Warren Buffet begs for Cash
Jerry Kraus
Aw, c'mon Warren. Don't you have enough money? Do you really have to
tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your multi-
billion dollar empire? Go screw yourself, Warren. You are protecting
no one but yourself.
Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
affecting no one but himself and his rich buddies. The majority of
Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything to lose,
and Warren knows it. So, he is whining to the government. "Give me
money!! Give me money!! I want my money!!"
Sorry, Warren. You lose your money through inflation, or the markets
collapse, or both. You have destroyed the American economy through
your greed and stupidity. Live with it, Warren. You earned it.
zzbunker
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>
> Aw, c'mon Warren. Don't you have enough money? Do you really have to
> tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your multi-
> billion dollar empire? Go screw yourself, Warren. You are protecting
> no one but yourself.
Well, obviously. Since he donated most of his money to the tax-free
Gates Foundation, that's mostly why the people who are real
engineers,
and not crank druid Lawyers invented the HDTV-puters, Optical
Computers,
RISC++, Elibraries, Post AT&T fiber optics, Blogs, On-Line-
Publishing, On-Line Banking,
Post New York Times Subcriptions, All-In-One-Printers, post
McDonald's Holograms,
Post Ford Batteries, Adaptive Piezo, Adaptive PV Cells, neo-wind
energy, neo-solar energy,
biodiesel, Post GM robotics, drones, AUVs, AAVs, cruise missiles,
laser-guided bombs,
laser-guided lasers, CD+rw, DVD-stack, Bose, GPS, XML, USB, DU Guns,
and non-wank
IBM ZOOT SUITS,
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gee. That must be why the economy's in such great shape. Thankyou
for clarifying that point.
Les Cargill
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>
> Aw, c'mon Warren. Don't you have enough money? Do you really have to
> tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your multi-
> billion dollar empire? Go screw yourself, Warren. You are protecting
> no one but yourself.
>
> Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
> affecting no one but himself and his rich buddies. The majority of
> Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything to lose,
> and Warren knows it. So, he is whining to the government. "Give me
> money!! Give me money!! I want my money!!"
>
BUT.... BUT ... YOU GAVE THEM OTHER GUYZ MONEY!
"All I want is what I have coming. All I want is my fair share" - Sally
Brown, "A Charlie Brown Christmas."
> Sorry, Warren. You lose your money through inflation, or the markets
> collapse, or both. You have destroyed the American economy through
> your greed and stupidity. Live with it, Warren. You earned it.
>
Whut, Warren? Warren buys distressed companies and fixes 'em. It's the
used furniture bidness... he'll clean *up*.
--
Les Cargill
zzbu...@netscape.net
Nobody ever claimed the economy is in great shape.
The only thing most of us ever claimed is that the only thing
Wall Street stooges know about A.I. science, engineering,
computers, networks, economics, or jobs, is AT&T jingo boxes and
Warren Buffet.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure. But, is there any possibility that the "free market" is rather
unlikely to generate the fundamental new technologies we need? After
all, it's very hard to control a patent on a fundamentally new
technology. Too much incentive to steal it, or modify it slightly, to
go around the patent. Inventions that help and fundamentally change
society tend not to make money for their inventors. One of the flaws
in Capitalism, perhaps?
Rod Speed
> zzbun...@netscape.net <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote
>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> zzbunker<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote
>>>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>>>>> Aw, c'mon Warren. Don't you have enough money?
>>>>> Do you really have to tax the Hell out of the American
>>>>> people just to prop up your multi-billion dollar empire?
>>>>> Go screw yourself, Warren. You are protecting no one but yourself.
>>>> Well, obviously. Since he donated most of his money to the tax-free
>>>> Gates Foundation, that's mostly why the people who are real engineers,
>>>> and not crank druid Lawyers invented the HDTV-puters, Optical Computers,
>>>> RISC++, Elibraries, Post AT&T fiber optics, Blogs, On-Line-Publishing,
>>>> On-Line Banking, Post New York Times Subcriptions, All-In-One-Printers,
>>>> post McDonald's Holograms, Post Ford Batteries, Adaptive Piezo,
>>>> Adaptive PV Cells, neo-wind energy, neo-solar energy, biodiesel,
>>>> Post GM robotics, drones, AUVs, AAVs, cruise missiles, laser-guided bombs,
>>>> laser-guided lasers, CD+rw, DVD-stack, Bose, GPS, XML, USB, DU
>>>> Guns, and non-wank IBM ZOOT SUITS,
>>>>> Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
>>>>> affecting no one but himself and his rich buddies. The majority
>>>>> of Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything
>>>>> to lose, and Warren knows it. So, he is whining to the government.
>>>>> "Give me money!! Give me money!! I want my money!!"
>>>>> Sorry, Warren. You lose your money through inflation, or the markets
>>>>> collapse, or both. You have destroyed the American economy through
>>>>> your greed and stupidity. Live with it, Warren. You earned it.
>>> Gee. That must be why the economy's in such great shape.
>>> Thankyou for clarifying that point.
>> Nobody ever claimed the economy is in great shape.
>> The only thing most of us ever claimed is that the only thing
>> Wall Street stooges know about A.I. science, engineering,
>> computers, networks, economics, or jobs, is AT&T jingo boxes and
>> Warren Buffet.
> Sure. But, is there any possibility that the "free market" is rather
> unlikely to generate the fundamental new technologies we need?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ? He didnt even mention any 'free market'
> After all, it's very hard to control a patent on a fundamentally new technology.
> Too much incentive to steal it, or modify it slightly, to go around the patent.
> Inventions that help and fundamentally change society tend not to make
> money for their inventors. One of the flaws in Capitalism, perhaps?
Not a flaw so much as something any inventor needs to allow for.
zzbu...@netscape.net
That's what they said about radio, Until they the wanks discovered
that
radio isn't REALLY an antenna, it's a microwave repeater.
And that's also what the idiots said about elevators.
(David P.)
> > unlikely to generate the new tech we need?
>
> Having fun thrashing that straw man? He didnt
> even mention any 'free market'
>
> > After all, it's very hard to control a patent on
> > a fundamentally new technology. Too much
> > incentive to steal it, or modify it slightly, to go
> > around the patent. Inventions that help and
> > fundamentally change society tend not to make
> > money for their inventors. One of the flaws in
> > Capitalism, perhaps?
>
> Not a flaw so much as something any inventor
> needs to allow for.
Well, that shut _him_ up!
.
.
--
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not really. I thought it was such a stupid remark that I didn't think
it was worth replying to. Although, I realize that the Capitalist
true believers do have some difficulty grasping the imperfections in
their system. Even, as it collapses around their ears.
Rod Speed
> David Pee <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>> is there apossibility that the "free market" is
>>>> unlikely to generate the new tech we need?
>>> Having fun thrashing that straw man?
>>> He didnt even mention any 'free market'
>>>> After all, it's very hard to control a patent on
>>>> a fundamentally new technology. Too much
>>>> incentive to steal it, or modify it slightly, to go
>>>> around the patent. Inventions that help and
>>>> fundamentally change society tend not to make
>>>> money for their inventors. One of the flaws in
>>>> Capitalism, perhaps?
>>> Not a flaw so much as something any inventor needs to allow for.
>> Well, that shut _him_ up!
> Not really.
It clearly did.
> I thought it was such a stupid remark that I didn't think it was worth replying to.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Although, I realize that the Capitalist > true believers do have some difficulty grasping
> the imperfections in their system. Even, as it collapses around their ears.
Nothing is collapsing around my ears, fuckwit.
com...@webtv.net
the world.
the "free market" gave us the polio vaccine,
automobiles,telephones,tv's, gas to heat our homes, electricy...on the
other hand, socialism has given us trillions of dollars in debt,
despair, misery, high taxes...and warren buffet just gave 50 billion
dollars to charity. islama obama did not give a penny to his own brother
who lives in a hut in kenya with little food, no electricity, plumbing
etc...so quit mocking the "free market", it makes you sound like an
idiot.
" BARAK OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST "
BuffetHater
> idiot.
Yes Jerry, don't crowd comics ability to rule as king of idiots, its
his
constitutional right.
Comics, your wife is saying shit over on FACEBOOK about your
alcoholism
and how you are always broke and doing drugs. You better get over
there
and sort things out. Why don't you just pay her the money you owe?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, how are your stocks doing, Rod?
Rod Speed
> So, how are your stocks doing, Rod?
They aint crashing around my ears.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good for you, Rod. Given the Market's down 600 points at this time,
following its new 4 year low on Friday, it sounds like you could make
some good money as an investment counsellor. Have a go.
BuffetHater
> They aint crashing around my ears.
Had to Pawn your ears, eh?
Rod Speed
> Good for you, Rod. Given the Market's down 600 points at this time,
> following its new 4 year low on Friday, it sounds like you could make
> some good money as an investment counsellor.
I prefer to make good money for myself instead and have been doing that for getting on for half a century now fine.
> Have a go.
No thanks. I've found that few can really understand what you
are saying so cant be relied on to actually do what you suggest.
V
Well spoken post Jerry.
Buffet wants his stocks to keep going up. So of course he is for
supporting Wall Street at the expense of the financial reamout of the
taxpayer.
Buffet says his kids will have a better life than he and their kids
will have a better life their parents and on and on in perpetuity.
Maybe that is for a billionaire but not for the average Joe or Jane.
Have you ever known a rich man eagerly take losses in their
investments to help out the taxpayer from being further buried in
debt?
Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Buffet is, like all of the wealthy in the U.S., a worthless parasite.
He's senile, as well, of course. Note the comparison to "Pearl
Harbor" by Buffet. Uh, who are the Imperial Japanese, in your
analogy, Warren? The American Poor?
Jerry Kraus
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT), V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 11:33?am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>
> >> tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your multi-
> >> no one but yourself.
>
> >> Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
> >> Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything to lose,
> >> money!! ?Give me money!! ?I want my money!!"
>
> >> Sorry, Warren. ?You lose your money through inflation, or the markets
> >> collapse, or both. ?You have destroyed the American economy through
> >> your greed and stupidity. ?Live with it, Warren. ?You earned it.
>
> >Well spoken post Jerry.
>
> >Buffet wants his stocks to keep going up. So of course he is for
> >supporting Wall Street at the expense of the financial reamout of the
> >taxpayer.
>
> >Buffet says his kids will have a better life than he and their kids
> >will have a better life their parents and on and on in perpetuity.
>
> >Maybe that is for a billionaire but not for the average Joe or Jane.
>
> >Have you ever known a rich man eagerly take losses in their
> >investments to help out the taxpayer from being further buried in
> >debt?
>
> >Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
> >with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
>
> charity, his kids have had enough. Buffett has warned against these
> market excesses for 10 years now. He pleaded for regulation. He's
> pleaded that the rich should be taxed and that the Bush tax cuts and
> fiscal policy are strangling America.
>
> He agrees with 95% of what you boys say. WHy are you seeking to burn
> him if effigy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because he's begging to prop up a corrupt system. Buffet's system
must die. It is evil.
Mike
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT), V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 2, 11:33?am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>>>
>>> Aw, c'mon Warren. ?Don't you have enough money? ?Do you really have to
>>> tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your multi-
>>> billion dollar empire? ?Go screw yourself, Warren. ?You are protecting
>>> no one but yourself.
>>>
>>> Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
>>> affecting no one but himself and his rich buddies. ?The majority of
>>> Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything to lose,
>>> and Warren knows it. ?So, he is whining to the government. ?"Give me
>>> money!! ?Give me money!! ?I want my money!!"
