Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...ies-at-70.html

--
Jack
Don't worry about your health... It'll go away!
http://jbstein.com

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:45:30 -0400, Jack wrote:

Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

At what level would profit be acceptable to you, 5%, 2%, 0% ?

Personally, I don't like to work cheap.

basilisk

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...ies-at-70.html

On 10/14/2011 1:24 PM, basilisk wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:45:30 -0400, Jack wrote:

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

At what level would profit be acceptable to you, 5%, 2%, 0% ?

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

Personally, I don't like to work cheap.


Personally, I don't like having the choice to buy any color of car, as
long as it's black.



--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:28:23 -0400, Jack wrote:



I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary. If they are hugely profitable,
competition soon goes for a share of the market and they usually go
for it at a lower price.

On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Jack wrote:

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been
at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up
by the courts. The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition,
competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is
stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are
forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect
example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the
market.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?

If they are hugely profitable,
competition soon goes for a share of the market and they usually go
for it at a lower price.

Apple may or may not have a great product, I don't own or use anything
of theirs, but my son has a Mac and an iPhone, and he likes them, and
the mac runs on a Unix kernel so it should be solid. I'm not sure how
they manage a 40% profit margin but I'm not a big fan of companies
making that much of a profit margin. As you say, in this case, it may
be temporary, who knows. I doubt Apple can put a retailer out of the
computer business if they sell a competitors product, like MS could when
obtaining monopoly status.

I suspect the few people willing to swim up stream against the MS
monopoly are willing to pay exorbitant prices, so even Apple customers
are a casualty if the MS monopoly.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 10/16/2011 1:45 PM, Jack wrote:
On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Jack wrote:

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up by the courts. The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition, competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the market.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?




Now let us inspect Reality to demonstrate why this is complete nonsense.
At the beginning of the desktop/PC revolution, there were two significant
OS players: Apple and Radio Shack (there were something like a half dozen
TRS-DOS variants, the best of which was LDOS). Then IBM entered the market
and Microsoft came with them, for the first time producing an OS.

Now let's fast forward. There are dozens of OS variants. Besides MacOS
(a FreeBSD/MACH derivative) and Windows, there are a bunch of different
Linux distros, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeDOS, at least one Windows
clone OS (whose name I cannot recall). In the mobile device space,
Microsoft's presence is too small to matter with Apple IOS and Android
(another Linux derivative) splitting the market between them. Microsoft
has no presence to speak of in the realtime/embedded space. They
are not a force in supercomputer or high-availability clustering. They
do not have a place in the multi-petabyte database space.

But you think they're a "monopoly". You are seriously disconnected from
the current state of this business. It is a simple, demonstrable, and
completely rational observation that Microsoft dominates only the desktop,
and then only so long as they provide a good value. More and more people
are turning to portable devices like high function phones and tablets -
a space where Microsoft has almost NO presence. This, sir, is not a
monopoly. This is a market with more product, more players, and more
competition than has ever existed since the dawn of commercial
computing. The fact that Microsoft knows how to prosper and maintain
high margins in this environment is to their credit.

P.S. Microsoft isn't as bulletproof as you seem to think. Go look at their
stock performance over the last decade.

P.P.S. The only "predatory monopoly" that exists in our nation is the government
and that's because they get to use force to keep themselves in power.
Fortunately - for the most part - that use of force is narrowly bounded
by rule of law.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:45:06 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Jack wrote:

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been
at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up
by the courts.

Um, IBM was not broken up by the courts. There was a consent decree in '56,
and they lost a suit to CDC, and a few others, in the '70s, but there was no
breakup by the government.

The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition,
competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is
stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are
forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect
example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the
market.

....and just what 90% of the market wants.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?

If I knew, I'd be as rich as WGates. ;-)

If they are hugely profitable,
competition soon goes for a share of the market and they usually go
for it at a lower price.

Apple may or may not have a great product, I don't own or use anything
of theirs, but my son has a Mac and an iPhone, and he likes them, and
the mac runs on a Unix kernel so it should be solid. I'm not sure how
they manage a 40% profit margin but I'm not a big fan of companies
making that much of a profit margin. As you say, in this case, it may
be temporary, who knows. I doubt Apple can put a retailer out of the
computer business if they sell a competitors product, like MS could when
obtaining monopoly status.

A 40% margin isn't unusual for a high-tech business. It takes huge sums of
money to stay on the bleeding edge. That's just the way it is.

I suspect the few people willing to swim up stream against the MS
monopoly are willing to pay exorbitant prices, so even Apple customers
are a casualty if the MS monopoly.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:45:30 -0400, Jack wrote:

Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...ies-at-70.html

I know the name - and have one of their earliest books.

C on the PDP 11/70, anyone?

John

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:26:28 -0400, news wrote:

I know the name - and have one of their earliest books.

C on the PDP 11/70, anyone?

I'll "C" that and raise you a Z80-based CP/M systen :-).

And yes, it was a pretty full implementation - Eco-C. IIRC, it generated
either 8080 or Z80 assembler source.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

wrote:

I know the name - and have one of their earliest books.

C on the PDP 11/70, anyone?

John

I'll top that. I have an autograped copy of the "bible" by Ritchie,
addressed to me as someone he actually knew. I had the good fortunre of
installing two computers in his office and spending the time actually
talking with him about all this stuff - including what he did not like about
our roll out of his operating system...

--

-Mike-

On Oct 14, 12:45*pm, Jack wrote:

Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. *Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. *God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand....

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...chie-programmi...

And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

I am surprised that you don't know the correct spelling of the name of
the guy you idolized/worshipped. I figured that having it spelled out
for you in the URL you provided would have helped get it right.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. But, whatever.

Why is it that the "free market" has decided that Apple's and MS'
pricing is acceptable, but you have a problem with it? Talk about
arguing out both sides of your mouth...

R

On 10/14/2011 12:01 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:45 pm, wrote:

Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.


Uh Jack ...

I got to spend a bit of time with Richie at a conference once. He was
a brilliant and interesting guy, but I suspect he'd reject status as
deity.

The economic value, the taxes, and the employment that Gates and
Jobs respectively are responsible for is every bit the equal of
Richie's contribution ... it's just a different kind of contribution.



Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates

Gates and Jobs were marketers that understood what the public needed,
that the public would live with "good enough" technology, and the
price point that the public would tolerate. That is a kind of genius
too.


Then this bit of very sane response follows:


And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

I am surprised that you don't know the correct spelling of the name of
the guy you idolized/worshipped. I figured that having it spelled out
for you in the URL you provided would have helped get it right.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. But, whatever.

Why is it that the "free market" has decided that Apple's and MS'
pricing is acceptable, but you have a problem with it? Talk about
arguing out both sides of your mouth...

R

+1000

And Microsoft was no predatory monopoly. Their prices have either
stayed the same or gone down (in real terms) while adding more and
more features to their products. See:

http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa352.pdf
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/0...-greatest-hits
http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa-405es.html

None of this will stop the Whiners (tm), of course. They complain
about businesses making "too much" profit, and then complain again
when unemployment is high, all the never connecting the dots between
those two ideas.

I'm an engineer. I am not particularly thrilled with Microsoft products.
I much prefer Unix and all that goes with it. But Microsoft responds
to a need with a "good enough" product that serves 100s of millions
of people just fine. On a smaller scale so does Apple, even though they
are one of the most closed off environments around (far worse than
Microsoft). Value is in the eye of the beholder not the pontificants
on the net ...

On 10/14/2011 1:47 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Jack wrote:
Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.

Uh Jack ...

I got to spend a bit of time with Richie at a conference once. He was
a brilliant and interesting guy, but I suspect he'd reject status as
deity.

I of course meant he was a "god" to computing, creating not only a great
OS but also the programing language needed to write it. Deity was only
used as a tool to get the point across.

The economic value, the taxes, and the employment that Gates and
Jobs respectively are responsible for is every bit the equal of
Richie's contribution ... it's just a different kind of contribution.

I could say the same for other monopolies, like Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T.
These companies provided lots of jobs directly, and quality products
as well. Gates on the other hand provides few jobs directly, and lots
of jobs as millions are needed to keep his crap marginally working.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates

Gates and Jobs were marketers that understood what the public needed,
that the public would live with "good enough" technology, and the
price point that the public would tolerate. That is a kind of genius
too.

Gate's "good enough" technology is a perfect example of why monopolies
are bad and why anti-trust laws exist.

Then this bit of very sane response follows:

And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity.

Yeah, real sane. First, he hasn't done it yet, and second, what does
thinking about giving away money ripped off the public with an illegal
monopoly and political graft have to do with subject? Ill gotten gains
that may be given away are still ill gotten gains.

Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. Sheesh.

Well that's not too far off. Gate's contribution is mostly negative.
The best I can say about him is he's set computing back 25 years.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

That may have been "sane" but makes no sense, I'm certainly not looking
for saints.

I am surprised that you don't know the correct spelling of the name of
the guy you idolized/worshipped. I figured that having it spelled out
for you in the URL you provided would have helped get it right.

I don't know the man, I liked his code, I liked what he did, and I can
spell UNIX an C well enough to communicate.

I uesdnatnrd maikng a big dael out of slpeling is waht is iproamtnt...

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. But, whatever.

I don't know much about Jobs, other than his OS is based on the UNIX
kernel and his company makes 40% profit margin. I know a lot about
Gates and I know his monopoly makes 30% profit margin. I know I'm
constantly told by the media that Exxon-Mobil is ripping me off with an
under 10% profit margin. I try not to miss an opportunity to point it
out to the idiots around me.

Why is it that the "free market" has decided that Apple's and MS'
pricing is acceptable, but you have a problem with it? Talk about
arguing out both sides of your mouth...

The free market was stifled by Microsoft's anti-competitive marketing
strategy. That's how you get stuck with crap.

And Microsoft was no predatory monopoly. Their prices have either
stayed the same or gone down (in real terms) while adding more and
more features to their products.

Microsoft was a predatory monopoly. The DOJ proved this in Judge
Sporkin's court after a 4 year investigation in 1995. After the DOJ won
their case, and the good judge said the consent decree the DOJ wanted
was not even close to the redress needed, the DOJ appealed their
VICTORY. This had to cost Gates and MS a TON and political
contributions have flowed from MS ever since.

Many of us involved in the PC scene in the early days, and familiar with
more than just DOS and Win, had no need for the DOJ and the judge to
prove this, we knew it already.

None of this will stop the Whiners (tm), of course. They complain
about businesses making "too much" profit, and then complain again
when unemployment is high, all the never connecting the dots between
those two ideas.

Get real. Microsoft has a crap OS, everyone knows this. They control
over 90% of the DT market with a crap product, and make 30% profit
margin. This combination screams monopoly even if Gates gives you a
hard on, and you are unfamiliar with all that went on to get him that
monopoly.

I'm an engineer. I am not particularly thrilled with Microsoft products.

I'm not an engineer, and I'm not particularly thrilled at all. To be
particularly thrilled, you would have to have your head buried in the
sand, or making money off his crap OS.

I much prefer Unix and all that goes with it.But Microsoft responds
to a need with a "good enough" product that serves 100s of millions
of people just fine.

No, it doesn't serve millions of users "just fine". It's a crap system
that should have been improved and replaced years ago. His system does
have millions pulling their hair out daily, most of them too computer
illiterate to understand it's not them, it's the OS.

On a smaller scale so does Apple, even though they
are one of the most closed off environments around (far worse than
Microsoft). Value is in the eye of the beholder not the pontificants
on the net ...

Jobs and Gates don't mind gouging the public at 30-40% profit margins.
It always amazes me that people get jumping ugly about the oil companies
"ripping off" the public with under 10% profit, and socialists calling
for a "windfall profit" tax on them, but get a hard on over Gates
ripping them off, and with a shoddy product to boot, and re-boot, and
re-boot, and re-boot...

--
Jack
I have not failed. I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work.
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 14, 1:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:45*pm, Jack wrote:











Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. *Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. *God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...chie-programmi...

And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. *Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. *Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

I am surprised that you don't know the correct spelling of the name of
the guy you idolized/worshipped. *I figured that having it spelled out
for you in the URL you provided would have helped get it right.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. *But, whatever.


That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way. There are
many many examples of the way(say Perry) a conservative** politician
will show that he/she is better by shoving the opponent down, not by
showing any personal merit.

**=Jack's type of conservatism that is. It doesn't have to be that
way, but in Jack's world anything he either disagrees with on doesn't
understand, needs to be either threatened or destroyed.
Sad, really.

Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:24:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 14, 1:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:45*pm, Jack wrote:











Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. *Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. *God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...chie-programmi...

And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. *Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. *Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

I am surprised that you don't know the correct spelling of the name of
the guy you idolized/worshipped. *I figured that having it spelled out
for you in the URL you provided would have helped get it right.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. *But, whatever.


That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way.

Hmm, are my filters slipping?


**=Jack's type of conservatism that is. It doesn't have to be that
way, but in Jack's world anything he either disagrees with on doesn't
understand, needs to be either threatened or destroyed.
Sad, really.

Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

I nominate this for the post of the month, if not year.

2 points, Toy! ROTFLMAO.


--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

Robatoy wrote:


That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way. There are
many many examples of the way(say Perry) a conservative** politician
will show that he/she is better by shoving the opponent down, not by
showing any personal merit.

Gotta call you on this one brother. I'm pretty conservative in certain
respects, but that's not why I'm calling you. Your diatribe is just
uncalled for. You had to take this to a political point - huh? Jack's
comments had nothing to do with political bend and could have been dealt
with head-long. Sorry - bad call on your part.


Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

Might have been a good point had it not been for the political bull**** that
prevailed above it.


I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

Now you had to go throw that "christian" thing in there. Nowhere in Jack's
reply did he speak to politics or religion, but you ****ed up big time with
your comment above. The worst kind of hate is indeed fueled by hypocisy -
your type of hypocisy. Sorry to see this from you.

--

-Mike-

Bull****!


-------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Gotta call you on this one brother. I'm pretty conservative in certain
respects, but that's not why I'm calling you. Your diatribe is just
uncalled for. You had to take this to a political point - huh? Jack's
comments had nothing to do with political bend and could have been
dealt
with head-long. Sorry - bad call on your part.

Might have been a good point had it not been for the political bull****
that
prevailed above it.

Now you had to go throw that "christian" thing in there. Nowhere in
Jack's
reply did he speak to politics or religion, but you ****ed up big time
with
your comment above. The worst kind of hate is indeed fueled by
hypocisy -
your type of hypocisy. Sorry to see this from you.

advertising removed

On Oct 15, 9:51*pm, "m II" wrote:
Bull****!

**** off, you little weasel.

On Oct 15, 9:22*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way. There are
many many examples of the way(say Perry) a conservative** politician
will show that he/she is better by shoving the opponent down, not by
showing any personal merit.

Gotta call you on this one brother. *I'm pretty conservative in certain
respects, but that's not why I'm calling you. *Your diatribe is just
uncalled for. *You had to take this to a political point - huh? *Jack's
comments had nothing to do with political bend and could have been dealt
with head-long. *Sorry - bad call on your part.

Jack's political bend is well known and my comments and the comparison
to Perry were based on that knowledge.
Move along, nothing to see here.

Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

Might have been a good point had it not been for the political bull**** that
prevailed above it.

Alright. Do poo-poo everything I said because I also said something
that didn't quite suit you.
That's the chances I take when I comment on things.

I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

Now you had to go throw that "christian" thing in there. *Nowhere in Jack's
reply did he speak to politics or religion, but you ****ed up big time with
your comment above. *The worst kind of hate is indeed fueled by hypocisy -
your type of hypocisy. *Sorry to see this from you.


I wasn't talking about Jack's reply. Mine was more along the lines of:
"How typical"
The christian reference was about that whole self righteous
'conservative' group, like Perry that seeks to tear down anything and
anybody that gets in the way. Like Jack. Comparison made and I stick
by it. If that bothers you, Mike, I am sorry, but I am not
apologizing. After all, WHO TF is Jack Stein to instruct us who to
hate? And for me to point out that behaviour is a non-christian one
is something you'll have to agree with. Are politicians really
incapable of believing in situational christianity?

You've got your view and I have mine
Jack Stein is a hypocrite plain and simple.
--

-Mike-

Robatoy wrote:


I wasn't talking about Jack's reply. Mine was more along the lines of:
"How typical"
The christian reference was about that whole self righteous
'conservative' group, like Perry that seeks to tear down anything and
anybody that gets in the way. Like Jack. Comparison made and I stick
by it. If that bothers you, Mike, I am sorry, but I am not
apologizing. After all, WHO TF is Jack Stein to instruct us who to
hate? And for me to point out that behaviour is a non-christian one
is something you'll have to agree with. Are politicians really
incapable of believing in situational christianity?


