From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <ML44h.30$qZ1.9@newsfe08.lga>
gavino wrote:
> What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>
If George and Barbara had such great sex, how did they produce Jeb and
Dubbya?
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3velqafst.fsf@loiso.podval.org>
> * Andrew Baine <·······@tznvy.pbz> [2006-11-07 11:09:25 -0800]:
>
> If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
why do you think he isn't?
--
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux)
http://memri.org http://openvotingconsortium.org http://jihadwatch.org
http://ffii.org http://dhimmi.com http://mideasttruth.com
If you know that you know nothing, you know too much.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <Fcb4h.52$Ky6.10@newsfe11.lga>
Sam Steingold wrote:
>>* Andrew Baine <·······@tznvy.pbz> [2006-11-07 11:09:25 -0800]:
>>
>>If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
>
>
> why do you think he isn't?
>
Wow, a new problem with analogies: even a good one can be misunderstood.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On Nov 8, 2:27 am, Sam Steingold <····@gnu.org> wrote:
> > * Andrew Baine <·······@tznvy.pbz> [2006-11-07 11:09:25 -0800]:
>
> > If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
>
> why do you think he isn't?
>
Well, I'd say he's posting here too often too be rich.
Rich lispers seem to have other things to do...
Christopher Koppler wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2:27 am, Sam Steingold <····@gnu.org> wrote:
> > > * Andrew Baine <·······@tznvy.pbz> [2006-11-07 11:09:25 -0800]:
> >
> > > If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
> >
> > why do you think he isn't?
> >
>
> Well, I'd say he's posting here too often too be rich.
> Rich lispers seem to have other things to do...
Ha..Ha... great answer
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m264dpswyc.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
"Christopher Koppler" <········@chello.at> writes:
> On Nov 8, 2:27 am, Sam Steingold <····@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > * Andrew Baine <·······@tznvy.pbz> [2006-11-07 11:09:25 -0800]:
>>
>> > If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
>>
>> why do you think he isn't?
>>
>
> Well, I'd say he's posting here too often too be rich.
> Rich lispers seem to have other things to do...
Rich people of any sort often take some time out for recreation. I'm
not even rich and I find cll entertaining, so who's to say a rich
lisper wouldn't?
Ari Johnson wrote:
> "Christopher Koppler" <········@chello.at> writes:
>
> > On Nov 8, 2:27 am, Sam Steingold <····@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> > * Andrew Baine <·······@tznvy.pbz> [2006-11-07 11:09:25 -0800]:
> >>
> >> > If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
> >>
> >> why do you think he isn't?
> >>
> >
> > Well, I'd say he's posting here too often too be rich.
> > Rich lispers seem to have other things to do...
>
> Rich people of any sort often take some time out for recreation. I'm
> not even rich and I find cll entertaining, so who's to say a rich
> lisper wouldn't?
Hey Mr Johnson, you said elsewhere that lisp can copy the feature from
any other language.
Where is the copy of aolserver+tcl?
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2slgja7xs.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ari Johnson wrote:
>> "Christopher Koppler" <········@chello.at> writes:
>>
>> > On Nov 8, 2:27 am, Sam Steingold <····@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >> > * Andrew Baine <·······@tznvy.pbz> [2006-11-07 11:09:25 -0800]:
>> >>
>> >> > If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?
>> >>
>> >> why do you think he isn't?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I'd say he's posting here too often too be rich.
>> > Rich lispers seem to have other things to do...
>>
>> Rich people of any sort often take some time out for recreation. I'm
>> not even rich and I find cll entertaining, so who's to say a rich
>> lisper wouldn't?
>
> Hey Mr Johnson, you said elsewhere that lisp can copy the feature from
> any other language.
> Where is the copy of aolserver+tcl?
Please describe how "aolserver+tcl" is a language feature and not
merely an application. In the alternative, please investigate the
various web application server frameworks that have been built upon
Common Lisp.
What point are you trying to make? The only one that's coming through
is that you are ignorant on top of inflammatory and moronic.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
> >
>
> If George and Barbara had such great sex, how did they produce Jeb and
> Dubbya?
>
> kt
ok so hillary and chelsea are hot to you? you communist
gavino wrote:
> What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
-- arnuld
http://arnuld.blogspot.com
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <Cne4h.70$Ky6.22@newsfe11.lga>
arnuld wrote:
> gavino wrote:
>
>>What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>
>
> if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
Wow, do you have "I am a complete moron" written across your forehead?
<sigh>
Please check with me before posting again.
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <cff4h.187$ng.54@newsfe10.lga>
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> arnuld wrote:
>
>> gavino wrote:
>>
>>> What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>>
>>
>>
>> if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>
>
> Wow, do you have "I am a complete moron" written across your forehead?
>
> <sigh>
>
> Please check with me before posting again.
I did not mean by personal email. I am here only for (my) personal
amusement and (your) general education. Educating you alone (by email)
satisfies neither.
I feel a Naggum coming on: you would have done better to meditate on why
I scoffed so heartily at the idea that Windows's financial success
relates in any way to its quality. (Man, just typing that challenges my
bladder control.)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
> I did not mean by personal email. I am here only for (my) personal
> amusement and (your) general education. Educating you alone (by email)
> satisfies neither.
Ha...Ha... you are good
> I feel a Naggum coming on: you would have done better to meditate on why
> I scoffed so heartily at the idea that Windows's financial success
> relates in any way to its quality.
Naggum...Hmmmm... ok do this
void* naggum = get_naggum_out_here;
ken_tilton* arnuld = static_cast<ken_tilton*>(naggum)
;-) makes sense only if you know C or C++. (sorry for C++ anyway)
i *tried* but did not get it. all i meant was:
"Technical qualities of a software do not decide its success.
deciding-factors are others like brand-development. that is why
corporate spends billions of dollors into it & Microsoft has proved it
with its buggy OS a.k.a Windows"
> (Man, just typing that challenges my bladder control.)
my english is weak, what does this mean?
> "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
> -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
again, what does this mean? i really want to know :-)
arnuld <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> void* naggum = get_naggum_out_here;
> ken_tilton* arnuld = static_cast<ken_tilton*>(naggum)
What is the relationship between types get_naggum_out_here and
ken_tilton? I suspect you're summoning undefined behavior -- highly
inappropriate in this newsgroup.
--
Steven E. Harris
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2ac317rym.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
"Steven E. Harris" <···@panix.com> writes:
> arnuld <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> void* naggum = get_naggum_out_here;
>> ken_tilton* arnuld = static_cast<ken_tilton*>(naggum)
>
> What is the relationship between types get_naggum_out_here and
> ken_tilton? I suspect you're summoning undefined behavior -- highly
> inappropriate in this newsgroup.