>>>
>>> Sorry, Warren. ?You lose your money through inflation, or the markets
>>> collapse, or both. ?You have destroyed the American economy through
>>> your greed and stupidity. ?Live with it, Warren. ?You earned it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Well spoken post Jerry.
>>
>>Buffet wants his stocks to keep going up. So of course he is for
>>supporting Wall Street at the expense of the financial reamout of the
>>taxpayer.
>>
>>Buffet says his kids will have a better life than he and their kids will
>>have a better life their parents and on and on in perpetuity.
>>
>>Maybe that is for a billionaire but not for the average Joe or Jane.
>>
>>Have you ever known a rich man eagerly take losses in their investments
>>to help out the taxpayer from being further buried in debt?
>>
>>Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
>>with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
>
>
> What is this nonsense? Buffet has said he's leaving his money to
> charity
he left his money to the bill gates foundation, now there's a worthless
parasite if ever there was one (gates, that is)
John Galt
>> On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
>>> with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
>
>
> this man, before you go off on him just because he's earned money.
What did he call the CDS'? Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Warren has always steered clear of companies that borrow a lot of money,
because borrowed money can be used to inflate earnings per share.
JG
John Galt
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> He agrees with 95% of what you boys say. WHy are you seeking to burn
>>> him if effigy?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Because he's begging to prop up a corrupt system. Buffet's system
>> must die. It is evil.
>
>
> very knowledgable about what's out there and what the effects will be.
>
> He's been calling to regulate it and change it and get back to core
> American values of thrift and savings and long term investing. Read
> about how he lives. And what he says the system needs.
And you do that reading by studying the Annual Reports of Berkshire
Hathaway, which he writes himself and contains all the information you
need about what Warren considers prudent financial management.
JG
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's just senile.
John Galt
> will go to the guillotine regardless of culpability. this sort of
> ignorance scares me.
Yep.
I've lived in India. I would prefer to not have it recreated here. But,
that's the end result if these financial Luddites ever get control.
JG
John Galt
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> OK. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's just senile.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I hope I';m that senile at his age. Shit I wish I was as senile as him
> NOW.
Not many stocks up over the last month. Berkshire is. 30 days ago, it
was at 118100. Today it closed at 130800. That's 11% up in the last
MONTH, while the Dow was losing 11% over the same period.
Maybe that's why gold hasn't behaved as a safe haven as expected this
past month. People who normally would have moved money to gold are
moving it to Warren.
JG
Rod Speed
> On Oct 2, 11:33?am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>>
>> to tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your
>> protecting no one but yourself.
>>
>> Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
>> Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything to lose,
>> money!! ?Give me money!! ?I want my money!!"
>>
>> Sorry, Warren. ?You lose your money through inflation, or the markets
>> collapse, or both. ?You have destroyed the American economy through
> Well spoken post Jerry.
> Buffet wants his stocks to keep going up. So of course he is for supporting
> Wall Street at the expense of the financial reamout of the taxpayer.
> Buffet says his kids will have a better life than he and their kids
> will have a better life their parents and on and on in perpetuity.
And he's right. Thats been true for hundreds of years now and no evidence that its going to change.
> Maybe that is for a billionaire but not for the average Joe or Jane.
Wrong. Just as true for the average. In spades with the dregs of
society, those entirely dependant on welfare and food stamps etc.
> Have you ever known a rich man eagerly take losses in their investments
> to help out the taxpayer from being further buried in debt?
Yep, it does happen sometime.
> Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
> with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
Thats just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.
Rod Speed
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT), V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 2, 11:33?am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>>>
>>> to tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your
>>> protecting no one but yourself.
>>>
>>> Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
>>> Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything to lose,
>>>
>>> Sorry, Warren. ?You lose your money through inflation, or the
>>> markets collapse, or both. ?You have destroyed the American economy
>>> through your greed and stupidity. ?Live with it, Warren. ?You
>>> earned it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well spoken post Jerry.
>>
>> Buffet wants his stocks to keep going up. So of course he is for
>> supporting Wall Street at the expense of the financial reamout of the
>> taxpayer.
>>
>> Buffet says his kids will have a better life than he and their kids
>> will have a better life their parents and on and on in perpetuity.
>>
>> Maybe that is for a billionaire but not for the average Joe or Jane.
>>
>> Have you ever known a rich man eagerly take losses in their
>> investments to help out the taxpayer from being further buried in
>> debt?
>>
>> Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
>> with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
>
>
> market excesses for 10 years now. He pleaded for regulation. He's
> pleaded that the rich should be taxed and that the Bush tax cuts and
> fiscal policy are strangling America.
>
Because they are pig ignorant fools that have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
SaPeIsMa
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VVuGk.158177$vK2....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...
What people don't realize from your post is that Berkshire Hathaway has
never split
And the numbers you quote 118100, and 130800 are in fact the price of ONE
SHARE in the company U$130,800.
Les Cargill
> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>> On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
>>>> with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
>>
>>
>>
>> Often. You're being really stupid here. Why don't you go read about
>> this man, before you go off on him just because he's earned money.
>
>
> What did he call the CDS'? Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction?
>
His comments make it clear he doesn't understand them. I don't think
*any* financial instrument is abuse-proof. CDS-ii are probably easier to
abuse than most.
> Warren has always steered clear of companies that borrow a lot of money,
> because borrowed money can be used to inflate earnings per share.
>
> JG
>
There's nothing essentially wrong with Buffet's approach, but it does
not scale and it takes a long time.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
There's nothing evil *about* it.
Take Dairy Queen. It was in a succession crisis - it hadn't been
properly set up for the deaths of key players. Buffet pumped a
little cash in against massive instrastructure and made it productive
again. In case you don't know, DQ was everywhere in towns too
small for a McDonalds ( back when there were such towns ). So it
wasn't an unimportant company.
It's not bleeding edge - he's bought "junk car" companies - but it's
honorable enough work. I'm not a fan because his approach does not
really solve capital formation problems, but there's nothing
inherently wrong with it.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>He agrees with 95% of what you boys say. WHy are you seeking to burn
>>>him if effigy?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>Because he's begging to prop up a corrupt system. Buffet's system
>>must die. It is evil.
>
>
>
> You'd do well to listen to him. He wants it changed. But he's also
> very knowledgable about what's out there and what the effects will be.
>
> He's been calling to regulate it and change it and get back to core
> American values of thrift and savings and long term investing. Read
> about how he lives. And what he says the system needs.
Yeha, and his Normal Rockwell version of the Way the World Works is
stuck about 1960. The world moved on.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
It's more likely than you think, I fear. What's sad is that < 5% of
all mortgages are the rotting corpse at the bottom of the village well.
And had people even been *allowed* to exercise any common sense at
all, at least half of those would not have been written at all.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Bollocks. Just because you don't understand it ( and it *IS* bizarre),
don't throw rocks at it.
Gary Kildall was never gonna Go Large. For good or for bad, Go
Large was needed then.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:09:48 -0400, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Often. You're being really stupid here. Why don't you go read about
>>>> this man, before you go off on him just because he's earned money.
>>>
>>> What did he call the CDS'? Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction?
>>>
>> His comments make it clear he doesn't understand them. I don't think
>> *any* financial instrument is abuse-proof. CDS-ii are probably easier to
>> abuse than most.
>>
>>> Warren has always steered clear of companies that borrow a lot of money,
>>> because borrowed money can be used to inflate earnings per share.
>>>
>>> JG
>>>
>> There's nothing essentially wrong with Buffet's approach, but it does
>> not scale and it takes a long time.
>
Heh :). No, I mean ten years from founding to maturity, not *forty*.
Some parts of the economy cycle faster.
> Buffet is of the old
> school long term investing approach. One benefits society. the other
> doesn't. WHich do you think does?
Both. Remember, the weak underbelly of a growth-based economy is that,
well... you have to have growth. Buffet's approach almost
by definition *cannot* be universal. Not everybody can
open an antiques store....
--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
Other than those recommendations what else can you say?
Too big to fail, is too damned big.
Michael Coburn
The point is more valid on the other side of the issue concerning the
mortgages. Some microscopic number and some microscopic amount are due
to the 1997 and 1990's efforts of "Community Reinvestment Act" that the
Republicans want to couple with Fannie Mae being regulated by Congress
(and hence, supposedly by Democrats SOMEHOW).
That alignment is a nit. The major problem in the poor mortgages was the
BUSH initiative of 2001 that was to increase home ownership by minorities
and the American Dream Downpayment Act that helped low income people with
the downpayments further reducing the appreciation of the
responsibilities of mortgaged homes by the "owners". You will find that
the loans were made in the "berbs" and not in the inner city where
"Community Reinvestment" was targeted.
But more importantly you will find that the problem isn't really these
mortgages either but the tools used to back such financial escapades.
This is where we get into the credit swap derivative markets and the
_REAL_ financial mess; the self induced euphoric notion of endless
bubbling and "PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURE".
It was caused by the total lack of any oversight or regulation of these
very highly leveraged "financial insurance" instruments.
Les Cargill
That ten years of 1% growth might mean the end of the species. Or
at least a Vast reduction in its presence on the planet.
> Too big to fail, is too damned big.
All I can say is "what the (*&^ happened to all the grownups?" Where
are they? This is a bunch of en-MBA-ed teenagers with PJ O'Rourke's
"whiskey and keys to the car."
Unless you've worked for an obviously failing startup which closed
six months to the day after all the options vest.... you may
not recognize the pattern.
Shareholders need to understand that *now* is the time to be
heard, and that puttin' up with crap like this in the future
is Unacceptable.
But you can't cheat an honest man...
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:15:53 -0400, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yeha, and his Normal Rockwell version of the Way the World Works is
>> stuck about 1960. The world moved on.
>
>
> way. How can I ascii in her hair?)
Why, I have! Indeed! Not sure of the hair, tho.... All she needs
is go-go boots and a miniskirt.... white lipstick, wuddnit?
--
Les Cargill
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>
>> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
>>>>> with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Often. You're being really stupid here. Why don't you go read about
>>> this man, before you go off on him just because he's earned money.
>>
>>
>> What did he call the CDS'? Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction?
>>
>
> His comments make it clear he doesn't understand them. I don't think
> *any* financial instrument is abuse-proof. CDS-ii are probably easier to
> abuse than most.
From what you just said, the two of you agree. On what grounds do you
then say that he doesn't understand them?
>
>> Warren has always steered clear of companies that borrow a lot of
>> money, because borrowed money can be used to inflate earnings per share.
>>
>> JG
>>
>
> There's nothing essentially wrong with Buffet's approach, but it does
> not scale and it takes a long time.
Possibly so. Obviously, Warren doesn't concern himself with
diversification and short term results. He is focused on busineses that
generate a lot of cash. (Which looks like a pretty good strategy right
now, short term or long.)
JG
>
> --
> Les Cargill
John Galt
Yep.
JG
>
> --
> Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Did Buffet ever tell America one word about the sick state of affairs
>>>>>> with our unsustainable consumption and greed driven economy?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Often. You're being really stupid here. Why don't you go read about
>>>> this man, before you go off on him just because he's earned money.
>>>
>>>
>>> What did he call the CDS'? Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction?
>>>
>>
>> His comments make it clear he doesn't understand them. I don't think
>> *any* financial instrument is abuse-proof. CDS-ii are probably easier
>> to abuse than most.
>
> From what you just said, the two of you agree. On what grounds do you
> then say that he doesn't understand them?
