> I suppose Gov. Bush could have spent his time having this particular provision removed from the constitution, or he could have spent his time on more productive activities. He apparently chose the latter.
Yep, the Texas oil buisness was in desparate need of some perks, and he got right on it. Meanwhile, the rest of the state went to hell in a handbasket.
Oh, GWB does like to tout the few things that are improving there. But his youthful excesses must have killed a few too many brain cells, because he is adamant about taking credit for programs that were put into effect by his Democratic predecessors. Not to mention taking credit for more recent legislation that he actively opposed and refused to sign.
Just what we need: another senile Republican president.
> There's got to be some guidelines! E.g., me worshipping my car constitutes being deranged, not having a religion.
But who is qualified to split those hairs? Suppose the Supreme Court were packed with automobile worshipers, who thought that neither Wicca nor Christianity were a religion?
IMO, the government should let people worship what/how they please, so long as they don't hurt anyone else.
That does bring up the problem of a certain famous pseudo-scientific/economic scam that parades as a religion. The solution to that is to tax religions just like any other self-interested racket. The religious would scream bloody murder, and claim violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state, but IMO it is a violation of that doctrine not to tax them, since it puts the government into the business of deciding what is and isn't a legitimate religion. Besides, religions make use of the benefits of a stable government and the public infrastructure, so why shouldn't they pay their way like everyone else?
At any rate, taxing religions would eliminate the problem of organized crime and/or pyramid schemes operating under the guise of religion as a tax shelter. And put "deranged" auto worshipers on the same legal footing as the practicioners of more traditional derangements.
> If you're rich, drugs can apparently be just another interesting experience; if they get you into trouble (and you or your friends get you wrung out) they can be used later in life as an example of character building in the face of adversity.
I think the message Bush is sending his children is that rich white politicians' sons are able to learn from their mistakes, whereas the rest of us are from a social class that can't learn from mistakes. That's why he joked about hanging a guy accused of DWI when he went in for PR jury duty, and that's why he'll happily send young kid's mums off to prison for smoking pot.
Voters should really stop and consider the notion of class distinctions that arises in families of rich professional politicians.
> Seriously. Isn't this crowd against government expansion? I mean, don't we want less government control over our lives?
I have to break ranks on this one. Sure, I want the Federal government to spend smart -- no more $400 ash trays for the Air Force, please! -- but I do not take it as a matter of faith that "smaller is better, nothing else need be considered".
Simple fact is, IMO, that our big, insensitive Federal government is still providing important services for the public good, as well as protecting the citizens against the abusive excesses of runaway state and local governments. (If you think the Feds are too intrusive, look back at the loooooooong list of state and local laws the Supreme Court has thrown out since the anti-government sentiment took root 2-3 decades ago. Do you honestly think we'll live in paradise under a "local control" scheme?)[*]
Yes, I think the US government is wasteful. Yes, I think it is corrupt. Yes, I think the war on drugs is a crime against humanity. But no, I don't think taking away its power is going to help any of this -- per above, I think it would actually make it worse. Indeed, I think that's exactly what many of the politicians running on the anti-big-gummit ticket are hoping for.
And no, I don't subscribe to any blanket notion that the government should be smaller "just because". That's a knee-jerk mentality. Governments can do good as well as ill.
So by all means vote, but consider that there are more compelling issues than "smaller for smaller's sake". Any government that continues the war on drugs is too intrusive, regardless of what they do to social programs or the size of the government payroll.
Also, regardless of your political leanings, please consider voting for someone other than the one who promises to do the most for your bank balance. If you step back and look at it, that's the basic appeal that both of the major party candidates are making; they're just appealing to different economic layers of the public. (The same can be said for at least some of the minor-party candidates.)
> If the economy tanks, you can always just not give out a tax cut. How often has the government just killed the 40,000 new jobs they created because the economy "dipped" for a bit? Never... they end up increasing debt to cover the new jobs.
IMO, the sensible policy would be to maintain a high level of taxation during good times, since the population is more able to pay taxes during good times. The time for tax cuts is when the economy tanks. Let the Feds borrow money then, and then use the surpluses of the good times to pay off the debt.
