Linux-Advocacy Digest #895, Volume #27 Sun, 23 Jul 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown) (Perry Pip)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows98 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Bloody Viking)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Bloody Viking)
Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Bloody Viking)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Bloody Viking)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm (Bloody
Viking)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm (Bloody
Viking)
Re: Leninist USEFUL IDIOT denies reality, attempts a smear campaign (Loren Petrich)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm (Bloody
Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the
USS Yorktown)
Date: 23 Jul 2000 20:57:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NASA did no such replacement of critical embedded hardware in
flight. Something like that would be utterly fooolish. You can't do it
during ascent or reentry, and even in orbit it would be way to
risky. See
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Part1.html To find
out what NASA did do.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:56:37 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Steve wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Facts are correct, but the missions are a little
>>mixed up.
>>
>>The Apollo series had seriously outdated computers
>>due to the fact that they wanted to be able to
>>component repair any failing item down to the last
>>transistor. IBM SMS technology allowed that. IBM
>>MST technology did not, hence the semi IBM
>>360/quasi 370 computers that were used for the
>>later Apollo missions. These were conglomerations
>>of IBM 's standard computers tweaked for NASA.
>
>Sounds very self serving. That's like saying it's better to replace pieces
>of a CPU down to the last diodes, rather than the whole CPU.
>
>Due to the size difference, a larger number of replacements could be
>carried.
>
>With your line of reasoning, the only logical conclusion is that the shuttle
>should have waited until a Univac or whatever could be carried up there. :)
>
>Surely there was plenty of experience with computer components in space by
>the time of the shuttle.
>
>It's like this ship issue. Clusters are clearly part of the answer where
>there is a "shared nothing" architecture with the backup effort being put in
>alternate apps or training to ensure a problem-causing event is not
>repeated.
>
>>Space shuttles didn't get laptops until the mid
>>1990's as far as I know. The puters' were still
>>somewhat component repairable. The laptops were
>>for data collection and not for running th
>>shuttle.
>
>As I dimly recall, an astronaut may have carried up an unofficial laptop
>earlier, before the government procurement timeline SPRANG INTO ACTION, so
>to speak, heh heh.
>
>>They were also highly customized units
>>able to withstand the rigors, not to mention gamma
>>rays (smile) of space.
>>
>>You have to understand the philosophy of NASA
>>which is much like the that of the NYSE. Total
>>redundant and able to be repaired on the fly.
>>
>>The NYSE was using IBM 3330 disk drives well into
>>the 1990's simply because they were able to remove
>>a pack (physically) from a string and slap it into
>>another string on the fly. This could easily have
>>been performed with mirroring or RAID, or under
>>VM, but they liked the security blanket of being
>>able to hold the data in their hands.
>>
>>
>>Sounds strange but that's what I have been told.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:15:48 -0400, Gary Hallock
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>2 + 2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> The first space shuttle went up with 6 redundant IBM computers that were
>>>> several generations outdated, due to government contracting leadtimes.
>>>>
>>>> An astronaut had a laptop with him that was immensely superior to the
>IBM
>>>> computers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you sure about that? The first shuttle was launched in April 1981.
>Did
>>>laptops exist back then?
>>>
>>>Gary
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:58:03 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Perry Pip wrote:
>
>
> Well, unfortunately, what portable development tools are there for
> Windows?? VB is not portable. VC++/MFC is not portable. Java is
> portable, but not if you use Microsofts tools. Delphi is supposedly
> coming to Linux, but what about other Unices? It seems windows
> developers don't have many choices. Lack of portability is just
> another form of Vendor lock-in. And claiming Windows programmers
> mostly don't need portability is just another evasion of vendor lockin
> being the real problem.
>
> Perry
You're right about that. But you could always use gcc/g++ and Qt.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:55:31 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:04:26 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >One: never install to C: if you have ANY other partitions
> available.
> > >When windows dies (and IT WILL), you aren't stuck with having to do
> > >ALL of your re-installs all at once .... some of the apps will work
> > >if you, say, make a habit of always installing to E:\apps\whatever.
> >
> > Don't these apps still need to be reinstalled if something happens
> > to the Registry?
>
> Depends. In general, if Windows dies - which can happen; I had a
> server keel over and die last night, actually... thanks to a faulty
> drive. Arrgh! - you probably will have to reinstall your apps. One
> of the nice things about MSI, Microsoft's new installer technology, is
> that it makes the process ridiculously easy and quick - especially for
> clients - and more so when managed by a 2K network.
>
> Example: I drop a bomb on a client PC. Oops. Drop a new client PC
> in, with Win2K Pro (or even Win98+2K client tools) installed - which I
> can do from a drive image in a matter of a few minutes. Log onto the
> server and voila! There's your desktop, just the way you left it.
