Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Michael A. Terrell writes:
So, enlighten us! How do you help people who refuse to be helped?
Can you do that with only one hand on the keyboard?
You're assimilating beggars with people who refuse to be helped. They
are not one and the same.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From every conspiracy buff or paranoid I've ever run across, heard of,David Maynard wrote:
Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.
And you got this little tid-bit where?
I can only go by what you say here, which was "Your arguments are truly"Psychology are Us". You are
sooo good at pulling bullshit out of the air and passing it off as valid
material. I envy you that, I think? Conclusion without verification
and you sound so sure of it. You have no idea who I am, what I do why
I'm here, damn, you know nothing about me yet, you are able to label me
a "conspiracy buff" and a "paranoid".
Getting a bit paranoid, are we?How about letting me in on what
my life will be like in the coming year huh? Awww come on, you know you
want to take a crack at it.
A cut and paste will suffice here "Conclusion without verification and youI got you defined as all mouth with nothing above it. That kind of
impairment gives birth to empty-headed statements like the one you just
horked up.
ROTFLOLMxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com> wrote:
John Doe writes:
The real reason it remains the dominant operating system, as has
been explained many times before, is because of network effects
and a positive feedback loop.
If that is the real reason, then it cannot be a result of anything
that Microsoft has done.
All Microsoft had to do was sell Windows and allow pirates to steal
it.
Now that Microsoft Windows is an entrenched monopoly, Microsoft
is putting the screws down.
You've contradicted yourself.
Where?
The problem is that the operating system maker can kill off
applications makers. So it should be prevented from making
applications, or the end result will be no choice of applications
either.
The operating system maker cannot kill off anyone, or would it
want to. The greater the number of applications that run under
its OS, the better.
Unless Microsoft is making all the money.
Feel free to explain the difficulties your version of English hasDavid Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
John Doe wrote:
You always defend Microsoft.
In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss
is not a defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times
before, but you are apparently to stupid to understand simple
english.
Understanding English and understanding your writing are two
different things.
Feel free to explain the difficulties your version of English hasYou've been defending Microsoft throughout this long thread.
I've noticed.Whether or not I can understand English, I sure can speak it and I
don't miss typing one little bit. Amen brother.
I speak with words I understand, as I obviously cannot speak withYou speak with words your audience can understand, if you have the
mental capacity to do so.
No, I was not.You must have thought you knew, since you were talking about it.
USENET is not a novel. People express themselves as they naturallyA good writer knows his audience and speaks appropriately. He should
know how to step down his vocabulary and maybe use more words in the
process, as needed.
Fifteen years after the events under discussion, you mean?I think Microsoft gained a stranglehold about the time it published
Windows 95.
Understanding English and understanding your writing are twoJohn Doe wrote:
You always defend Microsoft.
In fact, I refuse to discuss it with you and declining to discuss
is not a defense of anyone, as I have told you a thousand times
before, but you are apparently to stupid to understand simple
english.
Where are your geo. credentials? I live in California, does that make me anDavid Maynard wrote:
Gary H wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist IBM's
arm.
Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft Per Se.
It's about the greed factor and the power factor and the control factor.
The desire for absolute power and to corrupt absolutely . The sort of
thing that rears its ugly head virtually every single day of our lives.
Like Enron, Hollinger international and on and on.
With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.
With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north American
continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes sky-high because of
the demand and heating oil drops and in the wintertime the price of
heating fuel goes sky-high because of demand and gas drops. The
immediate response or belief drilled into the general public is that
there is a shortage of oil. There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are net
exporters of oil.
Yes it is, yet you seem not to get it. OIL is the biggest CON of all.Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are enough to
power the planet that little factiod means nothing about the state of the
world's oil supply.
Overly simplistic bullshit. It's all of the sources worldwide that
supplies the planet and there is plenty at the moment. It will eventually
run out, so I guess the oil guys figure they'll get their money now, while
the gettin' is good..
The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is building extra
refining capacity. Especially those who *control* the industry. You
know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.
They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they can't get
permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked every
technologically feasible source of new energy production.
Again, overly simplistic bullshit.
It's gotten to the point where these bastards are driving the crap out
of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're expecting a friggin' snow
storm in the north-east of the continent.
Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them build a
bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked in every other
means of transport is cut off and you're stuck with whatever local
supplies have been pre stocked.
Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you guys want
to do it. We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.
Your shipping argument is totally off the wall and incorrect as well.
Never saw weather yet that could keep an oil tanker from it's appointed
rounds. Not even in the North Atlantic.
That costs money, pal, and creates shortages.
As with everything else, I suppose when you you find yourselves behind the
eight ball with energy costs and availability, you'll just walk in and
take it like you feel it's your right. What is it you folks call it down
there? Oh yes, "American interests".
Since you've got all that excess oil, why don't you lobby the legislature
for a refinery permit? hmm?
We have plenty of refining capacity to look after our own needs up this
way. Other countries are responsible for their own refining capacity
construction programs. Unless the oil companies there, wish to keep the
cost of fuel artificially high. And, what it's priced at on the good old
New York Stock Exchange is what you guys, and the rest of the friggin'
world, pay for it.
You would die of radiation poisoning from the neutron flux. ;-POmicron said:
Hi - I need a 160 VDC 1KVA 4A Power Supply (is how it is termed in the
instructions) , and I am ignorant about 'either or both' VARIACS and
Isolated Transformers. (I have a 110VAC Variac and I use it, but not
in the case of Isolated Transformers)
How would you know if you /had/ proved the existence of cold fusion using
this kit?
