Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Microsoft, invention and innovation

Reply
Thread Tools

Microsoft, invention and innovation

 
 
Menoeceus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2005
On , , Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:25:52 +1300, Re: Microsoft, invention
and innovation, Bling Bling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:11:20 +1300, Waylon Kenning wrote:
>
>> Seems to be pretty popular judging from the rows and rows and
>> refrigerators in dairies throughout New Zealand full of Open Cola. Or
>> not. Perhaps some people like the taste of Coke, after all, Classic
>> Cola is just way cheaper than Coke, but who buys Classic Cola for the
>> taste?

>
>Most persons are idiots and are happily led like sheep to the slaughter by
>the advertizing companies.
>
>Cocacola is a classic example of people *wasting* their money on sugar and
>carbon dioxide and a small amount of other chemical additives called
>"flavouring" - expecially since the cocaine that was in the original
>recepe was taken out.


Then by definition it can't be the original Coca Cola, can it?
Cocaine was never in the original recipe, cocaine wasn't even
synthesised when Coca Cola was invented.
The legend exists because the bottle designer laboured under the
delusion that Coca berries were in the recipe and designed the
bulges on the bottle to represent that.

>The bottles or cans themselves cost more than their contents!


I supposed you have some recognised, verifiable, genuine source
for your assertion?
Please provide the cite for it.
---
"You can't fight evil with a macaroni duck!"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Menoeceus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2005
On , , Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:37:43 +1300, Re: Microsoft, invention
and innovation, Waylon Kenning
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>T'was the Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:25:52 +1300 when I remembered Bling
>Bling <(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like this:
>
>>Most persons are idiots and are happily led like sheep to the slaughter by
>>the advertizing companies.

>
>Sounds like a pretty high and mighty thing to say.


He is a reformed "sheep". There is nobody more sanctimonious than
one who is reformed. Witness ex smokers...
---
"You can't fight evil with a macaroni duck!"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Menoeceus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2005
On , , Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:29:12 +1300, Re: Microsoft, invention
and innovation, Bling Bling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:34:38 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>
>> Still a big difference to 1 or two person companies. Mysql has revenues from
>> commercial licenses. So do Trolltech. The point is that developing software
>> and giving away the source is not going to make someone a living.

>
>You've got it all wrong.
>
>The Source Code *is* the software - just the same as the binary version is
>the software.
>
>If you sell sand to a family you should expect that it will be used for
>more than just a child's sand pit - and you should not reasonably expect
>to be able to prohibit such alternative uses as in concrete.
>
>Likewise with software. And that is why the source code should be provided
>with the object code.
>
>The original software developer can only benefit from that process of
>innovation if they release their products with the GPL licence.
>
>It doesn't prohibit you from selling the software for a fee - just so long
>as you include the source code with it.


But I still don't understand why anyone would want to, it is akin
to chopping your feet off at the ankles.
You ruin any prospect of establishing a revenue scheme for your
efforts.
Unless you are extremely rich and philanthropic then there is no
point.
You would only ever sell a few copies, however if you tie it up
with a copyright and the ability to prosecute anyone who steals
your intellectual property.
Only morons like Thompson and Murray can't understand something
like this, mainly because they have never written anything in
their lives that were of value and are jealous of all of those
who have done so and want free rides on someone elses coat tails.
---
"You can't fight evil with a macaroni duck!"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Menoeceus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On , , Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:25:52 +1300, Re: Microsoft, invention
>and innovation, Bling Bling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:11:20 +1300, Waylon Kenning wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to be pretty popular judging from the rows and rows and
>>> refrigerators in dairies throughout New Zealand full of Open Cola. Or
>>> not. Perhaps some people like the taste of Coke, after all, Classic
>>> Cola is just way cheaper than Coke, but who buys Classic Cola for the
>>> taste?

>>
>>Most persons are idiots and are happily led like sheep to the slaughter by
>>the advertizing companies.
>>
>>Cocacola is a classic example of people *wasting* their money on sugar and
>>carbon dioxide and a small amount of other chemical additives called
>>"flavouring" - expecially since the cocaine that was in the original
>>recepe was taken out.

