User information for Jonathan Ruff

Real Name
Jonathan Ruff
Concealed by request
None given.
Signed On
June 6, 2000
Total Posts
26 (Suspect)
User ID
Search For:
Sort Results:
Limit Results:
26 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
Jul 8, 2001, 16:00
Also Jul 8, 2001, 16:00
Jul 8, 2001, 16:00
"Did you notice that id never made a good game since Romero left? Did you also notice that Romero never made a good game since he left id?

Ever since they parted ways, it's as if they destroyed the magic team that could create those games that kept us playing over and over for years."

Tom Hall leaving hurt id Software as much as any employee departure has. Hall is a bit crazy, like American Mcgee, and I think that is something completely missing from id now (and both Hall & Mcgee were very creative in the design work they did). Where are they going to pull the 'darkness' from for Doom3 exactly? Whose mind is going to think up the freaky/dark/scary environments (and set the tone for the game, etc.)? Graeme? Willits?

Quake continued
Jul 8, 2001, 15:35
Quake continued Jul 8, 2001, 15:35
Jul 8, 2001, 15:35
This is humorous, as before Quake2 came out, Hollenshead told my software company that id Software had absolutely no interest in continuing the Quake story, period (no interest in having the storyline continue, whether inside or outside of id). The reason was, that the Quake1 storyline had basically been taken as far as they were interested in taking it.

Since id was going to drop the Quake1 universe as the basis for Quake2, I wanted to license the right to do a sequel to the story.

Comfortably numb
Jul 1, 2001, 12:50
Comfortably numb Jul 1, 2001, 12:50
Jul 1, 2001, 12:50
"When you damage the brain or lose some of the aspects of mind or personality, that doesn't necessarily mean the mind is being produced by the brain. All it shows is that the apparatus is damaged,"

The mind is produced by and is part of the magic 'ether'. These guys are wasting their time, everyone knows this already. I mean, it's 350 B.C. right?

That link is neither 'wild', nor 'science'.

Re: Hands off
Jun 29, 2001, 09:01
Re: Hands off Jun 29, 2001, 09:01
Jun 29, 2001, 09:01
"I'm thinking that Intel has been a bit harsh on prices. Due to AMD, Intel's market has shrinked a bit (correct me if I'm wrong)."

Their 'market' hasn't shrank (the market for PC processors in this context), but they have lost a percentage of their market share to AMD (which is probably what you meant...).

AMD being around is wonderful, they've helped to put a lot of pressure on Intel, and have helped to create a back & forth price war; where one company cuts prices and then the other attempts to match or beat said price cut.

Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Intel willingly licenses their X86 chip architecture to AMD, in order to keep anti-trust problems at bay.

Basically, AMD is to Intel what Juniper is to Cisco.

Intel would like few things more than to see Linux be able to exert the same kind of pressure on Microsoft that AMD puts on them (Intel). As it is now, Microsoft has an upper hand in the Wintel partnership, because Microsoft can threaten to support AMD (more so) if Intel doesn't cooperate. Microsoft is already seeing a lot of pressure from Linux in the server market though, and that will only increase; but some variation of Linux needs to appeal to the mass consumer desktop OS arena. It would force Microsoft to either pick up the pace on Windows improvement (particularly regarding stability and bloat), or lose market share.

Hands off
Jun 29, 2001, 02:58
Hands off Jun 29, 2001, 02:58
Jun 29, 2001, 02:58
"Which doesn't give Microsoft the right to use tactics that are against the law."

The law is mostly ridiculous to begin with. Every business in the U.S. could optionally (at the DOJ's disgression) be found guilty of some anti-trust violation (or anti-competitive behavior in general); that is how vague the doctrine is. Anti-trust is a legal realm, where businesses only know they are guilty of breaking the law: after the fact.

Charge prices that are too low, and they can get you for unfair competition or restraint of trade. Too high, and they get you for monopoly (the idea being that if you can charge high prices and rake in "excessively high profits", you've got monopoly power), or get you for intent to monopolize. Charge prices inline with what the competition is charging, and they can get you for collusion or conspiracy to 'set' prices.