He did say that you can't understand it unless you know C++. ;)
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <FFn4h.9$pj5.1@newsfe12.lga>
arnuld wrote:
>
>>(Man, just typing that challenges my bladder control.)
>
>
> my english is weak, what does this mean?
That the idea was laughable. One can laugh so hard that one
involuntarily urinates.
hth, kenny
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> That the idea was laughable. One can laugh so hard that one
> involuntarily urinates.
now will you please explain why my *idea* wa so laughable?
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <Dxo4h.20$Yc2.4@newsfe11.lga>
arnuld wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>That the idea was laughable. One can laugh so hard that one
>>involuntarily urinates.
>
>
> now will you please explain why my *idea* wa so laughable?
>
No. I already forgot what it was. And I already used up my permitted
"time on Usenet", gotta write Lisp now.
peace, kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> arnuld wrote:
> > gavino wrote:
> >
> >>What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
> >
> >
> > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>
> Wow, do you have "I am a complete moron" written across your forehead?
>
> <sigh>
>
> Please check with me before posting again.
>
> kt
Well you have not an answer.
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> arnuld wrote:
>> > gavino wrote:
>> >
>> >>What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>> >
>> >
>> > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>>
>> Wow, do you have "I am a complete moron" written across your forehead?
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> Please check with me before posting again.
>>
>> kt
> Well you have not an answer.
Lisp is overrated and not really worth it. You'll have to look
elsewhere, gavino. Try Visual Basic.
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <6tG4h.9$Rt2.0@newsfe10.lga>
gavino wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>arnuld wrote:
>>
>>>gavino wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>>>
>>>
>>>if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>>
>>Wow, do you have "I am a complete moron" written across your forehead?
>>
>><sigh>
>>
>>Please check with me before posting again.
Silly me, I forgot....
>>
>>kt
>
> Well you have not an answer.
>
...my killfile!
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
> Ken Tilton wrote:
> >>Please check with me before posting again.
>
> Silly me, I forgot....
now you remember. so tell me why you said so?
> > Well you have not an answer.
> >
>
> ...my killfile!
you want to plonk me?
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <YeK4h.14$8j1.5@newsfe12.lga>
arnuld wrote:
>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>>>Please check with me before posting again.
>>
>>Silly me, I forgot....
>
>
> now you remember. so tell me why you said so?
>
>
>
>>>Well you have not an answer.
>>>
>>
>>...my killfile!
>
>
>
> you want to plonk me?
>
Oh, sorry, no: that was Gavino I was plonking (and to whom I thought I
was responding.)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
On Nov 9, 10:15 am, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> arnuld wrote:
> >>Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> >>>>Please check with me before posting again.
>
> >>Silly me, I forgot....
>
> > now you remember. so tell me why you said so?
>
> >>>Well you have not an answer.
>
> >>...my killfile!
>
> > you want to plonk me?Oh, sorry, no: that was Gavino I was plonking (and to whom I thought I
> was responding.)
>
> kt
>
> --
> Cells:http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
>
> "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
> -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Ken--what web program do yu use to serve dynamic content?
do you use a db?
or do sorting etc with lisp directly?
how long have you used lisp?
arnuld wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>
> if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>
> -- arnuld
Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
alternatives.
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <87y7qlksd1.fsf@david-steuber.com>
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> arnuld wrote:
> > gavino wrote:
> > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
> >
> > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
> >
> > -- arnuld
> Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
> alternatives.
Maybe not your government.
--
This post uses 100% post consumer electrons and 100% virgin photons.
At 2.6 miles per minute, you don't really have time to get bored.
--- Pete Roehling on rec.motorcycles
I bump into a lot of veteran riders in my travels.
--- David Hough: Proficient Motorcycling
gavino wrote:
> arnuld wrote:
> > gavino wrote:
> > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
> >
> > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
> >
> > -- arnuld
> Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
> alternatives.
They're a convicted monopolist on two continents.
Just because only one followed through on punishment
does not make them any less convicted.
goose,
goose wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > arnuld wrote:
> > > gavino wrote:
> > > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
> > >
> > > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
> > >
> > > -- arnuld
> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
> > alternatives.
>
> They're a convicted monopolist on two continents.
>
>
> Just because only one followed through on punishment
> does not make them any less convicted.
>
> goose,
And OJ simpson went free, th courts tried to make Al Ogre president
illegally, so whats up?
Microsoft can't be a monopoly by definition. A monopoly is when a
government says no one can legally sell product x except for
organization y. You can run linux mac bsd qnx beos gremlinos eros
etcetc etc etc. and boom u can forget microsoft. So its not a
monopoly. Sorryyryryyy.
On 2006-11-13 19:32:59 -0500, "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> said:
> A monopoly is when a
> government says no one can legally sell product x except for
> organization y.
This is factually incorrect. Under US antitrust law a firm may be
declared a legal monopoly by the courts if they engage in certain
anticompetitive behaviors. See:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>
P.S. Stop trolling, Gavino.
gavino wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > gavino wrote:
> > > arnuld wrote:
> > > > gavino wrote:
> > > > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
> > > >
> > > > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
> > > >
> > > > -- arnuld
> > > Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
> > > alternatives.
> >
> > They're a convicted monopolist on two continents.
> >
> >
> > Just because only one followed through on punishment
> > does not make them any less convicted.
> >
> > goose,
> And OJ simpson went free, th courts tried to make Al Ogre president
> illegally, so whats up?
>
> Microsoft can't be a monopoly by definition.
Actually, they are - from wikipedia:
"In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monopolium - Greek
language monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent
market situation where there is only one provider of a product or
service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic
competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of
viable substitute goods. ^[1]"
Search wikipedia for "monopoly" for more details. Microsoft
is most certainly a monopoly by definition. It is not a state-granted
monopoly but according to the english language, it *is* a monopoly,
which is why they've been convicted of *abusing* monopoly status
on two different continents.
> A monopoly is when a
> government says no one can legally sell product x except for
> organization y.
That is not an unqualified monopoly. That is a state-granted
monopoly. I think perhaps you are confusing the two.
> You can run linux mac bsd qnx beos gremlinos eros
> etcetc etc etc. and boom u can forget microsoft. So its not a
> monopoly. Sorryyryryyy.
Brush up on your english. Please post a reference which
defines an unqualified monopoly to mean what you think it means.
goose,
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> goose wrote:
>> gavino wrote:
>> > arnuld wrote:
>> > > gavino wrote:
>> > > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>> > >
>> > > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>> > >
>> > > -- arnuld
>> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
>> > alternatives.
>>
>> They're a convicted monopolist on two continents.
>>
>>
>> Just because only one followed through on punishment
>> does not make them any less convicted.
>>
>> goose,
> And OJ simpson went free, th courts tried to make Al Ogre president
> illegally, so whats up?
>
irrelevant and clumsy attempt to raise emotions to defend an
indefensible position. At least your consistent.
> Microsoft can't be a monopoly by definition. A monopoly is when a
> government says no one can legally sell product x except for
> organization y. You can run linux mac bsd qnx beos gremlinos eros
> etcetc etc etc. and boom u can forget microsoft. So its not a
> monopoly. Sorryyryryyy.
>
Rubbish.
If that were the case, why would the US have its anti-trust
legislation?
There is nothing in the definition of monopoly which requires that the
government establish or protect an entity in order for a monopoly to
exist. Monopolies have existed without government support in the past
and will likely exist in the future. In fact, it would appear the
legal definition of monopoly is even less restrictive in that it also
encompasses more than a single provider (see below).
However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
which will use whatever means it can to increase its market dominance
with the ultimate (and probably unobtainable goal due to government
legislation) of becoming a monopoly. Regardless of precise
definitions, there is certainly plenty of concern/questions regarding
MS's unethical and/or immoral business activities which have no other
apparent benefit or motivation other than to increase its control of
the market by eliminating existing competitors and creating barriers
for new competitors who want to enter the market. These concerns are
reflected in the anti-trust cases against MS and further supported by
reports of dodgy activity such as underwriting SCO and its case
against IBM et. al.
I prefer to accept the ruling of the legal systems of two different
continents over your understanding, but lets see what a dictionary
lookup gives us ...
1 definition found
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
oligopoly
n : (economics) a market in which control over the supply of a
commodity is in the hands of a small number of producers
and each one can influence prices and affect competitors
4 definitions found
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. {Monopolies}. [L. monopolium,
Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.]
1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in
some article, or of trading in some market; sole command
of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the
proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of
its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies
have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote
regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a
particular product.
[1913 Webster]
Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly
of sweet wines. --Macaulay.
[1913 Webster]
2. Exclusive possession; as, a monopoly of land.
[1913 Webster]
If I had a monopoly out, they would have part on 't.
--Shak.
[1913 Webster]
3. The commodity or other material thing to which the
monopoly relates; as, tobacco is a monopoly in France.
[Colloq.]
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
monopoly
n 1: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only
one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a
monopoly you can ask any price you like"
2: exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no
monopoly on intelligence"
3: a board game in which players try to gain a monopoly on real
estate as pieces advance around the board according to the
throw of a die
From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]:
54 Moby Thesaurus words for "monopoly":
a corner on, arrest, arrestation, bear raid, bull raid, cartel,
check, consortium, constraint, control, cooling, cooling down,
cooling off, copyright, corner, corner in, cornering, curb,
curtailment, deceleration, engrossment, exclusive possession,
forestallment, hindrance, inhibition, injunction, interdict,
legal restraint, manipulation, monopolization, ownership, pool,
possessorship, prohibition, proprietorship, protection,
protectionism, protective tariff, raid, rationing, rein, restraint,
restraint of trade, retardation, retrenchment, rigging,
self-control, slowing down, syndicate, tariff wall,
thought control, trust, wash sale, washing
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
MONOPOLY, commercial law. This word has various significations. 1. It is the
abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the
advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the
detriment of the public.
2.-2. All combinations among merchants to raise the price of
merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.
3.-3. A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from
the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise,
to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying,
selling, making, working, or using anything, is given. Bac. Abr. h.t.; 3
Inst. 181.
4. The constitutions of Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee,
declare that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government,
and ought not to be allowed." Vide art. Copyright; Patent.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Bill Atkins
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2odracql3.fsf@bertrand.local>
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
No, that wouldn't be technically correct, as an oligopoly is by
definition a *group* of companies that exert market power. You even
quote that definition in your post?
Bill Atkins <······@rpi.edu> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
>> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
>> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
>
> No, that wouldn't be technically correct, as an oligopoly is by
> definition a *group* of companies that exert market power. You even
> quote that definition in your post?
I should have said "...as part of an oligopoly"
I guess it depends on interpretation. There is nothing in the
definition that suggests any form of coordination, only that there is
a small number and any one of which can affect prices and
competition. I would argue that this is more technically correct wrt
operating systems when applying an economics definition i.e. MS is
part of an oligopoly (I never intended to suggest MS itself and by
itself defined an oligopoly, but that the market it operates in is
closer to an oligopoly rather than a monopoly). According to the legal
definition, it is a monopoly.
Tim.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Bill Atkins
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2fycm2ita.fsf@bertrand.local>
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> Bill Atkins <······@rpi.edu> writes:
>
>> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>>
>>> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
>>> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
>>
>> No, that wouldn't be technically correct, as an oligopoly is by
>> definition a *group* of companies that exert market power. You even
>> quote that definition in your post?
>
> I should have said "...as part of an oligopoly"
I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that. But the point of my
correction was: who else would be in this oligopoly? What other
company is on the same level as Microsoft in these terms?
A classic example of an oligopoly is Airbus and Boeing, who are, as
far as I know, the only firms that produce very large, airline-class
passenger jets. This is a market dominated by only a handful of firms
- two in this case.
I don't know what specific area of Microsoft we're talking about
(after all, the OP was a troll...), but in, for example, the operating
system market, Microsoft has upwards of 95% of the business. I'm not
sure if they're a monopoly, but I don't think the term oligopoly
applies to a market like that.
> I guess it depends on interpretation. There is nothing in the
> definition that suggests any form of coordination, only that there is
Agreed.
> a small number and any one of which can affect prices and
> competition. I would argue that this is more technically correct wrt
> operating systems when applying an economics definition i.e. MS is
> part of an oligopoly (I never intended to suggest MS itself and by
> itself defined an oligopoly, but that the market it operates in is
> closer to an oligopoly rather than a monopoly). According to the legal
I wasn't taking you quite so literally.
Bill Atkins wrote:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
> > Bill Atkins <······@rpi.edu> writes:
> >
> >> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> >>
> >>> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
> >>> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
> >>
> >> No, that wouldn't be technically correct, as an oligopoly is by
> >> definition a *group* of companies that exert market power. You even
> >> quote that definition in your post?
> >
> > I should have said "...as part of an oligopoly"
>
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that. But the point of my
> correction was: who else would be in this oligopoly? What other
> company is on the same level as Microsoft in these terms?
>
> A classic example of an oligopoly is Airbus and Boeing, who are, as
> far as I know, the only firms that produce very large, airline-class
> passenger jets. This is a market dominated by only a handful of firms
> - two in this case.
This is OT, but possibly interesting...
(The main players in the aeroplane market are:-
* Boeing
* Old Boeings
* Airbus
* Old Airbuses
The aeroplane parts market can be more limited though!)
> I don't know what specific area of Microsoft we're talking about
> (after all, the OP was a troll...), but in, for example, the operating
> system market, Microsoft has upwards of 95% of the business. I'm not
> sure if they're a monopoly, but I don't think the term oligopoly
> applies to a market like that.
I think it does. Most of the other companies in the space do not try
to compete with Microsoft, they stay in the high end. Only a very few
are trying to compete.
"Rob Thorpe" <·······@realworldtech.com> writes:
> I think it does. Most of the other companies in the space do not try
> to compete with Microsoft, they stay in the high end. Only a very few
> are trying to compete.
Ehh? So if these other companies are not competing with Microsoft,
how does this make Microsoft part of an oligopoly - i.e. a group of
firms that dominate a market and have market power?
Bill Atkins <······@rpi.edu> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
>> Bill Atkins <······@rpi.edu> writes:
>>
>>> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>>>
>>>> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
>>>> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
>>>
>>> No, that wouldn't be technically correct, as an oligopoly is by
>>> definition a *group* of companies that exert market power. You even
>>> quote that definition in your post?
>>
>> I should have said "...as part of an oligopoly"
>
> I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that. But the point of my
> correction was: who else would be in this oligopoly? What other
> company is on the same level as Microsoft in these terms?
>
> A classic example of an oligopoly is Airbus and Boeing, who are, as
> far as I know, the only firms that produce very large, airline-class
> passenger jets. This is a market dominated by only a handful of firms
> - two in this case.
>
> I don't know what specific area of Microsoft we're talking about
> (after all, the OP was a troll...), but in, for example, the operating
> system market, Microsoft has upwards of 95% of the business. I'm not
> sure if they're a monopoly, but I don't think the term oligopoly
> applies to a market like that.
>
I think the generally quoted figure is 90% of desktop operating
systems. However, they have far less of a share in server operating
systems. My thoughts are that there are only a few commercial
operating systems (mac, windows for the desktop, Sun, HP, IBM etc for
servers). Granted that MS has the lions share of the desktop, but I
think Mac can still influence competition and pricing in that area,
which would make it an oligopoly.
>> I guess it depends on interpretation. There is nothing in the
>> definition that suggests any form of coordination, only that there is
>
> Agreed.
>
>> a small number and any one of which can affect prices and
>> competition. I would argue that this is more technically correct wrt
>> operating systems when applying an economics definition i.e. MS is
>> part of an oligopoly (I never intended to suggest MS itself and by
>> itself defined an oligopoly, but that the market it operates in is
>> closer to an oligopoly rather than a monopoly). According to the legal
>
> I wasn't taking you quite so literally.
fair enough.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On Nov 14, 1:11 am, Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> > goose wrote:
> >> gavino wrote:
> >> > arnuld wrote:
> >> > > gavino wrote:
> >> > > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>
> >> > > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>
> >> > > -- arnuld
> >> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
> >> > alternatives.
>
> >> They're a convicted monopolist on two continents.
>
> >> Just because only one followed through on punishment
> >> does not make them any less convicted.
>
> >> goose,
> > And OJ simpson went free, th courts tried to make Al Ogre president
> > illegally, so whats up?irrelevant and clumsy attempt to raise emotions to defend an
> indefensible position. At least your consistent.
>
> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly by definition. A monopoly is when a
> > government says no one can legally sell product x except for
> > organization y. You can run linux mac bsd qnx beos gremlinos eros
> > etcetc etc etc. and boom u can forget microsoft. So its not a
> > monopoly. Sorryyryryyy.Rubbish.
>
> If that were the case, why would the US have its anti-trust
> legislation?
>
> There is nothing in the definition of monopoly which requires that the
> government establish or protect an entity in order for a monopoly to
> exist. Monopolies have existed without government support in the past
> and will likely exist in the future. In fact, it would appear the
> legal definition of monopoly is even less restrictive in that it also
> encompasses more than a single provider (see below).
>
> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
> which will use whatever means it can to increase its market dominance
> with the ultimate (and probably unobtainable goal due to government
> legislation) of becoming a monopoly. Regardless of precise
> definitions, there is certainly plenty of concern/questions regarding
> MS's unethical and/or immoral business activities which have no other
> apparent benefit or motivation other than to increase its control of
> the market by eliminating existing competitors and creating barriers
> for new competitors who want to enter the market. These concerns are
> reflected in the anti-trust cases against MS and further supported by
> reports of dodgy activity such as underwriting SCO and its case
> against IBM et. al.
>
> I prefer to accept the ruling of the legal systems of two different
> continents over your understanding, but lets see what a dictionary
> lookup gives us ...
>
> 1 definition found
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> oligopoly
> n : (economics) a market in which control over the supply of a
> commodity is in the hands of a small number of producers
> and each one can influence prices and affect competitors
> 4 definitions found
>
> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
>
> Monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. {Monopolies}. [L. monopolium,
> Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.]
> 1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
> the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in
> some article, or of trading in some market; sole command
> of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the
> proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of
> its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies
> have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote
> regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a
> particular product.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly
> of sweet wines. --Macaulay.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> 2. Exclusive possession; as, a monopoly of land.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> If I had a monopoly out, they would have part on 't.
> --Shak.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> 3. The commodity or other material thing to which the
> monopoly relates; as, tobacco is a monopoly in France.
> [Colloq.]
> [1913 Webster]
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> monopoly
> n 1: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only
> one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a
> monopoly you can ask any price you like"
> 2: exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no
> monopoly on intelligence"
> 3: a board game in which players try to gain a monopoly on real
> estate as pieces advance around the board according to the
> throw of a die
>
> From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]:
>
> 54 Moby Thesaurus words for "monopoly":
> a corner on, arrest, arrestation, bear raid, bull raid, cartel,
> check, consortium, constraint, control, cooling, cooling down,
> cooling off, copyright, corner, corner in, cornering, curb,
> curtailment, deceleration, engrossment, exclusive possession,
> forestallment, hindrance, inhibition, injunction, interdict,
> legal restraint, manipulation, monopolization, ownership, pool,
> possessorship, prohibition, proprietorship, protection,
> protectionism, protective tariff, raid, rationing, rein, restraint,
> restraint of trade, retardation, retrenchment, rigging,
> self-control, slowing down, syndicate, tariff wall,
> thought control, trust, wash sale, washing
>
> From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
>
> MONOPOLY, commercial law. This word has various significations. 1. It is the
> abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the
> advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the
> detriment of the public.
