Asked M$ to post ISO when they post fast track

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 22:22:51 -0700, T wrote:

On 04/25/2015 09:25 PM, T wrote:
On 04/25/2015 08:38 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:39:18 -0700, T wrote:

On 04/25/2015 11:27 AM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:44:45 -0700, T wrote:

Plea bargaining means they are guilty

Not at all.


I think you two may be in error he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

"A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or
copping a plea) is any agreement in a criminal case
between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the
defendant agrees to *plead guilty* to a particular
charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor.

Show me where this proves the defendant is guilty.


You cop a plea, you admit you are guilty in a court of law.
You are slicing the baloney real thin here.

Hi Gene,

By chance do you mean that you think they should not
have been convicted? That would be another subject.
And it would explain your letter.

-T

All I mean is that pleading guilty is not the same thing as being proven
guilty[1]. Even reading online about plea bargaining, which I did after
reading your (correct) definition, leaves me convinced of what I said.

There are always anecdotes about people pleading guilty because of being
trapped in a situation with no other exit. Some talk implying that was
even in what I read when I went online yesterday.

And no, I don't keep a record of them, so I won't give a link.

BTW, I was rather startled about how much controversy there is about
plea bargaining in the US, most of which had little to do with my
expressed attitude.

[1] There are also plenty of stories abut people being convicted in a
jury trial who are later exonerated...I just read "The Price of a Life"
by Ariel Levy in the New Yorker Magazine for April 13, 2015, if you want
an example. But that's probably even further off-topic, so let's not go
there at the moment :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 13:32:20 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 20:38:25 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:39:18 -0700, T wrote:

On 04/25/2015 11:27 AM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:44:45 -0700, T wrote:

Plea bargaining means they are guilty

Not at all.


I think you two may be in error he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

"A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or
copping a plea) is any agreement in a criminal case
between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the
defendant agrees to *plead guilty* to a particular
charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor.

.

Gene, you know I love ya guy....... In this case, a plea bargain, by
definition, involves the defendant admitting guilt, under oath, to either a
lesser charge and or in exchange for a diminished sentence.

If you are saying some people might admit guilt while being innocent, that has
certainly happened, most frequently in attempts to mitigate legal fees. However,
in the eyes of society, if you enter a plea of guilty, you wear the label.

The system is not ideal, but until a better one comes along.......

As I said, "Show me where this *proves* the defendant is guilty"
(emphasis added)...

OK, I just noticed a semantic issue, which I hadn't noticed before, or
even when I replied to T just now (which, if you wish, you could read
for further insight into my position).

The semantic issue lies in how *I* define guilty: that the defendant
actually *committed* the crime. This is not the legal definition,
presumably.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:00:09 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:16:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 13:32:20 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 20:38:25 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:39:18 -0700, T wrote:

On 04/25/2015 11:27 AM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:44:45 -0700, T wrote:

Plea bargaining means they are guilty

Not at all.


I think you two may be in error he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

"A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or
copping a plea) is any agreement in a criminal case
between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the
defendant agrees to *plead guilty* to a particular
charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor.

.

Gene, you know I love ya guy....... In this case, a plea bargain, by
definition, involves the defendant admitting guilt, under oath, to either a
lesser charge and or in exchange for a diminished sentence.

If you are saying some people might admit guilt while being innocent, that has
certainly happened, most frequently in attempts to mitigate legal fees. However,
in the eyes of society, if you enter a plea of guilty, you wear the label.

The system is not ideal, but until a better one comes along.......

As I said, "Show me where this *proves* the defendant is guilty"
(emphasis added)...

In the law, guilt is most easily ascertained by self-admission. This is why it
is advised anyone who is arrested should just keep their mouths shut, regardless
of extenuating circumstances, unless speaking directly and confidentially with
their attorney.

Some people do lie about having committed crimes, but, that in and of itself, is
a crime. This is why self-admitted guilt must be accompanied by, at the very
least, opportunity and in a perfect world, motive.

I would turn your question around on you, explain to me how self-admitted guilt
does not legally prove the defendant is guilty of committing a crime when
opportunity and motive are plausible?


OK, I just noticed a semantic issue, which I hadn't noticed before, or
even when I replied to T just now (which, if you wish, you could read
for further insight into my position).

The semantic issue lies in how *I* define guilty: that the defendant
actually *committed* the crime. This is not the legal definition,
presumably.

