* be taken away, and this possiblity *limits* how badly microsfot can abuse its power in setting prices (but does *not* eliminate the power).
Another act of willful ignorance is in the "double marginalization" argument. For this to hold in the manner presented, mere market power by both is not enough--full monopoly power (or at least very close) is needed. However, Office's market power is a dirct consequence of the Windows market power: it comes from bundling both with the system. Break the windows/office tie, and Offfice's market power is drastically reduced.
While I'm at it, there is further error (or at least misdirection) in classifying windows and office as "complementary" for this purpose--people will buy an OS and office software, but (other than illegal acts which microsoft unconvincingly denies) there is nothing making office any more complementary to windows than star office or word perfect is.
While I'm at it, he is correct that ms chose a low price strategy for office--actually, the inherited policy from word and excel, which did indeed drive down prices *for the entire market*. MS figured (correctly, as it turns out) that it could make more by selling more copies at a lower price than the $500 typical asking price for a word processor or spreadsheet tat the time (street prices were lower, but ms still came out way ahead). What is ignored is that microsoft reached this strategy prior to having power in that market. [sidenote: this dates to a time when microsoft wrote quality software that was clearly better than most of its competions {Yes, I'm old enough to remember that . . . }].
hawk, an en economics professor whose opinions aren't for sale to the highest bidder
PS/2 is the latest and greatest from IBM! noone has licensed it, and it will soon use OS/2! This is the product that will return IBM to market dominance! It uses lots of exclamation points, too!
I think that statisic is not that "blacks have higher accident rates" but that "blacks are more likely to live in zip codes with higher accident rates". The second implies the first, but is a legal and moral way of allocating risk.
hawk, who indeed did read the portions of the thread that existed before he posted
> If we can't charge people an extra $500/year on car insurance because
> they're black or jewish, why can we charge people an extra $500/year
> because they're 22?
Uhh, could it be because people under 25 have about $500/year more in accidents than those who don't? Nah, it must be discrimination.
NOte that poeple over 25 still pay the high rates if they've had a license less than four years, as many of the foreign students found out while I was in grad school. And after seeing people who'd grown up without even riding in cars drive, I'm convinced that their rates were *way* too low:)
At least at Iowa state it was easy to detect them on the road: they were about the only oens in town who bought Japanese cars . . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your juridiction.
Also, I've never heard an MP#, nor do I have an interest in having them streamed to me.:)
A quick note: the ban in the Constitution on "ex post facto" laws--those passed after the fact--only applies to criminal cases. If the law were passed quickly, and written to do so, it *could* apply to pending litigation.
Whether or not that would be a good idea in this case is left as an excercise for the reader:)
That's what microsoft is after. For them to have any expectation of reversing the findings of fact is as silly as, well, the courtroom behavior. So no *reasonable* lawyer expects to see them reversed, but then, if the firm of Larry, Mo, and Curly continues to represent ms . . .
The focus is then on the remedies. The conclusions of violations are inescapable, but it is possible that the appellate process would impose an entirely diffferent remedie, which is where microsoft's real hopes lay.
And in the topsy-turvy world of spin, splitting ms is being construed as "anti free market", while the "lesser" remedy of massive regulation is seen as "pro free market".
In reality (speaking as an economics professor rather than a laywer now), splitting a monopolist which ahas used market power is the *pro* markets response . . .
The electoral votes are party of the senatorial role: states don't get "number of reps + 2", but one for each rep, and one for each senator. Reducing the prerogatives of having a senator is a reduction in that senatorial representation.
>Remember, you're only allowed to appeal if you can show new evidence
>or demonstrate that the last trial was somehow unfair,
No, this is just plain wrong (though it has application to capital punishment).
THis is a federal civil case. You *cannot* introduce new evidence. You *cannot* even introduce new arguments about the old evidence. You have two bases for appeal:
1) error of fact. To do this, you must show that no reasonable person could have reached the conclusion of fact *from the evidence* admitted. This isn't even remotely likely in this case. Again, the standard isn't just "decided wrong," but "couldn't possibly conclude that."
2) error in law. The trial judge (or lower court) made an error in applying the law. Here, the lower court's opinion receives no weigyht at all, and the legal arguments are made again. In this case, though, there is no way to avoid the conclusion of illegal monopoly given the Findings of Fact. There is room to argue about the remedy, however. [and personally, I think some of the state AG's should push for a multiple-vendors-of-windows solution]
> Unfortunately, this requires an ammendment to the Constitution.
