Are you sure about '62? I thought it was rather recent.
That, and I wasn't born until a couple of years later, so I couldn't read the labels on my crayons until the late 60's, and my crayolas certainly had "flesh" as a color . . .
Administrative costs are a *dis*economy of scale at that size, not an economy of scale. It costs *more* to run a single huge HR department than it does to run two pieces. Perhaps not a lot more (maybe only the single top manager), but the split causes efficiencies, not inefficiencies, in this area.
If windows had competition (which, unfortunately, won't be caused by the remedies), it would cost half to a quarter what it costs now. The retail price of a machine would drop by $50 to $75.
Office would likely drop in price as well, although I'm not as certain on that--it still faces some (but not a lot) fo pricing pressure from the vestigal competition.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see ana attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Someone moderate that up; it's important and correct. Nonetheless, I'll elaborate a bit more.
The prior ruling was regarding an injunction before trial. Most importantly, it was an order issued *before* hearing evidence, based upon what the appellate court thought likely to be able to be proven. These notions are *entirely* set aside by the actual findings of fact. That is, the appellate court didn't see a high enough probability of the DOJ proving its claims to enter the preliminary injunction. Once the DOJ succeeded, that estimate is irrelevant.
Also note werdna's comments below about the reasons for the SC to take (or not take) the case.
[today's tip: don't try to make buildworld and Xfree 4 at the same time on a 1G disk, no matter how much memory you have . . . there's not enough disk space (and that's before tetex tried to build at the same time:) )
This is *bizarre* I don't normally use windows, and it's only a temporary situation, but right here, on the ""read the rest of this comment" link,instead of to slashdot, it points to
[there's a paragraph & bold in there too, but slashdot eats them . ..] It also happens to the same link in this followup window. Is the slashcode doing something wierd, or is it IE? Do other people get this as well?
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This wouldn't stop the split. The U.S. court has already rendered judgment, and has jurisdiction. Assuming that the split stands on appeal (and the odds are strongly in the DOJ's favor), the two pieces could move.
Plain and simply, the court can block the move until the split is complete. Contempt power is an amazing thing--every executive can be jailed, fined $1M/day, etc.
It might help MS with future problems, but not the current mess.
Unfortneately, I can't reply to replies, as it's moving day and I won't see a computer again until Tuesday . . .
When I spent three weeks in California last Christmas, I was in shock from the food prices. I'll admit that Fareway (Iowa) has noticably lower prices than even its local competitors, but aside from produce and fish, food prices were 150-200% of what I'm used to. I was in shock. I had trouble putting things in my cart.
Fortunately, I made it back, and was able to return to excellent pork cuts for well under $2/lb . . .
I move to Dubois, PA this weekend. Rental houses are hard to find, but I got one. 400/month for a huge four bedroom with an empty lot next door for the kids. There's also a basement and attic.
And I'd thought I was going to be forced to shell out $48-50K to buy a five or six bedroom victorian . . . my wife would have been upset if I took one of the run-down ones at $30k . . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your own jurisdiction.
> While IANAL, I have a friend that is and I think that giving out legal > advice (which can consistitue answering legal questions as such) > without charging for it can be considered a violation of the Bar
No; that is an ancient joke--though if you go back far enough, you find Barristers robes with a pocket in the back so that they could conveniently be given a payment--as it was improper/unethical/ungentle to ask--Esquire is a derivitave of Squire, a class that wasn't supposed to work for a living.
Anyway, free advice is legal, and so is free work (pro bono publico--for the public good).
That said, anywone dispensing free advice in a public forum like this is nuts. There is *no* way to adequately gather enough information from a short posting to give competant advice (save in the most trivial situations). Additionally, proving what you did or didn't say is difficult. WHether you charge or not, you are still liable for the advice.
Extreme example: voice on phone asks question, gets answer, does something, comes back and sues. You have no idea who the person was, or if this is the person you talked to. But you're on the hook, and you insurance carrier is less than happy. This is why I have a hard, no exceptions, policy that I only give advice to clients.
On the other hand, I do frequently comment on legal issues around here--but never in a way that could be legal advice.
