Wonder Why Dell Pushes Windows?
Bones
Because Microsoft makes them pay for it in advance! I can't think of another
industry where your supplier tells *you* how many items you're going to buy.
It's akin to someone outside the Board of Directors, the CEO or the managers
telling them how to run their company. Nothing besides Microsoft's OS du
jour will make it in this market, because OEMs like Dell start the game with
a big liability. They /have/ to either sell the Windows licenses or eat the
cost. Ouch!
How do I know this? It's the only logical explanation: I was purchasing a
big order of computers for my firm. I had done research for volume
licensing, and discovered that at the quantity we were buying, XP Pro was
$114/seat. I figured, why not get the volume licensing, because you don't
have to be hassled with WPA, right? Wrong!
Dell, at first, outright refused to sell the machines without Windows XP. I
mean, they were firm on their stance. Anything else they were flexible on,
including components more expensive than the OS, but not this one item.
Windows 98? Nope. Windows 2000? I don't think so. Could I get the machines
without an operating system? Not a chance. So I tried logic: You mean to
tell me that I'd have to pay for Windows XP /twice/ for every machine?
"Yes", was the answer. Even with over 200 machines? "Yes." That's over
$13,000.00 in unneeded licensing costs! "Tough luck, buddy."
So I haggle some more, and finally give up. Later in the week, a perky Dell
salesperson calls back and proudly announces that they will sell me the
machines without the operating systems. Great! I look at the quote...
"Wait," I say, "you haven't taken off the cost of the operating system."
What's the answer? "We can't do that."
You see, Dell is scared s***less of Microsoft. There's no other way to
explain why they'd fight tooth and nail for something that probably cost
them $60. Why are they so scared? Although the actual forced-purchase of the
license costs them only $60, the act of stepping out of line with Microsoft
could cost them millions if they can no longer get "preferential" pricing,
or they're shut out from direct OEM purchasing. Quantity purchasing is no
bargaining chip, either, because the more units bought, the greater their
liability, and greater is the incentive to ram Windows down your throat.
So if you're wondering why Dell isn't pushing GNU/Linux on their desktops,
there's your answer.
--
r.e.b...@usa.net
Bones wrote:
> Because Microsoft makes them pay for it in advance!
This was very carefully defined in the 1993 settlement. Microsoft is
allowed to set discounts based on volumes of purchases. Microsoft was
not only given permission to offer such discounts, they were also given
no guidlines or restrictions on how deep the discounts could be.
For example, a hypothetical example:
OEM X sold 100 million PCs last year.
Microsoft says if you want to order
- less than 80 million, it's $200/copy
- total $1.6 billion for 80 million-1.
If you want to order 80-120 million it's $150/copy
- total 1.2 billion for 80 million
If you want to order 140 million copies, it's $60/copy
- total 840 million for more than you will ever use.
Even if you only sold 80 million copies - that's still cheaper than
$100/copy.
But there's a catch.
You MUST install Windows on the machines you ship.
You MUST NOT use the Windows logo or trademark with any other logo or
trademark without getting Microsoft's prior written approval (For some
strange reason, ads and other logo uses which show the Windows logo
next to Tux or Chameleons don't seem to ever get approved).
You can't use the same marketing channels to market any competitior's
products.
Keep in mind that in Microsoft's view of the world, their product is
worth $400/copy, because that is what they get as a tax deduction when
they "donate" Windows licenses to charities. It's also the MSRP which
is charged to retail customers who which to purchase a license for a
machine that has never been licensed for Windows.
In Microsoft's mind the OEM is getting 140 million copies of Windows
worth $400/copy, a total value of over $56 Billion. Microsoft is then
paying the OEM a "Co-op" including marketing costs of nearly $50
billion to support the OEM in his sales of Windows XP machines.
The big gotcha is that if the OEM violates the license, and all of
these little terms, he could be required to pay the full retail value
for all 140 million machines. Furthermore, Microsoft provides the
financing (at What percentage rate?). For all of these licenses. The
OEM is obligated to pay for the entire shipment - and if the OEM
license is violated, the OEM can be obligated to pay the entire amount.
If the OEM gets too far out of line, Microsoft can even revoke the OEM
license unilaterally. This means that even though the OEM has paid for
the shipment, he can't ship them in his products - because his license
to distribute has been revoked.
> I can't think of another
> industry where your supplier tells *you* how many items you're going to buy.
I can think of a few, of course they are generally backed by organized
crime elements, but this is a minor point.
The closest parallel is movie theaters, who must often guarantee a
minimum commitment in order to get the hottest movies. This assures
that the owner of the theater will keep the doors open, keep the candy
store open late, and will keep the theater pleasant. It also tends to
force the theater owner to pay for a great deal more advertizing -
which is co-funded by the movie studio.
Some movies with big-name producers, stars, and directors will even be
able to get advances from the theaters which can be used to fund the
capital and stage-crew costs of a film in which the "bankable" names
have agreed to work for a percentage of the gross.
> It's akin to someone outside the Board of Directors, the CEO or the managers
> telling them how to run their company.
Take a very close look at the board of directors and officers of not
only the OEMs, but also the Microsoft "Competitors" such as SCO. You
will find a very interesting number of coincidences in the resumes and
secondary affiliations of many of these officers and directors.
> Nothing besides Microsoft's OS du
> jour will make it in this market, because OEMs like Dell start the game with
> a big liability. They /have/ to either sell the Windows licenses or eat the
> cost. Ouch!
See above. They don't just have to eat the cost of the discounted
licenses, they could actually be held liable for the MSRP if they
violate the terms of their agreement.
Dell and most other OEMs must accept these terms because Microsoft also
has the option of not only refusing to sell them ANY licenses, but
Microsoft can even revoke all of their existing licenses.
This is why Microsoft continues to experience no significant decrease
in revenue while their OEM customers watch sales dwindle to nothing and
bleed red ink.
> How do I know this? It's the only logical explanation: I was purchasing a
> big order of computers for my firm. I had done research for volume
> licensing, and discovered that at the quantity we were buying, XP Pro was
> $114/seat. I figured, why not get the volume licensing, because you don't
> have to be hassled with WPA, right? Wrong!
> Dell, at first, outright refused to sell the machines without Windows XP. I
> mean, they were firm on their stance. Anything else they were flexible on,
> including components more expensive than the OS, but not this one item.
> Windows 98? Nope. Windows 2000? I don't think so. Could I get the machines
> without an operating system? Not a chance. So I tried logic: You mean to
> tell me that I'd have to pay for Windows XP /twice/ for every machine?
> "Yes", was the answer. Even with over 200 machines? "Yes." That's over
> $13,000.00 in unneeded licensing costs! "Tough luck, buddy."
This is absolutely correct. If you went out and purchased "white
boxes" from some company who could put the components together for you,
you might be able to get the discounted prices.
The thing to keep in mind, however, is that if Dell cooperates with
Microsoft, they can keep their OEM license fees down to about
$30/machine. They have to use "approved hardware" (Linux hostile,
often due to Microsoft contracts with IHVs), and use "approved
marketing" which means no mention of Linux and Windows in the same ad,
or any other marketing channel", and often, no mention of Linux at all.
> So I haggle some more, and finally give up. Later in the week, a perky Dell
> salesperson calls back and proudly announces that they will sell me the
> machines without the operating systems. Great! I look at the quote...
> "Wait," I say, "you haven't taken off the cost of the operating system."
> What's the answer? "We can't do that."
Actually, they can't. Keep in mind, if they reduce the price by the
$30 that they pay to Microsoft, they could be forced to pay $300 for
the other 10 million machines they sell this year.
> You see, Dell is scared s***less of Microsoft. There's no other way to
> explain why they'd fight tooth and nail for something that probably cost
> them $60. Why are they so scared?
There are a few companies who have tried to build a user base without
selling Microsoft. The "WalMart" machines and the "Staples" machines
are prime examples. They sell a few million machines each year, often
for very low prices, and often at very high overhead.
Dell has tried to "defect" a number of times, and each time, Microsoft
retaliates in very effective ways.
> Although the actual forced-purchase of the
> license costs them only $60, the act of stepping out of line with Microsoft
> could cost them millions if they can no longer get "preferential" pricing,
> or they're shut out from direct OEM purchasing.
Keep in mind that even though there are multiple court orders that
specifically forbids these types of actions, the courts seem powerless
to prevent Microsoft from circumventing these orders. They wrote a
settlement which wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
If Microsoft has managed to outsmart and outlawyer 40+ states'
attorneys general, 4 united states attorneys general, about 100 judges,
and numerous competitors, thousands of which are now bankrupt, Dell
knows that they really can't count on the courts.
Gateway is nearly bankrupt.
IBM sold it's PC business to Linnovo.
AST is gone
ALR is gone
Compaq is gone
Micron no longer makes PCs.
NEC can't afford to sell to the US.
Nearly every company who sells Windows PCs as their primary or sole
source of income, no longer exists.
Apple is thriving, but still depending on a very small niche market.
IBM, HP, and Sony subsidized their PC businesses with secondary market
products ranging from consulting and printers to televisions and
portable stereo equipment.
> Quantity purchasing is no
> bargaining chip, either, because the more units bought, the greater their
> liability, and greater is the incentive to ram Windows down your throat.
> So if you're wondering why Dell isn't pushing GNU/Linux on their desktops,
> there's your answer.
The problem is that there aren't any real "shining star" stories of
successful Linux OEMs either. Most of the Linux systems being sold
today are actually purchased from OEMs or from component makers who
sell to OEMs, and then reconfigured after-market. The irony is that
many of these machines, especially Laptops, are actually licensed for
Windows by the OEM as well as Linux by the VAR.
Bob
MS scum are STILL an illegal monopoly, to this very day, after all the
trials, all the fines, and everything. The MS crimewave continues.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-scammers/ A new epidemic - the
Nigerian "romance scam": Nigerian crooks using dating sites, Yahoo chat
rooms and Yahoo messenger to con people. Using fake profiles with photos
of real models, they "romance" both men and women and then con them.
Join the group to learn more.
Bob
Nothing anticompetitive there.........
>
>> It's akin to someone outside the Board of Directors, the CEO or the managers
>> telling them how to run their company.
>
> Take a very close look at the board of directors and officers of not
> only the OEMs, but also the Microsoft "Competitors" such as SCO. You
> will find a very interesting number of coincidences in the resumes and
> secondary affiliations of many of these officers and directors.
>
>> Nothing besides Microsoft's OS du
>> jour will make it in this market, because OEMs like Dell start the game with
>> a big liability. They /have/ to either sell the Windows licenses or eat the
>> cost. Ouch!
>
> See above. They don't just have to eat the cost of the discounted
> licenses, they could actually be held liable for the MSRP if they
> violate the terms of their agreement.
>
> Dell and most other OEMs must accept these terms because Microsoft also
> has the option of not only refusing to sell them ANY licenses, but
> Microsoft can even revoke all of their existing licenses.
Wow!
>
> This is why Microsoft continues to experience no significant decrease
> in revenue while their OEM customers watch sales dwindle to nothing and
> bleed red ink.
>
>> How do I know this? It's the only logical explanation: I was purchasing a
>> big order of computers for my firm. I had done research for volume
>> licensing, and discovered that at the quantity we were buying, XP Pro was
>> $114/seat. I figured, why not get the volume licensing, because you don't
>> have to be hassled with WPA, right? Wrong!
>
>> Dell, at first, outright refused to sell the machines without Windows XP. I
>> mean, they were firm on their stance. Anything else they were flexible on,
>> including components more expensive than the OS, but not this one item.
>> Windows 98? Nope. Windows 2000? I don't think so. Could I get the machines
>> without an operating system? Not a chance. So I tried logic: You mean to
>> tell me that I'd have to pay for Windows XP /twice/ for every machine?
>> "Yes", was the answer. Even with over 200 machines? "Yes." That's over
>> $13,000.00 in unneeded licensing costs! "Tough luck, buddy."
>
> This is absolutely correct. If you went out and purchased "white
> boxes" from some company who could put the components together for you,
> you might be able to get the discounted prices.
>
> The thing to keep in mind, however, is that if Dell cooperates with
> Microsoft, they can keep their OEM license fees down to about
> $30/machine. They have to use "approved hardware" (Linux hostile,
> often due to Microsoft contracts with IHVs),
Wow!
and use "approved
> marketing" which means no mention of Linux and Windows in the same ad,
> or any other marketing channel", and often, no mention of Linux at all.
Wow!
>
>> So I haggle some more, and finally give up. Later in the week, a perky Dell
>> salesperson calls back and proudly announces that they will sell me the
>> machines without the operating systems. Great! I look at the quote...
>> "Wait," I say, "you haven't taken off the cost of the operating system."
>> What's the answer? "We can't do that."
>
> Actually, they can't. Keep in mind, if they reduce the price by the
> $30 that they pay to Microsoft, they could be forced to pay $300 for
> the other 10 million machines they sell this year.
>
>> You see, Dell is scared s***less of Microsoft. There's no other way to
>> explain why they'd fight tooth and nail for something that probably cost
>> them $60. Why are they so scared?
>
> There are a few companies who have tried to build a user base without
> selling Microsoft. The "WalMart" machines and the "Staples" machines
> are prime examples. They sell a few million machines each year, often
> for very low prices, and often at very high overhead.
>
> Dell has tried to "defect" a number of times, and each time, Microsoft
> retaliates in very effective ways.
Wow!
>
>> Although the actual forced-purchase of the
>> license costs them only $60, the act of stepping out of line with Microsoft
>> could cost them millions if they can no longer get "preferential" pricing,
>> or they're shut out from direct OEM purchasing.
>
> Keep in mind that even though there are multiple court orders that
> specifically forbids these types of actions, the courts seem powerless
> to prevent Microsoft from circumventing these orders.
Wow!
They wrote a
> settlement which wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
Wow, amazing..........They are out of control and beyond the law.
What a joke!
Microsoft is a MAFIA!
Phil Da Lick!
> You see, Dell is scared s***less of Microsoft. There's no other way to
> explain why they'd fight tooth and nail for something that probably cost
> them $60. Why are they so scared? Although the actual forced-purchase of the
> license costs them only $60, the act of stepping out of line with Microsoft
> could cost them millions if they can no longer get "preferential" pricing,
> or they're shut out from direct OEM purchasing. Quantity purchasing is no
> bargaining chip, either, because the more units bought, the greater their
> liability, and greater is the incentive to ram Windows down your throat.