Oh, you are one of those guys who argues physics then, when shown the error of
his logic, informs you he redefined the universal gravitational constant along

Physics? Hardly. That makes no sense at all.

Here's a dictionary definition:

1.a. Responsible for a reprehensible act; culpable.

b. (Law) Found to have violated a criminal law by a jury or judge.

...

That is what I was trying to tell you. Too bad the effort failed.


Here is the correct definition of guilty from West's Encyclopedia of American
Law:

Guilty

Blameworthy; culpable; having committed a tort or crime; devoid of innocence.

Compare the above sentence to the next. They seem contradictory.

An individual is guilty if he or she is responsible for a delinquency or a
criminal or civil offense. When an accused is willing to accept legal
responsibility for a criminal act, he or she pleads guilty. Similarly, a jury
returns a verdict of guilty upon finding that a defendant has committed a crime.
In the event that a jury is not convinced that a defendant has committed a
crime, jurors can return a verdict of not guilty, which does not mean that the
individual is innocent or that the jurors are so convinced, but rather that they
do not believe sufficient evidence has been presented to prove that the
defendant is guilty.

In civil lawsuits, the term guilty does not imply criminal responsibility but
refers to mis-conduct.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group,
Inc. All rights reserved.

Interestingly, as I pointed out, the definition seems to contradict
itself...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:47:27 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Uh-huh....... Have you heard the parable about the man who is stuck in a hole
and the only tool he has is a shovel?

No. Could you explain it to me?

Or I could try to understand it...

Let's see: he only has a shovel, so he would have to dig a ramp to the
surface so he could escape. Is that it?

Or maybe dig a tunnel to a bank vault, so he could escape as a rich man.

How about this: jam the shovel into the wall of the hole and use it to
boost himself to the surface.

No, even better: bang the shovel against the side of hole, making so
much noise that the neighbors call the cops and the cops, seeing the
situation, free him. When the event makes it to the news at 11, the
shovel maker sees it and offers him a lot of money for an endorsement,
and he is now a rich man, but unlike in my second scheme, he is not
guilty of anything, so won't even have to worry about making a plea
bargain.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

T wrote:
On 04/24/2015 10:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 02:43 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 04:05 AM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/22/2015 02:11 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Chris S wrote:

"T" wrote in message
...
On 04/21/2015 04:19 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:21:22 -0700, T wrote:

And, I also posit that Marketing has veto power.

Didn't do Steve Jobs any harm.


Hi Mechanic,

Steve Jobs would go to each engineer one at a time
and ask them what they thought. The iPod (Apple's
stock symbol, no?) was a good example. Marketing
had canned the idea. When the engineer showed
Jobs his idea, Jobs overrode marketing. The
rest is history.

I don't see anything like this at M$. M$ just
does whatever they want to do and the rest of
us are left to cope. If M$ were not (convicted on
two continents) monopolists, they would never get
away with things like Vista and Windows Nein
(opps, sorry Frankenstein and Sons).

Steve had some talent. He put his customer's
first.

-T




"M$" How juvinile................

Chris


No monopoly convictions on this contintent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.
It was "settled".


Fyi - S.Jobs, while he had great vision, was 'Marketing'

He actually know what he was doing.

Learn the legal terms.
- No Conviction


Damn near just the same.

I wish the justice department had not weenied out.
Had M$ been broken up, the resulting explosion in
innovation would have been a sight to behold.



Near doesn't count. No conviction.


You are correct. And you are slicing the baloney so think
you can see through it.

Doesn't matter if you can see through it or not or how many shades of
gray it is perceived to become. Near doesn't count in the legal system.
Perception may but it will never change the outcome of that case.


Plea bargaining means they are guilty
Not what happened.

You really should research your opinions prior to claiming something.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:47:27 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Uh-huh....... Have you heard the parable about the man who is stuck in a hole
and the only tool he has is a shovel?

No. Could you explain it to me?

Or I could try to understand it...

Let's see: he only has a shovel, so he would have to dig a ramp to the
surface so he could escape. Is that it?

Or maybe dig a tunnel to a bank vault, so he could escape as a rich man.

How about this: jam the shovel into the wall of the hole and use it to
boost himself to the surface.

No, even better: bang the shovel against the side of hole, making so
much noise that the neighbors call the cops and the cops, seeing the
situation, free him. When the event makes it to the news at 11, the
shovel maker sees it and offers him a lot of money for an endorsement,
and he is now a rich man, but unlike in my second scheme, he is not
guilty of anything, so won't even have to worry about making a plea
bargain.