Assuming there really is a surplus. As I understand it, the surplus is something we'll have in ten years if the economy doesn't burp (yeah, sure), and even then it will be primarily a Social Security surplus. So we've got a couple of politicians who want to "save Social Security" by only stealing 2/3 of its non-existent surplus to buy our votes. But when the economy slows down and the "surplus" mirage disappears, who's left holding the bag? What happens to all those people who paid in to Social Security for a lifetime? Either they get fucked, or else takes go way up.
But this is an election year; the politicos have to offer you a tax cut. A bankrupt Social Security program won't matter to Bore and Gush, since they won't be running for office that year.
Voters should think of the monkey trap before deciding to vote for whoever offers the biggest cash reward.
[*] The traditional interpretation of the Magna Carta is as a step on the way to democracy by limiting the power of the king. But some offer a different interpretation: the commons actually viewed the king as their protector, and the Magna Carta gave the local lords a free hand at fucking over "their" people, without undue interference from the king. The weakest government is not always the best.
> Therefore Bush has based much of his campaigning and message on his personal integrity and honesty
And the DUI story continues to grow. The following story hit the news in parts of Texas today, though the national press does not seem to have picked it up.
As recently as 1996, governer GWB got called up for jury duty, and made a big PR show of "just doing his civic duty like an ordinary guy". He showed up at the courthouse in a limo and surrounded by TV cameras (just like an ordinary guy, right).
Then he found out that it was a DWI case.
He left the "have you ever been accused or convicted" part of his juror's questionaire blank, and quietly had his lawyers get him off the case. No more regular guy; governers have more important affairs to tend to.
However, before he got away he did have to face a question from a reporter, who (jokingly?) asked why not just pardon the DWI guy and get the case over with. Bush's reply? "I'm more likely to hang him."
The above is not hearsay: everything except the actions of his lawyers was shown on television in various parts of Texas tonight. They even showed his juror's card.
Now if all else were equal I might be willing to let 24 year old bygones be bygones indeed. But as you say, the hypocrisy is a huge issue. When his campaign was sagging a couple of months back, he tried like hell to bolster himself by painting Al Gore as a liar and a hypocrite. I guess his daddy didn't teach him that what goes around comes around.
His crybaby "the timing is suspicious" isn't a very good defense either. He could have managed the timing himself by coming clean on the subject when he first threw his hat in the ring. So much for don't-ask-don't-tell. Now we can reasonably be asking, "What else is there that we don't know about him?"
But what alarms me the most is this. Even if GWB had great credentials for the job (he doesn't), couldn't the Republican Party find someone in a country of 350,000,000 citizens, who has decent credentials and a squeaky clean background? Especially since the party has primarily subsisted on scandal investigations for the past eight years? I can't decide whether to call nominating GWB "sheer arrogance" or "sheer insanity".
Just what the heck does GWB think is going to happen if he gets elected? D'ya suppose that the Democrats (and Larry Flynt) will forgive and forget, and not be tempted to investigate every rumor that comes out about him? And get it plastered all over every news outlet on the planet? Does he think the media are only interested in Democrat's scandals? Does he think Jay Leno will keep telling Clinton jokes for the next four years?
GWB's such a big crybaby (running to the elections board to complain about parody Web sites), that I honestly don't think he's tough enough to last four years in office. If not for the likely Supreme Court appointments, I'd be hoping he would get elected, just for the entertainment value of what happens next. Jay Leno certainly won't lack for monologue material.
> Many of Bush's past misdemeanors (DUI, cocaine use/sale, etc) would most likely disqualify him for such a security clearance.
As someone pointed out in a newsgroup, the DUI conviction is a criminal record that would keep him from being hired to flip burgers at most fast-food chains.
Hi. I just voted today, and I would like to extend my personal thanks to John McCain for providing me with the opportunity to vote against George Bush twice in a single year.
Thank you very, very much. I don't expect my man to win, but you've made it possible for me to thoroughly enjoy the process anyway!
Vote for me, and I'll set e=2.0, pi=3.0, and extrapolate the rest of the number line from there.
I recognize that that won't fix everything, but at least it will bring two of the worst freaks of nature into line with what the citizens expect from their number system.
> Penguins are often portrayed as awkward and clumsy but seeing them in *that* environment is something else - they swim at about 15-20 knots and are just by far the most widespread of all the creatures down there.
There was a show on PBS earlier in the week that had some footage of an underwater camera showing penguins swim. The Life of Birds, I think. Pretty impressive behavior for a bird.