>
> So if you're wondering why Dell isn't pushing GNU/Linux on their desktops,
> there's your answer.
>
>
In other news, the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow morning.
billwg
"Bob" <b...@bob.con> wrote in message news:dg67sq$ou7$0...@pita.alt.net...
>
> MS scum are STILL an illegal monopoly, to this very day, after all the
> trials, all the fines, and everything. The MS crimewave continues.
Much too over the top, bob! MS has never had an illegal monopoly and it
is very questionable as to whether or not there even is a monopoly
today, given all the enthusiasm that the linuxers are mustering over
desktop linux. Certainly there is nothing but market acceptance
standing between them and the customers. Of course the antitrust laws
cannot order a customer to like linux or to want it on their computer.
These laws can only stop a large vendor, such as Microsoft from
preventing linux development or distribution and MS can't really do that
anyway.
Dell doesn't try to sell linux machines at any cost savings because
there isn't any real reason to do that. They would have to spend a lot
of money gearing up to do that and would never recover their costs from
the few consumers who would be willing to accept linux machines.
billwg
"Bones" <Bo...@domain.dom> wrote in message
news:slrndiclk7...@hydrogen.intra.net...
>
>
> How do I know this? It's the only logical explanation: I was
That may be the only explanation that is logical to you, but that only
means that you lack understanding and experience. Dell ships millions
of units per month and their manufacturing operations are not geared to
willy-nilly variances for piddling numbers of machines such as you were
apparently ordering. The cost of special handling for making unplanned
changes is a lot more than the cost of the Windows licenses which they
get at rock bottom prices due to their high volume.
You are lucky that they would even bother with you!
> --
Joe Flannigan
> Dell doesn't try to sell linux machines at any cost savings because
> there isn't any real reason to do that. They would have to spend a lot
> of money gearing up to do that and would never recover their costs from
> the few consumers who would be willing to accept linux machines.
You can order a machine with XP home or XP pro, with various bundled
software, with different memory, different HD, multi HD's. Many, many
different configurations.
Now, if you choose to have multiple disks in your new Dell, then only
one of those disks will have a system image on it, the others will be
formatted but otherwise blank. Correct?
If you accept that, then you also have to accept that Dell can and does
install blank disks into computers. It therefore follows, that there is
no real reason Dell cannot ship a computer with just a blank disk in it,
and chop off the cost of Windows. Hell, a bit more too as they wouldn't
have to provide support for windows for that computer!
billwg
<r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1126589935....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Keep in mind that in Microsoft's view of the world, their product is
> worth $400/copy, because that is what they get as a tax deduction when
> they "donate" Windows licenses to charities.
Oh that is total bullshit, Rex. I'm sure you know better than that! A
child knows better.
You can, of course, only deduct your out of pocket costs for any
donation, even if it is worth far more than that. And even then a
corporation is limited to a max of 10% of their taxable income for such
donations. That's their profits, Rex, not their revenues. Get a clue
and stop misleading the folks here. Some of them are pretty gullible.
Madhusudan Singh
Precisely the attitude that lots of arrogant but doomed companies have taken
in the past.
PS : None of them looked like failing when they behaved this way.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
The decisions of why Dell does anything isn't as simple as some one
line explanation. Ultimately Dell will do what makes the best business
sense for Dell. Given that they are a multi-billion dollar company and
Michael Dell is one of the richest men in America it's reasonable to
assume that they have been making the right decisions.
billwg
"Joe Flannigan" <jo...@nosoddingway.com> wrote in message
news:nd1jv2-...@johnbrown.uk.com...
> billwg wrote:
>> Dell doesn't try to sell linux machines at any cost savings because
>> there isn't any real reason to do that. They would have to spend a
>> lot of money gearing up to do that and would never recover their
>> costs from the few consumers who would be willing to accept linux
>> machines.
> Then explain this.
>
> You can order a machine with XP home or XP pro, with various bundled
> software, with different memory, different HD, multi HD's. Many, many
> different configurations.
>
to fit into their manufacturing flow. You may also notice, if you order
a Dell product, that what you specify can have a huge effect on the
delivery date that is calculated. If you want something outside of what
they have planned for, you cannot order it because there is no SKU for
it and hence no delivery. To accomodate you, they have to invent all
those pieces and introduce them into the system. You can expect that
Dell, who does this for a business, has put as much thought into what
they are going to offer as they can in order to maximize their market
opportunities.
> Now, if you choose to have multiple disks in your new Dell, then only
> one of those disks will have a system image on it, the others will be
> formatted but otherwise blank. Correct?
>
And they will have a SKU assigned and the assemblers will have a
reference and the automated assembly equipment will have a program to
handle it.
> If you accept that, then you also have to accept that Dell can and
> does install blank disks into computers.
Can you order a blank C drive? They may not have a SKU for that.
> It therefore follows, that there is no real reason Dell cannot ship a
> computer with just a blank disk in it, and chop off the cost of
> Windows. Hell, a bit more too as they wouldn't have to provide support
> for windows for that computer!
I don't think you can tell anyone at Dell that they are not responsible
for what they ship, joe. They like to think that they are a high
quality supplier and they work at making that the truth. A lot of their
ability to diagnose field faults lies in the Windows software that ships
with each machine. Look in the \DELL directory on your C:\ volume.
billwg
"Madhusudan Singh" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4326ff23$0$18641$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
What companies do you speak of, singh?
Bones
> That may be the only explanation that is logical to you, but that only
> means that you lack understanding and experience. Dell ships millions
> of units per month and their manufacturing operations are not geared to
> willy-nilly variances for piddling numbers of machines such as you were
> apparently ordering.
Billwg, that's irrelevant in this case. Also, I've withheld certain details
of this anecdote because I was expecting these sort of arguments. It costs
them nothing to remove the operating system. In fact, they don't "remove"
it, they just don't drop the image on. Most of the support software is on a
separate DOS partition, so they aren't risking anything in terms of hardware
support cost.
But wait, there's more!
> The cost of special handling for making unplanned changes is a lot more
> than the cost of the Windows licenses which they get at rock bottom prices
> due to their high volume. You are lucky that they would even bother with
> you!
That's false, and I'll tell you why. First, just plain common sense tells us
that it takes slightly less time to produce the machine if those 10-15
minutes aren't required to drop a Windows OEM image on the hard disk.
There's really no point in arguing about this one. Dell has to have the
ability to pick the image, because they also offer XP Home, and with either
FAT32 or NTFS filesystems. If they can set those partition types, they can
also /not/ set them. The changes aren't "unplanned".
Second, you're attempting to apply the same argument about installing and
supporting Linux to an empty hard disk. Now, that doesn't make any sense at
all. Dell's official policy on third party images and installations is that
they don't support them. How do I know this? I toyed with the idea of making
our own image using volume-licensed XP on one shipped machine, then sending
it back to them for duplication. They were more than happy to do it, as long
as we understood that Dell wouldn't support it, and we paid $13 per machine
to have it done. That's an example of an "unplanned" change, and the cost is
$13, not "a lot more than the cost of [a] Windows [license] which they got
at [a] rock bottom price." Even if the cost was the issue, why didn't they
offer to remove the OS for $13? They just outright refused.
Last, we met on middle-ground, and I said we'd accept them if they had SP2
and all the updates installed. That's the way they shipped. Oddly, they did
not charge me for this service. That really puts the final nail in the
coffin of the "unplanned changes" argument, doesn't it? It also shows,
beyond a doubt, that they have great flexibility in their disk duplication
processes.
And why should I feel "lucky" that they bothered with us? Although we aren't
buying in massive quantities, our business is steady, and the profit
per-machine is higher. The Dell CEO probably couldn't care less about what
we do or don't get, but the sales rep, who probably gets commission, is
certainly happy to sell us a couple hundred boxes.
--
General Protection Fault
>
> So if you're wondering why Dell isn't pushing GNU/Linux on their desktops,
> there's your answer.
That, or their profit margin on the Windows license is so much higher than
it is on the hardware, they don't want to sell it without.
It's not as simple as you think it is.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:45PM up 56 days, 34 mins, 1 user, load averages: 0.09, 0.03, 0.01
Nigel Feltham
> The decisions of why Dell does anything isn't as simple as some one
> line explanation. Ultimately Dell will do what makes the best business
> sense for Dell. Given that they are a multi-billion dollar company and
> Michael Dell is one of the richest men in America it's reasonable to
> assume that they have been making the right decisions.
So it makes sense to dell to turn down a large order for PC's instead of
reducing the per-machine cost by the amount of the licence fee on software
that won't be supplied does it.
How does it make sense for a company to be so controlled by one of their
suppliers they'd rather let a rival get a large order for PC's than risk
upsetting their supplier.
What other supplier than a monopoly one can have so much control over a
customer - I bet dell don't care about upsetting their Graphics card
supplier when bargaining for a supply deal (if they upset NVIDIA there's
always ATI or the other way round), mother board supplier (upset one and
there's maybe 10 rivals willing to take the order) or CPU supplier
(upsetting Intel is AMD's gain - and it would hurt intel more than Dell).
Does it make sense for DELL to have no control over running a key area of
their own business unless blackmailed into it.
Bones
[snip]
> The decisions of why Dell does anything isn't as simple as some one
> line explanation. Ultimately Dell will do what makes the best business
> sense for Dell.
Amazing! One poster tells me that I'm an insignificant peon, and that I'm
blessed because Dell deigned to speak to me. Then you tell me that Dell has
a master plan that is so exquisitely crafted, that no detail can be
overlooked, even "empty" hard disks on some 200 PCs shipped to East Bumfsck.
> Given that they are a multi-billion dollar company and Michael Dell is one
> of the richest men in America it's reasonable to assume that they have been
> making the right decisions.
Dell used to sell PCs without an operating system, or with a non-MS
operating system, and they still turned out to be a "multi-billion dollar
company". Perhaps their success has more to do with their pricing to
consumers, their capability to negotiate better supplier pricing, and their
understanding of users' needs, especially business users' needs.
As I pointed out in another follow-up, Dell's liability for third-party
installations is /none/. They were very clear on that. And that applies even
if it's the same OS they're shipping standard. If they don't install it,
they won't support it. Presumably an "empty" PC will eventually have a
third-party installation on it (what good would it be without one),
therefore, it's not supported. Obviously, if there is no OEM license sold,
there is no requirement to support it. Arguing that it's a bad business
decision (excluding Microsoft's tactics) is just silly.
I think I've hit this from every possible angle, and the only reason they'd
make such a fuss over something that isn't even an expensive component is
that there is something else attached to it that we don't see. And that
something is the threat of punitive pricing from Microsoft.
--
Aragorn
following words to the masses...:
> Because Microsoft makes them pay for it in advance! I can't think of
> another industry where your supplier tells *you* how many items you're
> going to buy. It's akin to someone outside the Board of Directors, the
> CEO or the managers telling them how to run their company. Nothing
> besides Microsoft's OS du jour will make it in this market, because
> OEMs like Dell start the game with a big liability. They /have/ to
> either sell the Windows licenses or eat the cost. Ouch!
<snip>
What you are saying agrees with what I have read and heard a few years
ago already. Dell is forced to supply the customer with "an OS
installed" on their machines.
At first, they also offered DR DOS as an option for the desktops, and
Gnu/Linux for their servers. However, they were chastised by Microsoft
over the DOS offer, and so now they have to sell all their desktops
with Wintendo installed.
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)
billwg
"Bones" <Bo...@domain.dom> wrote in message
All that stuff is automated, I'm sure you know, bones. And the drives
are programmed long before they are assembled into a computer.
Not according to your story, bones. They said that they would give you
the machines without an OS at no additional charge. You wanted a $60
discount! Can't you keep your story straight?
> Last, we met on middle-ground, and I said we'd accept them if they had
> SP2
> and all the updates installed. That's the way they shipped.
That's the way my last Dell showed up, too. So what's your point?
> Oddly, they did
> not charge me for this service. That really puts the final nail in the
> coffin of the "unplanned changes" argument, doesn't it? It also shows,
> beyond a doubt, that they have great flexibility in their disk
> duplication
> processes.
You ended up buying a standard product, so why would they charge you for
that and how does that prove anything?
billwg
"Nigel Feltham" <nigel....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:432746f0$0$3580$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
>
>> The decisions of why Dell does anything isn't as simple as some one
>> line explanation. Ultimately Dell will do what makes the best
>> business
>> sense for Dell. Given that they are a multi-billion dollar company
>> and
>> Michael Dell is one of the richest men in America it's reasonable to
>> assume that they have been making the right decisions.
>
> So it makes sense to dell to turn down a large order for PC's instead
> of
> reducing the per-machine cost by the amount of the licence fee on
> software
> that won't be supplied does it.
>
lines to accomodate a special order might be, nigel.
> How does it make sense for a company to be so controlled by one of
> their
> suppliers they'd rather let a rival get a large order for PC's than
> risk
> upsetting their supplier.
>
You are assuming facts not in evidence, nigel. You don't even know if
bones' anecdote is even remotely true. What is in evidence is that the
terms and conditions of sale for Windows software is under constant
scrutiny by two separate watchdog committees rife with Microsoft
competitors who are looking specifically for such activities in order to
pillory Mr. Softee. You come up with a hypothetical explanation that
goes against logic and the law and so suggest that these committees are
failing where your incredible perception is not! LOL!!!
> What other supplier than a monopoly one can have so much control over
> a
> customer - I bet dell don't care about upsetting their Graphics card
> supplier when bargaining for a supply deal (if they upset NVIDIA
> there's
> always ATI or the other way round), mother board supplier (upset one
> and
> there's maybe 10 rivals willing to take the order) or CPU supplier
> (upsetting Intel is AMD's gain - and it would hurt intel more than
> Dell).
>
> Does it make sense for DELL to have no control over running a key area
> of
> their own business unless blackmailed into it.
No it doesn't, nigel. Could it be that Dell does this on purpose? Why
then wouldn't they use linux if it were at all capable of filling their
needs? Apparently Dell doesn't think that linux on the desktop can pull
their wagon.
Bones
[snip]
> All that stuff is automated, I'm sure you know, bones. And the drives
> are programmed long before they are assembled into a computer.