> With your applications ready to use.
Wow...just like what Unix had in 1985!
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:00:50 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Why do you feel it necessary to engage in a smear campaign
: Are you afraid that people might realize that my observations are
: accurate
If you were to climb down from your terminal in a birch forest, you might see
reality. For a John Bircher, you are positively arboreal. You need a reality
check. Why the CCCP fell apart is becuse of _OIL_. Right before the Soviet
Empire collapsed, they had their "hubbert peak" aka. Oil Max-Out. Their
economy had to shrink, not getting as much energy as before to run it.
Reagan had nothing to do with the Soviet oil lax-out apart from making deals
with the Arabs to drop oil prices to soften them up by hard currency
deprivation. The original George Bush knew the Soviet oil max-out would occur,
being how the Bush family is a family of oilmen. The original Bush, being the
head of the CIA, had access with spies to the info on the CCCP oilfields and
knew about Hubbert curves for oil production.
The Soviet oil max-out happened in 1988. The collapse was in 1989.
Coincidence? Not hardly. Just keep swinging in the birch branches, fool. The
same fate awaits us. We already see the writing on the wall. The non-OPEC oil
production worldwide is about maxed out now. Why else does OPEC have to up
production to keep petrol prices stable? Just wait for the fun and games when
OPEC maxes out.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:09:24 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Because, to compete with "the browser" (primarily Netscape) which
> >> >threaten[ed,s] to make the OS obselete, Microsoft have turned Windows
> >into a
> >> >delivery system for Internet Explorer.
> >>
> >> That is illegal.
> >
> >I see. It's illegal to compete with a superior product ?
>
> It is illegal to not compete with an inferior product, but to force
> consumers to accept the inferior product in order to acquire another
> product (in this case, also inferior, but that's beside the point).
No one was forced to buy Windows, as far as I know.
> Is it all anti-trust crimes which you think are "good business
> strategies", or just tying as restraint of trade, a violation of section
> 1 of the Sherman Act?
I am not a lawyer, especially an American one, but it seems to me that your
"Sherman Act" is unfair and based far to much on things the *might* happen
instead of things that *did*, or *do* happen.
The whole basis around which this "anti-trust" case is based seems to me to
be unfair and flawed. This is before we even get into all the rewritten
history, assumptions and gaping holes in the prosecution's case.
> >> >They don't need to compete in office suites, because no other office
> >> >suite can compete.
> >>
> >> And that is fantasy.
> >
> >No, it's observable market choice. Something you tend to champion.
Unless,
> >of course, it disagrees with your own (often ill-informed) opinion.
>
> If it was market choice, why do I observe a bunch of restrictions placed
> on OEMs in order to force them to bundle MS Office instead of IBM's
> suite or Corel's suite or Star Office or any other Office suit?
Such as ?
> Any of
> these might fulfill a particular customer's requirements quite easily.
And they're free to get them, if it does.
> MS has pre-load office bundling about as well locked up, through the
> same illegal maneuvers, as the Windows monopoly and the web browser
> tying. It certainly isn't its competitive abilities which makes Office
> the only one available from most OEMs; it is the contracts between MS
> and OEM, which have little to do with consumer demand and everything to
> do with MS demands.
Every comparison you read between Office and other suites always acclaims
office as the better product. Office *is* the best suite.
> You'd have to be either blind or stupid to think
> that MS "competes" with Office; they anti-compete with it, just like
> everything else. They couldn't compete their way out of a paper bag,
> from all appearances.
Office got to the top of the heap by simply being better than every other
suite. I doubt you'll find many people wihtout some other agenda who would
argue that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:06:04 GMT
Loren Petrich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Nobody else seems to agree with you except for the residents of
: certain groves of birch trees. A special kind of birch trees, of course :-)
Goes to show that John Birchers havn't evolved. They are still a bunch of
arboreals, swinging in the branches of birch trees like the monkeys they are.
Maybe if they would climb down from their terminals in the canopy of the birch
forest, they might see reality. Wouldn't surprise me if Aaron knuckle-walks
when out of the birch trees.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:07:18 GMT
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Some comments on the nothingness that is Microsoft .NET white paper:
: http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$133
: Excerpt:
: =====
: What's going on here? I couldn't find one single idea that could
: actually be implemented in a software product in that entire white
: paper. Instead of providing a list of features, Microsoft provides a
: list of amorphous "benefits" like this one:
: Web sites become flexible services that can interact, and exchange
: and leverage each other's data. [Ibid]
: That's a "feature" of this exciting .NET architecture. The fact that it
: is so broad, vague, and high level that it doesn't mean anything at all
: doesn't seem to be bothering anyone. Or how about:
: Microsoft .NET makes it possible to find services and people with
: which to interact. [Ibid]
: Oh, joy! Five years after Altavista went live, and two years after Larry
: Page and Sergei Brin actually invented a radically better search engine,
: Microsoft is pretending like there's no way to search on the Internet
: and they're going to solve this problem for us. The whole document is
: exactly like that.
*sigh*
The only thing we have here, is some whiney weenie pissing and moaning
about the ramblings of some marketing droids at Microsoft.
Okay, explain to me precisely where .NET is touted to be a full
implementation that is currently in use. Please tell me exactly where
Microsoft denies that .NET is anything but merely a whitepaper. Please
show me precisely where Microsoft claims that this is nothing but
vaporware.
And while we're at it, please explain to me why publications cannot have a
say on things that are not implemented. After all, videogame magazines
are always commenting on announcements from game manufacturers, without a
single demo in their hands. Why aren't we bitching to them? After all,
"it's vaporware!"
"That's it! I'm going to form an alliance against Sony, and make them pay
fo' hurtins ma peepah!"
Please, give us a fscking break already.
--
.-----.
|[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
| | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
|_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:11:57 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: And nobody thought Hitler was going to attack all of Europe.
^^^^^^
End of thread. Answer this one. When you are not swinging in the birch forest
canopy, do you knuckle-walk? You are so devolved that you probably have to
shave yourself down to avoid being mistaken for a monkey. And a monkey with
any self-esteem would be insulted at having you in the next cell of the
primate house cellblock.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:16:08 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Are you implying that there is a birchy-man hiding under our collective
: beds?
No, just that John Birchers are arboreals who havn't evolved into humans. Sort
of like yourself.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:19:39 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On 22 Jul 2000 01:04:59 GMT,
: Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: >8<SNIP>8
: >
: >: And if you don't like all the good things the Government is doing for
: >: you, you can petition it with your grievences. You can also assemble
: >
: >LOL!@# How about wonderful things like multiple-taxing of incomes...
: >should I be thankful for that too? How about politicians who care more
: >about getting pussy and money over helping their nation?
: Oh please...like you have someone that can do better, Stephen??
There are plenty of people out there who could run this country 100x
better than some white-trash lawyer from the inbreeding capital of the US.
: >Should I get all
: >glassy-eyed, and praise them as well?
: Nope. Apparently, enough people are already doing that already in the
: form of their votes. Now who's fault is that??
You seem to be under the impression that voting is entirely fair, and that
it accurately reflects the opinions of the people. Gee, you really are
very naive. Tell me, why do you think that most people don't vote?
HINT: They've learned that it doesn't make any damned difference.
: >Perry, you are quite naive.
: Really?? We in the U.S have it better off both economically and
: politically than almost anyone in the world. Our biggest problem is
And you think the politicians are responsible for that? HAH!
It's businesses like Microsoft that have made this country what it is.
The politicians have done nothing but act as the middle-man for getting
some good things done. They inherently do not have some sort of virtuous
agenda, as you seem to be proposing. The only reason why I'd back GWB is
simply because Gore is a fscking tree-hugging moron.
: all the discontented whiners like you who will never be happy no
: matter what.
I'm not discontented. I just don't expect some greasy politicians to make
me happy. I can do that on my own. You seem to think that the govt. is
interested in taking care of us. That is absurd. The govt. is just
another ball of sleazy self-serving lawyers and career-seeking whores who
want one thing... money. If you can't see that, then God bless you,
sonny. For ignorance is true bliss.
--
.-----.
|[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
| | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
|_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:13:50 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:58:03 -0400...
...and Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right about that. But you could always use gcc/g++ and Qt.
Or GTK+. (Yes, it is cross-platform.)
mawa
--
Ich habe noch einen langen Weg zu gehen und viel zu lernen, und ich
denke, das einzige Zeugnis, das ich ablegen kann, mit dem ich
wenigstens versuchen kann, zu zeigen, daß ich kein Troll bin, ist: ich
bin bereit zu lernen. -- mawa, Oktober 1998
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the
USS Yorktown)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:28:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 2 + 2 wrote:
>
> > The first space shuttle went up with 6 redundant IBM computers that were
> > several generations outdated, due to government contracting leadtimes.
> >
> > An astronaut had a laptop with him that was immensely superior to the
IBM
> > computers.
> >
>
> Are you sure about that? The first shuttle was launched in April 1981.
Did
> laptops exist back then?
Yes, they did exist in a fashion but they were not yet called laptops.
