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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (33995)	11/15/1999 2:36:00 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Off topic, but not much further off than many posts today. Do you really want to see .com change to .gov down the road? Kinda got me thinking about Ada. We all know about Ada, don't we: The 'official' computer language; the one with the government's blessing; the one which will replace all existing computer languages in the next few years. For those who don't know about Ada, about a decade ago the government decided that all software the government uses would be coded in this language. It seemed like everyone with access to a sounding board proclaimed that not only would all government software use this computer language, but all other software would use it too, since the entire industry would fall in line with the prevailing momentum. This all took place before the widespread popularity of C, C++, Visual Basic, Java, HTML and most other computer languages in use today. Cheers, PW. P.S. Ada was named after Ada, a countess who wrote what was popularly known as the first computer program, a few centuries ago. (Her hardware platform was mechanical.)

To: miraje who wrote (33995)	11/15/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Do you really want to see .com change to .gov down the road? That's the direction we're headed for if we don't put a stop to governmental intrusions into the market. I don't have a thing for MSFT or Bill Gates, per se, it's the big picture of what this farce all stands for and the road ahead that concerns me. Not to belabor this, I'm not much into hanging around hostile forums anymore <VBG>, but this again seems a bit hyperbolic. Many companies have come under antitrust scrutiny before without the world collapsing into communism because of it. Just to take the obvious example of the unindicted sometimes co-conspirator, Intel managed to negotiate its way out of its investigation without, apparently, limiting its ability to strongarm other companies in the PC supply chain. Try to find a mention of the K7M on the ASUS web site. Of course, Intel does suffer from something approaching competition these days, whereas the only way to compete with Microsoft seems to be with a different kind of "free". Which, in turn, leads to some head-scratching on the conceptual capitalism front. On which subject, perhaps sometime you'd like to engage a certain lawyer on another thread. He seemed to have gone pretty libertarian the last time we got much into antitrust theory. Still seemed somewhat hostile to Microsoft, though. I admit to being more impressed by citations of Hayek than of that well-known novelist, but I don't imagine John Galt's skyscrapers crashed very often either. I tried to direct Gerald over to the Libertarian thread at the time, but like me his interests on SI seem circumscribed. Anyway, political philosophy seems to me to be about as distant from operational law, government, and politics these days as, well, maybe, theoretical quantum mechanics is from semiconductor manufacturing. It has some bearing, but nobody goes around solving the Schroedinger equation for microprocessors. Cheers, Dan, outa here for now.