Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
to a conservative ideology.
This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody But
Harper.
Unfortnutaley we got some winners to choose from...*hurls lunch*
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
"Hello Toronto, you're on the air!"
"phorbin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
>> treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.
> 'Course he was criminally rich.
Guess I can infer then that the world's criminals go to the US for treatment
when possible. Now, there's a recommendation if there ever was one. :)
On Apr 3, 1:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I don't like Harper's manner - he comes across as a bully and has all
> the personality of a robot, but his record on keeping the country
> going through an economic disaster with a minority government has been
> remarkable.
There are two reasons we came out well of this economic disaster and
neither of them has to do anything with Harper and his Deformist
wannabe Rethuglicans.
The first is that we did not deregulate the financial system to the
extent that the banks and the Tories wanted. Thank god chr=E9tien and
martin did not want to touch that one with a ten-foot pole, so we
avoided the financial system collapse. Harper needlessly tried to
force CMHC to buy back $7 billion worth of mortgages at your expense,
but the banks were not interested in selling.
The second is the massive amount of stimulus money that got spent and
kept the economy afloat. You might remember the idea of a coalition
and the fact that the opposition forced Harper to put in that stimulus
money in the 2009-10 budget.
Of course, he screwed us all in the long term by reducing taxes at
the wrong time, so we ended up with a much bigger deficit and
fianncial mess which no doubt will have to be cleaned up once again by
centre-left governments (as Chretien and Martin cleaned up after
Malronn=E9, or Blair in the UK or Clinton in the US).
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No anesthetic at the time? Quite some imagination you have.
> Maybe your dentistry was from the 1800s
> or
> your parents were really cheap
> or
> your parents didn't like you.
Go fuck yourself asshole. I was stating that the dentist we used didn't use
an anaesthetic, not that it hadn't been invented.
On May 4, 10:18=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I can see a nice tin hat in your future. Soon?
>
> Obviously, you're not remotely smart enough to understand what was just
> explained to you. The only standard reply you can come up with is that
> people are angry because they can't get it up. Guess that's par for the
> course considering you're not even intelligent enough to trim a post to a
> suitable size.
>
> Got any woodworking knowledge to share? Perhaps you know how to whittle w=
ood
> with a kitchen knife?
Yo, Dave... it's 'Jesse'.... let it go...
On Apr 4, 11:53=A0am, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
> > "FrozenNorth" =A0wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
> > Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**ked
> > up yet.
>
> Harper's shenanigans are the reason I've come to respect the wisdom the
> USA's founding fathers showed for forming their government in such a way
> as to prevent a tyrant from rising to the kind of power Harper in a
> majority would have.
>
> His actions are also the reason I've spent the better part of the past 8
> months reading and working to get a handle on Harper's realpolitik. I
> care about what he does, not what he says.
>
> I don't like Ignatieff much but put up against Harper, Ignatieff looks
> like the heart and soul of democracy; for that matter so do Layton and
> May.
Harper, aka Bush Lite, is a power hungry control freak. He's in the
pocket of defense contractors and big business. He truly doesn't give
a fiddler's fig about the canadian people. He has to please his
masters, and that doesn't include the people of Canada.
Ignitionthief is a slippery fella. It would be bad for him to have a
majority as well and that whole Layton/socialist thing is too screwed
up to work. Rae tried it and failed on a Provincial level. If I work
my ass off, I should be able to keep most of my money and not
subsidize refuges with a financial hand-out which amounts to twice as
much as a Canadian pensioner who helped build this country. You want
to come hide in our country? Be prepared to spend the rest of your
days building roads and planting trees instead of living in a nice
apartment while your scumbag lawyer stalls the immigration process for
5 fu*cking years.
Somebody kick that soapbox out from under me...
.
.
.
.
A country as diverse as Canada can only be governed from the middle.
It is as simple as that.
I like the 3 party system where the balance of power is keeping the
government honest.
Having said that, what is really wrong, is that we don't have
proportional representation... and that we don't have term limits on a
senatorial level or on a federal leadership level. Also, senators
should be elected, not handed a life-long meal ticket just because
they blew the right dick. The Canadian senate is a frickin golf
club.....but I digress...
On 5/7/2011 5:12 AM, Han wrote:
> Thanks to the ministrations of my childhood dentist, I needed quite a bit
> of dental work as an undergraduate in Utrecht, Holland. The dental
> school offered really cheap treatments (only the cost of gold was
> charged, at the time somethign like $30/oz), but it cost me a year of
> once weekly treatments to get fixed up. There were 2 root canal
> treatments I remember well. For some reason, the students couldn't use
> anaesthetic at the last stage of cleaning out the root, and had to remove
> the last bits of nerve without anasthetic. At least most of the stuff my
> budding dentist did in the midle 60's are still in my mouth, to the great
> amazement of US dentists.
My experience is similar. Blessed with good teeth thus far, I only have
one "onlay" or filling in my mouth, and still have all my teeth but one
molar and wisdom teeth.
A dental student from the UT Dental School did the onlay back in the
seventies, and it's still going strong ... best bang for the buck I've
ever got.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On May 6, 12:10=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we want to pay for medical service, we can
> easily go to the US. Maybe not as convenient as going to someone locally,
> but the option is there.
In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
Then we have 50+ Detroit hospitals, some world renowned like the Henry
Ford and St. John.
Those are 45 minutes from here... a bit of a drive with a rogue
Festool jammed under your collar-bone.
On Apr 4, 8:19=A0am, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <68f933ca-8107-4d41-b272-
> [email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
> > Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>
> > What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
> > to a conservative ideology.
> > This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody But
> > Harper.
>
> > =A0Unfortnutaley we got some winners to choose from...*hurls lunch*
>
> > Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
>
> > "Hello Toronto, you're on the air!"
>
> Rob,
>
> Could you tell me exactly where you heard that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3WfBaFrRF9w
On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>> run it, right?
>
> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>
> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>
> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
> might be done about that?
That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:52:26 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
>> > involved.
>> > If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
>> > and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
>> > BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
>> > short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
>>
>> Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
>> monopoly? Nevertheless...
>>
>> Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.
>>
>> Even the poster boy for "bad" monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price
>> of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents! And did it within three years.
>> Of course the providers of whale oil were screwed, but for the rest of us
>> the night became bright.
>>
>> Most of the evil monopolies are those enabled by the government: Cable TV is
>> one example.
>>
>> No, in general, the fight against monopolies is not waged by the consumer -
>> who almost always is better off from monopoly actions - but by the
>> competitors of the monopoly.
>>
>> Finally, our Constitution specifically encourages and protects monopolies.
>>
>> "Article I, Section 8:
>> The Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
>> the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
>> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;... "
>
>And the breakup of AT&T, with the subsequent destruction of Nobel Prize
>factory known as Bell Labs, certainly did nothing to promote the
>Progress of Science and the useful Arts.
The price of a phone call fell through the floor, though.
ROFL!!!
--------------------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.
'Course he died right away, but that's beside the point...
On May 2, 9:39=A0am, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 01:29:44 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> You sound like a very angry old man! What is your problem, can't get
> >> it up anymore?
>
> >And you sound like a Harper brown nosing ass kisser. If you had half a b=
rain
> >you'd realize he's a closet meglomaniac just itching for complete power.
> >Guess that means I can't get it up, eh? Harper doesn't have that problem=
.
> >He'd screw the Country on a moment's notice.
>
> I rest my case, you have anger problems!
And you have far greater problems.
On May 6, 2:03=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
>
> You shouldn't be telling me stuff like that. The next time I want to buy
> something from the US and the dealer won't ship to Canada, I'm going to
> draft you into driving over the border to buy it and then mail it to me o=
n
> the Canadian side.
Wellllllllll then, this oughtta make you sit up and take notice...LOL
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/HarborFright.png
TEN minutes max.. on a Sunday morning, maybe EIGHT minutes.
RE: Subject
Remember
Lew
--------------------------------------------
The Haircut
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut.
After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I
cannot accept money from you , I'm doing community service this week.'
The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a
'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his
bill,
the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you , I'm doing
community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop.
The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank
you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his
bill, the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm
doing community service this week.' The Congressman was very happy and
left the shop.
The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen
Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between
the
citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
BOTH POLITICIANS AND DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME
REASON!
-----------------------------------------------
"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> It appears to me that there are a lot of angry old men around. Please
> try to get healthy.
It appears to me that you are an asshole.
And in the interest of my health and sanity, into the bozo bin you go.
"Upscale" wrote:
> You shouldn't be telling me stuff like that. The next time I want to
> buy something from the US and the dealer won't ship to Canada, I'm
> going to draft you into driving over the border to buy it and then
> mail it to me on the Canadian side.
--------------------------------
Back in the late 80's when a case of beer was over $24 in Ontario,
there were lots of visits between Port HuronYC and SarniaYC.
Only problem was if you were in a sailboat, it was a one hour trip
upstream, within 10 ft of the Ontario shore, to get under the Blue
Water Bridge into Lake Huron from Port Huron so you could get to a
SarniaYC dock.
OTOH, the return trip was a real ride.
Lew
On Apr 3, 12:09=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>
> What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
> to a conservative ideology.
> This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody ButHar=
per.
>
For Canada's sake do NOT allow that power-hungry dictator have a
majority.
And this is coming from a guy who has voted conservative for almost
all of his voting life.
THIS clown is in the NeoCon/Bilderberger fold.
This clown is promising us 65 x F35 jets at $ 75 mil apiece. Our
American friends budget for the same jet $ 130.million. Ohhhh.. I get
it... Harper is quoting us the price without service contract or
ENGINES!!!!
Our second choice is unfortunately not a whole lot better, but at
least he'll use a condom.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:50:08 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "Natiional Health Service"?
>>
>> Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians
>>
>> -----------
>>
>> "HeyBub" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
>> won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
>> Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
>> (NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The
>> Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!
>>
> No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
> dust
Right. They ended the election with four seats (down from 47).
Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
Quebec: 4
Green: 1
On Mon, 2 May 2011 01:29:44 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You sound like a very angry old man! What is your problem, can't get
>> it up anymore?
>
>And you sound like a Harper brown nosing ass kisser. If you had half a brain
>you'd realize he's a closet meglomaniac just itching for complete power.
>Guess that means I can't get it up, eh? Harper doesn't have that problem.
>He'd screw the Country on a moment's notice.
>
I rest my case, you have anger problems!
On May 4, 9:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:55:11 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
>
> >> That is complete bullshit. Advice: get accurate reports...recent ones,
> >> not those your mailboy throws at you in your cave.
>
> >Obviously, hearsay is alive and well in the US, just like everywhere els=
e.
> >All I surmise about HeyBub's truly American opinion of our medical syste=
m is
> >that we essentially have a socialistic based health system. Thus, the
> >ingrained hate.
>
> My Dad had some first hand experience with the Ontario Canada health
> system over the last 3 months.
> He ended up in hospital, a millimeter from death's door, after a minor
> mis-step and a spinal compression fracture. The doctors pulled him
> back from the threshold, and over 6 weeks finally came up with the
> diagnosis - myeloma . The back pain was excrutiating, but within a
> week of diagnosis he had a kyphoplasty which greatly reduced the pain.
> They had him on Chemo a couple days after the diagnosis, and when his
> kidneys shut down they had him on dialasis within 2 days. Two days
> after the kyphoplasty he was home - after 8 weeks in the hospital
> A minor setback had him back in the hospital for a week after 7 days
> home . Back home, his kidneys back to normal again and off dialasis,
> and he's been home almost 3 weeks now.
>
> In the USA, would he still have his home??
> In Canada, he can still afford to live in the modest home he still
> owns. Could the diagnosis have come faster? Perhaps. Could
> communication have been better between different medical staff?
> Likely. Would any of this been better under the American system????
> It's anybody's guess. - =A0And how much would it have cost????
> 9 weeks in 2 different hospitals - cancer specialists, kidney
> specialists, diagnosticians, intensive care, and all????
>
> He's still with us - the system worked - and he's still financially
> viable.
Two doctors, on the golf course:
"Say, do you know Barry Knowles?"
Doc #2: Yup, sure do... did he come and see you?"
Doc #1: He sure did... he was in dire need of treatment..."
Doc #2:"What did he have?"
Doc #1: "$16,000.00"
On May 4, 8:16=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:50:08 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "Natiional Health Service"?
>
> >> Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians
>
> >> -----------
>
> >> "HeyBub" =A0wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >> Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
> >> won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
> >> Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
> >> (NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader =A0lost his seat. The
> >> Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!
>
> > No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
> > dust
>
> Right. They ended the election with four seats (down from 47).
>
> Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
> Conservatives: 167
> NDP: 102
> Liberals: 34
> Quebec: 4
> Green: 1
Brilliant conclusion. They pay you for this?
On Apr 3, 4:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I think the best thing that could happen this election is to give
> Harper's conservatives a 4 year mandate to finish what they have
> started,
You mean 'Mulroney' us again?
Best we can hope for is a minority with the PC in opposition. We HAVE
to cut down that Harper dictator to size. The guy is dangerous.
On May 3, 8:51=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 12:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>
> >> What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
> >> to a conservative ideology.
> >> This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody
> >> ButHarper.
>
> > For Canada's sake do NOT allow that power-hungry dictator have a
> > majority.
> > And this is coming from a guy who has voted conservative for almost
> > all of his voting life.
> > THIS clown is in the NeoCon/Bilderberger fold.
> > This clown is promising us 65 x =A0F35 jets at $ 75 mil apiece. Our
> > American friends budget for the same jet $ 130.million. Ohhhh.. I get
> > it... Harper is quoting us the price without service contract or
> > ENGINES!!!!
>
> > Our second choice is unfortunately not a whole lot better, but at
> > least he'll use a condom.
>
> Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives won =
167
> seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal Party fell t=
o
> 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history (NDP socialists ca=
me
> in second). Even the leader =A0lost his seat. The Quebec separatist party=
lost
> ALL its seats in Quebec!
>
> Anyway, Good Show, Canada.
>
> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with =
the
> national health service not far behind.
I'm all for the registry being scrapped, but many of Harpers own MP's
won't scrap the Health Act.
Think about it. Would it be smart to allow Canadians guns and THEN
take away their Health programs?
On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Apr 3, 12:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>>
>> What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
>> to a conservative ideology.
>> This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody ButHarper.
>>
>
>For Canada's sake do NOT allow that power-hungry dictator have a
>majority.
>And this is coming from a guy who has voted conservative for almost
>all of his voting life.
>THIS clown is in the NeoCon/Bilderberger fold.
>This clown is promising us 65 x F35 jets at $ 75 mil apiece. Our
>American friends budget for the same jet $ 130.million. Ohhhh.. I get
>it... Harper is quoting us the price without service contract or
>ENGINES!!!!
>
>Our second choice is unfortunately not a whole lot better, but at
>least he'll use a condom.
>
>
You sound like a very angry old man! What is your problem, can't get
it up anymore?
On May 4, 9:14=A0pm, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I know you hate Harper but I see you hate everyone.
Listen you stupid little gnat....read this carefully because this is
all you're going to get...
You are a fucking idiot.
On Mon, 2 May 2011 06:49:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 2, 9:39 am, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2011 01:29:44 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> You sound like a very angry old man! What is your problem, can't get
>> >> it up anymore?
>>
>> >And you sound like a Harper brown nosing ass kisser. If you had half a brain
>> >you'd realize he's a closet meglomaniac just itching for complete power.
>> >Guess that means I can't get it up, eh? Harper doesn't have that problem.
>> >He'd screw the Country on a moment's notice.
>>
>> I rest my case, you have anger problems!
>
>And you have far greater problems.
Come on, you can do better than that, where are the irrational
insults? I'm thinking about your best interests when I suggest you get
your blood pressure checked!
Projecting that one. You are the OP.
I can't afford health with the Harper Sales Tax robbing me of more money
than ever.
After the election you can bet the Fed taxes (maybe more than one) go up,
no matter which liar gets in.
---------------------------
"Jesse" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
It appears to me that there are a lot of angry old men around. Please
try to get healthy
On Mon, 2 May 2011 12:07:39 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The irrational insults are reserved for the Harper party. You know the one
>with no platform.
>
>-------------
>
>"Jesse" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>Come on, you can do better than that, where are the irrational
>insults? I'm thinking about your best interests when I suggest you get
>your blood pressure checked!
.
On Apr 4, 1:25=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Apr 4, 11:53=A0am, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >> says...
>
> >> > "FrozenNorth" =A0wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
> >> > Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**k=
ed
> >> > up yet.
>
> >> Harper's shenanigans are the reason I've come to respect the wisdom th=
e
> >> USA's founding fathers showed for forming their government in such a w=
ay
> >> as to prevent a tyrant from rising to the kind of power Harper in a
> >> majority would have.
>
> >> His actions are also the reason I've spent the better part of the past=
8
> >> months reading and working to get a handle on Harper's realpolitik. I
> >> care about what he does, not what he says.
>
> >> I don't like Ignatieff much but put up against Harper, Ignatieff looks
> >> like the heart and soul of democracy; for that matter so do Layton and
> >> May.
>
> >Harper, aka Bush Lite, is a power hungry control freak. He's in the
> >pocket of defense contractors and big business. He truly doesn't give
> >a fiddler's fig about the canadian people. He has to please his
> >masters, and that doesn't include the people of Canada.
>
> >Ignitionthief is a slippery fella. It would be bad for him to have a
> >majority as well and that whole Layton/socialist thing is too screwed
> >up to work. Rae tried it and failed on a Provincial level. If I work
> >my ass off, I should be able to keep most of my money and not
> >subsidize refuges with a financial hand-out which amounts to twice as
> >much as a Canadian pensioner who helped build this country. You want
> >to come hide in our country? Be prepared to spend the rest of your
> >days building roads and planting trees instead of living in a nice
> >apartment while your scumbag lawyer stalls the immigration process for
> >5 fu*cking years.
>
> >Somebody kick that soapbox out from under me...
>
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >A country as diverse as Canada can only be governed from the middle.
> >It is as simple as that.
> >I like the 3 party system where the balance of power is keeping the
> >government honest.
>
> >Having said that, what is really wrong, is that we don't have
> >proportional representation... and that we don't have term limits on a
> >senatorial level or on a federal leadership level. Also, senators
> >should be elected, not handed a life-long meal ticket just because
> >they blew the right dick. The Canadian senate is a frickin golf
> >club.....but I digress...
>
> Proportional representation, something like a 12 year limit for
> leadership,(3 elections, and win or lose you step down for a minimum 4
> year term) and an elected senate would be a good start.
>
> Some rules and enforcement making sure a senator does his job if he
> wants to get paid would also be a big step in the right direction
> (shows up a minimum number of days, at the very least)
I agree on prop rep: endless minority & coalition governments. Has
worked well in most countries, not so well in some others.
Some one explain why we need a senate? Do fish need a bicycle? Our
current one was supposed to imitate the UK's House of Lords and
protect moneyed interests from the rabble.
"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You sound like a very angry old man! What is your problem, can't get
> it up anymore?
And you sound like a Harper brown nosing ass kisser. If you had half a brain
you'd realize he's a closet meglomaniac just itching for complete power.
Guess that means I can't get it up, eh? Harper doesn't have that problem.
He'd screw the Country on a moment's notice.
Apologies
"Josepi wannabe troll" attempted more stupidity in message
news:[email protected]...
botel emptu it has to be sadi
NICE BAETING TO THE PINTATA MORONS
--------------
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**ked
up yet.
LOL. Not the same description and the backpaddle only made the hole deeper.
A monetary support system is not "medicine".
I was partially incorrect in my statement. Our federal government does
subsidize the provincial health care schemes.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts-faits/fshc7-eng.asp
This would imply there is a "national healthcare policy" or "support", but
I won't admit to a "service" or "plan".. LOL
Have a good one!
--------------------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Note my description was not capitalized, meaning my phrase was not meant to
be a "name," but a description. I could just as easily said "Canadian
socialized medicine" with no loss of clarity.
-----------------------
Josepi wrote:
"Natiional Health Service"?
Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians
Just say "No!" to politics!
--------------
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**ked
up yet.
botel emptu it has to be sadi
NICE BAETING TO THE PINTATA MORONS
--------------
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**ked
up yet.
Yes, My wife had a filling done in Europe half a century ago and the
dentists in Canada are still amazed at the technique. Funny enough the under
packing method used in European was popular in N.America and abandoned years
ago.
---------------------------
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Thanks to the ministrations of my childhood dentist, I needed quite a bit
of dental work as an undergraduate in Utrecht, Holland. The dental
school offered really cheap treatments (only the cost of gold was
charged, at the time somethign like $30/oz), but it cost me a year of
once weekly treatments to get fixed up. There were 2 root canal
treatments I remember well. For some reason, the students couldn't use
anaesthetic at the last stage of cleaning out the root, and had to remove
the last bits of nerve without anasthetic. At least most of the stuff my
budding dentist did in the midle 60's are still in my mouth, to the great
amazement of US dentists.
Josepi wrote:
> "Natiional Health Service"?
>
> Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians
>
Note my description was not capitalized, meaning my phrase was not meant to
be a "name," but a description. I could just as easily said "Canadian
socialized medicine" with no loss of clarity.
> -----------
>
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
> won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
> Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
> (NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The
> Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!
>
> Anyway, Good Show, Canada.
>
> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
> with the national health service not far behind.
DGDevin wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
>> Conservatives: 167
>> NDP: 102
>> Liberals: 34
>> Quebec: 4
>> Green: 1
>
> It has effectively been a two-party setup for most of its history,
> although lately the two parties that traditionally took turns forming
> the govt. have instead taken turns getting stomped in elections,
> sometimes giving the traditional comedy party--the NDP--the balance
> of power in parliament--it's amazing they're now the opposition. But
> it doesn't really matter, ask most Canadians from outside Ontario and
> Quebec and they'll tell you that the whole system is set up to
> benefit those two provinces with all the others coming in a distant
> second. So whoever is in power, their first priority will always be
> taking care of Ontario and Quebec. Imagine if New York State and
> California between them had 2/3 the national population and what that
> would mean for the rest of the country--that's the way it works in
> Canada.
Thanks for the observation. Frankly, I seldom followed Canadian politics so
I wasn't as aware of the to-ing and fro-ing you outlined.
>
> As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months to
> get one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally got to
> the head of the line. So it's a different set of problems from the
> also broken American system, they both need serious adjustments.
I suggest the American system isn't "broken." Everybody fits in somewhere.
At the top is "concierge" medicine - those who get top-notch and immediate
care. There are several categories below that, from Blue Cross, down through
Medicare, all the way to "Canada-lite" (Medicaid)".
On Tue, 10 May 2011 13:14:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>> >>>>> run it, right?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>> >>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>> >>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>> >>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>> >>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>> >>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>> >>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>> >>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>> >>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>> >>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>> >>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>> >>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>> >>>> might be done about that?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>>> >>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>>> >>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>>> >>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>>> >>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>>> >>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>>> >> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>>> >> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>>> >> buerocracy involved.
>>> >
>>> >And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
>>> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
>>> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
>>> al least only one level of incompetence.
>>
>>The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
>>running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
>>instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
> Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
>involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
>someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
>Pinko in every corner.
And how would a Canuck know that? Nah, we figure that if the gov't
were downsized, the same money they take now would fund social
security and full public healthcare without any more taxes.
I wonder why we aren't funneling all that campaign money into SS now,
either...
LJ, who strongly feels that any random set of people (including the
homeless or insane) taken off the street could do a better job in D.C.
than our elected CONgresscritters are doing right now.
--
Woe be to him that reads but one book.
-- George Herbert
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Oh it's broken alright. The cost of health care insurance has been
>> doubling every decade, employers are dropping or cutting back
>> coverage or in some cases moving production overseas to escape health
>> coverage costs.
> Straw man. Health "insurance" is not the same thing as "health care."
What an astonishing statement. Seriously, to suggest that health insurance
is not epoxied, riveted, bolted and welded to every aspect of health care in
America is to make a statement so unbelievable as to be worthy of a member
of Congress.
> When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
> treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.
But of course, if you have unlimited finances you can get the best health
care in the world in America. Alas, most Americans don't have unlimited
finances, they have to hope their insurance company (if they have one) will
approve the high-tech scan their doctor wants to do or whatever other
procedure they need. If they don't have insurance--as one in six Americans
do not--then it gets a bit trickier. Of course there are those with the
attitude that since they have good coverage and thus access to good care
then it's tough shit for anyone and everyone else, there are always people
like that.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with
> the national health service not far behind.
Long gun registry? Very likely. National health service? Not a gnat's chance
in hell. Canadians, the middle class on down (the vast bulk of the
electorate) love their universal health service despite the occasional
grumbling. The conservatives are riding pretty high right now. Any serious
meddling with the health service would doom the Torys to relative obscurity
the next time a general election comes around. Harper may have just been
confirmed as head tyrant, but even he's not egotistical enough to attempt
any serious health changes.
On Thu, 5 May 2011 22:31:36 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 6, 12:10Â am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If we want to pay for medical service, we can
>> easily go to the US. Maybe not as convenient as going to someone locally,
>> but the option is there.
>
>In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
>Then we have 50+ Detroit hospitals, some world renowned like the Henry
>Ford and St. John.
>Those are 45 minutes from here... a bit of a drive with a rogue
>Festool jammed under your collar-bone.
WHAT? You mean to tell me that Festools don't even do their own
triage and surgery on you after hurting you?
--
I dislike arguments of any kind. They
are always vulgar and often convincing.
-- Oscar Wilde
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
> That is complete bullshit. Advice: get accurate reports...recent ones,
> not those your mailboy throws at you in your cave.
Obviously, hearsay is alive and well in the US, just like everywhere else.
All I surmise about HeyBub's truly American opinion of our medical system is
that we essentially have a socialistic based health system. Thus, the
ingrained hate.
Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
>>> dust
>>
>> Right. They ended the election with four seats (down from 47).
>>
>> Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
>> Conservatives: 167
>> NDP: 102
>> Liberals: 34
>> Quebec: 4
>> Green: 1
>
> Brilliant conclusion. They pay you for this?
No, but for some maths is hard. I, fortunately, have extensive training and
experience in the field and consider it part of the white man's burden to
simplify things for the benighted.
That you consider my conclusion "brilliant," is what I call "positive
reinforcement."
Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
>> with the national health service not far behind.
>
> Long gun registry? Very likely. National health service? Not a gnat's
> chance in hell. Canadians, the middle class on down (the vast bulk of
> the electorate) love their universal health service despite the
> occasional grumbling. The conservatives are riding pretty high right
> now. Any serious meddling with the health service would doom the
> Torys to relative obscurity the next time a general election comes
> around. Harper may have just been confirmed as head tyrant, but even
> he's not egotistical enough to attempt any serious health changes.
Oh, I was exaggerating. Still, one never knows.
A couple of years ago, I blew out my knee. My internist got me an
appointment with an orthopedist the next morning and that afternoon I had an
MRI scan (the MRI machine was in the doctor's office - 'course he shared it
with several other doctors in the same practice...).
Turned out to be a bad sprain, not a torn ligament.
In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
Aside: Ran into a fascinating statistic. Do you know what branch of health
care that has gotten MUCH cheaper in the past decade?
That's right: Cosmetic Surgery.
It's gotten cheaper, so the theory goes, because patients have to pay for it
out of their own pocket!
Patients shop around for the best value and the professionals who deliver
these services compete in price and performance. Just five years ago, Lasik
surgery cost $1,000/eye. Now it's $300.
In article <68f933ca-8107-4d41-b272-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>
> What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
> to a conservative ideology.
> This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody But
> Harper.
>
> Unfortnutaley we got some winners to choose from...*hurls lunch*
>
> Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
>
> "Hello Toronto, you're on the air!"
>
Rob,
Could you tell me exactly where you heard that?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "FrozenNorth" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**ked
> up yet.
Harper's shenanigans are the reason I've come to respect the wisdom the
USA's founding fathers showed for forming their government in such a way
as to prevent a tyrant from rising to the kind of power Harper in a
majority would have.
His actions are also the reason I've spent the better part of the past 8
months reading and working to get a handle on Harper's realpolitik. I
care about what he does, not what he says.
I don't like Ignatieff much but put up against Harper, Ignatieff looks
like the heart and soul of democracy; for that matter so do Layton and
May.
In article <31962cf6-4939-45f8-92de-
[email protected]>, [email protected]=20
says...
> On Apr 4, 8:19=A0am, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <68f933ca-8107-4d41-b272-
> > [email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >
> > > Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
> >
> > > What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
> > > to a conservative ideology.
> > > This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody Bu=
t
> > > Harper.
> >
> > > =A0Unfortnutaley we got some winners to choose from...*hurls lunch*
> >
> > > Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
> >
> > > "Hello Toronto, you're on the air!"
> >
> > Rob,
> >
> > Could you tell me exactly where you heard that?
>=20
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3WfBaFrRF9w
Thank you.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:43:46 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >With a majority government there is no opposition party, only hecklers.
> >
> >The next 4-5 years should be interesting. Are we getting price and wage
> >control again?
> >
> >-----------------------
> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >Universal health care is safe with the conservatives.
> >With Layton as the opposition leader I think you will see a
> >"different" Harper, and a different parliament - Iggy and Gilles are
> >no longer there, and they (and their cronies) were real "shit
> >disturbers"
>
> Say, top poster, I thought you were going to take a pill and get over
> your anger!
Say you start by reading Harperland.
Then read the key list from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:
_A_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot
I'd suggest you read the whole book, but the list is good enough to get
the picture.
Just so you don't go away stupid, every item on the list has been
illustrated in spades by Harper's government or by his supporters. The
public record already shows it. The thug culture was evident on the
streets during the election. The autodialler message that was used to
try to drive turnout lower was very clever and attacked the system at a
weak, untraceable point. Now we need him out, not only to see the real
books but to see if the system was subverted at any other point.
I could point your way to over 30 books that should at least give you a
distinct sense of unease and maybe guilt even if they didn't entirely
change your mind. I won't address Harper's dominionist ties and
inclinations beyond mentioning them.
So now we have to do our best to demolish the neo-con MLA's support of
Harper's plans, start a holding action and be ready to go to election at
a moment's notice because he has control. ...and He's in campaign mode
again.
Harper does like his numbers. And since I don't expect you to take my
earlier suggestions of doing the research, let me point out that any
party that requires its members to get a permission slip from the
principal to speak publicly, participates in communal response
rehearsals, must memorize party responses to questions and otherwise
engage in cultish sock-puppet behaviour shouldn't even have a sniff at
power let alone a seat in power.
And any party that pulls all their candidates out of the public eye
before the end of the election needs much closer scrutiny than they're
getting. It could be as simple as the permission process breaking down
or as nefarious (as a friend of mine suggested) that the fix was in and
voting tabulation system was hacked so they no longer needed to
campaign.
And let me throw a thought into the deal before I go back to my day.
Harper appointed the board of CBC and the quality of CBC's reporting,
interviews and pundits has been shifted radically to the right.-- Just
before the election, there was a heavy-handed update of the CBC website
and a statement of editorial policy changes that has driven off a lot of
the best, most knowledgeable commentators in the middle and on the left.
The site also took on the Harperite colours which not only colour
coordinated it *with the rest of Canada's websites* but harmonized most
fetchingly with the Harperite election signs.
And every time I've posted this intuition to CBC, it's been censored
before or after the fact. In fact, censorship is the constant companion
of every dissident voice.
You start to get a sense of information shaping going on. -- For
instance, they let people blatt on but for the duration of the early
election, using the word fascist caused a post to be censored. Using the
synonym corporatist for fascist for awhile caused posts to the CBC site
to be randomly censored. -- The one way around it was to use link to
information off-site probably because they couldn't check them all.
So to get back to the site itself, it was clearly a rush job for the
campaign and consolidation of empire that was called an update. Our
money going yet again to fund Harper's endless campaign. Worse however
is the coopting of the reach of CBC to one man's political ends. An
agency funded by the government, under the government's jurisdiction and
with an incredible reach into Canadian lives.
It does give one pause.
You can call me angry until the cows come home. I don't care. I've gone
beyond angry, done a cometary bypass of outraged, a flyby of incendiary
and moved on to resolute. This is my Canada and an insult to turds is
governing it.
Canada was ripe for this pimple. Complacency makes people ripe for this
kind of crap. Shock and denial limit our response time.
Now we have to try to pop the zit the hard way.
I'll close with noting that the USA's founding attempt to create a
government where a tyrant can't arise was a foresighted, brave and
commendable effort. -- I didn't appreciate it properly until I started
doing research on Harper.
We need something like that kind of foresight and insight in Canada to
build a better electoral/governmental system when we shake off Harper
and start putting Canada to rights.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >I can see a nice tin hat in your future. Soon?
>
> You got me, that is a nice comeback!
Started talking to yerself thar b'ye.
You can see me advocating for rapidly expanding organized action among
the sixty point something % of people who voted against Harper.
Harper may be the worst thing to happen to Canada short of invasion.
Getting rid of him can become the best of unifying experiences.
...and the firewall around Alberta will come a tumblin' down.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
+
> When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
> treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.
>
> 'Course he died right away, but that's beside the point...
'Course he was criminally rich.
Robatoy wrote:
> On May 4, 8:08 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
>>>> with the national health service not far behind.
>>
>>> Long gun registry? Very likely. National health service? Not a
>>> gnat's chance in hell. Canadians, the middle class on down (the
>>> vast bulk of the electorate) love their universal health service
>>> despite the occasional grumbling. The conservatives are riding
>>> pretty high right now. Any serious meddling with the health service
>>> would doom the Torys to relative obscurity the next time a general
>>> election comes around. Harper may have just been confirmed as head
>>> tyrant, but even he's not egotistical enough to attempt any serious
>>> health changes.
>>
>> Oh, I was exaggerating. Still, one never knows.
>>
>> A couple of years ago, I blew out my knee. My internist got me an
>> appointment with an orthopedist the next morning and that afternoon
>> I had an MRI scan (the MRI machine was in the doctor's office -
>> 'course he shared it with several other doctors in the same
>> practice...).
>>
>> Turned out to be a bad sprain, not a torn ligament.
>>
>> In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
>>
> That is complete bullshit. Advice: get accurate reports...recent ones,
> not those your mailboy throws at you in your cave.