That hole-shovel metaphor is based on the premise that if one digs in
hole the hole gets deeper or wider in any direction. The flaw is that,
in a hole, there is no place for the dirt to be placed. Theoretically,
one could remove the dirt from the sides of the hole and stand on the
dirt eventually building a mountain of dirt with two holes on each side.

For the most part...the metaphor in the aforementioned case is useless.

I'm surprised that you allowed T to entrap you. No plea bargain exists
in the MSFT case. No guilt was admitted. No conviction.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:21:22 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:47:27 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Uh-huh....... Have you heard the parable about the man who is stuck in a hole
and the only tool he has is a shovel?

No. Could you explain it to me?

Or I could try to understand it...

Let's see: he only has a shovel, so he would have to dig a ramp to the
surface so he could escape. Is that it?

Or maybe dig a tunnel to a bank vault, so he could escape as a rich man.

How about this: jam the shovel into the wall of the hole and use it to
boost himself to the surface.

No, even better: bang the shovel against the side of hole, making so
much noise that the neighbors call the cops and the cops, seeing the
situation, free him. When the event makes it to the news at 11, the
shovel maker sees it and offers him a lot of money for an endorsement,
and he is now a rich man, but unlike in my second scheme, he is not
guilty of anything, so won't even have to worry about making a plea
bargain.

Yes, those are all great scenarios for new parables, but unfortunately, in the
parable I am thinking of, the hole is deep, the walls are solid rock, there are
no neighbors, no banks, no help and the only direction to dig is straight down,
with water waiting just below the surface (no, not enough to fill the hole and
allow you to float out, but enough in which to drown); kind of like the path you
are on with the fanciful definition of "guilt".

That's one scenario, but the hole-shovel metaphor didn't specify the
'Norman' constraints. g



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 04/26/2015 11:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/24/2015 10:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 02:43 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 04:05 AM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/22/2015 02:11 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Chris S wrote:

"T" wrote in message
...
On 04/21/2015 04:19 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:21:22 -0700, T wrote:

And, I also posit that Marketing has veto power.

Didn't do Steve Jobs any harm.


Hi Mechanic,

Steve Jobs would go to each engineer one at a time
and ask them what they thought. The iPod (Apple's
stock symbol, no?) was a good example. Marketing
had canned the idea. When the engineer showed
Jobs his idea, Jobs overrode marketing. The
rest is history.

I don't see anything like this at M$. M$ just
does whatever they want to do and the rest of
us are left to cope. If M$ were not (convicted on
two continents) monopolists, they would never get
away with things like Vista and Windows Nein
(opps, sorry Frankenstein and Sons).

Steve had some talent. He put his customer's
first.

-T




"M$" How juvinile................

Chris


No monopoly convictions on this contintent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.
It was "settled".


Fyi - S.Jobs, while he had great vision, was 'Marketing'

He actually know what he was doing.

Learn the legal terms.
- No Conviction


Damn near just the same.

I wish the justice department had not weenied out.
Had M$ been broken up, the resulting explosion in
innovation would have been a sight to behold.



Near doesn't count. No conviction.


You are correct. And you are slicing the baloney so think
you can see through it.

Doesn't matter if you can see through it or not or how many shades of
gray it is perceived to become. Near doesn't count in the legal system.
Perception may but it will never change the outcome of that case.


Plea bargaining means they are guilty
Not what happened.

You really should research your opinions prior to claiming something.



Hi Winston,

I get it. You like the guys.

Actually, I did research before I even opened my mouth. You
can read the whole thing right he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.

1) M$ was convicted
2) On appeal, part of the penalty were overturned
3) M$ coped a plea

Have you ever served on a jury? If so, do you remember
the judge's lecture about the difference between
"reasonable doubt" and "unreasonable doubt"? I do
believe you are using the "unreasonable doubt" criteria.
They admitted in court that they were guilty. Case
closed.

By the way, speaking of juries, did you ever have to put up
with the juror that told the judge he would do they would do
"reasonable doubt" thing and then tell you in deliberations
that he couldn't judge becuase he wasn't there personally
and did not see it happen? I think you are doing this.

By the way, M$ even falsified evidence (same Wikipedia reference):

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by
Microsoft during the trial, including one that
demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from
Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions
in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what
Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to
be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff
noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and
reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the
effects might have been falsified. Allchin admitted
that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of
his staff.