No.Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:13:16 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:34:20 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com
wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:01:00 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com
wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
Stout, please.
I'll stand any way I wish.
*snicker*
It's rude to point.
It's rude to expose others to such ambiguity.
It's rude to expose others to your small appendage.
STOP THINKING ABOUT MY PENIS!
And what was that?John Doe writes:
Know what for sure?
Whether or not what David says is true.
You could drop dead and no one would notice.The squeeze is on typical American families who are not
technically inclined and who would like to install Windows XP on
their kids computer as well.
It's illegal for them to install the same copy of Windows on more
than one machine.
Many computers are handed down.And typical American families don't do this, anyway. They buy
machines with Windows preinstalled, so no legal issues arise.
Scatter brain.Anybody who is technically inclined (pirates
included) and most everybody outside of the United States can get
Windows XP for free and install it on all their computers.
Perhaps, but only dishonest people do this.
I think your memory is getting shorter by the minute.The squeeze is put on ordinary home users here in the United
States.
How?
You are out of touch.They have Windows preinstalled on their machines,
They do and they feel justified. Everybody else in the world gets itand so they
have no reason to pirate it. Additionally, most of them are
honest, and so they wouldn't necessarily pirate it even if they
had a reason to do so.
It's a redundant waste of time to snip out the 'other side' points IOn 2005-12-13, David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
Peter wrote:
On the other hand, would you buy an O.S. with no browser?
if I already had a browser.
Would most people?
most people buy a computer with the software already installed.
they could as easily buy an OS and a browser as buy an OS with a browser.
And, if not, doesn't that make it a rather 'necessary part' of the
product whether one can remove it or not? And if you were making an O.S.
would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update mechanism,
hoping they make mods as you need them, on time, bug free, rather than
whatever they might determine is 'more important' to their own product
schedule? Or would you feel that important enough a feature to be 'a
necessary part' of your O.S., written and maintained by your own people?
There's no need for the browser to be part of the critical update mechanism.
But then, back to the other side, if you believe it isn't necessary you
just pooh pooh the notion and argue anyone's browser would work just fine
if they didn't 'intentionally' make their dumb update mechanism odd ball
(and you'd believe it).
Debian's update mechanism works fine without a browser.
And we could go on and on, back and forth, in the same manner because
there's always "a way to do it," depending on your opinion of what an O.S.
product "should be" and what's "just as good" or "acceptable."
But then browsers don't all work 'exactly' the same, do they? and when the
user has a problem with your "Internet Ready" O.S., and automatic updates,
who do they call for support? Who do they blame? What's broke? Who fixes it?
say what?
Bye.
Jasen
pedoah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote in news:WPanf.17098$7r6.9407@trnddc07:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:13:16 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:34:20 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com
wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:01:00 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com
wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
Stout, please.
I'll stand any way I wish.
*snicker*
It's rude to point.
It's rude to expose others to such ambiguity.
It's rude to expose others to your small appendage.
STOP THINKING ABOUT MY PENIS!
No.
http://www.misternicehands.com/On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:48:54 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:13:16 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:34:20 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
*snicker*
It's rude to point.
It's rude to expose others to such ambiguity.
It's rude to expose others to your small appendage.
STOP THINKING ABOUT MY PENIS!
I was talking about your index finger.
But easily identifiable--in this context--as not nearly enough.On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:53:31 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:38:01 -0000, Rich The Newsgroup Wacko <wacko@example.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:27:34 +0000, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:12:06 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Rich Grise, but drunk wrote:
Easy Gents--let's not get all mushy, and stuff.
Mushy peas all round!
*droughts*
[applies water]
Visualize Whirled Peas!
I'll need some marajuana first.
You'll need a slight bit more'n that, Peter.
"Some" is not a specific quantity.
That's true, no need at all.On 2005-12-13, David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
would you depend on someone else to provide your critical update
mechanism,
There's no need for the browser to be part of the critical update
mechanism.
So does Microstar International's which will even assess and updateDebian's update mechanism works fine without a browser.
You've only just noticed?Phil "The Shill" Kyle wrote:
ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote in news:WPanf.17098$7r6.9407@trnddc07:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:13:16 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
It's rude to expose others to such ambiguity.
It's rude to expose others to your small appendage.
STOP THINKING ABOUT MY PENIS!
No.
pedo
` \/\,-/ `/ \/`\_/V\_/-`_,-`\,-` , |
`_,' , /\ /
Er..... how old are you?Phil "The Shill" Kyle wrote:
ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote in news:WPanf.17098$7r6.9407@trnddc07:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:13:16 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
It's rude to expose others to such ambiguity.
It's rude to expose others to your small appendage.
STOP THINKING ABOUT MY PENIS!
No.
pedo
"Some marajuana" is never anywhere near specific.Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:53:31 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:38:01 -0000, Rich The Newsgroup Wacko <wacko@example.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:27:34 +0000, Peter Hucker wrote:
Visualize Whirled Peas!
I'll need some marajuana first.
You'll need a slight bit more'n that, Peter.
"Some" is not a specific quantity.
But easily identifiable--in this context--as not nearly enough.
Ok, I'll pull your appendage.Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:48:54 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:13:16 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:
It's rude to expose others to such ambiguity.
It's rude to expose others to your small appendage.
STOP THINKING ABOUT MY PENIS!
I was talking about your index finger.
http://www.misternicehands.com/