They aren't clairvoyant. They don't know how many of each they will sell,
and the process has flexibility, obviously, which is why they could deliver
a fully-patched XP Pro image at no additional cost.
[snip]
> Not according to your story, bones. They said that they would give you
> the machines without an OS at no additional charge. You wanted a $60
> discount! Can't you keep your story straight?
The OEM license costs them money. It's not "no additional charge". It
certainly isn't free, or what would account for 80 per cent of Microsoft's
revenue? My story is "straight". I would have to pay for both the OEM copy
and the volume license seats. That means we're buying XP twice. Since the
OEM copy isn't transferable to anything else but the PC it came on
(Microsoft's rules, not mine), that means I'm paying for something I have to
discard. What would you do, install XP Pro on two partitions on the same
machine?
[snip]
> You ended up buying a standard product, so why would they charge you for
> that and how does that prove anything?
It was no more a "standard" product than an image produced by me. Either
way, it wasn't how the machine would otherwise be shipped.
--
Erik Funkenbusch
> How do I know this? It's the only logical explanation: I was purchasing a
> big order of computers for my firm. I had done research for volume
> licensing, and discovered that at the quantity we were buying, XP Pro was
> $114/seat. I figured, why not get the volume licensing, because you don't
> have to be hassled with WPA, right? Wrong!
Yes, wrong.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/27/ms_plays_volume_licensing_upgrade/
You pay $114 for upgrade to a volume license version from an OEM version.
But, since this upgrade effectively makes it a full version (in conjunction
with an OEM version) you can move it from computer to computer. If you
decomission one PC, you can apply that upgrade to a different OEM PC.
The key is, you have to have an OEM version to upgrade or it's not a full
license.
Bob
> On 2005-09-13, Bones <Bo...@domain.dom> wrote:
>> So if you're wondering why Dell isn't pushing GNU/Linux on their desktops,
>> there's your answer.
>
> That, or their profit margin on the Windows license is so much higher than
> it is on the hardware,
LOL, I bet Dell hardly makes anything on that OS.
they don't want to sell it without.
>
> It's not as simple as you think it is.
Sheesh, willful refusal to see the obvious or what? The MS Mafia has
dictated terms to Dell such that if they sell Linux on their machines or
even offer it at all, MS will change the Windows pricing so as to
destroy Dell's competitive edge in the OEM business. If Dell wants to
stay in the OEM business, they need to deal with the Godfather, Bill Gates.
Your argument is similar to one that businesses comply willingly with
the Mafia. Nonsense, if they don't their business gets burned down.
Which is what Godfather Bill Gates threatens: to burn down Dell's
business if Dell doesn't play ball with the MS Mafia.
Bob
> lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
>
>> The decisions of why Dell does anything isn't as simple as some one
>> line explanation. Ultimately Dell will do what makes the best business
>> sense for Dell. Given that they are a multi-billion dollar company and
>> Michael Dell is one of the richest men in America it's reasonable to
>> assume that they have been making the right decisions.
>
> So it makes sense to dell to turn down a large order for PC's instead of
> reducing the per-machine cost by the amount of the licence fee on software
> that won't be supplied does it.
>
> How does it make sense for a company to be so controlled by one of their
> suppliers they'd rather let a rival get a large order for PC's than risk
> upsetting their supplier.
Because MS has such pricing power with that OS that Dell desperately
needs. Most of Dell's business is desktops, and many of those buyers
want a Windows OS. A few customers here or there demanding Linux are
nothing. Not compared to having to pay such a high price for that
Windows OS that Dell machines are priced out of the market.
>
> What other supplier than a monopoly one can have so much control over a
> customer -
Obviously, MS continues to be an illegal monopoly! Amazing, they are
above the fucking law. Bill Gates reminds me of Al Pachino in Scarface.
I bet dell don't care about upsetting their Graphics card
> supplier when bargaining for a supply deal (if they upset NVIDIA there's
> always ATI or the other way round), mother board supplier (upset one and
> there's maybe 10 rivals willing to take the order) or CPU supplier
> (upsetting Intel is AMD's gain - and it would hurt intel more than Dell).
>
> Does it make sense for DELL to have no control over running a key area of
> their own business unless blackmailed into it.
Nope. I can see you are not blind.
Bob
Wow, nice to know these things. The MS Mafia continues to send its hit
men out to threaten customers. Very interesting. A reason why the MSM
refuses to cover this issue is WHAT now?
B Gruff
> The OEM license costs them money. It's not "no additional charge". It
> certainly isn't free, or what would account for 80 per cent of
> Microsoft's revenue? My story is "straight". I would have to pay for
> both the OEM copy and the volume license seats. That means we're
> buying XP twice.
Yep.
I think I have it now.
Look at this from Dell's perspective.
They can obtain licences from MS very cheaply IFF (if and only if) they
buy licences to cover (or more than cover!) all the machines that they
sell. Anything less than that, and the cost of licences (per licence)
goes up - so much so that it is actually CHEAPER for them to take the
bulk licences.
e.g. at 10,000 bucks a thousand OR 50 bucks each, take your pick(!)
Dell has to take 1,000, for anticipated production of (say) 800.
That's about 12.50 for every sale (and 200 go to waste)
Now a customer sees the 12.50 built-in (bundled) cost, and wants an
unbundled product, say 100 of them.
If Dell do that, they need to recover the 10,000 bucks from 700 sales
rather than from 800.
Either they re-price the rest to 14.29 or take a loss of 1,250 bucks on
their 800 production.
They can't do it.
These licences aren't free. The buyer pays. However, the system is
fixed so that he pays whether or not he wants the bundled licence!
It's a very neat trick (as far as MS is concerned) of course.
They try to tell me that it's Capitalism, and it's A Good Thing, because
Capitalism means plenty of competition, much incentive, innovation, a
free market, etc.
It's nothing of the sort, of course. It's a monopoly practice,
practised particularly by (but certainly not limited to) American
Corporations, and condoned by the government(s) of those corporations.
It actually is, or is close to, Fascism.
Bill
billwg
"Bones" <Bo...@domain.dom> wrote in message
>> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>> All that stuff is automated, I'm sure you know, bones. And the
>> drives
>> are programmed long before they are assembled into a computer.
>
> They aren't clairvoyant. They don't know how many of each they will
> sell,
> and the process has flexibility, obviously, which is why they could
> deliver
> a fully-patched XP Pro image at no additional cost.
>
worked out in the early 1900s. SKUs, hi-lo stock limits, reorder
points, etc.. Handles the situation even today with some JIT thrown in
to save some bucks. But it has to be planned and that is the problem
with anomalies like your hypothetical order.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Not according to your story, bones. They said that they would give
>> you
>> the machines without an OS at no additional charge. You wanted a $60
>> discount! Can't you keep your story straight?
>
> The OEM license costs them money. It's not "no additional charge". It
> certainly isn't free, or what would account for 80 per cent of
> Microsoft's
> revenue? My story is "straight". I would have to pay for both the OEM
> copy
> and the volume license seats. That means we're buying XP twice. Since
> the
> OEM copy isn't transferable to anything else but the PC it came on
> (Microsoft's rules, not mine), that means I'm paying for something I
> have to
> discard. What would you do, install XP Pro on two partitions on the
> same
> machine?
What I would do is use the XP Pro that comes with the machine and Ghost
over it with whatever I had that was so wonderful to need such special
handling.
It doesn't mean that you are buying XP twice either. You are buying a
package from Dell that includes XP and you are buying XP, apparently, in
a separate transaction with Microsoft and insist on installing your own
copy instead of the one from Dell. That seems odd and contrived to me.
We buy thousands of Dell machines each year and do not have any such
problem. Why should you? If all you want to do is try to save money on
licenses and Dell is not cooperating, why blame Microsoft and imply some
conspiracy that certainly does not exist? Build your own PCs out of
parts like amosf does. He claims it saves a lot.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>> You ended up buying a standard product, so why would they charge you
>> for
>> that and how does that prove anything?
>
> It was no more a "standard" product than an image produced by me.
> Either
> way, it wasn't how the machine would otherwise be shipped.
>
I have gotten 3 Dells in the past 6 months, a tower and two laptops and
they all had XP Pro with SP2 out of the box.
>
> --
billwg
"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3oqho9F...@individual.net...
knowledge of actual pricing, goat, but you ignore the FACT that this
pricing scheme is known to NOT EXIST since the practice was discontinued
in the mid-1990s a decade ago. The US DOJ monitors this daily and has
not reported that it has occurred. You can pose a conspiracty theory
that the DOJ committees and Microsoft are now in cahoots and the
practice is rife with Dell and presumably HP and Sony and even IBM
remaining silent about it, but then you would look like a silly goose.
> They can't do it.
> These licences aren't free. The buyer pays. However, the system is
> fixed so that he pays whether or not he wants the bundled licence!
>
> It's a very neat trick (as far as MS is concerned) of course.
> They try to tell me that it's Capitalism, and it's A Good Thing,
> because
> Capitalism means plenty of competition, much incentive, innovation, a
> free market, etc.
> It's nothing of the sort, of course. It's a monopoly practice,
> practised particularly by (but certainly not limited to) American
> Corporations, and condoned by the government(s) of those corporations.
> It actually is, or is close to, Fascism.
>
Even if it were true, and it is not, the issue would be that the OS
platform, for Dell at least in your hypothetical, has become a fixed
cost for their corporation, similar in nature to the bricks and mortar
and land that comprise one of their factories. They have that cost
whether they produce a million machines or produce a thousand and the
cost has to be amortized over their revenues. Maybe bones would rather
Dell manufactured the computers that he wants to buy outdoors on a sunny
day and so save the costs of using the factory? That would be absurd,
but that would be the same thing in your scenario.
B Gruff
> They have that cost
> whether they produce a million machines or produce a thousand and the
> cost has to be amortized over their revenues.
Precisely baa-lamb.
I think that you understand it now.
A fixed cost, on the basis of per machine sold, NOT per MS OS sold.
Hence, no reduction in cost for NOT taking the OS, and no loss to MS in
either case.
It's not capitalism - it's Fascism.
Bill
Daeron
> I guess <snip>
Hi Eric Fud .. ;)
Aragorn
following words to the masses...:
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 06:32, Bones stood up and spoke the
>> following words to the masses...:
>>
>>> Because Microsoft makes them pay for it in advance! I can't think of
>>> another industry where your supplier tells *you* how many items
>>> you're going to buy. It's akin to someone outside the Board of
>>> Directors, the CEO or the managers telling them how to run their
>>> company. Nothing besides Microsoft's OS du jour will make it in this
>>> market, because OEMs like Dell start the game with a big liability.
>>> They /have/ to either sell the Windows licenses or eat the cost.
>>> Ouch!
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> What you are saying agrees with what I have read and heard a few
>> years ago already. Dell is forced to supply the customer with "an OS
>> installed" on their machines.
>>
>> At first, they also offered DR DOS as an option for the desktops, and
>> Gnu/Linux for their servers. However, they were chastised by
>> Microsoft over the DOS offer, and so now they have to sell all their
>> desktops with Wintendo installed.
>
> Wow, nice to know these things. The MS Mafia continues to send its hit
> men out to threaten customers. Very interesting. A reason why the MSM
> refuses to cover this issue is WHAT now?
I'm not sure I understand your last line. You'll have to give me some
credit; I have Asperger's Syndrome...
As for MS Mafia... Ever witnessed an MS audit? A friend of mine has,
and according to what he says, after everything has been checked for
licenses etc. - including licenses for non-Microsoft software! - the MS
bullies offer you a bribe. They call it "negotiating"... 8-)
billwg
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:08:37 GMT
<pIDVe.69997$xl6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
Dot-gones, most likely. Microsoft is a special case;
innovative enough to survive, rich enough to prosper,
arrogant enough to think that they are the One Microsoft
Way(tm) on occasion but responsive enough to not be booted
out of most businesses and homes outright. They are also
virtually immune from prosecution; certainly the DoJ isn't
exactly busting its balls in trying to put Mr. Gates
into a federal pen, or break up his company. (I'm not
sure that would fix the problems in the market anyway.
IE4 is long since dead. I'm not sure Netscape has recovered,
though Firefox looks very promising, and Mozilla is big
but featureful.)
Windows Vista in particular is a lot better than Windows
1.0, with a lot more functionality. (Win1.0 presumably
didn't have a web browser, as the most obvious example,
nor could it play music. Not that I consider Vista *that*
good. :-) )
In any event, Microsoft's cash on hand is $37.75B.
If their revenue ($39.79B) were to cut off entirely they'd
be able to run for almost a year -- and probably for more
than a year, since that revenue presumably includes things
such as interest, rent, and other unrelated stuff.
And of course they'd glut the market before they "die"
by laying off lots of people, which would reduce their
costs so that they could survive for a lot longer.
It won't be a quick, painless death.
RedHat, OTOH, has $434.50M. They're better off in some
respects than Microsoft (their gross revenue is $215.48M,
which means they could run for more than two years) but
their hoard is only 1/100th the size. In one scenario
Microsoft would simply buy them.
IBM might be a better example. Revenue $96.2B, cash
$8.66B. Were IBM to be cut off from its flow it would
be in real trouble, lasting maybe a month if they make no
other changes. The outstanding debt is $23.72B. Whether a
"cut-off scenario" would change the payments thereon is
unclear; RedHat has $590M in debt.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Mark Kent
Aragorn <str...@telenet.invalid> espoused:
I didn't understand it either, but I was assuming that it was my natural
stupidity.
>
> As for MS Mafia... Ever witnessed an MS audit? A friend of mine has,
> and according to what he says, after everything has been checked for
> licenses etc. - including licenses for non-Microsoft software! - the MS
> bullies offer you a bribe. They call it "negotiating"... 8-)
>
We've had them at work, yes. They're used to force a more MS focussed
direction.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up
in the morning, and does not stop until you get to school.
Bones
> This is all, of course, a fairy tale that you weave around zero factual
> knowledge of actual pricing, goat, but you ignore the FACT that this
> pricing scheme is known to NOT EXIST since the practice was discontinued
> in the mid-1990s a decade ago.
Then there should be no issue for removing the item and refunding the user
for the price. Any other component, save the base machine
(mainboard+integrated devices, case, power supply) can be removed, and the
cost subtracted. If you remove MS Office, Norton IS, McAfee, Quickbooks -
basically any non-bundled software package - you get a credit for the cost.
Everything except for, of course, the operating system.
> The US DOJ monitors this daily and has not reported that it has occurred.
I seriously doubt that. First off, the DOJ would have to oversee Dell's
operations on a daily basis. Just the fact that the DOJ would find time to
do that every day is highly unlikely. We're talking about a federal
bureaucracy, here. The States went for the
sue-and-put-the-money-in-the-treasury option, instead.
> You can pose a conspiracty theory that the DOJ committees and Microsoft
> are now in cahoots and the practice is rife with Dell and presumably HP and
> Sony and even IBM remaining silent about it, but then you would look like a
> silly goose.
Now you're just reaching for anything. No one suggested a conspiracy. I
think I pointed out, without a doubt, that something is highly suspect.
There is the direct proof, of which I have none, because I don't work for
Dell, and then there is inference. Like I said, I've answered every excuse
and covered every angle. It doesn't make sense unless my explanation is
applied.
By the way, IBM was more than happy to sell me a PC without Windows, and
credit me for the cost.
[snip]
--
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:93bmv2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>
>>> Precisely the attitude that lots of arrogant but doomed companies
>>> have
>>> taken
>>> in the past.
>>>
>>> PS : None of them looked like failing when they behaved this way.
>>
>> What companies do you speak of, singh?
>>
>
> Dot-gones, most likely.
These companies generally did not have any profitability at all, ghost.
Certainly none of them were as profitable as Mr. Softee. And I don't
really remember them as being arrogant as singh posts. The dotcoms
looked to me like they were always failing rather than hiding it. I
think these are not the companies that singh likens to Microsoft.
> Microsoft is a special case;
> innovative enough to survive, rich enough to prosper,
> arrogant enough to think that they are the One Microsoft
> Way(tm) on occasion but responsive enough to not be booted
> out of most businesses and homes outright.
Microsoft is a very special case, ghost. They have a tremendous reserve
and a record kind of performance in the market in terms of share over an
extensive period of time. Singh poses the notion that they are likely
to fall quickly and speaks of examples, but none are forthcoming. I can
think of the most likely comparison being DEC, but the financial
situation is not at all comparable.
> They are also
> virtually immune from prosecution; certainly the DoJ isn't
> exactly busting its balls in trying to put Mr. Gates
> into a federal pen, or break up his company.
They break no laws these days, ghost, and argueably never did since the
only charges against them were non-causual events that are proscribed
only when a monopoly exists and there had been no such determination
prior to the acts themselves. Many people dislike MS and think it even
stylish to heap scorn on their day to day activities, but, like the TV
battery bunny, they just seem to keep moving up and up. It is news that
they, after some heavy payments in numerous civil trials, only increased
their profits by 8% in their latest fiscal year. They are not exactly
hurting and seem to continue to prosper. With most of the lawsuits
behind them, let us see what happens this year.
> (I'm not
> sure that would fix the problems in the market anyway.
> IE4 is long since dead. I'm not sure Netscape has recovered,
> though Firefox looks very promising, and Mozilla is big
> but featureful.)
>
I don't know what you are getting at here.
> Windows Vista in particular is a lot better than Windows
> 1.0, with a lot more functionality. (Win1.0 presumably
> didn't have a web browser, as the most obvious example,
> nor could it play music. Not that I consider Vista *that*
> good. :-) )
>
> In any event, Microsoft's cash on hand is $37.75B.
> If their revenue ($39.79B) were to cut off entirely they'd
> be able to run for almost a year -- and probably for more
> than a year, since that revenue presumably includes things
> such as interest, rent, and other unrelated stuff.
This is a strange analysis, ghost, and very unconventional. Hardly any
large company has cash equal to a year's revenues. Typically you
compare a company's losses to their cash to get an idea of how long they
can weather a storm, but on that basis, Microsoft has an infinite future
since they are profitable.
>
> And of course they'd glut the market before they "die"
> by laying off lots of people, which would reduce their
> costs so that they could survive for a lot longer.
>
> It won't be a quick, painless death.
>
You will have to work very hard to show where there is even a miniscule
chance of that happening.
> RedHat, OTOH, has $434.50M. They're better off in some
> respects than Microsoft (their gross revenue is $215.48M,
> which means they could run for more than two years) but
> their hoard is only 1/100th the size. In one scenario
> Microsoft would simply buy them.
>
The only reason that RHAT has that much on hand is because they haven't
yet lost all the money they raised in IPO and follow-on rounds. For its
history, RHAT is deep in the hole and, while it is scarecely profitable
in the very recent quarters, that has come from abandoning the "free as
in beer" notion that linux was originally as known for as its open
source attribute.
The Ghost In The Machine
<XB3We.49535$4i6...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:93bmv2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>>
>>>> Precisely the attitude that lots of arrogant but doomed companies
>>>> have
>>>> taken
>>>> in the past.
>>>>
>>>> PS : None of them looked like failing when they behaved this way.
>>>
>>> What companies do you speak of, singh?
>>>
>>
>> Dot-gones, most likely.
>
> These companies generally did not have any profitability at all, ghost.
> Certainly none of them were as profitable as Mr. Softee. And I don't
> really remember them as being arrogant as singh posts. The dotcoms
> looked to me like they were always failing rather than hiding it. I
> think these are not the companies that singh likens to Microsoft.
I for one wouldn't know.
>
>> Microsoft is a special case;
>> innovative enough to survive, rich enough to prosper,
>> arrogant enough to think that they are the One Microsoft
>> Way(tm) on occasion but responsive enough to not be booted
>> out of most businesses and homes outright.
>
> Microsoft is a very special case, ghost. They have a tremendous reserve
> and a record kind of performance in the market in terms of share over an
> extensive period of time. Singh poses the notion that they are likely
> to fall quickly and speaks of examples, but none are forthcoming. I can
> think of the most likely comparison being DEC, but the financial
> situation is not at all comparable.
We shall see. In any event, I suspect the next two decades will
be very interesting ones, if Bill Gates has any hankering for
politics at all. $50B buys a lot of Presidential campaigns...
(Who, me cynical? :-) )
>
>> They are also
>> virtually immune from prosecution; certainly the DoJ isn't
>> exactly busting its balls in trying to put Mr. Gates
>> into a federal pen, or break up his company.
>
> They break no laws these days, ghost, and argueably never did
They *cannot* break the law. They *are* the law. Briefly put,
they are innocent until found guilty and are still appealing
the sentence.
> since the
> only charges against them were non-causual events that are proscribed
> only when a monopoly exists and there had been no such determination
> prior to the acts themselves.
Or after, for that matter.
> Many people dislike MS and think it even
> stylish to heap scorn on their day to day activities, but, like the TV
> battery bunny, they just seem to keep moving up and up.
The 5 year chart looks more flat than up, at this point.
High: about 37. Low: about 20. (Adjusted for splits.)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
> It is news that
> they, after some heavy payments in numerous civil trials, only increased
> their profits by 8% in their latest fiscal year. They are not exactly
> hurting and seem to continue to prosper. With most of the lawsuits
> behind them, let us see what happens this year.
No doubt they'll get back on their feet and sell Vista with Gusto. :-)
>
>> (I'm not
>> sure that would fix the problems in the market anyway.
>> IE4 is long since dead. I'm not sure Netscape has recovered,
>> though Firefox looks very promising, and Mozilla is big
>> but featureful.)
>>
> I don't know what you are getting at here.
The allegations were about that timeframe, IIRC.
>
>> Windows Vista in particular is a lot better than Windows
>> 1.0, with a lot more functionality. (Win1.0 presumably
>> didn't have a web browser, as the most obvious example,
>> nor could it play music. Not that I consider Vista *that*
>> good. :-) )
>>
>> In any event, Microsoft's cash on hand is $37.75B.
>> If their revenue ($39.79B) were to cut off entirely they'd
>> be able to run for almost a year -- and probably for more
>> than a year, since that revenue presumably includes things
>> such as interest, rent, and other unrelated stuff.
>
> This is a strange analysis, ghost, and very unconventional.
Never said I was a stock expert. :-)
> Hardly any
> large company has cash equal to a year's revenues.
Except Microsoft, which makes for a *very* comfortable position.
> Typically you
> compare a company's losses to their cash to get an idea of how long they
> can weather a storm, but on that basis, Microsoft has an infinite future
> since they are profitable.
True. But even were one to apply my logic (such as it is), it's
clear that they can weather most any storm.
>>
>> And of course they'd glut the market before they "die"
>> by laying off lots of people, which would reduce their
>> costs so that they could survive for a lot longer.
>>
>> It won't be a quick, painless death.
>>
> You will have to work very hard to show where there is even a miniscule
> chance of that happening.
The best scenario I can come up with is this one.
[1] Microsoft introduces Vista to the world at large, after hinting,
prodding, spending advertising money, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
(I have no idea what they'll use for a mascot, but it
probably won't be the butterfly.)
[2] Vista flops like the proverbial dead whale. Microsoft loses all
credibility and starts losing sales to RedHat, which bloats up
to a few billion in raw revenue in 2010 or so as Microsoft's
sources dry up.
[3] Microsoft starts to lose money. This is an unusual position for
them.
[4] Microsoft finally dies, sometime late this century, after being
made increasingly irrelevant by the likes of HURD, which by
some strange quirk surpasses Linux because of its superior design.
:-)
(OK, so this is highly fanciful. A more likely scenario will be
much the same as it is: a highly successful company embattled
by a number of competitors such as Linux, FreeBSD, and such.)
>
>> RedHat, OTOH, has $434.50M. They're better off in some
>> respects than Microsoft (their gross revenue is $215.48M,
>> which means they could run for more than two years) but
>> their hoard is only 1/100th the size. In one scenario
>> Microsoft would simply buy them.
>>
> The only reason that RHAT has that much on hand is because
> they haven't yet lost all the money they raised in IPO and
> follow-on rounds. For its history, RHAT is deep in the
> hole and, while it is scarecely profitable in the very recent
> quarters, that has come from abandoning the "free as in beer"
> notion that linux was originally as known for as its open
> source attribute.
>
We'll see in two years. In any event, Yahoo! Finance indicates
they're profitable, too, at this point.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RHAT
Personally, I prefer Gentoo. ;-)
billwg
"Bones" <Bo...@domain.dom> wrote in message
>> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> said:
>
>> This is all, of course, a fairy tale that you weave around zero
>> factual
>> knowledge of actual pricing, goat, but you ignore the FACT that this
>> pricing scheme is known to NOT EXIST since the practice was
>> discontinued
>> in the mid-1990s a decade ago.
>
> Then there should be no issue for removing the item and refunding the
> user
> for the price. Any other component, save the base machine
> (mainboard+integrated devices, case, power supply) can be removed, and
> the
> cost subtracted. If you remove MS Office, Norton IS, McAfee,
> Quickbooks -
> basically any non-bundled software package - you get a credit for the
> cost.
> Everything except for, of course, the operating system.
>
part of the "non-bundled software package", it is rather tightly bundled
with the package. You do not get a "credit" for removing an option such
as MS Office, you simple do not incur any expense for not selecting it
in the first place.
>
>> The US DOJ monitors this daily and has not reported that it has
>> occurred.
>
> I seriously doubt that. First off, the DOJ would have to oversee
> Dell's
> operations on a daily basis. Just the fact that the DOJ would find
> time to
> do that every day is highly unlikely. We're talking about a federal
> bureaucracy, here. The States went for the
> sue-and-put-the-money-in-the-treasury option, instead.
>
You have the wrong view, bones. The oversight is not with Dell, it is
with Microsoft and they do oversee all the contracts entered by MS with
the OEMs as part of the agreement. It is not such a small group either
and MS is being required to pay the costs of the committees' efforts.
Read the court documents for the details.
>
>> You can pose a conspiracty theory that the DOJ committees and
>> Microsoft
>> are now in cahoots and the practice is rife with Dell and presumably
>> HP and
>> Sony and even IBM remaining silent about it, but then you would look
>> like a
>> silly goose.
>
> Now you're just reaching for anything. No one suggested a conspiracy.
> I
> think I pointed out, without a doubt, that something is highly
> suspect.
The only thing that is suspect is your belief that you can take pieces
out of a package arbitrarily and get a rebate for the part you don't
want on the premise that the vendor is saving some cost. Take the onion
off the burger at Steak And Shake and see if they will give you a
discount. For that matter, try ordering one without meat. Same price.
At some point, they won't sell it because you are a pain.
> There is the direct proof, of which I have none, because I don't work
> for
> Dell, and then there is inference. Like I said, I've answered every
> excuse
> and covered every angle. It doesn't make sense unless my explanation
> is
> applied.
>
> By the way, IBM was more than happy to sell me a PC without Windows,
> and
> credit me for the cost.
>
Took a while for that to come out. Are we down to a single PC now after
hundreds of machines ordered from Dell?
Bob
I'm sorry, I bet u make a good programmer though.
MSM = Mainstream media.
>
> As for MS Mafia... Ever witnessed an MS audit? A friend of mine has,
> and according to what he says, after everything has been checked for
> licenses etc. - including licenses for non-Microsoft software!
Wow!
- the MS
> bullies offer you a bribe. They call it "negotiating"... 8-)
They offer you the chance to pay a bribe? Is that what you are saying?
My God. As a home user, I have never been audited. Why would any
business willingly put themselves through this?
Bob
MSM = mainstream media, sorry guys.
>
>> As for MS Mafia... Ever witnessed an MS audit? A friend of mine has,
>> and according to what he says, after everything has been checked for
>> licenses etc. - including licenses for non-Microsoft software! - the MS
>> bullies offer you a bribe. They call it "negotiating"... 8-)
>>
>
> We've had them at work, yes. They're used to force a more MS focussed
> direction.
>
Wow! Amazing. How exactly do they do this? This is really fascinating.
How do the auditors try to get you to quit using other products?
Aragorn
following words to the masses...:
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand your last line. You'll have to give me
>> some credit; I have Asperger's Syndrome...
>
> I'm sorry, I bet u make a good programmer though.
Well, I've done some programming in my time, but I've never gotten
around to learning C or C++, so I kinda got stuck... ;-)
>> As for MS Mafia... Ever witnessed an MS audit? A friend of mine
>> has, and according to what he says, after everything has been checked
>> for licenses etc. - including licenses for non-Microsoft software!
>
> Wow!