What a bunch of slime ball!

-T

T wrote:
On 04/26/2015 11:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/24/2015 10:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 02:43 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 04:05 AM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/22/2015 02:11 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Chris S wrote:

"T" wrote in message
...
On 04/21/2015 04:19 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:21:22 -0700, T wrote:

And, I also posit that Marketing has veto power.

Didn't do Steve Jobs any harm.


Hi Mechanic,

Steve Jobs would go to each engineer one at a time
and ask them what they thought. The iPod (Apple's
stock symbol, no?) was a good example. Marketing
had canned the idea. When the engineer showed
Jobs his idea, Jobs overrode marketing. The
rest is history.

I don't see anything like this at M$. M$ just
does whatever they want to do and the rest of
us are left to cope. If M$ were not (convicted on
two continents) monopolists, they would never get
away with things like Vista and Windows Nein
(opps, sorry Frankenstein and Sons).

Steve had some talent. He put his customer's
first.

-T




"M$" How juvinile................

Chris


No monopoly convictions on this contintent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.
It was "settled".


Fyi - S.Jobs, while he had great vision, was 'Marketing'

He actually know what he was doing.

Learn the legal terms.
- No Conviction


Damn near just the same.

I wish the justice department had not weenied out.
Had M$ been broken up, the resulting explosion in
innovation would have been a sight to behold.



Near doesn't count. No conviction.


You are correct. And you are slicing the baloney so think
you can see through it.

Doesn't matter if you can see through it or not or how many shades of
gray it is perceived to become. Near doesn't count in the legal
system.
Perception may but it will never change the outcome of that case.


Plea bargaining means they are guilty
Not what happened.

You really should research your opinions prior to claiming something.



Hi Winston,

I get it. You like the guys.

Actually, I did research before I even opened my mouth. You
can read the whole thing right he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.

1) M$ was convicted
2) On appeal, part of the penalty were overturned
3) M$ coped a plea

Have you ever served on a jury? If so, do you remember
the judge's lecture about the difference between
"reasonable doubt" and "unreasonable doubt"? I do
believe you are using the "unreasonable doubt" criteria.
They admitted in court that they were guilty. Case
closed.

By the way, speaking of juries, did you ever have to put up
with the juror that told the judge he would do they would do
"reasonable doubt" thing and then tell you in deliberations
that he couldn't judge becuase he wasn't there personally
and did not see it happen? I think you are doing this.

By the way, M$ even falsified evidence (same Wikipedia reference):

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by
Microsoft during the trial, including one that
demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from
Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions
in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what
Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to
be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff
noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and
reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the
effects might have been falsified. Allchin admitted
that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of
his staff.

What a bunch of slime ball!

-T



From the Original Final Judgement.
qp
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment ****does not constitute any admission
by any party regarding any issue of fact or law***
qp

From the Revised Final Judgement.
qp
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment ****does not constitute any admission
by any party regarding any issue of fact or law***
qp



The Tunney act requires thje United States to:
1.File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement
(CIS) with the court.
2.Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal Register.
3.Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected newspapers.
4.Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after the
proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
5.Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, in the
Federal Register.
6.File the comments received and responses to them with the court.

Apparently you've missed them all.


No plea, no conviction. You're opinions even based on your wiki
reference which (in case you didn't read it) is missing your stated
words (plea and conviction) thus any statements holding a similar
position continues to be false and untrue.

Ignorance of judgements is common.

Served on a jury ? - multiple times.
Sat behind the bench - 2 yrs.

You're out of your league.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 02:21:34 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:47:27 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Uh-huh....... Have you heard the parable about the man who is stuck in a hole
and the only tool he has is a shovel?

No. Could you explain it to me?

Or I could try to understand it...

Let's see: he only has a shovel, so he would have to dig a ramp to the
surface so he could escape. Is that it?

Or maybe dig a tunnel to a bank vault, so he could escape as a rich man.

How about this: jam the shovel into the wall of the hole and use it to
boost himself to the surface.

No, even better: bang the shovel against the side of hole, making so
much noise that the neighbors call the cops and the cops, seeing the
situation, free him. When the event makes it to the news at 11, the
shovel maker sees it and offers him a lot of money for an endorsement,
and he is now a rich man, but unlike in my second scheme, he is not
guilty of anything, so won't even have to worry about making a plea
bargain.