If you have figures to dispute my claim of indolence, sloth, and
inefficiency on the part of the health system in Canada, I'd be happy to see
them and, if appropriate, correct by impression. In the meantime, I relied
on the following:
"Excessive wait times for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are a
major problem in the Canadian healthcare system."
http://www.longwoods.com/content/20537
"The waiting time will vary from province to province ... I can tell you
that the average wait list in British Columbia varies from 8-18 months,
depending on your location within the province."
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100129203339AA4HjrJ
"A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on
self-reported wait times for diagnostic services. The median wait time for
diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5%
waiting less than 3 months." (This implies that 10% of the patients had to
wait MORE than three months.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Wait_times
Wait times ARE getting better in Canada. Earlier reports (from 2001) show
wait times from 7 to 9 months.
http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.php
Your turn.
On Fri, 6 May 2011 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 6, 2:03Â am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
>>
>> You shouldn't be telling me stuff like that. The next time I want to buy
>> something from the US and the dealer won't ship to Canada, I'm going to
>> draft you into driving over the border to buy it and then mail it to me on
>> the Canadian side.
>
>Wellllllllll then, this oughtta make you sit up and take notice...LOL
>
>http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/HarborFright.png
>
>TEN minutes max.. on a Sunday morning, maybe EIGHT minutes.
Cool. I used to be fifteen minutes from the Escondido, CA store. Now
I'm 25 minutes from the Medford, OR store.
Holy Snowcones, Batman! I just realized your implication, that
Michigan is in the same latitude as Canada's Sarnia Banana Belt.
Well, don't that just melt your mittens, Momma?
--
I dislike arguments of any kind. They
are always vulgar and often convincing.
-- Oscar Wilde
On May 6, 9:57=A0pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 6, 2:03=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
>
> >> You shouldn't be telling me stuff like that. The next time I want to b=
uy
> >> something from the US and the dealer won't ship to Canada, I'm going t=
o
> >> draft you into driving over the border to buy it and then mail it to m=
e on
> >> the Canadian side.
>
> >Wellllllllll then, this oughtta make you sit up and take notice...LOL
>
> >http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/HarborFright.png
>
> >TEN minutes max.. on a Sunday morning, maybe EIGHT minutes.
>
> Can you really get across the international bridge that fast? =A0I'm
> about 5 minutes from the Peace Bridge between Buffalo, NY and Ft.
> Erie, ON but the wait to get through the border crossing can take well
> over an hour on busy days.
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
It CAN get busy, but you learn to time it. Besides, Nexus speeds
things up a lot.
Then there is the Bluewater Bridge website:
http://www.bwba.org/traffic_e.html
On Fri, 6 May 2011 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 6, 2:03 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
>>
>> You shouldn't be telling me stuff like that. The next time I want to buy
>> something from the US and the dealer won't ship to Canada, I'm going to
>> draft you into driving over the border to buy it and then mail it to me on
>> the Canadian side.
>
>Wellllllllll then, this oughtta make you sit up and take notice...LOL
>
>http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/HarborFright.png
>
>TEN minutes max.. on a Sunday morning, maybe EIGHT minutes.
Can you really get across the international bridge that fast? I'm
about 5 minutes from the Peace Bridge between Buffalo, NY and Ft.
Erie, ON but the wait to get through the border crossing can take well
over an hour on busy days.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
"Natiional Health Service"?
Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians
-----------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives won 167
seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal Party fell to
3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history (NDP socialists came
in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The Quebec separatist party lost
ALL its seats in Quebec!
Anyway, Good Show, Canada.
I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with the
national health service not far behind.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
> running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
> instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
Before the Republicans and their sponsors in the health care industry fired
up their propaganda machine, public opinion in favor of the "public option"
was as high as 70%. And then came the flood of fabricated nonsense about
"death panels" and so on, and the significant percentage of the public that
rarely reads past the headlines (if that) allowed themselves to be
stampeded, again.
It's interesting to see where the funding for anti-reform advertising and
agitation came from--guess what, the heads of big health care companies were
enthusiast contributors to that noise campaign. Why it almost looks like
they were protecting their profits, doesn't it.
The health care reform legislation passed recently is badly flawed, but on
the other hand the Republican version back in 2005 consisted of unfunded
prescription drug legislation that added billions to the national debt and
also prohibited Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices with the
pharmaceutical companies the way the VA does. So leaving health care reform
up to the Republicans is kind of like giving used car salesmen control over
consumer protection legislation--it will be good for somebody, just not for
the public.
On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>>>> run it, right?
>>>>
>>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>>>
>>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>>>
>>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>>> might be done about that?
>>>
>>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>> buerocracy involved.
>
>And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
al least only one level of incompetence.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>www.newegg.ca
>www.newegg.com
>
>It will arrive the day after you order it.almost guaranteed.
>
Until sites like newegg.com appeared, *and* Pin1 was made
idiot proof. Spatial two thumbed savants as yourself
had no hope of doing more than drooling over the
view of a PC in a shop window, or in your case, wanking
over the advertising spewing from the TV.
You even missed @Home and AOL!
It wasn't until dWeebTV hit Walmart that you were
"empowered and online".. and didn't you just set
about letting the online communities know!
10 years later, a raft of ISP's from Sympatico through
Golden.net, and now Rogers.com, you are the proverbial
fart bubble around the lunatic forums and the home hobby
wannabees.
One post you have made to a Windows support group.
You couldn't understand the answer and ran for the hills!!
I will bet the Wallly tech took your money and laughed.
As usual.. ALL your comments on the topic are just
made up shit.
Anytime you want to distribute your vast windows
and MSDOS knowledge just do it.
In a group where you cannot spew the shit and be let
go as mentally unstable.
Reply to my post to get there.
george
On Sat, 14 May 2011 19:13:20 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/14/2011 12:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:45:15 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2011 7:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>>> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
>>>
>>> The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
>>> competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
>>> competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as one
>>> of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer with
>>> being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating system,
>>> or whistling Dixie.
>>
>> Not completely true. As a manufacturer we COULD sell competing OS, but
>> DOS had to go with the machine.
>
>Who said DOS had to go with the machine? God? Big Brother?
It was part of our OEM agreement with Microsoft. We got the "right" to
supply OEM software with the computers we produced and sold, but on
the condition that the DOS licence went with EVERY computer we sold of
that line. We paid a" per machine produced" licence to Microsoft. The
price per machine was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the normal "retail
package" licence, which was also available to us at
wholesale/distributor pricing.
OEM software is licenced to the MACHINE, while retail licenced
software is/was licenced to the OWNER.
>
>We sold a LOT of computers into the
>> SCO Unix and Xenix world, as well as the old business basic and
>> another pre-dos OS that I can't remember the name of, worlds. They
>> had to have DOS in the box, but that was small potatos compared to the
>> cost of, say, windows 7 professional, today.
>
>Small potatoes my ass, it's the very reason most of the world is stuck
>with the worlds worst OS.
Small potatoes was in the neighbourhood of $7 to $10 at cost, if I
remember correctly, in the days of DOS 4.0 / Windows3, 3.1, 3.3, and
4.0
Retail was closer to $60 if I remeber correctly (it's been a few
years, obviously)
>
>>>>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>>>>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>>>>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
>>>> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this week
>>>> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
>>>> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
>>>> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>>
>> Because applications work with it - the overwhelming majority of all
>> available software on the world market today, from ANY supplier, will
>> run on Windows.
>
>Well, when OS/2 was the only working version of Windows, everything
>worked with OS/2, including DOS and Windows.
OS/2 was NEVER the only working version of Windows - and in fact was
NOT WINDOWS. OS/2 was championed by IBM - and suffered some of the
same issues as the IBM produced version of Windows (was it 3.1????)
>You couldn't buy it easily
>however, because MS would raise holly hell with any large retailer that
>carried it, or installed it.
Microsoft PRODUCED OS/2 in the first place, then passed it on to IBM.
The biggest reason OS/2 failed was because IBM refused to
supply/include drivers for such "esoteric" devices as non-ibm
printers.OS/2 was used bu IBM to drive sales of it's harware. It died
a very slow and painful death like may proprietary OS before it (like
CPM and GEM, for instance), but took a much longer time to die.
That OS/2 survived to 2006 in IBM Guise and continues on as Serenity
Systems' eComStation V 4.5 says something for it's design.
> IBM was not particularly interested in
>selling it either, imnsho because rather than get busted again for
>running a monopoly, they wanted MS to run to OS end of the business.
>This became clear when after several years of non OS/2 marketing by IBM,
>they pulled the plug exactly when OS/2 was reaching critical mass of 1
>million copies a month, despite all efforts to stifle the market.
>
>>> I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never bought a
>>> PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise Microsoft I
>>> "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS because there is
>>> little choice unless you want to swim upstream all day long. I have
>>> been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with UNIX than 99.999% of
>>> computer users, and I am smart enough not to swim up stream, there is no
>>> chance that the other 99.999% of PC users could figure out how to use
>>> something like Unix. My wife gets pissed when Firefox upgrades itself
>>> because something changed. Microsoft took advantage of this by
>>> illegally and immorally forcing its system on unknowing consumers.
>
>> Forcing? You can always "swim upstream"
>
>When IBM decided to stop selling OS/2 (They never really actively
>marketed the product) and Microsoft deliberately made WIN98 incompatible
>with OS/2 for no reason other than to kill OS/2 (Certainly with IBM's
>blessing) I was given no choice but to use the worlds worst OS.
Win 98 deviated from the old windows and OS/2 design for very good
reasons - that IBM did not fix OS/2 says more about IBM than it does
about Microsoft.
Microsoft separated their NT development from the old OS/2 (IBM and
Microsoft started out working together on the NT package under the
OS/2 banner back as early as 1988) and NT leaprogged ahead of OS/2 in
virtually all of the areas that mattered.
> Most
>users never had any choice because it was next to impossible to by a PC
>with any other OS installed on it. My wife had trouble turning the
>computer on, let alone removing the operating system, and installing
>another one. Most people are in my wife's category of PC users, and far
>to computer illiterate to realize they have been HAD. Instead they
>think they are too fucking dumb to make a computer work consistently, or
>think they got another non-existent virus.
>
>> Any computer customer in the "free world" can buy all the components
>> required to build a computer, and assemble it, following relatively
>> complete and simple instructions, in half an hour or less.
>
>And I can buy all the components to put a spaceship on the moon. Most
>people I know have trouble immediately after locating the on switch, and
>generally buy a new computer after their lame ass MS registry gets so
>fucked up nothing works right, and other than rebooting every five
>minutes, they give up and buy another computer.
>
>He can run whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
>> interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
>> "intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
>
>Stupid enough why? Because 99% of all the software he can buy at Best
>Buy only runs on the latest garbage release of the worlds worst OS?
NO, dummy. That has nothing to do with "intel free" computers. You
OBVIOUSLY have a burr up your butt about Microsoft, which blinds you
to all other issues.
"intel free" generally means AMD today, although in the not so distant
past it also included Power PC and other Motorola processors - which
even Apple has abandoned in favour of Intel.
>
>> There are small computer shops in every reasonably small town that
>> will assemble the computer for you for a relatively small cost - and a
>> dozen or more "geeks" in every populated area of any consequence that
>> will do the same.
>
>Meaningless gibberish. The only real competing product with MS was OS/2
>because it ran all the software DOS ran, including Windows, and ran it
>better, far, far better.
But the protected mode was broken, and IBM never fixed it, to my
knowlege. You could crash an entire OS/2 machine with a "protected
mode" dos app.
NT fixed that, with VM technology that has left OS/2 in the dust in
many, although not all, ways.
> It was windows that worked. MS and IBM made
>sure you couldn't easily buy it, and when millions of people began
>finding ways of obtaining it, and using it in spite of IBM and MS
>efforts to sit on it, they (IBM and MS) deliberately killed it. Had MS
>not practiced anti-competitive and illegal marketing practices, who
>knows what wonders the PC world could have moved into. For certain,
>OS/2 was at least 20 years ahead of windows, and so far, windows still
>had not caught up to what OS/2 was in 1994.
All it takes is someone with the balls of Steve Jobs to do what IBM
was unable/unwilling to do and produce a machine and OS (it COULD be
an updated version od OS/2) that would runall DOS, Windows/ OS/2, and
Apple programs on the same machine.
(By the way, Windows Server 2008 R2 already pretty well allows you to
do that with Hyper-V)
The there was the real and original OS-9 that ran circles around Windows and
Linux in so many aspects then , if it were still alive.
I ran several machine using it but had to write some drivers for FDD and
HDD. It would also run on a 4K bytes machine as a controller environment.
It was further developed for the 68000 processors as OS-9000 or OS-9/68000.
Very powerful and adaptable O/S
I always thought the MAC O/S was a further developed product but apparently
not so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS-9
----------------------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
OS/2 was NEVER the only working version of Windows - and in fact was
NOT WINDOWS. OS/2 was championed by IBM - and suffered some of the
same issues as the IBM produced version of Windows (was it 3.1????)
>You couldn't buy it easily
>however, because MS would raise holly hell with any large retailer that
>carried it, or installed it.
Microsoft PRODUCED OS/2 in the first place, then passed it on to IBM.
The biggest reason OS/2 failed was because IBM refused to
supply/include drivers for such "esoteric" devices as non-ibm
printers.OS/2 was used bu IBM to drive sales of it's harware. It died
a very slow and painful death like may proprietary OS before it (like
CPM and GEM, for instance), but took a much longer time to die.
That OS/2 survived to 2006 in IBM Guise and continues on as Serenity
Systems' eComStation V 4.5 says something for it's design.
> IBM was not particularly interested in
>selling it either, imnsho because rather than get busted again for
>running a monopoly, they wanted MS to run to OS end of the business.
>This became clear when after several years of non OS/2 marketing by IBM,
>they pulled the plug exactly when OS/2 was reaching critical mass of 1
>million copies a month, despite all efforts to stifle the market.
>
>>> I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never bought a
>>> PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise Microsoft I
>>> "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS because there is
>>> little choice unless you want to swim upstream all day long. I have
>>> been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with UNIX than 99.999% of
>>> computer users, and I am smart enough not to swim up stream, there is no
>>> chance that the other 99.999% of PC users could figure out how to use
>>> something like Unix. My wife gets pissed when Firefox upgrades itself
>>> because something changed. Microsoft took advantage of this by
>>> illegally and immorally forcing its system on unknowing consumers.
>
>> Forcing? You can always "swim upstream"
>
>When IBM decided to stop selling OS/2 (They never really actively
>marketed the product) and Microsoft deliberately made WIN98 incompatible
>with OS/2 for no reason other than to kill OS/2 (Certainly with IBM's
>blessing) I was given no choice but to use the worlds worst OS.
Win 98 deviated from the old windows and OS/2 design for very good
reasons - that IBM did not fix OS/2 says more about IBM than it does
about Microsoft.
Microsoft separated their NT development from the old OS/2 (IBM and
Microsoft started out working together on the NT package under the
OS/2 banner back as early as 1988) and NT leaprogged ahead of OS/2 in
virtually all of the areas that mattered.
> Most
>users never had any choice because it was next to impossible to by a PC
>with any other OS installed on it. My wife had trouble turning the
>computer on, let alone removing the operating system, and installing
>another one. Most people are in my wife's category of PC users, and far
>to computer illiterate to realize they have been HAD. Instead they
>think they are too fucking dumb to make a computer work consistently, or
>think they got another non-existent virus.
>
>> Any computer customer in the "free world" can buy all the components
>> required to build a computer, and assemble it, following relatively
>> complete and simple instructions, in half an hour or less.
>
>And I can buy all the components to put a spaceship on the moon. Most
>people I know have trouble immediately after locating the on switch, and
>generally buy a new computer after their lame ass MS registry gets so
>fucked up nothing works right, and other than rebooting every five
>minutes, they give up and buy another computer.
>
>He can run whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with
>no
>> interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
>> "intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
>
>Stupid enough why? Because 99% of all the software he can buy at Best
>Buy only runs on the latest garbage release of the worlds worst OS?
NO, dummy. That has nothing to do with "intel free" computers. You
OBVIOUSLY have a burr up your butt about Microsoft, which blinds you
to all other issues.
"intel free" generally means AMD today, although in the not so distant
past it also included Power PC and other Motorola processors - which
even Apple has abandoned in favour of Intel.
>
>> There are small computer shops in every reasonably small town that
>> will assemble the computer for you for a relatively small cost - and a
>> dozen or more "geeks" in every populated area of any consequence that
>> will do the same.
>
>Meaningless gibberish. The only real competing product with MS was OS/2
>because it ran all the software DOS ran, including Windows, and ran it
>better, far, far better.
But the protected mode was broken, and IBM never fixed it, to my
knowlege. You could crash an entire OS/2 machine with a "protected
mode" dos app.
NT fixed that, with VM technology that has left OS/2 in the dust in
many, although not all, ways.
> It was windows that worked. MS and IBM made
>sure you couldn't easily buy it, and when millions of people began
>finding ways of obtaining it, and using it in spite of IBM and MS
>efforts to sit on it, they (IBM and MS) deliberately killed it. Had MS
>not practiced anti-competitive and illegal marketing practices, who
>knows what wonders the PC world could have moved into. For certain,
>OS/2 was at least 20 years ahead of windows, and so far, windows still
>had not caught up to what OS/2 was in 1994.
All it takes is someone with the balls of Steve Jobs to do what IBM
was unable/unwilling to do and produce a machine and OS (it COULD be
an updated version od OS/2) that would runall DOS, Windows/ OS/2, and
Apple programs on the same machine.
(By the way, Windows Server 2008 R2 already pretty well allows you to
do that with Hyper-V)
On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:49:55 -0400, clare wrote:
> Microsoft separated their NT development from the old OS/2 (IBM and
> Microsoft started out working together on the NT package under the OS/2
> banner back as early as 1988) and NT leaprogged ahead of OS/2 in
> virtually all of the areas that mattered.
I've run both NT and OS/2 and they both sucked - not quite as bad as
Windoze but darn close. Now I run Linux (the Ubuntu release). While
it's certainly not perfect, I rank it way higher than any of the above.
I don't own a Mac, but looking at it (OS/X) on someone else's computer,
it looks pretty good too.
Of course both are Unix based :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 5/15/2011 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Not completely true. As a manufacturer we COULD sell competing OS, but
>>> DOS had to go with the machine.
>> Who said DOS had to go with the machine? God? Big Brother?
>
> It was part of our OEM agreement with Microsoft.
Exactly!
We got the "right" to
> supply OEM software with the computers we produced and sold, but on
> the condition that the DOS licence went with EVERY computer we sold of
> that line. We paid a" per machine produced" licence to Microsoft. The
> price per machine was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the normal "retail
> package" licence, which was also available to us at
> wholesale/distributor pricing.
> OEM software is licenced to the MACHINE, while retail licenced
> software is/was licenced to the OWNER.
So you could make money selling MS Product or go out of business trying
to market any competing system. THAT was the problem that has resulted
in 97% of the world using the worlds worst OS, some ignorantly happy,
some with a burr up their ass.
>>>>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others:
about 50 flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced
just this week
>>>>> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
>>>>> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
>>>>> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
Go to best buy, office depot, sams club, walmart and about any other
large retailer where consumers buy their home PC's and see how many
versions of UNIX, Linux, OS/2 installed on the machine. You can buy
Windows and sometimes Apple. Apple is so freaking proprietary you would
have to be really pissed off at Microsoft to go that route. About 7% of
the people choose apple, 92% are stuck with the worlds worst OS.
>>> Because applications work with it - the overwhelming majority of all
>>> available software on the world market today, from ANY supplier, will
>>> run on Windows.
No shit dick tracy!
>> Well, when OS/2 was the only working version of Windows, everything
>> worked with OS/2, including DOS and Windows.
>
> OS/2 was NEVER the only working version of Windows - and in fact was
> NOT WINDOWS.
No shit dick tracy!
OS/2 was championed by IBM - and suffered some of the
> same issues as the IBM produced version of Windows (was it 3.1????)
Nope! IT suffered from NONE of the same issues and any version of windows.
>> You couldn't buy it easily
>> however, because MS would raise holly hell with any large retailer that
>> carried it, or installed it.
>
> Microsoft PRODUCED OS/2 in the first place, then passed it on to IBM.
IBM took over development when MS was unable to make the code work. The
idiots at MS said it was not possible to do what IBM wanted, so IBM did
it themselves, and it took only a year or so, while the idiots at MS
stumbled around for years.
> The biggest reason OS/2 failed was because IBM refused to
> supply/include drivers for such "esoteric" devices as non-ibm
> printers.OS/2 was used bu IBM to drive sales of it's harware.
OS/2 failed because you could not buy it at retail store, because of
anti-competitive practices of MS, and less obviously IBM intent on
maintaining the CARTEL (my opinion) without getting charged again with
having a monopoly.
It died
> a very slow and painful death like may proprietary OS before it (like
> CPM and GEM, for instance), but took a much longer time to die.
Wrong again, it died overnight when IBM pulled the plug. IBM pulled the
plug immediately when sales reached critical mass and over 1 million
copies were being sold per month, something the OS/2 user groups had
been anticipating from day one. This critical mass befuddled IBM and MS
because MS had successfully kept OS/2 off the retail shelves, and IBM
was doing nothing at all to market OS/2 to the public. Yes, there was a
very small pocket of IBM people wanting to push OS/2, but the muckety
mucks were not about to let that happen. The whole thing was sick,
enough to put a burr up the ass of any computer geek with a clear view
of what was going on.
> That OS/2 survived to 2006 in IBM Guise and continues on as Serenity
> Systems' eComStation V 4.5 says something for it's design.
The design was perfect for the home user, and business as well. Once
OS/2 deep sixed it, it was immediately dead, as in overnight.
eComStation is wasting it's time I think, they can't beat the cartel.
>> Meaningless gibberish. The only real competing product with MS was OS/2
>> because it ran all the software DOS ran, including Windows, and ran it
>> better, far, far better.
> But the protected mode was broken, and IBM never fixed it, to my
> knowlege. You could crash an entire OS/2 machine with a "protected
> mode" dos app.
The protected mode worked fine. You could crash window running under
OS/2's dos and never ever crash OS/2 even though windows crashed over
and over. I doubt you ever ran OS/2 any length of time.
> All it takes is someone with the balls of Steve Jobs to do what IBM
> was unable/unwilling to do
IBM was ABLE to do it, they did it. The problem was they didn't WANT to
do it, my guess is to protect themselves from monopoly problems, and to
insure MS remained in control of the OS side of the cartel. Steve Jobs
didn't do jack shit, they have 7% of the market, MS has 92%.
and produce a machine and OS (it COULD be
> an updated version od OS/2) that would runall DOS, Windows/ OS/2, and
> Apple programs on the same machine.
Well perhaps, but when MS deliberately installed code to stop OS/2 from
running Windows better than MSDOS, and IBM decided for whatever reason
(my guess is illegal cartel) to deep six OS/2 on the eve of success, the
computing world was screwed big time, and is still getting hosed
knowingly, willingly or not.
> (By the way, Windows Server 2008 R2 already pretty well allows you to
> do that with Hyper-V)
Can I get that installed on my PC at best buy? If I wanted to bother
with that crap I could simply install some flavor of UNIX. Then I would
know I had something that worked from the get go.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/15/2011 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> He can run whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
>>> interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
>>> "intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
>>
>> Stupid enough why? Because 99% of all the software he can buy at Best
>> Buy only runs on the latest garbage release of the worlds worst OS?
>
> NO, dummy. That has nothing to do with "intel free" computers.
We are talking operating systems. Nothing to do with "intel free". I'm
running an AMD duel processor 64 bit system, it has little to do with
this discussion.
You
> OBVIOUSLY have a burr up your butt about Microsoft, which blinds you
> to all other issues.
Yes, I do have a "burr up my ass". You obviously support MS garbage
because you are either a dumb ass, or make money supporting the worlds
worst OS. I also have a burr up my ass with IBM, who screwed the public
by killing OS/2 on the eve of success. INTEL I don't know enough about
to have much of an opinion. I suspect they are part of what I consider
the cartel, but have no real basis other than they are apparently in the
mix. They come out with a new chip that needs a windows upgrade to run.
MS provides the windows upgrade, IBM provides the hardware and
support. Seems cozy to me.
> "intel free" generally means AMD today, although in the not so distant
> past it also included Power PC and other Motorola processors - which
> even Apple has abandoned in favour of Intel.
Who gives a damn? I can go to best buy and buy a PC running an AMD
chip. I still don't care because INTEL chips work well, MS Windows on
the other hand does not, it sucks, always has sucked, and it seems so
far, it always will suck.
Because of this I have a burr up my ass, primarily due to MS screwing
the PC world, and to a less extent IBM, looking suspiciously like a
willing co-conspirator.
--
Jack
How's that Windows registry working for you, dumb ass?
http://jbstein.com
On 5/9/2011 5:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>>>>> run it, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>>>> might be done about that?
>>>>
>>>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>>>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>>>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>>>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>>>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>>>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>>> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>>> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>>> buerocracy involved.
>>
>> And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
> al least only one level of incompetence.
The US had virtually no Federal government intrusion into healthcare
until the late 1960s. It was widely available to most people, mostly
delivered pretty efficiently, and the economic underclass got covered
via doctors' doing gratis or reduce fee work and/or teaching hospitals
making their services available as a training mechanism.
Then the nosy self-anointed saviors of mankind got involved, decided that
absolutely nothing can be done without mob rule and appointed themselves
the keepers of what's good for everyone. The inevitable corruption,
inefficiency, and flat out fraud followed. Now that it has not worked
well, these same geniuses say we need even more of it.
I have a number of family members that are (or were until retirement)
Canadian healthcare delivery professionals. No thanks.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>>>
> >>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
> >>>>> run it, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
> >>>>
> >>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
> >>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
> >>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
> >>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
> >>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
> >>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
> >>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
> >>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
> >>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
> >>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
> >>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
> >>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
> >>>> might be done about that?
> >>>
> >>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
> >>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
> >>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
> >>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
> >>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
> >>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
> >> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
> >> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
> >> buerocracy involved.
> >
> >And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
> al least only one level of incompetence.
The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
/snippage
>So what's the Linux equivalent of AutoCAD? The Linux CAD programs I
>know of are badly crippled, abandoned, or so expensive that the cost of
>a Windows license is negligible in comparison.
>
.. you serious???
Are you trying to be funny (humour) or
throwing in a troll???
Not having a need to run anything other than
r13 - for many years now - it has been my experience
the memory hogging y2000+ issues by Autodesk®
are not competitive. Performance or dollar wise.
If however I ever did need more than wireframe
I am sure I could find an Autodesk mime using a nix
platform. There has to be literally thousands of folks
out there using drafting packages.
Then again, if your idea of drafting is to point
and shoot with your camera enabled cell-phone....
>How about the equivalent of Corel Painter? And if you say "Gimp" you
>have no clue what Corel Painter does.
http://ostatic.com/blog/getting-started-with-the-powerful-inkscape-graphics-app
"Corel Painter"... !!
OMFG.. ROTFLMAO
When you are needing long pants, do holler!
... and as said in a recent post, you savant
wood-banger types best stick with crafting
by whittling. Y'all might just injure
yourself with menz tools.
Take your software whining to a software
related group, small fry.
george
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, May 16, 2011 5:53:08 AM UTC-4, George Watson wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> /snippage
>>
>> >So what's the Linux equivalent of AutoCAD? The Linux CAD programs I
>> >know of are badly crippled, abandoned, or so expensive that the cost of
>> >a Windows license is negligible in comparison.
>> >
>>
>> .. you serious???
>> Are you trying to be funny (humour) or
>> throwing in a troll???
>>
>> Not having a need to run anything other than
>> r13 - for many years now - it has been my experience
>> the memory hogging y2000+ issues by Autodesk®
>> are not competitive. Performance or dollar wise.
>> If however I ever did need more than wireframe
>> I am sure I could find an Autodesk mime using a nix
>> platform. There has to be literally thousands of folks
>> out there using drafting packages.
>
>So tell us of one that has a good track record.
>
Pray tell how it is someone who hasn't got past
scratching stick figures on the back of a matchbox
(using char) going to be qualified to opine on what
I know to be excellent software?
>> Then again, if your idea of drafting is to point
>> and shoot with your camera enabled cell-phone....
>>
>> >How about the equivalent of Corel Painter? And if you say "Gimp" you
>> >have no clue what Corel Painter does.
>> http://ostatic.com/blog/getting-started-with-the-powerful-inkscape-graphics-app
>>
>> "Corel Painter"... !!
>> OMFG.. ROTFLMAO
>
>I do not notice you providing an alternative.
>
Technology got you beat, pal?
There aren't many alternatives to CP.
It is only necessary to retail one kiddee
colouring-in-tool. Pissed CP is all Mom
could afford?
The link posted surpasses anything you
can even envisage. Not in a single lifetime
would *you* master just the basics.. given
CP is _your_ benchmark.
>> When you are needing long pants, do holler!
>
>Huh? Was that a feeble attempt at an insult or something?
>
oH.. you failed to comprehend, sorreeee Bud!
Make it "diaper" then. Be a crying shame
to see you throw a tantrum outside of
your comfort zone :-]
>>
>> ... and as said in a recent post, you savant
>> wood-banger types best stick with crafting
>> by whittling. Y'all might just injure
>> yourself with menz tools.
>> Take your software whining to a software
>> related group, small fry.
>
>Yep, no actual information to impart.
>
au contraire.. and in fact I have generously
granted you some insight. Do enjoy your
squirming in being embarrassed at your
callously rude attitude.
From: George Watson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
Subject: !!reposted!!--->Letter to Santa from [email protected] bore fruit!! - xmas.swf (0/6)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 06:36:38 +1000
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
I am a giving person. You wish that dream.
>Oh, and I notice that you're using Mozilla on Windows.
>Do you actually run Linux on anything?
>
Your software is fskd.. I fixed RET for you, this time.
Mine?
Well you just pick which you want me to use
and I will "lay it on", thick as you like.
My software allows that flexibility.
Can you say "Polly Penguin"?
george
ps:
In your rush to hit "reply to"
do not forget your gift.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:50:50 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 5/15/2011 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>> He can run whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
> >>>> interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
> >>>> "intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid enough why? Because 99% of all the software he can buy at Best
> >>> Buy only runs on the latest garbage release of the worlds worst OS?
> >>
> >> NO, dummy. That has nothing to do with "intel free" computers.
> >
> >We are talking operating systems. Nothing to do with "intel free". I'm
> >running an AMD duel processor 64 bit system, it has little to do with
> >this discussion.
> >
> >You
> >> OBVIOUSLY have a burr up your butt about Microsoft, which blinds you
> >> to all other issues.
> >
> >Yes, I do have a "burr up my ass". You obviously support MS garbage
> >because you are either a dumb ass, or make money supporting the worlds
> >worst OS. I also have a burr up my ass with IBM, who screwed the public
> >by killing OS/2 on the eve of success. INTEL I don't know enough about
> >to have much of an opinion. I suspect they are part of what I consider
> >the cartel, but have no real basis other than they are apparently in the
> >mix. They come out with a new chip that needs a windows upgrade to run.
> > MS provides the windows upgrade, IBM provides the hardware and
> >support. Seems cozy to me.
> >
> >> "intel free" generally means AMD today, although in the not so distant
> >> past it also included Power PC and other Motorola processors - which
> >> even Apple has abandoned in favour of Intel.
> >
> >Who gives a damn? I can go to best buy and buy a PC running an AMD
> >chip. I still don't care because INTEL chips work well, MS Windows on
> >the other hand does not, it sucks, always has sucked, and it seems so
> >far, it always will suck.
> >
> >Because of this I have a burr up my ass, primarily due to MS screwing
> >the PC world, and to a less extent IBM, looking suspiciously like a
> >willing co-conspirator.
I am curious as to this "new chip" that "needs a Windows upgrade to
run".
Certainly the latest chips need the latest OS to realize their full
performance potential, but that's not the same as needing an upgrade
just to run.
You would have to experience the system errors. Not much has changed despite
what they tell us.
The GUI interface is NT, also despite MS saying it isn't, but the underlying
system is still a text DOS like environment with text command lines and text
error messages. Sometimes you can overrun the DOS command line by having
directories that are too nested and various other indicators show up from
time to time.
The GUI has to communicate with a shell using some medium and that medium
looks exactly like MsDOS. THE DOS command interpreter is only hidden better
than before.
The "DOS shell" is not related to this.
-----------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
DOS is no longer underpinning anything from XP on. It's NT underneath
now - but they now have a "dos emulator" as part of the shell that
runs ON TOP of NT.
On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:58:05 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>MS always toots no underlying DOS in the later Windoze versions but anytime
>a system error is incurred the DOS message shows up to indicate the
>communication method with the shell has never changed.
>
>Many system HDD applications still have to run in an isolated shell under
>DOS secretly.
>
>-------------------
>"Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
>or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
>no longer interested enough to care.
DOS is no longer underpinning anything from XP on. It's NT underneath
now - but they now have a "dos emulator" as part of the shell that
runs ON TOP of NT.
On 5/16/2011 3:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> So you could make money selling MS Product or go out of business trying
>> to market any competing system. THAT was the problem that has resulted
>> in 97% of the world using the worlds worst OS, some ignorantly happy,
>> some with a burr up their ass.
> We could have had an OEM agreement with "The Santa Cruz Operation" too
> - and sold SCO Unix as an OEM OS.
And I could have built my own rocketship to the moon, and got all the
green cheese the world would ever need...
>> OS/2 was championed by IBM - and suffered some of the
>>> same issues as the IBM produced version of Windows (was it 3.1????)
>>> Microsoft PRODUCED OS/2 in the first place, then passed it on to IBM.
MicroSoft "passed it on" because they were unable to get the code to
work. IBM wanted something that worked for the ATM machines, and
windows simply didn't work worth a shit. Still doesn't.
>> IBM took over development when MS was unable to make the code work. The
>> idiots at MS said it was not possible to do what IBM wanted, so IBM did
>> it themselves, and it took only a year or so, while the idiots at MS
>> stumbled around for years.