>
>> - the MS bullies offer you a bribe. They call it "negotiating"...
>> 8-)
>
> They offer you the chance to pay a bribe? Is that what you are saying?
That's what I'm saying. :-)
> My God. As a home user, I have never been audited. Why would any
> business willingly put themselves through this?
Oh, it's not willingly at all. It goes as follows. At - say - 09h00
and without any notification aforehand, the Microsofties enter your
company, escorted by a number of police officers and possibly a
magistrate.
They immediately seal all entries and exists to the company. Nobody
gets to go in or out, and nobody moves until they're done.
They demand that all business activity stops immediately and demand to
see the person in charge of IT. Meanwhile, police officers see to it
that nobody of the staff moves to anywhere near a computer.
When the MS people get to meet the person responsible for IT in the
company, they demand to see *all* licenses, for each and every computer
in the business and for each and every piece of software installed on
those machines, even if it is non-Microsoft software.
Then, with a police officer (or a magistrate) at their side, they begin
scrutinizing each and every computer in the company for what's
installed. They carefully write everything down and compare the
license numbers with what the IT representative has handed them over.
After the indexing, a police report is typed out, and then the
Microsofties will summon the person in charge - presumably after the
police officers have left and the staff has returned to its daily
activities - and then they will start negotiating.
The only thing I'm not sure of is whether they all wear long black
raincoats, sunglasses and an earphone, but the above story is how it
happened to the company in which a friend of mine was responsible for
the IT infrastructure...
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> We've had them at work, yes. They're used to force a more MS focussed
>> direction.
>>
> Wow! Amazing. How exactly do they do this? This is really fascinating.
> How do the auditors try to get you to quit using other products?
They make 'an offer you can't refuse' to cover all the unlicensed software
(ie., anything you can't find the original disks and documentation for),
and including some additional items you haven't already got, but might
be useful. The alternative is an enormous bill.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start
with a large fortune.
Bob
It's not! Monopolies are antithetical to capitalism. A market is either
free or its not.
and it's A Good Thing, because
> Capitalism means plenty of competition, much incentive, innovation, a
> free market, etc.
> It's nothing of the sort, of course. It's a monopoly practice,
> practised particularly by (but certainly not limited to) American
> Corporations,
Not really. Go look around the rest of the world, esp the 3rd World, and
the capitalism that is practiced is typically monopolistic, horribly
corrupt, extremely hostile to consumers, workers, and everyone else. The
market is essentially rigged in much of the 3rd world.
and condoned by the government(s) of those corporations.
> It actually is, or is close to, Fascism.
I don't like to throw that word around, but I am afraid that that is
what it is. Fascism, after all, was complete merger of government and
big business.
I prefer the phrase "corporate fascism" for a lot of the profoundly
negative turn I see in US big business and in our society at large.
That kind of gets me away from the rejoinders about "where are the brown
shirts, where is the censorship, where is the dictatorship, etc.
Bob
Hmmmm, I dunno if I call MS fascist. More like organized crime really.
MS is like the Yakuza, and various other mafias around the world. I
expect them to field their own private army at some point, like Mafias
often do. Bill Gates, instead of being Hitler, is more like Tony
Montana in Scarface or Pepe Escobar. The fact that Bill doesn't kill ppl
and the others did is not that relevant. There are many types of
organized crime gangs; not all are violent.
That said, if US society keeps going this route, I expect extreme
rightwing death squads at some point, and sadly, violence from the Left
too. Read Hegel and Marx. It's inevitable. Marx was right on one thing -
the rich push the peasants at some point too far, and then you get
some kind of peasant uprising. It's almost as predictable and provable
as an algorithm.
Bob
>> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> said:
>
>> This is all, of course, a fairy tale that you weave around zero factual
>> knowledge of actual pricing, goat, but you ignore the FACT that this
>> pricing scheme is known to NOT EXIST since the practice was discontinued
>> in the mid-1990s a decade ago.
>
> Then there should be no issue for removing the item and refunding the user
> for the price. Any other component, save the base machine
> (mainboard+integrated devices, case, power supply) can be removed, and the
> cost subtracted. If you remove MS Office, Norton IS, McAfee, Quickbooks -
> basically any non-bundled software package - you get a credit for the cost.
> Everything except for, of course, the operating system.
>
>
>> The US DOJ monitors this daily and has not reported that it has occurred.
>
> I seriously doubt that. First off, the DOJ would have to oversee Dell's
> operations on a daily basis. Just the fact that the DOJ would find time to
> do that every day is highly unlikely. We're talking about a federal
> bureaucracy, here. The States went for the
> sue-and-put-the-money-in-the-treasury option, instead.
I hate to play politics, but as I understand it, Bush came in, and DOJ
went totally pro-MS in a fortnight. The DOJ won't monitor MS, even if it
can. The Bushies don't believe in antitrust law. :)
>
>> You can pose a conspiracty theory that the DOJ committees and Microsoft
>> are now in cahoots
It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
murder, and DOJ could care less.
and the practice is rife with Dell and presumably HP and
>> Sony and even IBM remaining silent about it,
Well known that victims of Mafias are often terrified silent about the
abuse they suffer.
Bob
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, billwg
> <bi...@twcf.rr.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:53:11 GMT
> <XB3We.49535$4i6...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message news:93bmv2-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> We shall see. In any event, I suspect the next two decades will
> be very interesting ones, if Bill Gates has any hankering for
> politics at all. $50B buys a lot of Presidential campaigns...
>
> (Who, me cynical? :-) )
MS will be *extremely* difficult to kill. In addition to being an
organized crime gang, they are also brilliant, adaptive and vicious.
>
>>> They are also
>>> virtually immune from prosecution; certainly the DoJ isn't
>>> exactly busting its balls in trying to put Mr. Gates
>>> into a federal pen, or break up his company.
>> They break no laws these days, ghost, and argueably never did
>
> They *cannot* break the law. They *are* the law. Briefly put,
> they are innocent until found guilty and are still appealing
> the sentence.
Yow.
>
>> since the
>> only charges against them were non-causual events that are proscribed
>> only when a monopoly exists and there had been no such determination
>> prior to the acts themselves.
>
> Or after, for that matter.
>
>> Many people dislike MS and think it even
>> stylish to heap scorn on their day to day activities, but, like the TV
>> battery bunny, they just seem to keep moving up and up.
>
> The 5 year chart looks more flat than up, at this point.
> High: about 37. Low: about 20. (Adjusted for splits.)
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Agreed. MS isn't growing like they used to.
> True. But even were one to apply my logic (such as it is), it's
> clear that they can weather most any storm.
It's depressing to think of ways to kill MS. It's like trying to kill an
army of aliens with really advanced technology. Or maybe like the US
trying to defeat guerrillas in Iraq?
> (OK, so this is highly fanciful. A more likely scenario will be
> much the same as it is: a highly successful company embattled
> by a number of competitors such as Linux, FreeBSD, and such.)
I figure MS is going to lose some market value. So many ppl just totally
despise them.
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>
> murder, and DOJ could care less.
>
you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
billwg
>
> We shall see. In any event, I suspect the next two decades will
> be very interesting ones, if Bill Gates has any hankering for
> politics at all. $50B buys a lot of Presidential campaigns...
>
would have had to go to Yale and join the Skull and Bones to be able to
do that. Remember Ross Perot? I thought he was an upstanding fellow
with some practical solutions and ways of approaching problems and would
have made a good president. The press focused on his big ears and
Clinton became prez. Not that Bill didn't have the right attitude, i.e.
inaction is often better than action, for example relative to Iraq, but
if Perot couldn't buy his way into the club, Gates will never get there
either.
>
> Or after, for that matter.
Well the most significant result of the DOJ trial was the determination
that MS had monopoly power in the "Intel compatible desktop operating
system software" market. That put some bounds on what MS can and cannot
do operationally with Windows desktop OS packages, but the net effect
was minimal. They are explicitly allowed to "improve" their products,
even as a monopoly, and so meet or exceed any requirement that may
evolve over time.
>
>> Many people dislike MS and think it even
>> stylish to heap scorn on their day to day activities, but, like the
>> TV
>> battery bunny, they just seem to keep moving up and up.
>
> The 5 year chart looks more flat than up, at this point.
> High: about 37. Low: about 20. (Adjusted for splits.)
>
You confuse operating results with stock prices, ghost. Microsoft's
viability depends on its ability to make money on a continuing basis.
Its stock price seems to vary more with the mood of the investor.
Investors can vote to kick out incumbent officers, but that is unlikely
in the case of Gates and Ballmer.
Bones
[snip]
> You are far too transparent, bones! Obviously the OS platform is not
> part of the "non-bundled software package", it is rather tightly bundled
> with the package. You do not get a "credit" for removing an option such
> as MS Office, you simple do not incur any expense for not selecting it
> in the first place.
That argument makes absolutely no sense. If you don't buy it, you don't pay
for it. If it's part of their offer, it becomes a credit, since you're being
charged for it. If it's not, you pay extra. You can look at it any way you
want, as a capital investment, as a parasitic organism permanently attached
to your PC, through a hole in your hat, whatever! It still boils down to the
fact that it's an interchangeable item, like many other things in the unit,
and things that you don't want, you aren't charged for.
The premise that the OS is "tightly bundled" is the major fault in your line
of reasoning. It's not. I already demonstrated that they offer multiple OSes
in multiple configurations, or none at all. The sticking point is that they
still want to charge for it, whereas any other system component removed is
done so with a credit. The OS isn't burned into the ROM. It isn't hard-coded
into the motherboard chipset. It is one of the easiest components to remove.
Want to talk about something that's "tightly bundled" with the package? How
about the processor? The machine won't even start without that. Guess what?
If I downgrade it, I get a credit!
[snip]
> The only thing that is suspect is your belief that you can take pieces
> out of a package arbitrarily and get a rebate for the part you don't
> want on the premise that the vendor is saving some cost.
It's not suspect, it's logical. If I go for the smaller monitor, I get a
credit for the cost difference. I upgrade the hard disk, the upgrade cost is
the price of the larger hard disk, minus the cost of the smaller one. Dell
does it with everything except for the base components, and the operating
system. The base components (case, PSU and motherboard) are the core
machine, so that makes sense; if you change those, it's no longer the same
model. But Dell is more than happy to sell you a different model that better
fits your needs, and at a cost difference. They're flexible on just about
anything, except for the OEM OS license.
> Take the onion off the burger at Steak And Shake and see if they will give
> you a discount. For that matter, try ordering one without meat. Same
> price. At some point, they won't sell it because you are a pain.
You're analogy is missing some major points, which, frankly, I'm getting
sick of repeating. First off, Dell will remove a less costly item, like a
floppy disk drive, and give a credit. Dell will remove a more costly item,
like the monitor, and give a credit. It's only that one item, the operating
system, which is sacrosanct.
Your analogy makes sense only if they discounted for removal of ketchup,
mustard and salt, but /not/ onions.
[snip]
> Took a while for that to come out. Are we down to a single PC now after
> hundreds of machines ordered from Dell?
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. IBM, if you'll recall, doesn't get
along with Microsoft. Therefore, they aren't subject to those punitive
pricing models, they get screwed all the time. They'd rather sell a PC
without Windows.
--
Joe Flannigan
> "Joe Flannigan" <jo...@nosoddingway.com> wrote in message
> news:nd1jv2-...@johnbrown.uk.com...
>
>>billwg wrote:
>>
>>>Dell doesn't try to sell linux machines at any cost savings because
>>>there isn't any real reason to do that. They would have to spend a
>>>lot of money gearing up to do that and would never recover their
>>>costs from the few consumers who would be willing to accept linux
>>>machines.
>>
>>Then explain this.
>>
>>You can order a machine with XP home or XP pro, with various bundled
>>software, with different memory, different HD, multi HD's. Many, many
>>different configurations.
>>
>
> All of which have a pre-planned feature ID and have been pre-engineered
> to fit into their manufacturing flow. You may also notice, if you order
> a Dell product, that what you specify can have a huge effect on the
> delivery date that is calculated. If you want something outside of what
> they have planned for, you cannot order it because there is no SKU for
> it and hence no delivery. To accomodate you, they have to invent all
> those pieces and introduce them into the system. You can expect that
> Dell, who does this for a business, has put as much thought into what
> they are going to offer as they can in order to maximize their market
> opportunities.
Then why cannot they create an "SKU" for a blank disk Bill? There must
be some other reason.
>
>
>>Now, if you choose to have multiple disks in your new Dell, then only
>>one of those disks will have a system image on it, the others will be
>>formatted but otherwise blank. Correct?
>>
>
> And they will have a SKU assigned and the assemblers will have a
> reference and the automated assembly equipment will have a program to
> handle it.
Lol. OK. So, dell have hundreds of thousands of different programs
loaded into their assembly equipment? Are dell computers built
automatically? I'd imagine they would be hand build after the board was
in. Far cheaper and easier to put memory, disks in etc. by hand.
Your argument makes no sense Bill, as they can simply have an "SKU" for
a blank hard disk. I mean, you can have up to 3 disks, in different
configurations, 1 more option isn't going to hurt anyone!
>
>
>>If you accept that, then you also have to accept that Dell can and
>>does install blank disks into computers.
>
>
> Can you order a blank C drive? They may not have a SKU for that.
And? I'm certain they are quite capable of creating one. There must be
another reason why they don't offer it Bill.
>
>
>>It therefore follows, that there is no real reason Dell cannot ship a
>>computer with just a blank disk in it, and chop off the cost of
>>Windows. Hell, a bit more too as they wouldn't have to provide support
>>for windows for that computer!
>
>
> I don't think you can tell anyone at Dell that they are not responsible
> for what they ship, joe. They like to think that they are a high
> quality supplier and they work at making that the truth. A lot of their
> ability to diagnose field faults lies in the Windows software that ships
> with each machine. Look in the \DELL directory on your C:\ volume.
You know very well that I wasn't talking about the hardware support
Bill, hence the word "windows" in the "Hell, a bit more too as they
wouldn't have to provide support for windows for that computer!"
sentance.. Your comments are mostly irrelevan.
Bob
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>
> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>
However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
LOTS of ppl say "couldn't care less", but, really, if you know better,
you sound more educated to avoid the phrase.
Grammar Nazi interlude ended!
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>
>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>
> There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
>
> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
> in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
>
> The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
wrong - see below.