That hole-shovel metaphor is based on the premise that if one digs in
hole the hole gets deeper or wider in any direction. The flaw is that,
in a hole, there is no place for the dirt to be placed. Theoretically,
one could remove the dirt from the sides of the hole and stand on the
dirt eventually building a mountain of dirt with two holes on each side.

For the most part...the metaphor in the aforementioned case is useless.

I'm surprised that you allowed T to entrap you. No plea bargain exists
in the MSFT case. No guilt was admitted. No conviction.

I don't think I let T entrap me, or Norman either.

I expressed an opinion about the topic of plea bargaining and guilt,
then had fun creating some scenarios, which I happened to dig doing.

I don't expect much from those two posters...and vice versa, I bet :-)

BTW, T in fact educated me about the definition of plea bargaining -
well, pointed out to me links to some things that I hadn't known. That's
not so bad, is it?

BTW - in fact, I had thought about what to do with the dirt, although I
didn't mention those thoughts in the post. Since I was in fantasy land
anyway, I decided I was throwing the dirt outside the hole on a
parabolic trajectory that piled it up on the surface at a safe distance
from the hole. Call it holistic thinking, if you like.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:53:51 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:21:22 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:47:27 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Uh-huh....... Have you heard the parable about the man who is stuck in a hole
and the only tool he has is a shovel?

No. Could you explain it to me?

Or I could try to understand it...

Let's see: he only has a shovel, so he would have to dig a ramp to the
surface so he could escape. Is that it?

Or maybe dig a tunnel to a bank vault, so he could escape as a rich man.

How about this: jam the shovel into the wall of the hole and use it to
boost himself to the surface.

No, even better: bang the shovel against the side of hole, making so
much noise that the neighbors call the cops and the cops, seeing the
situation, free him. When the event makes it to the news at 11, the
shovel maker sees it and offers him a lot of money for an endorsement,
and he is now a rich man, but unlike in my second scheme, he is not
guilty of anything, so won't even have to worry about making a plea
bargain.

Yes, those are all great scenarios for new parables, but unfortunately, in the
parable I am thinking of, the hole is deep, the walls are solid rock, there are
no neighbors, no banks, no help and the only direction to dig is straight down,
with water waiting just below the surface (no, not enough to fill the hole and
allow you to float out, but enough in which to drown); kind of like the path you
are on with the fanciful definition of "guilt".

That's one scenario, but the hole-shovel metaphor didn't specify the
'Norman' constraints. g

You may have guessed that I actually knew what S'N was trying to say.
And I'm not surprised that he moved the goalposts to a new stadium.

In fact, I was hoping for a more cogent - and interesting - reply, but
life's tough.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:50:29 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

I'm surprised that you allowed T to entrap you. No plea bargain exists
in the MSFT case. No guilt was admitted. No conviction.

I don't think I let T entrap me, or Norman either.


Oh brother, paranoid much?

Did you read the reply I answered?

Look at the eighth word in the first line of what I quoted above.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:44:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:38:54 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:53:51 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 17:21:22 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:47:27 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Uh-huh....... Have you heard the parable about the man who is stuck in a hole
and the only tool he has is a shovel?

No. Could you explain it to me?

Or I could try to understand it...

Let's see: he only has a shovel, so he would have to dig a ramp to the
surface so he could escape. Is that it?

Or maybe dig a tunnel to a bank vault, so he could escape as a rich man.

How about this: jam the shovel into the wall of the hole and use it to
boost himself to the surface.

No, even better: bang the shovel against the side of hole, making so
much noise that the neighbors call the cops and the cops, seeing the
situation, free him. When the event makes it to the news at 11, the
shovel maker sees it and offers him a lot of money for an endorsement,
and he is now a rich man, but unlike in my second scheme, he is not
guilty of anything, so won't even have to worry about making a plea
bargain.

Yes, those are all great scenarios for new parables, but unfortunately, in the
parable I am thinking of, the hole is deep, the walls are solid rock, there are
no neighbors, no banks, no help and the only direction to dig is straight down,
with water waiting just below the surface (no, not enough to fill the hole and
allow you to float out, but enough in which to drown); kind of like the path you
are on with the fanciful definition of "guilt".

That's one scenario, but the hole-shovel metaphor didn't specify the
'Norman' constraints. g

You may have guessed that I actually knew what S'N was trying to say.
And I'm not surprised that he moved the goalposts to a new stadium.

In fact, I was hoping for a more cogent - and interesting - reply, but
life's tough.