> 2.-2. All combinations among merchants to raise the price of
> merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.
> 3.-3. A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from
> the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise,
> to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying,
> selling, making, working, or using anything, is given. Bac. Abr. h.t.; 3
> Inst. 181.
> 4. The constitutions of Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee,
> declare that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government,
> and ought not to be allowed." Vide art. Copyright; Patent.
>
> --
> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
law?
fuck that
I'm an economics major.
Many communist lawyer get bullshit laws like this on the books.
A monopoly is when competition is not legal EG the state gives 1 seller
the license
MICROSOFT HAS NO SUCH GRANT FROM GOVERNEMENT
Microsoft is a COMPETITIVE WINNER
This does not mean they are better but that they SELL better
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2lkmcp0qg.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> law?
> fuck that
> I'm an economics major.
> Many communist lawyer get bullshit laws like this on the books.
> A monopoly is when competition is not legal EG the state gives 1 seller
> the license
> MICROSOFT HAS NO SUCH GRANT FROM GOVERNEMENT
>
> Microsoft is a COMPETITIVE WINNER
>
> This does not mean they are better but that they SELL better
Obviously your not-yet-completed education in economics is far
superior to the dictionary definition of a word, the legal definition
of the word, and the general consensus among economists what the word
means. At least we now know that you are probably minoring in
English.
Ari Johnson wrote:
> "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> > law?
> > fuck that
> > I'm an economics major.
> > Many communist lawyer get bullshit laws like this on the books.
> > A monopoly is when competition is not legal EG the state gives 1 seller
> > the license
> > MICROSOFT HAS NO SUCH GRANT FROM GOVERNEMENT
> >
> > Microsoft is a COMPETITIVE WINNER
> >
> > This does not mean they are better but that they SELL better
>
> Obviously your not-yet-completed education in economics is far
> superior to the dictionary definition of a word, the legal definition
> of the word, and the general consensus among economists what the word
> means. At least we now know that you are probably minoring in
> English.
But don't you get it?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
mo.no.po.ly [muh-nop-uh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,
granted by a government.
Microsoft can't be a monopoly again because it is not the only licensed
seller of computers software. In fact you can compltely replace it
with other competeing goods.
So you are, well, wrong.
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2wt5va80n.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ari Johnson wrote:
>> "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > law?
>> > fuck that
>> > I'm an economics major.
>> > Many communist lawyer get bullshit laws like this on the books.
>> > A monopoly is when competition is not legal EG the state gives 1 seller
>> > the license
>> > MICROSOFT HAS NO SUCH GRANT FROM GOVERNEMENT
>> >
>> > Microsoft is a COMPETITIVE WINNER
>> >
>> > This does not mean they are better but that they SELL better
>>
>> Obviously your not-yet-completed education in economics is far
>> superior to the dictionary definition of a word, the legal definition
>> of the word, and the general consensus among economists what the word
>> means. At least we now know that you are probably minoring in
>> English.
>
> But don't you get it?
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
> mo.no.po.ly [muh-nop-uh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,
> granted by a government.
> Microsoft can't be a monopoly again because it is not the only licensed
> seller of computers software. In fact you can compltely replace it
> with other competeing goods.
> So you are, well, wrong.
No, I'm not. First of all, I prefer a more reputable dictionary, such
as Merriam-Webster's, which is also available free online, see
http://www.m-w.com/. It gives:
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or
concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
However, let's look at dictionary.com for a second to see whether you
are a liar as well as an idiot:
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market,
or a control that makes possible the manipulation of
prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,
granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to
gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and
purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from
other players whose pieces land on that property.
You gave us definition #2 as if it was the only one listed. You are a
liar and, for your failure to read definition #1 and understand that
it is what is being discussed, an idiot.
P.S. That also means that I'm right, not wrong as asserted. What
point were you trying to prove, again?
On Nov 16, 5:34 am, Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2006-11-16 07:30:32 -0500, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
> > What
> > point were you trying to prove, again?That he is an unmitigated troll.
Nope, I am the audience you want: educated, los angeles, somewhat
technical being a unix admin, and hungery for good software tools, if
you could treat someone like me well, you would have 1000s join your
ranks and show lisp power, rather than being clled smug lisp weenies.
gavino wrote:
> Nope, I am the audience you want: educated, los angeles, somewhat
> technical being a unix admin, and hungery for good software tools, if
> you could treat someone like me well, you would have 1000s join your
> ranks and show lisp power, rather than being clled smug lisp weenies.
Apparently you believe there is some benefit to having thousands of
people like you join comp.lang.lisp
gavino wrote:
> On Nov 16, 5:34 am, Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> > On 2006-11-16 07:30:32 -0500, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> said:
> >
> > > What
> > > point were you trying to prove, again?That he is an unmitigated troll.
>
> Nope, I am the audience you want: educated, los angeles, somewhat
> technical being a unix admin, and hungery for good software tools, if
> you could treat someone like me well, you would have 1000s join your
> ranks and show lisp power, rather than being clled smug lisp weenies.
Educated? You can't even spell.
"sticky_keys" <···········@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> gavino wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 5:34 am, Raffael Cavallaro
>> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>> > On 2006-11-16 07:30:32 -0500, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com> said:
>> >
>> > > What
>> > > point were you trying to prove, again?That he is an unmitigated troll.
>>
>> Nope, I am the audience you want: educated, los angeles, somewhat
>> technical being a unix admin, and hungery for good software tools, if
>> you could treat someone like me well, you would have 1000s join your
>> ranks and show lisp power, rather than being clled smug lisp weenies.
>
> Educated? You can't even spell.
And he's asking questions like a 5-yo. Being poop tight is hardly
what I'd call "educated"...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Until real software engineering is developed, the next best practice
is to develop with a dynamic system that has extreme late binding in
all aspects. The first system to really do this in an important way
is Lisp. -- Alan Kay
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <op.ti3092jqpqzri1@pandora.upc.no>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:30:32 +0100, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or
> concerted action
> 2 : exclusive possession or control
> 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
> 4 : one that has a monopoly
>
> However, let's look at dictionary.com for a second to see whether you
> are a liar as well as an idiot:
>
> 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market,
> or a control that makes possible the manipulation of
> prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
> 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,
> granted by a government.
> 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
> 4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or
> service.
> 5. a company or group that has such control.
> 6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
> 7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to
> gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and
> purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from
> other players whose pieces land on that property.
