Olyimpics ... wow : STINKIN MS!
 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:03:07 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:40:25 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Does anybody find it highly amusing that Adobe, who in truth, controls
almost 90% of streaming video via Flash and 75% of the digital
video/imagery/text content on the web via CS3 and Reader is ****ed off
about Silverlight being potential competition?

Talk about the pot caling the kettle black. :)

Tell that to Netscape, the one time dominant browser.

At one time the ONLY browser until Microsoft developed Windows 3.0.
Unfortunately, Andreessen was a horrible businessman and couldn't
compete.

This is a case that relates back to Eisboch's earlier comment about
Left/Right. Andreessen wanted the government to solve his problem for
him.

Nature of competition - he got punked and badly.

And I say that as a early adopter of Mosiac and Navigator which was a
great browser - no doubt about it.

Olyimpics ... wow : STINKIN MS!
 

Olyimpics ... wow : STINKIN MS!
 

wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:48 am, hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:14:56 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:36:38 -0400, DownTime wrote:
Why must I add yet another stupid plug-in this time "Microsoft
Silverlight" to watch the video via Firefox? I tried IE, but its
temporary per session and need to tolerate commercials.
Screw em, I'll pass and will wait for the Youtube version.
Hey, you're missing out on the next Microsoft antitrust saga.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/...y/stream11.php
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/10/20/...t-silverlight/
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/m...ves/123837.asp
Does anybody find it highly amusing that Adobe, who in truth, controls
almost 90% of streaming video via Flash and 75% of the digital
video/imagery/text content on the web via CS3 and Reader is ****ed off
about Silverlight being potential competition?
Talk about the pot caling the kettle black. :)
I find "highly amusing" the discussions here about operating systems and
utilities/helper programs, especially the comments about operating
systems certain posters don't use.

I'm less of a fan of Adobe apps than I am of Microsoft apps. The less
"flash" the better.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It always amazes me when someone buys their very first Mac, and all of
a sudden they are experts.. Especially those who know little more
about computers than the opening splash tells them....

After using Vista for a year, even Harry realized Vista sucked and had
to get a Mac. All of the advantages Mac has in a laptop, are also
advantageous in a desktop. Harry hates to admit it, but even he agrees
Vista sucks a green weeny.

The only disadvantage of a MAC is the cost, but the cost saving is only
applicable on a low priced budget PC. When you compare similar systems
a MAC is competitive, maybe slightly more expensive.

Olyimpics ... wow
 

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:52 -0400, hk wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts
are now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now
than they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.

You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady


What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?

I was surprised the bats were so pricey, compared to the shirt or
whatever. Bit OT but that is a way of life at this NG.

Casady

Olyimpics ... wow
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:52 -0400, hk wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts
are now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now
than they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.
You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady

What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?

I was surprised the bats were so pricey, compared to the shirt or
whatever. Bit OT but that is a way of life at this NG.

Casady


I've seen a couple of different TV features on Louisville Slugger and
wood bats, including explanations of why the wood bats were so expensive
these days. I don't recall the reasons, but one of the rationalizations
was that aluminum bats were much, much cheaper to produce.

A $100? Way too high. There are Louisville Slugger bats of wood for
under $30. And there are also LS wood bats that go for $100. Depends
upon wood and finish.


In the 1970s, when one of my kids really got into baseball and softball
(she played both), I got "roped" into managing and coaching one of the
times. Managing had mostly to do with extorting money from the parents
of the players to buy bats, balls, uniform shirts and hats. Anyway, I
was appalled to note the transition from wood to aluminum bats was
complete and there was nothing I could do about it. I hated aluminum
bats, and still do. They don't "feel" right when you hit the ball, and
they sure do not sound right.

I played organized baseball from the little league to the pony league to
the babe ruth league to the industrial league in New Haven. There were
no bats but wood Louisville Sluggers.

One of the sponsors of one of our teams made sewing machines: Griest
Manufacturing in New Haven. There were Griest plants in several parts of
the country, and several of them sponsored kids' baseball teams.

Olyimpics ... wow
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:52 -0400, hk wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts
are now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now
than they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.

You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady


What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?

I was surprised the bats were so pricey, compared to the shirt or
whatever. Bit OT but that is a way of life at this NG.