Lastly, note that the legal questions that get asked are generally ones for which a proper answer would take several hours of research. I'm not going to do that every time a complete stranger asks. If someone wants to pay my hourly, sure--but I'm not going to do several hundred or a couple of thousand dollars of free work on a regular basis:)
Ok, not only send this all the way up to 5, but re-root it as a top level comment:)
I was delighted to find students here griping about their intro to stat class that was really "funny calculator 101"--they *wanted* to know what was going on. NOt much I can do as a visiting professor, but next year when I teach the comparable class at another school . ..
Yes, you should know what a "mean" means, not just how to get one with a calculator . ..
btw, anyone know where we can cheaply order those cheap dice of various sizes? They're going to be mandatory . . .
> All the teachers will do is make students with wireless access (for > the exams that wouldn't allow them) is to construct a small box lined > with a couple layers of tinfoil.
Nope, it's much easier than that. I just plain don't allow calculators.
Hmm, it's going to be interesting in my intro to stats class this fall, when I tell them that calculators are forbidden, but dice are mandatory . . .:)
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice on this or any other matter. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
That's a reasonably accurate description of the legalese--I'd really have tagged this informative, not funny.
Sometimes this is *exactly* what you need your lawyer to do. Sometimes I've even advised clients to flat-out ignore the first letter received--with experience, you get a handle for which ones should be taken seriously, and which ones will go away if ignored. The latter category frequently includes letters from out of state attorneys that are really looking to see if you'll quickly connect them to an insurance company for a quick buck.
An attorney unzipping and taking aim is also frequently what you need in a consumer matter, with a rogue government agency, or when the IRS just plain screws up. FOr $50-$100 (depending upon where you are and local rates), there is a broad class of problems that are solved well over half the time by a simple letter. Yes, the other side *should* have backed down without the letter, and there frequently is no information inside the letter that wasn't already given, but it's an "attention-getter."
Basically, you hire the attorney in this case to menace with an iron fist in a velvet glove. Leave the other side a way to back down and save face (and save themselves from their boss finding out:)
The time it took for the consultation and letter really didn't make them worthwhile for me at $100, but they tend to give you very happy clients who might come back with someone else, or tell their friends about you (My overhead was over $100k/year at one point . ..). It also feels good:)
There's also the issue of showing the other side that you have the resolve to fight it, and it isn't worth your time. Andover is large enough that they can afford the fight, and they're showing that they're serious here.
I need to ask for my new machine rather quickly. I *must* have *nix. If OS X works, and has a good fortran compiler, I'm tempted to go that way. If it doesn't, it's x86 and FreeBSD. (Either one will irk the computer folks where I'm going:)
BUt what does "public beta" mean? Sign up, and maybe they send it? Anyone can download? A spare CD hidden in the computer case?
> The whole legal fiction of corporations being "persons" stems back to > the 1886 Supreme Court decision in County of Santa Clara v. Southern > Pacific Railroad,
uhh, no. THat may be the first time the equal protection clause was applied to corporations (i really don't know off the cuff), but it certainly isn't the origin of "person" status of a corporation.
A corporation *is* a legally create person, as opposed to a natural person. THis is its nature, and it goes (at least) several centuries. This is where the limited liability of shareholders comes from--they don't own the debt, that "other person," the corporation, owes them. Also the legal notion of an "alter ego" when setting aside corporate protections--again a reference to the corporation as a person.
It used to take an act of parliament (later colonial and state legislatures) to create a corporation. Along the way the Common Law became friendly towards them, which greatly helped the forming of larger commercial enterprises, and is a major factor in the commercial success of Britain and its former colonies. This was a radical change from the roman law which was outright hostile to corporations--the status as a fictitious person was seen as a problem.
In other words, you're only a couple of thousand years off:)
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you see legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Actually, the 55 was never ruled uncostitional. Yes, it certainly was unconstititonal, like a majority of today's legislation, but the case was never heard.
Nevada passed a 75 law that had a provision allowing the governor to suspend it if the federal secretary of transportation threatened to pull highway funds. A single 75 sign was posted, and the governor waited for the phone call. ONce it was received, there was a dispute which could be heard in federal court. (Nevada had *no* speed limit other than the basic speed law on most highways before this).
The case was pending for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court when the federal 65 law passed. A spineless state Attorney General withdrew the case at that point, and it was never heard.
A few years ago, th feds finally dropped the law entirely.