>
> You gave us definition #2 as if it was the only one listed. You are a
> liar and, for your failure to read definition #1 and understand that
> it is what is being discussed, an idiot.
>
> P.S. That also means that I'm right, not wrong as asserted. What
> point were you trying to prove, again?
Not exactly. Americans have something called a anti-trust law.
It can be used if you can demonstrate that you have a company
so powerful it can and does suppress the competitors to uphold
/increase it's market share. It was originally created the used
to stop standard oil which is now known as the seven sisters.
So by ruling of American court Microsoft is a monopoly even if
it would not fit the criteria by European definitions.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2k61va659.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:30:32 +0100, Ari Johnson <·········@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or
>> concerted action
>> 2 : exclusive possession or control
>> 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
>> 4 : one that has a monopoly
>>
>> However, let's look at dictionary.com for a second to see whether you
>> are a liar as well as an idiot:
>>
>> 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market,
>> or a control that makes possible the manipulation of
>> prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
>> 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,
>> granted by a government.
>> 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
>> 4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or
>> service.
>> 5. a company or group that has such control.
>> 6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
>> 7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to
>> gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and
>> purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from
>> other players whose pieces land on that property.
>>
>> You gave us definition #2 as if it was the only one listed. You are a
>> liar and, for your failure to read definition #1 and understand that
>> it is what is being discussed, an idiot.
>>
>> P.S. That also means that I'm right, not wrong as asserted. What
>> point were you trying to prove, again?
>
> Not exactly. Americans have something called a anti-trust law.
> It can be used if you can demonstrate that you have a company
> so powerful it can and does suppress the competitors to uphold
> /increase it's market share. It was originally created the used
> to stop standard oil which is now known as the seven sisters.
>
> So by ruling of American court Microsoft is a monopoly even if
> it would not fit the criteria by European definitions.
We do indeed have antitrust laws. That's really not the issue. The
issue is whether the word "monopoly" can correctly be applied to
Microsoft. It can. Our trolling friend's assertion is that the only
definition of the term refers to a legally-*granted* monopoly, which
is simply not the case. While such monopolies do exist, particularly
in the arena of natural monopolies such as municipal utilities, they
are entirely outside the scope of whatever discussion people were
attempting to have here.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:34:07 -0800, gavino wrote:
>
> Ari Johnson wrote:
>> "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > law?
>> > fuck that
>> > I'm an economics major.
>> > Many communist lawyer get bullshit laws like this on the books.
>> > A monopoly is when competition is not legal EG the state gives 1 seller
>> > the license
>> > MICROSOFT HAS NO SUCH GRANT FROM GOVERNEMENT
>> >
>> > Microsoft is a COMPETITIVE WINNER
>> >
>> > This does not mean they are better but that they SELL better
>>
>> Obviously your not-yet-completed education in economics is far
>> superior to the dictionary definition of a word, the legal definition
>> of the word, and the general consensus among economists what the word
>> means. At least we now know that you are probably minoring in
>> English.
>
> But don't you get it?
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
> mo.no.po.ly [muh-nop-uh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,
> granted by a government.
> Microsoft can't be a monopoly again because it is not the only licensed
> seller of computers software. In fact you can compltely replace it
> with other competeing goods.
> So you are, well, wrong.
There are many types of monopolies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
..also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Laws_Against_Monopolies
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
Tim X wrote:
> "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > goose wrote:
> >> gavino wrote:
> >> > arnuld wrote:
> >> > > gavino wrote:
> >> > > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
> >> > >
> >> > > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
> >> > >
> >> > > -- arnuld
> >> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
> >> > alternatives.
> >>
> >> They're a convicted monopolist on two continents.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just because only one followed through on punishment
> >> does not make them any less convicted.
> >>
> >> goose,
> > And OJ simpson went free, th courts tried to make Al Ogre president
> > illegally, so whats up?
> >
>
> irrelevant and clumsy attempt to raise emotions to defend an
> indefensible position. At least your consistent.
>
> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly by definition. A monopoly is when a
> > government says no one can legally sell product x except for
> > organization y. You can run linux mac bsd qnx beos gremlinos eros
> > etcetc etc etc. and boom u can forget microsoft. So its not a
> > monopoly. Sorryyryryyy.
> >
>
> Rubbish.
>
> If that were the case, why would the US have its anti-trust
> legislation?
>
> There is nothing in the definition of monopoly which requires that the
> government establish or protect an entity in order for a monopoly to
> exist. Monopolies have existed without government support in the past
> and will likely exist in the future. In fact, it would appear the
> legal definition of monopoly is even less restrictive in that it also
> encompasses more than a single provider (see below).
>
> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
> which will use whatever means it can to increase its market dominance
> with the ultimate (and probably unobtainable goal due to government
> legislation) of becoming a monopoly. Regardless of precise
> definitions, there is certainly plenty of concern/questions regarding
> MS's unethical and/or immoral business activities which have no other
> apparent benefit or motivation other than to increase its control of
> the market by eliminating existing competitors and creating barriers
> for new competitors who want to enter the market. These concerns are
> reflected in the anti-trust cases against MS and further supported by
> reports of dodgy activity such as underwriting SCO and its case
> against IBM et. al.
>
> I prefer to accept the ruling of the legal systems of two different
> continents over your understanding, but lets see what a dictionary
> lookup gives us ...
>
> 1 definition found
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> oligopoly
> n : (economics) a market in which control over the supply of a
> commodity is in the hands of a small number of producers
> and each one can influence prices and affect competitors
> 4 definitions found
>
> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
>
> Monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. {Monopolies}. [L. monopolium,
> Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.]
> 1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
> the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in
> some article, or of trading in some market; sole command
> of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the
> proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of
> its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies
> have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote
> regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a
> particular product.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly
> of sweet wines. --Macaulay.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> 2. Exclusive possession; as, a monopoly of land.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> If I had a monopoly out, they would have part on 't.
> --Shak.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> 3. The commodity or other material thing to which the
> monopoly relates; as, tobacco is a monopoly in France.
> [Colloq.]
> [1913 Webster]
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> monopoly
> n 1: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only
> one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a
> monopoly you can ask any price you like"
> 2: exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no
> monopoly on intelligence"
> 3: a board game in which players try to gain a monopoly on real
> estate as pieces advance around the board according to the
> throw of a die
>
> From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]:
>
> 54 Moby Thesaurus words for "monopoly":
> a corner on, arrest, arrestation, bear raid, bull raid, cartel,
> check, consortium, constraint, control, cooling, cooling down,
> cooling off, copyright, corner, corner in, cornering, curb,
> curtailment, deceleration, engrossment, exclusive possession,
> forestallment, hindrance, inhibition, injunction, interdict,
> legal restraint, manipulation, monopolization, ownership, pool,
> possessorship, prohibition, proprietorship, protection,
> protectionism, protective tariff, raid, rationing, rein, restraint,
> restraint of trade, retardation, retrenchment, rigging,
> self-control, slowing down, syndicate, tariff wall,
> thought control, trust, wash sale, washing
>
>
>
> From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
>
> MONOPOLY, commercial law. This word has various significations. 1. It is the
> abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the
> advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the
> detriment of the public.
> 2.-2. All combinations among merchants to raise the price of
> merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.
> 3.-3. A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from
> the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise,
> to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying,
> selling, making, working, or using anything, is given. Bac. Abr. h.t.; 3
> Inst. 181.
> 4. The constitutions of Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee,
> declare that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government,
> and ought not to be allowed." Vide art. Copyright; Patent.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
you are still wrong, read your own postings!
microsoft does not have the sole granted fiat power to sell operating
systems, so can't be a monopoly, so relax.
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2odr7a7sm.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>> "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > goose wrote:
>> >> gavino wrote:
>> >> > arnuld wrote:
>> >> > > gavino wrote:
>> >> > > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > if Windows is a crap why Microsoft has a monoply?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -- arnuld
>> >> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly, the government doesn't outlaw
>> >> > alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> They're a convicted monopolist on two continents.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just because only one followed through on punishment
>> >> does not make them any less convicted.
>> >>
>> >> goose,
>> > And OJ simpson went free, th courts tried to make Al Ogre president
>> > illegally, so whats up?
>> >
>>
>> irrelevant and clumsy attempt to raise emotions to defend an
>> indefensible position. At least your consistent.
>>
>> > Microsoft can't be a monopoly by definition. A monopoly is when a
>> > government says no one can legally sell product x except for
>> > organization y. You can run linux mac bsd qnx beos gremlinos eros
>> > etcetc etc etc. and boom u can forget microsoft. So its not a
>> > monopoly. Sorryyryryyy.
>> >
>>
>> Rubbish.
>>
>> If that were the case, why would the US have its anti-trust
>> legislation?
>>
>> There is nothing in the definition of monopoly which requires that the
>> government establish or protect an entity in order for a monopoly to
>> exist. Monopolies have existed without government support in the past
>> and will likely exist in the future. In fact, it would appear the
>> legal definition of monopoly is even less restrictive in that it also
>> encompasses more than a single provider (see below).
>>
>> However, to be technically correct (in an economics definition),
>> Microsoft is probably more accurately categorised as an oligopoly
>> which will use whatever means it can to increase its market dominance
>> with the ultimate (and probably unobtainable goal due to government
>> legislation) of becoming a monopoly. Regardless of precise
>> definitions, there is certainly plenty of concern/questions regarding
>> MS's unethical and/or immoral business activities which have no other
>> apparent benefit or motivation other than to increase its control of
>> the market by eliminating existing competitors and creating barriers
>> for new competitors who want to enter the market. These concerns are
>> reflected in the anti-trust cases against MS and further supported by
>> reports of dodgy activity such as underwriting SCO and its case
>> against IBM et. al.
>>
>> I prefer to accept the ruling of the legal systems of two different
>> continents over your understanding, but lets see what a dictionary
>> lookup gives us ...
>>
>> 1 definition found
>>
>> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>>
>> oligopoly
>> n : (economics) a market in which control over the supply of a
>> commodity is in the hands of a small number of producers
>> and each one can influence prices and affect competitors
>> 4 definitions found
>>
>> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
>>
>> Monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. {Monopolies}. [L. monopolium,
>> Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.]
>> 1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity;
>> the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in
>> some article, or of trading in some market; sole command
>> of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the
>> proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of
>> its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies
>> have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote
>> regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a
>> particular product.
>> [1913 Webster]
>>
>> Raleigh held a monopoly of cards, Essex a monopoly
>> of sweet wines. --Macaulay.
>> [1913 Webster]
>>
>> 2. Exclusive possession; as, a monopoly of land.
>> [1913 Webster]
>>
>> If I had a monopoly out, they would have part on 't.
>> --Shak.
>> [1913 Webster]
>>
>> 3. The commodity or other material thing to which the
>> monopoly relates; as, tobacco is a monopoly in France.
>> [Colloq.]
>> [1913 Webster]
>>
>> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>>
>> monopoly
>> n 1: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only
>> one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a
>> monopoly you can ask any price you like"
>> 2: exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no
>> monopoly on intelligence"
>> 3: a board game in which players try to gain a monopoly on real
>> estate as pieces advance around the board according to the
>> throw of a die
>>
>> From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]:
>>
>> 54 Moby Thesaurus words for "monopoly":
>> a corner on, arrest, arrestation, bear raid, bull raid, cartel,
>> check, consortium, constraint, control, cooling, cooling down,
>> cooling off, copyright, corner, corner in, cornering, curb,
>> curtailment, deceleration, engrossment, exclusive possession,
>> forestallment, hindrance, inhibition, injunction, interdict,
>> legal restraint, manipulation, monopolization, ownership, pool,
>> possessorship, prohibition, proprietorship, protection,
>> protectionism, protective tariff, raid, rationing, rein, restraint,
>> restraint of trade, retardation, retrenchment, rigging,
>> self-control, slowing down, syndicate, tariff wall,
>> thought control, trust, wash sale, washing
>>
>>
>>
>> From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
>>
>> MONOPOLY, commercial law. This word has various significations. 1. It is the
>> abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the
>> advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the
>> detriment of the public.
>> 2.-2. All combinations among merchants to raise the price of
>> merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.
>> 3.-3. A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from
>> the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise,
>> to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying,
>> selling, making, working, or using anything, is given. Bac. Abr. h.t.; 3
>> Inst. 181.
>> 4. The constitutions of Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee,
>> declare that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government,
>> and ought not to be allowed." Vide art. Copyright; Patent.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>
> you are still wrong, read your own postings!
> microsoft does not have the sole granted fiat power to sell operating
> systems, so can't be a monopoly, so relax.
I think that more than one word has a meaning different than that you
ascribe to it. Where do you study economics?
