The little bit of Sparc assembler I did in compiler construction ( ah, my favorite ( no, that is not sarcasm ) ( the course ) ) seemed pretty straight forward as well. The little I learned about 680x0 assembler made me wish I had a chance to get to know it better.
Kinda like I posted a no trespassing sign in Klingon, up on the branch of a tree. Right where it is not reasonable that the intruder would ever see it, or know it was there.
Then shot the snot out of trespassers. Dumb, just dumb.
In a competitive market like that of the PC, what these companies can charge for their products is determined by market pressures, to the effect that (botique brands aside) sellers don't have the liberty of toying around with their profit margins.
That is the theory, and much of it holds true. However, in many competitive markets companies manage to manipulate those numbers up a bit. Automobiles and gasoline come to mind. If the theory was absolutely true, then there would be no reason to "brand" your product, that would all be wasted money.
And when the PC's profit margin is restricted by a competitive market, customers are, in effect, paying for what their computers are worth, plus a predictable percentage profit.
You say that it might be absorbed by the company's bottom line instead, but where does that bottom line come from? It's meaningless to say "the company had to pay for the increase in cost due to the Windows licenses, whereas the customer paid for the increase due to the addition of a graphics card". Money is money, and either way it comes from the customer. Since playing around with semantics doesn't change the profit that a PC seller is able to demand for its machines, the customer will pay for any and all added costs of manufacture.
You seem to contend that the market sets the price absolutely. My point is that there are people involved, and that while the market influences prices, people at the company set the prices. The prices that other comapanies are charging for similiar products is part of the equation, if they are charging more ( for whatever reason ), then the company with lower costs may decide to charge the same, and pocket the difference, or can decide to reduce their price to buy market share from their competition. The market does not force either decision on them. So, the nagware guys offer them money, offsetting some costs. The company decision makers decide on lowering the price or not.
You are assuming that the amounts paid by the entities described are passed on to the consumer in some way. It is entirely possible that the amounts find their way, in part or in whole, to the companies bottom line instead.
I agree that the punishments do not seem equal. And I think that is wrong.
I am currently of the belief that Libby was covering up for what really happened, and that he ought not be the one sitting on the hot seat.
I am curious on the Sandy Berger thing. My understanding is that he got into a document archive, took some documents, and "lost" them ( no, I dont believe it was acccidental ). Why is that "ostensibly treason"? Obstruction of Justice? Absolutely. Slap on the wrist? Yes, and I think that is wrong.
I would like to know what he took and why. Course, I would also like to know the truth behind the Scooter Libby thing too, while I am at it.:-)
Does a crime have to have been committed for a criminal investigation to be carried out? If so, then the tail is chasing the dog, and nothing ever gets started. So, there was an investigation. The jury believes that Scooter obstructed that investigation by not being honest ( kinda like Clinton was dishonest, perhaps ).
And tell me truely, if a Democratic administration had disclosed the identity of a spouse of a critic of that administration that had held a similiar position, that the Republicans would have said "no harm, no foul, she/he/it was sitting at a desk, no big deal". You know in your heart that they would not. And you know what it was obstruction of.
Not that I disagree with the summation that it is partisan politics, but be honest with yourself, it was on the border, and it looks from here like it was done out of spite.
And on Cheney not getting nailed, most chief of staff type people are doing their master's bidding, so to suspect him should not be suprising. It is possible that Scooter had his own agenda, and that Cheney is as innocent as you believe him. It is also possible that Scooter is the whipping boy, and that someone has decided that Cheney cannot be named in this for political reasons, and due to political pressure. I am only disappointed to the extent that if he is guilty, he should take the hit and not Scooter. If he is not, then let it fall on the guilty party. I do find it interesting that he did not testify, but I dont know why he did not.
On IBM, they indeed had been an anti competitive company for a while.
Once they had signed the consent decree on the issue, they abided by it, as far as I know. I worked at one place as an operator in a small shop, and I can say that at least there, the IBM people I came in contact with were careful not to even bad mouth the competition, much less try to force us to choose IBM. This was mid to late 90's.
Looking at the hot shot contractor's code after they blightly forge ahead can be amusing as well.
I recall the work of a coworker in the multi-threaded realm, he wrote a function to do something, and it needed a mutex within it's bounds. That person locked very early in the function, and held the lock for a long ( in clock cycles ) time. And that person had about 15 returns, each of which very carefully released the lock. We kept having problems which the log files kept telling us it was that function. And every time, I would review that function for problems, and aside from my dislike of the style, no problems would be found. Then I told my boss I was tired of reviewing that code each time this happened, I was going to rewrite it. Minimized the time the lock was held, one in, and one out ( and got rid of several subblocks of code that were identical ). No problems after that.
What is my point? Some can't do it. Fewer can do it. Of those that can, not all do it well.
This leftist f*** doesnt like big pharm, but it is a company like any other.
And since it is a company, I have to question why it ( or any other ) are allowed to lobby in the first place. ( and for the "they deserve free speech" people out there, the owners ( regular owners, stock holders, etc, etc ) all have free speech, the company does not need it. )
Slashdot Mirror
The little bit of Sparc assembler I did in compiler construction
( ah, my favorite ( no, that is not sarcasm ) ( the course ) )
seemed pretty straight forward as well. The little I learned
about 680x0 assembler made me wish I had a chance to get to know
it better.
You know...
There *are* other assembly languages than x86.
For instance, I learned assembly on a PDP-11, no
segmentation, none of the stupidities about registers
that the x86 burdens one with....
I was thinking the same thing.
