Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EPS who wrote (28827)	11/8/1999 1:23:00 AM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

Hello Victor, > Will not press the issue here too much but the quote from Duke > University Source while containing a lot of interesting > descriptions seems to me technically flawed. Aperiodic is the > negation of periodicity: a system is periodic if knowing its > behavior for a certain period of time say T we will know its > behavior for all times (as translating what is known in say > [a,a+T] will allow us to know what happens in [a+T, a+2T].., > [a-T,a].., etc etc). I agree completely up to this point ... > Aperiodic phenomena can still have nice structure that can be > analized in part deterministically. Hmmm ... ok, you got me here. The definitions that I have found, and the reading that I have pursued seem to be slightly different ... dictionary.com aperiodic adj : not recurring at regular intervals [syn: nonperiodic] [ant: periodic] I'd appreciate other links that you might forward to further my education in this area! > At any rate the Duke source states correctly (as I did) that > chaotic phenomena comes up in the study of non linear differential > equations which are not well possed in the sense that a > perturbation of the initial conditions can lead to very different > outcomes. This happens a lot in financial math :)..but it is even > more obvious with weather prediction.. Yep ... and again, I believe that this is where we agree that we can not count the "gains or losses" to "society", the U.S. economy, the global state of affairs, or individuals or businesses due to Microsoft practices. There is just as much argument to make that we wouldn't be where we are, as there is that we would be further along. > As of my reading of the findings..YES..I did read a three page > supplement (hard copy) in todays NYT with a detailed (but > abbreviated :)) synopsis of the findings and with ample > details of the judge's analysis of how those facts fit into the > theory that MSFT abused its MONOPOLY power against NSCP, CPQ, IBM, > INTL etc etc etc. I'm going to have to find the synopsis ... this reading is long in the full version ... but always interesting to read the legalese ... I always compare it to programming ... a lot of definitions, followed by specific statements, and then the exception handling. ;-) > I am not sure I understand why you believe that as a society we > should not do anything about MSFTs behavior (as we did with IBMs > behavior or AT&T..in the past). I'm not sure that "do anything" is my issue. I have an issue with many of the suggestions that are being made because I don't think they are "right". I see specific areas that lines were crossed, and agree that changes need to occur. I do not believe in the seizing and destruction of someone elses hard work. I'm not a believer in socialism, communism, or any other philosophy which teaches that it's ok to take from others who have worked to create. I also have worked inside companies, where I have witnessed the political and bureaucratic behaviors that are also to blame for the success of Microsoft ... because these behaviors cause the failure of the competition. I'm tired of the whining of losers who want to point blame at others for their own failures ... and that's what a lot of the noise is about. Sorry, again it's my Objectivism perspective ... > You seem to believe that technological changes occurs so fast that > we should not bother to correct/punish/deter illegal behavior that > undermines competition? No ... no direct ties to this. I can obviously see that the world will be a different place by the time the judicial system makes a ruling, but this is often the case. I do think that as a society, and as businesses, we have a wide range of "tools" that we can use to "correct/punish/deter" and often we are afriad to use them. It's too bad that so few people have the guts to effect change ... but that's a common situation also ... > If survival of the fittest is the correct paradigm we surely will > find a way to survive within the law as well.. ... and continue to test the limits of the law ... > The survival of the fittest is a long long long term proposition. > It does not seem to apply to relatively short periods of time... I'm not sure that I agree with this. I think that the technology revolution has allowed some types of evolution to occur at extremely high rates of speed. And per the writings of Ray Kurzweil, I believe that this rate of change will only increase ... > As a society we act on our current problems and continue to > ..evolve. To give a clear signal to MSFT that the behavior they > used when they were a small company must change seems to me very > important. I agree ... and I believe that, whether or not we are willing to agree, the "evolution" relating to Microsoft has already started. We have not even begun to see or understand the effects that have been set in motion already ... just because of the mere fact of the DOJ exposure. > It may have already curved some of forces that MSFT was ready to > unleash towards AOL for example.. I agree ... the slap has already been hard ... I'm sorry that I can not agree with many of the people on this thread. I can not sit here and wish this situation on Bill Gates, or the employees of Microsoft ... just as I wouldn't wish it on any other company. Many people seem to enjoy seeing others dealt with in a negative way ... many are hoping to see pain, suffering, and mental anguish ... and are wanting to see the pain in the voice and eyes of the people involved. But I just can not sit here and agree that wishing these things on to other humans is "right" ... > What we need to do now is bring the judicial system to work at > Internet speed.. How about the whole government! ;-) > Victor Scott C. Lemon