> When skuas (agressive antarctic bird of prey - huge attitudes) swooped over the colony all the nesting penguins would crouch over their eggs and young like a mexican wave.
Almost without exception, Gartner offers a description of the situation on the ground today as a "prediction" for what the situation will be like in 2-5 years.
That's true for at least part of the linked report. Other parts are as vague as a newspaper's daily horoscope:
3.Hewlett-Packard's transition from PA-RISC to IA-64, with big decisions for users, in 2003
Now that's really a helpful forecast, isn't it?
I have come to the tentative conclusion that what Gartner's reports are really for is not to predict the future, but rather to buffer today's news for PHBs.
A PHB might go into shock if s/he found out that 30% of the internet runs on Linux today, but if s/he reads a Gartner report saying that that might be the case in 2-5 years, then s/he can start getting used to the idea, and maybe not poop pants when a Linux firewall is discovered down in IT. Indeed, s/he might engage in a bit of self-congratulation for being ahead of the curve, rather than firing some staff and ordering the offensive machine removed.
So while I remain critical of the intellectual content of Gartner's reports (and ditto for others of that ilk), I now also recognize that they are providing an important service to the public, and I applaud them for it.
I don't usually read rags like Busineess Week, but I went in for some dental abuse last week, and the cover story of that week's issue caught my eye while I was waiting my turn.
It makes for interesting/enlightening reading. I found it somewhat disturbing - partly from seeing how cold-blooded companies have become about customer service, but equally because it's really hard to fault the practices on rational grounds.
It's not what wasn't clear; it's what was clear. And what was clear is that you do not understand that the RDRAM decision was made by Intel's executives, and that over the express objections of their own engineers.
IOW, it was a political decision rather than a technical decision.
> Someone made a claim that Intel was trying to corner the market by using RDRAM. Since it is obvious there is _no_ market for Intel to corner wrt memory, and based on the changes in intel's technology,
Ah, you misunderstood the market that I was talking about. Intel is still trying to corner the PC processor/chipset market rather than on the memory market per se. That's why they're so fond of proprietary extensions to the PC architecture, such as RAMBUS, MMX, socket-of-the week, etc.
And if the Rambus Scam had gone as intended, Intel's contractual priviledged position would have left them sitting pretty w.r.t. AMD.
At the consumer's expense, of course.
But it flopped, so Intel is backing out. They'll be trying something else soon enough. Meanwhile, the Rambus robber barons are still trying to use dubious patents to set themselves up as leaches on the entire memory market. That's not a technical decision either, nor does it have anything to do with giving the world's PC buyers a better deal.
> yets say, i want to look up information on quantum theory? what do i do? let me guess, do i use the cue cat to scan a light particle that has a barcod eon it?
No, you get out your physics book, and scan the fine print that tells you where to find the missing chapter on the Web.
> Gateway uses Athlons now. I don't know if they still have any Intel-based machines.
I was in one of their outlets last week, and they did still have Intel (as well as AMD) on display.
The even had the elusive 1G Intel systems, which must finally be shipping in quantity. (Maybe even a 1.1G - I don't remember, because I'm not really interested enough to remember - not interested in paying Intel's price. They carry GHz AMD systems, too.)
Slashdot Mirror
> I suppose Gov. Bush could have spent his time having this particular provision removed from the constitution, or he could have spent his time on more productive activities. He apparently chose the latter.
Yep, the Texas oil buisness was in desparate need of some perks, and he got right on it. Meanwhile, the rest of the state went to hell in a handbasket.
Oh, GWB does like to tout the few things that are improving there. But his youthful excesses must have killed a few too many brain cells, because he is adamant about taking credit for programs that were put into effect by his Democratic predecessors. Not to mention taking credit for more recent legislation that he actively opposed and refused to sign.
Just what we need: another senile Republican president.
> I think that 'extreme left' means something different in the United States than it means anywhere else.
Babblefish, USAspeak ==> WorldSpeak
"extreme left" ==> a conservative Democrat.
"left" ==> a moderate Republican.
"middle" ==> a Buchananite.
> There's got to be some guidelines! E.g., me worshipping my car constitutes being deranged, not having a religion.
But who is qualified to split those hairs? Suppose the Supreme Court were packed with automobile worshipers, who thought that neither Wicca nor Christianity were a religion?