>
> LOTS of ppl say "couldn't care less", but, really, if you know better,
> you sound more educated to avoid the phrase.
wrong - you merely need to understand what it actually means.
>
> Grammar Nazi interlude ended!
The proper phrase is "I could not care less... <about this than I care
about anything else>". I hope this explains it to you. It's not
a double negative at all, it's a comparison, which is an entirely
different construct.
This isn't a grammar nazi thing, your phrasing is just plain wrong,
because you don't understand what the phrase is short for. Contractions
do cause difficulties, I know, but this phrase has been in common
usage for at least the last 40 years, so it shouldn't be too
difficult.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Lies! All lies! You're all lying against my boys!
-- Ma Barker
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>
>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>
> There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
>
> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
> in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
>
> The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
>
> LOTS of ppl say "couldn't care less", but, really, if you know better,
> you sound more educated to avoid the phrase.
>
> Grammar Nazi interlude ended!
I've thought of a better way which might help you understand this
phrase, try this:
"I could not care less <than I already do> about this issue."
Ie., I'm not interested, it doesn't bother me, I just couldn't
care less!
Hopefully this will help you comprehend.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
chrisv
>Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>
>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>
>There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
>
>However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
>in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
>
>The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
Wrong.
Mark Kent
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
I've seen this error a few times recently. At first I thought it was a
typo, but I've now seen that some people genuinely don't know what the
phrase means, so they do get it wrong. Most minor errors are ignorable,
but something which is 180 degrees out of phase is hard to ignore!
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Robert Newson
...
> All of which have a pre-planned feature ID and have been pre-engineered
> to fit into their manufacturing flow. You may also notice, if you order
> a Dell product, that what you specify can have a huge effect on the
> delivery date that is calculated. If you want something outside of what
> they have planned for, you cannot order it because there is no SKU for
> it and hence no delivery. To accomodate you, they have to invent all
> those pieces and introduce them into the system. You can expect that
> Dell, who does this for a business, has put as much thought into what
> they are going to offer as they can in order to maximize their market
> opportunities.
>
>>Now, if you choose to have multiple disks in your new Dell, then only
>>one of those disks will have a system image on it, the others will be
>>formatted but otherwise blank. Correct?
>>
> And they will have a SKU assigned and the assemblers will have a
> reference and the automated assembly equipment will have a program to
> handle it.
>
>>If you accept that, then you also have to accept that Dell can and
>>does install blank disks into computers.
>
> Can you order a blank C drive? They may not have a SKU for that.
You've obviously worked in retail....just like I did: I ran (more
accurately, was) the computer department for a large UK computer mail order
company years ago. If a SKU didn't exist, it could easily be set up in a
matter of seconds: the purchasing department was regularly creating new
product codes and catalog (SKU) codes for products. From a new product
details being received, a product code and catalog codes could easily be
created within 5 mins.
The company also built systems to order, and had various "kit" codes which
handled the basic [bundled] machine, but you could also order other bits
extra, no problem. You order the kit code (SKU) and the system then broke
that down into the component parts (SKUs) which were then picked and
assembled into the machine (or more often already assembled, allowing
extras, eg another disk or more memory, just to be slotted in).
You could either order the bits separately, or use the bundled (kit) code
which could also offer a discount on the items being selected individually.
Bob
Dunno, 2 grammarian types that I know have both independently confirmed
to me that this phrase is apparently poor English. I'm aware it's been
used improperly in massive numbers for 40 years, however, at the moment,
it's still technically considered poor English. Ungrammatical phrases
and poor English often become standardized after chronic use in society.
For example:
It is poor English to say, "It's me." You are supposed to say, "It is
I". However, if you say it right, you sound like a total idiot and
asshole. "It's me" is pretty much ok English at this point as the rule
seems to be going out.
Use of "whom" is also pretty much heading out, though in a few cases
it's best to use it.
Distinction between "less" and "fewer" is pretty much heading out,
though it's not totally gone now.
Language changes and formerly ungrammatical speech gets standardized as
old rules go out.
Unfortunately for many, "I couldn't care less" is just not there yet at
all. I quit saying it 10 years ago and won't say it again.
Master's Degree in Linguistics - 1994, Fresno State University, California.
And your qualifications are............what?
Seeing as I'm the one with the Linguistics Master's Degree here, I think
you ought to defer to me or go find me a link that shows me wrong.
Bob
Whether it really is or not is not relevant. As it's grammarians who
decide this stuff, not folks like you.
Bob
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>>
>> There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
>>
>> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
>> in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
>>
>> The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
>>
>> LOTS of ppl say "couldn't care less", but, really, if you know better,
>> you sound more educated to avoid the phrase.
>>
>> Grammar Nazi interlude ended!
>
> I've thought of a better way which might help you understand this
> phrase, try this:
>
> "I could not care less <than I already do> about this issue."
>
> Ie., I'm not interested, it doesn't bother me, I just couldn't
> care less!
>
> Hopefully this will help you comprehend.
>
and it doesn't matter whether a phrase "makes sense" or not. Lots of
crappy English "makes sense". It's still a lousy way to talk and makes
you look stupid and uneducated when you talk that way.
Bob
> begin oe_protect.scr
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>>>
>>> There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
>>>
>>> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
>>> in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
>>>
>>> The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
>> Wrong.
>>>
> I've seen this error a few times recently.
It's not an error. Look it up in the grammar books. I have one lying
around here. Or consult a grammar site on the net. Although I am sure
there is debate about whether or not "I couldn't care less" is ok or
not, NO ONE says that "I could care less" is an ERROR! Except Mark Kent,
amateur grammarian.
At first I thought it was a
> typo, but I've now seen that some people genuinely don't know what the
> phrase means,
It doesn't matter "what the phrase means". There is a proper or improper
way to talk. Consult a grammar guide if you are confused.
BA Journalism 1981 California State University Long Beach
As journalists, we use style manuals that tell us what is proper speech
and what is not.
so they do get it wrong. Most minor errors are ignorable,
> but something which is 180 degrees out of phase is hard to ignore!
Problem is, it's not an error. Not one grammarian on Earth agrees with
you on this, but do carry on.
Robert Newson
...
>>> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English
>>> grammar; in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical
>>> (double negative).
Well, I couldn't care fewer about that...^_^
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>>>
>>> There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
Your phrasing is 180 degrees out of phase, it's a 2s complement of what
you mean. You're wrong!
>>>
>
> Seeing as I'm the one with the Linguistics Master's Degree here, I think
> you ought to defer to me or go find me a link that shows me wrong.
Don't give a toss what your qualification is - you're wrong.
I could not care less. I means I, could means could, not means not
and less means less! It's a simple and obvious statement. There is
no complexity to it. But tell you what, the headteacher of the
school at which I'm a governor has an English degree, and he says
"couldn't care less". Impressed?
Thought not. Still, here's an /american/ list of errors where your
error is described for you:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html
Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become
meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which
originally meant "it would be impossible for me to care less
than I do because I do not care at all" is rendered senseless by
being transformed into the now-common "I could care less." Think
about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The
original already drips sarcasm, so it's pointless to argue that
the newer version is "ironic." People who misuse this phrase
are just being careless.
And a more full list, should you wish to improve yourself:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors
As that took me about 10 seconds to find, I conclude that not only
are you arrogant and wrong about your knowledge, you're also too
bloody lazy to even check your facts.
YOU ARE WRONG! Please have the decency to admit it.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows."
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>
> I dunno, it's technically considered bad English and double negative.
> Whether it really is or not is not relevant. As it's grammarians who
You can't claim something is technically this or that, and then say it's
not relevant! You're arguing like a base troll in this group does.
> decide this stuff, not folks like you.
For pity's sake, it's *not* a double negative. There's only one
negative, which is *not*.
A double negative is not not together! That's what double negative
means.
I could not care less.
^^^ = negative - there's only one negative.
It's not bad english, it's perfectly good.
Here's the quote for you, as per the other thread.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors
Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become
meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression
which originally meant "it would be impossible for me to care less
than I do because I do not care at all" is rendered
senseless by being transformed into the now-common "I could
care less." Think about it: if you could care less, that
means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so
it's pointless to argue that the newer version is
"ironic." People who misuse this phrase are just being
careless.
Tell you what, why don't you look up double negative to find out
what it means? Clearly, you don't know.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
It's a simple phrase, which means what it says it does. Why don't you
take ten seconds to look it up?
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>> Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>>>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>>>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>>>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>>>>
>>>> There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
>>>>
>>>> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
>>>> in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
>>>>
>>>> The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>> I've seen this error a few times recently.
>
> It's not an error. Look it up in the grammar books. I have one lying
> around here. Or consult a grammar site on the net. Although I am sure
> there is debate about whether or not "I couldn't care less" is ok or
> not, NO ONE says that "I could care less" is an ERROR! Except Mark Kent,
> amateur grammarian.
Here you go, listed with other errors. Why didn't you look it up?
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors
>
> At first I thought it was a
>> typo, but I've now seen that some people genuinely don't know what the
>> phrase means,
>
> It doesn't matter "what the phrase means". There is a proper or improper
> way to talk. Consult a grammar guide if you are confused.
I have, and have posted the results for you, and you're *WRONG*.
>
> BA Journalism 1981 California State University Long Beach
>
> As journalists, we use style manuals that tell us what is proper speech
> and what is not.
>
> so they do get it wrong. Most minor errors are ignorable,
>> but something which is 180 degrees out of phase is hard to ignore!
>
> Problem is, it's not an error. Not one grammarian on Earth agrees with
> you on this, but do carry on.
That is a ludicruous statement! You're making a *real* fool of
yourself here. Why don't *you* take the time to look this up.
Here's some proper usage for you to study and learn from:
"Global couldn't care less about Québec City!" - CUPE files CRTC
complaint against Global Television
QUEBEC CITY, Sept. 6 /CNW Telbec/ - Global Television's recent
announcement that it is transferring production activities from its
Québec City station CKMI to Toronto has prompted the Canadian
Union of Public Employees (CUPE-FTQ) to file a complaint with
the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
(CRTC). CUPE contends that by proceeding with this transfer, Global
is not observing the terms of its license.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/06/c6307.html
This was written by journalists who have rather more of a clue than
you have about this.
Here's another one:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/cgi-bin/agora/agora.cgi?board=idiom;action=display;num=1123608268
And the wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs#Could_or_couldn.27t_care_less.3F
How long are you going to pretent that you have a clue here?
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Bob
I didn't bother because I had never heard that "could care less" was an
error; all I ever heard was the other way.
>
> YOU ARE WRONG! Please have the decency to admit it.
I will have to go check on that. That's the first person I have ever
heard of who said that "could care less" is an error.
No, I won't admit I'm wrong yet, but I will take it under submission.
Bob
I'm going to go check on this.
Bob
Why? The only person who ever told me it was wrong was you, some guy on
Usenet with no qualifications. Why bother?
Bob
That's interesting. It's a Brit saying the original phrase could not
care less came from Britain and the new phrase from the US in recent
years. He attacks the new phrase as a US abasement of a nice British
phrase. Then he quotes Steven Pinker on how the new phrase makes sense
in a sarcastic sense and suggests in came from Yiddish. Pinker, one of
the top linguists in the world today, doesn't seem to be saying it
s incorrect; it seems more he is saying that both are correct - 1
straight logical, the other sarcasm. Even the Brit author here describes
the new phrase as "slangy", not ungrammatical. He just doesn't like it
and he wants ppl to stop saying it, but he's not really saying it's
technically improper, it's just slang.
>
> And the wiki entry:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs#Could_or_couldn.27t_care_less.3F
>
> How long are you going to pretent that you have a clue here?
Going to go check on this. For now, I will say that both phrases are
proper.
I will withdraw my statement that "couldn't care less" is ungrammatical
or bad English.
One is British and logical, the other a newer sarcastic US slang
version. Both are ok.
Bob
> begin oe_protect.scr
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm
This is the best article on the subject. Even this guy says that could
care less is not ungrammatical (instead, it is just slang) and it is
becoming more popular and less disliked in the US. He also says both
forms are slang; he describes the older as colloquial. It looks like, in
the US now, both forms as ok as slang and neither is ungrammatical.
That's the best take on this article.
The other stuff is just opinions. In grammar, we take the weight of
opinion of all grammarians, not what 1 or 2 clowns say.
The piece above seems to say that most grammarians no longer consider
could care less to be improper or ungrammatical, and that both of
phrases are slang and acceptable to one degree or another. He also says
that could care less is stigmatized, evidence pls see your behavior in
this thread.
You really don't understand; I have an advanced degree in this stuff. We
are the folks that insisted that Ebonics was a perfectly ok form of
English, while hoi polloi like you ran around screaming about how it was
"bad English". Ebonics was no such thing!
Mark Kent
Except myself and one OP both said you were wrong, so that's not really
true, is it? Incidentally, I've *never* heard an Irish, British, Aussie,
Indian, South African, Kiwi or Pakistani get this wrong, I've only seen
the error recently, and only from Americans. If you've normally made
this error around Americans, perhaps they don't notice it, as perhaps
a lot of Americans make the same mistake? That could explain why
nobody has tried to help you with this before (if you regard learning
as helpful).
>>
>> YOU ARE WRONG! Please have the decency to admit it.
>
> I will have to go check on that. That's the first person I have ever
> heard of who said that "could care less" is an error.
>
> No, I won't admit I'm wrong yet, but I will take it under submission.
So, in fact, you had no particular reason to take the stance that you
took, including claiming grammar experts agreed with you, including
that it's a "double negative" (which it isn't - this is an utterly
different construct), and your claim to knowledge because you have
a degree in an unrelated subject? That's lazy and arrogant, which
is fine if you're right, but you're not, so it becomes crime. And
no, I don't mean crime in a literal sense, in order to avoid any
confusion on that front.
Here're some other examples for your consideration:
From Gone with the Wind:
"Frankly, my dea, I couldn't give a damn"
And general usage:
"I couldn't give a toss"
"I couldn't give a monkey's"
"I couldn't give a sh1t"
Your version of Gone with the Wind would presumably have our hero saying
"Frankly my dear, I could give a damn", which seems to lose it's charm,
as well as all discernable meaning.
For your edification, a double negative version would be:
"I couldn't not care less", which would be the same thing
as saying "I could care less", which would be wrong if you
meant I couldn't care less, but is not necessarily wrong.