The reason it violates the constitution is that the constitution grants a set of powers to the feds. Recognizing that this law wasn't even close to those powers, the feds did not directly implement a 55 law, but required the states to do so under threat of loss of federal highway funds. If ordering states to pass legislation in this way is within the power of the feds, there is *absolutely* no limit on federal authority.
Note: there were a handful of trial judges around the country that correctly ruled that the law was unconstitutional, but that only applied in those individual courtooms--and they tended to be in jurisdictions with multiple judges. Also, Nevada and Montana "complied" by creating "wasting natural resources" infractions (the 55 was initially justified as an energy saving matter, and then extended as it got credit for the lives saved by improved safety features in cars [three point belt; reinforced doors]). This ticket was not a moving violation, could not be used by insurance companies in calculating rates, was equivalent to a parking ticket, and could be paid at the scene ($5, iirc) in Montana.
I don't mind the advertising. The tracking really perturbs me. But what really gets me is the blinking. I've never filtered *anything* out just for being an ad. One blink, though . ..
I've seen a k6-200 brought to its knees by excessive blinking . ..
And I do support the idea of a stealth cookie exchange . . .
From day one, it was one big advertisement. Not a displayed ad, but its purpose was to show off what could be done with alphas in order to sell more of them.
I don't know how mnay it sold, but at the time it was quite impressive. The its use as a marketing ploy faded at around the same time that search sites & portals became hot, so . . .
The 8085 was an 8 bit successor to the 8080, but a *very* week response to the z80 from zilog, an upwards-compatible to the 8080 developed by engineers who left intel.
The 8085 had a little bit of serial i/o on chip, and a couple of extra interrupts. It did *not* implement the extended instruction set of the z80.
CP/M ran on the 8080, and therefore the Z80. Most programs were written to the 8080 so that they could run on both; it tended to be only machine specific code that was written in Z80. The z80 was also 5v instead of needing three supplies.
The 8086 was source compatible with the 8080, not the 8085--it didn't have those extras. You could also cross-compile z80 source to the 8086.
The 8088 came out simultaneously with the 8086; it was the same thing (almost) on an 8 bit buss. ISTR that there was a load you could use t see which you were using because a buffer (?) was a different size onthe two chips, which would yield a different result.
If memory serves, the 8085 was announced at the same time as the 8086, but don't hold me to that.
> Do you think you can break up Windows into three distinct pieces, >mutually exclusive from each other? I'd be interested to hear how, if >you think so.
No, but I'd be interested in any such proposal, too:) kernel & shell, perhaps???
>If, on the other hand, you mean breaking it up into three companies >with identical products, you are making a big mistake. There is one >crucial difference between MS's assets and those of Standard Oil and >AT&T. When you break Standard Oil and AT&T into pieces, each of the >individual pieces is worth something. The sum of the value of the >individual assets was roughly the same as the value of the assets of >the original company. Those oil wells could pump oil and make money.
No, that's not a difference. The value of the three variants of windows would (at least initially) be smaller than the value of single version, but that difference only reflects lost monopoly products. Each of the three variants is still quite valuable.
>Having Multiple companies own the Windows code means that each company >has the same product which it has zero or no marginal cost to sell. >When the marginal cost is zero, so is the price.
No, absolutely not. This requires both a) free entry b) that entry be plausible.
There would still be a multi-billion dollar barrier to entry, and the industry would remain a small monopoly. In fact, it might not be *possible* for a fourth company to enter without access to the original code.
>The three companies >will drive each others prices down until you achieve a point where >none of them can sustain themselves and they will collapse.
Only with an unlimited nubmer of entrants. With an oligopoly (small number of firms), price remains above marginal cost. For that matter, even with monopolistic competition (large number of sellers, slightly differentiated cost, free entry, no long term economic profit), price remains above marginal cost. Bend *any* of the assumptions of perfect competition even slightly, and price remains above marginal cost. Perfect competition is pretta much limited to agricultural and other commodities.
Anyway, with a two or three firms without marginal cost, the price is below the monopoly price, but above zero. A monopolist stops at the monopoly point because to increase quantity decreases price for all of its units--it bears the *entire* lost revenue (MR=MC).
However, with three firms, the lost revenue is divided among the three firms--the firm gets all of the extra revenue, but only bears a third of the lost revenue. Cournot originaly solved this problem without calculus (*shudder*). Look up "cournot duopoly"; I'm pretty sure I've seen a decent website along the way. Or look it up in any calculus-based microeconomics or industrial organization text.