> Microsoft was proven right when IBM and their whole PS2 initiative
> with OS/2 failed commercially. You think MICROSOFT screws up
> everything they touch in the PC world - Big Blue was even worse.
Again, it seems clear you never spent any time with OS/2. IBM developed
OS/2 and it worked damn near perfectly. It failed commercially because
IBM muckety mucks wanted it to fail commercially. IBM's OS/2 teams knew
their shit, but they were working for the enemy.
>>> The biggest reason OS/2 failed was because IBM refused to
>>> supply/include drivers for such "esoteric" devices as non-ibm
>>> printers.OS/2 was used bu IBM to drive sales of it's harware.
Bull, you are doing stupid internet searches for you info, and they are
weak or bogus. OS/2 failed because IBM unplugged it when it began to
gain critical mass. The drivers that were missing were not because IBM
wouldn't provide them, the software and hardware makers did not provide
drivers because MS had a monopoly on the market, and those that did
would run into trouble with MS. Drivers are not provided by MS, but buy
the developers. In spite of this, OS/2 was still reaching critical
mass, meaning so many people were switching to OS/2 that something HAD
to be done, and IBM had no plans of owning the OS side of the home
computing business, so they pulled the plug.
Overnight, OS/2 was dead, and the computing world pushed back what I
thought would be 25 years, but seems it will surpass even that.
> eComStation has a very viable and thriving niche business - virtually
> every ATM in the world is running an embedded version of eComStation -
> along with a lot of other specialty applications.
Yeah, exactly why IBM had to take over development of OS/2 from the
inept microsoft.
>>> But the protected mode was broken, and IBM never fixed it, to my
>>> knowlege. You could crash an entire OS/2 machine with a "protected
>>> mode" dos app.
>>
>> The protected mode worked fine. You could crash window running under
>> OS/2's dos and never ever crash OS/2 even though windows crashed over
>> and over. I doubt you ever ran OS/2 any length of time.
> I ditched it before 2.0 came onto the scene.
So you never used OS/2 WARP. Version 3 was the working version, and if
you didn't use it extensively, you don't know Jack! That was obvious
when you claimed OS/2's protected mode was broken. OS/2 was bullet
proof, and almost impossible to crash. It was the windows that actually
worked.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/16/2011 5:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:50:50 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2011 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> He can run whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
>>>>>> interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
>>>>>> "intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid enough why? Because 99% of all the software he can buy at Best
>>>>> Buy only runs on the latest garbage release of the worlds worst OS?
>>>>
>>>> NO, dummy. That has nothing to do with "intel free" computers.
>>>
>>> We are talking operating systems. Nothing to do with "intel free". I'm
>>> running an AMD duel processor 64 bit system, it has little to do with
>>> this discussion.
>>>
>>> You
>>>> OBVIOUSLY have a burr up your butt about Microsoft, which blinds you
>>>> to all other issues.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do have a "burr up my ass". You obviously support MS garbage
>>> because you are either a dumb ass, or make money supporting the worlds
>>> worst OS. I also have a burr up my ass with IBM, who screwed the public
>>> by killing OS/2 on the eve of success. INTEL I don't know enough about
>>> to have much of an opinion. I suspect they are part of what I consider
>>> the cartel, but have no real basis other than they are apparently in the
>>> mix. They come out with a new chip that needs a windows upgrade to run.
>>> MS provides the windows upgrade, IBM provides the hardware and
>>> support. Seems cozy to me.
>>>
>>>> "intel free" generally means AMD today, although in the not so distant
>>>> past it also included Power PC and other Motorola processors - which
>>>> even Apple has abandoned in favour of Intel.
>>>
>>> Who gives a damn? I can go to best buy and buy a PC running an AMD
>>> chip. I still don't care because INTEL chips work well, MS Windows on
>>> the other hand does not, it sucks, always has sucked, and it seems so
>>> far, it always will suck.
>>>
>>> Because of this I have a burr up my ass, primarily due to MS screwing
>>> the PC world, and to a less extent IBM, looking suspiciously like a
>>> willing co-conspirator.
>
> I am curious as to this "new chip" that "needs a Windows upgrade to
> run".
>
> Certainly the latest chips need the latest OS to realize their full
> performance potential, but that's not the same as needing an upgrade
> just to run.
Make that needs a windows upgrade to run right. It's not specifically
my point though. Every time MS comes up with a new OS it is more
bloated, so the user needs both a new, faster computer (INTEL) and
bigger, faster Hardware (IBM). Whether all this crap is simply due to
massive incompetence of MS, or due to cozy cartel is immaterial to me.
VISTA I understand has over 7000 files to get the system to work, that
is sick, and worse, it supposedly was one of the worse versions of MS
garbage software. 25 years of OS development and they still can't get
it right.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
Josepi wrote:
> You would have to experience the system errors. Not much has changed
> despite what they tell us.
>
> The GUI interface is NT, also despite MS saying it isn't, but the
> underlying system is still a text DOS like environment with text
> command lines and text error messages. Sometimes you can overrun the
> DOS command line by having directories that are too nested and
> various other indicators show up from time to time.
>
> The GUI has to communicate with a shell using some medium and that
> medium looks exactly like MsDOS. THE DOS command interpreter is only
> hidden better than before.
>
>
> The "DOS shell" is not related to this.
There is no DOS from XT onward. There is no "DOS command line." The kernel
is completely different from DOS.
In the newer OSes, there is a DOS Emulator (it works like DOS on steroids),
but, again, there is NO DOS CODE in the underlying kernel.
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:31:52 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/15/2011 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>> Not completely true. As a manufacturer we COULD sell competing OS, but
>>>> DOS had to go with the machine.
>
>>> Who said DOS had to go with the machine? God? Big Brother?
>>
>> It was part of our OEM agreement with Microsoft.
>
>Exactly!
>
>We got the "right" to
>> supply OEM software with the computers we produced and sold, but on
>> the condition that the DOS licence went with EVERY computer we sold of
>> that line. We paid a" per machine produced" licence to Microsoft. The
>> price per machine was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the normal "retail
>> package" licence, which was also available to us at
>> wholesale/distributor pricing.
>> OEM software is licenced to the MACHINE, while retail licenced
>> software is/was licenced to the OWNER.
>
>So you could make money selling MS Product or go out of business trying
>to market any competing system. THAT was the problem that has resulted
>in 97% of the world using the worlds worst OS, some ignorantly happy,
>some with a burr up their ass.
>
We could have had an OEM agreement with "The Santa Cruz Operation" too
- and sold SCO Unix as an OEM OS.
>>>>>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others:
>about 50 flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced
>just this week
>>>>>> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
>>>>>> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
>>>>>> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>
>Go to best buy, office depot, sams club, walmart and about any other
>large retailer where consumers buy their home PC's and see how many
>versions of UNIX, Linux, OS/2 installed on the machine. You can buy
>Windows and sometimes Apple. Apple is so freaking proprietary you would
>have to be really pissed off at Microsoft to go that route. About 7% of
>the people choose apple, 92% are stuck with the worlds worst OS.
>
>>>> Because applications work with it - the overwhelming majority of all
>>>> available software on the world market today, from ANY supplier, will
>>>> run on Windows.
>
>No shit dick tracy!
>
>>> Well, when OS/2 was the only working version of Windows, everything
>>> worked with OS/2, including DOS and Windows.
>>
>> OS/2 was NEVER the only working version of Windows - and in fact was
>> NOT WINDOWS.
>
>No shit dick tracy!
>
>OS/2 was championed by IBM - and suffered some of the
>> same issues as the IBM produced version of Windows (was it 3.1????)
>
>Nope! IT suffered from NONE of the same issues and any version of windows.
>
>>> You couldn't buy it easily
>>> however, because MS would raise holly hell with any large retailer that
>>> carried it, or installed it.
>>
>> Microsoft PRODUCED OS/2 in the first place, then passed it on to IBM.
>
>IBM took over development when MS was unable to make the code work. The
>idiots at MS said it was not possible to do what IBM wanted, so IBM did
>it themselves, and it took only a year or so, while the idiots at MS
>stumbled around for years.
Not true. IBM and Microsoft had a cross-development agreement - IBM
screwed up their version of Windows (3.1, I believe) then wanted to go
in a different direction than Microsoft was going with OS/2.
Microsoft was proven right when IBM and their whole PS2 initiative
with OS/2 failed commercially. You think MICROSOFT screws up
everything they touch in the PC world - Big Blue was even worse.
>
>> The biggest reason OS/2 failed was because IBM refused to
>> supply/include drivers for such "esoteric" devices as non-ibm
>> printers.OS/2 was used bu IBM to drive sales of it's harware.
>
>OS/2 failed because you could not buy it at retail store, because of
>anti-competitive practices of MS, and less obviously IBM intent on
>maintaining the CARTEL (my opinion) without getting charged again with
>having a monopoly.
>
>It died
>> a very slow and painful death like may proprietary OS before it (like
>> CPM and GEM, for instance), but took a much longer time to die.
>
>Wrong again, it died overnight when IBM pulled the plug. IBM pulled the
>plug immediately when sales reached critical mass and over 1 million
>copies were being sold per month, something the OS/2 user groups had
>been anticipating from day one. This critical mass befuddled IBM and MS
>because MS had successfully kept OS/2 off the retail shelves, and IBM
>was doing nothing at all to market OS/2 to the public. Yes, there was a
>very small pocket of IBM people wanting to push OS/2, but the muckety
>mucks were not about to let that happen. The whole thing was sick,
>enough to put a burr up the ass of any computer geek with a clear view
>of what was going on.
>
>> That OS/2 survived to 2006 in IBM Guise and continues on as Serenity
>> Systems' eComStation V 4.5 says something for it's design.
>
>The design was perfect for the home user, and business as well. Once
>OS/2 deep sixed it, it was immediately dead, as in overnight.
>eComStation is wasting it's time I think, they can't beat the cartel.
eComStation has a very viable and thriving niche business - virtually
every ATM in the world is running an embedded version of eComStation -
along with a lot of other specialty applications.
>
>>> Meaningless gibberish. The only real competing product with MS was OS/2
>>> because it ran all the software DOS ran, including Windows, and ran it
>>> better, far, far better.
>
>> But the protected mode was broken, and IBM never fixed it, to my
>> knowlege. You could crash an entire OS/2 machine with a "protected
>> mode" dos app.
>
>The protected mode worked fine. You could crash window running under
>OS/2's dos and never ever crash OS/2 even though windows crashed over
>and over. I doubt you ever ran OS/2 any length of time.
>
I ditched it before 2.0 came onto the scene.
>> All it takes is someone with the balls of Steve Jobs to do what IBM
>> was unable/unwilling to do
>
>IBM was ABLE to do it, they did it. The problem was they didn't WANT to
>do it, my guess is to protect themselves from monopoly problems, and to
>insure MS remained in control of the OS side of the cartel. Steve Jobs
>didn't do jack shit, they have 7% of the market, MS has 92%.
>
>and produce a machine and OS (it COULD be
>> an updated version od OS/2) that would runall DOS, Windows/ OS/2, and
>> Apple programs on the same machine.
>
>Well perhaps, but when MS deliberately installed code to stop OS/2 from
>running Windows better than MSDOS, and IBM decided for whatever reason
>(my guess is illegal cartel) to deep six OS/2 on the eve of success, the
>computing world was screwed big time, and is still getting hosed
>knowingly, willingly or not.
>
>> (By the way, Windows Server 2008 R2 already pretty well allows you to
>> do that with Hyper-V)
>
>Can I get that installed on my PC at best buy? If I wanted to bother
>with that crap I could simply install some flavor of UNIX. Then I would
>know I had something that worked from the get go.
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:50:50 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/15/2011 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> He can run whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
>>>> interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
>>>> "intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
>>>
>>> Stupid enough why? Because 99% of all the software he can buy at Best
>>> Buy only runs on the latest garbage release of the worlds worst OS?
>>
>> NO, dummy. That has nothing to do with "intel free" computers.
>
>We are talking operating systems. Nothing to do with "intel free". I'm
>running an AMD duel processor 64 bit system, it has little to do with
>this discussion.
>
>You
>> OBVIOUSLY have a burr up your butt about Microsoft, which blinds you
>> to all other issues.
>
>Yes, I do have a "burr up my ass". You obviously support MS garbage
>because you are either a dumb ass, or make money supporting the worlds
>worst OS. I also have a burr up my ass with IBM, who screwed the public
>by killing OS/2 on the eve of success. INTEL I don't know enough about
>to have much of an opinion. I suspect they are part of what I consider
>the cartel, but have no real basis other than they are apparently in the
>mix. They come out with a new chip that needs a windows upgrade to run.
> MS provides the windows upgrade, IBM provides the hardware and
>support. Seems cozy to me.
>
>> "intel free" generally means AMD today, although in the not so distant
>> past it also included Power PC and other Motorola processors - which
>> even Apple has abandoned in favour of Intel.
>
>Who gives a damn? I can go to best buy and buy a PC running an AMD
>chip. I still don't care because INTEL chips work well, MS Windows on
>the other hand does not, it sucks, always has sucked, and it seems so
>far, it always will suck.
>
>Because of this I have a burr up my ass, primarily due to MS screwing
>the PC world, and to a less extent IBM, looking suspiciously like a
>willing co-conspirator.
Bye Bye
Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>>
>> What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
>> to a conservative ideology.
>> This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody
>> ButHarper.
>>
>
> For Canada's sake do NOT allow that power-hungry dictator have a
> majority.
> And this is coming from a guy who has voted conservative for almost
> all of his voting life.
> THIS clown is in the NeoCon/Bilderberger fold.
> This clown is promising us 65 x F35 jets at $ 75 mil apiece. Our
> American friends budget for the same jet $ 130.million. Ohhhh.. I get
> it... Harper is quoting us the price without service contract or
> ENGINES!!!!
>
> Our second choice is unfortunately not a whole lot better, but at
> least he'll use a condom.
Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives won 167
seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal Party fell to
3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history (NDP socialists came
in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The Quebec separatist party lost
ALL its seats in Quebec!
Anyway, Good Show, Canada.
I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with the
national health service not far behind.
On Fri, 6 May 2011 00:10:14 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> In busy times, which is any day ending with a "y" there is a limited
>> number of doctors, usually one after 6 PM, for an area of half a million.
>
>Where's your cites? What location are you talking about? What kind of doctor
>are you referring to? As usual, your comments border on hysterical
>inaccuracy.
>
>> After about 6 hours of waiting each time I offered to leave and go to
>> another hospital emerg. about 2 hours drive but I was informed that was
>> not allowed.
>
>Absolute bullshit. More than once I've personally left one emergency waiting
>room and gone to another hospital. Agreed, it's certainly not enjoyable
>sitting there for a number of hours while your problem is triaged as being
>not as urgent, but we are free to go to the hospital of our choice to seek
>emergency treatment.
>
>> The USA has a rude awakening coming. At least the UK has a two tierd
>> medical system... those that can pay and those that cannot. In Canada we
>> are not allowed a two tier system to exist.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, Canada doesn't really need two tiers. We already
>have the best of both worlds. If we want to pay for medical service, we can
>easily go to the US. Maybe not as convenient as going to someone locally,
>but the option is there.
>
Absolutely.
In our area, which is underserviced as far as family doctors are
concerned, there are SIX hospital emergency rooms within 30 minutes
drive. The emergency room at the one closest is ALWAYS backed up
(Kitchener Grand River)- it is on the main drag and basically
down-town. The other city hospital (Kitchener St Marys) is off the
main drag, and only half as busy. Then there is another one in the
next city (Cambridge - South Waterloo) , and one in Guelph (both
relatively busy) as well as Fergus (more small town -and not NEARLY as
busy). I know quite a few people who, if it is not a DIRE emergency,
just head for Fergus - and they can be there, looked zfter, and Home
again in the time it would take to be checked through at KW Grand
River.
If you go to one Emerg and it is busy, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
stopping you from going to another.
Now getting a family doctor is a different story ----- and mine is
about my age - when retirement rolls around who knows who will take
over the practice, and whether I'll have a doctor or not.
DGDevin wrote:
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>> buerocracy involved.
>
> Given that American health insurance companies absorb "administrative
> overhead" at twice the rate that health care administration does in
> Canada (and at even higher rates than in Europe or Asia)--why not?
Considering that the nationalized health services don't have to COLLECT the
money they spend, well, that's half the overhead right there!
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
> buerocracy involved.
Given that American health insurance companies absorb "administrative
overhead" at twice the rate that health care administration does in Canada
(and at even higher rates than in Europe or Asia)--why not?
On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>>> run it, right?
>>>
>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>>
>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>>
>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>> might be done about that?
>>
>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
> buerocracy involved.
And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:49:38 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>> have to pay for Windows.
>
>Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
>and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
>from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
>first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
>would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
>windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
Windows does not come installed on replacement hard drives. They are
virtually ALL shipped blank.
>
>The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
>getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking their
>ass, over, and over and over.
>
>Jack
>
>> If the PC manufacturer wants to provide me with
>> a Window-less PC and reduce the price accordingly, M$ threatens to take
>> them off their approved list and either not provide Windows for those
>> who want it or charge them much more for ever copy.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
>>>> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>>>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>>>
>>> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
>>>
>>> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up
>>> with a
>>> new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would pay
>>> for,
>>> it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still making
>>> money.
>>>
>>>
>>
www.newegg.ca
www.newegg.com
It will arrive the day after you order it.almost guaranteed.
-----------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
So do like "geeks" around the world do every day. Assemble your own
computer. The VAST majority of computer "manufacturers" today don't
manufacture their own boards, or even cases. They assemble from
Chinese sourced components that YOU can buy as easily as they can. You
can have exactly what you want -processor, RAM, video, sound, storage,
case, power supply, cooling, etc - and usually for very close to the
equivalent (if you can buy it off the shelf) brand name machine. No
Microsoft required.
On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:02:00 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 05/13/2011 04:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
>>> demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
>>> opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
>>
>> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
>>
>>>
>>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>>> system.
>>
>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
>> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this week
>> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
>> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
>> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>
>Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>have to pay for Windows. If the PC manufacturer wants to provide me
>with a Window-less PC and reduce the price accordingly, M$ threatens to
>take them off their approved list and either not provide Windows for
>those who want it or charge them much more for ever copy.
>
>>
So do like "geeks" around the world do every day. Assemble your own
computer. The VAST majority of computer "manufacturers" today don't
manufacture their own boards, or even cases. They assemble from
Chinese sourced components that YOU can buy as easily as they can. You
can have exactly what you want -processor, RAM, video, sound, storage,
case, power supply, cooling, etc - and usually for very close to the
equivalent (if you can buy it off the shelf) brand name machine. No
Microsoft required.
>>>
>>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
>>> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>>
>> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
>>
>> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up with a
>> new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would pay for,
>> it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still making money.
>>
>>
On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>
>>
>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>> run it, right?
>>
>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>
>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>
>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>> might be done about that?
>
>That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>"bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
buerocracy involved.
On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:45:15 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/13/2011 7:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
>>> demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
>>> opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
>>
>> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
>
>The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
>competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
>competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as one
>of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer with
>being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating system,
>or whistling Dixie.
Not completely true. As a manufacturer we COULD sell competing OS, but
DOS had to go with the machine. We sold a LOT of computers into the
SCO Unix and Xenix world, as well as the old business basic and
another pre-dos OS that I can't remember the name of, worlds. They
had to have DOS in the box, but that was small potatos compared to the
cost of, say, windows 7 professional, today.
>
>>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>>> system.
>>
>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
>> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this week
>> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
>> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
>> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
Because applications work with it - the overwhelming majority of all
available software on the world market today, from ANY supplier, will
run on Windows.
>
>I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never bought a
>PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise Microsoft I
>"willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS because there is
>little choice unless you want to swim upstream all day long. I have
>been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with UNIX than 99.999% of
>computer users, and I am smart enough not to swim up stream, there is no
>chance that the other 99.999% of PC users could figure out how to use
>something like Unix. My wife gets pissed when Firefox upgrades itself
>because something changed. Microsoft took advantage of this by
>illegally and immorally forcing its system on unknowing consumers.
Forcing? You can always "swim upstream"
>
>>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
>>> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>>
>> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
>
>You're right, explain it to me.
>
>> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up with a
>> new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would pay for,
>> it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still making money.
>
>Microsoft has NOT come up with a new operating system since he bought
>DOS from Patterson. The system was garbage then, and still is. The
>unknowing public thinks they are getting viruses when 99% of the time it
>is simply an operating system that does not work. The reason they, and
>I, am using this piece of shit is because MicroSoft totally controls the
>market. They control the market because of past illegal marketing
>practices. I was in the market at the time, and experienced what was
>going on.
>
>When federal anti-trust Judge Stanley Sporkin heard the case against
>Microsoft in 1994-95 he was appalled, and found for himself what I and
>many already knew just from being in the game.
>
>I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
>MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
>you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
>you want, as long as it's black.
Any computer customer in the "free world" can buy all the components
required to build a computer, and assemble it, following relatively
complete and simple instructions, in half an hour or less. He can run
whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
"intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
There are small computer shops in every reasonably small town that
will assemble the computer for you for a relatively small cost - and a
dozen or more "geeks" in every populated area of any consequence that
will do the same.
One has to remember the KW area is pretty computer savvy and it isn't always
that cheap or easy to assemble your own machine in other parts of the world.
$275 doesn't buy you much of a custom assembled system in most parts of the
States or even T.O. I always thought it was the two universities and
multiple colleges that drive the areas tech prices.
------------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Any computer customer in the "free world" can buy all the components
required to build a computer, and assemble it, following relatively
complete and simple instructions, in half an hour or less. He can run
whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
"intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
There are small computer shops in every reasonably small town that
will assemble the computer for you for a relatively small cost - and a
dozen or more "geeks" in every populated area of any consequence that
will do the same.
On 5/14/2011 12:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:45:15 -0400, Jack Stein<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2011 7:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
>>
>> The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
>> competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
>> competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as one
>> of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer with
>> being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating system,
>> or whistling Dixie.
>
> Not completely true. As a manufacturer we COULD sell competing OS, but
> DOS had to go with the machine.
Who said DOS had to go with the machine? God? Big Brother?
We sold a LOT of computers into the
> SCO Unix and Xenix world, as well as the old business basic and
> another pre-dos OS that I can't remember the name of, worlds. They
> had to have DOS in the box, but that was small potatos compared to the
> cost of, say, windows 7 professional, today.
Small potatoes my ass, it's the very reason most of the world is stuck
with the worlds worst OS.
>>>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>>>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>>>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
>>> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this week
>>> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
>>> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
>>> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>
> Because applications work with it - the overwhelming majority of all
> available software on the world market today, from ANY supplier, will
> run on Windows.
Well, when OS/2 was the only working version of Windows, everything
worked with OS/2, including DOS and Windows. You couldn't buy it easily
however, because MS would raise holly hell with any large retailer that
carried it, or installed it. IBM was not particularly interested in
selling it either, imnsho because rather than get busted again for
running a monopoly, they wanted MS to run to OS end of the business.
This became clear when after several years of non OS/2 marketing by IBM,
they pulled the plug exactly when OS/2 was reaching critical mass of 1
million copies a month, despite all efforts to stifle the market.
>> I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never bought a
>> PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise Microsoft I
>> "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS because there is
>> little choice unless you want to swim upstream all day long. I have
>> been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with UNIX than 99.999% of
>> computer users, and I am smart enough not to swim up stream, there is no
>> chance that the other 99.999% of PC users could figure out how to use
>> something like Unix. My wife gets pissed when Firefox upgrades itself
>> because something changed. Microsoft took advantage of this by
>> illegally and immorally forcing its system on unknowing consumers.
> Forcing? You can always "swim upstream"
When IBM decided to stop selling OS/2 (They never really actively
marketed the product) and Microsoft deliberately made WIN98 incompatible
with OS/2 for no reason other than to kill OS/2 (Certainly with IBM's
blessing) I was given no choice but to use the worlds worst OS. Most
users never had any choice because it was next to impossible to by a PC
with any other OS installed on it. My wife had trouble turning the
computer on, let alone removing the operating system, and installing
another one. Most people are in my wife's category of PC users, and far
to computer illiterate to realize they have been HAD. Instead they
think they are too fucking dumb to make a computer work consistently, or
think they got another non-existent virus.
> Any computer customer in the "free world" can buy all the components
> required to build a computer, and assemble it, following relatively
> complete and simple instructions, in half an hour or less.
And I can buy all the components to put a spaceship on the moon. Most
people I know have trouble immediately after locating the on switch, and
generally buy a new computer after their lame ass MS registry gets so
fucked up nothing works right, and other than rebooting every five
minutes, they give up and buy another computer.
He can run whatever flavour of whatever OS he wants on that machine, with no
> interference from Microsoft or anyone else - and it can be totally
> "intel free" if he is stupid enough (inmy opinion) to go that route.
Stupid enough why? Because 99% of all the software he can buy at Best
Buy only runs on the latest garbage release of the worlds worst OS?
> There are small computer shops in every reasonably small town that
> will assemble the computer for you for a relatively small cost - and a
> dozen or more "geeks" in every populated area of any consequence that
> will do the same.
Meaningless gibberish. The only real competing product with MS was OS/2
because it ran all the software DOS ran, including Windows, and ran it
better, far, far better. It was windows that worked. MS and IBM made
sure you couldn't easily buy it, and when millions of people began
finding ways of obtaining it, and using it in spite of IBM and MS
efforts to sit on it, they (IBM and MS) deliberately killed it. Had MS
not practiced anti-competitive and illegal marketing practices, who
knows what wonders the PC world could have moved into. For certain,
OS/2 was at least 20 years ahead of windows, and so far, windows still
had not caught up to what OS/2 was in 1994.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> If you go to one Emerg and it is busy, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
> stopping you from going to another.
I remember going to St. Michael's one time, arriving 6:00 am. I was having
some type of reaction and covered in really itchy red spots. They were
driving me nuts. Not fatal of course, except to my sanity. At 11:00 am, I
was still waiting to be seen. Left there, rolled 20 minutes to Mt. Sinai and
was treated within 30 minutes. Guess I got lucky that they weren't busy yet.
In any event, I'm sure I'd have still been waiting at St. Michael's by the
time I was treated and left Mt. Sinai.
Of course, I live in Toronto and there's a dozen hospitals within a two
miles of where I live. I sympathize with people who are more remotely
located and hospitals are not stacked up like cordwood along a main drag.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> attests to its success. (Of course they may, like me, have no basis for
> comparison. "What do you mean they give anesthetics for tooth extractions
> in the states? Damn, that's cool!).
Funny you mention that. At ten years of age in Montreal, I visited the
dentist and was told I had 17 cavities? That number sounds fantastic by
today's standards. There was no anaesthetic at the time, (1964) at least not
that I'd heard of (or maybe not a dentist that my parents could afford). I
had to suffer through having them all drilled and filled without any pain
killer. If that doesn't introduce a kid to life in general, I don't know
what does.
Perhaps other major issues that may have been missed.
Was there any significant profit for a private hospital to keep him much
longer or delay treatments as much as possible?
Was there a charge for unnecessary blood transfusions that have killed many
thousands of people, each year due to a blood supply profit?
Was there a rush in treatment diagnosis and quality of treatment due to
increased profitability?
----------------------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
My Dad had some first hand experience with the Ontario Canada health
system over the last 3 months.
He ended up in hospital, a millimeter from death's door, after a minor
mis-step and a spinal compression fracture. The doctors pulled him
back from the threshold, and over 6 weeks finally came up with the
diagnosis - myeloma . The back pain was excrutiating, but within a
week of diagnosis he had a kyphoplasty which greatly reduced the pain.
They had him on Chemo a couple days after the diagnosis, and when his
kidneys shut down they had him on dialasis within 2 days. Two days
after the kyphoplasty he was home - after 8 weeks in the hospital
A minor setback had him back in the hospital for a week after 7 days
home . Back home, his kidneys back to normal again and off dialasis,
and he's been home almost 3 weeks now.
In the USA, would he still have his home??
In Canada, he can still afford to live in the modest home he still
owns. Could the diagnosis have come faster? Perhaps. Could
communication have been better between different medical staff?
Likely. Would any of this been better under the American system????
It's anybody's guess. - And how much would it have cost????
9 weeks in 2 different hospitals - cancer specialists, kidney
specialists, diagnosticians, intensive care, and all????
He's still with us - the system worked - and he's still financially
viable.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> No anesthetic at the time? Quite some imagination you have.
>> Maybe your dentistry was from the 1800s
>> or
>> your parents were really cheap
>> or
>> your parents didn't like you.
>
> Go fuck yourself asshole. I was stating that the dentist we used
> didn't use an anaesthetic, not that it hadn't been invented.
Thanks to the ministrations of my childhood dentist, I needed quite a bit
of dental work as an undergraduate in Utrecht, Holland. The dental
school offered really cheap treatments (only the cost of gold was
charged, at the time somethign like $30/oz), but it cost me a year of
once weekly treatments to get fixed up. There were 2 root canal
treatments I remember well. For some reason, the students couldn't use
anaesthetic at the last stage of cleaning out the root, and had to remove
the last bits of nerve without anasthetic. At least most of the stuff my
budding dentist did in the midle 60's are still in my mouth, to the great
amazement of US dentists.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I know you hate Harper but I see you hate everyone.
Yup. Wannabe trolls like you bring out the hate in everyone.
Oh yeah. I hate you too. Betcha you didn't guess that did you dweeb?
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
> run it, right?
Did I say that? No? Well then.
In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while doctors
and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating health care
right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private system seems to
work well in many places. The Swiss system is interesting, buying insurance
is compulsory but the insurance companies have to provide basic coverage on
a non-profit basis (and they cannot turn away anyone), they make their
profits on supplemental coverage.
In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling out
of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without coverage. A
bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of health care
and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient care would seem
to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what might be done about
that?
DGDevin wrote:
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months
>>> to get one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally
>>> got to the head of the line. So it's a different set of problems
>>> from the also broken American system, they both need serious
>>> adjustments.
>
>> I suggest the American system isn't "broken." Everybody fits in
>> somewhere. At the top is "concierge" medicine - those who get
>> top-notch and immediate care. There are several categories below
>> that, from Blue Cross, down through Medicare, all the way to
>> "Canada-lite" (Medicaid)".
>
> Oh it's broken alright. The cost of health care insurance has been
> doubling every decade, employers are dropping or cutting back
> coverage or in some cases moving production overseas to escape health
> coverage costs.
Straw man. Health "insurance" is not the same thing as "health care."
> Medical tourism is a growing phenomenon as Americans
> travel to get surgery they can't afford in the U.S. One in six
> Americans has no insurance at all which means when they finally go to
> the hospital ER *you* and every other taxpayer/insurance customer
> pays for it. American health insurance companies absorb more in
> "administrative overhead" (including fat executive salaries) than
> anywhere in the world, about a fifth of what Americans pay for
> insurance never gets past the insurance companies. Look up
> pharmaceutical industry scandals sometime, it's a horror show of
> companies concealing dangers of their products, price-fixing,
> manipulation of the FDA, gaming the patent system to extend profits
> and so on. Some hospitals have closed ERs because they are swamped
> with uninsured patients who have no other source of health care. Unless
> the law prevents them from doing so insurance companies will
> refuse to insure anyone with a history of serious illness, and they
> have employees whose job is finding excuses to drop customers once
> they get sick. Doctors order needless tests to cover themselves
> against liability, and they pass on the cost of malpractice insurance
> to their patients. Government programs like Medicare pay out
> countless millions in bogus claims because it is so easy to defraud
> the system. The medical profession restricts the number of med
> school graduates to keep salaries (and thus costs) up. The loudest
> screams about health care reform invariably come from those who make
> the biggest profits, no way do they want change that doesn't put more
> money in their pockets--and so on and so forth.
> Isn't broken?
When the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer, he came to the US for
treatment. Not Canada. Not France. The United States.
'Course he died right away, but that's beside the point...
On May 4, 8:08=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
> >> with the national health service not far behind.
>
> > Long gun registry? Very likely. National health service? Not a gnat's
> > chance in hell. Canadians, the middle class on down (the vast bulk of
> > the electorate) love their universal health service despite the
> > occasional grumbling. The conservatives are riding pretty high right
> > now. Any serious meddling with the health service would doom the
> > Torys to relative obscurity the next time a general election comes
> > around. Harper may have just been confirmed as head tyrant, but even
> > he's not egotistical enough to attempt any serious health changes.
>
> Oh, I was exaggerating. Still, one never knows.
>
> A couple of years ago, I blew out my knee. My internist got me an
> appointment with an orthopedist the next morning and that afternoon I had=
an
> MRI scan (the MRI machine was in the doctor's office - 'course he shared =
it
> with several other doctors in the same practice...).
>
> Turned out to be a bad sprain, not a torn ligament.
>
> In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
>
That is complete bullshit. Advice: get accurate reports...recent ones,
not those your mailboy throws at you in your cave.
On Wed, 4 May 2011 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 4, 8:08 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>> > "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
>> >> with the national health service not far behind.
>>
>> > Long gun registry? Very likely. National health service? Not a gnat's
>> > chance in hell. Canadians, the middle class on down (the vast bulk of
>> > the electorate) love their universal health service despite the
>> > occasional grumbling. The conservatives are riding pretty high right
>> > now. Any serious meddling with the health service would doom the
>> > Torys to relative obscurity the next time a general election comes
>> > around. Harper may have just been confirmed as head tyrant, but even
>> > he's not egotistical enough to attempt any serious health changes.
>>
>> Oh, I was exaggerating. Still, one never knows.
>>
>> A couple of years ago, I blew out my knee. My internist got me an
>> appointment with an orthopedist the next morning and that afternoon I had an
>> MRI scan (the MRI machine was in the doctor's office - 'course he shared it
>> with several other doctors in the same practice...).
>>
>> Turned out to be a bad sprain, not a torn ligament.
>>
>> In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
>>
>That is complete bullshit. Advice: get accurate reports...recent ones,
>not those your mailboy throws at you in your cave.
I know you hate Harper but I see you hate everyone.
On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:43:46 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>With a majority government there is no opposition party, only hecklers.
>
>The next 4-5 years should be interesting. Are we getting price and wage
>control again?
>
>-----------------------
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>Universal health care is safe with the conservatives.
