Linux-Advocacy Digest #739, Volume #27 Mon, 17 Jul 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Where did all my windows go?
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451743.278^-.00000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451743.458^-.0000000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451743 (EdWIN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 17 Jul 2000 19:03:40 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:12:15 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2000 07:20:33 GMT, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 6 Jul 2000 03:40:57 GMT, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>It won't healp LIE-nux anny. Nobuddy want's to reed HOWTO after HOWTO after
>HOWTO. You alreddy have
>> >>>>users reeding TOO HOWTO's PLUS the ones they alreddy half toreed to get the
>rest of CommyLie-nux working.
>> >>>
>> >>>Can't you set up your Windoze-based newsreader so it doesn't spew these
>> >>>mile-long lines?
>> >>
>> >>Cant you make your Generly Not Usefall (GNU) CommyLie-nux crap to handall long
>lines propperly?
>> >
>> >1) My newsreader is of my own design and handles long lines just fine,
>> > thank you very much...
>>
>> Proov my point again why do'nt you? In UNIX you half to rite your own programms,
>and your another exampel.
>>
>> >
>> >2) but others read news in university labs and such, using VT100 terminals
>> > with no GUI capability.
>>
>> Today's universitty's have Windows. If all your universitty has are UNIX, then your
>universitty is living in a cave.
>
>
>Caves like University of California, Berkely...MIT, Purdue, Carnegie
>Mellon.
>
>Yeah...some caves.
>
>>
>> >
>> >3) Then there are those who have to use large fonts just to read news at
>> > all. Some of them are even Windoze users.
>> >
>> >4) You could horizontally scroll but that's a PITA.
>>
>> ...only if you use SLRN. In Outlook its easie you just use scroalbar.
>>
>
>you are addled.
>
>
>> >
>> >5) Hence long-standing rules of netiquette call for lines to wrap in the
>> > low 70's.
>> >
>> >You piss and moan that Linux makes *you* work harder, yet you're perfectly
>> >willing to make *others* work harder to read your posts. Timmy-boy,
>> >you're not just a Wintroll. You're also a hypocrite.
>>
>> That only half to work harder becase they use UNIX and UNIX make's them work
>> harder. Thats' my
>> hoal point. UNIX blows. Windo's is miles ahed of UNIX and you peopal are still
>> acting like UNIX was
>> stait-of-the-art.
>
>lets see...
>
>for f in `cat [file with a list of files to process]`
>do
> echo "processing file $f"
> process_with_awk_script_to_edit and_rearrange_columns $f
>done
>
>
>
>Or, alternatively, using LoseDOS drool-and-click to process
>50 files by hand.
>
>Only a moron can fail to see that the LoseDOS interface
>is FAR more work
Or drag and drop 50 fials onto an icon to do the same thing without wrighting shell
scripts.
>
>>
>> >>>...which is why nearly every Linux newsreader has a decent killfile,
>> >>>unlike Lookout; why nearly every Linux newsreader honors user-
>> >>>supplied margins, unlike Lookout; why no self-respecting Linux mail
>> >>>client goes around spreading viruses, unlike Lookout....
>> >>>
>> >>>Oh, but Orifice does have that cute little paper clip. That paper clip
>> >>>must fascinate you, doesn't it, Timmy-boy?
>> >
>> >I see you couldn't address this point.
>> >
>>
>> I dont see any point to adress.
>
>Blindness is not victory
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
>C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
>D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
>E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
>G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:00:12 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Yes, but Win3.1 wasn't anymore an example of good CMT than Win9x, or
> even NT, is an example of good PMT, is beside the point. I didn't say
> all CMT was good, though it appears that you might be trying to say all
> PMT is good, which makes just as little sense. And, in point of fact,
> the case that both CMT and PMT have good and bad examples is an argument
> for my case. No, it is my case.
Which pretty much illustrates the basic fallacy of your case. The
simple fact that there are good an bad implementations of both is
irrelevant, unless the same criterion are used to define "good" and
"bad" for both.
Or, to put it another way, the simple fact that there is no way to do
"good" CMT is independent of the fact of "bad" implementations of PMT
(the general limitation, vs. the specific mistake).
> Anti-competitive business practices was a much larger part, in my
> estimation. Win9x has crappy PMT, I think you'll agree.
Compared to other implementations of PMT: I'd agree. However, the
discussion isn't Windows 95 vs. other implementations of PMT, the
discussion is CMT vs. PMT. A case which the Windows 3.1 vs. Windows 95
example clearly demonstrates.
> Perhaps you're
> assuming that it is simply that fact that it is PMT which made it better
> than Win3.1, but I make no such assumption, though I'll admit that it
> may be true.
No, that wasn't its sole difference, but then again, the average user
had already chosen Windows 3.1 CMT over MacOS CMT, so . . .
> >PMT in action.
>
> Well, it may be PMT in action, but it is not an example of PMT. Because
> Windows PMT prevents this benefit from always being available, and CMT
> does not prevent it in any large degree.
You are wrong. CMT does prevent this in large degree.
In point of fact, the MacOS is the only extant commercial desktop
operating system whose CDR burning applications completely turn off
multi-tasking, due to precisely this fact: that CMT prevents it.
> Pity the poor person being paid to do his job?
As a generalist, I expected better of you than that. A true generalist
realizes that the world is interconnected, and that making a job more
difficult impacts everybody.
Make the job more difficult, and end up pitying:
1) The teacher, who has to teach users to use unneccesarily complex and
convoluted systems.
2) The user, who has to pay more for the same functionality.
3) The user, who looses more work due to a higher number of defects.
4) The programmer, who has to work on unneccessarily more difficult and
complex systems.
5) The help desk support technician, who has to bear the brunt of the
users displeasure and frustration . . .
> If you're saying it
> can't be done, then just say so.
As a generalist, you should know better than to insist the world is
binary. The question is not: can it, or can it not be done, the
question is: how much will it cost to do it, and what will be the return
on this investment?
> If you're saying you can't figure out
> how to do it, ask questions until you can or admit you can't. If you're
> saying it can't be done, you're wrong.
If you're saying it can be done, it is you who is wrong. The market
has, in fact, already proven you wrong.
> Higher development costs, more
> bugs, and longer time to market come with producing any *improvement* in
> a software package,
Wrong. In point of fact, *improvements* can *REDUCE* defects, and
maintenance costs.
> and are, in fact, the investment which is supposed
> to pay off.
Spending 30 dollars to earn one penney is an investment, albeit a poorly
chose one that did not pay off.
> Now perhaps the investment isn't supported by current market practices,
> perhaps they are. I don't here complaints about how much the
> development of things which encourage cluelessness cost.
Why would you expect to? How can you complain about a cost you don't
track?
> A good point; market forces still have some impact on an application's
> loading behavior. I must insist that it is not as evident as it would
> be on a CMT system, if only for that admitted fact that it is easier to
> screw it up.
And also because screw ups aren't possible, since the application no
longer controls scheduling policy or resouce allocation.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 23:06:49 GMT
tinman wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Not as long as Joe Malloy is around.
> > [...]
> > > Who are those?
> > [...]
> > > You're presupposing the existence of source code.
> >
> > L'a vraiment que dalle a foutre alors, le mec.
>
> Pardon, mais je ne comprende pas.
See what he means?
> "Foutre," bien sūr, mais qu'est-ce que ca va dire "dalle a foutre
> alors"?
How ironic.
> (ask I, hoping my french is good enough to have been clear.....)
Too bad your logic was not.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:52:02 -0400
Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of
>thing than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to
>business, but when the government itself gets involved in business you can
>bet the bank on failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
The list of failures from government is far smaller then the list of blunders
and failures from business -- and even then, the list of government failures
is often one of things the market place didn't do or couldn't do in the first
place.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 23:15:34 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:58:23 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lars Träger wrote:
>
>> Context: So if I plug a USB mouse into a Sun box, it just works?
>>
>> In case you still didn't get it: Suns don't have USB, so you can't just
>> plug one in.
>
>If you don't by hardware made for the platform.. then you're just a
>moron.
...besides: if you can't even get the connector to fit into
one of the sockets on your computer you should take that as
a subtle hint...
>
>That's like buying an sbus card and complaining because it doesn't fit
>in your PC or Mac.
...except you don't have to take your computer apart to be
aware of the fact that it just doesn't have a socket like
that...
[deletia]
A USB socket is fairly distinctive actually.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:17:09 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tinman wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Not as long as Joe Malloy is around.
> > > [...]
> > > > Who are those?
> > > [...]
> > > > You're presupposing the existence of source code.
> > >
> > > L'a vraiment que dalle a foutre alors, le mec.
> >
> > Pardon, mais je ne comprende pas.
>
> See what he means?
Not at all. ("
>
> > "Foutre," bien sūr, mais qu'est-ce que ca va dire "dalle a foutre
> > alors"?
>
> How ironic.
Indeed.
> > (ask I, hoping my french is good enough to have been clear.....)
>
> Too bad your logic was not.
What alleged "logic"?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:12:28 -0600
Karl Knechtel wrote:
>
> Ray Chason ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> : >Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
> : >scheduling. My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
> : >end result is valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
> : >insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
>
> : This "theory" has no basis in experience or reason. Indeed, there's an
> : enormous counterexample. Windows 3.1 was CMT. And Windows 3.1, from the
> : very standpoint of usability and responsiveness you argue from, was a train
> : wreck.
>
> Guilt by association.
A valid basis for argument, in this particular case. Operating systems
are not people, and this discussion is not being held in a court of law.
> : Do you remember August 1995? Thousands of people lined up outside CompUSA
> : and Egghead and all the rest to buy their copy of Windows 95. Now Win95
> : is dodgy and BSOD-prone, but it's nonetheless a vast improvement. PMT is
> : a large part of that improvement.
>
> Proof by assertion.
No. The proof lies in user polling.
> : If you say "preemptive multitasking" to the average Win95 user, you'll
> : probably get a blank look. But J. Random User does know that when he
> : clicks on "Recalculate," and Excel throws up an hourglass, he can switch
> : to Word and type on a memo until Excel is done.
>
> : PMT in action.
>
> I can do this on my CMT Mac just fine (well no, *I* can't, because I don't
> use any M$ software. But that's beside the point).
Well, in point of fact, you cannot, since the point is that a spread
sheet program on the Mac may choose not to yield the processor, while
under Windows PMT, what the application wants is irrelevant.
The single anecdotal response of "But, I can do it!" is irrelevant to
this discussion.
> To get that kind of responsiveness from PMT, you have to let the OS break
> up a CPU-bound task for you.
Precisely. It is much more efficient to do a task once, than to repeat
it and repeat it and repeat it. A standardized, centralized point of
control that the user can access is also a good thing . . . according to
the Mac advocates.
> It has to save your place and distort the flow
> of your code.
The OS? Yes (it has to save your place) and no (it does not have to
distort the flow of your code).
> I hardly see how that's different.
With some education, we could show you how different it is . . . are you
willing to be educated?
> By "flow" of the code I mean CPU utilization over time.
A point which is irrelevant to this discussion.
> If you're talking
> about the structure of the source code itself, my understanding is that
> doing proper CMT on the Mac is a simple matter of making frequent calls
My, how you gloss over the difficult stuff!
Pray tell . . .
1) What is "frequent"?
2) How do you know if your application is making these calls "frequently
enough"?
3) How do you guarantee that, under all conditions, that the application
will *continue* to make these calls "frequently enough"?
4) How do you guarantee that the system remains responsive when your
buggy application gets locked into an infinite loop?
5) How do you justify the cost of doing steps 1 through 4 for *EVERY*
application version, instead of just once for each operating system
version?
> to
> the YieldThread() Toolbox routine. I hardly see how that makes for a
> significant "distortion".
Are you a programmer with experience on both types of systems? Have you
*written* both types of systems?
> I never heard the term "Windoze" applied to any Windows version before
> Win95. YMMV.
. . . and does. The term "Windoze" was coined for Windows 3.1.
> : And user pickiness does not have to go away just because Mac OS X adopts
> : PMT. And if PMT could turn a dogpile like Windoze 3.1 into something
> : almost usable, imagine what it can do for a Mac.
>
> You still haven't established your claim that PMT is so largely responsible
> for Win95's improvement over Win 3.1.
If you doubt the assertion: feel free to poll the users on your own
dime.
> Have you ever actually had to *use*
> Windows 3.1? I have. Believe me, Win95 has a *lot* of advantages that have
> *nothing* to do with internal details like the multitasking system. (I can
> hardly believe I just defended Win95.)
This is true, but it does not invalidate his assertion.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 23:18:12 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:14:34 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
>> KDE != Linux.
>>
>> KDE is not restricted to Linux.
>
>Just in case noone believes you... I've personally run KDE under Solaris
>and am running Gnome (using sawfish as the wm) under Solaris now.
There are also a few GTK apps I run under Solaris...
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 17 Jul 2000 23:01:56 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:42:03 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Fascism "worked".
Phew. Now can we talk about something more interesting?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 23:22:00 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:45:03 -0500, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:37:39 -0500, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I have no problem with some government oversight. I think there are plenty of
>> >examples to show that unchecked business is as bad as unchecked government. But
>what
>> >I truly dread is a government that gets involved in business beyond strict
>oversight.
>> >The profit motive is essential for business; it is destructive for government. We
>> >must do what we can to keep those two groups separate.
>>
>> ...I just find it highly ironic when considering the new crop
>> of libertarians that has suddenly cropped up to come to
>> Microsoft's defense...
>
>Libertarian? Moi? My gosh ... far from it. The desire to keep separation between
I didn't mean to lump you into the "lets get government off our
back so that we can rape, pillage and plunder" variety of
pseudo-libertarian or psuedo-federalist.
[deletia]
>> As far as profit motive in government goes: I think one of the
>> biggest problems with our current government is the dellusion
>> that politicians will somehow ignore their own best interests
>> and act in an altruistic manner when it comes to managing the
>> country.
>
>I don't know anyone who is not a cynic about government. Yes, of course we all know
>that
You mean to tell me that you don't know any Democrats? <snortle>
>politicians act out of selfish interests much of the time. And, within certain areas,
>that should be a crime, too. (E.g. taking bribes.) But I also know some people who
>have
>gone into politics and happen to know that there are those who do enter the field
>because
>of the desire to serve and promote that which they believe to be right.
Government should be able to run effectively on graft. We have
embraced the dark side of man when it comes to core economic
philosophy. We should probably try to harness that negative
energy when it comes to government.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451743.278^-.00000000000001
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:32:50 -0400
Ah, the Tholen has tholened us another pointless wonder.
Here's today's Tholen digest, part MMDCVIX. Now he's lying that he's been
ignoring the issue which I have broached, but note how he still hasn't
produced anything at all of substance. Meanwhile, he persists in calling my
statement that he can't read a "bizarre claim" but those of these newsgroups
will know what I "claim" to be true. He brought up the matter about
frequenting "these precincts", but attempts to revise history by suggesting
that the issue was about his reasons, rather than mine. It was my claim,
not his, and he can't have it!
The digest proper is in the usual sorry state:
[nothing of value from Tholen!]
Bye!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451743.458^-.0000000000000001
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:34:17 -0400
Tholen tholes:
> Today's Thorne digest:
>
> 1> The Tholy Thole Tholenated:
> 1>
> 1> Sorry, I can't reveal my sources.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that you have a source, Thorne.
Prove it, if you think, Tholen.
> 1> What haven't I learned?
>
> See what I mean?
No, not a soul does. And you call yourself a "teacher!"
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CFvc5.36605$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:21:36 -0700
Mark Kelley wrote:
> History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of thing
> than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to business,
> but when the government itself gets involved in business you can bet the bank on
> failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
Since history has shown nothing of the sort, this is
just ignorant prejudice. I will offer as examples:
1. The Wisconsin State Life Insurance Fund, which
pays me to take their life insurance (the dividends
were greater than the premiums, not to mention the
increase in cash value and interest) - it's paid up
now, so I don't even pay premiums anymore. No
government subsidies. Has been around since the
1920's. IIRC, there is no private insurer rated
as highly.
2. Any public utility district in the state of
Washington. Mine charges less than $0.03
per KWH. Negative subsidy - they pay for
most of the parks and waterway improvements
around here too. Hopefully they'll be running
fiber to my house soon, too. Been around since
the '50's. Not to mention the entire Bonneville
Power Administration, which markets power
throughout the Northwest.
3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - both highly
successful businesses started by the government
but now quasi-public. Warren Buffet is a major
Freddie Mac shareholder - hardly a man to
invest in unsuccessful enterprises. Despite
the fact that the mortgage market is free
to any entrants, they have virtually no
competition.
4. Milorganite - Milwaukee's sewerage on
your lawn by the bagful. Probably started
as a business when Milwaukee was still
run by Socialists.
Your turn - name some failed government attempts
at businesses. Hint: even the USPO is profitable,
and I believe Amtrak is also, although I wouldn't
hold either up as a shining example.
Actually, "betting the bank" on failure is a
rather ironic turn of phrase also, since it
is the government (through the FDIC, FSLIC
RFA and others) which has bailed out failing
banks and S&L's since the depression. Remember
the 80's?
Arthur
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451743
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:53:25 -0700
The Tholy Source of All Tholenism Tholed forth:
>Today's Tholenification of Tholiness:
>
>1> The Tholy Thole Tholenated:
>1>
>1> Sorry, I can't reveal my sources.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that you have a source, Thorne.
Please explain how you came to know that my sources are
presumptions, erroneous or otherwise. The prez has another
little "package" for you in his office, BTW. If I were you,
I'd hold my breath... he's had beans again, and you know how he
farts after that.
>1> What haven't I learned?
>
>See what I mean?
No, I don't see what you mean. You claimed that I "still
haven't learned." What haven't I learned? That you're
incapable of answering a direct question with a direct answer?
Is that what I "still haven't learned?" That would be right,
because I still ask you direct questions.
>
>
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