I do not think Warren Buffet understands reinsurance. Then again, its
practitioners do not appear to, either.
Reinsurance *should* improve diversity of liquidity. IMO, what
happened here is the usual "lemmings over the cliff" - mortgages
showed stupid returns, and everybody rushed into them without
diversifying properly. I have no idea of "diversify into what",
either...
>>
>>> Warren has always steered clear of companies that borrow a lot of
>>> money, because borrowed money can be used to inflate earnings per share.
>>>
>>> JG
>>>
>>
>> There's nothing essentially wrong with Buffet's approach, but it does
>> not scale and it takes a long time.
>
> Possibly so. Obviously, Warren doesn't concern himself with
> diversification and short term results. He is focused on busineses that
> generate a lot of cash. (Which looks like a pretty good strategy right
> now, short term or long.)
>
It is *a* way. I don't think we can all operate on that basis and
still have enough GDP growth to meet our needs.
But anybody who thought *mortgages* were "new capital" was
very, very wrong and should have known better. It was
superstition at its worst - "houses always go up."
> JG
>
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
The Stan Leibowitz article claims that Countrywide "had a
$600 B commitment to low-income loans" by 2003. Not 100%
sure what that means... the standard line on CRA is that
it didn't represent a large liability.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2114
But still, standards slipped radically. I'm being
strictly *non*partisan here - there is a great degree of
continuity between Clinton and Bush era housing policies.
They only serve as timeline markers in my opinion.
> The major problem in the poor mortgages was the
> BUSH initiative of 2001 that was to increase home ownership by minorities
> and the American Dream Downpayment Act that helped low income people with
> the downpayments further reducing the appreciation of the
> responsibilities of mortgaged homes by the "owners". You will find that
> the loans were made in the "berbs" and not in the inner city where
> "Community Reinvestment" was targeted.
>
The ADDA only allocated $200M in *grants*. Hardly seems the stuff of
panics. I am also not sure that burbs or urban matters much - heck,
with gentrification, people could get in a lot more trouble in
urban properties, where values soared.
> But more importantly you will find that the problem isn't really these
> mortgages either but the tools used to back such financial escapades.
> This is where we get into the credit swap derivative markets and the
> _REAL_ financial mess; the self induced euphoric notion of endless
> bubbling and "PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURE".
>
> It was caused by the total lack of any oversight or regulation of these
> very highly leveraged "financial insurance" instruments.
>
I don't think reinsurance is the villain of the piece. Now, it is
*entirely* possible ( even likely ) to *abuse* it. But you really
do get to extend more leverage that way. Just not as much
as was extended. Reinsurance is a pattern I recognize
from signals processing. It really does create more "bandwidth"
by randomizing "failures.", assuming I'm not misapplying a metaphor.
Maybe I have seen too many Mamet plays, but the idea of a martinet
"sales manager" whipping the troops to bring in more contracts
while screaming "coffee's for closers" has far too much resonance.
And since that's the last line of defense for filtering high risk
borrowers....
--
Les Cargill
Mike
gates turned the field of computer science into pseudo science and the
windows monopoly is (and always was) nothing but a huge roadblock
standing in the way of actual advancement of the computer industry. the
sooner that worthless monopoly is broken the sooner the real computer
revolution can take place and that will be the driver of a stock market
rally that makes the industrial revolution look like a small blip on the
historical stock chart.
Les Cargill
No, it's still there... mostly unchanged since the '50s. It's
descended into Mandarinism all on its own.
CS never paid the slightest attention to its own economics, and
has rendered itself irrelevant. That, coupled with "headcount"
based organizational psychology have undermined it.
> and the
> windows monopoly is (and always was) nothing but a huge roadblock
> standing in the way of actual advancement of the computer industry.
Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn't
understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science
of electricity."
You wanna blame somebody? Scott McNeely had tabula rasa with Java,
and they completely punted it, trying to go head to head with
Gates. 1.0 Java was *good*; 2.0 was a disaster.
Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see where
that gets you.
> the
> sooner that worthless monopoly is broken the sooner the real computer
> revolution can take place
It's already happened. Microprocessors are everywhere, in every*thing*.
> and that will be the driver of a stock market
> rally that makes the industrial revolution look like a small blip on the
> historical stock chart.
>
>
Don't hold your breath. Any Singularity style event will create
unemployment. And that will be the end of that. Because the
"algorithm" humans use for reshuffling the economic deck is
called "war", and we have far, far too much good weaponry
this time.
--
Les Cargill
Michael Coburn
Then you need to get your filters overhauled. The numbers you see are
the typical rightarded cherry picking. You might notice (or not) how the
timeline seems to hop around, but the numbers seem to correlate with
other reports even though the verbiage doesn't.
Your URL from Above -------------------------------------
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default
rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still
find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no
credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it
on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.
Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one
paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community
activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria
permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in
1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
Who was that virtuous lender? Why—Countrywide, the nation’s largest
mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward
bankruptcy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The times here are 1999 - 2003. The _OBJECTIVE_ is to blur the
distinction between the Clinton era and the Bush era.
Compare the above with:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/
AR2008060902626_2.html ------------------------------------
In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing
market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more
popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers
with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.
HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for
loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted
without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie
adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.
That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not
disclose its number.
In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime
loans.
"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and
African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and
resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern,"
an agency report said.
But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's
purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure
rates also were rising.
That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing
goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C.
Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged
behind even the private market and "must do more."
For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by
subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still,
their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.
"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches
securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more
capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a
disaster."
------------------------------------------------------------
Please note thatr although Country Wide supposedly took on $80B in low
income loans, Freddie, on behalf of the wider mortgage market in the USA
had taken on only $18.6B in "sub prime" loans.
>> The major problem in the poor mortgages was the BUSH initiative of 2001
>> that was to increase home ownership by minorities and the American
>> Dream Downpayment Act that helped low income people with the
>> downpayments further reducing the appreciation of the responsibilities
>> of mortgaged homes by the "owners". You will find that the loans were
>> made in the "berbs" and not in the inner city where "Community
>> Reinvestment" was targeted.
>>
>>
> The ADDA only allocated $200M in *grants*. Hardly seems the stuff of
> panics. I am also not sure that burbs or urban matters much - heck, with
> gentrification, people could get in a lot more trouble in urban
> properties, where values soared.
Yes. They could. But that has __NOTHING__ to do with the "Community
Reinvestment Act" that targeted areas that were _NOT_ growing and
prospering. The trick that the rightards play is the intertwining of the
CRA with the Bush "Initiative to increase minority ownership" and the two
are totally separate and distinct animals. The primary abuses of the
Bush initiative were in NEW berbs and they were not primarily black. I
have seen speculation that they were Latino by the folks that are anti-
immigration. It just depends on which variety of rightard you happen to
ask. So when we review the bidding we see that Clinton's sin was CRA, but
that this sin had little is anything to do with the current mess. The
Bush initiative, OTOH, was the accelerant in this particular Molotov
cocktail.
>> But more importantly you will find that the problem isn't really these
>> mortgages either but the tools used to back such financial escapades.
>> This is where we get into the credit swap derivative markets and the
>> _REAL_ financial mess; the self induced euphoric notion of endless
>> bubbling and "PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURE".
>>
>> It was caused by the total lack of any oversight or regulation of these
>> very highly leveraged "financial insurance" instruments.
>>
>>
> I don't think reinsurance is the villain of the piece. Now, it is
> *entirely* possible ( even likely ) to *abuse* it. But you really do get
> to extend more leverage that way. Just not as much as was extended.
> Reinsurance is a pattern I recognize from signals processing. It really
> does create more "bandwidth" by randomizing "failures.", assuming I'm
> not misapplying a metaphor.
> Maybe I have seen too many Mamet plays, but the idea of a martinet
> "sales manager" whipping the troops to bring in more contracts while
> screaming "coffee's for closers" has far too much resonance. And since
> that's the last line of defense for filtering high risk borrowers....
It is the same as the commodities futures markets but for the fact that
there is no way to know how many of these "bets" are out there and
whether the people that made the "bets" have any backing should the deals
go against them.. Current estimates are that there are $50T in such
unregulated futures. IT is fair to say that there is a buyer and a
seller on each side and so the exposure is NOT $50T. The problem is that
there is no policeman as there is in a futures exchange that is capable
of policing the participants by insuring that the "bettors" actually have
the funds to "back" their bets. The current meltdown is exactly because
some of the bettors did not have the funds. It is not the little people
on the bottom that unable to pay that is the cause of the Commercial
paper market freeze-ups. It is the big boys and their get rich and stay
rich leverage and political pig shit.
Mike
> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn't
> understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
> electricity."
>
no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were first
invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the methods of
transmission such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft
demodulator in your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to
use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the process
to line their own pockets.
> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see where
> that gets you.
charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing authority
by monopolizing commodity applications. if the industry ever got to the
point where there was real competition there would be no need to charge
for software because all the producers would be focused on adding value
as opposed to lock in. with the value-add model the paycheck comes from
service & support, actually helping people be more productive, as opposed
to monopolistic coercion.
Rod Speed
Clearly wouldnt know what a real monopoly was if it bit it on its lard arse.
The main alternative is actually free. Some monopoly.
> the sooner that worthless monopoly is broken the sooner the real
> computer revolution can take place and that will be the driver of a
> stock market rally that makes the industrial revolution look like a
> small blip on the historical stock chart.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
As the Bishop said, during the crusade againt the heretical Cathars at
Caracasonne, in Provence, in the Middle Ages:
"Kill them all. Let God sort them out!"
This approach will prove effective, in dealing with the current
American Capitalist elite.
Rod Speed
> As the Bishop said, during the crusade againt the heretical
> Cathars at Caracasonne, in Provence, in the Middle Ages:
> "Kill them all. Let God sort them out!"
> This approach will prove effective, in dealing with the current American Capitalist elite.
Nope, no one will actually be stupid enough to try it, you watch.
Les Cargill
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn't
>> understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
>> electricity."
>>
>
>
> no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were first
> invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the methods of
> transmission
Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.
> such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft
> demodulator in your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
No, that literally is Qualcomm...
> but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to
> use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the process
> to line their own pockets.
>
Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it
much myself, but there it is.
>
>
>> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see where
>> that gets you.
>
>
> charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
> book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing authority
> by monopolizing commodity applications.
Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.
> if the industry ever got to the
> point where there was real competition there would be no need to charge
> for software because all the producers would be focused on adding value
> as opposed to lock in.
Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
"developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and better
apps.
People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is having.
> with the value-add model the paycheck comes from
> service & support, actually helping people be more productive, as opposed
> to monopolistic coercion.
>
>
It *can* work. It doesn't work very often. There's no good solution for
DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have - *tend*
to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don't ) and certain
comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for production work, I
fear.
I've tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not always*.
But it's hard.
(BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing that's
had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on 'Doze. And
I *HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script pipes/languages
to do anything on a 'Doze box:)
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:09:51 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>> The ADDA only allocated $200M in *grants*. Hardly seems the stuff of
>> panics. I am also not sure that burbs or urban matters much - heck, with
>> gentrification, people could get in a lot more trouble in urban
>> properties, where values soared.