And that is just scratching the surface on what a business can be optionally found guilty of (even though the above is enough to nail any business that sells a service or product).

Some people will say:

'Well, but businesses get to defend themselves in a court of law'; right, but the government has a nearly unlimited supply of taxpayer dollars to fund actions they deem worthy, businesses of course do not have that luxury.

Here is a fun question; how many investors remember April 3, 2000? The day the U.S. Government tanked the economy. Take a look at the Nasdaq chart, or the charts on just about any tech company - they all followed Microsoft down the drain (MSFT lost something like 15% that day). Greenspan had of course tightened rates a little too much (the government tanked it on more than one front), but this pushed the market off the cliff. This extreme economic slowdown was driven by the market crash (yes, it should have deflated, but not 3,000 points), which naturally impacted every sector of the economy; the market crash (not just deflation, but crash) was initiated by the DOJ's declaration that they would breakup Microsoft.

Don't think so? Watch the Nasdaq rally forward from here (after hanging around 2000 for the last couple months).


"You say that now, but wait until your first "computing bill" arrives from Microsoft

'We find you are behind in your payments. Please pay in full in 15 days or your computer will cease to function.'"

Microsoft has a right to control what happens to their property, and what conditions they decide to set on the sale of their property (Windows etc.). It is in Microsoft's best interest to charge prices that are reasonable to the consumer; if Microsoft pushed the price of Windows XP personal edition up to $1,250 per copy, the capital markets would create new competition over night, because it would mean there were huge sums of money to be made by undercutting what Microsoft is charging (and at $1,250 it wouldn't be difficult to underdcut). However, Microsoft isn't and hasn't charged unreasonable sums for their products, and they have demonstrated that they understand in order to hold onto their 80% (less if you count the installed base of Linux being used as a 'consumer desktop OS') or so share of the consumer desktop OS market, their software must continue to be a marginal cost in the total cost of the PC.

Intel and Cisco are two other companies that have come under focus for their dominant positions; neither charge outrageous prices for their products, and if both prefer to hold onto their market share, neither will charge such prices anytime in the future. Neither MS, Intel, or Cisco are coercive monopolies; and it's just more proof that a free market does not create and maintain harmful monopolies, only the government can and does. That Linux is gobbling up share of the OS market (mostly the server market) very rapidly is more proof that Microsoft has no method to truly block competition (as Microsoft would like nothing more than to block Linux); Linux however, does not compete well in the consumer desktop OS market, mass consumers do not want to use Linux yet. When or if Linux is able to compete well in that area of the OS market, Microsoft's dominant position will be threatened.

In regards to your theoretical - if you're behind your payments to them, and you've previously agreed to a license that says they have the right to shut down the software if you don't pay them for their product, then it is your responsibility to understand the agreement you are agreeing to when you use their product/s. If you click the 'agree' button without reading what you agree to, then you hold complete responsibility for complying with whatever is in that agreement. I'd like to think that most people wouldn't sign a *paper* contract without reading it first, much less not read it because the document happened to be long and they'd prefer not to.

Re: Tax dollars
Jun 23, 2001, 01:57
Re: Tax dollars Jun 23, 2001, 01:57
Jun 23, 2001, 01:57
I didn't bother to post using my nick because I hadn't bothered to search out my password again after the boards had been reinstalled.

It's irrelevant whether I use my nick or not; it doesn't impact what I actually said. I have no problem associating my nick with what I say however.

Ayn Rand has little to do with traditional conservative economics; Objectivism has no relationship to conservatism or the Republican party.

Although if you mean by 'conservative', that the government doesn't take other people's money at the point of a gun to use on welfare projects, fine, that would certainly be accurate. And it's fine that you know where to find works regarding 'conservative economics', but that you do has no bearing on what I post. Nor is it going to. And I don't share your definition of "overly long post".

Most of the posts to this thread go off topic regarding being specifically about the 21 million spent to send out the tax cut letter. I understand that that isn't the real issue however; the real issue is that you have no response to what I said, your best weapon therefore is to silence by any other means.
This comment was edited on Jun 23, 02:00.
26 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older