IMO, the government should let people worship what/how they please, so long as they don't hurt anyone else.
That does bring up the problem of a certain famous pseudo-scientific/economic scam that parades as a religion. The solution to that is to tax religions just like any other self-interested racket. The religious would scream bloody murder, and claim violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state, but IMO it is a violation of that doctrine not to tax them, since it puts the government into the business of deciding what is and isn't a legitimate religion. Besides, religions make use of the benefits of a stable government and the public infrastructure, so why shouldn't they pay their way like everyone else?
At any rate, taxing religions would eliminate the problem of organized crime and/or pyramid schemes operating under the guise of religion as a tax shelter. And put "deranged" auto worshipers on the same legal footing as the practicioners of more traditional derangements.
> If you're rich, drugs can apparently be just another interesting experience; if they get you into trouble (and you or your friends get you wrung out) they can be used later in life as an example of character building in the face of adversity.
I think the message Bush is sending his children is that rich white politicians' sons are able to learn from their mistakes, whereas the rest of us are from a social class that can't learn from mistakes. That's why he joked about hanging a guy accused of DWI when he went in for PR jury duty, and that's why he'll happily send young kid's mums off to prison for smoking pot.
Voters should really stop and consider the notion of class distinctions that arises in families of rich professional politicians.
> Seriously. Isn't this crowd against government expansion? I mean, don't we want less government control over our lives?
I have to break ranks on this one. Sure, I want the Federal government to spend smart -- no more $400 ash trays for the Air Force, please! -- but I do not take it as a matter of faith that "smaller is better, nothing else need be considered".
Simple fact is, IMO, that our big, insensitive Federal government is still providing important services for the public good, as well as protecting the citizens against the abusive excesses of runaway state and local governments. (If you think the Feds are too intrusive, look back at the loooooooong list of state and local laws the Supreme Court has thrown out since the anti-government sentiment took root 2-3 decades ago. Do you honestly think we'll live in paradise under a "local control" scheme?)[*]
Yes, I think the US government is wasteful. Yes, I think it is corrupt. Yes, I think the war on drugs is a crime against humanity. But no, I don't think taking away its power is going to help any of this -- per above, I think it would actually make it worse. Indeed, I think that's exactly what many of the politicians running on the anti-big-gummit ticket are hoping for.
And no, I don't subscribe to any blanket notion that the government should be smaller "just because". That's a knee-jerk mentality. Governments can do good as well as ill.
So by all means vote, but consider that there are more compelling issues than "smaller for smaller's sake". Any government that continues the war on drugs is too intrusive, regardless of what they do to social programs or the size of the government payroll.
Also, regardless of your political leanings, please consider voting for someone other than the one who promises to do the most for your bank balance. If you step back and look at it, that's the basic appeal that both of the major party candidates are making; they're just appealing to different economic layers of the public. (The same can be said for at least some of the minor-party candidates.)
> If the economy tanks, you can always just not give out a tax cut. How often has the government just killed the 40,000 new jobs they created because the economy "dipped" for a bit? Never... they end up increasing debt to cover the new jobs.
IMO, the sensible policy would be to maintain a high level of taxation during good times, since the population is more able to pay taxes during good times. The time for tax cuts is when the economy tanks. Let the Feds borrow money then, and then use the surpluses of the good times to pay off the debt.
Assuming there really is a surplus. As I understand it, the surplus is something we'll have in ten years if the economy doesn't burp (yeah, sure), and even then it will be primarily a Social Security surplus. So we've got a couple of politicians who want to "save Social Security" by only stealing 2/3 of its non-existent surplus to buy our votes. But when the economy slows down and the "surplus" mirage disappears, who's left holding the bag? What happens to all those people who paid in to Social Security for a lifetime? Either they get fucked, or else takes go way up.
But this is an election year; the politicos have to offer you a tax cut. A bankrupt Social Security program won't matter to Bore and Gush, since they won't be running for office that year.
Voters should think of the monkey trap before deciding to vote for whoever offers the biggest cash reward.
[*] The traditional interpretation of the Magna Carta is as a step on the way to democracy by limiting the power of the king. But some offer a different interpretation: the commons actually viewed the king as their protector, and the Magna Carta gave the local lords a free hand at fucking over "their" people, without undue interference from the king. The weakest government is not always the best.