>Unless >you're a rabid Windows-hater, you can't believe this will be good for >society at large.
No, it wouldn't. But since that's not what would happen, I'm not worried:)
How many hundreds of languages are still spoken there? Yet they have a single language that isn't native to the area, english, which binds it all together. ANd why? Trade.
Yes, trade. It was trade that led to the *private* acquisition of of most of India by the tea company. They didn't *want* an empire, but they kept having to put down local skirmishes that were geting in the way of commerce. Bit by bit they ended up reluctantly governing most of the subcontinent, and spent a hundred years trying before they managed to pawn it off on the Crown . ..
Just imagine trying to choose any one of those languages to replace India. Everyone else will object.
The internet is in the same position. English is already the trade language. More people speak english than any other language, *including* mandarin. Not nearly as many speak it as a first language, but as a second or third, it leads.
Until there's a reason for it to change, english will remain the language of both commerce and the internet. WIll it stay the same as american english? I have no idea. If it does, I think it's more likely that it will be because of americans accomodating the drift if internet/trade english in their own speech than by internet/trade english (ITE ?:) following changes here.
Swinging wildly to the side topically, there's a group in Britain trying to get schools teaching english as a foreign language to teach british english rather than american english. THey're doomed. American english isn't taught because it's the language we speak here, but rather becasue it is the trade language.
Anyway, I don't see other languages going away. Mixing with english (in both directions), yes. Gone, no. Eventually, almost everyone will speak ITE english as a second language--including some who speak another english dialect/language as their first.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure about '62? I thought it was rather recent.
That, and I wasn't born until a couple of years later, so I couldn't read the labels on my crayons until the late 60's, and my crayolas certainly had "flesh" as a color . . .
Don't you want to filter the ones where she's *not* wearing the uniform? :)
The execs were purchased from Amiga? Who bought them? Will they be freed? Are they slaves, or indentured?
Inquiring minds want to know . . .
However, if Amiga was using slave labor, it explains a lot about its failure to go anywhere . . .
Switching to my professor of economics hat . . .
Administrative costs are a *dis*economy of scale at that size, not an economy of scale. It costs *more* to run a single huge HR department than it does to run two pieces. Perhaps not a lot more (maybe only the single top manager), but the split causes efficiencies, not inefficiencies, in this area.
If windows had competition (which, unfortunately, won't be caused by the remedies), it would cost half to a quarter what it costs now. The retail price of a machine would drop by $50 to $75.
Office would likely drop in price as well, although I'm not as certain on that--it still faces some (but not a lot) fo pricing pressure from the vestigal competition.
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see ana attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
:) )
Someone moderate that up; it's important and correct. Nonetheless, I'll elaborate a bit more.
The prior ruling was regarding an injunction before trial. Most importantly, it was an order issued *before* hearing evidence, based upon what the appellate court thought likely to be able to be proven. These notions are *entirely* set aside by the actual findings of fact. That is, the appellate court didn't see a high enough probability of the DOJ proving its claims to enter the preliminary injunction. Once the DOJ succeeded, that estimate is irrelevant.
Also note werdna's comments below about the reasons for the SC to take (or not take) the case.
[today's tip: don't try to make buildworld and Xfree 4 at the same time on a 1G disk, no matter how much memory you have . . . there's not enough disk space (and that's before tetex tried to build at the same time
This is *bizarre* I don't normally use windows, and it's only a temporary situation, but right here, on the ""read the rest of this comment" link,instead of to slashdot, it points to
s /06-A%20HREF=
.]
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/appeal
[there's a paragraph & bold in there too, but slashdot eats them . .
It also happens to the same link in this followup window. Is the slashcode doing something wierd, or is it IE? Do other people get this as well?
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This wouldn't stop the split. The U.S. court has already rendered judgment, and has jurisdiction. Assuming that the split stands on appeal (and the odds are strongly in the DOJ's favor), the two pieces could move.
Plain and simply, the court can block the move until the split is complete. Contempt power is an amazing thing--every executive can be jailed, fined $1M/day, etc.
It might help MS with future problems, but not the current mess.
Unfortneately, I can't reply to replies, as it's moving day and I won't see a computer again until Tuesday . . .