>
>Then by definition it can't be the original Coca Cola, can it?
>Cocaine was never in the original recipe, cocaine wasn't even
>synthesised when Coca Cola was invented.
>The legend exists because the bottle designer laboured under the
>delusion that Coca berries were in the recipe and designed the
>bulges on the bottle to represent that.
>
>>The bottles or cans themselves cost more than their contents!

>
>I supposed you have some recognised, verifiable, genuine source
>for your assertion?
>Please provide the cite for it.


IIRC you can get the cite you require from the company's own documentation.
Most of their costs are advertising IIRC

Bruce

----------------------------------------
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Menoeceus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On , , Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:29:12 +1300, Re: Microsoft, invention
>and innovation, Bling Bling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:34:38 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>>
>>> Still a big difference to 1 or two person companies. Mysql has revenues from
>>> commercial licenses. So do Trolltech. The point is that developing software
>>> and giving away the source is not going to make someone a living.

>>
>>You've got it all wrong.
>>
>>The Source Code *is* the software - just the same as the binary version is
>>the software.
>>
>>If you sell sand to a family you should expect that it will be used for
>>more than just a child's sand pit - and you should not reasonably expect
>>to be able to prohibit such alternative uses as in concrete.
>>
>>Likewise with software. And that is why the source code should be provided
>>with the object code.
>>
>>The original software developer can only benefit from that process of
>>innovation if they release their products with the GPL licence.
>>
>>It doesn't prohibit you from selling the software for a fee - just so long
>>as you include the source code with it.

>
>But I still don't understand why anyone would want to, it is akin
>to chopping your feet off at the ankles.
>You ruin any prospect of establishing a revenue scheme for your
>efforts.
>Unless you are extremely rich and philanthropic then there is no
>point.
>You would only ever sell a few copies, however if you tie it up
>with a copyright and the ability to prosecute anyone who steals
>your intellectual property.
>Only morons like Thompson and Murray can't understand something
>like this, mainly because they have never written anything in
>their lives that were of value and are jealous of all of those
>who have done so and want free rides on someone elses coat tails.


Copyrights and patents are only useful if you are prepared to hire lawyers
to enforce them. Means you have to have enough money to do that ... which
pretty much counts out all individuals and many comapies


Bruce

----------------------------------------
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

 
Reply With Quote
 
shannon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2005
Menoeceus wrote:

>
>
> Then by definition it can't be the original Coca Cola, can it?
> Cocaine was never in the original recipe, cocaine wasn't even
> synthesised when Coca Cola was invented.
> The legend exists because the bottle designer laboured under the
> delusion that Coca berries were in the recipe and designed the
> bulges on the bottle to represent that.
>


There are plenty of references to the coca leaves in the original recipe
coca leaves and cola nuts.
It was a legal and popular tonic.
you may be referring to the nuts for the shape of the bottle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Cola
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_033.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr Undeniably Sluttish
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2005
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:59:09 +1300, Menoeceus wrote:

>>The bottles or cans themselves cost more than their contents!

>
> I supposed you have some recognised, verifiable, genuine source
> for your assertion?
> Please provide the cite for it.


Yes.

Water is free (excepting where it is metered) - it comes out of the tap.

Sugar is dirt cheap - and even cheaper when purchased in hideously large
quantities.

Caramel is easily produced by slightly burning sugar.

Carbon dioxide is cheap and easily produce-able in large quantities.


Making plastic bottles require the use of expensive moulds.

Most plastics are produced from rock-oil - an expensive import.


Undeniably Sluttish

--
"I'd hate to be furniture in Ballmer's office."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bizarre New Invention Claimed To Induce Psychic Powers. Aurum Solis HTML 2 09-23-2006 09:49 AM
bizarre new invention takes world by storm www.killerappcompany.com HTML 0 07-03-2006 04:36 PM
ANCI C? What is that - a NASA invention? Ari Lukumies C Programming 5 06-07-2005 04:13 PM
A tad OT: Invention Submission? Computer Support 2 07-13-2003 10:08 PM
Contrast Masking - the best imaging technique since the invention of fire! Peter Jones Digital Photography 4 07-13-2003 03:16 PM



Advertisments