> Therefore Bush has based much of his campaigning and message on his personal integrity and honesty
And the DUI story continues to grow. The following story hit the news in parts of Texas today, though the national press does not seem to have picked it up.
As recently as 1996, governer GWB got called up for jury duty, and made a big PR show of "just doing his civic duty like an ordinary guy". He showed up at the courthouse in a limo and surrounded by TV cameras (just like an ordinary guy, right).
Then he found out that it was a DWI case.
He left the "have you ever been accused or convicted" part of his juror's questionaire blank, and quietly had his lawyers get him off the case. No more regular guy; governers have more important affairs to tend to.
However, before he got away he did have to face a question from a reporter, who (jokingly?) asked why not just pardon the DWI guy and get the case over with. Bush's reply? "I'm more likely to hang him."
The above is not hearsay: everything except the actions of his lawyers was shown on television in various parts of Texas tonight. They even showed his juror's card.
Now if all else were equal I might be willing to let 24 year old bygones be bygones indeed. But as you say, the hypocrisy is a huge issue. When his campaign was sagging a couple of months back, he tried like hell to bolster himself by painting Al Gore as a liar and a hypocrite. I guess his daddy didn't teach him that what goes around comes around.
His crybaby "the timing is suspicious" isn't a very good defense either. He could have managed the timing himself by coming clean on the subject when he first threw his hat in the ring. So much for don't-ask-don't-tell. Now we can reasonably be asking, "What else is there that we don't know about him?"
But what alarms me the most is this. Even if GWB had great credentials for the job (he doesn't), couldn't the Republican Party find someone in a country of 350,000,000 citizens, who has decent credentials and a squeaky clean background? Especially since the party has primarily subsisted on scandal investigations for the past eight years? I can't decide whether to call nominating GWB "sheer arrogance" or "sheer insanity".
Just what the heck does GWB think is going to happen if he gets elected? D'ya suppose that the Democrats (and Larry Flynt) will forgive and forget, and not be tempted to investigate every rumor that comes out about him? And get it plastered all over every news outlet on the planet? Does he think the media are only interested in Democrat's scandals? Does he think Jay Leno will keep telling Clinton jokes for the next four years?
GWB's such a big crybaby (running to the elections board to complain about parody Web sites), that I honestly don't think he's tough enough to last four years in office. If not for the likely Supreme Court appointments, I'd be hoping he would get elected, just for the entertainment value of what happens next. Jay Leno certainly won't lack for monologue material.
> He claims he learned from his mistake
But he's plenty happy to slam others in the pokey for 20 years, the better to learn from their mistakes.
> Many of Bush's past misdemeanors (DUI, cocaine use/sale, etc) would most likely disqualify him for such a security clearance.
As someone pointed out in a newsgroup, the DUI conviction is a criminal record that would keep him from being hired to flip burgers at most fast-food chains.
> I move that the following comments be banned from this board:
...
1.imagine a beowulf cluster of these.
All in favor say "aye"
If we all joined in in saying "aye", wouldn't that be a Beowulf cluster of ayes?
> You have stated earlier that you will rationalize both e and pi. but what will you do with i ?
Since I'm a politician now, I have to make a difficult choice between one of these canned answers:
a) Keep it quiet, kid, and I'll arrange a tax break for your income class.
b) Officer, have this troublemaker ejected! And arrest whoever let him in, as well!
c) i is not a real number, so it is not entitled to constitutional protection.
d) I think we should leave that one up to local control.
e) I'm still waiting to see what i's campaign contributions came out to.
Hi. I just voted today, and I would like to extend my personal thanks to John McCain for providing me with the opportunity to vote against George Bush twice in a single year.
Thank you very, very much. I don't expect my man to win, but you've made it possible for me to thoroughly enjoy the process anyway!
Vote for me, and I'll set e=2.0, pi=3.0, and extrapolate the rest of the number line from there.
I recognize that that won't fix everything, but at least it will bring two of the worst freaks of nature into line with what the citizens expect from their number system.
> Penguins are often portrayed as awkward and clumsy but seeing them in *that* environment is something else - they swim at about 15-20 knots and are just by far the most widespread of all the creatures down there.
There was a show on PBS earlier in the week that had some footage of an underwater camera showing penguins swim. The Life of Birds, I think. Pretty impressive behavior for a bird.