Kinda like I posted a no trespassing sign in Klingon, up on
the branch of a tree. Right where it is not reasonable
that the intruder would ever see it, or know it was there.
Then shot the snot out of trespassers. Dumb, just dumb.
That is the theory, and much of it holds true. However, in many
competitive markets companies manage to manipulate those numbers
up a bit. Automobiles and gasoline come to mind. If the theory
was absolutely true, then there would be no reason to "brand"
your product, that would all be wasted money.
You seem to contend that the market sets the price absolutely. My point
is that there are people involved, and that while the market
influences prices, people at the company set the prices. The prices
that other comapanies are charging for similiar products is part of
the equation, if they are charging more ( for whatever reason ), then
the company with lower costs may decide to charge the same, and pocket
the difference, or can decide to reduce their price to buy market
share from their competition. The market does not force either decision
on them. So, the nagware guys offer them money, offsetting some
costs. The company decision makers decide on lowering the price or not.
Quite true, but I think my point still stands.
You are assuming that the amounts paid by the entities described
are passed on to the consumer in some way. It is entirely possible
that the amounts find their way, in part or in whole, to the
companies bottom line instead.
Thank you.
I am afraid that I have trangressed already.
:-)
But my wife has me on a special 0 step program
to ensure it does not happen again.
Your parents, on the other hand....
Ha!
I got rid of my mind some time ago.
Correct away!
We are.
Next up,
Websites, email, and ftp are also bad for children, and a threat to national security.
You mean to have to use HP tech support?
Dont the Geneva conventions disallow that?
What about the cruel and unusual clauses?
The future called, they want the front page back.
Yes, that is what the article says.
It goes on to say that the charges were dropped
due to her illness, not because she was innocent,
and that the arrest will remain on her record.
I agree with you on the unfairness.
A better question would have been "why was it me,
running the update"?
But the answer is "not nearly often enough".
No, you cant. Not allowed.
What I find interesting is that there was an update to sp2
listed in the upgrade that I just finished to a 2003 server.
I see your point. And I agree that the punishment does not
seem in line with the action.
I agree that the punishments do not seem equal.
:-)
And I think that is wrong.
I am currently of the belief that Libby was covering up
for what really happened, and that he ought not be the
one sitting on the hot seat.
I am curious on the Sandy Berger thing. My understanding
is that he got into a document archive, took some documents,
and "lost" them ( no, I dont believe it was acccidental ).
Why is that "ostensibly treason"? Obstruction of Justice?
Absolutely. Slap on the wrist? Yes, and I think that is
wrong.
I would like to know what he took and why. Course, I would
also like to know the truth behind the Scooter Libby thing
too, while I am at it.
Does a crime have to have been committed for a criminal investigation to
be carried out? If so, then the tail is chasing the dog, and nothing
ever gets started. So, there was an investigation. The jury believes
that Scooter obstructed that investigation by not being honest ( kinda
like Clinton was dishonest, perhaps ).
And tell me truely, if a Democratic administration had disclosed the
identity of a spouse of a critic of that administration that had held
a similiar position, that the Republicans would have said "no harm,
no foul, she/he/it was sitting at a desk, no big deal". You know in
your heart that they would not. And you know what it was obstruction of.
Not that I disagree with the summation that it is partisan politics, but
be honest with yourself, it was on the border, and it looks from here
like it was done out of spite.
And on Cheney not getting nailed, most chief of staff type people are
doing their master's bidding, so to suspect him should not be suprising.
It is possible that Scooter had his own agenda, and that Cheney is
as innocent as you believe him. It is also possible that Scooter is
the whipping boy, and that someone has decided that Cheney cannot be
named in this for political reasons, and due to political pressure.
I am only disappointed to the extent that if he is guilty, he should
take the hit and not Scooter. If he is not, then let it fall on the
guilty party. I do find it interesting that he did not testify, but
I dont know why he did not.
On IBM, they indeed had been an anti competitive company for a while.
Once they had signed the consent decree on the issue, they abided by it,
as far as I know. I worked at one place as an operator in a small shop,
and I can say that at least there, the IBM people I came in contact with
were careful not to even bad mouth the competition, much less try to
force us to choose IBM. This was mid to late 90's.
You say that like it is a bad thing...
I am already tapped into your home's electrical system, so cost is not an issue.
Thanks for asking!
Get the wattage up enough, and the problem will not be more than momentary.
Looking at the hot shot contractor's code after they blightly
forge ahead can be amusing as well.
I recall the work of a coworker in the multi-threaded realm,
he wrote a function to do something, and it needed a mutex
within it's bounds. That person locked very early in the
function, and held the lock for a long ( in clock cycles )
time. And that person had about 15 returns, each of which
very carefully released the lock. We kept having problems
which the log files kept telling us it was that function.
And every time, I would review that function for problems,
and aside from my dislike of the style, no problems would be
found. Then I told my boss I was tired of reviewing that
code each time this happened, I was going to rewrite it.
Minimized the time the lock was held, one in, and one out
( and got rid of several subblocks of code that were identical ).
No problems after that.
What is my point? Some can't do it. Fewer can do it. Of those
that can, not all do it well.
Windows XP embedded.
Never a more curious juxtaposition of terms.
Why?
This leftist f*** doesnt like big pharm, but it is a company like any other.
And since it is a company, I have to question why it ( or any other ) are allowed
to lobby in the first place. ( and for the "they deserve free speech" people
out there, the owners ( regular owners, stock holders, etc, etc ) all have
free speech, the company does not need it. )