Science > Physics > The General Relativity gang are circling the wagons.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Tom Potter" |
| Date: |
30 Mar 2007 11:43:07 PM |
| Object: |
The General Relativity gang are circling the wagons. |
As can be seen by their intensity and their methods,
the small gang that profits from General Relativity
is very concerned that the public is becoming aware of
the costs to society of General Relativity.
No doubt, General Relativity is the model of choice,
if one wants to design a time travel machine,
or warp through space machine,
or create worm holes,
or speculate on things beyond man's
capacity to ever experience in time and space,
BUT
if one wants to design things like computers, bridges, mechanisms,
engines,
communications systems and *** GPS Systems ***,
General Relativity is an enormous waste of time, money and resources.
Although any competent systems engineer KNOWS that
General Relativity is not, and was not, essential to the GPS system,
the same small gang that profits
in reputation and income from General Relativity
constantly make such a claim.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/HTML/wrong.html
"GTR isn't working in the GPS": this simply isn't so; see these
papers.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507121
Introducing Relativity in Global Navigation Satellite Systems
Authors: J.-F. Pascual-Sanchez
(Submitted on 28 Jul 2005 (v1), last revised 13 Dec 2006 (this
version, v3))
Abstract: Today, the Global Navigation Satellite Systems, used as
global positioning systems, are the GPS and the GLONASS. They are
based on a Newtonian model and hence they are only operative when
several relativistic effects are taken into account. The most
important relativistic effects (to order 1/c^2) are: the Einstein
gravitational blue shift effect of the satellite clock frequency
(Equivalence Principle of General Relativity) and the Doppler red
shift of second order,
due to the motion of the satellite (Special Relativity).
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic
clocks in satellites and on the ground to provide world-wide position
and time determination. These clocks have gravitational and motional
frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting
for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work.
Note that the GTR charlatans constantly try to con the masses into
thinking
that the effects of distance (Hubble Effect),
velocity (Doppler Effect),
and acceleration (Galileo Effect)
on the frequency of oscillating systems,
are General Relativity effects.
So far, I haven't seen any effort on their part
to claim the GTR must be used to compensate for
temperature, humidity, jerk, snap, crackle and pop effects.
As can be see from reading Chris Hillman's web site,
he aggressively attacks General Relative critics PERSONALLY,
rather than simply demonstrate a few cost effective uses of GTR.
One would think that if the GTR promoters possessed
such powerful, esoteric knowledge, that they would use their
knowledge to make a few billion dollars in the free market,
and they would not have be on the taxpayer's dole.
Note that in trying to discredit GTR critics,
Chris Hillman used the word "crank" more than thirty times,
and used the Web site of an unemployed computer programmer,
who took some data processing classes at a third rate California
college,
as his main reference.
Regarding Chris Hillman's statement:
========================
"The Politics of Anti-Science
In my view, antiscientific activity by organized political pressure
groups has nothing to do with science or reason.
Rather, such activity is motivated by power and fear.
Fear:
On the one hand, some people fear (sometimes correctly, often not)
that science is somehow directly "contradicting"
the validity of their religious or philosophical convictions, and this
has led some religious groups
to condemn such cornerstones of modern science as the theory of
evolution
and the standard Hot Big Bang model of cosmology,
preferring to stick to the literal truth of the creation story told in
the Bible,
or in more subtle ways to dispute the role of science as an arbiter of
"natural truth".
Power:
Science is universally respected, even by those who fear it, and with
good reason:
almost every citizen of the "developed world" recognizes
that nowadays common citizens live better than kings of old
because of the benefits of technology which grew out of basic
scientific research.
Scientists (and mathematicians) have almost become secular demigods,
and it should be no surprise that those religious and political
groups
which are hostile to science but which do not dare to condemn
scientific activity altogether,
have tried to co-opt scientific theories by claiming that these
theories
somehow "prove" the validity of their religious or political beliefs.
=============
As can be seen by the logical fallacies used by Chris Hillman
in his efforts to discredit GTR critics,
the GTR gang is motivated by "power and fear"
(And the taxpayer's money),
and although "Science is universally respected",
charlatans who pretend to possess powerful, esoteric knowledge
and cannot demonstrate this in the free market,
ARE NOT.
After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.
After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.
After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.
Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and heat
than light and advances.
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that wastes time, money and minds on such
pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravity waves,
rubber rulers and clocks, etc.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: The genius of socialism is in how it puts people before votes. |
10 Apr 2007 07:40:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:50:28 +0000, Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi Rick, A gigadollar is is lightyears beyond a ballot. That's the genius
of capitalism.
The genius of socialism is in how it puts people before votes.
Idiot.
--
Rick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wal-Mart's 345 gigadollars vs. MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 12:10:47 PM |
|
|
amicus_curious wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_9_6_@Cotse.NET...