When I spent three weeks in California last Christmas, I was in shock from the food prices. I'll admit that Fareway (Iowa) has noticably lower prices than even its local competitors, but aside from produce and fish, food prices were 150-200% of what I'm used to. I was in shock. I had trouble putting things in my cart.
Fortunately, I made it back, and was able to return to excellent pork cuts for well under $2/lb . . .
$500/month *per person* is reasonable? Yikes.
I move to Dubois, PA this weekend. Rental houses are hard to find, but I got one. 400/month for a huge four bedroom with an empty lot next door for the kids. There's also a basement and attic.
And I'd thought I was going to be forced to shell out $48-50K to buy a five or six bedroom victorian . . . my wife would have been upset if I took one of the run-down ones at $30k . . .
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your own jurisdiction.
:)
> While IANAL, I have a friend that is and I think that giving out legal
> advice (which can consistitue answering legal questions as such)
> without charging for it can be considered a violation of the Bar
No; that is an ancient joke--though if you go back far enough, you find Barristers robes with a pocket in the back so that they could conveniently be given a payment--as it was improper/unethical/ungentle to ask--Esquire is a derivitave of Squire, a class that wasn't supposed to work for a living.
Anyway, free advice is legal, and so is free work (pro bono publico--for the public good).
That said, anywone dispensing free advice in a public forum like this is nuts. There is *no* way to adequately gather enough information from a short posting to give competant advice (save in the most trivial situations). Additionally, proving what you did or didn't say is difficult. WHether you charge or not, you are still liable for the advice.
Extreme example: voice on phone asks question, gets answer, does something, comes back and sues. You have no idea who the person was, or if this is the person you talked to. But you're on the hook, and you insurance carrier is less than happy. This is why I have a hard, no exceptions, policy that I only give advice to clients.
On the other hand, I do frequently comment on legal issues around here--but never in a way that could be legal advice.
Lastly, note that the legal questions that get asked are generally ones for which a proper answer would take several hours of research. I'm not going to do that every time a complete stranger asks. If someone wants to pay my hourly, sure--but I'm not going to do several hundred or a couple of thousand dollars of free work on a regular basis
Gee, you couldn't find a way to use a calculator for measure theory? :)
.
:)
Hmm, start with the null set, then the set containing a calculator, then the set that contains . .
Hmm, the number of people reading this that have any idea what it means is probably of very small measure . . .
Ok, not only send this all the way up to 5, but re-root it as a top level comment :)
.
.
I was delighted to find students here griping about their intro to stat class that was really "funny calculator 101"--they *wanted* to know what was going on. NOt much I can do as a visiting professor, but next year when I teach the comparable class at another school . .
Yes, you should know what a "mean" means, not just how to get one with a calculator . .
btw, anyone know where we can cheaply order those cheap dice of various sizes? They're going to be mandatory . . .
> All the teachers will do is make students with wireless access (for
:)
> the exams that wouldn't allow them) is to construct a small box lined
> with a couple layers of tinfoil.
Nope, it's much easier than that. I just plain don't allow calculators.
Hmm, it's going to be interesting in my intro to stats class this fall, when I tell them that calculators are forbidden, but dice are mandatory . . .
change it to, "how the new Xeons nibble complacently upon Sun's ankles" :)
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice on this or any other matter. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
:)
.). It also feels good :)
That's a reasonably accurate description of the legalese--I'd really have tagged this informative, not funny.
Sometimes this is *exactly* what you need your lawyer to do. Sometimes I've even advised clients to flat-out ignore the first letter received--with experience, you get a handle for which ones should be taken seriously, and which ones will go away if ignored. The latter category frequently includes letters from out of state attorneys that are really looking to see if you'll quickly connect them to an insurance company for a quick buck.
An attorney unzipping and taking aim is also frequently what you need in a consumer matter, with a rogue government agency, or when the IRS just plain screws up. FOr $50-$100 (depending upon where you are and local rates), there is a broad class of problems that are solved well over half the time by a simple letter. Yes, the other side *should* have backed down without the letter, and there frequently is no information inside the letter that wasn't already given, but it's an "attention-getter."
Basically, you hire the attorney in this case to menace with an iron fist in a velvet glove. Leave the other side a way to back down and save face (and save themselves from their boss finding out
The time it took for the consultation and letter really didn't make them worthwhile for me at $100, but they tend to give you very happy clients who might come back with someone else, or tell their friends about you (My overhead was over $100k/year at one point . .
