Where to download free Fujitsu COBOL compiler
in [Cobol]
|
From: HeyBub on 6 Nov 2009 17:08 tlmfru wrote: > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're > worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't. >> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the >> consumer! > > You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5 > billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just > been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a > patent for XML? Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID. As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER benefits from that sanction. I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the consumer." Conversely, most government-sanction monopolies leave much to be desired (cable TV, most roads, water distribution or other utilities, and soon, the internet). > > >> Even the poster boy for evil monopolies, Standard Oil, managed to >> drive down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to 5�/gallon in >> only three years. >> > > Was Standard Oil the only company involved? > Involved in selling Kerosene? Uh, probably. The original Standard Oil Trust was first organized to take advantage of the burgeoning switch to Kerosene (from whale oil).
From: tlmfru on 6 Nov 2009 20:28 HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:fO2dnf57BobeA2nXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > tlmfru wrote: > > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're > > worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't. > >> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the > >> consumer! > > > > You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5 > > billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just > > been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a > > patent for XML? > > Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. > > But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not > anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player with XP > to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a > media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID. > And their motive? To prevent other companies from competing at all. In >>every<< case the consumer benefits from having a choice (I believe that's what capitalism is all about). Listen, man: if I have a monopoly on something I'll charge what I feel like and if you don't like it, tough. Nor do I care if I'm providing a crappy whatever-it-is. You gotta buy from me! > As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER > benefits from that sanction. Only that the law must be followed. > > I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is > good for the consumer." Conversely, most government-sanction monopolies > leave much to be desired (cable TV, most roads, water distribution or other > utilities, and soon, the internet). > Well, when the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS, a government monopoly) was sold to private enterprise, the cost of residential service quickly doubled. There is "choice" now but they all charge about the same. The city owned its own power company (sold to the provincial government power co,. since, due to the difficulty of raising money for upgrades etc.). the base rate for power remained the same for SIXTY-TWO years. The city has owned its own water supply since 1919. the rates have grown only slowly over all that time. There is some talk of entering into a 3P deal just now but nobody is talking about what will happen to prices. Service in all cases has been exemplary. You can certainly point out examples of badly-run government monopolies, but I can point out well-run ones. Given the recent market catastrophe, if you can state with a straight face and reasonable conviction that private enterprise is always the way to go I'll buy you a beer. Private enterprise works as long as the profits aren't threatened. Then they go jetting off to the government for handouts! PL
From: Richard on 6 Nov 2009 21:26 On Nov 7, 11:08 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > tlmfru wrote: > > HeyBub <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're > > worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't. > >> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the > >> consumer! > > > You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5 > > billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just > > been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a > > patent for XML? > > Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. > > But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not > anti-CONSUMER behavior. It is anti-consumer in that MS wields its monopoly by tying OEMs and retailers in almost exclusive deals, most often with 'discounts' that only get applied if the OEM does as MS 'asks'. This means that the consumer is restricted in choice, usually they cannot buy a computer without paying money to Microsoft. > MS got flogged for including a media player with XP > to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a > media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID. Not necessarily. MS would like to drive all other media players out of business, like they tried to drive Netscape out of business with 'free' IE. MS would like to control access to movies and other programs by having the only player and silverlight and using DRM to control access. They could then take a cut of all movie viewing revenue. It is not about 'free stuff' it is about control of the industry and revenue. > > As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER > benefits from that sanction. Just because you fail to understand does not mean there is no harm. Microsoft stole another company's invention (and not for the first time by far). That reduced the company's revenue so it may close. This reduces consumer choice and reduces innovation. > > I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is > good for the consumer." Conversely, most government-sanction monopolies > leave much to be desired (cable TV, most roads, water distribution or other > utilities, and soon, the internet). > > > > >> Even the poster boy for evil monopolies, Standard Oil, managed to > >> drive down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to 5¢/gallon in > >> only three years. > > > Was Standard Oil the only company involved? > > Involved in selling Kerosene? Uh, probably. The original Standard Oil Trust > was first organized to take advantage of the burgeoning switch to Kerosene > (from whale oil). The reduction in price was not the result of Standard Oil but was because oil drilling boomed when oil was $20 a barrel and the resulting glut dropped the price to 10cents a barrel. Production costs of kerosene plummeted and Standard Oil had to reduce its own selling price because it was not a 100% monopoly. However, what it did that was anti-trust was that it bought pipelines to refineries it wanted to buy and then turned off the supply so the company went bust. """To stimulate demand, the company sold or even gave away cheap lamps and stoves.""" """When independent companies tried to compete, Standard Oil quickly cut prices--sometimes below cost--to drive them out of business. Then Standard raised prices to recoup its losses."""
From: HeyBub on 7 Nov 2009 20:05 tlmfru wrote: > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fO2dnf57BobeA2nXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >> tlmfru wrote: >>> HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're >>> worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't. >>>> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the >>>> consumer! >>> >>> You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5 >>> billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just >>> been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a >>> patent for XML? >> >> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. >> >> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not >> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player >> with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that >> wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE >> is better than PAID. >> > > And their motive? To prevent other companies from competing at all. > In >>> every<< case the consumer benefits from having a choice (I believe >>> that's > what capitalism is all about). Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about choice. There are three things that go into the creation of a product or service: Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is the PRIVATE control of the first of these. > Listen, man: if I have a monopoly on > something I'll charge what I feel like and if you don't like it, > tough. Nor do I care if I'm providing a crappy whatever-it-is. You > gotta buy from me! Show me one example of your fears being realized. Just one. It simply doesn't happen as you describe. In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If they don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries up! It is to their advantage to create a better product at a lower price. Just in the case of Standard Oil, they would make a greater profit by driving DOWN the price of Kerosene, not inflating it. Further, monopolies are sanctioned, even encouraged, by the United States Constitution! > > >> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the >> CONSUMER benefits from that sanction. > > Only that the law must be followed. You keep trying to find SOME hook to show that monopoly power is bad. How is following the law good (or bad) for the CONSUMER? > >> >> I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market >> monopoly is good for the consumer." Conversely, most >> government-sanction monopolies leave much to be desired (cable TV, >> most roads, water distribution or other utilities, and soon, the >> internet). >> > > Well, when the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS, a government > monopoly) was sold to private enterprise, the cost of residential > service quickly doubled. And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went away or were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant tax reduction, didn't you? > > Given the recent market catastrophe, if you can state with a straight > face and reasonable conviction that private enterprise is always the > way to go I'll buy you a beer. Private enterprise works as long as > the profits aren't threatened. Then they go jetting off to the > government for handouts! > Let me turn it around to a simpler proposition: You show ME one enterprise better run by the government than by private enterprise and I'll buy you a baby bottle complete with teat. But where does the blame lie in your example? To the companies asking for a handout or to the government for providing it? The freedom to succeed goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail. Take away one and you don't simply remove the other, you kill freedom altogether. The economist Harry Browne asserted that every dollar spent by the government is a dollar of wealth destroyed and he spent several books proving it. There is virtually NOTHING that the government does that cannot be done cheaper by private enterprise (it IS the government's job to enforce contracts and punish evil-doers, but not much else). How about police and fire protection, you might ask? That's easy. In my town there are probably twenty times the number of private security guards as there are cops and recent tabulations show that 85% of the firefighters in the country are volunteers. Most wars throughout history have been fought by mercenaries, and so on. George Will said the primary purpose of government is to protect the borders and deliver the mail. Once it demonstrates that it can do those tasks competently, we can rightly trust it with something else.
From: Richard on 8 Nov 2009 00:55
On Nov 8, 2:05 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > tlmfru wrote: > > HeyBub <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message > >news:fO2dnf57BobeA2nXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > >> tlmfru wrote: > >>> HeyBub <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're > >>> worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't. > >>>> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the > >>>> consumer! > > >>> You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5 > >>> billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just > >>> been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a > >>> patent for XML? > > >> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. > > >> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not > >> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player > >> with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that > >> wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE > >> is better than PAID. > > > And their motive? To prevent other companies from competing at all. > > In > >>> every<< case the consumer benefits from having a choice (I believe > >>> that's > > what capitalism is all about). > > Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about choice.. > There are three things that go into the creation of a product or service: > Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is the PRIVATE control of the > first of these. > > > Listen, man: if I have a monopoly on > > something I'll charge what I feel like and if you don't like it, > > tough. Nor do I care if I'm providing a crappy whatever-it-is. You > > gotta buy from me! > > Show me one example of your fears being realized. Just one. It simply > doesn't happen as you describe. > > In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If they > don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries up! Nonsense. They have the OEMs tied up with contracts so that (almost) all new machines ship with whatever new version of Windows MS dictates regardless of merit. It that were not so then Vista would never have been shipped and OEMs will still be shipping XP. The revenue stream is locked in, at least for the next year. They also conned the corporates and signed them up to 3 year contracts in the very late 90s they shipped XP but those corporates got nothing from the next 3 year contract. Eventually the revenue stream will dry up. > It is to > their advantage to create a better product at a lower price. They don't have a lower price. Certainly they do have a cheap 'Home crippled' edition which is cheaper that XP Home but it is much more than XP for Netbooks. MS split the editions so that 'Home Basic' is roughly the price of XP Home, but 'Home Premuium' is much more and the OEMs are 'encouraged' to use that. Vista was _not_ a 'better product' which is why it is still only ~20% of Windows. Windows 7 is better than Vista (probably much better) but many think that is it not better than XP SP3. > Just in the > case of Standard Oil, they would make a greater profit by driving DOWN the > price of Kerosene, not inflating it. > No. Wrong. They drove down the cost of a barrel of oil (they didn't have wells) and they drove down the cost of transport to themselves with exclusive contracts. The price of kerosene fell, especially where they were driving competitors out of business, but they made higher profits. > Further, monopolies are sanctioned, even encouraged, by the United States > Constitution! The US constitution is irrelevant to me. Anyway the anti-trust laws are not against monopolies but are against the _abuse_ that monopolies can wield. MS has been found guilty. > >> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the > >> CONSUMER benefits from that sanction. > > > Only that the law must be followed. > > You keep trying to find SOME hook to show that monopoly power is bad. How is > following the law good (or bad) for the CONSUMER? Microsoft has been found guilty of not following the law. > >> I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market > >> monopoly is good for the consumer." Conversely, most > >> government-sanction monopolies leave much to be desired (cable TV, > >> most roads, water distribution or other utilities, and soon, the > >> internet). > > > Well, when the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS, a government > > monopoly) was sold to private enterprise, the cost of residential > > service quickly doubled. > > And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went away or > were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant tax reduction, > didn't you? > > > > > Given the recent market catastrophe, if you can state with a straight > > face and reasonable conviction that private enterprise is always the > > way to go I'll buy you a beer. Private enterprise works as long as > > the profits aren't threatened. Then they go jetting off to the > > government for handouts! > > Let me turn it around to a simpler proposition: You show ME one enterprise > better run by the government than by private enterprise and I'll buy you a > baby bottle complete with teat. > > But where does the blame lie in your example? To the companies asking for a > handout or to the government for providing it? The freedom to succeed goes > hand in hand with the freedom to fail. Take away one and you don't simply > remove the other, you kill freedom altogether. > > The economist Harry Browne asserted that every dollar spent by the > government is a dollar of wealth destroyed and he spent several books > proving it. There is virtually NOTHING that the government does that cannot > be done cheaper by private enterprise (it IS the government's job to enforce > contracts and punish evil-doers, but not much else). How about police and > fire protection, you might ask? That's easy. In my town there are probably > twenty times the number of private security guards as there are cops and > recent tabulations show that 85% of the firefighters in the country are > volunteers. Most wars throughout history have been fought by mercenaries, > and so on. > > George Will said the primary purpose of government is to protect the borders > and deliver the mail. Once it demonstrates that it can do those tasks > competently, we can rightly trust it with something else. |