In general, double negatives should be avoided, but they
can have value, particularly if a common phraseology is
already in the negative and you wish to show disagreement
with it.
I really think you should check facts before accusing people of being
Nazis, attacking their capabilities and knowledge and so on. I'm not
overly impressed with this.
--
Common abuses of English: I couldn't care less, or could I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs&action=edit§ion=6
Mark Kent
The original is sarcastic, as well as being logical and consistent.
The incorrect one is not sarcastic, it's not ironic, and it's not
even funny. It's just wrong.
> the top linguists in the world today, doesn't seem to be saying it
> s incorrect;
> it seems more he is saying that both are correct - 1
> straight logical, the other sarcasm.
No, the original is sarcastic and always has been.
> Even the Brit author here describes
> the new phrase as "slangy", not ungrammatical. He just doesn't like it
> and he wants ppl to stop saying it, but he's not really saying it's
> technically improper, it's just slang.
>>
>> And the wiki entry:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs#Could_or_couldn.27t_care_less.3F
>>
>> How long are you going to pretent that you have a clue here?
>
> Going to go check on this. For now, I will say that both phrases are
> proper.
>
> I will withdraw my statement that "couldn't care less" is ungrammatical
> or bad English.
>
> One is British and logical, the other a newer sarcastic US slang
> version. Both are ok.
Wrong - the original phrase *is* sarcastic. The other is logically
incorrect.
Mark Kent
Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm
>
> This is the best article on the subject. Even this guy says that could
> care less is not ungrammatical (instead, it is just slang) and it is
> becoming more popular and less disliked in the US. He also says both
> forms are slang; he describes the older as colloquial. It looks like, in
> the US now, both forms as ok as slang and neither is ungrammatical.
> That's the best take on this article.
Of course 'could care less' is grammatical - surely you can see that on
your own? It merely means the *opposite* of couldn't care less.
>
> The other stuff is just opinions. In grammar, we take the weight of
> opinion of all grammarians, not what 1 or 2 clowns say.
And who are *we*, I wonder? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your
lack of comprehension of simple English, as far as I can see.
>
> The piece above seems to say that most grammarians no longer consider
Seems to say?
> could care less to be improper or ungrammatical, and that both of
Most?
> phrases are slang and acceptable to one degree or another. He also says
> that could care less is stigmatized, evidence pls see your behavior in
Could care less has a perfectly correct meaning, which is inverted if
you put a *not* in, that's what a negative does.
> this thread.
The have opposing meanings. Couldn't care less is a sarcastic comment,
could care less means what it says.
<snip irrelvant garbage about ebonics> I have zero respect for your
views on this, you don't even know what a double negative is. I do
not believe that you have any qualification which is relevant, as
if you did, you'd know some of the *primary school* English we're
discussing here.
I wonder if you know the difference between advise and advice?
Mark Kent
For a man who claims a degree, you know less about English grammar than
my 8 year old kid. I do not believe that you have any such qualification.
In fact, I don't believe that you've not lied about it.
That's a double negative, spread over a main and subordinate
clause. Oh gawd - bet you don't even know what a clause is,
do you?
Mark Kent
To learn something. Unfortunately, your knowledge appears to be nowhere
near complete enough to justify your arrogance. You haven't a clue
about my qualifications, and yet you're happy to pronounce on them.
You haven't a clue about English grammar, and yet you pronounce on that.
Your use of an ad hominem attack is not particularly impressive (yeah,
go on, look that up too), and does not serve to help you in any way.
So far, you've called me a Nazi, Stupid, Uneducated, apparently all
on the basis of *no* actual information at all. Now that's a rather
foolish thing to do. You claim qualification, and yet you don't know
what a double negative is (primary school English), indicated that you
struggle even with less and few, and cannot manage to understand the
difference between:
I could not care less
I could care less
... without a web site to help you. Well, let me give you
another clue - /not/ is a negative, it inverts the meaning of the phrase.
The phrase changes from meaning "I care about this so much that I could
care less" to "It would not be possible for me to care less". The phrase
has been in common usage outside the US for at least the last 40 years,
and is a sarcastic phrase. Anyone who'd studied English to any reasonable
standard would know this - quite clearly you have not.
William Poaster
Kent wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
> I really think you should check facts before accusing people of being
> Nazis, attacking their capabilities and knowledge and so on. I'm not
> overly impressed with this.
I'm not impressed with this "Bob", & I don't believe he has a degree in
anything. I don't recall seeing such trash before, & frankly I couldn't
give a good goddam what he 'thinks'. You can guess where he now resides!
--
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it;
to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
-- Scott Granneman --
Senior consultant for Bryan Consulting Inc. in St. Louis
Robert Newson
> That's a double negative, spread over a main and subordinate
> clause. Oh gawd - bet you don't even know what a clause is,
> do you?
clause...oh yes, something that you get in contracts:
"Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here?"
"Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause, that's in every contract. That just
says, uh, it says, uh, if any of the parties participating in this contract
are shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is
automatically nullified."
"Well, I don't know..."
"It's all right. That's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they
call a sanity clause."
"Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can't fool me. There ain't no sanity clause."
Kier
<snip>
>
> Here're some other examples for your consideration:
>
> From Gone with the Wind:
>
> "Frankly, my dea, I couldn't give a damn"
Actually, in the book he says , "My dear, I don't give a damn". And to the
best of my recollection, in the film he says: "Frankly my dear, I don't
give a damn." (Though the emphasis is on 'give, not 'damn').
--
Kier
William Poaster
Newson wrote:
But if you know you're sane, you don't need a sanity clause. If you want
to get out of combat duty, you have to be certified insane.
"But there's a catch. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't
really crazy."
-- Doc Daneeka: Catch-22 --
linu...@lycos.com
Bones wrote:
> Because Microsoft makes them pay for it in advance! I can't think of another
> industry where your supplier tells *you* how many items you're going to buy.
> It's akin to someone outside the Board of Directors, the CEO or the managers
> telling them how to run their company. Nothing besides Microsoft's OS du
> jour will make it in this market, because OEMs like Dell start the game with
> a big liability. They /have/ to either sell the Windows licenses or eat the
> cost. Ouch!
> How do I know this? It's the only logical explanation: I was purchasing a
> big order of computers for my firm. I had done research for volume
> licensing, and discovered that at the quantity we were buying, XP Pro was
> $114/seat. I figured, why not get the volume licensing, because you don't
> have to be hassled with WPA, right? Wrong!
>
> Dell, at first, outright refused to sell the machines without Windows XP. I
> mean, they were firm on their stance. Anything else they were flexible on,
> including components more expensive than the OS, but not this one item.
> Windows 98? Nope. Windows 2000? I don't think so. Could I get the machines
> without an operating system? Not a chance. So I tried logic: You mean to
> tell me that I'd have to pay for Windows XP /twice/ for every machine?
> "Yes", was the answer. Even with over 200 machines? "Yes." That's over
> $13,000.00 in unneeded licensing costs! "Tough luck, buddy."
>
> So I haggle some more, and finally give up. Later in the week, a perky Dell
> salesperson calls back and proudly announces that they will sell me the
> machines without the operating systems. Great! I look at the quote...
> "Wait," I say, "you haven't taken off the cost of the operating system."
> What's the answer? "We can't do that."
>
> You see, Dell is scared s***less of Microsoft. There's no other way to
> explain why they'd fight tooth and nail for something that probably cost
> them $60. Why are they so scared? Although the actual forced-purchase of the
> license costs them only $60, the act of stepping out of line with Microsoft
> could cost them millions if they can no longer get "preferential" pricing,
> or they're shut out from direct OEM purchasing. Quantity purchasing is no
> bargaining chip, either, because the more units bought, the greater their
> liability, and greater is the incentive to ram Windows down your throat.
>
> So if you're wondering why Dell isn't pushing GNU/Linux on their desktops,
> there's your answer.
>
>
> --
you dont know shite. dell sells windows because selling windows makes
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for dell.
typical lintard reasoning that somehow msft is responsible for another
linux failing.
if linux is so great and free then why isn't everybody using it? the
reason is because its too freaking hard to use by mere mortals.
only a fsking stupid lintard wants to edit .conf files by hand using
vi. no way would normal people ever put up with that crap.
John Bailo
> if linux is so great and free then why isn't everybody using it? the
> reason is because its too freaking hard to use by mere mortals.
Wrong perspective.
Windows is free. Most people get it for free because its pre-installed on
their machines.
The real questions are: why does Windows suck so much that millions were
inspired to create a replacement for it on their own time and that millions
more are willing to download, burn cds and uninstall Windows because it
sucks so much?
--
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
Kier
And? This is hardly in dispute.
>
> typical lintard reasoning that somehow msft is responsible for another
> linux failing.
??? What are you talking about?
>
> if linux is so great and free then why isn't everybody using it? the
> reason is because its too freaking hard to use by mere mortals.
That must make me some kind of superior being, then, because I have no
trouble using it every day. 'Everyone' isn't using it because 'everyone'
never will. Not even Windows is used by 'everyone'. If you mean, why
aren't *more* people using it, the reasons are various. Some don't know
anything about it. Some prefer Windows (they're used to it, it's what came
with the PC, they don't want to learn a new OS). Some need to use Windows
(or Mac) for their livelihood. Some have hardware that won't run Linux,
and they can't afford (or don't wish) to replace it with hardware that
does.
>
> only a fsking stupid lintard wants to edit .conf files by hand using
> vi. no way would normal people ever put up with that crap.
I can' really remember the last time I had to edit a .conf file. Oh yes,
it was when I installed the Nvidia driver. Dead simple. Didn't use vi,
though my brother says it's the greatest text editor going. I prefer
emacs/xemacs, or kate.
In many cases, no editing of files is going to be necessary, so why are
you implying otherwise? As if I couldn't guess.
--
Kier
John A. Bailo
> you dont know shite. dell sells windows because selling windows makes
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for dell.
Boy -- are you a dreamer.
Here's Dell, the leading hardware seller, which now has the opportunity
to control the software by buying into Linux.
Now instead of Bill telling them what to do, they can make the decisions
for themselves. Why wouoldn't they do this?
Mark Kent
William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:18:57 +0100, that Mark
> Kent wrote:
>
><snipped for brevity>
>> I really think you should check facts before accusing people of being
>> Nazis, attacking their capabilities and knowledge and so on. I'm not
>> overly impressed with this.
>
> I'm not impressed with this "Bob", & I don't believe he has a degree in
> anything. I don't recall seeing such trash before, & frankly I couldn't
> give a good goddam what he 'thinks'. You can guess where he now resides!
>
I was beginning to wonder if he's Snit in disguise. I agree with you
that it's highly unlikely he has any degree in anything... ah, another
one for the kfile!
Mark Kent
Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
Okay - doesn't matter too much. In Bob's world, it would be exactly
the same if he'd said:
"Frankly my dear, I do give a damn"...
Ku Karlovsky
<<dgjdt2$ln7$0...@pita.alt.net>>:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> > begin oe_protect.scr
>
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm
>
> The other stuff is just opinions. In grammar, we take the weight of
> opinion of all grammarians, not what 1 or 2 clowns say.
In grammar, we know when a phrase doesn't contain a double negative
and we don't splice sentences together with a comma.
Message-ID: <dggnq5$ajr$1...@pita.alt.net>
From: Bob <b...@bob.con>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:33:31 -0700
I dunno, it's technically considered bad English and double
negative. Whether it really is or not is not relevant. As
it's grammarians who decide this stuff, not folks like you.
The opinions of clowns like you are a riot and I couldn't care less.
LOL!!!
Mark Kent
William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
> Newson wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> That's a double negative, spread over a main and subordinate clause.
>>> Oh gawd - bet you don't even know what a clause is, do you?
>>
>> clause...oh yes, something that you get in contracts:
>>
>> "Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here?"
>>
>> "Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause, that's in every contract. That
>> just says, uh, it says, uh, if any of the parties participating in this
>> contract are shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is
>> automatically nullified."
>>
>> "Well, I don't know..."
>>
>> "It's all right. That's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what
>> they call a sanity clause."
>>
>> "Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can't fool me. There ain't no sanity clause."
>
> But if you know you're sane, you don't need a sanity clause. If you want
> to get out of combat duty, you have to be certified insane.
> "But there's a catch. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't
> really crazy."
> -- Doc Daneeka: Catch-22 --
>
>
A truly brilliant book, and decidely quirky film, too. Joseph Heller,
afairc.
Mark Kent
Ku Karlovsky <nos...@nospam.nospam.not> espoused:
Hehe :-)))) It's a particularly awful paragraph, isn't it? I'd
wondered if it weren't Snit?
Snit
c70103-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk on 9/18/05 1:45 PM:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Ku Karlovsky <nos...@nospam.nospam.not> espoused:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:02:49 -0700, Bob <b...@bob.con> wrote in message
>> <<dgjdt2$ln7$0...@pita.alt.net>>:
>>
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>
>>> http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm
>>>
>>> The other stuff is just opinions. In grammar, we take the weight of
>>> opinion of all grammarians, not what 1 or 2 clowns say.
>>
>> In grammar, we know when a phrase doesn't contain a double negative
>> and we don't splice sentences together with a comma.
>>
>> Message-ID: <dggnq5$ajr$1...@pita.alt.net>
>> From: Bob <b...@bob.con>
>> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:33:31 -0700
>>
>> I dunno, it's technically considered bad English and double
>> negative. Whether it really is or not is not relevant. As
>> it's grammarians who decide this stuff, not folks like you.
>>
>> The opinions of clowns like you are a riot and I couldn't care less.
>> LOL!!!
>
> Hehe :-)))) It's a particularly awful paragraph, isn't it? I'd
> wondered if it weren't Snit?
Er? Oh, you were unable to understand those comments - much as you are
unable to understand mine. The reasons for your misunderstanding, of
course, are different - but being that you do not understand them you cannot
see that.
No doubt you will not understand what I just told you. :)
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Roy Culley
<c3v003-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>
>> want to get out of combat duty, you have to be certified insane.
>> "But there's a catch. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty
>> isn't really crazy."
>> -- Doc Daneeka: Catch-22 --
>
> A truly brilliant book, and decidely quirky film, too. Joseph
> Heller, afairc.