However, that amendment to the constitution isn't possible. There are only two prohibitted amendments:
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that
no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate.
The first is no longer relevant, but the small states will not give up the second (I'll probably be in the majority in Nevada with a "secession first" view).
The electoral votes which give the small states disproportionaly more choice are part of that senatorial representation. We're not giving it up.
hawk, esq., a diehard Nevadan wandering the country
We received an email today from the Executive VP advising that the use of Napster for copyrighted materials is illegal and in violation of university policy. It also advised that the University periodically monitors traffic patterns, and mentioned that Bad Things happen vor violating state & federal law asnd university policies. But they are *not* banning napster outright (after all, there are probably one or two staff or stuents that actually have used it for something legal:)
Additionally, it showed us that our executive vp DOESN"T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN TO USE ALL CAPS IN HIS SUBJECT LINE TO GET ATTENTION. (which normally would have meant that it got filtered to my spame folder or/dev/null, but that seems to be missing from.maildelivery at the moment)
In many states, a degree from an ABA accreditted school is a requirement for membership. If the degree went away, the person would be unable to practice.
Then again, the courts would probably refuse to recognize a purported revocation for the offense of suing the school . . .
Yes, universities can revoke degrees, but it generally requires fraud or dishonbesty on retaining the degree. Iowa State revoked a Ph.D. while I was there over plagiarism.
OTOH, there is abuse of this power. MIT purported to revoke a degree a couple of years ago after a DUI related death . . .
Slashdot Mirror
For crying out loud, it takes one bit in, one bit out, and a couple of transistors & resistors. *presto*, rs-232. There was even one that just plugged into the game paddle port on the Apple II.
And if memory serves, you needed the expansion unit on TRS-80, and even then, it only gave you room for a card for rs232, not the actual port.
Unless, of course, you're talking about much later models . . .
And isn't $99 a bit steep for one of those these days?
hawk
>you can't exactly 'tack' against the solor wind...
Are you sure? Extend the lines on one size of the sail. The craft will be
off-center, and you should get outward and lateral thrust
as dictated by the cosine and sine of the angle at which the
craft protrudes.
I expect you could similarly steer with the magnetic sail by shifting the
generation unit relative to the main craft, creating such
an angle.
These won't give you outright directional control, but they could affect
the direction of your outward motion from the wind, or your
inward fall from gravity . . .
And the return trip could come by decelleration in orbit, and then
steering along the trajectory . . .
hawk
One day at Iowa state, while leaving the den o the quantitative geneticists (I worked for one of them) in Kildee hall, I noticed a bit of plastic on the floor. As I got closer, it turned out to be a computer key. And sure enough, it was the escape key, which had taken its mission a bit too seriously.
I found it hysterical, but realized that there were tragically few people with whom I could share my amusement . . .
It was a misunderstanding, yes. He meant to say that, "With the help of the algore, we took the initiative in inventing the open source movement."
:)
hawk, returning you to your regularly scheduled flamefest
Not magnetic-core, no. However, the drums of capacitors were the first regenerative memory.
but for the parts, which were turned into a bit of this, and a bit of that, iirc.
.]
ONce the ABC solved the set of equations it was built to solve, everyone pretty much lost interest . . .
hawk, harumphing at the idea that it was electromechanical--though memory was on rotating drums of capacitors, a breakthrough in and of itself . .
And even before that, in the '30's, Dr. Atanasoff and his graduate student Berry gave their initials to the ABC at Iowa State, which was electronic and digital. Programability left a lot to be desired, though :) [It solved sets of 17 equations in 17 unknowns].
This was the computer that led to the invalidation of the ENIAC patents--many were for things already done on the ABC, which the ENIAC designers had axctually examined.
Two replicas of the ABC were built, one to tour, and one to live in the Smithsonian. One was fired up to solve a problem.
hawk
p.s. scrounge around http://www.iastate.edu to find lots of articles and pages onit.
THe link notes,
> The Soviet Lunar program had 20 successful missions to the Moon and
> achieved a number of notable lunar "firsts": first probe to impact the
> Moon,
Crashing into the moon counts? THen shouldn't Microsoft be in the lunar
probe business?