There's also the issue of showing the other side that you have the resolve to fight it, and it isn't worth your time. Andover is large enough that they can afford the fight, and they're showing that they're serious here.
hawk, esq.
I need to ask for my new machine rather quickly. I *must* have *nix. If OS X works, and has a good fortran compiler, I'm tempted to go that way. If it doesn't, it's x86 and FreeBSD. (Either one will irk the computer folks where I'm going :)
BUt what does "public beta" mean? Sign up, and maybe they send it? Anyone can download? A spare CD hidden in the computer case?
> The whole legal fiction of corporations being "persons" stems back to
:)
> the 1886 Supreme Court decision in County of Santa Clara v. Southern
> Pacific Railroad,
uhh, no. THat may be the first time the equal protection clause was applied to corporations (i really don't know off the cuff), but it certainly isn't the origin of "person" status of a corporation.
A corporation *is* a legally create person, as opposed to a natural person. THis is its nature, and it goes (at least) several centuries. This is where the limited liability of shareholders comes from--they don't own the debt, that "other person," the corporation, owes them. Also the legal notion of an "alter ego" when setting aside corporate protections--again a reference to the corporation as a person.
It used to take an act of parliament (later colonial and state legislatures) to create a corporation. Along the way the Common Law became friendly towards them, which greatly helped the forming of larger commercial enterprises, and is a major factor in the commercial success of Britain and its former colonies. This was a radical change from the roman law which was outright hostile to corporations--the status as a fictitious person was seen as a problem.
In other words, you're only a couple of thousand years off
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you see legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Actually, the 55 was never ruled uncostitional. Yes, it certainly was unconstititonal, like a majority of today's legislation, but the case was never heard.
Nevada passed a 75 law that had a provision allowing the governor to suspend it if the federal secretary of transportation threatened to pull highway funds. A single 75 sign was posted, and the governor waited for the phone call. ONce it was received, there was a dispute which could be heard in federal court. (Nevada had *no* speed limit other than the basic speed law on most highways before this).
The case was pending for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court when the federal 65 law passed. A spineless state Attorney General withdrew the case at that point, and it was never heard.
A few years ago, th feds finally dropped the law entirely.
The reason it violates the constitution is that the constitution grants a set of powers to the feds. Recognizing that this law wasn't even close to those powers, the feds did not directly implement a 55 law, but required the states to do so under threat of loss of federal highway funds. If ordering states to pass legislation in this way is within the power of the feds, there is *absolutely* no limit on federal authority.
Note: there were a handful of trial judges around the country that correctly ruled that the law was unconstitutional, but that only applied in those individual courtooms--and they tended to be in jurisdictions with multiple judges. Also, Nevada and Montana "complied" by creating "wasting natural resources" infractions (the 55 was initially justified as an energy saving matter, and then extended as it got credit for the lives saved by improved safety features in cars [three point belt; reinforced doors]). This ticket was not a moving violation, could not be used by insurance companies in calculating rates, was equivalent to a parking ticket, and could be paid at the scene ($5, iirc) in Montana.
hawk, esq., displaced Nevadan
I don't mind the advertising. The tracking really perturbs me. But what really gets me is the blinking. I've never filtered *anything* out just for being an ad. One blink, though . . .
.
I've seen a k6-200 brought to its knees by excessive blinking . .
And I do support the idea of a stealth cookie exchange . . .
From day one, it was one big advertisement. Not a displayed ad, but its purpose was to show off what could be done with alphas in order to sell more of them.
I don't know how mnay it sold, but at the time it was quite impressive. The its use as a marketing ploy faded at around the same time that search sites & portals became hot, so . . .
Yes, I noticed that you meant real property (land). That's where you're just plain wrong, as I pointed out.
Isn't *anyone* old enough to remember this stuff?
The 8085 was an 8 bit successor to the 8080, but a *very* week response to the z80 from zilog, an upwards-compatible to the 8080 developed by engineers who left intel.
The 8085 had a little bit of serial i/o on chip, and a couple of extra interrupts. It did *not* implement the extended instruction set of the z80.
CP/M ran on the 8080, and therefore the Z80. Most programs were written to the 8080 so that they could run on both; it tended to be only machine specific code that was written in Z80. The z80 was also 5v instead of needing three supplies.