>
> Yes. They could. But that has __NOTHING__ to do with the "Community
> Reinvestment Act" that targeted areas that were _NOT_ growing and
> prospering. The trick that the rightards play is the intertwining of the
> CRA with the Bush "Initiative to increase minority ownership" and the two
> are totally separate and distinct animals. The primary abuses of the
> Bush initiative were in NEW berbs and they were not primarily black. I
> have seen speculation that they were Latino by the folks that are anti-
> immigration. It just depends on which variety of rightard you happen to
> ask. So when we review the bidding we see that Clinton's sin was CRA, but
> that this sin had little is anything to do with the current mess. The
> Bush initiative, OTOH, was the accelerant in this particular Molotov
> cocktail.
>
INteresting. I'm still skeptical - it appears to me to be an extension
of the concept.... and I've always maintained that Bush, like most
POTUS, would keep whatever worked from his predecessor, sometimes
extending these things.
IMO, it's hard to get anything partisan out of this, because there's
so little difference.
Oh, and there's *this* little bit 'a fun:
"Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp., called
the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
by high down-payment costs, he says."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.
>>> But more importantly you will find that the problem isn't really these
>>> mortgages either but the tools used to back such financial escapades.
>>> This is where we get into the credit swap derivative markets and the
>>> _REAL_ financial mess; the self induced euphoric notion of endless
>>> bubbling and "PROTECTION AGAINST FAILURE".
>>>
>>> It was caused by the total lack of any oversight or regulation of these
>>> very highly leveraged "financial insurance" instruments.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think reinsurance is the villain of the piece. Now, it is
>> *entirely* possible ( even likely ) to *abuse* it. But you really do get
>> to extend more leverage that way. Just not as much as was extended.
>> Reinsurance is a pattern I recognize from signals processing. It really
>> does create more "bandwidth" by randomizing "failures.", assuming I'm
>> not misapplying a metaphor.
>
>> Maybe I have seen too many Mamet plays, but the idea of a martinet
>> "sales manager" whipping the troops to bring in more contracts while
>> screaming "coffee's for closers" has far too much resonance. And since
>> that's the last line of defense for filtering high risk borrowers....
>
> It is the same as the commodities futures markets but for the fact that
> there is no way to know how many of these "bets" are out there and
> whether the people that made the "bets" have any backing should the deals
> go against them..
I *thought* that there were globally available stats as
decision aids, and that firm specialization was supposed to
help self-regulate this - one firm would specialize in one
kind of reinsurance.
> Current estimates are that there are $50T in such
> unregulated futures. IT is fair to say that there is a buyer and a
> seller on each side and so the exposure is NOT $50T.
Not at all.
> The problem is that
> there is no policeman as there is in a futures exchange that is capable
> of policing the participants by insuring that the "bettors" actually have
> the funds to "back" their bets.
Yeah, that's a problem. IMO, that verges on fraud.
> The current meltdown is exactly because
> some of the bettors did not have the funds. It is not the little people
> on the bottom that unable to pay that is the cause of the Commercial
> paper market freeze-ups. It is the big boys and their get rich and stay
> rich leverage and political pig shit.
Well, I certainly don't see it exactly that way.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:55:42 -0400, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp., called
>> the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
>> acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
>> by high down-payment costs, he says."
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
>>
>> Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.
>
>
Exactly.
--
Les Cargill
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Might not be necessary. Most of them may have blown their brains out
by the time the Dow gets down to 1,400 and their bank accounts and
real estate have become worthless.
Happy Days are Here Again...
Rod Speed
>>>>>> V <vf...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>>>>>>> Well spoken post Jerry.
>>>>> Because he's begging to prop up a corrupt system. Buffet's system must die. It is evil.
>>>> There's nothing evil *about* it.
>>>> Take Dairy Queen. It was in a succession crisis - it hadn't been
>>>> properly set up for the deaths of key players. Buffet pumped a
>>>> little cash in against massive instrastructure and made it productive
>>>> again. In case you don't know, DQ was everywhere in towns too
>>>> small for a McDonalds ( back when there were such towns ). So it
>>>> wasn't an unimportant company.
>>>> It's not bleeding edge - he's bought "junk car" companies - but
>>>> it's honorable enough work. I'm not a fan because his approach
>>>> does not really solve capital formation problems, but there's
>>>> nothing inherently wrong with it.
>>> As the Bishop said, during the crusade againt the heretical
>>> Cathars at Caracasonne, in Provence, in the Middle Ages:
>>> "Kill them all. Let God sort them out!"
>>> This approach will prove effective, in dealing with the current American Capitalist elite.
>> Nope, no one will actually be stupid enough to try it, you watch.
> Might not be necessary. Most of them may have blown their
> brains out by the time the Dow gets down to 1,400 and their
> bank accounts and real estate have become worthless.
Didnt even happen during the great depression. Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Happy Days are Here Again...
Lay off the whacky weed, child.
Michael Coburn
Just this evening I had a rightard repeat AGAIN how the Clinton support
insistence on extending the CRA was the CAUSE of this mortgage meltdown.
The facts are totally against such an assessment, but what else do they
have. The Republicans controlled the entire government from 2001 - 2007
and I would say that they still control all but the House. If the CRA
needed changing and Freddie needed to pursue a tighter course then the
Republicans should have got er done. They instead encouraged Fannie and
Freddie to support the Bush Housing initiative and they passed the
American Dream Downpayment Act that greatly exacerbated the problems.
But once a rightard has swallowed the lies (s)he will not ever desert
them. To do so would illustrate how utterly stupid (s)he is. They have
nothing else. They cannot win any election on what they have done or on
what they are likely to continue to do. They must fabricate all the lies
they can and feed them to the rightard base.
Les Cargill
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:56:58 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:55:42 -0400, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Affordable-housing advocate Scott Syphax, CEO of Nehemiah Corp.,
>>>> called the proposal "revolutionary." It marks the clearest official
>>>> acknowledgment that millions of potential homeowners are being blocked
>>>> by high down-payment costs, he says."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh.... but thanks for the heads up.
>>>
>>> http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/files/nat_mortgage_news.png
>> Exactly.
>
> Just this evening I had a rightard repeat AGAIN how the Clinton support
> insistence on extending the CRA was the CAUSE of this mortgage meltdown.
It is very confusing. There are lots and lots of ways in which
overlending occurred. CRA did not occur in a vacuum - it
looked successful; people cloned it or extended the concepts
behind it into other systems.
So I can easily see people making that mistake ( I made it myself
until I saw the data). A subsidy drives up price; we had
lots of different subsidies (relaxing down payment
requirements acts as a subsidy).
> The facts are totally against such an assessment, but what else do they
> have. The Republicans controlled the entire government from 2001 - 2007
> and I would say that they still control all but the House.
I, again, don't think that matters too much. Demolickans or
Republicrats... might as well be buckets of chicken. There's
little innovation in those spheres, and rather thin rhetorical
differences.
> If the CRA
> needed changing and Freddie needed to pursue a tighter course then the
> Republicans should have got er done. They instead encouraged Fannie and
> Freddie to support the Bush Housing initiative and they passed the
> American Dream Downpayment Act that greatly exacerbated the problems.
>
The motives behind the lending spree were mostly honorable at
the top levels - we want low interest, full employment
and no inflation. We thought we could to that, and for ten
or more years, we could. Only when GDP growth due to
domestic production dropped below a threshold did it back up.
Winding back to say, 2003, we were all just glad the 2001
recession wasn't a horrible one.
> But once a rightard has swallowed the lies (s)he will not ever desert
> them. To do so would illustrate how utterly stupid (s)he is. They have
> nothing else. They cannot win any election on what they have done or on
> what they are likely to continue to do. They must fabricate all the lies
> they can and feed them to the rightard base.
Disagreements based on point of view do not qualify as fabrications.
This isn't easy, and *in my opinion*, the vilification of people and
not arguments does not help, in either direction.
Seriously, the whole thing makes Ron Paul look like a
prophet if you look at it from the right angle. How
realistic is *that*? Not very. But there's a great
deal of "hmmm" to that observation....
--
Les Cargill
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn't
>>> understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
>>> electricity."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were
>> first invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the
>> methods of transmission
>
> Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.
>
no, the FCC controls the standards:
"The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by the
United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to resolve the
conflicts that arose between companies over the introduction of a
nationwide analog television system in the United States. In March 1941,
the committee issued a technical standard for black-and-white television
that built upon a 1936 recommendation made by the Radio Manufacturers
Association (RMA). ...
In January 1950 the Committee was reconstituted to standardize color
television. In December 1953, it unanimously approved what is now called
simply the NTSC color television standard (later defined as RS-170a). The
updated standard retained full backwards compatibility ("compatible
color") with older black-and-white television sets. Color information was
added to the black-and-white image by adding a color subcarrier of 4.5 ×
455/572 MHz (approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video signal. In order to
minimize interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound
carrier, the addition of the color subcarrier also required a slight
reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second to 30/1.001 (very
close to 29.97) frames per second, and changing the line frequency from
15,750 Hz to 15,734.26 Hz."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
>> such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft demodulator in
>> your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
>
> No, that literally is Qualcomm...
>
>> but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to
>> use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the
>> process to line their own pockets.
>>
>>
> Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it much myself,
> but there it is.
>
i disagree, we don't need the hucksters. what we need is corporations
competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust laws
and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices (ie.
microsoft's sole business strategy).
>
>>
>>> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see where
>>> that gets you.
>>
>>
>> charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
>> book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing
>> authority by monopolizing commodity applications.
>
> Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.
>
the cost is astronomical, it's the amount of microsoft's total revenue,
hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for what? commodity
software...
>> if the industry ever got to the
>> point where there was real competition there would be no need to charge
>> for software because all the producers would be focused on adding value
>> as opposed to lock in.
>
> Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
> "developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and better
> apps.
>
> People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
> having.
>
>> with the value-add model the paycheck comes from service & support,
>> actually helping people be more productive, as opposed to monopolistic
>> coercion.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It *can* work. It doesn't work very often. There's no good solution for
> DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have - *tend*
> to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don't ) and certain
> comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for production work, I
> fear.
>
> I've tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not always*.
> But it's hard.
>
it's hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything from
spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse engineered
from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce
continuous upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
everyone.
zzbunker
And that's why idiot people get what people-people deserve, which is
spam.
And the people who know how computers, science, electronics, sound,
light, progress,
and engineering works, make optical computers, post GE fiber optics,
post Ford batteries,
post GM Holograms, adapative PV Cells, adaptive piezo, laser-guided
lasers,
CD+rw, DVD-stack, HDTV[], XML, USB, AUVs, and AAVs rather than
more
meteorology crapola stuff for the relativity wanks.
Jerry Kraus
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> it's hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything from
> spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse engineered
> from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce
> continuous upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
> groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
> everyone.
>
This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does
not encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful
technologies. There's no money in it. The money's in controlling
standardized, existing technologies, and discouraging the development
of fundamentally new technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates,
and Microsoft do.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
> > > Mike wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>
> > it's hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything from
> > spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse engineered
> > from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce
> > continuous upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
> > groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
> > everyone.
>
> This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does
> not encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful
> technologies. There's no money in it.
Well, there's not supposed to be all that much in mathematical
software,
which is why the people with science, a.i., engineering,
progressive mentalities
invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
booking,
post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
parallel processors,
Elibraies(), HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing, On-Line-Banking,
CD+rw, DVD-stack,
Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
guided lasers,
GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB, and left microsoft keep the crank
"Windows" stuff.
Since the "Windows" are quite literally 1942 IBM-FCC Headhunter
legalese crapola,
rather than windows of anything.
Rod Speed
> On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> it's hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything
>> from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse
>> engineered from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft
>> puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to make it at as
>> difficult as possible for those groups trying to establish standards
>> that would be for the benefit of everyone.