:)
hawk
Don't we need a ribbon cutting ceremony? Send that perjuring excuse for a president up there, send him out to cut the ribbon, then while he makes one of his long-winded speeches, every else hops back in the lander, takes off, and . . .
:)
You see, if we leave enough oxygen & food for the rest ofhis term, he's not incapacitated, the veep doesn't take over, but he still can't do anything. We'd be safe from government for a good four months . . .
:)
hawk, who should probably fix his computer instead of worrying about this
than you calling Navajo, Hopi, and the like "Mexico" . . .
:)]
And for that matter, those aren't even accurate--the American Indians got those lands by killing off the Native Americans that were there first . . .
[And while I'm at, it, no sillier than calling parts of the U.S> "Mexico" and "Candaa"
/hawk ducks
> After all, w/o that what's to stop me from filing a
:)
> patent on a teleportation booth?
The oodles of prior art in comic books and bad SF movies?
Oops, this should have been in there . . .
For the record, I *am* a hard-core free-market type, and am firmly in the Bork/Posner camp on antitrust law. Indeed, over time the market *will* break the microsoft monopoly without government intervention--but in the meantime, consumers are suffering starggering hands at the hands of the monopoly, and chances at economic growth are being permanently lost.
hawk
While I am an attorney, this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
:)
:)
But you may take my economics as absolute truth
I read the entire Starr report. I read the entire Findings of Fact. I read the entire Conclusions of Law.
I could only make it about ten pages into this, even wearing boots (O.K., I'm wearing the pythons today, and I don't want them permanently stained
It is sheer an utter nonsense, the type of lying that is normally done with statistics rather than economics. If this were submitted as a field exam by a graduate student, he would fail . . .
Start with the "low price strategy" as applied to Windows. Complete rubbish. Yes, MS may have charged less than it might have, but the evidence has shownn--and there are explicit findings in the FoF--that microsoft used its monopoly power to charge nearly double the competitive price for windows. This is the *only* part of a desktop computer whose price has risen rather than decreased over the last 20 years.
The argument about not pricing high because the OS is a small percentage of the system cost and therefore a large increase in OS price would only be a small increase in system price is similarly specious: microsoft *has* raised the price in this regard. Furthermore, he seems to be willfully ignoring the fact that MS holds a "contestable monopoly"--it *can* be taken away, and this possiblity *limits* how badly microsfot can abuse its power in setting prices (but does *not* eliminate the power).
Another act of willful ignorance is in the "double marginalization" argument. For this to hold in the manner presented, mere market power by both is not enough--full monopoly power (or at least very close) is needed. However, Office's market power is a dirct consequence of the Windows market power: it comes from bundling both with the system. Break the windows/office tie, and Offfice's market power is drastically reduced.
While I'm at it, there is further error (or at least misdirection) in classifying windows and office as "complementary" for this purpose--people will buy an OS and office software, but (other than illegal acts which microsoft unconvincingly denies) there is nothing making office any more complementary to windows than star office or word perfect is.
While I'm at it, he is correct that ms chose a low price strategy for office--actually, the inherited policy from word and excel, which did indeed drive down prices *for the entire market*. MS figured (correctly, as it turns out) that it could make more by selling more copies at a lower price than the $500 typical asking price for a word processor or spreadsheet tat the time (street prices were lower, but ms still came out way ahead). What is ignored is that microsoft reached this strategy prior to having power in that market. [sidenote: this dates to a time when microsoft wrote quality software that was clearly better than most of its competions {Yes, I'm old enough to remember that . . . }].
hawk, an en economics professor whose opinions aren't for sale to the highest bidder
PS/2 is the latest and greatest from IBM! noone has licensed it, and it will soon use OS/2! This is the product that will return IBM to market dominance! It uses lots of exclamation points, too!
:)
oh, wait; no slash . . .
I think that statisic is not that "blacks have higher accident rates" but that "blacks are more likely to live in zip codes with higher accident rates". The second implies the first, but is a legal and moral way of allocating risk.
hawk, who indeed did read the portions of the thread that existed before he posted
> If we can't charge people an extra $500/year on car insurance because
:)
> they're black or jewish, why can we charge people an extra $500/year
> because they're 22?