The 8086 was source compatible with the 8080, not the 8085--it didn't have those extras. You could also cross-compile z80 source to the 8086.
The 8088 came out simultaneously with the 8086; it was the same thing (almost) on an 8 bit buss. ISTR that there was a load you could use t see which you were using because a buffer (?) was a different size onthe two chips, which would yield a different result.
If memory serves, the 8085 was announced at the same time as the 8086, but don't hold me to that.
hawk
> Do you think you can break up Windows into three distinct pieces,
:) kernel & shell,
:)
>mutually exclusive from each other? I'd be interested to hear how, if
>you think so.
No, but I'd be interested in any such proposal, too
perhaps???
>If, on the other hand, you mean breaking it up into three companies
>with identical products, you are making a big mistake. There is one
>crucial difference between MS's assets and those of Standard Oil and
>AT&T. When you break Standard Oil and AT&T into pieces, each of the
>individual pieces is worth something. The sum of the value of the
>individual assets was roughly the same as the value of the assets of
>the original company. Those oil wells could pump oil and make money.
No, that's not a difference. The value of the three variants of windows
would (at least initially) be smaller than the value of single version,
but that difference only reflects lost monopoly products. Each of
the three variants is still quite valuable.
>Having Multiple companies own the Windows code means that each company
>has the same product which it has zero or no marginal cost to sell.
>When the marginal cost is zero, so is the price.
No, absolutely not. This requires both
a) free entry
b) that entry be plausible.
There would still be a multi-billion dollar barrier to entry, and the
industry would remain a small monopoly. In fact, it might not
be *possible* for a fourth company to enter without access to the
original code.
>The three companies
>will drive each others prices down until you achieve a point where
>none of them can sustain themselves and they will collapse.
Only with an unlimited nubmer of entrants. With an oligopoly (small
number of firms), price remains above marginal cost. For that matter,
even with monopolistic competition (large number of sellers,
slightly differentiated cost, free entry, no long term economic profit),
price remains above marginal cost. Bend *any* of the assumptions of
perfect competition even slightly, and price remains above marginal
cost. Perfect competition is pretta much limited to agricultural
and other commodities.
Anyway, with a two or three firms without marginal cost, the price
is below the monopoly price, but above zero. A monopolist stops at
the monopoly point because to increase quantity decreases price
for all of its units--it bears the *entire* lost revenue (MR=MC).
However, with three firms, the lost revenue is divided among the three
firms--the firm gets all of the extra revenue, but only bears a third
of the lost revenue. Cournot originaly solved this problem without
calculus (*shudder*). Look up "cournot duopoly"; I'm pretty sure I've
seen a decent website along the way. Or look it up in any calculus-based
microeconomics or industrial organization text.
>Unless
>you're a rabid Windows-hater, you can't believe this will be good for
>society at large.
No, it wouldn't. But since that's not what would happen, I'm
not worried
hawk
Yes, it is a big difference. It was a "very loosely based-on-true-story" movie, but Stone tried (at first) to pass it off as a documentary.
How many hundreds of languages are still spoken there? Yet they have a single language that isn't native to the area, english, which binds it all together. ANd why? Trade.
.
:) following changes here.
Yes, trade. It was trade that led to the *private* acquisition of of most of India by the tea company. They didn't *want* an empire, but they kept having to put down local skirmishes that were geting in the way of commerce. Bit by bit they ended up reluctantly governing most of the subcontinent, and spent a hundred years trying before they managed to pawn it off on the Crown . .
Just imagine trying to choose any one of those languages to replace India. Everyone else will object.
The internet is in the same position. English is already the trade language. More people speak english than any other language, *including* mandarin. Not nearly as many speak it as a first language, but as a second or third, it leads.
Until there's a reason for it to change, english will remain the language of both commerce and the internet. WIll it stay the same as american english? I have no idea. If it does, I think it's more likely that it will be because of americans accomodating the drift if internet/trade english in their own speech than by internet/trade english (ITE ?
Swinging wildly to the side topically, there's a group in Britain trying to get schools teaching english as a foreign language to teach british english rather than american english. THey're doomed. American english isn't taught because it's the language we speak here, but rather becasue it is the trade language.
Anyway, I don't see other languages going away. Mixing with english (in both directions), yes. Gone, no. Eventually, almost everyone will speak ITE english as a second language--including some who speak another english dialect/language as their first.