I believe the top market share the Apple II ever achieved was around 16%.
When apple hit 200,000 units, radio shack had about half as many, Pet was a distant third, and then there were the others.
They've never been near 90%, but I'm pretty confident that they hit 50% at least for a while..
I could believe that 16% was the top the mac, hit, though--but also keep in mind that with that share, it wasn't rare for Apple to be the #1 brand for the quarter in the 80's or early 90's, and was usually in the top 5 until yet another collapse . ..
Citibank has one that has 5% on gas & groceries, 1% on everything (and possibly a 2% range, but I forget).
The catch is a $300/year cap, which means only the first $6k of gas/grocery, about $500/month, gets it. This is pretty close to what we spend on that, so my wife & I both took one. Easier than using the one card for just gas & grocery, and the capital one for everything else. (And since most of that is wally-world, Discover is useless [only 1/4% there!])
I think it's fixed in FreeBSD now, but five years ago, I brought down both Debian and FreeBSD by trying to load a file bigger than virtual memory into a binary editor (I was trying to recover a deleted file from a hard disk, iirc).
Back when unstable did that, it was only about twice a year.
But when it did, it it left your system dead in the water. And sometimes it was because a single developer had pulled a package upon which many others depended over his own views on license purity.
Eventually, FreeBSD supported all my then-current hardware during one of these, and I switched over.
The mere *fact* that it is on a lawyer's letterhead causes it to be takene more seriously than if it wasn't. It's *exactly* the same phenomenon as when you punch a bully back.
And why you think that a lawyer sending a letter telling someone to back off and cease their illegal behavior is "questionable behavior" is, once again, beyond what reasonable people can understand.
There have been too damned many cases of people getting sued without these kinds of disclaimers. If I give advice over a phone to a stranger, or if a physician gives advice at a cocktail party, we *are* held to the regular standards of practice, and people *do* sue us for malpractice.
It's just not worth risking someone acting on what you say or write and claiming to have been misled--it costs thousands of dollars to deal with those. With the disclaimer, it drops to a couple of hundred, which will be recovered as sanctions.
And just in case someone falls for your drivel, which requires that you go through life with blinders, let's make the situration I'm talking about clear:
Jack is being harassed by Bigco over a phony debt. Jack signed a contract for a monthly service, with clear provisions to get out. Jack sent the notice required, but Bigco ignored him, and is demanding that he continue paying or it will ruin his credit and sue him. Bigco ignores all of Jack's letters.
A lawyer then writes a letter for Jack.
9 times out of 10, Bigco backs down at this point.
How you hold that against the lawyer is beyond comprehension to reasonable people.
And quite frankly, having people as ignorant and bigotted as you are think of me as "slime" (irregardless of the fact that I haven't practiced for over ten years) bothers me about about as much as skinheads who call me a "racial traitor."
An engineer wanted something to mark pages in choir books at church. He found an adhesive that they'd previously dismissed as too weak to be useful, diluted it further, and now we don't have to paint our monitors and walls . ..
These most often come into play when the little guy is being mistreated by someone with more resources. His own claims get ignored, but a lawyer changes the calculus . ..
It's been a few years, but wearly in amazon's customer profiling, someone wrote a great piece about how amazon had decided he was a pregnant gay male . ..
It's not due process, but a belief that the fear of costs would drive away meritious claims. (That I disagree with the rule, and prefer the "British Rule" of loser pays used in the rest of the Common Law/English speaking world, is irrelevant:)
The standards for sanctions for frivolous suits vary from state to state.
It's getting toughter to file Chapter 7, not Chapter 11. And "tougher" under the new law means that if you have enough income that you could pay part (10%? 25%? I forget) of your debts over the next five years, you have to pay that much in a chapter 13 rather walking away in a chapter 7.
Nearly anyone or anything can file Chapter 11, but the creditors have to come out better than they would under chapter 7.
There's even a case where a housewife filed chapter 11, and the court found that she could do so (I never found out if she successfully reorganized).
[odd sitcom scene flashes into my head: H: This place is always a mess when I come home. Why can't you ever clean? W: Hah! I filed Chapter 11 today. I have 120 days just to submit a *plan* on how to reorganize! ]
Debt for "Intentionally caused harm" cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (though the plaintiff has to go to bankruptcy court to get the determination made).