Uhh, could it be because people under 25 have about $500/year more in accidents than those who don't? Nah, it must be discrimination.
NOte that poeple over 25 still pay the high rates if they've had a license less than four years, as many of the foreign students found out while I was in grad school. And after seeing people who'd grown up without even riding in cars drive, I'm convinced that their rates were *way* too low
At least at Iowa state it was easy to detect them on the road: they were about the only oens in town who bought Japanese cars . . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your juridiction.
:)
:)
Also, I've never heard an MP#, nor do I have an interest in having them streamed to me.
A quick note: the ban in the Constitution on "ex post facto" laws--those passed after the fact--only applies to criminal cases. If the law were passed quickly, and written to do so, it *could* apply to pending litigation.
Whether or not that would be a good idea in this case is left as an excercise for the reader
That's what microsoft is after. For them to have any expectation of reversing the findings of fact is as silly as, well, the courtroom behavior. So no *reasonable* lawyer expects to see them reversed, but then, if the firm of Larry, Mo, and Curly continues to represent ms . . .
The focus is then on the remedies. The conclusions of violations are inescapable, but it is possible that the appellate process would impose an entirely diffferent remedie, which is where microsoft's real hopes lay.
And in the topsy-turvy world of spin, splitting ms is being construed as "anti free market", while the "lesser" remedy of massive regulation is seen as "pro free market".
In reality (speaking as an economics professor rather than a laywer now), splitting a monopolist which ahas used market power is the *pro* markets response . . .
Time to write anotehr op-ed piece . . .
The electoral votes are party of the senatorial role: states don't get "number of reps + 2", but one for each rep, and one for each senator. Reducing the prerogatives of having a senator is a reduction in that senatorial representation.
hawk, esq.
>Remember, you're only allowed to appeal if you can show new evidence
>or demonstrate that the last trial was somehow unfair,
No, this is just plain wrong (though it has application to capital punishment).
THis is a federal civil case. You *cannot* introduce new evidence. You *cannot* even introduce new arguments about the old evidence. You have two bases for appeal:
1) error of fact. To do this, you must show that no reasonable person could have reached the conclusion of fact *from the evidence* admitted. This isn't even remotely likely in this case. Again, the standard isn't just "decided wrong," but "couldn't possibly conclude that."
2) error in law. The trial judge (or lower court) made an error in applying the law. Here, the lower court's opinion receives no weigyht at all, and the legal arguments are made again. In this case, though, there is no way to avoid the conclusion of illegal monopoly given the Findings of Fact. There is room to argue about the remedy, however. [and personally, I think some of the state AG's should push for a multiple-vendors-of-windows solution]
hawk, esq.
> Unfortunately, this requires an ammendment to the Constitution.
However, that amendment to the constitution isn't possible. There are only two prohibitted amendments:
provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first
and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that
no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate.
The first is no longer relevant, but the small states will not give up the second (I'll probably be in the majority in Nevada with a "secession first" view).
The electoral votes which give the small states disproportionaly more choice are part of that senatorial representation. We're not giving it up.
hawk, esq., a diehard Nevadan wandering the country
Rehnquist himself having actually worked for Microsoft would be a conflict. His son working for a firm that works for microsoft isn't even close.
hawk, esq.
We received an email today from the Executive VP advising that the use of Napster for copyrighted materials is illegal and in violation of university policy. It also advised that the University periodically monitors traffic patterns, and mentioned that Bad Things happen vor violating state & federal law asnd university policies. But they are *not* banning napster outright (after all, there are probably one or two staff or stuents that actually have used it for something legal
Additionally, it showed us that our executive vp DOESN"T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN TO USE ALL CAPS IN HIS SUBJECT LINE TO GET ATTENTION. (which normally would have meant that it got filtered to my spame folder or
In many states, a degree from an ABA accreditted school is a requirement for membership. If the degree went away, the person would be unable to practice.
Then again, the courts would probably refuse to recognize a purported revocation for the offense of suing the school . . .
Yes, universities can revoke degrees, but it generally requires fraud or dishonbesty on retaining the degree. Iowa State revoked a Ph.D. while I was there over plagiarism.
OTOH, there is abuse of this power. MIT purported to revoke a degree a couple of years ago after a DUI related death . . .