I've read the book 3 times over the years. Each time I'm already
laughing on page one. A brilliant book indeed. The movie didn't do the
book justice. It would need to be 3+ hours long to do so. Even then it
would be difficult. A certain wintroll, whose name I mustn't say, at
one time reminded me of Milo Minderbinder. :-)
--
Rich Bell in thread: Things I couldn't do if I switched to Linux
Message-ID: <tB7Oe.182$yo7...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
I am connected to the Net using a Linksys WRT54G router. I don't
get hacked.
William Poaster
Culley wrote:
> begin risky.vbs
> <c3v003-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>, Mark Kent
> <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>>
>>> But if you know you're sane, you don't need a sanity clause. If you
>>> want to get out of combat duty, you have to be certified insane. "But
>>> there's a catch. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't
>>> really crazy."
>>> -- Doc Daneeka: Catch-22 --
>>
>> A truly brilliant book, and decidely quirky film, too. Joseph Heller,
>> afairc.
>
> I've read the book 3 times over the years. Each time I'm already laughing
> on page one. A brilliant book indeed. The movie didn't do the book
> justice. It would need to be 3+ hours long to do so. Even then it would be
> difficult. A certain wintroll, whose name I mustn't say, at one time
> reminded me of Milo Minderbinder. :-)
LOL!
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English
>>>> grammar; in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical
>>>> (double negative).
>
>
Sorry, it's not. I confused it with:
Couldn't hardly...
Doesn't hardly...
Didnt' hardly...
Don't hardly....
Wouldn't hardly....
Bob
Consensus is, it is not an error, just nonstandard slang. In fact they
both are.
If you've normally made
> this error around Americans,
Consensus is, it is not an error. It's just another form, both of which
are correct.
perhaps they don't notice it, as perhaps
> a lot of Americans make the same mistake?
It's not a mistake. Both forms are correct, but the US form is a little
stigmatized.
That could explain why
> nobody has tried to help you with this before (if you regard learning
> as helpful).
No one "helped me" with this, because consensus says it's not an error.
Some say it is, but that's just a minority, and the are losing.
>
>>> YOU ARE WRONG! Please have the decency to admit it.
>> I will have to go check on that. That's the first person I have ever
>> heard of who said that "could care less" is an error.
>>
>> No, I won't admit I'm wrong yet, but I will take it under submission.
>
> So, in fact, you had no particular reason to take the stance that you
> took, including claiming grammar experts agreed with you,
They don't, I confused it with another form, sorry.
including
> that it's a "double negative" (which it isn't - this is an utterly
> different construct),
Right, it's not.
and your claim to knowledge because you have
> a degree in an unrelated subject?
You stupid fucking worthless asshole. LINGUISTICS is the field where all
such things are decides, especially the subfield called Syntax. Some
other fields get into it, but Linguistics is NOT an unrelated subject.
That's lazy and arrogant, which
> is fine if you're right, but you're not, so it becomes crime.
It's not a crime, I was wrong. And most folks are "lazy and arrogant"
when they think they are right. A good 80%.
And
> no, I don't mean crime in a literal sense, in order to avoid any
> confusion on that front.
>
> Here're some other examples for your consideration:
>
> From Gone with the Wind:
>
> "Frankly, my dea, I couldn't give a damn"
>
> And general usage:
> "I couldn't give a toss"
> "I couldn't give a monkey's"
> "I couldn't give a sh1t"
>
> Your version of Gone with the Wind would presumably have our hero saying
> "Frankly my dear, I could give a damn", which seems to lose it's charm,
> as well as all discernable meaning.
You're right on all this....
>
> For your edification, a double negative version would be:
>
> "I couldn't not care less", which would be the same thing
> as saying "I could care less", which would be wrong if you
> meant I couldn't care less, but is not necessarily wrong.
>
> In general, double negatives should be avoided, but they
> can have value, particularly if a common phraseology is
> already in the negative and you wish to show disagreement
> with it.
I was wrong.
>
> I really think you should check facts before accusing people of being
> Nazis,
I accused myself of being a Nazi. Is that what you are so upset about.
And it was in a joking way. We linguists call ppl "grammar Nazis" as a
joke. Sense of humor being something you, a too serious Linux nerd,
drastically lacks.
attacking their capabilities and knowledge and so on.
Your capabilities and knowledge about grammar are not bad, except you
don't understand grammatical consensus.
I'm not
> overly impressed with this.
>
That's just fine. Go back to your C++...
Bob
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:18:57 +0100, that Mark
> Kent wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>> I really think you should check facts before accusing people of being
>> Nazis, attacking their capabilities and knowledge and so on. I'm not
>> overly impressed with this.
>
> I'm not impressed with this "Bob", & I don't believe he has a degree in
> anything.
Well that is just fine now isn't it. I guess I could give you the
schools and the years and all that, but what for.
Anyway, not one degree. Four college degrees.
I don't recall seeing such trash before, & frankly I couldn't
> give a good goddam what he 'thinks'. You can guess where he now resides!
>
Killfile, fine. An honor.
Bob
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:18:57 +0100, that Mark
>> Kent wrote:
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>> I really think you should check facts before accusing people of being
>>> Nazis, attacking their capabilities and knowledge and so on. I'm not
>>> overly impressed with this.
>> I'm not impressed with this "Bob", & I don't believe he has a degree in
>> anything. I don't recall seeing such trash before, & frankly I couldn't
>> give a good goddam what he 'thinks'. You can guess where he now resides!
>>
>
> I was beginning to wonder if he's Snit in disguise.
I am, in fact.
I agree with you
> that it's highly unlikely he has any degree in anything...
Correct. I don't have "any" degree. I have four college degrees. :P
ah, another
> one for the kfile!
Cool, fewer COLA posts to read! :P
Bob
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:18:57 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Here're some other examples for your consideration:
>>>
>>> From Gone with the Wind:
>>>
>>> "Frankly, my dea, I couldn't give a damn"
>> Actually, in the book he says , "My dear, I don't give a damn". And to the
>> best of my recollection, in the film he says: "Frankly my dear, I don't
>> give a damn." (Though the emphasis is on 'give, not 'damn').
>>
>
> Okay - doesn't matter too much. In Bob's world, it would be exactly
> the same if he'd said:
>
> "Frankly my dear, I do give a damn"...
Not my world anymore. I was wrong about that. I'll agree that now. I
confused with:
Couldn't hardly.......etc.
Snit
10:53 PM:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> espoused:
>>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:18:57 +0100, that Mark
>>> Kent wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>> I really think you should check facts before accusing people of being
>>>> Nazis, attacking their capabilities and knowledge and so on. I'm not
>>>> overly impressed with this.
>>> I'm not impressed with this "Bob", & I don't believe he has a degree in
>>> anything. I don't recall seeing such trash before, & frankly I couldn't
>>> give a good goddam what he 'thinks'. You can guess where he now resides!
>>>
>>
>> I was beginning to wonder if he's Snit in disguise.
>
> I am, in fact.
Shhhh... don't tell anyone.
>
>> I agree with you that it's highly unlikely he has any degree in anything...
>
> Correct. I don't have "any" degree. I have four college degrees. :P
Well, I suppose that must mean I do, too. Cool. Which ones do I... um...
you... have?
>
>> ah, another one for the kfile!
>
> Cool, fewer COLA posts to read! :P
I never liked lite COLA. :)
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Bob
That's fine. I was confused. So were 2 other people. One a woman with a
BA, who almost completed a law degree (2end in class at Berkeley Law).
The other with a Masters Degree in Education. Both have very wide
knowledge of English grammar and were confused about it. The woman,
thought, like me, wrongly, that couldn't care less was wrong.
Clearly, ppl, including very educated folks with huge knowledge of
grammar, are confused about this.
>
> In fact, I don't believe that you've not lied about it.
>
> That's a double negative, spread over a main and subordinate
> clause. Oh gawd - bet you don't even know what a clause is,
> do you?
I always hated that "clause" crap. This whole field gets pretty boring
at times.
>
In fact, I don't believe is main
that you've not lied about it is subordinate. "That" connects them.
Bob
I was wrong, I confused it with:
Couldn't hardly......
etc. etc.
Which IS terrible.
I didn't know anything about could care less could not care less, til
this discussion. Thx, even tho you've been a dick about it.
You haven't a clue
> about my qualifications, and yet you're happy to pronounce on them.
You know grammar pretty well.
> You haven't a clue about English grammar, and yet you pronounce on that.
> Your use of an ad hominem attack is not particularly impressive (yeah,
> go on, look that up too), and does not serve to help you in any way.
>
> So far, you've called me a Nazi,
No I called myself that. You thought I called you that because you are
mildly autistic Linux nerd with no social skills. :)
Stupid,
No.
Uneducated,
No, I just said you lacked a degree in a grammar related field. Not that
it matters, but that is still true. You seem pretty well self taught though.
apparently all
> on the basis of *no* actual information at all. Now that's a rather
> foolish thing to do. You claim qualification, and yet you don't know
> what a double negative is (primary school English),
I was confused.
I confused it with the other
Couldn't hardly....which is a double neg.
indicated that you
> struggle even with less and few,
As grammar consensus tells us, this distinction is now going out, and
many educated persons are confusing the 2 and breaking the rule in
print. I usually say it correctly, but I have to think about it. Mostly,
the rule is just on its way out.
and cannot manage to understand the
> difference between:
>
> I could not care less
> I could care less
There is no difference as they mean the same thing in practice.
>
> ... without a web site to help you.
Right. However, I gave this problem do 2 amateur grammar experts and
they didn't know it either.
Well, let me give you
> another clue - /not/ is a negative, it inverts the meaning of the phrase.
> The phrase changes from meaning "I care about this so much that I could
> care less" to "It would not be possible for me to care less". The phrase
> has been in common usage outside the US for at least the last 40 years,
> and is a sarcastic phrase. Anyone who'd studied English to any reasonable
> standard would know this - quite clearly you have not.
The 2 phrases mean the same thing, as your references indicate:
"I don't care".
Bob
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>>>> Bob wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>>>>>> Bob <b...@bob.con> espoused:
>>>>>>>>> It's a fact, as far as we can see. DOJ simply lets MS get away with
>>>>>>>>> murder, and DOJ could care less.>>
>>>>>>>> you meant couldn't care less, surely? Ie., they don't care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no one I hate more than priggish grammar Nazis like my father. :(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it is true that "couldn't care less" is poor English grammar;
>>>>>>> in fact, it is ungrammatical and structurally illogical (double negative).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proper way to phrase it is "could care less".
>>>>> I've seen this error a few times recently.
>>>> It's not an error. Look it up in the grammar books. I have one lying
>>>> around here. Or consult a grammar site on the net. Although I am sure
>>>> there is debate about whether or not "I couldn't care less" is ok or
>>>> not, NO ONE says that "I could care less" is an ERROR! Except Mark Kent,
>>>> amateur grammarian.
>>> Here you go, listed with other errors. Why didn't you look it up?
>>>
>>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors
>>>
>>>
>>>> At first I thought it was a
>>>>> typo, but I've now seen that some people genuinely don't know what the
>>>>> phrase means,
>>>> It doesn't matter "what the phrase means". There is a proper or improper
>>>> way to talk. Consult a grammar guide if you are confused.
>>> I have, and have posted the results for you, and you're *WRONG*.
>>>
>>>> BA Journalism 1981 California State University Long Beach
>>>>
>>>> As journalists, we use style manuals that tell us what is proper speech
>>>> and what is not.
>>>>
>>>> so they do get it wrong. Most minor errors are ignorable,
>>>>> but something which is 180 degrees out of phase is hard to ignore!
>>>> Problem is, it's not an error. Not one grammarian on Earth agrees with
>>>> you on this, but do carry on.
>>> That is a ludicruous statement! You're making a *real* fool of
>>> yourself here. Why don't *you* take the time to look this up.
>>>
>>> Here's some proper usage for you to study and learn from:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Global couldn't care less about Québec City!" - CUPE files CRTC
>>> complaint against Global Television
>>>
>>> QUEBEC CITY, Sept. 6 /CNW Telbec/ - Global Television's recent
>>> announcement that it is transferring production activities from its
>>> Québec City station CKMI to Toronto has prompted the Canadian
>>> Union of Public Employees (CUPE-FTQ) to file a complaint with
>>> the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
>>> (CRTC). CUPE contends that by proceeding with this transfer, Global
>>> is not observing the terms of its license.
>>>
>>> http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2005/06/c6307.html
>>>
>>> This was written by journalists who have rather more of a clue than
>>> you have about this.
>>>
>>> Here's another one:
>>>
>>> http://www.yourdictionary.com/cgi-bin/agora/agora.cgi?board=idiom;action=display;num=1123608268
>> That's interesting. It's a Brit saying the original phrase could not
>> care less came from Britain and the new phrase from the US in recent
>> years. He attacks the new phrase as a US abasement of a nice British
>> phrase. Then he quotes Steven Pinker on how the new phrase makes sense
>> in a sarcastic sense and suggests in came from Yiddish. Pinker, one of
>
> The original is sarcastic, as well as being logical and consistent.
Maybe.
> The incorrect one is not sarcastic,
All of the authoritative grammar cites u gave me described it as sarcastic.
it's not ironic, and it's not
> even funny.
IYHO.
It's just wrong.
IYHO.
>
>> the top linguists in the world today, doesn't seem to be saying it
>> s incorrect;
>
>
>
>> it seems more he is saying that both are correct - 1
>> straight logical, the other sarcasm.
>
> No, the original is sarcastic and always has been.
Perhaps.
>
>> Even the Brit author here describes
>> the new phrase as "slangy", not ungrammatical. He just doesn't like it
>> and he wants ppl to stop saying it, but he's not really saying it's
>> technically improper, it's just slang.
>>> And the wiki entry:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs#Could_or_couldn.27t_care_less.3F
>>>
>>> How long are you going to pretent that you have a clue here?
>> Going to go check on this. For now, I will say that both phrases are
>> proper.
>
>
>> I will withdraw my statement that "couldn't care less" is ungrammatical
>> or bad English.
>>
>> One is British and logical, the other a newer sarcastic US slang
>> version. Both are ok.
>
> Wrong - the original phrase *is* sarcastic. The other is logically
> incorrect.
It doesn't matter. A lot of language is logically incorrect.
"You are pulling my leg."
and a million other figures of speech.
Language is not mathematical like computer science. Linguists keep
trying to make rules, but a lot of it doesn't make sense anyway.