Also, when a corporation is liable, it's for the act of an agent *for which the agent is also liable*. You should always sue both . ..
rent disputes in a couple of alrge cities do indeed work that way. In those cities you *can* stop paying rent, make up some phony excuse or allegation, and force a six month process.
In other places it's not so easy:)
I handled an eviction in El Cajon, CA, in which the deadbeats had watched too many programs about San Francisco evictions.
There is a five day response period. They filed a "motion to quash service" on the grounds that "the process server is a suspected relative". That was enough to put it on the court calendar over a month away . . . (no judge looks at the answer; it just automatically schedules a hearing)
I went in and got an "order shortening time" for a hearing the next day to quash their motion. The judge agreed that it was silly. Normally they would have had five days from then to file an answer or be out. I argued that as a sanction for the frivolous filing, time should be shortened to answer. She gave them until 5:00 the next day.
They thought that they'd been ordered out, and were gone by then . ..
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the top market share the Apple II ever achieved was around 16%.
.
When apple hit 200,000 units, radio shack had about half as many, Pet was a distant third, and then there were the others.
They've never been near 90%, but I'm pretty confident that they hit 50% at least for a while..
I could believe that 16% was the top the mac, hit, though--but also keep in mind that with that share, it wasn't rare for Apple to be the #1 brand for the quarter in the 80's or early 90's, and was usually in the top 5 until yet another collapse . .
hawk
Well, I'll be . .
I'd expect a classically trained ballerina to be more of an emacs type . .
oh, wait. Nevermind. I'm thinking of circus contortionists . .
hawk
> here's one for sale
To: LMC
From: JTK
Damnit, Bones! I thought I told you to make sure you had all of your equipment before we went back to our own time.
Do you realize what you've done to the timeline? The next generation of explorers may be stuck in all kinds of time loops that don't happen!
Citibank has one that has 5% on gas & groceries, 1% on everything (and possibly a 2% range, but I forget).
The catch is a $300/year cap, which means only the first $6k of gas/grocery, about $500/month, gets it. This is pretty close to what we spend on that, so my wife & I both took one. Easier than using the one card for just gas & grocery, and the capital one for everything else. (And since most of that is wally-world, Discover is useless [only 1/4% there!])
hawk
On a properly administered system, this has no effect until the internal "Mr. Fusion" runs out of garbage.
hawk, resisting suggesting running XP under qemu to keep Mr. Fusion full . . .
I think it's fixed in FreeBSD now, but five years ago, I brought down both Debian and FreeBSD by trying to load a file bigger than virtual memory into a binary editor (I was trying to recover a deleted file from a hard disk, iirc).
hawk
Celine Deion and SHania Twain were acts of war.
Just wait until we retaliate . .
hawk
Err, haven't you seen Episode VI?
hawk
>Star Wars is going to turn into a Star Trek
Oh, dear. A remake with William Shatner cast as Obi Wan Kenobi--and signing, no less!
hawk
Let me get this straight: You went to a Jim Carey movie, willingly, and were surprised that it was, uhh, lousy?
Or did your nephew have a light-saber to your back?
hawk
p.s. One of these years, the grinch will win. I'm sure of it!
>Please.... please stop hurting us.
.
.
You're doomed. It's in 3D. After an hour and a half of a space flick, your head will feel like the last mmoments of the Death Star . .
The only 3D I recall leaving without a headache was spy kids 3D--which was only part-time 3D.
Maybe Lucas can pull it off, but the problem is things at different depths competing for focus.
ANd that's without starships zooming in and out, and laser fire, and . .
You're doomed. This one is *really* going to hurt.
hawk of the many headaches
Back when unstable did that, it was only about twice a year.
But when it did, it it left your system dead in the water. And sometimes it was because a single developer had pulled a package upon which many others depended over his own views on license purity.
Eventually, FreeBSD supported all my then-current hardware during one of these, and I switched over.
hawk
The mere *fact* that it is on a lawyer's letterhead causes it to be takene more seriously than if it wasn't. It's *exactly* the same phenomenon as when you punch a bully back.
And why you think that a lawyer sending a letter telling someone to back off and cease their illegal behavior is "questionable behavior" is, once again, beyond what reasonable people can understand.
hawk, esq.