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
nothing of any interest for anyone
Congrats - your the first addition to my killfile in nearly 6 months.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:38:24 -0800, gavino wrote:
> What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+success+stories
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2bqnio5xt.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:38:24 -0800, gavino wrote:
>
>> What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+success+stories
The requested "Clisp success stories" is much less extensive. ;)
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <%pe4h.71$Ky6.49@newsfe11.lga>
Ari Johnson wrote:
> Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:38:24 -0800, gavino wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+success+stories
>
>
> The requested "Clisp success stories" is much less extensive. ;)
Ah, so you realize you are responding to someone who does not even know
that CL is different than Clisp. <sigh> And who the dogs are just
finishing up on. <sigh>
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Ari Johnson
Subject: Re: if Clisp is so good where are the commonly used apps?
Date:
Message-ID: <m2ac31swzx.fsf@hermes.theari.com>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Ari Johnson wrote:
>> Lars Rune N�stdal <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:38:24 -0800, gavino wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+success+stories
>> The requested "Clisp success stories" is much less extensive. ;)
>
> Ah, so you realize you are responding to someone who does not even
> know that CL is different than Clisp. <sigh> And who the dogs are just
> finishing up on. <sigh>
It's more the habitual inability to distinguish the two after having
it explained repeatedly that astounds me. He's not even a good troll,
or I'd attribute it to that.
Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:38:24 -0800, gavino wrote:
>
> > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+success+stories
>
> --
> Lars Rune Nøstdal
> http://lars.nostdal.org/
most of these look like lame apps.
I mean shit breeder apps like www.sugarcrm.com are selling like hot
cakes, why arent lispers getting rich as stinking rats on something
that beats the pants offa sugarcrm?
I dont get it, massive programming power, but no apps?
"gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> I mean shit breeder apps like www.sugarcrm.com are selling like hot
> cakes, why arent lispers getting rich as stinking rats on something
> that beats the pants offa sugarcrm?
Because there are apparently no Lispers who find programming
applications like sugarcrm interesting enough and lucrative enough to
found a startup; alternately, because Lispers have more interesting
and lucrative things to do.
SugarCRM is a pretty front-end to a database, with few features on top
of that. While you can do that sort of thing in Lisp, it doesn't buy
you anything that you don't get by writing it in PHP.
> I dont get it, massive programming power, but no apps?
Lisp's killer apps are tools for complex analysis and solving
heretofore poorly understood problems, not shrinkwrapped software you
can buy at Best Buy.
Charlton
On Nov 16, 6:04 am, Charlton Wilbur <·······@mithril.chromatico.net>
wrote:
> "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I mean shit breeder apps likewww.sugarcrm.comare selling like hot
> > cakes, why arent lispers getting rich as stinking rats on something
> > that beats the pants offa sugarcrm?Because there are apparently no Lispers who find programming
> applications like sugarcrm interesting enough and lucrative enough to
> found a startup; alternately, because Lispers have more interesting
> and lucrative things to do.
>
> SugarCRM is a pretty front-end to a database, with few features on top
> of that. While you can do that sort of thing in Lisp, it doesn't buy
> you anything that you don't get by writing it in PHP.
>
> > I dont get it, massive programming power, but no apps?Lisp's killer apps are tools for complex analysis and solving
> heretofore poorly understood problems, not shrinkwrapped software you
> can buy at Best Buy.
>
> Charlton
so there is no reason to learn lisp: php can out perform it?
>>>>> "g" == gavino <········@yahoo.com> writes:
g> On Nov 16, 6:04 am, Charlton Wilbur
g> <·······@mithril.chromatico.net>
g> wrote:
>> SugarCRM is a pretty front-end to a database, with few features
>> on top of that. While you can do that sort of thing in Lisp,
>> it doesn't buy you anything that you don't get by writing it in
>> PHP.
g> I dont get it, massive programming power, but no apps?
>> Lisp's killer apps are tools for complex analysis and solving
>> heretofore poorly understood problems, not shrinkwrapped
>> software you can buy at Best Buy.
g> so there is no reason to learn lisp: php can out perform it?
Um, no, that's not what I said.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
·······@chromatico.net
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:54:57 -0800, gavino wrote:
>
> so there is no reason to learn lisp: php can outperform it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Complete
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:38:37 -0800, gavino wrote:
>
> Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:38:24 -0800, gavino wrote:
>>
>> > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=lisp+success+stories
>>
>
> most of these look like lame apps.
What? Uhm, first hit for instance: http://www.franz.com/success/ Do you
see the category-list to the left? You think those are lame?
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
gavino wrote:
> What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?
Ever see that episode of Futurama where Fry makes out with his robotic
Lucy Liu? That's just what it's like to use Lisp. It's so good, you
don't care about anything else, least of all writing "commonly used
apps". Why else do you think everyone and their brother keeps rolling
their own web frameworks? It's a lot more fun than actually using one
that's already prebuilt!
On Nov 9, 11:37 pm, ·······@gmail.com wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?Ever see that episode of Futurama where Fry makes out with his robotic
> Lucy Liu? That's just what it's like to use Lisp. It's so good, you
> don't care about anything else, least of all writing "commonly used
> apps". Why else do you think everyone and their brother keeps rolling
> their own web frameworks? It's a lot more fun than actually using one
> that's already prebuilt!
Really, I am more and more tempted to jump in even though to
programming I am so new as to be like a tabla rasa. I do like PLT
scheme so far and wow it les you easily build up interlocking
functions. I am try a bi of tcl.... hmmf
So what web framework do you use? Do you use a relational db? I am
reading some great stuff from philip greenspun about aoserver and how
application servers are kinda bunk......I am having fun with computer
bigtime. i got aolserver up on a vmware redhat box here today....
gavino wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:37 pm, ·······@gmail.com wrote:
> > gavino wrote:
> > > What commonly used apps are built in Clisp?Ever see that episode of Futurama where Fry makes out with his robotic
> > Lucy Liu? That's just what it's like to use Lisp. It's so good, you
> > don't care about anything else, least of all writing "commonly used
> > apps". Why else do you think everyone and their brother keeps rolling
> > their own web frameworks? It's a lot more fun than actually using one
> > that's already prebuilt!
>
> Really, I am more and more tempted to jump in even though to
> programming I am so new as to be like a tabla rasa.
Just jump in, the water's fine.
> I do like PLT
> scheme so far and wow it les you easily build up interlocking
> functions. I am try a bi of tcl.... hmmf
> So what web framework do you use?
I've played around with AlegroServe, CL-HTTP, but am mainly working
directly on mod_lisp, for precisely the half-joking reasons I mentioned
above.
> Do you use a relational db?
Sqlite locally on Windows, Postgres for web work on Linux, using either
clsql or ffi, depending upon the weather.
> I am
> reading some great stuff from philip greenspun about aoserver and how
> application servers are kinda bunk......I am having fun with computer
> bigtime. i got aolserver up on a vmware redhat box here today....