> This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does not
> encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful technologies.
How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
> There's no money in it. The money's in controlling standardized, existing
> technologies, and discouraging the development of fundamentally new
> technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates, and Microsoft do.
How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
> >>> Mike wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
> >> it's hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything
> >> from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse
> >> engineered from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft
> >> puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to make it at as
> >> difficult as possible for those groups trying to establish standards
> >> that would be for the benefit of everyone.
> > This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does not
> > encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful technologies.
>
> How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
>
> > There's no money in it. The money's in controlling standardized, existing
> > technologies, and discouraging the development of fundamentally new
> > technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates, and Microsoft do.
>
Not odd at all. Since Microsoft found out very very quickly
that you don't make any money crates for Intel You make
money by going way over of the buisness intellilects of
the AT&T bridge wanks, and go straight to Wal-Mart
Rod Speed
>>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> it's hard because of microsoft. all of the formats for everything
>>>> from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse
>>>> engineered from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft
>>>> puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to make it at as
>>>> difficult as possible for those groups trying to establish
>>>> standards that would be for the benefit of everyone.
>>> This does get back to my basic point that Capitalism certainly does not
>>> encourage the development of fundamentally new, socially useful technologies.
>> How odd that every single one has come out of
>> capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
>>> There's no money in it. The money's in controlling standardized,
>>> existing technologies, and discouraging the development of
>>> fundamentally new technologies. Which is exactly what Bill Gates,
>>> and Microsoft do.
>> How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.
> Not odd at all.
Thats called sarcasm, stupid.
Did you miss the emoticon ?
> Since Microsoft found out very very quickly that you don't make any money
> crates for Intel You make money by going way over of the buisness
> intellilects of the AT&T bridge wanks, and go straight to Wal-Mart
Thats nothing like how MS actually made its money.
zzbunker
> zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Microsoft mostly made it's money making by capitalizing on the
idiocy of
the GM Stuper Computer WANKS,, so they deserve their money.
Since they were obviously the first of the idiot software
companies that
realized that computer *architecture*. has nothing to do with
*SCIENCE*.
Rod Speed
>>> Not odd at all.
>> Thats called sarcasm, stupid.
> Microsoft mostly made it's money making by capitalizing on the idiocy of the GM Stuper Computer WANKS,,
Nope.
> so they deserve their money.
> Since they were obviously the first of the idiot software companies that
> realized that computer *architecture*. has nothing to do with *SCIENCE*.
They werent that either.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> zzbunker<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote
Well, that's OBVIOUSLY how they made it, since the IBM and AT&T
imbeciles
didn't even realize it until GE started to foreclose on the idiots.
>
> > so they deserve their money.
> > Since they were obviously the first of the idiot software companies that
> > realized that computer *architecture*. has nothing to do with *SCIENCE*.
>
> They werent that either.- Hide quoted text -
Rod Speed
>>>>> Not odd at all.
>>>> Thats called sarcasm, stupid.
>> Nope.
Nope.
> since the IBM and AT&T imbeciles didn't even
> realize it until GE started to foreclose on the idiots.
Utterly mangled all over again.
zzbu...@netscape.net
It doesn't matter, since what you're STUPORING about is BUSH,
CLINITON,
DONALD TRUMP, and Fannie MAE IDIOTS,
not *computers, science, engineering, ECONONICS and CASH FLOW*.
>
>
>
> >>> so they deserve their money.
> >>> Since they were obviously the first of the idiot software companies that
> >>> realized that computer *architecture*. has nothing to do with *SCIENCE*.
> >> They werent that either.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
Or more specifially, you're farting BREA about MORONIC *U.N.-
NOMICS*.
not *ECONOMICS*.
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
> booking,
> post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
> parallel processors,
> Elibraies(), HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing, On-Line-Banking,
> CD+rw, DVD-stack,
> Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
> guided lasers,
> GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB
So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?
Maybe, because there's no money in it?
Or, maybe, because it's too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement? So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?
Rod Speed
Or maybe its just a hell of a lot harder to do.
> So, you need some government control and direction to invent it?
Not to invent it so much as to make it viable.
I dont recall too many fission nukes were developed in someone's basement either.
Jerry Kraus
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
> >> booking,
> >> post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
> >> parallel processors,
> >> Elibraies(), HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing, On-Line-Banking,
> >> CD+rw, DVD-stack,
> >> Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
> >> guided lasers,
> >> GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB
>
> > So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
> > useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?
>
> > Maybe, because there's no money in it?
> > Or, maybe, because it's too big and too dangerous to do in your basement?
>
> Or maybe its just a hell of a lot harder to do.
>
> > So, you need some government control and direction to invent it?
>
> Not to invent it so much as to make it viable.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now, now, Rod. I've already warned you about agreeing with me.
People will start to talk.
Rod Speed
> Now, now, Rod. I've already warned you about agreeing with me.
I didnt agree with you, stupid.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
> > booking,
> > post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
> > parallel processors,
> > Elibraies(), HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing, On-Line-Banking,
> > CD+rw, DVD-stack,
> > Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
> > guided lasers,
> > GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB
>
> So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
> useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?
Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs, risc++, Post AT&T fiber optics,
Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics. Good point. We've had quite enough of stupid,
greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do. Thanks for
the feedback.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, you're seeing the only thing real *ENGINEERS* invest in
retarded *PHYSICS*.,
which is post-AT&T fiber optics, post-ford batteries, post GM
Holograms,
XML, On-Line-Banking, On-Line Publishing, laser-guided lasers, CD
+rw, DVD-stack,
HDTV, Optical Computers, Adaptive PV Cells, Adaptive Piezo, All-In-
One Printers,
USB, and Cruise Missiles.
Since they don't call Physicists imbecile IBM mathematicians, for
no reason.
Good point. We've had quite enough of stupid,
> greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
> That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do. Thanks for
> the feedback.- Hide quoted text -
Les Cargill
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn't
>>>> understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
>>>> electricity."
>>>>
>>>>
>>> no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were
>>> first invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the
>>> methods of transmission
>> Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.
>>
>
>
> no, the FCC controls the standards:
>
> "The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by the
> United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to resolve the
> conflicts that arose between companies over the introduction of a
> nationwide analog television system in the United States. In March 1941,
> the committee issued a technical standard for black-and-white television
> that built upon a 1936 recommendation made by the Radio Manufacturers
> Association (RMA). ...
> In January 1950 the Committee was reconstituted to standardize color
> television. In December 1953, it unanimously approved what is now called
> simply the NTSC color television standard (later defined as RS-170a). The
> updated standard retained full backwards compatibility ("compatible
> color") with older black-and-white television sets. Color information was
> added to the black-and-white image by adding a color subcarrier of 4.5 ×
> 455/572 MHz (approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video signal. In order to
> minimize interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound
> carrier, the addition of the color subcarrier also required a slight
> reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second to 30/1.001 (very
> close to 29.97) frames per second, and changing the line frequency from
> 15,750 Hz to 15,734.26 Hz."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
>
>
That's nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at all?
My statement stands.
>>> such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft demodulator in
>>> your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
>> No, that literally is Qualcomm...
>>
Uh... hello?
>>> but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to
>>> use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the
>>> process to line their own pockets.
>>>
>>>
>> Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it much myself,
>> but there it is.
>>
>
>
> i disagree, we don't need the hucksters.
Do you live in a jar?
> what we need is corporations
> competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
> opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust laws
> and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices (ie.
> microsoft's sole business strategy).
>
>
*Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild,
then. No dance before the tune, sir.
>>>> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see where
>>>> that gets you.
>>>
>>> charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
>>> book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing
>>> authority by monopolizing commodity applications.
>> Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.
>>
>
>
> the cost is astronomical, it's the amount of microsoft's total revenue,
> hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for what? commodity
> software...
>
>
In context, it's SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360)
cost more, much more, than people were willing to pay.
>>> if the industry ever got to the
>>> point where there was real competition there would be no need to charge
>>> for software because all the producers would be focused on adding value
>>> as opposed to lock in.
>> Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
>> "developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and better
>> apps.
>>
>> People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
>> having.
>>
Hello?
>>> with the value-add model the paycheck comes from service & support,
>>> actually helping people be more productive, as opposed to monopolistic
>>> coercion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It *can* work. It doesn't work very often. There's no good solution for
>> DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have - *tend*
>> to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don't ) and certain
>> comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for production work, I
>> fear.
>>
>> I've tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not always*.
>> But it's hard.
>>
>
>
> it's hard because of microsoft.
That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what
the exit-path *avoids*.
> all of the formats for everything from
> spreadsheets/wordprocessing to audio/video have to be reverse engineered
> from the constantly changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce
> continuous upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
> groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
> everyone.
>
Can't go over it, better go around it.
Except *they don't*. Which is my point. Trying to fight culture with
knives... isn't going to work very well.
Ooooh... my knife is *sharp*. Yeah, so what?
>
>
>
>> (BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing that's
>> had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on 'Doze. And I
>> *HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script pipes/languages to do
>> anything on a 'Doze box:)
-
Les Cargill
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn't
>>>>> understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
>>>>> electricity."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were
>>>> first invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the
>>>> methods of transmission
>>> Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> no, the FCC controls the standards:
>>
> .. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.
so? the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard and there's no
monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
standard. it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as
opposed to one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a
standard that everyone uses.
>> "The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by
>> the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to resolve
>> the conflicts that arose between companies over the introduction of a
>> nationwide analog television system in the United States. In March
>> 1941, the committee issued a technical standard for black-and-white
>> television that built upon a 1936 recommendation made by the Radio
>> Manufacturers Association (RMA). ...
>> In January 1950 the Committee was reconstituted to standardize color
>> television. In December 1953, it unanimously approved what is now
>> called simply the NTSC color television standard (later defined as
>> RS-170a). The updated standard retained full backwards compatibility
>> ("compatible color") with older black-and-white television sets. Color
>> information was added to the black-and-white image by adding a color
>> subcarrier of 4.5 × 455/572 MHz (approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video
>> signal. In order to minimize interference between the chrominance
>> signal and FM sound carrier, the addition of the color subcarrier also
>> required a slight reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second
>> to 30/1.001 (very close to 29.97) frames per second, and changing the
>> line frequency from 15,750 Hz to 15,734.26 Hz."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
>>
>>
>>
> That's nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
> government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at all?
>
> My statement stands.
yes and it does a fine job of refuting a point that has nothing to do
with anything i've said (see above).
>>>> such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft demodulator in
>>>> your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
>>> No, that literally is Qualcomm...
>>>
>>>
> Uh... hello?
my comment was about when radio & tv were first invented so i'll reply to
your qualcomm comment right after you explain how a company founded in
1985 has anything to do with it.
>
>>>> but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put
>>>> to use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the
>>>> process to line their own pockets.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it much
>>> myself, but there it is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> i disagree, we don't need the hucksters.
>
> Do you live in a jar?
>
>> what we need is corporations
>> competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
>> opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust laws
>> and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices (ie.
>> microsoft's sole business strategy).
>>
>>
>>
> *Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild, then. No
> dance before the tune, sir.
if that's your defense for the hucksters then i rest my case.
>>>>> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see
>>>>> where that gets you.
>>>>
>>>> charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
>>>> book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing
>>>> authority by monopolizing commodity applications.
>>> Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> the cost is astronomical, it's the amount of microsoft's total revenue,
>> hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for what?
>> commodity software...
>>
>>
>>
> In context, it's SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360) cost more,
> much more, than people were willing to pay.
>
>
>
>>>> if the industry ever got to the
>>>> point where there was real competition there would be no need to
>>>> charge for software because all the producers would be focused on
>>>> adding value as opposed to lock in.
>>> Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
>>> "developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and
>>> better apps.
>>>
>>> People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
>>> having.
>>>
>>>
> Hello?
what? you expect me to respond to your statement:
"People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
having."
ok, fine. my response is that the statement is ludicrous, i believe
people want great software but because of the microsoft monopoly they are
stuck with crap.
>
>>>> with the value-add model the paycheck comes from service & support,
>>>> actually helping people be more productive, as opposed to
>>>> monopolistic coercion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It *can* work. It doesn't work very often. There's no good solution
>>> for DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have -
>>> *tend* to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don't ) and
>>> certain comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for
>>> production work, I fear.
>>>
>>> I've tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not
>>> always*. But it's hard.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> it's hard because of microsoft.
>
> That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what the exit-path
> *avoids*.
if in order for a non-microsoft system to be usable for the average
person it must be able to interact seamlessly with microsoft formats
then, yes, there is no other place to put the blame for incompatibility
then on microsoft which is responsible for the ever-changing closed
(proprietary) formats and the relentless effort of preventing open
standards from being established.
>
>> all of the formats for everything from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to
>> audio/video have to be reverse engineered from the constantly changing
>> assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to
>> make it at as difficult as possible for those groups trying to
>> establish standards that would be for the benefit of everyone.
>>
>>
> Can't go over it, better go around it.
it's the difference between doing what's in the best interest of
advancing technology for the benefit for everyone vs. the monopoly-
centric viewpoint of serving ones own interest at the expense of everyone
else.
Les Cargill
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison didn't
>>>>>> understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science of
>>>>>> electricity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were
>>>>> first invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the
>>>>> methods of transmission
>>>> Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> no, the FCC controls the standards:
>>>
>> .. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.
>
>
>
> so? the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard
It was developed 100% by people working for
Sarnoff. It might be the single
biggest leap in electronics transmission of
its time. It packed amazing amounts of data
into a small space, well ahead of even the electronics to
support it.
Have you ever seen a vertical hold knob on a TV? No? The
vertical hold knob was there because of thermal oscillator
drift before there were PLLs. You had to manually tune
the oscillator from a knob on the front of the set. We
used to call it "the flippin' knob" because the frames
of the picture would roll vertically until
you stopped it with the knob.
The standard was well in advance of *component level
support*. And a million companies bloomed from it.
> and there's no
> monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
> standard.
Sure there is. You just don't see it because it's not
explicit. What was RCA worth in 1960? Who was
the dominant player in TV technology? RCA.
NTSC is a masterpiece - shame it's dying in February. But
it was 100% developed in RCA laboratories, and it took a
very long time for others to catch up to RCA.
> it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as
> opposed to one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a
> standard that everyone uses.
>
>
*All* standards are privately developed, and *all* standards are
developed with an eye towards competitive advantage.
Go grep the company names on the IETF standards documents. The
name "Cisco" will figure quite prominently.
>
>>> "The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by
>>> the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to resolve
>>> the conflicts that arose between companies over the introduction of a
>>> nationwide analog television system in the United States. In March
>>> 1941, the committee issued a technical standard for black-and-white
>>> television that built upon a 1936 recommendation made by the Radio
>>> Manufacturers Association (RMA). ...
>>> In January 1950 the Committee was reconstituted to standardize color
>>> television. In December 1953, it unanimously approved what is now
>>> called simply the NTSC color television standard (later defined as
>>> RS-170a). The updated standard retained full backwards compatibility
>>> ("compatible color") with older black-and-white television sets. Color
>>> information was added to the black-and-white image by adding a color
>>> subcarrier of 4.5 × 455/572 MHz (approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video
>>> signal. In order to minimize interference between the chrominance
>>> signal and FM sound carrier, the addition of the color subcarrier also
>>> required a slight reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second
>>> to 30/1.001 (very close to 29.97) frames per second, and changing the
>>> line frequency from 15,750 Hz to 15,734.26 Hz."
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
>> government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at all?
>>
>> My statement stands.
>
Weakly, if at all. It was in the enlightened self interest of Sarnoff
et al to publish the standard *as* a standard to... achieve lock-in.
Uh oh. Now how did that work again? Who was the dominant player in
television in 1960 again?
So of what value would 1000 different television protocols have been?
None. That's what.
>
>
> yes and it does a fine job of refuting a point that has nothing to do
> with anything i've said (see above).
>
>
Aw sheesh. Ignore it at your peril. The marketplace *provided incentives
for otherwise intolerably arrogant people to play nice*. They
didn't do it out of altruism, boy.
>
>>>>> such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft demodulator in
>>>>> your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
>>>> No, that literally is Qualcomm...
>>>>
>>>>
>> Uh... hello?
>
>
*Knock knock*...
>
> my comment was about when radio & tv were first invented so i'll reply to
> your qualcomm comment right after you explain how a company founded in
> 1985 has anything to do with it.
>
>
>
Qualcomm hold patents on just bout every wireless protocol in use today.
Some are open, some are not.
I dunno... maybe there are... parallels or something.... ?
>>>>> but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put
>>>>> to use for the public good before corporations started hijacking the
>>>>> process to line their own pockets.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it much
>>>> myself, but there it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> i disagree, we don't need the hucksters.
>> Do you live in a jar?
>>
>>> what we need is corporations
>>> competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
>>> opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust laws
>>> and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices (ie.
>>> microsoft's sole business strategy).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> *Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild, then. No
>> dance before the tune, sir.
>
>
>
> if that's your defense for the hucksters then i rest my case.
>
>
>
Well, I'm not sure I can explain it to you if you're committed
to ignoring it. And that's fine. Suffice it to say that
ten million interested potential customers is a whole lot better than
ten, a thousand, ten thousand.
Especially for media tech, *mass* is interesting. Narrow isn't.
>>>>>> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see
>>>>>> where that gets you.
>>>>> charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
>>>>> book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing
>>>>> authority by monopolizing commodity applications.
>>>> Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze, either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the cost is astronomical, it's the amount of microsoft's total revenue,
>>> hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for what?
>>> commodity software...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> In context, it's SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360) cost more,
>> much more, than people were willing to pay.
>>
>>
>>
<further ignore-izance...>
>>>>> if the industry ever got to the
>>>>> point where there was real competition there would be no need to
>>>>> charge for software because all the producers would be focused on
>>>>> adding value as opposed to lock in.
>>>> Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For another,
>>>> "developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has more and
>>>> better apps.
>>>>
>>>> People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
>>>> having.
>>>>
>>>>
>> Hello?
>
>
>
> what? you expect me to respond to your statement:
>
> "People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
> having."
>
Right.
> ok, fine. my response is that the statement is ludicrous, i believe
> people want great software but because of the microsoft monopoly they are
> stuck with crap.
>
>
>
They want it. Otherwise you are submitting in front of everybody
that they somehow wandered zombie like under he pure personal
charisma of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to buy the stuff.
Hell, for all I know, the "crap" part made it "better" in terms
of the marketplace. After all, nobody wants to listen to those
propeller heads, do they?
(you should see where I am going with this..?)
>>>>> with the value-add model the paycheck comes from service & support,
>>>>> actually helping people be more productive, as opposed to
>>>>> monopolistic coercion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It *can* work. It doesn't work very often. There's no good solution
>>>> for DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have -
>>>> *tend* to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don't ) and
>>>> certain comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for
>>>> production work, I fear.
>>>>
>>>> I've tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not
>>>> always*. But it's hard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> it's hard because of microsoft.
>> That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what the exit-path
>> *avoids*.
>
>
>
> if in order for a non-microsoft system to be usable for the average
> person it must be able to interact seamlessly with microsoft formats
> then, yes, there is no other place to put the blame for incompatibility
> then on microsoft which is responsible for the ever-changing closed
> (proprietary) formats and the relentless effort of preventing open
> standards from being established.
>
>
:) You should actually blame the lousy formats on those who originated
them. M$ started Word outta a company called Samna ( which they
aquired). I once had to write a *parser* for the bloody things, and
all the docs were from Samna.
I honestly think that M$ doesn't *care* about open anything, they
just cared (past tense) about what they offered. There's no conspiracy,
just "WTF?" on their part. They didn't *think* about it.
>
>>> all of the formats for everything from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to
>>> audio/video have to be reverse engineered from the constantly changing
>>> assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce continuous upgrades and to
>>> make it at as difficult as possible for those groups trying to
>>> establish standards that would be for the benefit of everyone.
>>>
>>>
>> Can't go over it, better go around it.
>
>
>
> it's the difference between doing what's in the best interest of
> advancing technology for the benefit for everyone vs. the monopoly-
> centric viewpoint of serving ones own interest at the expense of everyone
> else.
>
>
But the people you are talking about have expanded the footprint of
technology more than Bell Labs itself.
Sword-swallowing at the dinner table isn't interesting. it's nauseating.
Sword-swallowing in the *circus* is interesting. I won't hold
circus builders in contempt, because they make sword swallowing
entertainment instead of vaguely unsettling.
The people who create the context in which a product is interesting
are just as responsible for the utility of the product as those who
cerate it outright.
>
>> Except *they don't*. Which is my point. Trying to fight culture with
>> knives... isn't going to work very well.
>>
>> Ooooh... my knife is *sharp*. Yeah, so what?
>>
>>>
>>>> (BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing
>>>> that's had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on
>>>> 'Doze. And I *HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script
>>>> pipes/languages to do anything on a 'Doze box:)
>> -
>>
>> Les Cargill
>
--
Les Cargill
Akash
The attachment/link you have provide is an interesting summary of
present day events in the financial markets and the actions
being taken by the government, regulators and the investors.
I find more reason to agree with Warren Buffet's views and the
investment decisions and actions he has taken in recent times.
As investors we are expected to invest at this stage of a market's
cycle or soon hereafter; however most if not all of us realize that
without government intervention the economic scenario would be very
bleak for the average Joe and Jane, including job losses for
them over a period of time.
You would appreciate that if the coporates were not to get timely
support while the banks in general are unwilling to come forward;
then without working capital their operations would just about stop.
So, presently you only see corporate names that are reported
to be effected with this financial market drawdown. However, if this
were to continue unattended then it would have a further adverse
effect on the economy in general and across more than one industry and
service group classification.
If not right away, one may expect investors to start and/or restart
investing in the stock markets. But all this would only be after
a ceratin amount of concerted effort on the part of the government and
regulator become visible.
Sincerely,
Akash
http://www.narachinvestment.com
http://narachinvestment.blogspot.com
http://feedproxy.google.com/narachinvestment/uaXA
http://www.narachphilosophy.com
http://narachphilosophy.blogspot.com
http://www.narach.com
http://finance.narach.com
On Oct 2, 8:33 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081002/buffett_economy.html
>
> Aw, c'mon Warren. Don't you have enough money? Do you really have to
> tax the Hell out of the American people just to prop up your multi-
> billion dollar empire? Go screw yourself, Warren. You are protecting
> no one but yourself.
>
> Warren Buffet is whining about the "financial crisis" which is
> affecting no one but himself and his rich buddies. The majority of
> Americans are so poor now that they no longer have anything to lose,
> and Warren knows it. So, he is whining to the government. "Give me
> money!! Give me money!! I want my money!!"
>
> Sorry, Warren. You lose your money through inflation, or the markets
> collapse, or both. You have destroyed the American economy through
> your greed and stupidity. Live with it, Warren. You earned it.
zzbu...@netscape.net
The pork barrel idiots in the US Goverment have been so deluded
about engineering
since the day short wave radio was invented, that mostly why GPS,
AAVs, and
Post McDonald's Holograms exist today,
> Les Cargill- Hide quoted text -
Jerry Kraus
We need controlled nuclear fusion. Unlimited, clean energy. The
power to colonize the solar system and exploit the resources of outer
space. It is doable. But, it isn't being done. That is the problem.
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison
>>>>>>> didn't understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science
>>>>>>> of electricity."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were
>>>>>> first invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the
>>>>>> methods of transmission
>>>>> Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> no, the FCC controls the standards:
>>>>
>>> .. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.
>>
>>
>>
>> so? the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard
>
> It was developed 100% by people working for Sarnoff. It might be the
> single
> biggest leap in electronics transmission of its time. It packed amazing
> amounts of data into a small space, well ahead of even the electronics
> to support it.
>
there's no comparison between NTSC & anything microsoft does. the specs
for NTSC are publicly available for all to use, the exact opposite is the
case for microsoft formats. the NTSC standard is not patent encumbered
by a highly predatory monopoly that coerces & intimidates to create fear
to prevent others from using the standards. these are complete opposite
ends of the spectrum, openness for the benefit of all vs. closed for the
benefit of one at the expense of all.
> Have you ever seen a vertical hold knob on a TV? No? The vertical hold
> knob was there because of thermal oscillator drift before there were
> PLLs. You had to manually tune the oscillator from a knob on the front
> of the set. We used to call it "the flippin' knob" because the frames of
> the picture would roll vertically until you stopped it with the knob.
>
that has nothing to do with monopolizing standards.
> The standard was well in advance of *component level support*. And a
> million companies bloomed from it.
you want to ascribe to microsoft all the good qualities that come from
openness of standards as was the case for the evolution of tv, yet
microsoft does the exact opposite of those things. as i said earlier,
microsoft is but a huge roadblock standing in the way of the real
computer revolution because everything they do in pursuit of their own
self-interest is the exact opposite of what's good for everyone else.
>
>> and there's no
>> monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
>> standard.
>
> Sure there is. You just don't see it because it's not explicit.
you don't see it because it's not there. there was no proprietary
monopoly on the NTSC standard.
> What was
> RCA worth in 1960? Who was the dominant player in TV technology? RCA.
>
whatever success RCA had was not the result of a monopoly on the NTSC
standard because there never was one.
> NTSC is a masterpiece - shame it's dying in February. But it was 100%
> developed in RCA laboratories, and it took a very long time for others
> to catch up to RCA.
where are the equivalent masterpieces of publicly available, patent
unencumbered standards for the computer?
>
>
>> it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as opposed to
>> one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a standard
>> that everyone uses.
>>
>>
>>
> *All* standards are privately developed, and *all* standards are
> developed with an eye towards competitive advantage.
>
> Go grep the company names on the IETF standards documents. The name
> "Cisco" will figure quite prominently.
>
the issue is openness of standards, not who develops them. monopolizing
standards for commodities used by all is nothing but a roadblock to
progress and benefits no one (except of course the monopoly at the
expense of everyone else).
you just replied to your own reply, good work! (the "my statement
stands" is yours)
> It was in the enlightened self interest of Sarnoff et
> al to publish the standard *as* a standard to... achieve lock-in.
no, the FCC didn't give the choice.
>
> Uh oh. Now how did that work again? Who was the dominant player in
> television in 1960 again?
>
> So of what value would 1000 different television protocols have been?
1000 different protocols would have been an ugly mess, which is exactly
what we have now in the computer industry, which is exactly why the FCC
made the NTSC standard at the beginning of the tv era:
"The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by
the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) *** to resolve
the conflicts that arose between companies *** over the introduction of a
nationwide analog television system in the United States."
this is exactly what is needed in the computer industry.
>
> None. That's what.
>
>
>>
>> yes and it does a fine job of refuting a point that has nothing to do
>> with anything i've said (see above).
>>
>>
>>
> Aw sheesh. Ignore it at your peril. The marketplace *provided incentives
> for otherwise intolerably arrogant people to play nice*. They didn't do
> it out of altruism, boy.
>
>
>
>>>>>> such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft demodulator
>>>>>> in your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
>>>>> No, that literally is Qualcomm...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Uh... hello?
>>
>>
>>
> *Knock knock*...
>
>
>> my comment was about when radio & tv were first invented so i'll reply
>> to your qualcomm comment right after you explain how a company founded
>> in 1985 has anything to do with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Qualcomm hold patents on just bout every wireless protocol in use today.
> Some are open, some are not.
>
> I dunno... maybe there are... parallels or something.... ?
>
my original comment was:
"that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put
to use for the public good before corporations started hijacking
the process to line their own pockets"
to the extent which qualcomm uses microsoft's business tactics to use
monopoly leverage to lock in consumers and lock out competitors on
commodity products that everyone uses, i'd say they fall into the second
part of the above quote. i'd also say that using monopoly leverage that
way is a violation of antitrust law which microsoft has no reservations
about breaking because it knows the cost of getting convicted is a minor
business expense compared to the tens of $billions of profit that the
illegally maintained monopoly generates. this type of business model
needs to be recognized for what it is which is just exploitation.
however, since the regulators responsible for controlling this kind of
abuse have become complicit in the scheme (via campaign contributions,
lobbying, high-paid jobs in private sector after leaving office, etc) the
problem is not so easily fixed. and it does not help that a bunch of
useful idiots brainwashed into swallowing the monopoly-centric viewpoint
(that was pounded into their heads using $billions of profits from the
illegally maintained monopoly) going around praising what a great company
is that which does the most exploiting. so while the idealistic goal of
holding corporations to a standard that they actually provide a net
positive impact to the society in which they exist may never be realized
it would be a least desirable to minimize the amount of exploitation to
the extent possible. so in other words, just getting the useful idiots
to stop rooting for the wrong team would lead to an improvement.
>>>>>> but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put
>>>>>> to use for the public good before corporations started hijacking
>>>>>> the process to line their own pockets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it much
>>>>> myself, but there it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> i disagree, we don't need the hucksters.
>>> Do you live in a jar?
>>>
>>>> what we need is corporations
>>>> competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
>>>> opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust
>>>> laws and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices (ie.
>>>> microsoft's sole business strategy).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> *Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild, then. No
>>> dance before the tune, sir.
>>
>>
>>
>> if that's your defense for the hucksters then i rest my case.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Well, I'm not sure I can explain it to you if you're committed to
> ignoring it. And that's fine. Suffice it to say that ten million
> interested potential customers is a whole lot better than ten, a
> thousand, ten thousand.
>
> Especially for media tech, *mass* is interesting. Narrow isn't.
>
>
except that without microsoft monopolizing it would have been done a
whole lot better with a far larger number of competitors comprising a
much larger market generating much higher revenue and with far more and
better products available to consumers at lower prices.
>>>>>>> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see
>>>>>>> where that gets you.
>>>>>> charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
>>>>>> book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing
>>>>>> authority by monopolizing commodity applications.
>>>>> Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze,
>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the cost is astronomical, it's the amount of microsoft's total
>>>> revenue, hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for
>>>> what? commodity software...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In context, it's SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360) cost more,
>>> much more, than people were willing to pay.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> <further ignore-izance...>
>
this has nothing to do with monopolizing standards.
>>>>>> if the industry ever got to the
>>>>>> point where there was real competition there would be no need to
>>>>>> charge for software because all the producers would be focused on
>>>>>> adding value as opposed to lock in.
>>>>> Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For
>>>>> another, "developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has
>>>>> more and better apps.
>>>>>
>>>>> People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
>>>>> having.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Hello?
>>
>>
>>
>> what? you expect me to respond to your statement:
>>
>> "People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
>> having."
>>
>>
> Right.
>
>> ok, fine. my response is that the statement is ludicrous, i believe
>> people want great software but because of the microsoft monopoly they
>> are stuck with crap.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> They want it. Otherwise you are submitting in front of everybody that
> they somehow wandered zombie like under he pure personal charisma of
> Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to buy the stuff.
>
it's called monopoly coercion.
> Hell, for all I know, the "crap" part made it "better" in terms of the
> marketplace. After all, nobody wants to listen to those propeller heads,
> do they?
>
> (you should see where I am going with this..?)
>
you're going nowhere with it...
>>>>>> with the value-add model the paycheck comes from service & support,
>>>>>> actually helping people be more productive, as opposed to
>>>>>> monopolistic coercion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It *can* work. It doesn't work very often. There's no good solution
>>>>> for DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces tend to have
>>>>> - *tend* to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux packages don't )
>>>>> and certain comms packages are dismal (surprisingly). Not fit for
>>>>> production work, I fear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not
>>>>> always*. But it's hard.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> it's hard because of microsoft.
>>> That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what the
>>> exit-path *avoids*.
>>
>>
>>
>> if in order for a non-microsoft system to be usable for the average
>> person it must be able to interact seamlessly with microsoft formats
>> then, yes, there is no other place to put the blame for incompatibility
>> then on microsoft which is responsible for the ever-changing closed
>> (proprietary) formats and the relentless effort of preventing open
>> standards from being established.
>>
>>
>>
> :) You should actually blame the lousy formats on those who originated
> them. M$ started Word outta a company called Samna ( which they
> aquired). I once had to write a *parser* for the bloody things, and all
> the docs were from Samna.
>
the issue isn't the formats being lousy, the issue is openness and them
being publicly available for all to use equally and not being threatened
by patent infringement lawsuits.
> I honestly think that M$ doesn't *care* about open anything, they just
> cared (past tense) about what they offered. There's no conspiracy, just
> "WTF?" on their part. They didn't *think* about it.
>
all microsoft cares about is maintaining the monopoly (illegally much of
the time) such that they can continue to collect tens of $billions from
consumers for commodity products, and to do that they must keep all
formats closed which as i've said countless times already is of no
benefit to anyone except microsoft and is a detriment (ie. pain in the
butt) to everyone else.
>
>>>> all of the formats for everything from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to
>>>> audio/video have to be reverse engineered from the constantly
>>>> changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce continuous
>>>> upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those groups
>>>> trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
>>>> everyone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Can't go over it, better go around it.
>>
>>
>>
>> it's the difference between doing what's in the best interest of
>> advancing technology for the benefit for everyone vs. the monopoly-
>> centric viewpoint of serving ones own interest at the expense of
>> everyone else.
>>
>>
>>
> But the people you are talking about have expanded the footprint of
> technology more than Bell Labs itself.
microsoft expanded technology more than bell labs? i doubt that you'll
find much support for that statement.
>
>
> Sword-swallowing at the dinner table isn't interesting. it's nauseating.
> Sword-swallowing in the *circus* is interesting. I won't hold circus
> builders in contempt, because they make sword swallowing entertainment
> instead of vaguely unsettling.
>
sorry, i can't reply to that because i have no idea of what it is
supposed to mean.
> The people who create the context in which a product is interesting are
> just as responsible for the utility of the product as those who cerate
> it outright.
>
>
nothing to do with monopolizing standards.
Rod Speed
> On Oct 9, 4:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
> We need controlled nuclear fusion. Unlimited, clean energy.
The same claim was made about fission. Didnt turn out to be feasible.
> The power to colonize the solar system and exploit the resources of outer space.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to do things better here instead.
> It is doable.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually do it.
> But, it isn't being done.
Because its a hell of a lot easier to say than to do.
> That is the problem.
Nope, the real problem is whether it can actually be done on a controllable scale.
Rod Speed
> The attachment/link you have provide is an interesting summary
> of present day events in the financial markets and the actions
> being taken by the government, regulators and the investors.
> I find more reason to agree with Warren Buffet's views and the
> investment decisions and actions he has taken in recent times.
And we'll see if he has got it right in the present circumstances.
> As investors we are expected to invest at this
> stage of a market's cycle or soon hereafter;
Thats arguable.
> however most if not all of us realize that without government intervention
> the economic scenario would be very bleak for the average Joe and
> Jane, including job losses for them over a period of time.
And it remains to be seen if it isnt very bleak for the
average Joe and Jane even with govt intervention.
> You would appreciate that if the coporates were not to get timely
> support while the banks in general are unwilling to come forward;
> then without working capital their operations would just about stop.
> So, presently you only see corporate names that are reported
> to be effected with this financial market drawdown. However,
> if this were to continue unattended then it would have a further
> adverse effect on the economy in general and across more
> than one industry and service group classification.
It already has.
> If not right away, one may expect investors to start and/or
> restart investing in the stock markets. But all this would
> only be after a ceratin amount of concerted effort on the
> part of the government and regulator become visible.
Thats arguable too. It remains to be seen how many have enough
confidence in govt intervention to see enough attempt to find bargains.
Clearly some like Buffet have already done quite a bit of that, but
he can afford to lose a hell of a lot more than most of us can.
Les Cargill
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:50:30 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison
>>>>>>>> didn't understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science
>>>>>>>> of electricity."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv were
>>>>>>> first invented his contribution would have been to monopolize the
>>>>>>> methods of transmission
>>>>>> Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> no, the FCC controls the standards:
>>>>>
>>>> .. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> so? the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard
>> It was developed 100% by people working for Sarnoff. It might be the
>> single
>> biggest leap in electronics transmission of its time. It packed amazing
>> amounts of data into a small space, well ahead of even the electronics
>> to support it.
>>
>
>
>
> there's no comparison between NTSC & anything microsoft does.
There was a non-technical component to the distribution
of NTSC that is the same. Sarnoff and Gates are comparable in
that regard.
RCA was accused widely of monopolism in radio.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1332
> the specs
> for NTSC are publicly available for all to use, the exact opposite is the
> case for microsoft formats. the NTSC standard is not patent encumbered
> by a highly predatory monopoly that coerces & intimidates to create fear
> to prevent others from using the standards. these are complete opposite
> ends of the spectrum, openness for the benefit of all vs. closed for the
> benefit of one at the expense of all.
>
>
>
That's all 100% true - but then again, Windows apps don't have to
interoperate at that level to be useful. And I see this as not
so much arrogance as laziness. It's geek egocentrism - everybody
wants to author a protocol...
>> Have you ever seen a vertical hold knob on a TV? No? The vertical hold
>> knob was there because of thermal oscillator drift before there were
>> PLLs. You had to manually tune the oscillator from a knob on the front
>> of the set. We used to call it "the flippin' knob" because the frames of
>> the picture would roll vertically until you stopped it with the knob.
>>
>
>
>
> that has nothing to do with monopolizing standards.
>
>
>
It has to do with the excellence of the NTSC standard.
>> The standard was well in advance of *component level support*. And a
>> million companies bloomed from it.
>
>
>
> you want to ascribe to microsoft all the good qualities that come from
> openness of standards as was the case for the evolution of tv, yet
> microsoft does the exact opposite of those things. as i said earlier,
> microsoft is but a huge roadblock standing in the way of the real
> computer revolution because everything they do in pursuit of their own
> self-interest is the exact opposite of what's good for everyone else.
>
>
If they are a roadblock, go around them. I'm saying that if they *can*
be not-open, and the market rewards that, then we have to question the
perceived utility of openness in that context.
>
>>> and there's no
>>> monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
>>> standard.
>> Sure there is. You just don't see it because it's not explicit.
>
>
>
> you don't see it because it's not there. there was no proprietary
> monopoly on the NTSC standard.
>
>
>
If TV had been of 100 different standards, there would have been no
TV. Software can be of an almost infinite array of standards, and
still remain useful.
>> What was
>> RCA worth in 1960? Who was the dominant player in TV technology? RCA.
>>
>
>
>
> whatever success RCA had was not the result of a monopoly on the NTSC
> standard because there never was one.
>
>
>
it was a near-monopoly. And RCA had monopolistic tendencies
in radio:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1332
>> NTSC is a masterpiece - shame it's dying in February. But it was 100%
>> developed in RCA laboratories, and it took a very long time for others
>> to catch up to RCA.
>
>
>
> where are the equivalent masterpieces of publicly available, patent
> unencumbered standards for the computer?
>
>
http://www.ieee.org/web/education/802_Workshop/index.xml
>
>>
>>> it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as opposed to
>>> one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a standard
>>> that everyone uses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> *All* standards are privately developed, and *all* standards are
>> developed with an eye towards competitive advantage.
>>
>> Go grep the company names on the IETF standards documents. The name
>> "Cisco" will figure quite prominently.
>>
>
>
>
> the issue is openness of standards, not who develops them. monopolizing
> standards for commodities used by all is nothing but a roadblock to
> progress and benefits no one (except of course the monopoly at the
> expense of everyone else).
>
>
Lock-in doesn't scare customers. They either don't care or
don't understand. I lean towards "don't care" - people are
just not interested in what makes it tick.
Heh. I missed that.
>
>> It was in the enlightened self interest of Sarnoff et
>> al to publish the standard *as* a standard to... achieve lock-in.
>
>
>
> no, the FCC didn't give the choice.
>
>
>
So Sarnoff and the FCC had a confluence of interest....
>> Uh oh. Now how did that work again? Who was the dominant player in
>> television in 1960 again?
>>
>> So of what value would 1000 different television protocols have been?
>
>
>
> 1000 different protocols would have been an ugly mess, which is exactly
> what we have now in the computer industry, which is exactly why the FCC
> made the NTSC standard at the beginning of the tv era:
>
It's not that ugly.
I agree - fundamentally - that this *should* be the case. Every user
should be very concerned. They're just ... not. This disinterest leads
me to think it's not that important.
>>>>>>> but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put
>>>>>>> to use for the public good before corporations started hijacking
>>>>>>> the process to line their own pockets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it much
>>>>>> myself, but there it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> i disagree, we don't need the hucksters.
>>>> Do you live in a jar?
>>>>
>>>>> what we need is corporations
>>>>> competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
>>>>> opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust
>>>>> laws and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices (ie.
>>>>> microsoft's sole business strategy).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> *Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild, then. No
>>>> dance before the tune, sir.
>>>
>>>
>>> if that's your defense for the hucksters then i rest my case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well, I'm not sure I can explain it to you if you're committed to
>> ignoring it. And that's fine. Suffice it to say that ten million
>> interested potential customers is a whole lot better than ten, a
>> thousand, ten thousand.
>>
>> Especially for media tech, *mass* is interesting. Narrow isn't.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> except that without microsoft monopolizing it would have been done a
> whole lot better with a far larger number of competitors comprising a
> much larger market generating much higher revenue and with far more and
> better products available to consumers at lower prices.
>
>
>
I'm not sure of that at all. If that were the case, we'd probably see
better penetration of Linux in the marketplace. We really
don't.
>>>>>>>> Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see
>>>>>>>> where that gets you.
>>>>>>> charging for software is like charging for math equations in a text
>>>>>>> book. what the software industry has devolved into is a taxing
>>>>>>> authority by monopolizing commodity applications.
>>>>>> Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze,
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the cost is astronomical, it's the amount of microsoft's total
>>>>> revenue, hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for
>>>>> what? commodity software...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In context, it's SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360) cost more,
>>>> much more, than people were willing to pay.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> <further ignore-izance...>
>>
>
>
>
> this has nothing to do with monopolizing standards.
>
>
>
It has to do with t6he context the standards operate in.
>>>>>>> if the industry ever got to the
>>>>>>> point where there was real competition there would be no need to
>>>>>>> charge for software because all the producers would be focused on
>>>>>>> adding value as opposed to lock in.
>>>>>> Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For
>>>>>> another, "developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has
>>>>>> more and better apps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
>>>>>> having.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Hello?
>>>
>>>
>>> what? you expect me to respond to your statement:
>>>
>>> "People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
>>> having."
>>>
>>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> ok, fine. my response is that the statement is ludicrous, i believe
>>> people want great software but because of the microsoft monopoly they
>>> are stuck with crap.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They want it. Otherwise you are submitting in front of everybody that
>> they somehow wandered zombie like under he pure personal charisma of
>> Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to buy the stuff.
>>
>
>
>
> it's called monopoly coercion.
>
>
And I don't believe in it.
>
>> Hell, for all I know, the "crap" part made it "better" in terms of the
>> marketplace. After all, nobody wants to listen to those propeller heads,
>> do they?
>>
>> (you should see where I am going with this..?)
>>
>
>
>
> you're going nowhere with it...
>
>
>
Okay then.
It keeps people employed defending it. That's what people are interested
in. If it worked out of the box, half the IT people wouldn't have
jobs.
>>>>> all of the formats for everything from spreadsheets/wordprocessing to
>>>>> audio/video have to be reverse engineered from the constantly
>>>>> changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce continuous
>>>>> upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those groups
>>>>> trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit of
>>>>> everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Can't go over it, better go around it.
>>>
>>>
>>> it's the difference between doing what's in the best interest of
>>> advancing technology for the benefit for everyone vs. the monopoly-
>>> centric viewpoint of serving ones own interest at the expense of
>>> everyone else.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> But the people you are talking about have expanded the footprint of
>> technology more than Bell Labs itself.
>
>
>
> microsoft expanded technology more than bell labs? i doubt that you'll
> find much support for that statement.
>
>
>
Expanded *the footprint*. And Bell hasn't done much lately....
>>
>> Sword-swallowing at the dinner table isn't interesting. it's nauseating.
>> Sword-swallowing in the *circus* is interesting. I won't hold circus
>> builders in contempt, because they make sword swallowing entertainment
>> instead of vaguely unsettling.
>>
>
>
>
> sorry, i can't reply to that because i have no idea of what it is
> supposed to mean.
>
>
>
>> The people who create the context in which a product is interesting are
>> just as responsible for the utility of the product as those who cerate
>> it outright.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> nothing to do with monopolizing standards.
>
>
>
Okay then.
>>>> Except *they don't*. Which is my point. Trying to fight culture with
>>>> knives... isn't going to work very well.
>>>>
>>>> Ooooh... my knife is *sharp*. Yeah, so what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> (BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing
>>>>>> that's had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on
>>>>>> 'Doze. And I *HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script
>>>>>> pipes/languages to do anything on a 'Doze box:)
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> Les Cargill
>
--
Les Cargill
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, that may or not be true, but you're still missing the point
that the
A.I. parallel processors, multitaskers, fiber optics, CD, DVD, HDTV,
Elibraries, holograms,
neo wind energy, neo solar energy, microwave ovens, biodiesel, GPS,
and
modern robotics were all invented since the people in engineering
are still
not going to wait a day for the blood-sucking tax-cranks running the
power grid to come with a solution to anything.