There have been too damned many cases of people getting sued without these kinds of disclaimers. If I give advice over a phone to a stranger, or if a physician gives advice at a cocktail party, we *are* held to the regular standards of practice, and people *do* sue us for malpractice.
It's just not worth risking someone acting on what you say or write and claiming to have been misled--it costs thousands of dollars to deal with those. With the disclaimer, it drops to a couple of hundred, which will be recovered as sanctions.
hawk, esq.
From someone this ignorant, not at all.
And just in case someone falls for your drivel, which requires that you go through life with blinders, let's make the situration I'm talking about clear:
Jack is being harassed by Bigco over a phony debt. Jack signed a contract for a monthly service, with clear provisions to get out. Jack sent the notice required, but Bigco ignored him, and is demanding that he continue paying or it will ruin his credit and sue him. Bigco ignores all of Jack's letters.
A lawyer then writes a letter for Jack.
9 times out of 10, Bigco backs down at this point.
How you hold that against the lawyer is beyond comprehension to reasonable people.
And quite frankly, having people as ignorant and bigotted as you are think of me as "slime" (irregardless of the fact that I haven't practiced for over ten years) bothers me about about as much as skinheads who call me a "racial traitor."
hawk, esq.
Maybe in the coming days of Longhorn, Microsoft should sell a standard Shorthorn version, with built-in limitation.
:)
Ah dunno 'bout where you come from, son, but after we installs a "built-in limitation" on a longhorn, we calls it a "steer" . . .
hawk
I believe that it is/was 3 hours/week at 3M.
.
An engineer wanted something to mark pages in choir books at church. He found an adhesive that they'd previously dismissed as too weak to be useful, diluted it further, and now we don't have to paint our monitors and walls . .
hawk
>I challenge your assumptions 1 and 3.
:)
That's why they're assumptions, not assertions
(In fact, I'd be dangerously close to practicing Virginia law if I didn't do it this way!)
However:
3) Isn't fair use a defense, which must be pled?
Yes, but if a defense is clearly applicable, sanctions can still follow.
hawk, esq.
You don't quite get it, do you?
.
These most often come into play when the little guy is being mistreated by someone with more resources. His own claims get ignored, but a lawyer changes the calculus . .
hawk
For some reason, it seems that the models objected to surgical removal . . .
hawk
It's been a few years, but wearly in amazon's customer profiling, someone wrote a great piece about how amazon had decided he was a pregnant gay male . . .
hawk
It's not due process, but a belief that the fear of costs would drive away meritious claims. (That I disagree with the rule, and prefer the "British Rule" of loser pays used in the rest of the Common Law/English speaking world, is irrelevant :)
The standards for sanctions for frivolous suits vary from state to state.
hawk, esq
Nearly anyone or anything can file Chapter 11, but the creditors have to come out better than they would under chapter 7.
There's even a case where a housewife filed chapter 11, and the court found that she could do so (I never found out if she successfully reorganized).
[odd sitcom scene flashes into my head:
H: This place is always a mess when I come home. Why can't you ever clean?
W: Hah! I filed Chapter 11 today. I have 120 days just to submit a *plan* on how to reorganize! ]
hawk, esq.
Debt for "Intentionally caused harm" cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (though the plaintiff has to go to bankruptcy court to get the determination made).
.
Also, when a corporation is liable, it's for the act of an agent *for which the agent is also liable*. You should always sue both . .
hawk, esq.
rent disputes in a couple of alrge cities do indeed work that way. In those cities you *can* stop paying rent, make up some phony excuse or allegation, and force a six month process.
:)
.
In other places it's not so easy
I handled an eviction in El Cajon, CA, in which the deadbeats had watched too many programs about San Francisco evictions.
There is a five day response period. They filed a "motion to quash service" on the grounds that "the process server is a suspected relative". That was enough to put it on the court calendar over a month away . . . (no judge looks at the answer; it just automatically schedules a hearing)
I went in and got an "order shortening time" for a hearing the next day to quash their motion. The judge agreed that it was silly. Normally they would have had five days from then to file an answer or be out. I argued that as a sanction for the frivolous filing, time should be shortened to answer. She gave them until 5:00 the next day.
They thought that they'd been ordered out, and were gone by then . .
hawk