Wal-Mart has 345 gigadollars ( U.S. ) in annual sales.
MicroSoft has 44 gigadollars in annual sales.
Safeway has 40 gigadollars in annual sales.
It isn't the sales volume, it is the profit level that is important. WMT
and MSFT are about the same in terms of profit. SWY is a lot less than
either.
Revenue indicates the overall influence that the business has. It
represents the interlocking web of suppliers, employees and customers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wal-Mart's 345 gigadollars vs. MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 11:36:24 AM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Wal-Mart has 345 gigadollars ( U.S. ) in annual sales.
MicroSoft has 44 gigadollars in annual sales.
Safeway has 40 gigadollars in annual sales.
Great perspective.
I wish more people saw it that way -- there is an unnatural obsession
over Microsoft and Bill Gates worldwide that is not justified by the
accomplishments of either.
There are so many more greater business stories and people stories --
but I guess that's what you get when you buy screen pixels by the terrabyte.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: I need 500 yottabytes of pixels... Now ! |
09 Apr 2007 06:28:28 PM |
|
|
Hi John_Bailo, I can see Bill Gates on the phone to India,
" I need 500 yottabytes ( 500 * 1000^8 ) of pixels... Now ! ".
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailo" |
|
| Title: Re: I need 500 yottabytes of pixels... Now ! |
10 Apr 2007 12:24:26 PM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi John_Bailo, I can see Bill Gates on the phone to India,
" I need 500 yottabytes ( 500 * 1000^8 ) of pixels... Now ! ".
For the slow readers, that was a spin on an old Tommy LaSorda quote:
“Never argue with people who buy ink by the gallon.”
http://www.people.ubr.com/sports/by-first-name/t/tommy-lasorda/tommy-lasorda-quotes.aspx?placeholder=true
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: I need 500 yottabytes of pixels... Now ! |
10 Apr 2007 01:23:22 PM |
|
|
I hope you bust your ***** hunting for a solid week and only find 1 good
50 cent pound profit load buyer and seller on 5000 ton.
1 is all you nead.
so what if I find the same evry hour I hunt.
Im a fuckn hound at it.
the information I hunt with is anything is fair game.
Ill pick 100 buyers and find 1 seller at a time .
Ill hunt where I should find 50 cents for me.
when I can make 50 cents pound and load the boat Im trading .
as soon as you see 50 cents between offer to buy and offer to sell you
...............
Ex-Im Bank :: Contact Us
Address:http://www.exim.gov/contact/contactus.cfm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wal-Mart's 345 gigadollars vs. MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 07:09:05 PM |
|
|
In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Bailo <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote:
Great perspective.
I wish more people saw it that way -- there is an unnatural obsession
over Microsoft and Bill Gates worldwide that is not justified by the
accomplishments of either.
There are so many more greater business stories and people stories --
but I guess that's what you get when you buy screen pixels by the terrabyte.
Yeah, I've never been impressed with that 44 billion dollars. I mean,
I've lost that much in my sofa cushions...
....
It's a really big sofa.
Thad
;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NoStop" |
|
| Title: Re: Wal-Mart's 345 gigadollars vs. MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 09:42:48 AM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Wal-Mart has 345 gigadollars ( U.S. ) in annual sales.
MicroSoft has 44 gigadollars in annual sales.
Safeway has 40 gigadollars in annual sales.
But only Microsoft operates with a profit margin that is totally obscene.
That isn't suggesting that the others mentioned are to be commended. Only
that Microsoft's rate of exploitation of its customers makes the others
pale in comparison.
Cheers.
--
The "Wow" starts now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyLqUf4cdwc&eurl=
"No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no
choice."
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: Wal-Mart's 345 gigadollars vs. MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 08:44:26 AM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2007 12:04:18 GMT, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Wal-Mart has 345 gigadollars ( U.S. ) in annual sales.
MicroSoft has 44 gigadollars in annual sales.
Maybe microsoft is looking to achieve WalMart's reputation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars vs. Google's 11 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 08:54:12 AM |
|
|
Hi AZ_Nomad, Sam Walton, Wal-Mart's founder,
died and left stock to his many kids.
Had he left stock to just one kid, that kid'd dwarf Bill Gates.
By the way...
Google has 11 gigadollars in annual sales.
MicroSoft has 44 gigadollars in annual sales.
Wal-Mart has 345 gigadollars in annual sales.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars vs. Google's 11 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 10:32:28 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_9_8_@Cotse.NET...
Hi AZ_Nomad, Sam Walton, Wal-Mart's founder,
died and left stock to his many kids.
Had he left stock to just one kid, that kid'd dwarf Bill Gates.
By the way...
Google has 11 gigadollars in annual sales.
MicroSoft has 44 gigadollars in annual sales.
Wal-Mart has 345 gigadollars in annual sales.
It's funny how you use "By the way" here - you already said this in the post
AZ Nomad replied to. You have also posted this quite a few times elsewhere
in the thread.
Does posting it really float your boat *that* much?
(COLA trimmed from followups)
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
09 Apr 2007 10:40:37 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, If you could read, you might've noticed
that the post you replied to was called,
" MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars vs. Google's 11 gigadollars. "
and, therefore, is different from what I posted at
" news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_9_6_@Cotse.NET ".
Google, the star of the Internet,
has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
09 Apr 2007 10:51:55 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_9_11_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, If you could read, you might've noticed
I can read, but you assumed I cared. Your posts are meaningless gibberish.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailo" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
09 Apr 2007 11:34:37 AM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Google, the star of the Internet,
has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does.
That's because the Internet is not a monopoly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "amicus_curious" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
11 Apr 2007 11:57:52 AM |
|
|
"John Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:9smdnZFfToGG9ofbnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
Jeff.Relf wrote:
Google, the star of the Internet, has just one forth the revenues that
MicroSoft does.
That's because the Internet is not a monopoly.
Not a very useful observation. One might as well say that computers
themselves are not a monopoly. Monopoly really has very little to do with
anything Microsoft or Google does. Google has a very high capture of the
pay per click revenues generated on the internet. Given their dominance my
estimate would be that their growth is limited by how many new people become
internet users since they ultimately use Google just as new computer owners
end up with Windows.. I don't know the statistical values for that, but it
shouldn't be hard to find studies.
Linux is not a footnote in the annals of OS history because of any monopoly.
Linux is a day late and a dollar short to the market and very few people
even know about it and most of the ones that do don't care about it. It can
substitute for Windows, but hardly anyone is looking for a substitute.
Google has worked its way into a similar situation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailo" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
14 Apr 2007 02:47:46 PM |
|
|
amicus_curious wrote:
"John Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
That's because the Internet is not a monopoly.
Not a very useful observation. One might as well say that computers
themselves are not a monopoly. Monopoly really has very little to do with
anything Microsoft or Google does. Google has a very high capture of the
pay per click revenues generated on the internet. Given their dominance
my estimate would be that their growth is limited by how many new people
become internet users since they ultimately use Google just as new
computer owners
end up with Windows.. I don't know the statistical values for that, but
it shouldn't be hard to find studies.
To me one has to consider "volatility" in a monopoly analysis. Microsoft
has a tighter hold on the market, because it's coupled to hardware and to
protocols (playing video on Yahoo News, for example).
Google can, and will, be very easily displaced by a host of better and
smarter search/knowledge companies. Web 2.0, in some sense, eliminates
the need for "a Google". The way Linux eliminates the need for "a
Microsoft".
--
http://you-read-it-here-first.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "amicus_curious" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
14 Apr 2007 09:19:01 PM |
|
|
"John Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:UcGdnRx1msh9srzbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
To me one has to consider "volatility" in a monopoly analysis. Microsoft
has a tighter hold on the market, because it's coupled to hardware and to
protocols (playing video on Yahoo News, for example).
Google can, and will, be very easily displaced by a host of better and
smarter search/knowledge companies. Web 2.0, in some sense, eliminates
the need for "a Google". The way Linux eliminates the need for "a
Microsoft".
You gearheads make the same mistake over and again, thinking that the game
is about technology. It is not. What is important is the presentation and
the building of brand awareness in the mind of the consumer. There will
always be the technodweebs who would rather recompile their kernel or
whatever than mess about with the chicks, but they are looked at with
suspicion by the regular people and they are never paid much attention.
Google has the momentum in the search business and, unless they get an
attack of stupidity, they will stay there,
Coming late to market with some huffed up me-too, regardless of price, is
the proven technique of the losers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hadron Quark" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
15 Apr 2007 08:22:44 AM |
|
|
John Bailo <jabailo@texeme.com> writes:
amicus_curious wrote:
"John Bailo" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote in message
That's because the Internet is not a monopoly.
Not a very useful observation. One might as well say that computers
themselves are not a monopoly. Monopoly really has very little to do with
anything Microsoft or Google does. Google has a very high capture of the
pay per click revenues generated on the internet. Given their dominance
my estimate would be that their growth is limited by how many new people
become internet users since they ultimately use Google just as new
computer owners
end up with Windows.. I don't know the statistical values for that, but
it shouldn't be hard to find studies.
To me one has to consider "volatility" in a monopoly analysis. Microsoft
has a tighter hold on the market, because it's coupled to hardware and to
protocols (playing video on Yahoo News, for example).
*****.
Google can, and will, be very easily displaced by a host of better and
"very easily"? You mean like Roybot's crappy Google killer Iuron?
http://iuron.com
smarter search/knowledge companies. Web 2.0, in some sense, eliminates
the need for "a Google". The way Linux eliminates the need for "a
Microsoft".
Web 2.0 most certainly does NOT eliminate Google in any sense or form.
--
They are most deceived that trusteth most in themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailo" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
15 Apr 2007 07:13:06 PM |
|
|
Hadron Quark wrote:
John Bailo <jabailo@texeme.com> writes:
smarter search/knowledge companies. Web 2.0, in some sense, eliminates
the need for "a Google". The way Linux eliminates the need for "a
Microsoft".
Web 2.0 most certainly does NOT eliminate Google in any sense or form.
Sure it does. Imagine self-indexing, self-reflecting web services that
can "tell" a client who they are and what they do. And imagine a peer
to peer cluster as a way of moving information about one site to another.
The middleman, Google, becomes a burden.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Is Hewlett-Packard more of a monopoly than MicroSoft ? |
09 Apr 2007 06:19:59 PM |
|
|
Hi John_Bailo,
You claim that Google's 11 gigadollars per year in annual sales
is just one fourth that of MicroSoft's because it has more competitors.
Is Hewlett-Packard more of a monopoly than MicroSoft ?
Quoting from " http://Wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Hewlett-Packard ":
" HP posted US$ 91.7 billion in annual revenue in 2006
compared to US$ 91.4 for IBM, making it
the world's largest technology vendor in terms of sales.
HP is now the No. 1 ranking company in
worldwide personal computer shipments, surpassing rival Dell,
market research firms Gartner and IDC reported in October 2006.
Per Gartner, the gap between HP and Dell
widened substantially at the end of 2006,
with HP taking a near 3.5 % market share lead. ".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Google has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does. |
09 Apr 2007 10:43:51 AM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 11:40 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi T_Wake, If you could read, you might've noticed
that the post you replied to was called,
" MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars vs. Google's 11 gigadollars. "
and, therefore, is different from what I posted at
"news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_9_6_@Cotse.NET".
Google, the star of the Internet,
has just one forth the revenues that MicroSoft does.
Considering Google doesn't have any retail products, that's quite
an accomplishment.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Mass media products ? |
10 Apr 2007 07:02:28 AM |
|
|
Hi Randy_Poe, Google's offerings are " retail products ".
What would you call CBS' productions ? mass media products ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John A. Bailo" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass media products ? |
10 Apr 2007 09:21:58 AM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi Randy_Poe, Google's offerings are " retail products ".
What would you call CBS' productions ? mass media products ?
I dunno.
But on Sunday I wrote an angry email to Andy Rooney.
--
You Read It Here First
http://you-read-it-here-first.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass media products ? |
10 Apr 2007 05:48:52 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 8:02 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Randy_Poe, Google's offerings are " retail products ".
Really? What are they? What is the retail cost?
What would you call CBS' productions ? mass media products ?
Since the money is made from advertisers and not consumers,
they certainly aren't using the retail model as their business model.
You have no idea what "retail" means, do you?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mass media products ? |
10 Apr 2007 06:07:57 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176245332.152854.58700@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 10, 8:02 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Randy_Poe, Google's offerings are " retail products ".
Really? What are they? What is the retail cost?
What would you call CBS' productions ? mass media products ?
Since the money is made from advertisers and not consumers,
they certainly aren't using the retail model as their business model.
You have no idea what "retail" means, do you?
Another word we can add to the list of things Relf (VVFWS Winner) has no
idea about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The " retail cost " of looking at an ad. |
10 Apr 2007 06:21:39 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, and Randy Poe, Time is money.
Every time you look at an ad you're spending time ( i.e. money ).
That's the " retail cost ".
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The " retail cost " of looking at an ad. |
10 Apr 2007 06:23:14 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_10_12_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, and Randy Poe, Time is money.
This is not a reply to one of my posts.
Every time you look at an ad you're spending time ( i.e. money ).
That's the " retail cost ".
Cluelessness noted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars vs. Google's 11 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 08:11:08 PM |
|
|
14 billion each of 4 kids.
Stock Boy Sam croked with 50 billion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: MicroSoft's 44 gigadollars vs. Google's 11 gigadollars. |
09 Apr 2007 10:04:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:54:12 +0000, Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi AZ_Nomad, Sam Walton, Wal-Mart's founder, died and left stock to his
many kids. Had he left stock to just one kid, that kid'd dwarf Bill Gates.
By the way...
Google has 11 gigadollars in annual sales. MicroSoft has 44
gigadollars in annual sales. Wal-Mart has 345 gigadollars in annual
sales.
Are you trying to make some point, or just running your dumb-***** mouth?
--
Rick
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: I say the Universe is knowable. |
05 Apr 2007 11:04:30 AM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2007_Apr_5_6_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Don_Stockbauer, I say the Universe is knowable, you claim... no...
you _ hope _ it's not.
And we don't care what you think.
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