> When skuas (agressive antarctic bird of prey - huge attitudes) swooped over the colony all the nesting penguins would crouch over their eggs and young like a mexican wave.
Perhaps the source of the airplanes myth?
That's true for at least part of the linked report. Other parts are as vague as a newspaper's daily horoscope:Now that's really a helpful forecast, isn't it?
I have come to the tentative conclusion that what Gartner's reports are really for is not to predict the future, but rather to buffer today's news for PHBs.
A PHB might go into shock if s/he found out that 30% of the internet runs on Linux today, but if s/he reads a Gartner report saying that that might be the case in 2-5 years, then s/he can start getting used to the idea, and maybe not poop pants when a Linux firewall is discovered down in IT. Indeed, s/he might engage in a bit of self-congratulation for being ahead of the curve, rather than firing some staff and ordering the offensive machine removed.
So while I remain critical of the intellectual content of Gartner's reports (and ditto for others of that ilk), I now also recognize that they are providing an important service to the public, and I applaud them for it.
> This satire was genuinely entertaining, but it does bring up some important issues, such as the ever-present forking problem.
Not all of us think even that is a problem. Forking is just a way of radiating into more ecological niches. That possibility is, IMO, a good thing.
And perfectly legal under most OSS licenses.
> We're taking this very seriously and have both an immediate and long-term solution to protect our internal corporate network.
Immediate: Unplug everything.
Long-term: Upgrade to Unix or VMS.
> Before everyone here gets into a frenzy of self-important "Micro$oft are lusers" posts...
Well, I'm just grateful that no one broke in to www.redhat.com and stole the source for Linux.
I don't usually read rags like Busineess Week, but I went in for some dental abuse last week, and the cover story of that week's issue caught my eye while I was waiting my turn.
It makes for interesting/enlightening reading. I found it somewhat disturbing - partly from seeing how cold-blooded companies have become about customer service, but equally because it's really hard to fault the practices on rational grounds.
> What wasn't clear about my statements?
It's not what wasn't clear; it's what was clear. And what was clear is that you do not understand that the RDRAM decision was made by Intel's executives, and that over the express objections of their own engineers.
IOW, it was a political decision rather than a technical decision.
> Someone made a claim that Intel was trying to corner the market by using RDRAM. Since it is obvious there is _no_ market for Intel to corner wrt memory, and based on the changes in intel's technology,
Ah, you misunderstood the market that I was talking about. Intel is still trying to corner the PC processor/chipset market rather than on the memory market per se. That's why they're so fond of proprietary extensions to the PC architecture, such as RAMBUS, MMX, socket-of-the week, etc.
And if the Rambus Scam had gone as intended, Intel's contractual priviledged position would have left them sitting pretty w.r.t. AMD.
At the consumer's expense, of course.
But it flopped, so Intel is backing out. They'll be trying something else soon enough. Meanwhile, the Rambus robber barons are still trying to use dubious patents to set themselves up as leaches on the entire memory market. That's not a technical decision either, nor does it have anything to do with giving the world's PC buyers a better deal.
> Intel went with RDRAM for 3 reasons, BANDWIDTH, BANDWIDTH, and BANDWIDTH.
You're mistaking the "three reasons" that Intel gave the public for the one reason that really drove the decision.
It's all about cornering the market. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last time.
Frankly, I'm glad it bit them in the ass.
> > Give me a candidate who speaks out against the war on drugs.
> > (And isn't a total moron about everything else!)
> How about Harry Browne?
That's what my parenthetical statement was added to fix.
> yets say, i want to look up information on quantum theory? what do i do? let me guess, do i use the cue cat to scan a light particle that has a barcod eon it?
No, you get out your physics book, and scan the fine print that tells you where to find the missing chapter on the Web.
Is that verb derived from the noun "gate", or from Bill Gates' name?
> Gateway uses Athlons now. I don't know if they still have any Intel-based machines.
I was in one of their outlets last week, and they did still have Intel (as well as AMD) on display.
The even had the elusive 1G Intel systems, which must finally be shipping in quantity. (Maybe even a 1.1G - I don't remember, because I'm not really interested enough to remember - not interested in paying Intel's price. They carry GHz AMD systems, too.)
You're entirely right. This was driven more by "how can we corner the market" than by "how can we deliver a better product at a better price".