Eclipse success

wrote

I strongly suspect Rodney King believes in amateur video, as
....

I find it rather sad that some people choose violent wife-beating
crack-heads as their personal hero. There are far better examples of
police-excess than the Rodney King incident. But hey, if you love the guy
and what he stands for, that's your right. Now go steal something.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:01:50 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:


"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...

Um, no.
Taking a job would not be anywhere near the context of my post and the
rest of your statement is meaningless.
I suppose that if you were to stand in front of a computer repair shop and
offer to fix the equipment of all comers for free and doing so would
result in the economic failure of the shop *that* would be be within my
suggestion that this is wrong.

Is it equally unethical to set up another computer shop across the street
and offer to do the same work for lower prices?

What about the ethical aspects of obligating the public to pay the first
computer shop's high prices?

The reason people do not stand around offering free computer repair is that
they can earn money doing it, and also that it costs them money and labour
to do it.

Are you relying on the Supreme Soviet to decide, in your Planned Economy,
who is allowed to offer computer repair services, where, and when? Things
like that have been tried and didn't work.

All this falls within ethical behaviour, something that is in very short
supply in today's world.

Ethics does not necessarily mean subsidizing *you* (or specific pre-existing
entrepreneurs) at the expense of ourselves and the public.


Frankly I see no ethical problem with providing goods or
services at a lower cost than another provider (or for free, for that
matter) unless the intent is specifically to drive the other out of
business begore raising one's own prices.

No Open Software developer who can develop a legal competitor
to Excel should feel any obligation to indemnify Bill's Bloatware
against lost revenue.

If the for-fee provider cannot compete on quality with the
free or low-cost provider, I can't think of any reason why the
low-cost/free provider should withhold their product.

I know of one software developer who made what he considers
sufficient money to retire. He now spends his time sailing his boat
around the world and programming very useful applications which he
distributes for free. Just because something _could_ be sold for a
price doesn't mean it should.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:01:50 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:


"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...

Um, no.
Taking a job would not be anywhere near the context of my post and the
rest of your statement is meaningless.
I suppose that if you were to stand in front of a computer repair shop and
offer to fix the equipment of all comers for free and doing so would
result in the economic failure of the shop *that* would be be within my
suggestion that this is wrong.

Is it equally unethical to set up another computer shop across the street
and offer to do the same work for lower prices?

What about the ethical aspects of obligating the public to pay the first
computer shop's high prices?

The reason people do not stand around offering free computer repair is that
they can earn money doing it, and also that it costs them money and labour
to do it.

Are you relying on the Supreme Soviet to decide, in your Planned Economy,
who is allowed to offer computer repair services, where, and when? Things
like that have been tried and didn't work.

All this falls within ethical behaviour, something that is in very short
supply in today's world.

Ethics does not necessarily mean subsidizing *you* (or specific pre-existing
entrepreneurs) at the expense of ourselves and the public.


Frankly I see no ethical problem with providing goods or
services at a lower cost than another provider (or for free, for that
matter) unless the intent is specifically to drive the other out of
business begore raising one's own prices.

No Open Software developer who can develop a legal competitor
to Excel should feel any obligation to indemnify Bill's Bloatware
against lost revenue.

If the for-fee provider cannot compete on quality with the
free or low-cost provider, I can't think of any reason why the
low-cost/free provider should withhold their product.

I know of one software developer who made what he considers
sufficient money to retire. He now spends his time sailing his boat
around the world and programming very useful applications which he
distributes for free. Just because something _could_ be sold for a
price doesn't mean it should.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:10:40 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about? What
do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not handle"?


There is an ongoing and valid difference of opinion about
terminal punctuation inside or outside of quotes. If you can't handle
it, drop on over to alt.eats-shoots-and-leaves. Or to
alt.petty-punctuation-nazi.

Actually, question marks don't slide through quotation marks -- only commas
and periods do.

Frank had it puncutated correctly to begin with.


Part of the ongoing debate.

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:10:40 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about?
What do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not
handle"?


There is an ongoing and valid difference of opinion about
terminal punctuation inside or outside of quotes. If you can't
handle it, drop on over to alt.eats-shoots-and-leaves. Or to
alt.petty-punctuation-nazi.

Actually, question marks don't slide through quotation marks -- only
commas and periods do.

Frank had it puncutated correctly to begin with.


Part of the ongoing debate.

Debate? Why would you want to attribute to another a question mark that
wasn't in their original quote?

Bob ^,,^

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:10:40 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about?
What do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not
handle"?


There is an ongoing and valid difference of opinion about
terminal punctuation inside or outside of quotes. If you can't
handle it, drop on over to alt.eats-shoots-and-leaves. Or to
alt.petty-punctuation-nazi.

Actually, question marks don't slide through quotation marks -- only
commas and periods do.

Frank had it puncutated correctly to begin with.


Part of the ongoing debate.

Debate? Why would you want to attribute to another a question mark that
wasn't in their original quote?

Bob ^,,^

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:05:09 -0800, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:10:40 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about?
What do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not
handle"?


There is an ongoing and valid difference of opinion about
terminal punctuation inside or outside of quotes. If you can't
handle it, drop on over to alt.eats-shoots-and-leaves. Or to
alt.petty-punctuation-nazi.

Actually, question marks don't slide through quotation marks -- only
commas and periods do.

Frank had it puncutated correctly to begin with.


Part of the ongoing debate.

Debate? Why would you want to attribute to another a question mark that
wasn't in their original quote?

The debate about "question marks don't slide through quotation
marks -- only commas and periods do." I happen to agree the question
mark in this case should be outside the quotes because, as you say, it
wasn't part of the original quoted material.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:05:09 -0800, "Bob Harrington"
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:10:40 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:18:03 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
wrote:

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about?
What do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not
handle"?


There is an ongoing and valid difference of opinion about
terminal punctuation inside or outside of quotes. If you can't
handle it, drop on over to alt.eats-shoots-and-leaves. Or to
alt.petty-punctuation-nazi.

Actually, question marks don't slide through quotation marks -- only
commas and periods do.

Frank had it puncutated correctly to begin with.


Part of the ongoing debate.

Debate? Why would you want to attribute to another a question mark that
wasn't in their original quote?

The debate about "question marks don't slide through quotation
marks -- only commas and periods do." I happen to agree the question
mark in this case should be outside the quotes because, as you say, it
wasn't part of the original quoted material.