I'm not sure just where in the hell your rant comes from. There was nothing
in Jack's post that legitimized your obvious issues with whatever, and I do
happen to take personal affront to your bull**** about Christians. On that
single point - you can sit on your opions and I'm not feeling bad about
telling you that. You're entitled to your feelings but you may just need to
figure out just when to keep them to yourself. I like you a lot and I'm not
going to let this come between a pretty good internet relationship, but
you're too full of yourself on this particular point. In your own words...
WYF are you to tell... Pot, kettle, black.


You've got your view and I have mine
Jack Stein is a hypocrite plain and simple.

I don't care about Jack. I asked about your comments that had nothing to do
with a posted usenet comment.

--

-Mike-

On Oct 14, 9:45*am, Jack wrote:
Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.


As a young computer science enthusiast I had my copy of K&R always
available whenever I was doing procedural code. At first object code
still had chunks of C and other procedural code in in but eventually
object code made K&R irrelevant.

As far as your hate on Gates and Jobs, please stop using all computer
technologies now or consider yourself a complete hypocrite. And don't
go calling me on your iPhone and ranting either or send me any mail
from your Outlook client.

On 10/14/2011 11:45 AM, Jack wrote:
Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.
....

How fortuitous timing... I just very recently finished reading Jack
Ganssle's article "C Sucks" in his newsletter "The Embedded Muse 214"

http://www.ganssle.com/tem/tem214.htm

Couldn't have said it better meself...

--

On Oct 15, 10:29*am, dpb wrote:

How fortuitous timing... *I just very recently finished reading Jack
Ganssle's article "C Sucks" in his newsletter "The Embedded Muse 214"

http://www.ganssle.com/tem/tem214.htm

Couldn't have said it better meself...



Bah! I can:
http://www.jwz.org/doc/java.html
..
..
..

On Oct 15, 3:45*am, Jack wrote:

gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

30? 40? Man, oh man! Do I have a bridge to sell you!
Try 500% for starters...
Withness the crap that has been the world economy since the GFC - is
anyone seriously complaining?
Hey, if they can find the suckers - and obviously they can - then all
the power to them.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Noons wrote:

On Oct 15, 3:45*am, Jack wrote:

gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

30? 40? Man, oh man! Do I have a bridge to sell you!
Try 500% for starters...

500% profit margin? What universe do you live in?

Withness the crap that has been the world economy since the GFC - is
anyone seriously complaining?
Hey, if they can find the suckers - and obviously they can - then all
the power to them.

On Oct 18, 10:36*am, "
wrote:

gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

30? *40? *Man, oh man! *Do I have a bridge to sell you!
Try 500% for starters...

500% profit margin? *What universe do you live in?

The one of reality.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:12:36 -0700 (PDT), Noons wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:36*am, "
wrote:

gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

30? *40? *Man, oh man! *Do I have a bridge to sell you!
Try 500% for starters...

500% profit margin? *What universe do you live in?

The one of reality.

Obviously not. Give me *ONE* example of a company with a 500% profit margin.

....gotta hear this one!

On Oct 18, 11:52*am, "
wrote:


gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

30? *40? *Man, oh man! *Do I have a bridge to sell you!
Try 500% for starters...

500% profit margin? *What universe do you live in?

The one of reality.

Obviously not. *Give me *ONE* example of a company with a 500% profit margin.

...gotta hear this one!

Actually if you are hearing anything, then you got a big problem.
I am writing, not talking. There is a difference...

Still: try the companies mentioned in the OP, that is the context I
made my statement in.
Familiar with the "context" word?

On 10/17/2011 7:52 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:12:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:36 am, "
wrote:

gouge the public with30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

30? 40? Man, oh man! Do I have a bridge to sell you!
Try 500% for starters...

500% profit margin? What universe do you live in?

The one of reality.

Obviously not. Give me *ONE* example of a company with a 500% profit margin.

...gotta hear this one!


Well while I agree that 500% is pretty darn high, it is not unheard of
of providing we are talking about GP vs net. Although profit margins are
generally focused on GP and not net.

Clothing is one that comes to mind. For example a Columbia Sportswear
Outlet store near me sell shirts for $11.99. I have seen the exact same
brand and style shirt on their web site and at sporting goods stores for
$65.00. While the $11.99 is a marked down price the store is making a
profit. Guess where I buy these shirts from?

Valve stems for you vehicle tires. When I was in the tire business the
stems cost me 10 cents each, sold them for $1 each.

Rockler brand accessories, sacrificial fence clamps, cost 50 cents per
pair, retail $15.

Drugs

Labor

Insurance