I love it Gene, no sour grapes growing in your vineyard I see.......

No vineyard - I mostly drink beer or ale when I want ethanol.

But maybe I don't understand the Aesop fable: I don't see how it applies
to the above.

Or maybe that shows that I *do* understand the fable...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 04/27/2015 04:32 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/26/2015 11:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/24/2015 10:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 02:43 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 04:05 AM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/22/2015 02:11 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Chris S wrote:

"T" wrote in message
...
On 04/21/2015 04:19 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:21:22 -0700, T wrote:

And, I also posit that Marketing has veto power.

Didn't do Steve Jobs any harm.


Hi Mechanic,

Steve Jobs would go to each engineer one at a time
and ask them what they thought. The iPod (Apple's
stock symbol, no?) was a good example. Marketing
had canned the idea. When the engineer showed
Jobs his idea, Jobs overrode marketing. The
rest is history.

I don't see anything like this at M$. M$ just
does whatever they want to do and the rest of
us are left to cope. If M$ were not (convicted on
two continents) monopolists, they would never get
away with things like Vista and Windows Nein
(opps, sorry Frankenstein and Sons).

Steve had some talent. He put his customer's
first.

-T




"M$" How juvinile................

Chris


No monopoly convictions on this contintent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.
It was "settled".


Fyi - S.Jobs, while he had great vision, was 'Marketing'

He actually know what he was doing.

Learn the legal terms.
- No Conviction


Damn near just the same.

I wish the justice department had not weenied out.
Had M$ been broken up, the resulting explosion in
innovation would have been a sight to behold.



Near doesn't count. No conviction.


You are correct. And you are slicing the baloney so think
you can see through it.

Doesn't matter if you can see through it or not or how many shades of
gray it is perceived to become. Near doesn't count in the legal
system.
Perception may but it will never change the outcome of that case.


Plea bargaining means they are guilty
Not what happened.

You really should research your opinions prior to claiming something.



Hi Winston,

I get it. You like the guys.

Actually, I did research before I even opened my mouth. You
can read the whole thing right he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.

1) M$ was convicted
2) On appeal, part of the penalty were overturned
3) M$ coped a plea

Have you ever served on a jury? If so, do you remember
the judge's lecture about the difference between
"reasonable doubt" and "unreasonable doubt"? I do
believe you are using the "unreasonable doubt" criteria.
They admitted in court that they were guilty. Case
closed.

By the way, speaking of juries, did you ever have to put up
with the juror that told the judge he would do they would do
"reasonable doubt" thing and then tell you in deliberations
that he couldn't judge becuase he wasn't there personally
and did not see it happen? I think you are doing this.

By the way, M$ even falsified evidence (same Wikipedia reference):

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by
Microsoft during the trial, including one that
demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from
Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions
in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what
Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to
be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff
noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and
reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the
effects might have been falsified. Allchin admitted
that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of
his staff.

What a bunch of slime ball!

-T



From the Original Final Judgement.
qp
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment ****does not constitute any admission
by any party regarding any issue of fact or law***
qp

From the Revised Final Judgement.
qp
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment ****does not constitute any admission
by any party regarding any issue of fact or law***
qp



The Tunney act requires thje United States to:
1.File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement
(CIS) with the court.
2.Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal Register.
3.Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected newspapers.
4.Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after the
proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
5.Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, in the
Federal Register.
6.File the comments received and responses to them with the court.

Apparently you've missed them all.


No plea, no conviction. You're opinions even based on your wiki
reference which (in case you didn't read it) is missing your stated
words (plea and conviction) thus any statements holding a similar
position continues to be false and untrue.

Ignorance of judgements is common.

M$ admitted wrong doing in the settlement.

You can read the whole case over he
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

The settlement over he
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_...htm#settlement

The proposed final settlement over he
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...2002/10148.htm

"Microsoft committed serious violations of the antitrust
laws, and those violations must be remedied expeditiously,"
said Deborah P. Majoras, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
in the Antitrust Division. "The settlement represents
the carefully considered judgment of the Department of Justice
as to how best to enjoin Microsoft's violations, prevent their
recurrence and restore competitive conditions for middleware.
The modifications effectively respond to specific concerns
raised in the public comments."

"committed serious violations" caught my attention.



Sat behind the bench - 2 yrs.

Fascinating. What type of court and what made you
decide to leave and go into computers?

You're out of your league.

