Where to download free Fujitsu COBOL compiler
in [Cobol]
|
From: Paul on 8 Nov 2009 14:01 On 2009-11-07 19:05:37 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> said: > [vast amount of good stuff clipped out for space[ > Let me turn it around to a simpler proposition: You show ME one enterprise > better run by the government than by private enterprise and I'll buy you a > baby bottle complete with teat. The Military, the Center for Disease Control, Negotiating Treaties, making the states play nice with each other... and it goes on and on even without the sarcasm. :) > > > But where does the blame lie in your example? To the companies asking for a > handout or to the government for providing it? The freedom to succeed goes > hand in hand with the freedom to fail. Take away one and you don't simply > remove the other, you kill freedom altogether. You argued that Capitalism is the private control of capital. That definition is insufficient. Capitalism, since around the 17th century, has been more like private control of the wealth *and the means to create wealth* and *the means to control the wealth*. There are certainly more considerations than that, and it is the reason that many many people believed the U.S. would fail back in revolutionary times. Government, at least here in the U.S., is meant to be the check on unbridled capitalism. Sure, any individual can go out and make a fortune. Indeed in revolutionary times, people make fortunes selling slaves. I at least, do not want to go back to a time when that was considered a perfectly legitimate way to get rich quick. Of course, I picked a rather horrifying example there, but you can find other examples. Even a brief study of the history of Standard Oil would present a fairly good example of the kinds of behavior we no longer tolerate as a society. I hesitate to point out that the excesses on Wall Street constitute another, not because I think they do not, but because they are far too recent to understand in context. We may have a decent understanding of what really happened to cause the economic catastrophe we are still in - in about 20 years. > > The economist Harry Browne asserted that every dollar spent by the > government is a dollar of wealth destroyed and he spent several books > proving it. There is virtually NOTHING that the government does that cannot > be done cheaper by private enterprise (it IS the government's job to enforce > contracts and punish evil-doers, but not much else). How about police and > fire protection, you might ask? That's easy. In my town there are probably > twenty times the number of private security guards as there are cops and > recent tabulations show that 85% of the firefighters in the country are > volunteers. Most wars throughout history have been fought by mercenaries, > and so on. MMM- I am not sure what your understanding of the U.S. military is, but it is far closer to the Roman Legions than to Tilly's mercenaries. Indeed, what you seem to be saying is to hire rent-a-cops to oppose problems like North Korea. The Cold War might well have been fought, with just as much success, by Pinkertons, but somehow, I really doubt it. To some degree I do agree with you- we should be doing things like telling illegal immigrants that 20 years service in the U.S. military will earn them citizenship and retirement. Or something along those lines. It worked for Rome mind you. > > George Will said the primary purpose of government is to protect the borders > and deliver the mail. Once it demonstrates that it can do those tasks > competently, we can rightly trust it with something else. Totally wrong view - Government is never going to be "good" at doing much of anything. It is just a tool that (1) makes some things possible and (2) does those things better than a dissenting group of individuals will. This is something the current crop of country-club republicans have lost sight of in their goal of gaining and retaining power. They seek power for the sake of power, not to preserve. I do not even think they are conservatives any longer. The Democrats have been known to do the exact same thing, but have been stepped on enough by the republicans lately that they are more mindful of their purpose. Just my own thinking. -Paul
From: tlmfru on 8 Nov 2009 18:04 HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:aOCdna8BId_-> >> > >> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. > >> > >> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not > >> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player > >> with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that > >> wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE > >> is better than PAID. > >> Look, dolt, by your very own words there were other companies involved in the market. Therefore MS did NOT have a monopoly at the time. If MS is as benevolent as you seem to think, they would reduce the consumer cost of their products to the cost of production; after all, FREE is better than PAID. > > > > Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about choice. > There are three things that go into the creation of a product or service: > Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is the PRIVATE control of the > first of these. > And the tax breaks, incentives, interest-free non-repayable loans from government? Oil companies are paid bonuses to go out and drill exploratory wells, did you know that? > > Listen, man: if I have a monopoly on > > something I'll charge what I feel like and if you don't like it, > > tough. Nor do I care if I'm providing a crappy whatever-it-is. You > > gotta buy from me! > > Show me one example of your fears being realized. Just one. It simply > doesn't happen as you describe. > How about gasoline? Is there any other reason that the cost TO THE CONSUMER nearly doubled before the recent crash when the cost of rpoduction barely wobbled, that monopoly power (cartel in this case)? > In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If they > don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries up! It is to > their advantage to create a better product at a lower price. Hogwash. If they didn't have some sort of competition, feeble as it is, they'd have software maintenance contracts and be charging each customer for individual bug fixes. > > > >> As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the > >> CONSUMER benefits from that sanction. > > > > Only that the law must be followed. > > You keep trying to find SOME hook to show that monopoly power is bad. How is > following the law good (or bad) for the CONSUMER? > Again, you have got to be kidding. You keep trying to avoid common, simple facts. > > Well, when the telephone company in Manitoba (MTS, a government > > monopoly) was sold to private enterprise, the cost of residential > > service quickly doubled. > > And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went away or > were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant tax reduction, > didn't you? > Of course not. MTS was profitable, providing some funds to provincial general revenue. > > > > Given the recent market catastrophe, if you can state with a straight > > face and reasonable conviction that private enterprise is always the > > way to go I'll buy you a beer. Private enterprise works as long as > > the profits aren't threatened. Then they go jetting off to the > > government for handouts! > > > > Let me turn it around to a simpler proposition: You show ME one enterprise > better run by the government than by private enterprise and I'll buy you a > baby bottle complete with teat. Cop-out. I asked first. I do have an answer but you go first. I remain astounded by your blithe evasion of facts. Unless you have something sensible to add I'm dropping out of this discussion. You're evidently a doctrinaire man and there's no point in argiuing with a fanatic. PL
From: HeyBub on 8 Nov 2009 20:23 tlmfru wrote: > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:aOCdna8BId_-> >> >>>> Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. >>>> >>>> But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not >>>> anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player >>>> with XP to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that >>>> wanted to SELL a media player. From the consumer's perspective, >>>> FREE is better than PAID. >>>> > > Look, dolt, by your very own words there were other companies > involved in the market. Therefore MS did NOT have a monopoly at the > time. If MS is as benevolent as you seem to think, they would reduce > the consumer cost of their products to the cost of production; after > all, FREE is better than PAID. I never said - or even hinted - that MS was benevolent. It's a clever trick to attribute something to me just so you can knock it down. >>> >> >> Possibly, but the CONSUMER still benefits. Capitalism is NOT about >> choice. There are three things that go into the creation of a >> product or service: Capital, Labor, and Raw Materials. Capitalism is >> the PRIVATE control of the first of these. >> > And the tax breaks, incentives, interest-free non-repayable loans from > government? Oil companies are paid bonuses to go out and drill > exploratory wells, did you know that? Hmm. I'm in Houston. I've worked in the oil business and oil-related industries for over four decades*. I've never heard of anyone being paid to drill an exploratory well (well, not exactly, a drilling company might be paid by the owner of a minerals lease to poke a hole in the ground, but I'm sure that's not what you had in mind). Who in your universe was doing the paying? > > How about gasoline? Is there any other reason that the cost TO THE > CONSUMER nearly doubled before the recent crash when the cost of > rpoduction barely wobbled, that monopoly power (cartel in this case)? > The seven major oil companies have been investigated some fifteen times by the Congress since the Carter years with a view toward discovering how complicit they were in manipulating (gouging, price-fixing, withholding, etc.) oil and its products. There has NEVER been a showing of anything other than normal market forces at work. We get less than half our imported oil from members of OPEC. >> In the case of Microsoft, their biggest competitor is Microsoft. If >> they don't produce a better next-version, their revenue stream dries >> up! It is to their advantage to create a better product at a lower >> price. > > Hogwash. If they didn't have some sort of competition, feeble as it > is, they'd have software maintenance contracts and be charging each > customer for individual bug fixes. Huh? What makes you think that 7% of the market is responsible for Microsoft's marketing strategy? Seven percent is not even noise. >> >> And the taxes that were going to subsidize the service either went >> away or were diverted for other purposes. You did get a significant >> tax reduction, didn't you? >> > > Of course not. MTS was profitable, providing some funds to provincial > general revenue. So, to recap: The government sold an enterprise to the private sector. The taxes formerly used to prop-up this government venture were diverted to other purposes instead of being rebated to the taxpayer. The government, moreover, was able to tax the now-private industry, generating even MORE revenues and the poor taxpayer took it in the shorts. Incredibly, some taxpayers think this is a good idea. > > I remain astounded by your blithe evasion of facts. Unless you have > something sensible to add I'm dropping out of this discussion. You're > evidently a doctrinaire man and there's no point in argiuing with a > fanatic. > Hoista ya legga. But one last suggestion. Look up "Microsoft Derangement Syndrome." There's probably a twelve-step program available somewhere. ------ * I've worked for Shell Oil, Western Geophysical, and Petroleum Information.
From: Anonymous on 9 Nov 2009 09:45 In article <fO2dnf57BobeA2nXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >tlmfru wrote: >> HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message news:8M-> If you're >> worried that a Microsoft monopoly will gouge the consumer, don't. >>> In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is good for the >>> consumer! >> >> You can't possibly be serious! Hasn't Microsoft been fined 1.5 >> billion euros for anti-competitive behaviour? And haven't they just >> been enjoined from selling WORD because they've infringed upon a a >> patent for XML? > >Yes, Microsoft got pounded by the European courts. > >But look at your claim: "... anti-competitive behavior." That's not >anti-CONSUMER behavior. MS got flogged for including a media player with XP >to the competitive disadvantage of other companies that wanted to SELL a >media player. From the consumer's perspective, FREE is better than PAID. From the consumer's perspective you get what you pay for... see how easy this is? > >As for being prohibited from including XML, there is no way the CONSUMER >benefits from that sanction. > >I stand by my statement: "In virtually every case, a free-market monopoly is >good for the consumer." Asserted and responded:'This sounds remarkably like 'a free market is good because it allows for competition between companies from which the consumer benefits and leads to a free-market monopoly where no competition exists and that is the best of all.'' DD
From: DonEstes on 11 Nov 2009 16:39
For a "free" COBOL compiler, download from www.cobol-it.com. The standard version is GPL and unsupported, but the enterprise version requires a support contract, basically the MySQL and Red Hat model of open source. It should compile any program that compiles with Micro Focus, except I'm not sure about the 2002 OO extension. Requires Microsoft C++ compiler, but that is also free. |