>With Layton as the opposition leader I think you will see a
>"different" Harper, and a different parliament - Iggy and Gilles are
>no longer there, and they (and their cronies) were real "shit
>disturbers"
Say, top poster, I thought you were going to take a pill and get over
your anger!
No anesthetic at the time? Quite some imagination you have.
Maybe your dentistry was from the 1800s
or
your parents were really cheap
or
your parents didn't like you.
Procaine was first synthesized in 1905. Here, read up!
Ritchie, J. Murdoch; Greene, Nicholas M. (1990). "Local Anesthetics". In
Gilman, Alfred Goodman; Rall, Theodore W.; Nies, Alan S. et al.. Goodman and
Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (8 ed.). New York:
Pergamon Press. p. 311. ISBN 0080402968.
---------------------------------
"Upscale" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Funny you mention that. At ten years of age in Montreal, I visited the
dentist and was told I had 17 cavities? That number sounds fantastic by
today's standards. There was no anaesthetic at the time, (1964) at least not
that I'd heard of (or maybe not a dentist that my parents could afford). I
had to suffer through having them all drilled and filled without any pain
killer. If that doesn't introduce a kid to life in general, I don't know
what does.
-----------------------
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
attests to its success. (Of course they may, like me, have no basis for
comparison. "What do you mean they give anesthetics for tooth extractions
in the states? Damn, that's cool!).
On 5/9/2011 12:50 PM, DGDevin said this:
>
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>
>
> What? Can you point to executives of Medicare/Medicaid who are paid many millions of dollars a year in the way the top execs of big health insurance companies are paid millions or even tens of millions a year?¹ Can you show that Medicare's administrative overhead is as great or greater than that of private insurance companies? Can you demonstrate that the private medical insurance industry is funded primarily by govt. (to justify your use of the word "paymaster"? Does Medicare try to refuse patients or drop them when they get sick the way the insurance industry does? Would the answers to those questions be no, no, no and no?
>
> However I admire the consistency of your ideology--claiming that the reason private industry is ruthless, inefficient and greedy is because of the government demonstrates a beautiful case of tunnel-vision.
>
> ¹The CEO of Cigna Corp. gets $21 million dollars a year, the CEO of Aetna $24 million a year.
>
> What are the two biggest sources of funding for lobbying and campaign donations in Washington? Two industries--the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, they each spend a hundred million a year. And who financed opposition to health care reform? Among others Rick Scott, former CEO of the nation's largest health care company (dumped during a fraud investigation) and former partner of a certain former President in owning the Texas Rangers--Scott spent $20 million telling the nation how evil it
> would be to change the existing health care system. That today he owns a chain of walk-in clinics is probably just a coincidence.
>
And now a brief glimpse of Reality: There would be no abuse of Medicare that throws off this
kind of profit if there were no ... Medicare. In the absence of government meddling that
distorts the supply-demand feedback cycle of markets, insurers, doctors, pharma and the
medical ecosystem as a whole would have to compete (which they largely do not have to
do today) and - gasp - the only people making huge bonuses would be the ones running very
successful companies.
Class envy is unseemly, BTW ...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On 5/5/2011 2:11 PM, DGDevin said this:
>
>
> "HeyBub" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>> As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months to
>>> get one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally got to
>>> the head of the line. So it's a different set of problems from the
>>> also broken American system, they both need serious adjustments.
>
>> I suggest the American system isn't "broken." Everybody fits in somewhere. At the top is "concierge" medicine - those who get top-notch and immediate care. There are several categories below that, from Blue Cross, down through Medicare, all the way to "Canada-lite" (Medicaid)".
>
> Oh it's broken alright. The cost of health care insurance has been doubling every decade, employers are dropping or cutting back coverage or in some cases moving production overseas to escape health coverage costs. Medical tourism is a growing phenomenon as Americans travel to get surgery they can't afford in the U.S. One in six Americans has no insurance at all which means when they finally go to the hospital ER *you* and every other taxpayer/insurance customer pays for it. American health insurance companies absorb more in "administrative overhead" (including fat executive salaries) than anywhere in the world, about a fifth of what Americans pay for insurance never gets past the insurance companies. Look up pharmaceutical industry scandals sometime, it's a horror show of companies concealing dangers of their products, price-fixing, manipulation of the FDA, gaming the patent system to extend profits and so on. Some hospitals have closed ERs because they are swamped
> with uninsured patients who have no other source of health care. Unless the law prevents them from doing so insurance companies will refuse to insure anyone with a history of serious illness, and they have employees whose job is finding excuses to drop customers once they get sick. Doctors order needless tests to cover themselves against liability, and they pass on the cost of malpractice insurance to their patients. Government programs like Medicare pay out countless millions in bogus claims because it is so easy to defraud the system. The medical profession restricts the number of med school graduates to keep salaries (and thus costs) up. The loudest screams about health care reform invariably come from those who make the biggest profits, no way do they want change that doesn't put more money in their pockets--and so on and so forth.
>
> Isn't broken?
>
And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
run it, right?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On 5/11/2011 10:17 PM, [email protected] said this:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:42:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2011 12:55 PM, Douglas Johnson said this:
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...] The Sheeple
>>>> [...]the Sheeple
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> You've got to love the term. It does such a nice job of separating us
>>> enlightened ones, who have a clear view of Truth, from those nasty, ignorant,
>>> unwashed masses.
>>>
>>> -- Doug
>>
>> Anyone that thinks government will give them something for "free"
>> is Sheeple.
> And anyone who has half a brain KNOWS it is not "free" We all know
> this because we see the taxes we pay. It is not "free health care" it
Unfortunately, at least in the US, the "we" who pay taxes in total
is only half the population, and the overwhelming majority of the
taxes are paid by about 10% of the population. Well over half
the population is thus getting a "free" ride.
> is "universal" or "government funded" health care.
No, it is not "government funded", it is funded by the *people*
(at the point of a gun for at least half of us).
> We know we are paying for it. - We are (pre) paying it on the
> installment plan - or a "budget payment plan" if you like - knowing
> that we will never have to lose our home or life savings just because
> "our number comes up" and we either fall ill or have a serious
> accident.
Oh if were only that simple. Pray tell, if that's all there is to it, why
are these socialist programs in trouble financially all over the world?
Excepting the Nordic nations with a lot of oil money to throw around, the
various social services programs in North America and Europe are on a track
to pretty much all be under water within a generation or so. Western
Continental Europe is particularly vulnerable because - since NATO picked
up the bulk of the post-WWII defense check - they made cradle-to-grave
social services (over) promises which are no longer economically tenable.
Hint: Your belief that you are fully "prepaying" is false and a myth
peddled by politicians. The reality is that - with people living longer and
thereby ending up sicker - a good part of the population takes way more out
than they ever put in, even assuming the politicians had taken the money to
buy real annuities or other investments to create a trust fund of some sort
(which they almost never do). The result is inevitable - the socialist
systems are forced to decrease levels of service because there's no
other way out. (There are not enough evil rich people out there to
pay for the various collectivist demands of the Sheeple.)
Moreover, you may no lose your life savings, but your ability to accrue
much, much larger savings over your lifetime was crippled by the
incremental taxes you paid for this "insurance".
Socialism in all its forms is a scam. It is beloved by people that don't
want to pay their own way and politicians that use it to buy votes.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> And anyone who has half a brain KNOWS it is not "free" We all know
> this because we see the taxes we pay. It is not "free health care" it
> is "universal" or "government funded" health care.
> We know we are paying for it. - We are (pre) paying it on the
> installment plan - or a "budget payment plan" if you like - knowing
> that we will never have to lose our home or life savings just because
> "our number comes up" and we either fall ill or have a serious
> accident.
Ah! So THAT'S why Canadians live such risky lives. Hockey, for example.
On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:49:36 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/10/2011 9:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 12:26:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/10/2011 12:14 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>>>>>>>>>> run it, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>>>>>>>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>>>>>>>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>>>>>>>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>>>>>>>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>>>>>>>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>>>>>>>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>>>>>>>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>>>>>>>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>>>>>>>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>>>>>>>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>>>>>>>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>>>>>>>>> might be done about that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>>>>>>>>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>>>>>>>>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>>>>>>>>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>>>>>>>>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>>>>>>>>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>>>>>>>> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>>>>>>>> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>>>>>>>> buerocracy involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
>>>>>> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
>>>>>> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
>>>>>> al least only one level of incompetence.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
>>>>> running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
>>>>> instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
>>>> Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
>>>> involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
>>>> someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
>>>> Pinko in every corner.
>>>
>>> That's not really the problem. The Sheeple want lots and lots and lots
>>> of "free" (to them) social services. They do not wish to personally
>>> pay for it, so the political types peddle this fantasy of "We can help
>>> if you'll just vote for us."
>>>
>>> But what that inevitably ends up meaning is, "We'll create a bureaucracy
>>> that is more self-interested than interested in serving the constituency."
>>> This makes the Sheeple further dependent on their Congress Critters -
>>> exactly what all incumbents, especially, love.
>>>
>>> This then leads to financial disaster and the politicians start selling
>>> "Let's make the rich pay more" even though the "rich" pay over 90% of
>>> Federal taxes in the US.
>>>
>>> I share your view that the US system is insane because it props up
>>> two inefficient bureaucracies: The private-sector delivery and
>>> insurance system, and the government payment system. But the
>>> way to fix this isn't to get rid of the private sector. It's to
>>> get rid of the government bureaucracy and let markets fix the
>>> private sector as they do so well.
>> Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
>> involved.
>> If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
>> and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
>
>Policing requires force and force is legally (almost) the sole domain
>of government for a variety of reasons.
>
>> BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
>> short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
>
>The only Western monopolies that ever existed that were *predatory*
>were the ones enabled by government. Predatory monopoly can only
>exist with force. Without it, the overpricing will be corrected by
>government. Think public utilities vs. IBM or Microsoft. No
>truly private monopoly can get away with predatory pricing and
>survive.
>
>> The same is VERY TRUE of health care. Your private health care
>> providers (HMOs?) make obscene profits strictly because they can. Your
>
>Businesses exist to make a profit. You think doctors, nurses,
>pharma researchers, and their supporting staff should work for free
>maybe?
Not at all. A couple hundred thousand a year for the professionals
listed is sensible. A couple million is criminal, when the average
skilled worker makes something like $60 thousand.
>
>> financial companies, banks, and insurance companies do the same, for
>> the same reason. CEOs and CFOs, as well as managers all down the line
>> get multi-million dollar bonuses while the companies are loosing
>> money and shareholders are bleeding - because they CAN. And the CAN
>> because your government hasn't got (and never has had, regardless
>> which party in in power - the jumbos or the jackasses) the balls to
>> stand up to them and regulate them into acceptable behaviour. They
>
>Typically wrong. These healthcare providers don't have to be efficient
>because they are *guaranteed government payment* no matter how well or
>poorly they perform. It is the absence of markets, not the absence
>of government that has created the mess.
Guaranteed government payment in the American system pre-Obama????
Absense of markets when there is a doctor shortage in almost any major
city (at least in Canada)?
And what about the insurance and financial companies???
>
>> haven't the balls or the stomach to do it because they know they will
>> not get elected to a second term if they do, because Americans do not
>> want their Government involved in their lives PERIOD.
>
>That's the best part of being an American.
Also the worst.
>
>> Regulating banks and financial institutions is the tip of the wedge
>> that will turn their country into a communist state like North Korea,
>> or North Vietnam, or their good friends and financial "benefactors"
>> the Red Chinese. And government controlled/paid HEALTH CARE!!!!!
>> That's half way up the wedge.The poor cannot afford health care?
>
>I grew up poor, long before US government run healthcare. This
>is baldly false and unhinged from reality. We always had essential
>healthcare even when there was only $20 for food.
As long as you didn't get sick you could live.
>
>> Tough. It'll cull out the "weak" - and the "weak" are the "socialist
>> scum" that drag down your great country - making it more difficult for
>> the rest of the unwashed masses to grab on to the AMERICAN DREAM.
>
>That is true.
And a very sad commentary on the American culture.
>
>>
>> Like Marie Antoinette said when told the peasants had no bread - "let
>> them eat cake".
>>
>> I'm glad I don't live in the USA. And I hope and pray that out
>> government doesn't drag us down the American garden path.
>>
>> Thank goodness we didn't elect the American University Prof as our
>> PM!!!!
>
>I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
>people. I chose to become an American citizen.
Glad you are happy with your choice.
On 5/11/2011 10:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:49:36 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Businesses exist to make a profit. You think doctors, nurses,
>> pharma researchers, and their supporting staff should work for free
>> maybe?
>
> Not at all. A couple hundred thousand a year for the professionals
> listed is sensible. A couple million is criminal, when the average
> skilled worker makes something like $60 thousand.
You you are wise enough to decide what is 'fair' for other people?
Is it OK with you if I get to decide what YOU should make? Shall
we vote on it? How else might we decide. cf The Soviet
economic system of the 20th century and its many failings.
>>
>>> financial companies, banks, and insurance companies do the same, for
>>> the same reason. CEOs and CFOs, as well as managers all down the line
>>> get multi-million dollar bonuses while the companies are loosing
>>> money and shareholders are bleeding - because they CAN. And the CAN
>>> because your government hasn't got (and never has had, regardless
>>> which party in in power - the jumbos or the jackasses) the balls to
>>> stand up to them and regulate them into acceptable behaviour. They
>>
>> Typically wrong. These healthcare providers don't have to be efficient
>> because they are *guaranteed government payment* no matter how well or
>> poorly they perform. It is the absence of markets, not the absence
>> of government that has created the mess.
>
> Guaranteed government payment in the American system pre-Obama????
Yes. go look up Medicare and, worse still, medicaid.
> Absense of markets when there is a doctor shortage in almost any major
> city (at least in Canada)?
There is a shortage of doctors and other medical practitioners all
over the US, but especially in the more rural areas (where a whole
lot of people live). After all, if You And Yours have your way,
why should I go to 10+ years of school, end up with a half million
dollars of school debt, only to be told by some suffocating
do-gooder "you make too much"?
>
> And what about the insurance and financial companies???
>>
>>> haven't the balls or the stomach to do it because they know they will
>>> not get elected to a second term if they do, because Americans do not
>>> want their Government involved in their lives PERIOD.
>>
>> That's the best part of being an American.
>
> Also the worst.
>>
>>> Regulating banks and financial institutions is the tip of the wedge
>>> that will turn their country into a communist state like North Korea,
>>> or North Vietnam, or their good friends and financial "benefactors"
>>> the Red Chinese. And government controlled/paid HEALTH CARE!!!!!
>>> That's half way up the wedge.The poor cannot afford health care?
>>
>> I grew up poor, long before US government run healthcare. This
>> is baldly false and unhinged from reality. We always had essential
>> healthcare even when there was only $20 for food.
>
> As long as you didn't get sick you could live.
You have no idea what you're talking about. We got sick, we got
treated, we didn't get government pork to pay for it, and we
didn't go (further) broke. It was the entry of government into
the system that utterly polluted it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:42:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/11/2011 12:55 PM, Douglas Johnson said this:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [...] The Sheeple
>>> [...]the Sheeple
>>> [...]
>>
>> You've got to love the term. It does such a nice job of separating us
>> enlightened ones, who have a clear view of Truth, from those nasty, ignorant,
>> unwashed masses.
>>
>> -- Doug
>
>Anyone that thinks government will give them something for "free"
>is Sheeple.
And anyone who has half a brain KNOWS it is not "free" We all know
this because we see the taxes we pay. It is not "free health care" it
is "universal" or "government funded" health care.
We know we are paying for it. - We are (pre) paying it on the
installment plan - or a "budget payment plan" if you like - knowing
that we will never have to lose our home or life savings just because
"our number comes up" and we either fall ill or have a serious
accident.
The irrational insults are reserved for the Harper party. You know the one
with no platform.
-------------
"Jesse" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Come on, you can do better than that, where are the irrational
insults? I'm thinking about your best interests when I suggest you get
your blood pressure checked!
On May 4, 8:11=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Josepi wrote:
> > "Natiional Health Service"?
>
> > Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians
>
> Note my description was not capitalized, meaning my phrase was not meant =
to
> be a "name," but a description. I could just as easily said "Canadian
> socialized medicine" with no loss of clarity.
>
>
>
> > -----------
>
> > "HeyBub" =A0wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives
> > won 167 seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal
> > Party fell to 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history
> > (NDP socialists came in second). Even the leader =A0lost his seat. The
> > Quebec separatist party lost ALL its seats in Quebec!
>
> > Anyway, Good Show, Canada.
>
> > I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped
> > with the national health service not far behind.
You see, Bub.. when I comment on some issues in the US, I do my
homework first before commenting.
I suggest you do the same.
On May 4, 9:29=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:55:11 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
>
> >> That is complete bullshit. Advice: get accurate reports...recent ones,
> >> not those your mailboy throws at you in your cave.
>
> >Obviously, hearsay is alive and well in the US, just like everywhere els=
e.
> >All I surmise about HeyBub's truly American opinion of our medical syste=
m is
> >that we essentially have a socialistic based health system. Thus, the
> >ingrained hate.
>
> My Dad had some first hand experience with the Ontario Canada health
> system over the last 3 months.
> He ended up in hospital, a millimeter from death's door, after a minor
> mis-step and a spinal compression fracture. The doctors pulled him
> back from the threshold, and over 6 weeks finally came up with the
> diagnosis - myeloma . The back pain was excrutiating, but within a
> week of diagnosis he had a kyphoplasty which greatly reduced the pain.
> They had him on Chemo a couple days after the diagnosis, and when his
> kidneys shut down they had him on dialasis within 2 days. Two days
> after the kyphoplasty he was home - after 8 weeks in the hospital
> A minor setback had him back in the hospital for a week after 7 days
> home . Back home, his kidneys back to normal again and off dialasis,
> and he's been home almost 3 weeks now.
>
> In the USA, would he still have his home??
> In Canada, he can still afford to live in the modest home he still
> owns. Could the diagnosis have come faster? Perhaps. Could
> communication have been better between different medical staff?
> Likely. Would any of this been better under the American system????
> It's anybody's guess. - =A0And how much would it have cost????
> 9 weeks in 2 different hospitals - cancer specialists, kidney
> specialists, diagnosticians, intensive care, and all????
>
> He's still with us - the system worked - and he's still financially
> viable.
In all seriousness...and that is hard for me these days as my mother
is in palliative care as we speak...
We did all the advance legwork, re: her burial, casket selection,
travel arrangements for 90% of my immediate family who are all
AMERICANS and a few are retired AIRFORCE.... Just like when Angela and
I got married, the wedding party was a blend of Canadian NAVY, US
MARINES, US AIRFORCE, and a whole shitload of ARMY VETS.....
.
.
.
.
and I still get labelled a pinko-commie-fag-junky by those who have NO
FUKKING CLUE as who it is I am and who I was.
.
.
.
I can give anyone who is interested a 60 second education.
.
..
*grumble*
On Wed, 4 May 2011 21:17:51 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I know you hate Harper but I see you hate everyone.
>
>Yup. Wannabe trolls like you bring out the hate in everyone.
>
>Oh yeah. I hate you too. Betcha you didn't guess that did you dweeb?
>
I imagine you do, but others don't all see that the sky is falling.
By the way that's Mr. Dweeb to you.
On Wed, 04 May 2011 07:33:39 -0600, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:24:07 -0500, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>says...
>>> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:43:46 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >With a majority government there is no opposition party, only hecklers.
>>> >
>>> >The next 4-5 years should be interesting. Are we getting price and wage
>>> >control again?
>>> >
>>> >-----------------------
>>> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> >Universal health care is safe with the conservatives.
>>> >With Layton as the opposition leader I think you will see a
>>> >"different" Harper, and a different parliament - Iggy and Gilles are
>>> >no longer there, and they (and their cronies) were real "shit
>>> >disturbers"
>>>
>>> Say, top poster, I thought you were going to take a pill and get over
>>> your anger!
>>
>>Say you start by reading Harperland.
>>
>>Then read the key list from
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:
>>_A_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot
>>
>>I'd suggest you read the whole book, but the list is good enough to get
>>the picture.
>>
>>Just so you don't go away stupid, every item on the list has been
>>illustrated in spades by Harper's government or by his supporters. The
>>public record already shows it. The thug culture was evident on the
>>streets during the election. The autodialler message that was used to
>>try to drive turnout lower was very clever and attacked the system at a
>>weak, untraceable point. Now we need him out, not only to see the real
>>books but to see if the system was subverted at any other point.
>>I could point your way to over 30 books that should at least give you a
>>distinct sense of unease and maybe guilt even if they didn't entirely
>>change your mind. I won't address Harper's dominionist ties and
>>inclinations beyond mentioning them.
>>
>>So now we have to do our best to demolish the neo-con MLA's support of
>>Harper's plans, start a holding action and be ready to go to election at
>>a moment's notice because he has control. ...and He's in campaign mode
>>again.
>>
>>Harper does like his numbers. And since I don't expect you to take my
>>earlier suggestions of doing the research, let me point out that any
>>party that requires its members to get a permission slip from the
>>principal to speak publicly, participates in communal response
>>rehearsals, must memorize party responses to questions and otherwise
>>engage in cultish sock-puppet behaviour shouldn't even have a sniff at
>>power let alone a seat in power.
>>
>>And any party that pulls all their candidates out of the public eye
>>before the end of the election needs much closer scrutiny than they're
>>getting. It could be as simple as the permission process breaking down
>>or as nefarious (as a friend of mine suggested) that the fix was in and
>>voting tabulation system was hacked so they no longer needed to
>>campaign.
>>
>>And let me throw a thought into the deal before I go back to my day.
>>
>>Harper appointed the board of CBC and the quality of CBC's reporting,
>>interviews and pundits has been shifted radically to the right.-- Just
>>before the election, there was a heavy-handed update of the CBC website
>>and a statement of editorial policy changes that has driven off a lot of
>>the best, most knowledgeable commentators in the middle and on the left.
>>The site also took on the Harperite colours which not only colour
>>coordinated it *with the rest of Canada's websites* but harmonized most
>>fetchingly with the Harperite election signs.
>>
>>And every time I've posted this intuition to CBC, it's been censored
>>before or after the fact. In fact, censorship is the constant companion
>>of every dissident voice.
>>
>>You start to get a sense of information shaping going on. -- For
>>instance, they let people blatt on but for the duration of the early
>>election, using the word fascist caused a post to be censored. Using the
>>synonym corporatist for fascist for awhile caused posts to the CBC site
>>to be randomly censored. -- The one way around it was to use link to
>>information off-site probably because they couldn't check them all.
>>
>>So to get back to the site itself, it was clearly a rush job for the
>>campaign and consolidation of empire that was called an update. Our
>>money going yet again to fund Harper's endless campaign. Worse however
>>is the coopting of the reach of CBC to one man's political ends. An
>>agency funded by the government, under the government's jurisdiction and
>>with an incredible reach into Canadian lives.
>>
>>It does give one pause.
>>
>>You can call me angry until the cows come home. I don't care. I've gone
>>beyond angry, done a cometary bypass of outraged, a flyby of incendiary
>>and moved on to resolute. This is my Canada and an insult to turds is
>>governing it.
>>
>>Canada was ripe for this pimple. Complacency makes people ripe for this
>>kind of crap. Shock and denial limit our response time.
>>
>>Now we have to try to pop the zit the hard way.
>>
>>I'll close with noting that the USA's founding attempt to create a
>>government where a tyrant can't arise was a foresighted, brave and
>>commendable effort. -- I didn't appreciate it properly until I started
>>doing research on Harper.
>>
>>We need something like that kind of foresight and insight in Canada to
>>build a better electoral/governmental system when we shake off Harper
>>and start putting Canada to rights.
>
>I can see a nice tin hat in your future. Soon?
You got me, that is a nice comeback!
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:59:22 -0400, willshak <[email protected]> wrote:
>Josepi wrote the following:
>> Just remember the childish antics of the Harper government against
>> other leaders on TV (how many $$$$ did that slander campaign cost?).
>>
>> I don't know where else to go though. Layton will get in eventually as
>> the PCs and Libs get their deserved bad reputation. Ignatief is one
>> educated guy in many countries and would be a good PM if you want a
>> different story every night before bed.
>>
>> Funny thing is I used to always vote PC, no matter what but I was
>> damned if I could even remember the Canuck PM when asked a year ago. I
>> had no idea who got in last time and I am getter more happy about not
>> caring as I see their history.
>>
>> Can you name some good things Harper has done in how many years??? I
>> haven't even heard his name until a month agao.
>> Ohh.. taken the National Deficit from $1.5B to $4.5B!
>> OK...bigger is better, right?
>
>Do like we do here in the US, just borrow the money from the Chinese
>until they own you.
When you borrow enough from the bank, you own them.
Here let me tell you in the past years I have been to emergency care four
times with my elderly mother, RIP, and my wife.
Emergency care, in the hospital is after you pass through Triage and they
make a determination (NO! THEY CAN"T DIAGNOSE!!!) of the seriousness of your
malady.
In busy times, which is any day ending with a "y" there is a limited number
of doctors, usually one after 6 PM, for an area of half a million. Nurses
are not to diagnose, or otherwise look at you after Triage admittance.
If a parade of determined critical danger patients are admitted and the
doctor never finishes then non-critical patients cannot be seen. My mother
having a nervous breakdown and my wife having a Gall Bladder Attack and
passing out on the floor was not considered critical.
After about 6 hours of waiting each time I offered to leave and go to
another hospital emerg. about 2 hours drive but I was informed that was not
allowed. Of the four visits I waited 11.5, 13, 12,and 10.5 hours to be sent
home and told to see my family doctor when they opened next business day,
each time. My wife vomited all the way home in the car but we just went home
and "slept it off". "It isnt critical." "It's only severe pain".
The USA has a rude awakening coming. At least the UK has a two tierd medical
system... those that can pay and those that cannot. In Canada we are not
allowed a two tier system to exist. In Australia they can't seem to help
their mentally insane and use Usenet as a therapy tool.
----------------------------
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You make several good points.
No, I have not lived in Canada and experienced, first hand, its medical
paradigm. That the vast majority of citizens are happy with the situation
attests to its success. (Of course they may, like me, have no basis for
comparison. "What do you mean they give anesthetics for tooth extractions in
the states? Damn, that's cool!).
I submit, too, that my or your personal experience is irrelevant; either of
us could have just gotten lucky. What one bases a finding on is the
aggregate. If you want to make a decision based on wait times for chronic
conditions, life expectancy after diagnosis (of cancer, heart problems,
diabetes, etc.), and so on, those would be telling metrics. But one
shouldn't put much reliance on specific instances.
Josepi wrote:
> LOL. Not the same description and the backpaddle only made the hole
> deeper. A monetary support system is not "medicine".
>
> I was partially incorrect in my statement. Our federal government does
> subsidize the provincial health care schemes.
>
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/facts-faits/fshc7-eng.asp
>
> This would imply there is a "national healthcare policy" or
> "support", but I won't admit to a "service" or "plan".. LOL
>
> Have a good one!
>
Sorry, I have other plans for today. But thanks for the thought.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Apr 4, 11:53Â am, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>
>> > "FrozenNorth" Â wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>> > Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**ked
>> > up yet.
>>
>> Harper's shenanigans are the reason I've come to respect the wisdom the
>> USA's founding fathers showed for forming their government in such a way
>> as to prevent a tyrant from rising to the kind of power Harper in a
>> majority would have.
>>
>> His actions are also the reason I've spent the better part of the past 8
>> months reading and working to get a handle on Harper's realpolitik. I
>> care about what he does, not what he says.
>>
>> I don't like Ignatieff much but put up against Harper, Ignatieff looks
>> like the heart and soul of democracy; for that matter so do Layton and
>> May.
>
>Harper, aka Bush Lite, is a power hungry control freak. He's in the
>pocket of defense contractors and big business. He truly doesn't give
>a fiddler's fig about the canadian people. He has to please his
>masters, and that doesn't include the people of Canada.
>
>Ignitionthief is a slippery fella. It would be bad for him to have a
>majority as well and that whole Layton/socialist thing is too screwed
>up to work. Rae tried it and failed on a Provincial level. If I work
>my ass off, I should be able to keep most of my money and not
>subsidize refuges with a financial hand-out which amounts to twice as
>much as a Canadian pensioner who helped build this country. You want
>to come hide in our country? Be prepared to spend the rest of your
>days building roads and planting trees instead of living in a nice
>apartment while your scumbag lawyer stalls the immigration process for
>5 fu*cking years.
>
>Somebody kick that soapbox out from under me...
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>A country as diverse as Canada can only be governed from the middle.
>It is as simple as that.
>I like the 3 party system where the balance of power is keeping the
>government honest.
>
>Having said that, what is really wrong, is that we don't have
>proportional representation... and that we don't have term limits on a
>senatorial level or on a federal leadership level. Also, senators
>should be elected, not handed a life-long meal ticket just because
>they blew the right dick. The Canadian senate is a frickin golf
>club.....but I digress...
Proportional representation, something like a 12 year limit for
leadership,(3 elections, and win or lose you step down for a minimum 4
year term) and an elected senate would be a good start.
Some rules and enforcement making sure a senator does his job if he
wants to get paid would also be a big step in the right direction
(shows up a minimum number of days, at the very least)
On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:50:08 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Natiional Health Service"?
>
>Canada has never had one. Pathetic troll for real Canadians
>
>-----------
>
>"HeyBub" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives won 167
>seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal Party fell to
>3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history (NDP socialists came
>in second). Even the leader lost his seat. The Quebec separatist party lost
>ALL its seats in Quebec!
>
No, they kept 3 or 4 - but the leader went down in a cloud of orange
dust
>Anyway, Good Show, Canada.
>
>I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with the
>national health service not far behind.
>
Josepi wrote the following:
> Just remember the childish antics of the Harper government against
> other leaders on TV (how many $$$$ did that slander campaign cost?).
>
> I don't know where else to go though. Layton will get in eventually as
> the PCs and Libs get their deserved bad reputation. Ignatief is one
> educated guy in many countries and would be a good PM if you want a
> different story every night before bed.
>
> Funny thing is I used to always vote PC, no matter what but I was
> damned if I could even remember the Canuck PM when asked a year ago. I
> had no idea who got in last time and I am getter more happy about not
> caring as I see their history.
>
> Can you name some good things Harper has done in how many years??? I
> haven't even heard his name until a month agao.
> Ohh.. taken the National Deficit from $1.5B to $4.5B!
> OK...bigger is better, right?
Do like we do here in the US, just borrow the money from the Chinese
until they own you.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Swingman wrote the following:
> On 4/3/2011 4:59 PM, willshak wrote:
>
>> Do like we do here in the US, just borrow the money from the Chinese
>> until they own you.
>
> Then default on the loan and count on the sea being wide enough to
> protect the collateral ...
>
Fortunately, the Pacific is much wider than the Atlantic so we'll have
more time to prepare.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
On 4/03/11 12:09 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>
> What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
> to a conservative ideology.
> This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody But
> Harper.
>
> Unfortnutaley we got some winners to choose from...*hurls lunch*
>
> Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
>
> "Hello Toronto, you're on the air!"
Layton scares me, but Iggy terrifies me, vote Green, she hasn't f**ked
up yet.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On 5/06/11 8:05 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On May 6, 2:03 am, "Upscale"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
>>
>> You shouldn't be telling me stuff like that. The next time I want to buy
>> something from the US and the dealer won't ship to Canada, I'm going to
>> draft you into driving over the border to buy it and then mail it to me on
>> the Canadian side.
>
> Wellllllllll then, this oughtta make you sit up and take notice...LOL
>
> http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/HarborFright.png
>
> TEN minutes max.. on a Sunday morning, maybe EIGHT minutes.
speaking of which.....did you ship it this week?
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> waiting less than 3 months." (This implies that 10% of the patients had to
> wait MORE than three months.)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Wait_times
Implies? That's been the basis or your entire barrage against our health
system. You really DON'T KNOW for sure unless you've lived here for several
years and experienced our health system as a resident of Canada. Have you
lived in Canada and received health services here?
As far as MRI's go, you've zoned in on one particular problem in the
Canadian health system and by your insistence on doing so, make it sound
like the entire system is operating in the dark ages. On the other side of
the coin, I'm willing to bet that for every quick successful medical
treatment in the US you can offer, several people have been forced into
bankruptcy or lost their homes to afford medical treatment. Would you care
to dispute that? Now, that's just an implication on my part because I've
never received or had to pay for health services in the US, but from what
I've heard, it's not a very pleasant experience. See. I'm implying just like
you've been doing.
For every single instance of a problem you might suggest in Canada's health
care, I could give you several examples of extremely quick treatment with
great results. fact is that neither system is perfect, both having
advantages and disadvantages. We tend to support the system we grew up with.
If you can't acknowledge that fact then the problem is you and your opinions
without any personal factual evidence.
Just remember the childish antics of the Harper government against other
leaders on TV (how many $$$$ did that slander campaign cost?).
I don't know where else to go though. Layton will get in eventually as the
PCs and Libs get their deserved bad reputation. Ignatief is one educated guy
in many countries and would be a good PM if you want a different story every
night before bed.
Funny thing is I used to always vote PC, no matter what but I was damned if
I could even remember the Canuck PM when asked a year ago. I had no idea who
got in last time and I am getter more happy about not caring as I see their
history.
Can you name some good things Harper has done in how many years??? I haven't
even heard his name until a month agao.
Ohh.. taken the National Deficit from $1.5B to $4.5B!
OK...bigger is better, right?
On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:55:11 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> In Canada, so the reports go, I'd STILL be waiting for that MRI.
>
>> That is complete bullshit. Advice: get accurate reports...recent ones,
>> not those your mailboy throws at you in your cave.
>
>Obviously, hearsay is alive and well in the US, just like everywhere else.
>All I surmise about HeyBub's truly American opinion of our medical system is
>that we essentially have a socialistic based health system. Thus, the
>ingrained hate.
>
My Dad had some first hand experience with the Ontario Canada health
system over the last 3 months.
He ended up in hospital, a millimeter from death's door, after a minor
mis-step and a spinal compression fracture. The doctors pulled him
back from the threshold, and over 6 weeks finally came up with the
diagnosis - myeloma . The back pain was excrutiating, but within a
week of diagnosis he had a kyphoplasty which greatly reduced the pain.
They had him on Chemo a couple days after the diagnosis, and when his
kidneys shut down they had him on dialasis within 2 days. Two days
after the kyphoplasty he was home - after 8 weeks in the hospital
A minor setback had him back in the hospital for a week after 7 days
home . Back home, his kidneys back to normal again and off dialasis,
and he's been home almost 3 weeks now.
In the USA, would he still have his home??
In Canada, he can still afford to live in the modest home he still
owns. Could the diagnosis have come faster? Perhaps. Could
communication have been better between different medical staff?
Likely. Would any of this been better under the American system????
It's anybody's guess. - And how much would it have cost????
9 weeks in 2 different hospitals - cancer specialists, kidney
specialists, diagnosticians, intensive care, and all????
He's still with us - the system worked - and he's still financially
viable.
Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> waiting less than 3 months." (This implies that 10% of the patients
>> had to wait MORE than three months.)
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Wait_times
>
> Implies? That's been the basis or your entire barrage against our
> health system. You really DON'T KNOW for sure unless you've lived
> here for several years and experienced our health system as a
> resident of Canada. Have you lived in Canada and received health
> services here?
> As far as MRI's go, you've zoned in on one particular problem in the
> Canadian health system and by your insistence on doing so, make it
> sound like the entire system is operating in the dark ages. On the
> other side of the coin, I'm willing to bet that for every quick
> successful medical treatment in the US you can offer, several people
> have been forced into bankruptcy or lost their homes to afford
> medical treatment. Would you care to dispute that? Now, that's just
> an implication on my part because I've never received or had to pay
> for health services in the US, but from what I've heard, it's not a
> very pleasant experience. See. I'm implying just like you've been
> doing.
> For every single instance of a problem you might suggest in Canada's
> health care, I could give you several examples of extremely quick
> treatment with great results. fact is that neither system is perfect,
> both having advantages and disadvantages. We tend to support the
> system we grew up with. If you can't acknowledge that fact then the
> problem is you and your opinions without any personal factual
> evidence.
You make several good points.
No, I have not lived in Canada and experienced, first hand, its medical
paradigm. That the vast majority of citizens are happy with the situation
attests to its success. (Of course they may, like me, have no basis for
comparison. "What do you mean they give anesthetics for tooth extractions in
the states? Damn, that's cool!).
I submit, too, that my or your personal experience is irrelevant; either of
us could have just gotten lucky. What one bases a finding on is the
aggregate. If you want to make a decision based on wait times for chronic
conditions, life expectancy after diagnosis (of cancer, heart problems,
diabetes, etc.), and so on, those would be telling metrics. But one
shouldn't put much reliance on specific instances.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyway, Canada ends up with essentially a two-party government:
> Conservatives: 167
> NDP: 102
> Liberals: 34
> Quebec: 4
> Green: 1
It has effectively been a two-party setup for most of its history, although
lately the two parties that traditionally took turns forming the govt. have
instead taken turns getting stomped in elections, sometimes giving the
traditional comedy party--the NDP--the balance of power in parliament--it's
amazing they're now the opposition. But it doesn't really matter, ask most
Canadians from outside Ontario and Quebec and they'll tell you that the
whole system is set up to benefit those two provinces with all the others
coming in a distant second. So whoever is in power, their first priority
will always be taking care of Ontario and Quebec. Imagine if New York State
and California between them had 2/3 the national population and what that
would mean for the rest of the country--that's the way it works in Canada.
As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months to get
one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally got to the head
of the line. So it's a different set of problems from the also broken
American system, they both need serious adjustments.
On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>> >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>> >>>>> run it, right?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>> >>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>> >>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>> >>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>> >>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>> >>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>> >>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>> >>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>> >>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>> >>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>> >>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>> >>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>> >>>> might be done about that?
>> >>>
>> >>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>> >>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>> >>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>> >>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>> >>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>> >>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>> >> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>> >> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>> >> buerocracy involved.
>> >
>> >And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
>> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
>> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
>> al least only one level of incompetence.
>
>The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
>running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
>instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
Pinko in every corner.
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
/snip
>Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>of MS.
>
>I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
>these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of
>the software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds
>worst OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works
>only with the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things
>that horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.
Jack.
I have taken the liberty of snipping out
the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
and confusion thus reigns.
Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
as to "topic".
And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
the story. Me too, I guess:-/
If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
is a forum where some sense remains amongst
all the trolling.
To address the follow-ups which talk about MAC,
or try to, in putting you down, I say this.
What Jobbs and Co. are doing is simply providing
fodder to an ongoing commercial grade 'war'.
MAC lost it's way too, years ago. About the time RedHat
and subsequential "dumb" installs of Linux were being
developed. Jobbs could have gone the GPL route and
still retained licensing for software but chose instead to
run Gates and Co. ragged. With some success I will add.
There were still major contracts being awarded to
MAC for Australian schools, govt. agencies and
the military right up until 2003/4.
Pretty much unheard of today though. AFAIK.
I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
to run a network.
Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
worked through a lot of command line structure to get
a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.
The job didn't work out and I started my own company
and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
five years and a few good employees.
WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/
yeh.. you are right alright, Jack.
But like all of the above.. wasting time telling it :-(
jes saying, like.
No responses please.
george
You are being trolled very successfully.
-------------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
> Jack Stein<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>> operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>> of MS.
> I have taken the liberty of snipping out
> the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
> and confusion thus reigns.
> Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
> clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
> being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
> their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
> For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
> as to "topic".
Excellent point!
> And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
> time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
> the story. Me too, I guess:-/
Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I have time to waste.
Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and they are right. I was
in the game early on and because I was intimately familiar with dos,
UNIX and OS/2, and computing and programing was my passion all through
the beginning of home computing, I do not speak out of ignorance. I was
deeply involved in the OS wars during the BBS years and I've heard all
the bullshit many, many times. During those days the only support MS
had from the gear heads were those either ignorant of UNIX and OS/2 or
earning a living from MS garbage products.
> If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
> is a forum where some sense remains amongst
> all the trolling.
I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
up my ass".
> I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
> having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
> expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
> to run a network.
My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
think totally perfect. Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
figured it out.
Gates bought his operating system from Patterson for $100,000 AFTER IBM
bestowed the contract on Gates, instead of DEC and cpm. Why would IBM
do something so dumb? Do you think you could get such a contract with
any company to sell a non-existent product?
I think they did it because they could control Gates, but not DEC. I
think the reason IBM did not market OS/2, and why they pulled the plug
on OS/2 when it reached critical mass was OS/2 did not fit in with their
plans for the cartel. OS/2 of 1995 would work perfectly fine, far
better than XP right now today on today's machines. Instead, the cartel
uses garbage that needs upgraded constantly, needs tons of attention to
keep working and so on. IBM, INTEL and MS all win over, and over while
the public has been screwed, over and over.
> Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
> for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
> draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
> worked through a lot of command line structure to get
> a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
> was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.
Well, after using DOS for several years, and wondering why I couldn't do
what I wanted, I ran into UNIX, and wow, that was exactly like sunshine
after a tropical storm of DOS. Later, OS/2 was more like what WINDOWS
should have been all along, not as robust as UNIX, but simple to use,
and everything worked dependably.
> The job didn't work out and I started my own company
> and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
> on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
> five years and a few good employees.
> WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/
There were quite a few good word processors, and MSWORD was is one of
the worst. It reminds me of some of the screwed up posts people make on
this (and all) newsgroups, with attributes a mess, proper quoting
ignored and so on. Yes, you can do stuff with it but the interface
really sucks.
> yeh.. you are right alright, Jack.
> But like all of the above.. wasting time telling it :-(
Sometimes I like to rub the burr...
> jes saying, like.
> No responses please.
One of the things I love about Usenet is everyone gets to say their
piece. Requesting no response never works. To get no response, you have
to stay out of the water:-)
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:04:08 -0400, clare wrote:
>
>> And by jove, they HAVE. They get an OS that works reasonably well for
>> PEANUTS with their computer, and they have the option of having
>> WHATEVER OS THEY WANT installed on their machine for a price. They
>> can then have WHATEVER SOFTWARE THEY WANT produced to run on that
>> OS, for a price.
>
> At the risk of sounding like a missionary, I didn't pay anything for
> Linux (Ubuntu version), Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, scanner
> software, etc.. If I need an app to do something, I type a keyword or
> two into the Package Manager and find one.
>
> So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
> support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface. I
> haven't needed CAD for almost a year now and I need the camera
> interface about 6-8 times a year. When I do I reboot into XP. If I
> had to reboot more often, I'd install the Windows emulator (WINE) and
> see if those two apps would run under it.
>
> But for the average user who needs only the network, web, and office
> apps Linux will work right out of the box.
>
> And it comes with *lots* more games than Windows :-).
>
> Did I mention that there are very few virii written for Linux? Not
> enough users for the hackers to annoy and the O/s is better protected
> than in Windows.
>
> Hmmmm - ignore everything I said - I don't want too many people using
> Linux :-).
Don't worry, not too many are.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:39:47 +0000, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> > So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
> > support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface.
>
> After I posted this about Linux, someone else complained about the lack
> of CAD and got a response suggesting Inkscape. I installed it and at
> checked some of the online docs. Looks pretty good. I'll report further
> after I use it.
>
> Thanks to the suggestor.
Try to create dimension lines with Inkscape.
On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:04:08 -0400, clare wrote:
> And by jove, they HAVE. They get an OS that works reasonably well for
> PEANUTS with their computer, and they have the option of having WHATEVER
> OS THEY WANT installed on their machine for a price. They can then have
> WHATEVER SOFTWARE THEY WANT produced to run on that OS, for a price.
At the risk of sounding like a missionary, I didn't pay anything for
Linux (Ubuntu version), Open Office, Firefox, Thunderbird, scanner
software, etc.. If I need an app to do something, I type a keyword or
two into the Package Manager and find one.
So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface. I haven't
needed CAD for almost a year now and I need the camera interface about
6-8 times a year. When I do I reboot into XP. If I had to reboot more
often, I'd install the Windows emulator (WINE) and see if those two apps
would run under it.
But for the average user who needs only the network, web, and office apps
Linux will work right out of the box.
And it comes with *lots* more games than Windows :-).
Did I mention that there are very few virii written for Linux? Not
enough users for the hackers to annoy and the O/s is better protected
than in Windows.
Hmmmm - ignore everything I said - I don't want too many people using
Linux :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
> Jack Stein<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>> operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>> of MS.
> I have taken the liberty of snipping out
> the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
> and confusion thus reigns.
> Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
> clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
> being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
> their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
> For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
> as to "topic".
Excellent point!
> And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
> time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
> the story. Me too, I guess:-/
Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I have time to waste.
Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and they are right. I was
in the game early on and because I was intimately familiar with dos,
UNIX and OS/2, and computing and programing was my passion all through
the beginning of home computing, I do not speak out of ignorance. I was
deeply involved in the OS wars during the BBS years and I've heard all
the bullshit many, many times. During those days the only support MS
had from the gear heads were those either ignorant of UNIX and OS/2 or
earning a living from MS garbage products.
> If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
> is a forum where some sense remains amongst
> all the trolling.
I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
up my ass".
> I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
> having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
> expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
> to run a network.
My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
think totally perfect. Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
figured it out.
Gates bought his operating system from Patterson for $100,000 AFTER IBM
bestowed the contract on Gates, instead of DEC and cpm. Why would IBM
do something so dumb? Do you think you could get such a contract with
any company to sell a non-existent product?
I think they did it because they could control Gates, but not DEC. I
think the reason IBM did not market OS/2, and why they pulled the plug
on OS/2 when it reached critical mass was OS/2 did not fit in with their
plans for the cartel. OS/2 of 1995 would work perfectly fine, far
better than XP right now today on today's machines. Instead, the cartel
uses garbage that needs upgraded constantly, needs tons of attention to
keep working and so on. IBM, INTEL and MS all win over, and over while
the public has been screwed, over and over.
> Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
> for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
> draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
> worked through a lot of command line structure to get
> a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
> was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.
Well, after using DOS for several years, and wondering why I couldn't do
what I wanted, I ran into UNIX, and wow, that was exactly like sunshine
after a tropical storm of DOS. Later, OS/2 was more like what WINDOWS
should have been all along, not as robust as UNIX, but simple to use,
and everything worked dependably.
> The job didn't work out and I started my own company
> and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
> on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
> five years and a few good employees.
> WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/
There were quite a few good word processors, and MSWORD was is one of
the worst. It reminds me of some of the screwed up posts people make on
this (and all) newsgroups, with attributes a mess, proper quoting
ignored and so on. Yes, you can do stuff with it but the interface
really sucks.
> yeh.. you are right alright, Jack.
> But like all of the above.. wasting time telling it :-(
Sometimes I like to rub the burr...
> jes saying, like.
> No responses please.
One of the things I love about Usenet is everyone gets to say their
piece. Requesting no response never works. To get no response, you have
to stay out of the water:-)
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT), "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, May 16, 2011 12:44:02 PM UTC-4, Jack Stein wrote:
>> On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
>> > Jack Stein<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>> >> operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>> >> of MS.
>>
>> > I have taken the liberty of snipping out
>> > the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
>> > and confusion thus reigns.
>> > Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
>> > clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
>> > being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
>> > their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
>> > For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
>> > as to "topic".
>>
>> Excellent point!
>>
>> > And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
>> > time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
>> > the story. Me too, I guess:-/
>>
>> Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I have time to waste.
>> Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and they are right. I was
>> in the game early on and because I was intimately familiar with dos,
>> UNIX and OS/2, and computing and programing was my passion all through
>> the beginning of home computing, I do not speak out of ignorance. I was
>> deeply involved in the OS wars during the BBS years and I've heard all
>> the bullshit many, many times. During those days the only support MS
>> had from the gear heads were those either ignorant of UNIX and OS/2 or
>> earning a living from MS garbage products.
>>
>> > If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
>> > is a forum where some sense remains amongst
>> > all the trolling.
>>
>> I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
>> up my ass".
>>
>> > I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
>> > having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
>> > expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
>> > to run a network.
>>
>> My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
>> are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
>> anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
>> EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
>> to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
>> to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
>> they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
>> think totally perfect.
>
>HUH? OS/2 was a joint product of IBM and Microsoft, the contract was signed in August, 1985, and a product didn't ship until December, 1987. That's more than two years.
>
>Further, it didn't have anything to do with being "unable to develop Windows to work correctly". The contract was signed before Windows shipped. In addition, OS/2 didn't even have a GUI until release 1.1 almost a year later and it didn't actually run Windows applications until 2.0 shipped in April, 1992.
>
>> Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
>> figured it out.
>>
>> Gates bought his operating system from Patterson for $100,000 AFTER IBM
>> bestowed the contract on Gates, instead of DEC and cpm. Why would IBM
>> do something so dumb? Do you think you could get such a contract with
>> any company to sell a non-existent product?
>
>Why would IBM "bestow a contract" on DEC? That's like Ford "bestowing a contract" on Chevy. And what did DEC have to do with anything anyway? You seem to be confusing Digital Research and Digital Equipment Corporation. The two were unrelated. CP/M was a product of Digital Research, not DEC. And there were several problems with Digital Research--the first is that they didn't actually have a product--the PC shipped in August, 1981, while CP/M-86 didn't ship until January, 1982. The second was that Gary Kildall wanted to charge more than IBM was willing to pay. The third was that he failed to show up at a critical meeting and offended IBM. There were, doubtless, other problems. He thought he had the world by the tail and blew one of the biggest opportunities anybody has ever had. If he had met IBM's price point and done what he had to do to have a product out the door when IBM wanted it, he'd be the one we all hate and Bill Gates would be a side note. Bill Gates gave IBM
>everything they asked for, did what he had to do to deliver a product, and the rest is history.
>
>> I think they did it because they could control Gates, but not DEC.
>
>DEC wasn't involved at all.
Not the first point Stein is confused on - - - - - - - -
>
>> I
>> think the reason IBM did not market OS/2, and why they pulled the plug
>> on OS/2 when it reached critical mass was OS/2 did not fit in with their
>> plans for the cartel. OS/2 of 1995 would work perfectly fine, far
>> better than XP right now today on today's machines. Instead, the cartel
>> uses garbage that needs upgraded constantly, needs tons of attention to
>> keep working and so on. IBM, INTEL and MS all win over, and over while
>> the public has been screwed, over and over.
>
>OS/2 works fine, however IBM couldn't get anybody to buy it. It did run most DOS code well. My 32-bit APL interpreter broke it though.
>
>> > Prior to that experience I did sit in front of a MAC
>> > for a short while in 1991 as a "mature age cadet"
>> > draftsman. Coming from the DOS machine I myself had
>> > worked through a lot of command line structure to get
>> > a spreadsheet printed on our dot matrix printer, MAC
>> > was akin to sunshine after a drenching cloudburst.
>>
>> Well, after using DOS for several years, and wondering why I couldn't do
>> what I wanted, I ran into UNIX, and wow, that was exactly like sunshine
>> after a tropical storm of DOS. Later, OS/2 was more like what WINDOWS
>> should have been all along, not as robust as UNIX, but simple to use,
>> and everything worked dependably.
>
>Well, if you didn't like DOS, you wouldn't like CP/M. Trust me on this.
That's for sure!!!!!
>
>> > The job didn't work out and I started my own company
>> > and thus paid for the "rip off" from those selling "Windows"
>> > on IBM frames. Cost me thousands over the next
>> > five years and a few good employees.
>> > WordPerfect was perfect.. compatibility wasn't so hot :-/
Word imperfect was "perfect"??? You must have used different versions
than I did! And don't even mention their companion "data imperfect"
Now WORD STAR wasn't a bad product.
>>
>> There were quite a few good word processors, and MSWORD was is one of
>> the worst. It reminds me of some of the screwed up posts people make on
>> this (and all) newsgroups, with attributes a mess, proper quoting
>> ignored and so on. Yes, you can do stuff with it but the interface
>> really sucks.
>
>If you know how it works it's not bad, if you try to fight it it's terrible. We went with it for one reason--it had full, configurable, well documented support for the laser printer that we had.
>
><snip>
On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:39:47 +0000, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
> support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface.
After I posted this about Linux, someone else complained about the lack
of CAD and got a response suggesting Inkscape. I installed it and at
checked some of the online docs. Looks pretty good. I'll report further
after I use it.
Thanks to the suggestor.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:51:10 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 5/21/2011 8:31 PM, Upscale wrote:
> It
>> doesn't matter much how or what prompts someone to become computer literate,
>> just that upon doing so, they eventually realize there *are* other choices
>> available when it comes to computers and operating systems. That's
>> Microsoft's real contribution in my opinion.
>
>Your opinions, as usual, are worthless.
Plonk him and forget him, Jack.
Life's too short...
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer
On 5/17/2011 12:52 PM, J. Clarke said this:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:39:47 +0000, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>> So far, the only thing I've found wanting is a good CAD package and
>>> support for my ancient camera's pseudo floppy disk interface.
>>
>> After I posted this about Linux, someone else complained about the lack
>> of CAD and got a response suggesting Inkscape. I installed it and at
>> checked some of the online docs. Looks pretty good. I'll report further
>> after I use it.
>>
>> Thanks to the suggestor.
>
> Try to create dimension lines with Inkscape.
>
>
I have not tried this but according to:
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/ReleaseNotes044
We get:
"The DimensionIn and DimensionOut markers are changed so that the arrow tips
exactly correspond to node positions. It is now very easy to make dimension
lines that correspond to drawn objects. The dimension specifications can
now easily be chained by splitting a straight line at a point and assigning
DimensionIn/Out markers to the resulting smaller paths whose endpoints
coincide."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On Sat, 14 May 2011 20:25:48 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
Clipped
>
>> Your understanding of 'forced' is, um, bogus. No one forces you to use
>> Windows, or for that matter a computer *at all*. It's absurd to complain that you cannot
>> buy what you want at the store.
>
>Not absurd at all. If I go to any large retail store, and can buy only
>the worlds worst os because of illegal, anti-trust marketing practices,
>and most all home software products are professionally developed ONLY
>for the worlds worst OS because of past illegal, immoral, anti-trust
>marketing practices, then I, and particularly the average user, is
>'forced' to run the worlds worst OS on their home PC.
>
Go to any large retail store and all you can buy is the "consumer"
models of whatever brand the stores carry. Best Buy etc. only carry
what they can sell by the truck-load - which is, by definition, the
cheapest crap they can get because the general buying public won't pay
the price for the "best". Try buying a laptop computer, for instance,
from any of the major big-box stores with Windows 7 Professional. The
manufacturers produce systems designed for and sold with the
professional version of the OS, but you cannot buy it at Best Buy or
Future Shop, in most cases.
Also, many of the low end products sold by Future Shop/Best Buy and
other retailers is not available to me as a reseller/VAR. It is a
mass-market only product, contented to meet a price-point.
>> Hardware vendors voluntarily entered into a deal
>> with Microsoft to get preferential pricing.
>
>Bear in mind, that NO hardware
>> vendor had to agree to Microsoft's terms. They could simply have sold bare metal
>> and let the consumer decide what to put on it. They didn't because they (rightly)
>> understood that consumers wanted a turnkey system.
>
>Wrong. Any vendor that decided to increase their market by installing
>say, OS/2, and allowing the consumer a choice of OS's was met with
>threats of losing the ability to sell DOS/WIN.
They were threatened with losing the ability to sell DOS/WIN as an
OEM, with preferential pricing. Nothing stopped them from selling
their machines with no pre-installed OS, and selling a "retail"
package of MS DOS/WIN with the computer at full retail price.
And to get right down to the basics - if a COMPANY wanted to sell
computers with DOS/WIN OEM and without, all they needed to do was form
a wholly owned subsidiary company to sell the non MS OS machines under
a different brand.. One company had an OEM agreement, the other did
not. Product from the one "division" could ONLY be sold with MS OEM
OS, the product of the other "division" could NOT be sold with MS OEM
OS.
> The OS cost them a few
>dollars, but if they sold say, OS/2 installed, they either would not get
>to sell DOS/WIN at all or would no longer get the "discount" price and
>would pay hundreds for the OS. This would spell the death knell to any
>retailer dependent on the home PC market. The result of these anti
>competitive tactic's was the retailer and the consumer (and the software
>developers) had NO CHOICE, they would be using the worlds worst OS. Why
>do YOU think most of the home market is using the worlds worst OS?
>Everyone is just too fucking dumb to buy something better, right?
Or too CHEAP.
>
>> For about a decade now, there have been a dozen or so Linux
>> distributions, 3 or 4
>> major BSD variants, FreeDOS, WINE, and host of other lesser choices
>> available
>> for *free*... And the consumers still have consistently chosen Microsoft
>> over all the above.
>
>Last time I was at best buy, I could not buy a PC with LINUX installed
>on it. Last time I watched my wife and children on the PC, looked like
>they would have no clue how to remove windows and install a shareware
>version of UNIX that would not run any of their software.
>
They also could not buy a machine with Windows XP Professional or
Windows 7 Professional, or as of late, not even Windows 7 32 bit,
pre-installed.
>This is not the behavior of a predatory monopoloy.
>
>Yes, it is. Without illegal marketing practices, people would have
>chosen to buy an OS that worked installed on their home PC, and
>developers would have developed software for that market. MS would have
>had to come out with a solid, smooth working, multitasking OS or go out
>of business. The consumer would have been the winner.
>
And by jove, they HAVE. They get an OS that works reasonably well for
PEANUTS with their computer, and they have the option of having
WHATEVER OS THEY WANT installed on their machine for a price. They can
then have WHATEVER SOFTWARE THEY WANT produced to run on that OS, for
a price.
Or they can buy off-the-shelf software for that so-so OS, that also
works reasonably well, for a couple hours wages. ANd that software can
come from "anti-christ inc" or any number of other established
software houses who sell their products in sufficient quantity to be
able to sell at a competetive price.
The option would be that everybody bought a computer with NO OS
installed, and bought whatever OS they either wanted or were directed
to by their reseller, at full retail price, and then bought or had
programmed whatever application they wanted/needed, at significant
cost, with no expectation that data generated on their computer might
be compatible with or readable on someone else's computer.
Back to the seventies, the days of Basic 4, Business Basic, OS/9, the
various incompatible versions of CPM, Exec, Gecos, George, MFT, PCP,
BKY, Chios, and all the non-compatible Unix and Xenix flavours, EMAS,
VMS, Ultrix, etc. and "custom software" written at great expense for
every different OS and application - very few of which ran
successfully even on ONE platform for less than the cost of a driveway
full of Cadilacs.
So yes, I'll say it again: By Jove, the consumer HAS come out the
winner. At least to a point.
>It is the evidence of a satisfied customer base, nothing else.
>
>Nope, it is evidence of the results of stifled competition. People do
>not choose to use the worst product available when given a choice. When
>choice is stifled, the consumer ALWAYS loses.
OK smarty-pants. Develop a new OS - or buy the rights to OS/2 and
upgrade it to the point where it is not only a viable alternative to,
but also a superior product to anything offered by "anti-christ inc"
and market it at a price that will generate enough sales to put some
bread on your table. Set up a support team capable of providing all
required support to all users (Oh, I forgot - your product will be so
perfect no support will EVER be required) - and the whole world will
be your oyster.
If your product is truly superior, it will outsell "anti-christ inc"
regardless of their anti-competitive behaviour, and you will make
enough profit to fight off all the predatory court cases against you
for having your product "look and feel" like some-one elses - or
infringing an invalid patent issued to some backstreet lawyer for some
common generic "technology".
In about 10 years you'll have the rest of the world complaining about
YOUR anti-competetive behaviour, and YOU will find yourself in front
of a trade tribunal or whatever, defending YOUR rights - and you will
be known as "anti-christ inc #2"
Good luck.
>
>> Microsoft makes "good
>> enough" technology. It's good enough for most people, most of the time.
>
>Nothing is good enough if there is other stuff available that is better.
> Windows sucks the big one, most everyone hates it but don't know why.
> Mostly they blame it on their own "computer illiteracy" or on
>non-existent viral attacks. It's the OS stupid!
"Non existant" viral attacks????? "non existant" Mal ware?????
OK, so MS products are not perfect. Their registry is fragile, and
occaisionally requires attention - but the vast majority of
performance issues in the PC world ARE related, in one way or another,
to MalWare and other outside influences, including virus issues.
Cleaning or restoring the registry can often get back much oif the
lost performance - but getting rid of all the MalWare generally gets
back the rest.
If as many people had a hard-on against, say , RedHat Linux as have
against Microsoft, they would come up with ways to compromise RedHat
just as badly as they have Microsoft products - and the damage could
end up every bit as serious to Linux as it has proven to be against
Microsoft.
If you set up a Microsoft Windows XP system as a standalone system,
and install half a dozen applications and use them for a few years -
with NO outside connection, and no updates or system changes, that
machine will work well, with virtually no issues.
My system, (xp 2002 Professional) connected to the internet 24/7/52
has not needed a software re-install in almost 10 years and is ,
today, running just about as well as a 3.13gz Celeron computer with
1GB of RAM could be expected to run.
I run and test all kinds of programs and hardware - so the registry
gets cleaned up occaisionally, and the hard-drive gets defragmented
regularly - and when the system seams to be slowing down a bit, a
amal-ware cleaner is used to drive out the "bugs" that have gotten
into the system.
>
>> It's
>> not "great" because consumers wouldn't pay for great ... or at least
>> they haven't been willing to thus far.
>
>Consumers could have had great had they been able to purchase OS/2
>installed on their PC's.
Customers WERE able to buy OS/2 on their computers. Microsoft made it
available to their OEM partners back in the '80s, and it was a real
hard sell.
> They could have had great in spite of MS
>illegal anti-trust marketing had IBM not pulled the product the moment
>it became clear OS/2 was about to explode on the market as it reached
>critical mass of 1 million copies sold a month, despite the difficulty
>of finding it for sale, and having to remove the worlds worst OS and
>installing something that actually worked yourself. Had IBM provided it
>to the retailers, and MS not threatened retailers, Win would either have
>gone out of business, or developed something better than OS/2. Neither
>happened.
IF OS/2 was so superior, IBM would have remained the predominent brand
and supplier of personal computers in the world, because to get OS/2,
all you would have had to do is by a PS/2 computer from IBM. The
market would have responded by a landslide demand for OS/2 on
competitor's machines - which would have resulted either in IBM
providing the software to other manufacturers to package with their
systems, and a tsunami-like wave of sotware development for the OS/2
platform, OR - - - - - Anti-trust investigation and findings against
IBM.
>> You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales
>> literature in the showroom...
>
>Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>of MS.
>
And TODAY they CAN supply Linux, BSD, and even eComStation (OS/2) or
whatever OS they want to supply - and still they are not..........
BECAUSE??????
Because people want applications to run on their systems. And the
majority of common apps do not run on most of these OS platforms.
>I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
>these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of
>the software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds
>worst OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works
>only with the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things
>that horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.
And you talk about "the world's worst OS". You need to make that,
perhaps, the world's worst SURVIVING OS - becuse thankfully many like
CPM have long since left the marketplace.
OK
<PLONK> Hey! Where did everybody go?
Fucking troll assholes.
--------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Plonk him and forget him, Jack.
Life's too short...
--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
> involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
> someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
> Pinko in every corner.
Actually Americans tend to be generous people, look at how many of them line
up to help after natural disasters. We have friends who saw no govt. help
after Katrina, but they were fed and clothed and housed by people who
volunteered their own time and money to help out, often through church
groups.
Unfortunately many millions of Americans haven't yet figured out that the
party of "family values"--the Republicans--*really* represents big business,
period. Sadly those folks can be herded on hot-button issues like gay
marriage, and national security, and immigration and so on, and they vote
for the party that really doesn't give a crap about them but does a hell of
a job pretending to.
On 5/10/2011 12:14 PM, [email protected] said this:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>>>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>>>>>>> run it, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>>>>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>>>>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>>>>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>>>>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>>>>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>>>>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>>>>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>>>>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>>>>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>>>>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>>>>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>>>>>> might be done about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>>>>>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>>>>>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>>>>>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>>>>>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>>>>>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>>>>> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>>>>> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>>>>> buerocracy involved.
>>>>
>>>> And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
>>> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
>>> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
>>> al least only one level of incompetence.
>>
>> The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
>> running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
>> instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
> Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
> involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
> someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
> Pinko in every corner.
That's not really the problem. The Sheeple want lots and lots and lots
of "free" (to them) social services. They do not wish to personally
pay for it, so the political types peddle this fantasy of "We can help
if you'll just vote for us."
But what that inevitably ends up meaning is, "We'll create a bureaucracy
that is more self-interested than interested in serving the constituency."
This makes the Sheeple further dependent on their Congress Critters -
exactly what all incumbents, especially, love.
This then leads to financial disaster and the politicians start selling
"Let's make the rich pay more" even though the "rich" pay over 90% of
Federal taxes in the US.
I share your view that the US system is insane because it props up
two inefficient bureaucracies: The private-sector delivery and
insurance system, and the government payment system. But the
way to fix this isn't to get rid of the private sector. It's to
get rid of the government bureaucracy and let markets fix the
private sector as they do so well.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On May 15, 4:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:00:09 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because o=
f
> >> these past illegal marketing practices. =A0I'm grumbling because most =
of the
> >> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds wor=
st
> >> OS.
>
> >It's really noticeable how you've tip toed around Apple and its operatin=
g
> >system. Most windows programs of any importance in today's computer worl=
de
> >have been ported over to Apple. I regularly hear about professionals suc=
h as
> >graphic artists choosing Apple as their preferred operating system. So,
> >what's your excuse? There's certainly other working operating systems ou=
t
> >there right now, but you choose to whine and grumble about what's past, =
not
> >what's current. My only guess is that you're too stupid or too lazy or t=
oo
> >cheap to do anything different than to follow along with the pack, the s=
ame
> >pack that you've been whining about.
>
> He's got too much of a hard-on against Microsoft to be able to see
> past it.
Highly unlikely.
On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:00:09 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
>> these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of the
>> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
>> OS.
>
>It's really noticeable how you've tip toed around Apple and its operating
>system. Most windows programs of any importance in today's computer worlde
>have been ported over to Apple. I regularly hear about professionals such as
>graphic artists choosing Apple as their preferred operating system. So,
>what's your excuse? There's certainly other working operating systems out
>there right now, but you choose to whine and grumble about what's past, not
>what's current. My only guess is that you're too stupid or too lazy or too
>cheap to do anything different than to follow along with the pack, the same
>pack that you've been whining about.
>
He's got too much of a hard-on against Microsoft to be able to see
past it. There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.
On Tue, 3 May 2011 06:16:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 3, 8:51Â am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > On Apr 3, 12:09 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Is that a stupid thing to say/admit during an election campaign?
>>
>> >> What a scumbag! It's assholes like him that makes it tough to adhere
>> >> to a conservative ideology.
>> >> This time around I'm going to jump ship and vote for ABH>>>Anybody
>> >> ButHarper.
>>
>> > For Canada's sake do NOT allow that power-hungry dictator have a
>> > majority.
>> > And this is coming from a guy who has voted conservative for almost
>> > all of his voting life.
>> > THIS clown is in the NeoCon/Bilderberger fold.
>> > This clown is promising us 65 x  F35 jets at $ 75 mil apiece. Our
>> > American friends budget for the same jet $ 130.million. Ohhhh.. I get
>> > it... Harper is quoting us the price without service contract or
>> > ENGINES!!!!
>>
>> > Our second choice is unfortunately not a whole lot better, but at
>> > least he'll use a condom.
>>
>> Congratulations to Canada in yesterday's election. The conservatives won 167
>> seats in the House of Commons (out of 308) while the Liberal Party fell to
>> 3rd place, with the fewest wins in the party's history (NDP socialists came
>> in second). Even the leader  lost his seat. The Quebec separatist party lost
>> ALL its seats in Quebec!
>>
>> Anyway, Good Show, Canada.
>>
>> I'm sure the national gun-registry program will be quickly scrapped with the
>> national health service not far behind.
>
>I'm all for the registry being scrapped, but many of Harpers own MP's
>won't scrap the Health Act.