There were programmable calculators and some small hybrid programmable
calculators. Their useability were quite limited compared to a full 8-bit
computer of the day. Kaypro was making a full capability CP/M suit case
computers. The closest match to a laptop was the notbooks computers on
those days; like the TRS-80 Model 100. Epson was making a notebook comptuer
also, but I can't remember if it dated from before the first launch. It was
a couple of years yet before the first real laptops were available.
Of course all this has nothing to do with the space shuttle's first launch,
since on the original launch there was no mission that needed any data
processing support. The purpose of the first launch was a go live test of
the shuttle to see if it could reach LEO, orbit a few times and land without
problems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:29:48 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: voltage controlled oscillator connected to a temp senser
: WOULD be neat-o idea.
Yeah, it would work, but then you'd want a gauge that'll show speed, like how
cars have speedometers. Cool off the CPU, and watch it rev up.
Heat buildup comes from the switching of the transistors taking some finite
time to go from on to off and back. Speed improvement comes from both
fabrication of faster transistors on the chip and from better heat
dissipation. You can use better heat dissipation to overclock a CPU, but a
limit is reached by the speed of the transistors themselves. I don't overclock
CPUs becuse I want better reliability.
But with speed held constant, a CPU stops dead in the water upon overheating.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:33:46 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Sound Cards are cheap. The price difference between genuine Sound
: Blaster and imitators is less than $10. Save yourself some headaches,
: and just get the real thing.
Certainly good advice to go with the real thing with sound cards. Even so,
they can be a pain, even in Windows to config. Choosing a dinkum Sound Blaster
helps to reduce problems.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Leninist USEFUL IDIOT denies reality, attempts a smear campaign
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:34:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> time dominating most other former Soviet republics. I suspect that to be
>> the case because the Ukraine is (1) very populous and (2) a bit close to
>> western Europe. The Baltic states are too small, and the Central Asian
>> republics are too distant.
>Could it also have something to do with the fact that the Moscow
>governmnet slaughtered 10,000,000 Ukrainians who refused to
>participate in Stalin's and *your* favorite micro-economic model:
>the state collecte farm???
Mine? Your imagination must be overgrown with birch trees.
However, present-day Russia != the Soviet Union.
>> In fact, what had happened to the Soviet empire might be called
>> "Brest-Litovsk II", after the WWI treaty in which Lenin gave Germany
>> Finland, the Baltic states, eastern Poland, and the Ukraine. This is one
>> reason I find Mr. Kulkis's conspiracy theories *extremely* unconvincing --
>The Soviet Union "lost" E. Germany? They had a full 10% of the
>population working as informant on their neighbors!
However, the infrastructure for collecting the informers' reports
is now *GONE*. The Stasi is *GONE*, and East Germany has essentially
*DISAPPEARED* into West Germany. And this new Germany has stayed inside
of NATO, against the wishes of some of the xUSSR's leaders.
And I suspect that if Korea gets reunified, it will essentially be
South Korea annexing North Korea.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
Date: 23 Jul 2000 21:45:05 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I'm 35, and I'm still in hot demand, idiot.
As of NOW, that is. No telling what Y2K+1 could bring.
: The stock market is overvalued, primarily becaue baby-boomers are
: purchasing stock as a commodity (i.e. like buying bread), thus,
: driving up the price (abundant dollars chasing a scarcity of shares).
: 50:1 Price/Eerning ratios cannot continue indefinitely.
And when the stock market crashes, so will the rest of the economy.
: Which is why *I* am grabbing as much money as possible ****NOW***.
I sure wish I was able to get in on the money grab. But, I'm far from alone in
being unable to partake.
: I don't give one ounce of credence to any company's "retirement
: benefits"
: as corporate america has a 20-year history of reneging on the
: same social contract....that is, laying off people at 15-years
: w/o a penny's worth of retirement benefits.
Aha! Reality! You finally admit that big business is the only thing
benefitting from the non-existent boom. The reality is right there in that
paragraph you wrote. The economy is _NOT_ in a boom. Far from it, with
incessant downsizing in progress.
: It's also why I decided that my wife must be fluent in a large
: number of langauges...because when the bubble bursts, I don't
: know where the decent economy will be.
It could end up being _nowhere at all_.
: This gas-price thing almost put the whole economy in the drink.
The petrol price issue. Want to see an ominous web site about petrol in
general? Read this gem:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com
The fact is that global oil production WILL max out sooner or later. The
recent petrol price thingy is but a taste of what's yet to come. That is, a
permanent 1970s redux that gets worse every year. It doesn't take too much of
an energy shortage to fuck up the economy. All bets are off once the Oil
Max-Out hits.
: >
: > --
: > DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
: --
: 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.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