Casady

Saw an item in the last year or so about that. Something about the
availability of the type of ash? required for the bats falling into short
supply.
A good aluminum bat should easily outlive any number of wood bats. Maybe a
lifetime for occasional weekend warriors.
Note... some feel amuminum bats are more dangerous because the ball rebounds
off them faster, not giving the pitcher time to duck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdx41UQM-8c

Olyimpics ... wow
 

On Aug 26, 10:55*am, "Don White" wrote:
"Richard Casady" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:52 -0400, hk wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts
are now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now
than they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.

You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady

What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?

I was surprised the bats were so pricey, compared to the shirt or
whatever. Bit OT but that is a way of life at this NG.

Casady

Saw an item in the last year or so about that. Something about the
availability of the type of ash? required for the bats falling into short
supply.
A good aluminum bat should easily outlive any number of wood bats. Maybe a
lifetime for occasional weekend warriors.
Note... some feel amuminum bats are more dangerous because the ball rebounds
off them faster, not giving the pitcher time to duck.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdx41UQM-8c- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

According to Harry, people that would allow their kids to play any
sport that dangerous should have child protective services called on
them.

Olyimpics ... wow
 

On Aug 26, 10:49*am, hk wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:52 -0400, hk wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same shirts
are now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to make now
than they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.
You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady

What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?

I was surprised the bats were so pricey, compared to the shirt or
whatever. Bit OT but that is a way of life at this NG.

Casady

I've seen a couple of different TV features on Louisville Slugger and
wood bats, including explanations of why the wood bats were so expensive
these days. I don't recall the reasons, but one of the rationalizations
was that aluminum bats were much, much cheaper to produce.

A $100? Way too high. There are Louisville Slugger bats of wood for
under $30. And there are also LS wood bats that go for $100. Depends
upon wood and finish.

In the 1970s, when one of my kids really got into baseball and softball
(she played both), I got "roped" into managing and coaching one of the
times. Managing had mostly to do with extorting money from the parents
of the players to buy bats, balls, uniform shirts and hats. Anyway, I
was appalled to note the transition from wood to aluminum bats was
complete and there was nothing I could do about it. I hated aluminum
bats, and still do. They don't "feel" right when you hit the ball, and
they sure do not sound right.

I played organized baseball from the little league to the pony league to
the babe ruth league to the industrial league in New Haven. There were
no bats but wood Louisville Sluggers.

One of the sponsors of one of our teams made sewing machines: Griest
Manufacturing in New Haven. There were Griest plants in several parts of
the country, and several of them sponsored kids' baseball teams.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You should have had child protective services called on you for
allowing your kid to play such a horrifically dangerous sport.

Olyimpics ... wow
 

hk wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:01:52 -0400, hk wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:36:13 -0400, hk wrote:

he Co-Op used to sell button down Gant shirts for $7.95. Same
shirts are now about $100, and the funny thing is they cost less to
make now than they did when I was a schoolboy buying them.
You do realize that a ordinary wood baseball bat costs a hundred
bucks? A major league glove costs about only about 160, somewhat
surprising.

Casady

What's your point, that we're being gouged by corporations?

I was surprised the bats were so pricey, compared to the shirt or
whatever. Bit OT but that is a way of life at this NG.

Casady


I've seen a couple of different TV features on Louisville Slugger and
wood bats, including explanations of why the wood bats were so expensive
these days. I don't recall the reasons, but one of the rationalizations
was that aluminum bats were much, much cheaper to produce.

A $100? Way too high. There are Louisville Slugger bats of wood for
under $30. And there are also LS wood bats that go for $100. Depends
upon wood and finish.


In the 1970s, when one of my kids really got into baseball and softball
(she played both), I got "roped" into managing and coaching one of the
times. Managing had mostly to do with extorting money from the parents
of the players to buy bats, balls, uniform shirts and hats. Anyway, I
was appalled to note the transition from wood to aluminum bats was
complete and there was nothing I could do about it. I hated aluminum
bats, and still do. They don't "feel" right when you hit the ball, and
they sure do not sound right.

I played organized baseball from the little league to the pony league to
the babe ruth league to the industrial league in New Haven. There were
no bats but wood Louisville Sluggers.

One of the sponsors of one of our teams made sewing machines: Griest
Manufacturing in New Haven. There were Griest plants in several parts of
the country, and several of them sponsored kids' baseball teams.



Didn't you also play Rugby at the Univ. of Kansas?

Olyimpics ... wow
 

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:55:33 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

ote... some feel amuminum bats are more dangerous because the ball rebounds
off them faster, not giving the pitcher time to duck.

A home run every time? You did say the ball has a higher velocity. I
have never that alum bats hit them farther.

Casady