>Think about it. Would it be smart to allow Canadians guns and THEN
>take away their Health programs?
Universal health care is safe with the conservatives.
With Layton as the opposition leader I think you will see a
"different" Harper, and a different parliament - Iggy and Gilles are
no longer there, and they (and their cronies) were real "shit
disturbers"
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> In my case, I am literally 5 minutes from Port Huron Michigan.
You shouldn't be telling me stuff like that. The next time I want to buy
something from the US and the dealer won't ship to Canada, I'm going to
draft you into driving over the border to buy it and then mail it to me on
the Canadian side.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 09:09:46 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
SNIPPED
> Unfortnutaley we got some winners to choose from...*hurls lunch*
>
>Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
>
>"Hello Toronto, you're on the air!"
What we ALL need to remember up here in the GWN is it is not just
Harper's Conservatives that have been "in contempt of parliament", but
the opposition as well, not to mention just about every other
governing party over the last 30 years or so, and their leaders. They
have just not been "found" in contempt.
Politics in general has become "contemptible"
I don't like Harper's manner - he comes across as a bully and has all
the personality of a robot, but his record on keeping the country
going through an economic disaster with a minority government has been
remarkable.
I don't like Iggy's manner either. And I like it less than Harpers,
and the Liberal record over the last several decades doesn't give me
much hope that they will handle the country (or parliament) any better
than Harper's conservatives. (ad-gate and all that crap)
As for the NDP??? Well, I kinda like Layton. He's a likeable guy.
Not sure he is physically up to the job, and his party's politics
scare me just a bit. What the NDP did to Ontario the only chance they
got to govern is NOT what Canada needs at this point in time (if it
ever did/will). Now a large part of the blame may well belong to Bob
Rae -- - - - - - - - which is another reason I won't be voting
Liberal. (for those not familiar with the Canadian political scene,
the former leader of the Ontario NDP is now a sitting member of the
federal Liberals)
Since there is not a significant possibility of the NDP getting a
majority, and an NDP minority would require the support of the
Liberals to survive, I see an NDP vote as a wasted vote, or a vote for
the Liberals. The possibility of the Liberals getting a majority is
almost equally as remote (and more scary, to me, personally) and the
prospect of yet another short lived minority government and another
expensive election within 2 years does not sit well with me (or many
other Canadians) either.
I think the best thing that could happen this election is to give
Harper's conservatives a 4 year mandate to finish what they have
started, give the liberals 4 years to get their house in order and put
Iggy back out to pasture, and then, when the full term is up, have an
election based entirely on the issues, with the conservatives
hopefully having a more personable and respectfull leader at the helm
(either a new leader, or a gentler, more agreeable Harper).
With the childish antics going on in parliament, on all sides, it's
not hard to see why Harper has dug in his heals and been reluctant to
share the ball. Which doesn't make his behaviour any less childish.
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
What? Can you point to executives of Medicare/Medicaid who are paid many
millions of dollars a year in the way the top execs of big health insurance
companies are paid millions or even tens of millions a year?¹ Can you show
that Medicare's administrative overhead is as great or greater than that of
private insurance companies? Can you demonstrate that the private medical
insurance industry is funded primarily by govt. (to justify your use of the
word "paymaster"? Does Medicare try to refuse patients or drop them when
they get sick the way the insurance industry does? Would the answers to
those questions be no, no, no and no?
However I admire the consistency of your ideology--claiming that the reason
private industry is ruthless, inefficient and greedy is because of the
government demonstrates a beautiful case of tunnel-vision.
¹The CEO of Cigna Corp. gets $21 million dollars a year, the CEO of Aetna
$24 million a year.
What are the two biggest sources of funding for lobbying and campaign
donations in Washington? Two industries--the insurance industry, and the
pharmaceutical industry, they each spend a hundred million a year. And who
financed opposition to health care reform? Among others Rick Scott, former
CEO of the nation's largest health care company (dumped during a fraud
investigation) and former partner of a certain former President in owning
the Texas Rangers--Scott spent $20 million telling the nation how evil it
would be to change the existing health care system. That today he owns a
chain of walk-in clinics is probably just a coincidence.
On Mon, 2 May 2011 12:07:39 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The irrational insults are reserved for the Harper party. You know the one
>with no platform.
>
>-------------
>
>"Jesse" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>Come on, you can do better than that, where are the irrational
>insults? I'm thinking about your best interests when I suggest you get
>your blood pressure checked!
It appears to me that there are a lot of angry old men around. Please
try to get healthy.
Yeah but some send nuclear radiation to neutralize any profits..
-----------------------
"willshak" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Fortunately, the Pacific is much wider than the Atlantic so we'll have
more time to prepare.
On Wed, 4 May 2011 09:24:07 -0500, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:43:46 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >With a majority government there is no opposition party, only hecklers.
>> >
>> >The next 4-5 years should be interesting. Are we getting price and wage
>> >control again?
>> >
>> >-----------------------
>> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >Universal health care is safe with the conservatives.
>> >With Layton as the opposition leader I think you will see a
>> >"different" Harper, and a different parliament - Iggy and Gilles are
>> >no longer there, and they (and their cronies) were real "shit
>> >disturbers"
>>
>> Say, top poster, I thought you were going to take a pill and get over
>> your anger!
>
>Say you start by reading Harperland.
>
>Then read the key list from
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:
>_A_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot
>
>I'd suggest you read the whole book, but the list is good enough to get
>the picture.
>
>Just so you don't go away stupid, every item on the list has been
>illustrated in spades by Harper's government or by his supporters. The
>public record already shows it. The thug culture was evident on the
>streets during the election. The autodialler message that was used to
>try to drive turnout lower was very clever and attacked the system at a
>weak, untraceable point. Now we need him out, not only to see the real
>books but to see if the system was subverted at any other point.
>I could point your way to over 30 books that should at least give you a
>distinct sense of unease and maybe guilt even if they didn't entirely
>change your mind. I won't address Harper's dominionist ties and
>inclinations beyond mentioning them.
>
>So now we have to do our best to demolish the neo-con MLA's support of
>Harper's plans, start a holding action and be ready to go to election at
>a moment's notice because he has control. ...and He's in campaign mode
>again.
>
>Harper does like his numbers. And since I don't expect you to take my
>earlier suggestions of doing the research, let me point out that any
>party that requires its members to get a permission slip from the
>principal to speak publicly, participates in communal response
>rehearsals, must memorize party responses to questions and otherwise
>engage in cultish sock-puppet behaviour shouldn't even have a sniff at
>power let alone a seat in power.
>
>And any party that pulls all their candidates out of the public eye
>before the end of the election needs much closer scrutiny than they're
>getting. It could be as simple as the permission process breaking down
>or as nefarious (as a friend of mine suggested) that the fix was in and
>voting tabulation system was hacked so they no longer needed to
>campaign.
>
>And let me throw a thought into the deal before I go back to my day.
>
>Harper appointed the board of CBC and the quality of CBC's reporting,
>interviews and pundits has been shifted radically to the right.-- Just
>before the election, there was a heavy-handed update of the CBC website
>and a statement of editorial policy changes that has driven off a lot of
>the best, most knowledgeable commentators in the middle and on the left.
>The site also took on the Harperite colours which not only colour
>coordinated it *with the rest of Canada's websites* but harmonized most
>fetchingly with the Harperite election signs.
>
>And every time I've posted this intuition to CBC, it's been censored
>before or after the fact. In fact, censorship is the constant companion
>of every dissident voice.
>
>You start to get a sense of information shaping going on. -- For
>instance, they let people blatt on but for the duration of the early
>election, using the word fascist caused a post to be censored. Using the
>synonym corporatist for fascist for awhile caused posts to the CBC site
>to be randomly censored. -- The one way around it was to use link to
>information off-site probably because they couldn't check them all.
>
>So to get back to the site itself, it was clearly a rush job for the
>campaign and consolidation of empire that was called an update. Our
>money going yet again to fund Harper's endless campaign. Worse however
>is the coopting of the reach of CBC to one man's political ends. An
>agency funded by the government, under the government's jurisdiction and
>with an incredible reach into Canadian lives.
>
>It does give one pause.
>
>You can call me angry until the cows come home. I don't care. I've gone
>beyond angry, done a cometary bypass of outraged, a flyby of incendiary
>and moved on to resolute. This is my Canada and an insult to turds is
>governing it.
>
>Canada was ripe for this pimple. Complacency makes people ripe for this
>kind of crap. Shock and denial limit our response time.
>
>Now we have to try to pop the zit the hard way.
>
>I'll close with noting that the USA's founding attempt to create a
>government where a tyrant can't arise was a foresighted, brave and
>commendable effort. -- I didn't appreciate it properly until I started
>doing research on Harper.
>
>We need something like that kind of foresight and insight in Canada to
>build a better electoral/governmental system when we shake off Harper
>and start putting Canada to rights.
I can see a nice tin hat in your future. Soon?
"Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I can see a nice tin hat in your future. Soon?
Obviously, you're not remotely smart enough to understand what was just
explained to you. The only standard reply you can come up with is that
people are angry because they can't get it up. Guess that's par for the
course considering you're not even intelligent enough to trim a post to a
suitable size.
Got any woodworking knowledge to share? Perhaps you know how to whittle wood
with a kitchen knife?
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> It's gotten cheaper, so the theory goes, because patients have to pay for
> it out of their own pocket!
Really poor evaluation. It's gotten cheaper for two reasons. First reason is
the competition. There's many more eye doctors offering the service not than
then. The second reason is that it's been around long anough now that people
aren't near as fearful about having their eyes operated on.
> Patients shop around for the best value and the professionals who deliver
> these services compete in price and performance. Just five years ago,
> Lasik surgery cost $1,000/eye. Now it's $300.
Don't know about you, but if I was going for Lasik surgery, I'd be much more
interested in the competency and experience of the professional offering the
service, not just because they were cheaper. The best price maybe your prime
focus, but I'd suggest to you that the two or three hundred dollars
difference these days between competing outfits offering the service is not
what most people initially look for.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> As for MRIs, I know somebody there who just waited over six months to
>> get one, although it didn't cost her anything when she finally got to
>> the head of the line. So it's a different set of problems from the
>> also broken American system, they both need serious adjustments.
> I suggest the American system isn't "broken." Everybody fits in somewhere.
> At the top is "concierge" medicine - those who get top-notch and immediate
> care. There are several categories below that, from Blue Cross, down
> through Medicare, all the way to "Canada-lite" (Medicaid)".
Oh it's broken alright. The cost of health care insurance has been doubling
every decade, employers are dropping or cutting back coverage or in some
cases moving production overseas to escape health coverage costs. Medical
tourism is a growing phenomenon as Americans travel to get surgery they
can't afford in the U.S. One in six Americans has no insurance at all which
means when they finally go to the hospital ER *you* and every other
taxpayer/insurance customer pays for it. American health insurance
companies absorb more in "administrative overhead" (including fat executive
salaries) than anywhere in the world, about a fifth of what Americans pay
for insurance never gets past the insurance companies. Look up
pharmaceutical industry scandals sometime, it's a horror show of companies
concealing dangers of their products, price-fixing, manipulation of the FDA,
gaming the patent system to extend profits and so on. Some hospitals have
closed ERs because they are swamped with uninsured patients who have no
other source of health care. Unless the law prevents them from doing so
insurance companies will refuse to insure anyone with a history of serious
illness, and they have employees whose job is finding excuses to drop
customers once they get sick. Doctors order needless tests to cover
themselves against liability, and they pass on the cost of malpractice
insurance to their patients. Government programs like Medicare pay out
countless millions in bogus claims because it is so easy to defraud the
system. The medical profession restricts the number of med school graduates
to keep salaries (and thus costs) up. The loudest screams about health care
reform invariably come from those who make the biggest profits, no way do
they want change that doesn't put more money in their pockets--and so on and
so forth.
Isn't broken?
Why?
Job choice?
How long did you reside there before becoming an American citizen?
----------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
people. I chose to become an American citizen.
Don't forget the others - HP and Schlumberger.
Both were very early Icon generators and software heavy companies.
Martin
On 5/21/2011 12:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)
>
> Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
> Xerox.
On May 15, 11:00=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
> > these past illegal marketing practices. =A0I'm grumbling because most o=
f the
> > software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds wors=
t
> > OS.
>
> It's really noticeable how you've tip toed around Apple and its operating
> system. Most windows programs of any importance in today's computer world=
e
> have been ported over to Apple.
And, of course the reverse where Apple had certain professional
publishing programs first. (Adobe..yes many Adobe products were ported
to Windoze from Mac.) Microsoft Word was available for the Mac 4 years
before the Windoze version. Excel was available for Mac 3 years before
the Windoze version.
One reason for the publishing industry's use was the Laserwriter
printers and scanner software available for small desktop publishers.
Photoshop was available on the Mac 4 years prior to the very bad
Windoze version.
I just love the advertisements on TV which has some paid shill say:
"Widows 7 was MY idea."
To which Steve Jobs replied once by saying: "actually it was MY idea,
except we called it Mac OS 9. TEN years before Win7. (Of course we
went to a UNIX based OS with OSX in 2000.... and I have yet to crash
any of my family's Macs since OS X) (I do use some PC software for my
CNC's G-coding and that seems to be reasonably stable as long as I
don't try anything 'out-side the envelope'.
So Macs have a unique place as it caters to the dumber computer
operators on one end of the spectrum, due to its ease of operation,
and it caters to the ultra creative/bright operators on the very
demanding end of the spectrum, due to its immense scope and power....
and everybody in between.
>I regularly hear about professionals such as
> graphic artists choosing Apple as their preferred operating system. So,
> what's your excuse? There's certainly other working operating systems out
> there right now, but you choose to whine and grumble about what's past, n=
ot
> what's current. My only guess is that you're too stupid or too lazy or to=
o
> cheap to do anything different than to follow along with the pack, the sa=
me
> pack that you've been whining about.
On May 15, 5:10=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/15/2011 1:24 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:00 am, "Upscale"<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >> "Jack Stein"<[email protected]> =A0wrote in message
> >>> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because =
of
> >>> these past illegal marketing practices. =A0I'm grumbling because most=
of the
> >>> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds wo=
rst
> >>> OS.
>
> >> It's really noticeable how you've tip toed around Apple and its operat=
ing
> >> system. Most windows programs of any importance in today's computer wo=
rlde
> >> have been ported over to Apple.
>
> > And, of course the reverse where Apple had certain professional
> > publishing programs first. (Adobe..yes many Adobe products were ported
> > to Windoze from Mac.) Microsoft Word was available for the Mac 4 years
> > before the Windoze version. Excel was available for Mac 3 years before
> > the Windoze version.
> > One reason for the publishing industry's use was the Laserwriter
> > printers and scanner software available for small desktop publishers.
> > Photoshop was available on the Mac 4 years prior to the very bad
> > Windoze version.
>
> > I just love the advertisements on TV which has some paid shill say:
> > "Widows 7 was MY idea."
> > To which Steve Jobs replied once by saying: "actually it was MY idea,
> > except we called it Mac OS 9. TEN years before Win7. (Of course we
> > went to a UNIX based OS with OSX in 2000.... and I have yet to crash
> > any of my family's Macs since OS X) (I do use some PC software for my
> > CNC's G-coding and that seems to be reasonably stable as long as I
> > don't try anything 'out-side the envelope'.
>
> > So Macs have a unique place as it caters to the dumber computer
> > operators on one end of the spectrum, due to its ease of operation,
> > and it caters to the ultra creative/bright operators on the very
> > demanding end of the spectrum, due to its immense scope and power....
> > and everybody in between.
>
> >> I regularly hear about professionals such as
> >> graphic artists choosing Apple as their preferred operating system. So=
,
> >> what's your excuse? There's certainly other working operating systems =
out
> >> there right now, but you choose to whine and grumble about what's past=
, not
> >> what's current. My only guess is that you're too stupid or too lazy or=
too
> >> cheap to do anything different than to follow along with the pack, the=
same
> >> pack that you've been whining about.
>
> The problem with this theory is MacOS is more closed off than Windows eve=
r
> was. =A0You cannot run it on anything but Apple hardware. =A0And this, fr=
om a
> system that was born in *open source* =A0- FreeBSD.
You say that as if that is a bad thing. It forces quality control.
On 5/11/2011 12:55 PM, Douglas Johnson said this:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [...] The Sheeple
>> [...]the Sheeple
>> [...]
>
> You've got to love the term. It does such a nice job of separating us
> enlightened ones, who have a clear view of Truth, from those nasty, ignorant,
> unwashed masses.
>
> -- Doug
Anyone that thinks government will give them something for "free"
is Sheeple.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
On 5/15/2011 1:24 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On May 15, 11:00 am, "Upscale"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Jack Stein"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
>>> these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of the
>>> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
>>> OS.
>>
>> It's really noticeable how you've tip toed around Apple and its operating
>> system. Most windows programs of any importance in today's computer worlde
>> have been ported over to Apple.
>
> And, of course the reverse where Apple had certain professional
> publishing programs first. (Adobe..yes many Adobe products were ported
> to Windoze from Mac.) Microsoft Word was available for the Mac 4 years
> before the Windoze version. Excel was available for Mac 3 years before
> the Windoze version.
> One reason for the publishing industry's use was the Laserwriter
> printers and scanner software available for small desktop publishers.
> Photoshop was available on the Mac 4 years prior to the very bad
> Windoze version.
>
> I just love the advertisements on TV which has some paid shill say:
> "Widows 7 was MY idea."
> To which Steve Jobs replied once by saying: "actually it was MY idea,
> except we called it Mac OS 9. TEN years before Win7. (Of course we
> went to a UNIX based OS with OSX in 2000.... and I have yet to crash
> any of my family's Macs since OS X) (I do use some PC software for my
> CNC's G-coding and that seems to be reasonably stable as long as I
> don't try anything 'out-side the envelope'.
>
> So Macs have a unique place as it caters to the dumber computer
> operators on one end of the spectrum, due to its ease of operation,
> and it caters to the ultra creative/bright operators on the very
> demanding end of the spectrum, due to its immense scope and power....
> and everybody in between.
>
>
>> I regularly hear about professionals such as
>> graphic artists choosing Apple as their preferred operating system. So,
>> what's your excuse? There's certainly other working operating systems out
>> there right now, but you choose to whine and grumble about what's past, not
>> what's current. My only guess is that you're too stupid or too lazy or too
>> cheap to do anything different than to follow along with the pack, the same
>> pack that you've been whining about.
>
The problem with this theory is MacOS is more closed off than Windows ever
was. You cannot run it on anything but Apple hardware. And this, from a
system that was born in *open source* - FreeBSD.
On 5/15/2011 9:29 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 05/14/2011 08:52 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>>>> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>>>> have to pay for Windows.
>>>
>>> Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
>>> and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
>>> from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
>>> first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
>>> would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
>>> windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
>>>
>>> The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
>>> getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
>>> their ass, over, and over and over.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>> There are more choices today than ever. This is directly attributable to
>> the fact
>> that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which
>> other
>> systems could be grafted.
>>
>> If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one. Their product comes
>> with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
>> in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
>> like Google.
>>
>> But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
>> their own property. The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely
>> political, concocted by Netscape, Sun, et al because they didn't have a
>> clue
>> how to compete in the consumer space.
>>
>> Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
>> *good*
>> for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their
>> products ...
>>>
>>
>
> Windows is similar to Obama Care - if you don't sign up, you get fined.
Except that Windows is a voluntary thing, whereas Obamacare is done at the point
of a gun.
On 05/13/2011 04:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
>> demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
>> opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
>
> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
>
>>
>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>> system.
>
> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this week
> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
have to pay for Windows. If the PC manufacturer wants to provide me
with a Window-less PC and reduce the price accordingly, M$ threatens to
take them off their approved list and either not provide Windows for
those who want it or charge them much more for ever copy.
>
>>
>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
>> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>
> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
>
> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up with a
> new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would pay for,
> it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still making money.
>
>
On 05/14/2011 08:52 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>>> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>>> have to pay for Windows.
>>
>> Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
>> and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
>> from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
>> first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
>> would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
>> windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
>>
>> The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
>> getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
>> their ass, over, and over and over.
>>
>> Jack
>>
> There are more choices today than ever. This is directly attributable to
> the fact
> that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which
> other
> systems could be grafted.
>
> If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one. Their product comes
> with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
> in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
> like Google.
>
> But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
> their own property. The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely
> political, concocted by Netscape, Sun, et al because they didn't have a
> clue
> how to compete in the consumer space.
>
> Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
> *good*
> for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their
> products ...
>>
>
Windows is similar to Obama Care - if you don't sign up, you get fined.
[email protected] wrote:
> Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
> involved.
> If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
> and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
> BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
> short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
monopoly? Nevertheless...
Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.
Even the poster boy for "bad" monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price
of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents! And did it within three years.
Of course the providers of whale oil were screwed, but for the rest of us
the night became bright.
Most of the evil monopolies are those enabled by the government: Cable TV is
one example.
No, in general, the fight against monopolies is not waged by the consumer -
who almost always is better off from monopoly actions - but by the
competitors of the monopoly.
Finally, our Constitution specifically encourages and protects monopolies.
"Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;... "
On May 14, 12:27=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It's always been "sell the sizzle, not the steak" since marketing was
> born.
>
Sometimes it is both. A quality steak is simpler to sell (with sizzle)
and the 'sell-through' is more effective.
Which is why, as we speak, Apple is the most valuable brand in the
world.
Those of us who remember the Apple Performa fiasco are well aware that
sizzle alone is a short-termed proposition.
The product has to be there. THEN add sizzle.
On 5/12/2011 6:35 AM, HeyBub said this:
> Upscale wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
>>> monopoly? Nevertheless...
>>
>> Call it collusion then, it all adds up to esentially the same thing.
>
> Might as well call it a toad. I believe there have been at least fifteen
> high-level investigations of the oil industry regarding price-fixing,
> collusion, and such since the oil embargo of the Carter years. To my
> knowledge, not one has turned up evidence of any untoward dealings.
>
>>
>>> Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.
>>
>> Not in this case (referring to current pricing in Canada). We're
>> currently being gouged for over 1.40 a liter which is close to $5.30
>> a gallon. Along with that comes the sad realization that we haven't
>> yet reached summer where the gouging skyrockets even more. And,
>> there's no chance in hell of any pricing limitatations by our current
>> majority federal government considering all the tax dollars they rake
>> in from our oil.
>
> Price controls don't work. See my comment on Marie Antoinette. Her husband's
> price control scheme cost her her head.
>
>
A few random facts:
- There are something like 7 major oil companies - hardly a monopoly.
- At least in the US, the major oil companies pay about the same
in taxes as they make in profit.
- The biggest component in the price of gas is the price of
crude:
http://macromon.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/chart-of-the-day-components-of-gasoline-prices/
Our genius politicians - most of whom apparently flunked
chemistry and physics - don't want domestic drilling because
their pet "alternative/sustainable/smelly hippie" energy
programs will fill the gap. Right.
- The capital costs are staggering. Exxon-Mobil is supposedly
spending something like $1B per *day* over the next decade to
replace oil at the current rate of consumption.
- In inflation adjusted terms, gas prices are unremarkable.
When measured against buying power, the cost of a gallon today
isn't a whole lot different than what grandpa paid.
None of this stops the Usual Suspects from whining about how
unfair it all is, how they are being gouged, and how they deserve
what they want at a price they think is "fair".
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> If you buy your car from a Chevrolet dealership, it WILL come with a Delco
> alternator. Don't want a Delco alternator? Then don't buy your car from a
> Chevy dealership!
Which leads me to wonder why Jack Stein with all his professed experience
and expertise with computer operating systems would be going to Best Buy for
his computers instead of building them himself? Obviously the reason is the
same as before. He's either too cheap, too lazy, or just not smart enough to
do otherwise. And, if he's not going to Best Buy, then why is he whining
about them? I'd hazard a guess that it's lack of a life.
As much as Jack whines and whimpers about Microsoft, the truth is that
Microsoft's marketing machine (despite what anyone thinks of them) has
played a major role in getting people active in this computer age. It
doesn't matter much how or what prompts someone to become computer literate,
just that upon doing so, they eventually realize there *are* other choices
available when it comes to computers and operating systems. That's
Microsoft's real contribution in my opinion.
Dos apps run in 'folders' that are opened up.
I run programs (GUI) and executives (non-gui) dos.
That is under XP.
Martin
On 5/21/2011 9:00 AM, Jack Stein wrote:
> On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)
>>
>> Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
>> Xerox.
>
> Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
> or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
> no longer interested enough to care.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
> > involved.
> > If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
> > and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
> > BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
> > short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
>
> Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
> monopoly? Nevertheless...
>
> Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.
>
> Even the poster boy for "bad" monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price
> of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents! And did it within three years.
> Of course the providers of whale oil were screwed, but for the rest of us
> the night became bright.
>
> Most of the evil monopolies are those enabled by the government: Cable TV is
> one example.
>
> No, in general, the fight against monopolies is not waged by the consumer -
> who almost always is better off from monopoly actions - but by the
> competitors of the monopoly.
>
> Finally, our Constitution specifically encourages and protects monopolies.
>
> "Article I, Section 8:
> The Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
> the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;... "
And the breakup of AT&T, with the subsequent destruction of Nobel Prize
factory known as Bell Labs, certainly did nothing to promote the
Progress of Science and the useful Arts.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
> > On 5/15/2011 2:22 AM, Rich wrote:
> >> Jack Stein wrote:
> >
> >>> I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
> >>> MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
> >>> you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
> >>> you want, as long as it's black.
> >
> >> I don't know what the big deal is.
> >
> > The big deal is for the past 23 years or so, most of the world has been
> > running some lame version of the worlds worst operating system on their
> > home PC.
> >
> > I've been running linux since 2001 and haven't looked back.
> >
> > I guess it doesn't bother you that 99% of the software available doesn't
> > run on linux, or that only a computer geek can possible know where to
> > get it, how to install it, or how to use it.
>
> Most software runs on linux and as far as I'm concerned better. Where do you
> think FireFox came from? Open Office works perfect and cross platforms with
> MS office or word. There's easy alternative to any program offered by
> MicroCrap and others. Most all programs now are easy to install. I run
> Virtual Box and can easily run Windblows but don't because of all the
> obvious reasons. Think you need to have another look at Linux, its very user
> friendly and not the so called "nightmare" you once thought it was...
So what's the Linux equivalent of AutoCAD? The Linux CAD programs I
know of are badly crippled, abandoned, or so expensive that the cost of
a Windows license is negligible in comparison.
How about the equivalent of Corel Painter? And if you say "Gimp" you
have no clue what Corel Painter does.
Jack Stein wrote:
>
> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
> demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
> opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
>
> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
> system.
The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this week
from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>
> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
> allows competition to wither on the vine.
You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up with a
new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would pay for,
it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still making money.
Just ask Obama Sin Laden
-------------------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Except that Windows is a voluntary thing, whereas Obamacare is done at the
point
of a gun.
Right on!
We are practically clones except for the Tennessee people. They **ARE**
clones.
LOL
---------------------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I lived in Canada intermittently, and for short periods of time, never
for any extended duration. I have visited many times since, of course.
This "Canada is better/worse than the USA" stuff is ridiculous.
We have far more in common as nations than we have differences.
Moreover, Canadian policy is necessarily different because it has
more geography than the US but 1/10th the population.
And - for the record - in modern times, there have been 4 nations
that stuck together to help each other and free the world: Australia,
Canada, United Kingdom, and United States.
> > ----------
> > "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
> > people. I chose to become an American citizen.
Are you kidding? I doubt there is one field of endeavor that original
Canadian culture hasn't been tainted by US culture.
We can't spell correctly anymore,
We think the word "programme" is spelt shorter for computers,
we think "fun" can be used as an as a descriptive noun and,
we ain't even counting properly anymore.
--
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I'm glad I don't live in the USA. And I hope and pray that out
government doesn't drag us down the American garden path.
Thank goodness we didn't elect the American University Prof as our
PM!!!!
Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing
>> seller?
>
> The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
> competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
> competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as
> one of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer
> with being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating
> system, or whistling Dixie.
And the store became a willing Microsoft distributor. A Burger King
franchise is likewise prohibited from also selling McDonald's Quarter
Pounders. Don't blame Microsoft for no one wanting to be a BSD distributor.
>
>>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>>> system.
>>
>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others:
>> about 50 flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced
>> just this week from Google. If people WANTED a different operating
>> system, they can, most often, get it for free! As it is, people are
>> voting with their wallets and the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>
> I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never
> bought a PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise
> Microsoft I "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS
> because there is little choice unless you want to swim upstream all
> day long. I have been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with
> UNIX than 99.999% of computer users, and I am smart enough not to
> swim up stream, there is no chance that the other 99.999% of PC users
> could figure out how to use something like Unix.
Of course not. Unix is a 50-year old operating system designed by a
money-losing division of your local telephone company.
> My wife gets pissed
> when Firefox upgrades itself because something changed. Microsoft
> took advantage of this by illegally and immorally forcing its system
> on unknowing consumers.
Illegal? Giggle.
Unknowing? If you're talking about updates, one can turn those off.
>>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft
>>> is a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
Capitalism thrives when monopolies flourish. Monopolies are the bedrock of
our country and enshrined in our Constitution.
Article I, Section 8:
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing, for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
>>
>> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
>
> You're right, explain it to me.
>
>> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come
>> up with a new OS every few years, with desirable features that
>> people would pay for, it's revenue stream would wither. Last I
>> heard, they're still making money.
>
> Microsoft has NOT come up with a new operating system since he bought
> DOS from Patterson. The system was garbage then, and still is. The
> unknowing public thinks they are getting viruses when 99% of the time
> it is simply an operating system that does not work. The reason
> they, and I, am using this piece of shit is because MicroSoft totally
> controls the market. They control the market because of past illegal
> marketing practices. I was in the market at the time, and
> experienced what was going on.
DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al) NT,
2000, 2001, XP, Vista, Win7, and many, many, variants.
Microsoft controls the market only for Microsoft products. Just like Taco
Bell controls the market for Taco Bell products. You are, however, free to
buy your taco anywhere you like.
>
> When federal anti-trust Judge Stanley Sporkin heard the case against
> Microsoft in 1994-95 he was appalled, and found for himself what I and
> many already knew just from being in the game.
So he, too, was free to vote with his wallet and buy BSD or Unix.
>
> I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not
> just MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in
> collusion (can you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can
> willingly buy any color you want, as long as it's black.
If you're referencing Model Ts, black is what made them so cheap. At the
time, black was the only color that would dry quickly enough to keep up with
the production line. Once you got the car, you were free to paint it any
color you chose - just like buying a computer and installing Ubangi.
Point is, if you're not using Windows, you're using dirt. Maybe mud.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
> these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of the
> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
> OS.
It's really noticeable how you've tip toed around Apple and its operating
system. Most windows programs of any importance in today's computer worlde
have been ported over to Apple. I regularly hear about professionals such as
graphic artists choosing Apple as their preferred operating system. So,
what's your excuse? There's certainly other working operating systems out
there right now, but you choose to whine and grumble about what's past, not
what's current. My only guess is that you're too stupid or too lazy or too
cheap to do anything different than to follow along with the pack, the same
pack that you've been whining about.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> doesn't matter much how or what prompts someone to become computer
>> literate,
>> just that upon doing so, they eventually realize there *are* other
>> choices
>> available when it comes to computers and operating systems. That's
>> Microsoft's real contribution in my opinion.
>
> Your opinions, as usual, are worthless.
So worthless that you just had to reply, eh Jackass.
MS always toots no underlying DOS in the later Windoze versions but anytime
a system error is incurred the DOS message shows up to indicate the
communication method with the shell has never changed.
Many system HDD applications still have to run in an isolated shell under
DOS secretly.
-------------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
no longer interested enough to care.
--
On May 11, 1:55=A0pm, Douglas Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[...] The Sheeple
> >[...]the Sheeple
> >[...]
>
> You've got to love the term. =A0It does such a nice job of separating us
> enlightened ones, who have a clear view of Truth, from those nasty, ignor=
ant,
> unwashed masses.
>
I sure hope that was sarcasm.....
The HDD with MS O/S on it is all just the supplier and nothing to do with
MS.
This guy is taking two plus two and coming up with eight all the time.
I have purchase about 25-30 HDDs (from a whopping 10 MBytes++) in my life
and never had an O/S installed on one yet.
----------------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
There are more choices today than ever. This is directly attributable to
the fact
that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which
other
systems could be grafted.
If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one. Their product comes
with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
like Google.
But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
their own property. The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely
political, concocted by Netscape, Sun, et al because they didn't have a clue
how to compete in the consumer space.
Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
*good*
for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their products
...
-----------------
On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy and
try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC from Gateway
and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the first month,
Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it would come with
windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want windows installed on it,
they said there was no choice. Indeed!
On 5/10/2011 10:53 PM, Josepi said this:
> > Why?
> > Job choice?
Family circumstances - I (eventually) ended up in the US and at
became a US citizen by choice.
> >
> > How long did you reside there before becoming an American citizen?
I lived in Canada intermittently, and for short periods of time, never
for any extended duration. I have visited many times since, of course.
This "Canada is better/worse than the USA" stuff is ridiculous.
We have far more in common as nations than we have differences.
Moreover, Canadian policy is necessarily different because it has
more geography than the US but 1/10th the population.
And - for the record - in modern times, there have been 4 nations
that stuck together to help each other and free the world: Australia,
Canada, United Kingdom, and United States.
> > ----------
> > "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
> > people. I chose to become an American citizen.
On May 12, 1:23=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 06:35:30 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> > =A0To my
> > knowledge, not one has turned up evidence of any untoward dealings.
>
> And never will as long as big oil keeps pouring the money into
> congressional pockets.
>
They do??? Say it isn't so, Larry...
.
.
.
.
.
.
*smirk*
Jack Stein wrote:
> On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>> have to pay for Windows.
>
> Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best
> buy and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a
> PC from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died
> the first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me
> it would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
> windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
The problem is not that Windows is installed on Best Buy machines, it's that
people go to Best Buy to BUY their machine.
If you buy your car from a Chevrolet dealership, it WILL come with a Delco
alternator. Don't want a Delco alternator? Then don't buy your car from a
Chevy dealership!
Jeeze! Why do I have to think of everything!
>
> The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
> getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
> their ass, over, and over and over.
>
No, there really ARE viruses out there.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>[...] The Sheeple
>[...]the Sheeple
>[...]
You've got to love the term. It does such a nice job of separating us
enlightened ones, who have a clear view of Truth, from those nasty, ignorant,
unwashed masses.
-- Doug
Upscale wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
>> monopoly? Nevertheless...
>
> Call it collusion then, it all adds up to esentially the same thing.
Might as well call it a toad. I believe there have been at least fifteen
high-level investigations of the oil industry regarding price-fixing,
collusion, and such since the oil embargo of the Carter years. To my
knowledge, not one has turned up evidence of any untoward dealings.
>
>> Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.
>
> Not in this case (referring to current pricing in Canada). We're
> currently being gouged for over 1.40 a liter which is close to $5.30
> a gallon. Along with that comes the sad realization that we haven't
> yet reached summer where the gouging skyrockets even more. And,
> there's no chance in hell of any pricing limitatations by our current
> majority federal government considering all the tax dollars they rake
> in from our oil.
Price controls don't work. See my comment on Marie Antoinette. Her husband's
price control scheme cost her her head.
On Tue, 10 May 2011 12:26:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/10/2011 12:14 PM, [email protected] said this:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>>>>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>>>>>>>> run it, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>>>>>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>>>>>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>>>>>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>>>>>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>>>>>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>>>>>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>>>>>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>>>>>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>>>>>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>>>>>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>>>>>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>>>>>>> might be done about that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>>>>>>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>>>>>>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>>>>>>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>>>>>>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>>>>>>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>>>>>> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>>>>>> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>>>>>> buerocracy involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
>>>> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
>>>> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
>>>> al least only one level of incompetence.
>>>
>>> The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
>>> running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
>>> instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
>> Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
>> involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
>> someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
>> Pinko in every corner.
>
>That's not really the problem. The Sheeple want lots and lots and lots
>of "free" (to them) social services. They do not wish to personally
>pay for it, so the political types peddle this fantasy of "We can help
>if you'll just vote for us."
>
>But what that inevitably ends up meaning is, "We'll create a bureaucracy
>that is more self-interested than interested in serving the constituency."
>This makes the Sheeple further dependent on their Congress Critters -
>exactly what all incumbents, especially, love.
>
>This then leads to financial disaster and the politicians start selling
>"Let's make the rich pay more" even though the "rich" pay over 90% of
> Federal taxes in the US.
>
>I share your view that the US system is insane because it props up
>two inefficient bureaucracies: The private-sector delivery and
>insurance system, and the government payment system. But the
>way to fix this isn't to get rid of the private sector. It's to
>get rid of the government bureaucracy and let markets fix the
>private sector as they do so well.
Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
involved.
If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
The same is VERY TRUE of health care. Your private health care
providers (HMOs?) make obscene profits strictly because they can. Your
financial companies, banks, and insurance companies do the same, for
the same reason. CEOs and CFOs, as well as managers all down the line
get multi-million dollar bonuses while the companies are loosing
money and shareholders are bleeding - because they CAN. And the CAN
because your government hasn't got (and never has had, regardless
which party in in power - the jumbos or the jackasses) the balls to
stand up to them and regulate them into acceptable behaviour. They
haven't the balls or the stomach to do it because they know they will
not get elected to a second term if they do, because Americans do not
want their Government involved in their lives PERIOD.
Regulating banks and financial institutions is the tip of the wedge
that will turn their country into a communist state like North Korea,
or North Vietnam, or their good friends and financial "benefactors"
the Red Chinese. And government controlled/paid HEALTH CARE!!!!!
That's half way up the wedge.The poor cannot afford health care?
Tough. It'll cull out the "weak" - and the "weak" are the "socialist
scum" that drag down your great country - making it more difficult for
the rest of the unwashed masses to grab on to the AMERICAN DREAM.
Like Marie Antoinette said when told the peasants had no bread - "let
them eat cake".
I'm glad I don't live in the USA. And I hope and pray that out
government doesn't drag us down the American garden path.
Thank goodness we didn't elect the American University Prof as our
PM!!!!
On 05/22/2011 07:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:28:26 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> - There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Then why am I using it?
>>
>> Because you're too lazy to work with something else?
>
> What's the status of Linux today? What percentage of Win apps have
> been _decently_ ported to it now?
The main one is for M$ Office - OpenOffice or LibreOffice. You don't
really need a "port" of these apps, just a compatible alternative like
Firefox or Chrome for IE and Thunderbird and others for Outlook and OE.
Other stuff like Skype is a port although several versions behind.
Google talk is better than Skype anyway.
There are some pretty powerful apps on Linux such as the
graphics/animation stuff that did the Titanic movie and others.
Most supercomputer implementations are Linux based as are much of the
internet infrastructure machines.
>
> --
> The only reason we die, is because we accept death as an inevitability.
> -- Seth MacFarlane
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 5/15/2011 4:50 PM, George Watson wrote:
>> Jack Stein<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>>> operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>>> of MS.
>
>> I have taken the liberty of snipping out
>> the early 'argument' as the attribution is all fukd up
>> and confusion thus reigns.
>> Attrib being screwed over - I would point out - by
>> clueless users using Usenet dumb software and
>> being totally ignorant themselves of how to present
>> their two bits so it can be read as a digest.
>> For me that says plenty about *their* credibility
>> as to "topic".
>
>Excellent point!
>
Made abundantly clear by the guy in the body-fit
shirt and 'cool' "skyjock" sunnies, tagging my other
comment in this thread.
mine own:
<[email protected]>
da edjut's two bits:
<939ddb3e-683d-4042-94fd-75621bcbbef9@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
Do take note of the lack of an xREF header in the
[email protected] post. Just one of the many
reasons to ignore the Guggle-Groper posts, anywhere.
>> And I say on that, you (Jack) are blowing good
>> time in showing anyone in RW the true light on
>> the story. Me too, I guess:-/
>
>Thanks for that, but I only waste my time when I
>have time to waste.
>
In some fast moving groups it is the case *many*
assume _someone_ is hanging out waiting for
every (any) response. Like yourself, I been around
way too long to give that behavior any credit as
to viable content :-/
I post when I can post.
>Someone said I have a burr up my ass over MS, and
>they are right.
>
Takes about ten seconds of reading someone
who knows by someone who knows to "get it", Jack.
There is where the wannabees all fall off their perch, so
to speak. Understanding the "burr" is well beyond
those who worship at Walmart<g>
>
>> If you do not know - comp.os.os2.advocacy -
>> is a forum where some sense remains amongst
>> all the trolling.
>
>I gave up on all that crap long ago, all that's left for me is a "burr
>up my ass".
>
Fair enough... just consider this, then?
<rec.w> still today has a solid following.. well down
on what it was but still a core of focused individuals
remain posting.
Yet those posters are 'endangered' by those who
rub your "burr", granting subthreads as this one Life.
In short?
I haven't followed the bouncing ball as it is far too
messy a read, but somewhere somehow in this
thread , you, dear Jack, have been throlled, well
and truly.
Who-dun-it?
Someone who is fondling your "burr"..?..... roughly???
[rant]
Usenet has changed and will change again.
It is only a matter of time before the news servers
which today allow the likes of Josepi/mho/JP Bengi
a voice in these newsgroups will fade into oblivion.
We have seen the demise of "news" on ISP services.
That will expand into news servers as subscriptions
drop, because content is destroyed by the likes of
Josepi/mho/JP Bengi. In fact I myself am firmly of
the opinion Google will discover Usenet not to be
of a viable revenue base. Already millions of users
can every Google post. That phenomena will
grow, natural attrition will speed it along.
Guggle Gropers will die.
[/rant]
>> I agree totally with your comments on early IBM policy,
>> having been caught myself with PCDOS and two very
>> expensive (at the time) machines and software installs
>> to run a network.
>
>My ideas over IBM, MS and INTEL being in cahoots as an illegal cartel
>are mine only, and is just a suspicion. IBM was burnt badly by the
>anti-trust people in the past and they easily could have owned
>EVERYTHING and in no way needed Gates to develop their PC OS, other than
>to prevent more monopoly problems. Proof of this is when MS was unable
>to develop windows to work correctly, and IBM needed an OS that worked,
>they developed OS/2 in just one year, and it came out near perfect, I
>think totally perfect. Gates and is dimwit programmers still haven't
>figured it out.
>
I aint going to go do what I see others having a guess
do, Jack... in "Guggling" for content. I post from my head
(from the hip, if you like) and I recall there was a whole
thing with Xerox intertwined in that IBM ownership
thing with Gates?? In fact at that time sourcing office
infrastructure equipment, and managing a future, was
a fskn nightmare!
And there is where I am coming from, Jack - on the
topic of MS 'efficiency' - I aint no geeky pie-eyed
algorithm cruncher/muncher :-]
I dealt with and still do today with what will work
and is financially efficient. Microsoft just do not cut
it in that regard, today, if ever.
The short version of what MS is responsible
for is the quantum shift of hard cash being placed,
in huge quantities, directly, "overseas", at the door of
MS, an' yeah.. maybe Intel, etal :->
This at the cost of local economies in supporting
human resources which would have fed directly into
those structures that exist to provide our individual
lifestyles.
Look for confirmation of that Truth from anyone
ever using MS "Help" through a desk in Bangalore!
Microsoft got the cash, we (doers) got the problem
of what to do with retaining high quality staff who
were/are no longer viable as stenographers and/or
PA's. Luckily (for some) a computer cannot do
graphic design..... yet.
oH.. and btw, Jack, I wrote a paper on this topic
back in 1999 in the middle of that Windows ME
debacle. Submitted to my professional affiliates
for review (before Press) it never saw the light of
day. I look back now on the "thimble and pea"
fudge that was done with NT5.5 in renaming it
XP Home and smile broadly at just how
"homey" that was. The first of the
Windows GUIs that allowed Mr. America to
reboot and not BSOD...??... yeh, right :-/
/snip
>> yeh.. you are right alright, Jack.
>> But like all of the above.. wasting time telling it :-(
>
>Sometimes I like to rub the burr...
>
I carnt help you with that Jack, you picking your
times, that is<g>
Yet I may be of some assistance with whom
is fondling the "burr"??
I am going to assume you are familiar with grep
(and in building search strings) to say I do not
"subscribe" as such to <rec.w>. Wood is okay
but I prefer metal manipulation as a craft, sorry
guys<g>
I do swing by, on occasion, merely to cast an
eye on an individual well known to troll Usenet
and who specializes in finding "burr" and rolling
whatever to aggravate a particular situation.
This individual has been very successful in
bringing down what were once viable interesting
forums, much as <rec.w> is to many users here.
I digress....
So, how do I find the idiot, out of what is
hundreds of posts, when he changes nyms on a
regular basis and forges other known
posters, to boot?
Simple, Jack.. only in his posts is there a unique
identifier. I qualify that by highlighting "only in
his VAGRANT posts. He does behave himself
when "caught". His shape-shifting to Giganews
underpins that fact.
<bseg>
The MiDs for just the last week are below.
That work took maybe 5 minutes tops, when it
is known what to look for and "grep it", as is said:-)
--------------------------------------
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <55%[email protected]>
Message-ID: <_g%[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <5d%[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
----------------------------
As you will see the guy does not hold back in using other
known posters identities, and it is that and the following
reason I ask you not to "spill ya guts" when you figure
the string I am using.
That information will feed into what I say now as a
profile on the guy.
Like that poor hapless "Leon" -- and no doubt other
users in <rec.w> -- when the guy was told (years ago) his
software was borked, and to go get a newsreader,
he chose not only to ignore the advice
-- as Leon does -- but to take extreme umbrage
at any suggestion he owned the problem.
This reactive is a common attribute of MS "Tools"
(users).
I am yet to figure out (after many years) if it is a
"patriotic thing" or simply the fact those people cannot
come to grips with the fact they have been
conned, bigtime.
That computer Wally sold to them just does not
"do everything for you"... like it said on the label!!
<eg>
Big shock/horror..!
Mortified, the guy has spent thousands of hours
in chasing anyone he thinks is "out to get him".
Again he is a victim of his own ignorance as he
has wrongly identified at least 3 posters as being
the same person. This alone has caused him to
own stupidity beyond belief, but it has
happened, the proof is there.
He sought and haunted (haunts) a fellow Canadian
who he thought was I, an Australian.
Mike from BC[.ca] is the regular user of the "mII"
handle Josepi is using. Mike hangs out in the electronic
groups, as I do, from time to time.
Thinking he could get Mike jailed he made posts
allover following up his own forgeries of "mII".
The nym he used was a known posting identity
I did use, this whilst posting covert (he thought)
forgeries elsewhere, using that same name.
Yeah, I know.. stupid beyond belief.
What was interesting about the whole exercise was
the topic chosen AND the group he chose to post into.
Not just any old group but one very difficult to find.
In fact I would say, impossible to find unless one was
TOLD it existed. Now, with whom and in what circles
(with that bent) Josepi moves around in is what I
asked his ISP to investigate.
A recent change in the guys behavior tells me he
has been "tapped on the shoulder".
Nobody in ISP circles even wants to go near
pedophilia investigations.
I aint going to send you to that group, I believe it is
waaay too 'dangerous' to go anywhere near the joint.
But what I do is show you the posts on a remote link.
You can then check them against the identifying string.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CNTELn.53075%24304.53042%40newsfe12.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CgRSVn.1471%24Ls1.1261%40newsfe11.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CgRSVn.1471%24Ls1.1261%40newsfe11.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C92Uzo.2899%24AT2.299%40newsfe01.iad%3E
Where you have a <rec.w> archive run the same
string and viola, you got him.
If not, no problem. The goose has made hundreds
of posts using the same identifier.
Yeh, he gets around, and with a common theme
"it aint me it' them".
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CvvXmn.45786%24Dv7.30316%40newsfe17.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C8X%25jn.16517%24ND2.12584%40newsfe05.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CKHLKm.25561%24Wd1.19809%40newsfe15.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CdqlIm.3620%24M45.2266%40newsfe06.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cc6lAm.74422%24944.62048%40newsfe09.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=+%3CQ4AFn.421%24%25u7.8%40newsfe14.iad%3E
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3ChvJDm.286030%24cf6.283967%40newsfe16.iad%3E
Take note also it is only those groups he
identifies as having a poor understanding
(less than his) of Usenet that he targets.
Of course he fsks up, I say <rec.w> is
such a place. Prats like Upscale and
Leon being the only suckers I have seen
recently respond to his BS.
>> jes saying, like.
>> No responses please.
>
>One of the things I love about Usenet is everyone gets to say their
>piece. Requesting no response never works. To get no response, you have
>to stay out of the water:-)
... interesting such a wise Netizen resides
amongst the wood pile.. mheh heh
[update]
I have just this minute read Josepi's
efforts on DOS emulation in NT (all versions)
<q>
DOS like environment
</q>
and felt that old familiar rise of amazement.
IT truly believes DOS exists after ME.
Further, any cli environment he takes as
being exactly like "MsDOS"[sic].
<Mi%[email protected]>
I was sure all dickheads of his calbre died
when DOS went 16bit !!?
/snuckles
... interesting times indeed.
george
Sure, and MS tells us that XP and 7 are not NT also.
Too bad most of the error messages and utilities still report NT.
Just semantics, anyway.
-------------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
And those that say there is need to look at what underpins UNIX and
all it's variants. It is all text based too - all kinds of command
lines - but definitely NOT DOS.
On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:28:26 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> - There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.
>>
>> Then why am I using it?
>
>Because you're too lazy to work with something else?
What's the status of Linux today? What percentage of Win apps have
been _decently_ ported to it now?
--
The only reason we die, is because we accept death as an inevitability.
-- Seth MacFarlane
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:28:26 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> - There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Then why am I using it?
>>
>>Because you're too lazy to work with something else?
>
> What's the status of Linux today? What percentage of Win apps have
> been _decently_ ported to it now?
>
I used to know and even cared. Mot any more ...
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."
On Sun, 22 May 2011 06:57:51 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Josepi wrote:
>> You would have to experience the system errors. Not much has changed
>> despite what they tell us.
>>
>> The GUI interface is NT, also despite MS saying it isn't, but the
>> underlying system is still a text DOS like environment with text
>> command lines and text error messages. Sometimes you can overrun the
>> DOS command line by having directories that are too nested and
>> various other indicators show up from time to time.
>>
>> The GUI has to communicate with a shell using some medium and that
>> medium looks exactly like MsDOS. THE DOS command interpreter is only
>> hidden better than before.
>>
>>
>> The "DOS shell" is not related to this.
>
>There is no DOS from XT onward. There is no "DOS command line." The kernel
>is completely different from DOS.
>
>In the newer OSes, there is a DOS Emulator (it works like DOS on steroids),
>but, again, there is NO DOS CODE in the underlying kernel.
>
And those that say there is need to look at what underpins UNIX and
all it's variants. It is all text based too - all kinds of command
lines - but definitely NOT DOS.
On 5/14/2011 7:25 PM, Jack Stein said this:
> On 5/15/2011 9:28 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 5/14/2011 5:32 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
<SNIP>
>> You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales
>> literature in the showroom...
>
> Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
> operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
> of MS.
>
> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
> these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of the
> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
> OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works only with
> the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things that
> horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.
>
Methinks you're got way more emotional investment in this than
it is worth. I too have been doing this sort of work for
a very long time (starting with an IBM 1130 and then TRS-DOS/LDOS,
CP/M, Unix, MSDOS .... et al). From where I sit anyway:
- Best technology never wins. First mover usually wins. Not
first to *create* but first to *commercialize*. Microsoft
didn't win because of its evil marketing behavior. It won because
the people in the Unix community - that had a waaaaaay better product -
couldn't get out of their own way. I sat on standards committees and
watched the infighting in OSF, X/Open, ANSI, and POSIX. It was
a joke. The propeller heads argued about fine points of theology
while the Microsoft juggernaut grew. The only reason Sun was a player
is because they too ignored the committees. Ditto Oracle. Ditto
IBM.
- I've made a decent living for a considerable amount of time doing
*NIX based work. I also made a nice profit owning
Microsoft stock by *holding* it (whereas Sun only ever made me money
day trading). Best of both worlds, I'd say.
- There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft. Like
I said, there are dozens of good alternatives. I've run a business
for almost a decade now whose principal servers have NEVER been
Linux or Microsoft ... and never had a significant problem.
P.S. The fact that someone has a ginned an argument that
Microsoft's actions were "illegal" doesn't mean what they did
was wrong. Something is wrong if it involves fraud, force, or
threat. If there were any demonstration of any of the above,
there are legal remedies for them. Just because Microsoft
wanted exclusive shelf space in exchanged for preferential
pricing to their OEMs hardly demonstrates any of the above.
The Cato papers are impeccable researched and refute this
foolishness amply in my view.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
>>> involved.
>>> If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
>>> and "policing" as well.
you do have these. Rural Metro, amongst other companies, provides fee-for
service fire protection across the country, in hundreds of communities.
http://www.ruralmetro.com/about_communitiesserved.asp
and what are security guards but private fee-for service "policing"?
On 5/10/2011 10:49 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> The only Western monopolies that ever existed that were *predatory*
> were the ones enabled by government. Predatory monopoly can only
> exist with force. Without it, the overpricing will be corrected by
> government. Think public utilities vs. IBM or Microsoft. No
> truly private monopoly can get away with predatory pricing and
> survive.
Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
Of course while government could have fixed this when the DOJ filed suit
for anti-trust in 1994, and found Microsoft guilty of horrendous
violation of the Federal Anti-trust laws, The DOJ APPEALED it's VICTORY
and the judge was removed from the case. This had to have cost
Microsoft a TON of money. It's not everyday the VICTOR in a lawsuit
appeals a ruling in it's favor.
The Judge said that the violations were so fucking bad he sent the the
consent decree back as insufficient based on the degree of violations.
In other words the judge, after reviewing the case decided that the
redress sought by the DOJ was not nearly enough based on the severity of
the violations.
The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they are
getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating system.
Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is a
prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government allows
competition to wither on the vine.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:15:48 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Sure, and MS tells us that XP and 7 are not NT also.
>
>Too bad most of the error messages and utilities still report NT.
>
Both say "built on NT"
>
>Just semantics, anyway.
>-------------------
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>And those that say there is need to look at what underpins UNIX and
>all it's variants. It is all text based too - all kinds of command
>lines - but definitely NOT DOS.
On 5/11/2011 9:17 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> And - for the record - in modern times, there have been 4 nations
> that stuck together to help each other and free the world: Australia,
> Canada, United Kingdom, and United States.
Yeah, every time anyone in the world screws up or gets rained on, the US
sends them billions of dollars, and too often it's children to die.
Nothing against the three nations you listed, but all their help is not
much more than a fart in the wind.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/12/2011 9:54 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> A few random facts:
>
> - There are something like 7 major oil companies - hardly a monopoly.
>
> - At least in the US, the major oil companies pay about the same
> in taxes as they make in profit.
>
> - The biggest component in the price of gas is the price of
> crude:
The working class pays something like 88 cents direct tax on every
gallon of gas to the government, far more than the people that own the
gas companies, and that is not including the large indirect taxes the
working class pays when the oil companies indirectly charge them for the
38% corporate tax the people pay.
> None of this stops the Usual Suspects from whining about how
> unfair it all is, how they are being gouged, and how they deserve
> what they want at a price they think is "fair".
Exxon-Mobil's profit margin is 8.2%. MicroSoft, a true corrupt monopoly
that everyone stupidly loves, has a profit margin of 30%. In addition,
MS return on investment is almost 2x's that of Exxon-Mobil, yet
dickheads at all the major media, including Bill O'Reilly, think XOM
makes obscene profits. I suggest they all buy stock in XOM, and get
filthy rich if they think the oil companies make sooo much money.
BTW, Exxon-Mobil is the the most heavily taxed (actually you pay the tax
when you buy gas) corporation on earth, paying like $30 BILLION in taxes
whilst GE pays NOTHING. Again, dickheads around here think OIL
companies are buying off congress, while GE give billions to OBAMA and
the socialist anti-amerikan dems to avoid taxes completely.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/13/2011 7:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
>> demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
>> opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
>
> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as one
of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer with
being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating system,
or whistling Dixie.
>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>> system.
>
> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this week
> from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they can, most
> often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their wallets and
> the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never bought a
PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise Microsoft I
"willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS because there is
little choice unless you want to swim upstream all day long. I have
been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with UNIX than 99.999% of
computer users, and I am smart enough not to swim up stream, there is no
chance that the other 99.999% of PC users could figure out how to use
something like Unix. My wife gets pissed when Firefox upgrades itself
because something changed. Microsoft took advantage of this by
illegally and immorally forcing its system on unknowing consumers.
>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
>> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>
> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
You're right, explain it to me.
> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up with a
> new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would pay for,
> it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still making money.
Microsoft has NOT come up with a new operating system since he bought
DOS from Patterson. The system was garbage then, and still is. The
unknowing public thinks they are getting viruses when 99% of the time it
is simply an operating system that does not work. The reason they, and
I, am using this piece of shit is because MicroSoft totally controls the
market. They control the market because of past illegal marketing
practices. I was in the market at the time, and experienced what was
going on.
When federal anti-trust Judge Stanley Sporkin heard the case against
Microsoft in 1994-95 he was appalled, and found for himself what I and
many already knew just from being in the game.
I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
you want, as long as it's black.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
> have to pay for Windows.
Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking their
ass, over, and over and over.
Jack
> If the PC manufacturer wants to provide me with
> a Window-less PC and reduce the price accordingly, M$ threatens to take
> them off their approved list and either not provide Windows for those
> who want it or charge them much more for ever copy.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
>>> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>>
>> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
>>
>> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up
>> with a
>> new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would pay
>> for,
>> it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still making
>> money.
>>
>>
>
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/13/2011 1:15 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 5/13/2011 9:48 AM, Jack Stein said this:
>> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
>> Of course while government could have fixed this when the DOJ filed suit for anti-trust in 1994, and found Microsoft guilty of horrendous violation of the Federal Anti-trust laws, The DOJ APPEALED it's VICTORY and the judge was removed from the case. This had to have cost Microsoft a TON of money. It's not everyday the VICTOR in a lawsuit appeals a ruling in it's favor.
>> The Judge said that the violations were so fucking bad he sent the the consent decree back as insufficient based on the degree of violations. In other words the judge, after reviewing the case decided that the redress sought by the DOJ was not nearly enough based on the severity of the violations.
>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating system.
>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government allows competition to wither on the vine.
> http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa352.pdf
I don't need this guy to tell me what went on or what was good for me.
I was there, and while he makes a point here and there, he is simply off
base. He particularly lost me when he said:
"The price of Windows, on
a comparable features basis, has plummeted.Windows 3.0, which required
the added purchase of DOS, was introduced in April 1990 at a combined
price of $205."
First, there was no "Addtional purchase required, the OS was MSDOS and
windows was simply a shell that ran on top of DOS. You could not run
windows w/o dos, period.
The "combined price" was bogus, and MS charged retails way, way, way
less than that, as long as they towed the line, meaning they sold PC's
with DOS, and nothing else. This is partly why the hapless consumer
got hosed, and is consequently running the worlds worst OS. Gates spent
all his time controlling the market rather than producing a robust OS or
going out of business.
> http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa-405es.html
Having intimate experience with DOS/windows, UNIX and OS/2, I don't need
someone to tell me Microsoft's anti-trust violations somehow produced
something good, it simply didn't. The proof is on my PC as we speak.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On Fri, 13 May 2011 18:57:02 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this
> week from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they
> can, most often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their
> wallets and the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
And they're voting with the same expertise they use in elections. They
have no idea what they're voting for. They've just been seduced by
clever marketing.
Same thing happened with chips. National Semi's 32016 (or was it 16032)
and Motorola's 68xxx chips were both way better than the Intel offerings
in their time. But they fell to Intel's better marketing.
Need I mention Rand vs IBM?
If you want an example from elsewhere than computers, there's always
bottled water :-).
It's always been "sell the sizzle, not the steak" since marketing was
born.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Jack Stein wrote:
> On 5/13/2011 7:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
>>> demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
>>> opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
>>
>> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing seller?
>
> The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
> competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
> competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as one
> of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer with
> being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating system,
> or whistling Dixie.
>
>>> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
>>> worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they
>>> are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating
>>> system.
>>
>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
>> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this
>> week from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they
>> can, most often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their
>> wallets and the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>
> I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never bought a
> PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise Microsoft I
> "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS because there is
> little choice unless you want to swim upstream all day long. I have
> been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with UNIX than 99.999% of
> computer users, and I am smart enough not to swim up stream, there is no
> chance that the other 99.999% of PC users could figure out how to use
> something like Unix. My wife gets pissed when Firefox upgrades itself
> because something changed. Microsoft took advantage of this by
> illegally and immorally forcing its system on unknowing consumers.
>
>>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is
>>> a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>>
>> You don't understand. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself !
>
> You're right, explain it to me.
>
>> An operating system is not a consumable. If Microsoft did not come up
>> with a new OS every few years, with desirable features that people would
>> pay for, it's revenue stream would wither. Last I heard, they're still
>> making money.
>
> Microsoft has NOT come up with a new operating system since he bought
> DOS from Patterson. The system was garbage then, and still is. The
> unknowing public thinks they are getting viruses when 99% of the time it
> is simply an operating system that does not work. The reason they, and
> I, am using this piece of shit is because MicroSoft totally controls the
> market. They control the market because of past illegal marketing
> practices. I was in the market at the time, and experienced what was
> going on.
>
> When federal anti-trust Judge Stanley Sporkin heard the case against
> Microsoft in 1994-95 he was appalled, and found for himself what I and
> many already knew just from being in the game.
>
> I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
> MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
> you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
> you want, as long as it's black.
>
I don't know what the big deal is. I've been running linux since 2001 and
haven't looked back. I have no worries about getting a virus and haven't
since 2001. There has been times when I got frustrated with software
developers not porting to linux but I lived with it. Most everything is
covered today. I am pissed that google doesn't build a Sketchup for linux
but I just use my wives Apple. Haven't run windblows in over 10 years and
haven't seen a blue screen for the same amount of time.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Man. 2010.1 Spring
KDE4.4
2.6.33.5-desktop-2mnb
On 5/14/2011 11:52 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>>> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>>> have to pay for Windows.
>>
>> Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
>> and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
>> from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
>> first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
>> would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
>> windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
>>
>> The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
>> getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
>> their ass, over, and over and over.
>>
>> Jack
>>
> There are more choices today than ever.
There never was much in choices. Saying it doesn't make it so.
This is directly attributable to
> the fact that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which
> other systems could be grafted.
It is directly attributable to Microsoft using the gift granted to them
by IBM to prevent retailers from marketing competitive products.
> If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one.
If Microsoft was not violating federal anti-trust laws, anti-trust Judge
Sporkin would not have been horrified when he heard what Gates had been
up too.
> Their product comes with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
> in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
> like Google.
The one feature there Operating System doesn't feature is quality. It
does not work well because it's competition had been stifled by
anti-competitive tactics.
> But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
> their own property.
It is my business when I am forced to use the worlds worst OS because of
illegal, anti-competitive tactics of Microdsoft.
The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely political, concocted
by Netscape,
Sun, et al because they didn't have a clue how to compete in the
consumer space.
They all have a clue. It doesn't take genius to take a market bestowed
on you by IBM, use that market to force retailers to carry only your
product, or die. Judge Sporkin is/was clean as it gets, unbribable and
unafraid of the Billions and Billions of ill-gotten gains of Microsoft.
> Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
> *good* for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their
> products ...
Personally, I used UNIX system 7 for years, OS/2 for years, and Dos/Win
for years. DosWin is a PERFECT example of how anti-competitive
practices can result in the worlds worst product dominating a market.
Judge Sporkin was made keenly aware of this when the DOJ brought charges
against MS. Unfortunately, imo, the DOJ was more interested in bilking
MS of $ than fixing/addressing the problem. This was made clear when
the DOJ appealed their own court VICTORY.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/14/2011 12:27 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2011 18:57:02 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>
>> The world is not "stuck" with Microsoft. There are many others: about 50
>> flavors of Linux, Unix itself, Macs, BSD, and one announced just this
>> week from Google. If people WANTED a different operating system, they
>> can, most often, get it for free! As it is, people are voting with their
>> wallets and the vote is 90% for Microsoft.
>
> And they're voting with the same expertise they use in elections. They
> have no idea what they're voting for. They've just been seduced by
> clever marketing.
No, they were "seduced" by anti-competitive, illegal marketing practices.
> Same thing happened with chips. National Semi's 32016 (or was it 16032)
> and Motorola's 68xxx chips were both way better than the Intel offerings
> in their time. But they fell to Intel's better marketing.
> Need I mention Rand vs IBM?
Well, you can mention Intel and IBM. All part of the IBM/INTEL/MS cartel.
> It's always been "sell the sizzle, not the steak" since marketing was
> born.
Marketing types tend to stifle competition when the opportunity knocks,
thus the reason for anti-trust laws that attempt to keep competition
alive without stifling a free market.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/15/2011 2:22 AM, Rich wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
>> MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
>> you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
>> you want, as long as it's black.
> I don't know what the big deal is.
The big deal is for the past 23 years or so, most of the world has been
running some lame version of the worlds worst operating system on their
home PC.
I've been running linux since 2001 and haven't looked back.
I guess it doesn't bother you that 99% of the software available doesn't
run on linux, or that only a computer geek can possible know where to
get it, how to install it, or how to use it.
I have no worries about getting a virus and haven't since 2001.
I've had one virus with DOS/WINDOWS in about 25 years. I ran a BBS
where the whole world had access to my computer 24/7, including
uploading and downloading files directly from my home pc. One virus,
and that was in the past year. All other virus appearing problems were
NOT viruses, but poor OS design.
> There has been times when I got frustrated with software
> developers not porting to linux but I lived with it. Most everything is
> covered today. I am pissed that google doesn't build a Sketchup for linux
> but I just use my wives Apple. Haven't run windblows in over 10 years and
> haven't seen a blue screen for the same amount of time.
Yes, I understand fully. Some people, like you, are willing to swim
upstream to avoid the worlds worst OS. I did it myself until MS and IBM
made the current too much work to swim against. Linux is a nightmare
compared to what OS/2 offered the user. OS/2 appeared like windows and
dos, but, it worked. It ran all the software of DOS/WIN with none of the
problems of DOS/WIN, plus it had a robust, solid OS running everything,
so developers could write awesome software. It only died because IBM
and MS killed it, just when it was attaining critical mass.
UNIX was a super OS and had Bell labs/AT&T developed it for the consumer
market it would have been a good competitor with OS/2. They didn't, and
LINUX, being shareware, has too many problems for the non-geek user to
deal with. There was a time I thought LINUX might do something
worthwhile against MS, but I'm afraid if that ever happens, I won't be
around to enjoy it.
OH, google sketchup is one of my favorite apps.... Guarantee it would
have run under OS/2 as a WIN Program, and twice as good if it were
developed as an OS/2 program.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/15/2011 9:28 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 5/14/2011 5:32 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> It doesn't take genius to take a market bestowed
>> on you by IBM, use that market to force retailers to carry only your
>> product, or die. Judge Sporkin is/was clean as it gets, unbribable and
>> unafraid of the Billions and Billions of ill-gotten gains of Microsoft.
>>
>>> Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
>>> *good* for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their
>>> products ...
>>
>> Personally, I used UNIX system 7 for years, OS/2 for years, and
>> Dos/Win for years. DosWin is a PERFECT example of how anti-competitive
>> practices can result in the worlds worst product dominating a market.
>> Judge Sporkin was made keenly aware of this when the DOJ brought
>> charges against MS. Unfortunately, imo, the DOJ was more interested in
>> bilking MS of $ than fixing/addressing the problem. This was made
>> clear when the DOJ appealed their own court VICTORY.
> Your understanding of 'forced' is, um, bogus. No one forces you to use
> Windows, or for that matter a computer *at all*. It's absurd to complain that you cannot
> buy what you want at the store.
Not absurd at all. If I go to any large retail store, and can buy only
the worlds worst os because of illegal, anti-trust marketing practices,
and most all home software products are professionally developed ONLY
for the worlds worst OS because of past illegal, immoral, anti-trust
marketing practices, then I, and particularly the average user, is
'forced' to run the worlds worst OS on their home PC.
> Hardware vendors voluntarily entered into a deal
> with Microsoft to get preferential pricing.
Bear in mind, that NO hardware
> vendor had to agree to Microsoft's terms. They could simply have sold bare metal
> and let the consumer decide what to put on it. They didn't because they (rightly)
> understood that consumers wanted a turnkey system.
Wrong. Any vendor that decided to increase their market by installing
say, OS/2, and allowing the consumer a choice of OS's was met with
threats of losing the ability to sell DOS/WIN. The OS cost them a few
dollars, but if they sold say, OS/2 installed, they either would not get
to sell DOS/WIN at all or would no longer get the "discount" price and
would pay hundreds for the OS. This would spell the death knell to any
retailer dependent on the home PC market. The result of these anti
competitive tactic's was the retailer and the consumer (and the software
developers) had NO CHOICE, they would be using the worlds worst OS. Why
do YOU think most of the home market is using the worlds worst OS?
Everyone is just too fucking dumb to buy something better, right?
> For about a decade now, there have been a dozen or so Linux
> distributions, 3 or 4
> major BSD variants, FreeDOS, WINE, and host of other lesser choices
> available
> for *free*... And the consumers still have consistently chosen Microsoft
> over all the above.
Last time I was at best buy, I could not buy a PC with LINUX installed
on it. Last time I watched my wife and children on the PC, looked like
they would have no clue how to remove windows and install a shareware
version of UNIX that would not run any of their software.
This is not the behavior of a predatory monopoloy.
Yes, it is. Without illegal marketing practices, people would have
chosen to buy an OS that worked installed on their home PC, and
developers would have developed software for that market. MS would have
had to come out with a solid, smooth working, multitasking OS or go out
of business. The consumer would have been the winner.
It is the evidence of a satisfied customer base, nothing else.
Nope, it is evidence of the results of stifled competition. People do
not choose to use the worst product available when given a choice. When
choice is stifled, the consumer ALWAYS loses.
> Microsoft makes "good
> enough" technology. It's good enough for most people, most of the time.
Nothing is good enough if there is other stuff available that is better.
Windows sucks the big one, most everyone hates it but don't know why.
Mostly they blame it on their own "computer illiteracy" or on
non-existent viral attacks. It's the OS stupid!
> It's
> not "great" because consumers wouldn't pay for great ... or at least
> they haven't been willing to thus far.
Consumers could have had great had they been able to purchase OS/2
installed on their PC's. They could have had great in spite of MS
illegal anti-trust marketing had IBM not pulled the product the moment
it became clear OS/2 was about to explode on the market as it reached
critical mass of 1 million copies sold a month, despite the difficulty
of finding it for sale, and having to remove the worlds worst OS and
installing something that actually worked yourself. Had IBM provided it
to the retailers, and MS not threatened retailers, Win would either have
gone out of business, or developed something better than OS/2. Neither
happened.
> You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales
> literature in the showroom...
Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
of MS.
I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of
the software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds
worst OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works
only with the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things
that horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein wrote:
> On 5/15/2011 2:22 AM, Rich wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>> I think it was/is far worse than he discovered, and imo it was not just
>>> MS, but also Intel and IBM and the 3 of them have been in collusion (can
>>> you say cartel) to insure you the consumer can willingly buy any color
>>> you want, as long as it's black.
>
>> I don't know what the big deal is.
>
> The big deal is for the past 23 years or so, most of the world has been
> running some lame version of the worlds worst operating system on their
> home PC.
>
> I've been running linux since 2001 and haven't looked back.
>
> I guess it doesn't bother you that 99% of the software available doesn't
> run on linux, or that only a computer geek can possible know where to
> get it, how to install it, or how to use it.
Most software runs on linux and as far as I'm concerned better. Where do you
think FireFox came from? Open Office works perfect and cross platforms with
MS office or word. There's easy alternative to any program offered by
MicroCrap and others. Most all programs now are easy to install. I run
Virtual Box and can easily run Windblows but don't because of all the
obvious reasons. Think you need to have another look at Linux, its very user
friendly and not the so called "nightmare" you once thought it was...
>
> I have no worries about getting a virus and haven't since 2001.
>
> I've had one virus with DOS/WINDOWS in about 25 years. I ran a BBS
> where the whole world had access to my computer 24/7, including
> uploading and downloading files directly from my home pc. One virus,
> and that was in the past year. All other virus appearing problems were
> NOT viruses, but poor OS design.
>
>> There has been times when I got frustrated with software
>> developers not porting to linux but I lived with it. Most everything is
>> covered today. I am pissed that google doesn't build a Sketchup for linux
>> but I just use my wives Apple. Haven't run windblows in over 10 years and
>> haven't seen a blue screen for the same amount of time.
>
> Yes, I understand fully. Some people, like you, are willing to swim
> upstream to avoid the worlds worst OS. I did it myself until MS and IBM
> made the current too much work to swim against. Linux is a nightmare
> compared to what OS/2 offered the user. OS/2 appeared like windows and
> dos, but, it worked. It ran all the software of DOS/WIN with none of the
> problems of DOS/WIN, plus it had a robust, solid OS running everything,
> so developers could write awesome software. It only died because IBM
> and MS killed it, just when it was attaining critical mass.
>
> UNIX was a super OS and had Bell labs/AT&T developed it for the consumer
> market it would have been a good competitor with OS/2. They didn't, and
> LINUX, being shareware, has too many problems for the non-geek user to
> deal with. There was a time I thought LINUX might do something
> worthwhile against MS, but I'm afraid if that ever happens, I won't be
> around to enjoy it.
>
> OH, google sketchup is one of my favorite apps.... Guarantee it would
> have run under OS/2 as a WIN Program, and twice as good if it were
> developed as an OS/2 program.
>
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Man. 2010.1 Spring
KDE4.4
2.6.33.5-desktop-2mnb
On 5/15/2011 5:10 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> The problem with this theory is MacOS is more closed off than Windows ever
> was. You cannot run it on anything but Apple hardware. And this, from a
> system that was born in *open source* - FreeBSD.
I explained this to my son, but he insisted on buying a MAC, after years
of fighting WINDOWS garbage. He has been quite happy with it, solid as
a rock. He doesn't do much with it though, mostly on line gaming, music
and such.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/15/2011 11:19 PM, Rich wrote:
> Most software runs on linux and as far as I'm concerned better. Where do you
> think FireFox came from?
I thought it came from Netscape:-)
Open Office works perfect and cross platforms with
> MS office or word. There's easy alternative to any program offered by
> MicroCrap and others. Most all programs now are easy to install. I run
> Virtual Box and can easily run Windblows but don't because of all the
> obvious reasons. Think you need to have another look at Linux, its very user
> friendly and not the so called "nightmare" you once thought it was...
That's good to hear. My last look was some nightmare version of
Knoppix. Not sure why I looked at that, but my sons old PC with windows
exploded, and he didn't have the win discs to reinstall, so I installed
KNOPPIX. It worked but was a mess, and I didn't bother fighting it,
instead I managed to call a number from the win boot screen that hooked
my up to someone in India that wanted to charge me $50 or $100 for new
install disks. I bitched up a storm because I have paid for numerous
versions of win (had 4 PC's running XP, and none of them would work with
the PC my son lost the disks for. Anyway he sent them for $15, the cost
of the discs and shipping I guess. Anyway, reinstalled and all was well
for a while... My son now runs a working version of UNIX (a MAC) and he
is happy. I still have a "burr up my ass"
I have to tell you though I have just saved the freeBSD website yet
again, but with any luck, will not get involved in all that again:-)
--
Jack
How's that win registry working for you now?
http://jbstein.com
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)
Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
Xerox.
On 5/16/2011 2:04 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 5/14/2011 7:25 PM, Jack Stein said this:
>> On 5/15/2011 9:28 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2011 5:32 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>>> You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales
>>> literature in the showroom...
>>
>> Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>> operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>> of MS.
>>
>> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
>> these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of the
>> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
>> OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works only with
>> the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things that
>> horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.
> Methinks you're got way more emotional investment in this than
> it is worth.
I am passionate about the subject.
I too have been doing this sort of work for
> a very long time (starting with an IBM 1130 and then TRS-DOS/LDOS,
> CP/M, Unix, MSDOS .... et al). From where I sit anyway:
>
> - Best technology never wins. First mover usually wins. Not
> first to *create* but first to *commercialize*. Microsoft
> didn't win because of its evil marketing behavior.
Judge Sporkin wasn't convinced, and neither am I.
> It won because the people in the Unix community - that had a waaaaaay better product -
> couldn't get out of their own way.
Unix, for whatever reason, was never in competition with DOS/Windows.
> - I've made a decent living for a considerable amount of time doing
> *NIX based work. I also made a nice profit owning
> Microsoft stock by *holding* it (whereas Sun only ever made me money
> day trading). Best of both worlds, I'd say.
Yeah, but not the issue.
> - There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.
Then why am I using it?
> Like I said, there are dozens of good alternatives.
Windows has 92% of the home PC market, and when I go to Best Buy, the
dozens of alternatives are missing in action. I can buy MS, or MAC.
> I've run a business for almost a decade now whose principal servers have NEVER been
> Linux or Microsoft ... and never had a significant problem.
> P.S. The fact that someone has a ginned an argument that
> Microsoft's actions were "illegal" doesn't mean what they did
> was wrong.
Buy "ginned an argument" I assume you mean when the DOJ brought charges
against MS for violations of the anti trust laws and was not only found
guilty, but the judge was so horrified by the extent of the violations
that he instructed the DOJ to seek additional redress. Instead, the DOJ
appealed their victory?
Something is wrong if it involves fraud, force, or
> threat.
Same thing the DOJ said and the anti-trust judge agreed.
If there were any demonstration of any of the above,
> there are legal remedies for them.
Yes, and the legal remedies were sought and granted. The victor, (the
corrupt DOJ) appealed their own victory. Yeah, that always happens
right? Looks like large money couldn't corrupt Judge Sporkin, but had
no problem with the DOJ.
Just because Microsoft
> wanted exclusive shelf space in exchanged for preferential
> pricing to their OEMs hardly demonstrates any of the above.
> The Cato papers are impeccable researched and refute this
> foolishness amply in my view.
Not in my view, and certainly not in Judge Sporkins view. Regardless of
the Cato papers, or the corrupt DOJ's back stepping, the result of this
bull is 92% of the PC's on earth using the worlds worst OS.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/20/2011 6:51 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> How so? What's the problem between a willing buyer and a willing
>>> seller?
>>
>> The problem was and is simple. The buyer was blocked from buying
>> competing products at the store. MS forbade retailers from selling
>> competing operating systems with threat of removing the retailer as
>> one of there markets. The result of these tactics left the consumer
>> with being willing to buy a home pc with the worlds worst operating
>> system, or whistling Dixie.
>
> And the store became a willing Microsoft distributor.
OF course. The store was making money, MS was making a killing, and
only the consumer was getting screwed, knowingly or not.
> A Burger King
> franchise is likewise prohibited from also selling McDonald's Quarter
> Pounders. Don't blame Microsoft for no one wanting to be a BSD distributor.
Burger King sells hamburger similar to McDonald's. It was next to
impossible for the average user to buy a "hamburger" similar to Windows.
It was Windows of nothing.
>> I am NOT willing to use any Microsoft product, yet I have never
>> bought a PC w/o a microsoft operating system. Whilst I despise
>> Microsoft I "willingly choose" to buy and run the worlds worst OS
>> because there is little choice unless you want to swim upstream all
>> day long. I have been a Unix administrator and am more familiar with
>> UNIX than 99.999% of computer users, and I am smart enough not to
>> swim up stream, there is no chance that the other 99.999% of PC users
>> could figure out how to use something like Unix.
> Of course not. Unix is a 50-year old operating system designed by a
> money-losing division of your local telephone company.
Bell Labs is a money losing division of my local phone company? I
didn't know that. My local phone company is Comcast, and I pay
$20/month for unlimited calling anywhere in the US. Before that, my
Local phone company was AT&T, and they were busted for running a monopoly.
>> My wife gets pissed
>> when Firefox upgrades itself because something changed. Microsoft
>> took advantage of this by illegally and immorally forcing its system
>> on unknowing consumers.
> Illegal? Giggle.
Yes, because of illegal anti-competitive practices I am stuck with
DOS/WIN rather than OS/2, or something even better. I would have been
happy with OS/2.
> Unknowing? If you're talking about updates, one can turn those off.
I can handle the updates, my wife gets confused if anything changes,
like the majority of PC users.
>>>> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft
>>>> is a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government
>>>> allows competition to wither on the vine.
>
> Capitalism thrives when monopolies flourish. Monopolies are the bedrock of
> our country and enshrined in our Constitution.
Yeah, I know, and greed is good. I know your shtick.
> Article I, Section 8:
> "Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and
> useful Arts, by securing, for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26
Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 17) requires the United States federal
government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and
organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal
statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis
for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government.
The act attempts to protect the consumer from the likes of MS, but it
fails dramatically when the legal and political end of government is
corrupt, and the richest man on earth is hell bent on screwing the public.
> DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al) NT,
> 2000, 2001, XP, Vista, Win7, and many, many, variants.
DOS is/was the OS. Windows was just a shell. Windows REQUIRED the DOS
OS to run. The only "variant" of DOS that worked was OS/2, and it would
run dos and its windows shell with less problems than DOS ran itself. In
addition, because it was it's own OS, it could run applications written
strictly for OS/2. Developers didn't do much of that because of the MS
monopoly on the market made is not cost effective to do so.
Again, the consumer lost and it's choice was made for them by MS.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)
>
> Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
> Xerox.
Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under
or on top of the DOS operating system. Not sure about XP or Vista, I'm
no longer interested enough to care.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5/21/2011 1:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)
>>
>> Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
>> Xerox.
>
> Not really because Windows 1,3,95 98 (et al) were shells that ran under or
> on top of the DOS operating system.
Doesn't matter what the stuff ran on top of or under, Xerox was there first
with more and was stupid enough not to exploit what they had.
"Martin Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Don't forget the others - HP and Schlumberger.
>
> Both were very early Icon generators and software heavy companies.
>
> Martin
>
> On 5/21/2011 12:56 AM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> DOS is long gone. Microsoft did invent Windows 1, 3, 95, 98 (et al)
>>
>> Not really. They stole the ideas outright from Apple who stole them from
>> Xerox.
Xerox was ahead of both in terms of a visual interface. By Xerox, I mean the
Pal Alto Research Center (PARC).
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5/16/2011 2:04 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 5/14/2011 7:25 PM, Jack Stein said this:
>>> On 5/15/2011 9:28 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2011 5:32 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>> You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales
>>>> literature in the showroom...
>>>
>>> Wrong, I'm grumbling because most all retail outlets sold ONLY MS
>>> operating systems. They did this because of illegal marketing practices
>>> of MS.
>>>
>>> I'm grumbling because I'm using the worlds worst OS on my PC because of
>>> these past illegal marketing practices. I'm grumbling because most of
>>> the
>>> software professionally developed is developed only for the worlds worst
>>> OS. I'm grumbling because most of the hardware developed works only with
>>> the worlds worst operating system. All because of the things that
>>> horrified a great federal anti trust judge, Stanley Sporkin.
>
>> Methinks you're got way more emotional investment in this than
>> it is worth.
>
> I am passionate about the subject.
>
> I too have been doing this sort of work for
>> a very long time (starting with an IBM 1130 and then TRS-DOS/LDOS,
>> CP/M, Unix, MSDOS .... et al). From where I sit anyway:
>>
>> - Best technology never wins. First mover usually wins. Not
>> first to *create* but first to *commercialize*. Microsoft
>> didn't win because of its evil marketing behavior.
>
> Judge Sporkin wasn't convinced, and neither am I.
>
>> It won because the people in the Unix community - that had a waaaaaay
>> better product -
>> couldn't get out of their own way.
>
> Unix, for whatever reason, was never in competition with DOS/Windows.
>
>> - I've made a decent living for a considerable amount of time doing
>> *NIX based work. I also made a nice profit owning
>> Microsoft stock by *holding* it (whereas Sun only ever made me money
>> day trading). Best of both worlds, I'd say.
>
> Yeah, but not the issue.
>
>> - There is no sense in which you are constrained to use Microsoft.
>
> Then why am I using it?
Because you're too lazy to work with something else?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> If you buy your car from a Chevrolet dealership, it WILL come with a
>> Delco alternator. Don't want a Delco alternator? Then don't buy your car
>> from a Chevy dealership!
>
> Which leads me to wonder why Jack Stein with all his professed experience
> and expertise with computer operating systems would be going to Best Buy
> for his computers instead of building them himself? Obviously the reason
> is the same as before. He's either too cheap, too lazy, or just not smart
> enough to do otherwise. And, if he's not going to Best Buy, then why is he
> whining about them? I'd hazard a guess that it's lack of a life.
>
> As much as Jack whines and whimpers about Microsoft, the truth is that
> Microsoft's marketing machine (despite what anyone thinks of them) has
> played a major role in getting people active in this computer age. It
> doesn't matter much how or what prompts someone to become computer
> literate, just that upon doing so, they eventually realize there *are*
> other choices available when it comes to computers and operating systems.
> That's Microsoft's real contribution in my opinion.
>
And as soon as people realize there are other choices they do one of three
things:
1. Accept what they are using from Microsoft and move on.
2. Switch to something else, such as Mac, and move on.
3. Endlessly bitch about how Microsoft has fucked up their life but continue
to use Microsoft products.
It's like your Dad only bought Nash and you got to high school and
discovered Studebaker ....
--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."
On 5/21/2011 8:31 PM, Upscale wrote:
It
> doesn't matter much how or what prompts someone to become computer literate,
> just that upon doing so, they eventually realize there *are* other choices
> available when it comes to computers and operating systems. That's
> Microsoft's real contribution in my opinion.
Your opinions, as usual, are worthless.
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
On 5/13/2011 9:48 AM, Jack Stein said this:
> On 5/10/2011 10:49 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> The only Western monopolies that ever existed that were *predatory*
>> were the ones enabled by government. Predatory monopoly can only
>> exist with force. Without it, the overpricing will be corrected by
>> government. Think public utilities vs. IBM or Microsoft. No
>> truly private monopoly can get away with predatory pricing and
>> survive.
>
> Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
>
> Of course while government could have fixed this when the DOJ filed suit for anti-trust in 1994, and found Microsoft guilty of horrendous violation of the Federal Anti-trust laws, The DOJ APPEALED it's VICTORY and the judge was removed from the case. This had to have cost Microsoft a TON of money. It's not everyday the VICTOR in a lawsuit appeals a ruling in it's favor.
>
> The Judge said that the violations were so fucking bad he sent the the consent decree back as insufficient based on the degree of violations. In other words the judge, after reviewing the case decided that the redress sought by the DOJ was not nearly enough based on the severity of the violations.
>
> The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they are getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating system.
>
> Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is a prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government allows competition to wither on the vine.
>
http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa352.pdf
http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa-405es.html
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
[email protected]
Viruses on an MS o/s is a pathetic example and discussed many times only to
meet the same conclusion.
Why would a virus writer bother with an o/s with a poor turnout? Popularity
is not an indicator of bad quality as your points indicate (see attached
below).
Yes MS are immoral bastards but not because they are popular or good
marketers.
----------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.
Of course while government could have fixed this when the DOJ filed suit
for anti-trust in 1994, and found Microsoft guilty of horrendous
violation of the Federal Anti-trust laws, The DOJ APPEALED it's VICTORY
and the judge was removed from the case. This had to have cost
Microsoft a TON of money. It's not everyday the VICTOR in a lawsuit
appeals a ruling in it's favor.
The Judge said that the violations were so fucking bad he sent the the
consent decree back as insufficient based on the degree of violations.
In other words the judge, after reviewing the case decided that the
redress sought by the DOJ was not nearly enough based on the severity of
the violations.
The result of this corrupt bullshit is the world is stuck with the
worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they are
getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating system.
Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is a
prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government allows
competition to wither on the vine.
You shop at the wrong computer stores then.
When I buy individual components and build my own (all except one over the
years), where is the MS royalty installed? MoBo, PS, CPU, HDD????
When I buy a decent computer without the spamware installed I don't pay any
MS royalty. That was an old wives tale based on old sucker practices for the
brand names.
If you don't want to support Microsoft don't buy from the locked in company
suppliers. Get a real computer from a builder that uses decent quality
components.
I mean...come on...you can use a odd O/S but have to buy a brand-name on the
box hardware?
--------------------
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
have to pay for Windows. If the PC manufacturer wants to provide me
with a Window-less PC and reduce the price accordingly, M$ threatens to
take them off their approved list and either not provide Windows for
those who want it or charge them much more for ever copy.
On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
> On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>> have to pay for Windows.
>
> Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
>
> The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking their ass, over, and over and over.
>
> Jack
>
There are more choices today than ever. This is directly attributable to the fact
that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which other
systems could be grafted.
If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one. Their product comes
with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
like Google.
But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
their own property. The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely
political, concocted by Netscape, Sun, et al because they didn't have a clue
how to compete in the consumer space.
Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been *good*
for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their products ...
>
On 5/10/2011 9:49 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> The only Western monopolies that ever existed that were *predatory*
> were the ones enabled by government. Predatory monopoly can only
> exist with force. Without it, the overpricing will be corrected by
> government. Think public utilities vs. IBM or Microsoft. No
Err ... will corrected by *market forces*, NOT government.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Big oil a monopoly? How can seven same-sized companies constitute a
> monopoly? Nevertheless...
Call it collusion then, it all adds up to esentially the same thing.
> Monopolies are, in almost all cases, GOOD.
Not in this case (referring to current pricing in Canada). We're currently
being gouged for over 1.40 a liter which is close to $5.30 a gallon. Along
with that comes the sad realization that we haven't yet reached summer where
the gouging skyrockets even more. And, there's no chance in hell of any
pricing limitatations by our current majority federal government considering
all the tax dollars they rake in from our oil.
[email protected] wrote:
> Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
> involved.
> If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
> and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
> BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
> short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
You better get better examples. Eighty percent of the firefighters in the US
are volunteers and very little tax money - if any at all - it expended in
their support. (Volunteer Fire Department spaghetti dinners are a hoot!)
As for police, well, in my large city we probably have ten times the number
of private security guards as we do cops on the beat. It would be a small
thing to invest them with the same arrest powers as police. In MY state, the
big difference in arrest powers between a law-enforcement officer and a
private citizen is that a LEO can arrest for a crimes not committed in his
presence, suspicious persons, or based on probable cause. Specifically:
"Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or
any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an
offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view,
if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the
public peace."
>
> Like Marie Antoinette said when told the peasants had no bread - "let
> them eat cake".
The reason Marie Anoinette said what she did was because the price of bread
was regulated by the government! As such, bakers refused to bake bread
because they lost money on every loaf. There was no government price control
on cakes, so bakers were free to charge what the market would bear.
On 5/10/2011 9:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 12:26:16 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2011 12:14 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 07:03:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 08:10:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/6/2011 6:11 PM, [email protected] said this:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 06 May 2011 08:49:50 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2011 8:03 PM, DGDevin said this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the perfect solution for this is .... letting the *government*
>>>>>>>>>> run it, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did I say that? No? Well then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other wealthy nations the govt. has a significant role, sometimes just
>>>>>>>>> setting the rules, in other cases serving as the single payer while
>>>>>>>>> doctors and hospitals remain independent, sometimes actually operating
>>>>>>>>> health care right down to the doctor's office. A mixed public/private
>>>>>>>>> system seems to work well in many places. The Swiss system is
>>>>>>>>> interesting, buying insurance is compulsory but the insurance companies
>>>>>>>>> have to provide basic coverage on a non-profit basis (and they cannot
>>>>>>>>> turn away anyone), they make their profits on supplemental coverage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In any case the current U.S. system is untenable, with costs spiraling
>>>>>>>>> out of sight and an increasing percentage of the population without
>>>>>>>>> coverage. A bloated, top-heavy insurance industry that sucks money out of
>>>>>>>>> health care and has a tendency to put its own profits ahead of patient
>>>>>>>>> care would seem to be a big part of the problem, got any ideas on what
>>>>>>>>> might be done about that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's all true as written, but is missing an essential point:
>>>>>>>> The *reason* things are the way they are is *because* government
>>>>>>>> got into the healthcare business in the first place. That
>>>>>>>> "bloated top-heavy insurance industry" is simply mimicking its
>>>>>>>> paymaster - the government. Adding more government - particularly
>>>>>>>> at the Federal level - will simply make things worse.
>>>>>>> Unless you take the bloated, top-heavy, greedy insurance industry out
>>>>>>> of the mix entirely, so there is only ONE level of top-heavy, bloated
>>>>>>> buerocracy involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just how do you propose to do that? At the point of a gun?
>>>>> Canada did it with no shots fired. Basic "health insurance" is
>>>>> provided directly by the government. Inefficient as all get out, but
>>>>> al least only one level of incompetence.
>>>>
>>>> The thing is, the American public doesn't want the government to be
>>>> running medicine. If they did it would already be a done deal. So
>>>> instead we get cosmetic lunacy like Obamacare.
>>> Let's face it, the "average american" doesn't want the government
>>> involved in ANYTHING that cost's money, or anything that might help
>>> someone who either won't or can't hepl themselves. Still looking for a
>>> Pinko in every corner.
>>
>> That's not really the problem. The Sheeple want lots and lots and lots
>> of "free" (to them) social services. They do not wish to personally
>> pay for it, so the political types peddle this fantasy of "We can help
>> if you'll just vote for us."
>>
>> But what that inevitably ends up meaning is, "We'll create a bureaucracy
>> that is more self-interested than interested in serving the constituency."
>> This makes the Sheeple further dependent on their Congress Critters -
>> exactly what all incumbents, especially, love.
>>
>> This then leads to financial disaster and the politicians start selling
>> "Let's make the rich pay more" even though the "rich" pay over 90% of
>> Federal taxes in the US.
>>
>> I share your view that the US system is insane because it props up
>> two inefficient bureaucracies: The private-sector delivery and
>> insurance system, and the government payment system. But the
>> way to fix this isn't to get rid of the private sector. It's to
>> get rid of the government bureaucracy and let markets fix the
>> private sector as they do so well.
> Markets do NOT fix the private sector where "essential services" are
> involved.
> If they did, you would have private fee-for service fire protection,
> and "policing" as well. When a private company/consortium, like, say,
Policing requires force and force is legally (almost) the sole domain
of government for a variety of reasons.
> BIG OIL gets a monopoly, they have the country (and the world) by the
> short and curlies - and they will NOT let go.
The only Western monopolies that ever existed that were *predatory*
were the ones enabled by government. Predatory monopoly can only
exist with force. Without it, the overpricing will be corrected by
government. Think public utilities vs. IBM or Microsoft. No
truly private monopoly can get away with predatory pricing and
survive.
> The same is VERY TRUE of health care. Your private health care
> providers (HMOs?) make obscene profits strictly because they can. Your
Businesses exist to make a profit. You think doctors, nurses,
pharma researchers, and their supporting staff should work for free
maybe?
> financial companies, banks, and insurance companies do the same, for
> the same reason. CEOs and CFOs, as well as managers all down the line
> get multi-million dollar bonuses while the companies are loosing
> money and shareholders are bleeding - because they CAN. And the CAN
> because your government hasn't got (and never has had, regardless
> which party in in power - the jumbos or the jackasses) the balls to
> stand up to them and regulate them into acceptable behaviour. They
Typically wrong. These healthcare providers don't have to be efficient
because they are *guaranteed government payment* no matter how well or
poorly they perform. It is the absence of markets, not the absence
of government that has created the mess.
> haven't the balls or the stomach to do it because they know they will
> not get elected to a second term if they do, because Americans do not
> want their Government involved in their lives PERIOD.
That's the best part of being an American.
> Regulating banks and financial institutions is the tip of the wedge
> that will turn their country into a communist state like North Korea,
> or North Vietnam, or their good friends and financial "benefactors"
> the Red Chinese. And government controlled/paid HEALTH CARE!!!!!
> That's half way up the wedge.The poor cannot afford health care?
I grew up poor, long before US government run healthcare. This
is baldly false and unhinged from reality. We always had essential
healthcare even when there was only $20 for food.
> Tough. It'll cull out the "weak" - and the "weak" are the "socialist
> scum" that drag down your great country - making it more difficult for
> the rest of the unwashed masses to grab on to the AMERICAN DREAM.
That is true.
>
> Like Marie Antoinette said when told the peasants had no bread - "let
> them eat cake".
>
> I'm glad I don't live in the USA. And I hope and pray that out
> government doesn't drag us down the American garden path.
>
> Thank goodness we didn't elect the American University Prof as our
> PM!!!!
I was born in Canada. It's a wonderful place with largely terrific
people. I chose to become an American citizen.
George Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
[heads up]
>... interesting times indeed.
>george
fup set Jack.. be cool<g>
george
On 5/14/2011 5:32 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
> On 5/14/2011 11:52 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 5/13/2011 7:49 PM, Jack Stein wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2011 11:02 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Problem is that PCs come with Windows and the built in bump in price
>>>> because of that. If I don't want Windows, but Linux instead, I still
>>>> have to pay for Windows.
>>>
>>> Moreover, your PC comes with windows already installed. Go to best buy
>>> and try to buy a PC with Linux installed. In the 90's I bought a PC
>>> from Gateway and was running OS/2 on it. When the hard drive died the
>>> first month, Gateway replaced the hard drive, and I they told me it
>>> would come with windows installed on it. I told them I didn't want
>>> windows installed on it, they said there was no choice. Indeed!
>>>
>>> The result of this anti-competitive crap is everyone thinks they are
>>> getting viruses when there horribly designed OS is what is kicking
>>> their ass, over, and over and over.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>> There are more choices today than ever.
>
> There never was much in choices. Saying it doesn't make it so.
>
> This is directly attributable to
>> the fact that the Microsoft-Intel duopoly created a de facto standard onto which
>> other systems could be grafted.
>
> It is directly attributable to Microsoft using the gift granted to them by IBM to prevent retailers from marketing competitive products.
>
>> If Microsoft is a monopolist, they are a very poor one.
>
> If Microsoft was not violating federal anti-trust laws, anti-trust Judge Sporkin would not have been horrified when he heard what Gates had been up too.
>
>> Their product comes with incrementally greater numbers of features, their product price falls
>> in real terms, and they have very real competitive threats from companies
>> like Google.
>
> The one feature there Operating System doesn't feature is quality. It does not work well because it's competition had been stifled by anti-competitive tactics.
>
>> But most of all, it is simply nobody's business what Microsoft does with
>> their own property.
>
> It is my business when I am forced to use the worlds worst OS because of illegal, anti-competitive tactics of Microdsoft.
>
> The anti-trust charges were trumped up and entirely political, concocted by Netscape,
> Sun, et al because they didn't have a clue how to compete in the consumer space.
>
> They all have a clue. It doesn't take genius to take a market bestowed on you by IBM, use that market to force retailers to carry only your product, or die. Judge Sporkin is/was clean as it gets, unbribable and unafraid of the Billions and Billions of ill-gotten gains of Microsoft.
>
>> Personally, I have used BSD Unix for many years, but Microsoft has been
>> *good* for the industry notwithstanding I am unenthusiastic about their
>> products ...
>
> Personally, I used UNIX system 7 for years, OS/2 for years, and Dos/Win for years. DosWin is a PERFECT example of how anti-competitive practices can result in the worlds worst product dominating a market. Judge Sporkin was made keenly aware of this when the DOJ brought charges against MS. Unfortunately, imo, the DOJ was more interested in bilking MS of $ than fixing/addressing the problem. This was made clear when the DOJ appealed their own court VICTORY.
>
Your understanding of 'forced' is, um, bogus. No one forces you to use Windows, or for
that matter a computer *at all*. It's absurd to complain that you cannot buy what
you want at the store. Hardware vendors voluntarily entered into a deal with
Microsoft to get preferential pricing. Bear in mind, that NO hardware vendor had
to agree to Microsoft's terms. They could simply have sold bare metal and let the
consumer decide what to put on it. They didn't because they (rightly) understood that
consumers wanted a turnkey system.
For about a decade now, there have been a dozen or so Linux distributions, 3 or 4
major BSD variants, FreeDOS, WINE, and host of other lesser choices available
for *free*... And the consumers still have consistently chosen Microsoft over
all the above. This is not the behavior of a predatory monopoloy. It is the
evidence of a satisfied customer base, nothing else. Microsoft makes "good
enough" technology. It's good enough for most people, most of the time. It's
not "great" because consumers wouldn't pay for great ... or at least they haven't
been willing to thus far.
You're grumbling because the Chevy dealer won't put Ford sales literature in the
showroom...
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> In busy times, which is any day ending with a "y" there is a limited
> number of doctors, usually one after 6 PM, for an area of half a million.
Where's your cites? What location are you talking about? What kind of doctor
are you referring to? As usual, your comments border on hysterical
inaccuracy.
> After about 6 hours of waiting each time I offered to leave and go to
> another hospital emerg. about 2 hours drive but I was informed that was
> not allowed.
Absolute bullshit. More than once I've personally left one emergency waiting
room and gone to another hospital. Agreed, it's certainly not enjoyable
sitting there for a number of hours while your problem is triaged as being
not as urgent, but we are free to go to the hospital of our choice to seek
emergency treatment.
> The USA has a rude awakening coming. At least the UK has a two tierd
> medical system... those that can pay and those that cannot. In Canada we
> are not allowed a two tier system to exist.
As far as I'm concerned, Canada doesn't really need two tiers. We already
have the best of both worlds. If we want to pay for medical service, we can
easily go to the US. Maybe not as convenient as going to someone locally,
but the option is there.
With a majority government there is no opposition party, only hecklers.
The next 4-5 years should be interesting. Are we getting price and wage
control again?
-----------------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Universal health care is safe with the conservatives.
With Layton as the opposition leader I think you will see a
"different" Harper, and a different parliament - Iggy and Gilles are
no longer there, and they (and their cronies) were real "shit
disturbers"