You know I think I can see Detroit that baloney is sliced so thin.

T wrote:
On 04/27/2015 04:32 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/26/2015 11:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/24/2015 10:13 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 02:43 PM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/23/2015 04:05 AM, . . .winston wrote:
T wrote:
On 04/22/2015 02:11 AM, . . .winston wrote:
Chris S wrote:

"T" wrote in message
...
On 04/21/2015 04:19 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:21:22 -0700, T wrote:

And, I also posit that Marketing has veto power.

Didn't do Steve Jobs any harm.


Hi Mechanic,

Steve Jobs would go to each engineer one at a time
and ask them what they thought. The iPod (Apple's
stock symbol, no?) was a good example. Marketing
had canned the idea. When the engineer showed
Jobs his idea, Jobs overrode marketing. The
rest is history.

I don't see anything like this at M$. M$ just
does whatever they want to do and the rest of
us are left to cope. If M$ were not (convicted on
two continents) monopolists, they would never get
away with things like Vista and Windows Nein
(opps, sorry Frankenstein and Sons).

Steve had some talent. He put his customer's
first.

-T




"M$" How juvinile................

Chris


No monopoly convictions on this contintent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.
It was "settled".


Fyi - S.Jobs, while he had great vision, was 'Marketing'

He actually know what he was doing.

Learn the legal terms.
- No Conviction


Damn near just the same.

I wish the justice department had not weenied out.
Had M$ been broken up, the resulting explosion in
innovation would have been a sight to behold.



Near doesn't count. No conviction.


You are correct. And you are slicing the baloney so think
you can see through it.

Doesn't matter if you can see through it or not or how many shades of
gray it is perceived to become. Near doesn't count in the legal
system.
Perception may but it will never change the outcome of that case.


Plea bargaining means they are guilty
Not what happened.

You really should research your opinions prior to claiming something.



Hi Winston,

I get it. You like the guys.

Actually, I did research before I even opened my mouth. You
can read the whole thing right he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.

1) M$ was convicted
2) On appeal, part of the penalty were overturned
3) M$ coped a plea

Have you ever served on a jury? If so, do you remember
the judge's lecture about the difference between
"reasonable doubt" and "unreasonable doubt"? I do
believe you are using the "unreasonable doubt" criteria.
They admitted in court that they were guilty. Case
closed.

By the way, speaking of juries, did you ever have to put up
with the juror that told the judge he would do they would do
"reasonable doubt" thing and then tell you in deliberations
that he couldn't judge becuase he wasn't there personally
and did not see it happen? I think you are doing this.

By the way, M$ even falsified evidence (same Wikipedia reference):

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by
Microsoft during the trial, including one that
demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from
Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions
in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what
Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to
be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff
noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and
reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the
effects might have been falsified. Allchin admitted
that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of
his staff.

What a bunch of slime ball!

-T



From the Original Final Judgement.
qp
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment ****does not constitute any admission
by any party regarding any issue of fact or law***
qp

From the Revised Final Judgement.
qp
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment ****does not constitute any admission
by any party regarding any issue of fact or law***
qp



The Tunney act requires thje United States to:
1.File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement
(CIS) with the court.
2.Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal Register.
3.Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected newspapers.
4.Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after the
proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
5.Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, in the
Federal Register.
6.File the comments received and responses to them with the court.

Apparently you've missed them all.


No plea, no conviction. You're opinions even based on your wiki
reference which (in case you didn't read it) is missing your stated
words (plea and conviction) thus any statements holding a similar
position continues to be false and untrue.

Ignorance of judgements is common.

M$ admitted wrong doing in the settlement.

You can read the whole case over he
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

The settlement over he
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_...htm#settlement

The proposed final settlement over he
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...2002/10148.htm

"Microsoft committed serious violations of the antitrust
laws, and those violations must be remedied expeditiously,"
said Deborah P. Majoras, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
in the Antitrust Division. "The settlement represents
the carefully considered judgment of the Department of Justice
as to how best to enjoin Microsoft's violations, prevent their
recurrence and restore competitive conditions for middleware.
The modifications effectively respond to specific concerns
raised in the public comments."

"committed serious violations" caught my attention.



Sat behind the bench - 2 yrs.

Fascinating. What type of court and what made you
decide to leave and go into computers?

You're out of your league.

You know I think I can see Detroit that baloney is sliced so thin.




No plea, no conviction.


I didn't go into computers.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps