Michael Coburn wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:18:32 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

John Galt wrote:

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:54:24 +0200, John Galt <kady101@gmail.com
wrote:

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
jkraus_1999@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.
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.


This looks like the mob in the French revolution. All the nobility
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



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.

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 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....

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:19:43 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:18:03 -0700, retrogrouch wrote:


On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT), V <vfr44@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)




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.


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.

Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:18 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

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, 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.

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 6, 5:15 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:18 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

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, 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.

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.

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:56:58 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:55:42 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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:)

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.

standardized, existing technologies, and discouraging the development
of fundamentally new technologies.  Which is exactly what Bill Gates,
and Microsoft do.

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.

How odd that every single one has come out of capitalism, and not one has ever come out of socialism.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

zzbun...@netscape.net wrote





Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
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.
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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. 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.

zzbunker<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote





Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
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.
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.
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

zzbun...@netscape.net wrote





Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbunker<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
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.
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.
Microsoft mostly made it's money making by capitalizing
on the idiocy of the GM Stuper Computer WANKS,,
Nope.
Well, that's OBVIOUSLY how they made it,

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.

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 -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 9, 12:57 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:





zzbun...@netscape.net wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbunker<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
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.
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.
Microsoft mostly made it's money making by capitalizing
on the idiocy of the GM Stuper Computer WANKS,,
Nope.
Well, that's OBVIOUSLY how they made it,

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.

   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 -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
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.

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 <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
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.

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.

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 <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbunker<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
zzbun...@netscape.net wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Mike <M...@localdoman.localhost> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
Mike wrote:
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.

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.

Microsoft mostly made it's money making by capitalizing
on the idiocy of the GM Stuper Computer WANKS,,

Nope.

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.

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

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.

I dont recall too many fission nukes were developed in someone's basement either.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -