Linux-Advocacy Digest #937, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown) (Perry Pip)
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation (Jenny-poo)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the
USS Yorktown)
Date: 25 Jul 2000 06:34:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:28:04 GMT,
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The commander and pilot were the experiments.
No the vehicle was the experiment. Men had been in space before.
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/presskit/sts1.htm
>
>Since we were on the Space CEnter grounds, we got to hear the NASA
>public affairs guy talk about stuff without having to listen to Dan
>Rather interpret it for the brain-impaired. John Young, who had already
>been in space several times, had a heart rate during launch of about 70
>BPM. Ed Crippen, who was going up for the first time, was screaming
>along at 130BPM, IIRC.
The g-force during launch on the Apollo Rockets were close to 10 g's,
due to the higher speed needed to get into a higher orbit to prepare
for travel to the moon. In contrast, g-force on the shuttle is close
to 4 g's. So it's no surprise at all Young wasn't phased.
>During the landing, the once again reported on the astronauts' heart
>rates. John Young was piloting the Shuttle and Cripped was along for the
>ride. Cripped, who had nothing to do, was relaxed and altert and doing
>~70BPM. Young, performing the first ever landing of the Shuttle from
>Orbit, was going along at about 130BPM.
>
>Nice landing, John. :-)
The shuttle aerodynamics are based on a lifting body, or wingless
design: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/HTML/FS-011-DFRC.html The
reason for a wingless design is that it's a better shape for surviving
the heat of reentry. Also, the shuttle is a glider on reentry, i.e. it
has no power. This is due to the additional mass that would be
required for fuel, and the inadaptability of the main engines for
general flight. These factors make it not any easy vehicle to land.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: 25 Jul 2000 01:43:55 -0500
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:20:48 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's like this troll. USB requires Plug 'n Play. NT doesn't have it.
Let's be precise shall we? Windows 2000 is still NT. Windows 2000
HAS USB/PnP. NT*4* does not.
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:52:05 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <%IRe5.124$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <Yz8e5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > In article <kvWd5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
>> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> tholenbot wrote, quoting Timan and Slava Pestov time and
>> >> >> >> again:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [never mind what he wrote, shouldn't we pass the
>> >> >> >> hat around to buy him a long-sleeved pajama top, though?]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Leave those two young people to their budding tryst, you
>> >> >> >> miserable bot with a thpeech impediment!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Typical invective.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see no invective here.
>> >> >
>> >> > Predictable, given your reading comprehension problems.
>> >>
>> >> The only thing that is predictable is your continued unsubstantiated
>> >> claims.
>> >
>> > Illogical.
>> >
>>
>> Your unsubstantiated claims are indeed illogical.
>
> You erroneously presuppose that my claims are "unsubstantiated".
What is so erronous about my presupposition, Eric?
>
>> >> >> > How predictable, coming from one of the antagonists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see no antagonist here.
>> >> >
>> >> > See above.
>> >>
>> >> Proof by irrelevant reference, eh Eric?
>> >
>> > Obviously not.
>>
>> Proof by proclamation, eh Eric?
>
> Obviously not.
>
Evidence, please.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Gearing up to lose another argument, eh Eric? How predictable.
>> >> >
>> >> > You erroneously presuppose that I could lose "another" argument.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Are you implying that you have already lost all possible arguments?
>> >
>> > Obviously not.
>>
>> Proof by proclamation, eh Eric?
>
> Obviously not.
>
Evidence, please.
>> > Meanwhile, where is you logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>>
>> How ironic you attempted to answer your own question, but failed to do
>> so correctly.
>
> Incorrect.
On the contrary, quite correct. Of course, anyone with decent reading
comprehension skills would recognize that fact.
> Meanwhile, you still fail to present a logical argument.
How ironic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:47:30 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:26:42 -0700,
Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Greg Yantz wrote:
>>
>> Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> This is hydro-electric power? If it is, it rather tends
>> to invalidate your whole point.
>
>Why's that? You think hydro is dirty of something?
>Clogs your wires? Actually, some of it is hydro
>that was abandoned by private utilities as being
>inefficient and unprofitable. But it's all hydro
>(and proud of it). Washington State has a long
>history of failed private hydro - I really don't
>think you want to go there. OTOH, I don't know
>of any law prohibiting private hydro.
And you can thank the Feds for pioneering hydro-power technology as
will, i.e. Hoover Dam, TVA, etc. etc.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:45:37 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > That's called Multitasking. Even on systems without the concept of a
> task
> > > (like earlier Unix systems).
> >
> > OK
> > Unix Microsoft
> > Multi-tasking 1970 1995
> > Multi-processing 1980 1997
>
> Wrong again. Ever heard of Xenix? Written by Microsoft in the early 80's?
I believe Xenix was writen by SCO, but, what the hell, I'll assume
that your info is accurate.
IF that is true...then why did Microsoft take nearly 20 years
to develop even crippled versions of the same data processing
techniques (like TCP/IP networking) which they *supposedly*
developed in the early 80's on the Xenix project?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> Ever heard of OS/2, written by Microsoft in the late 80's?
IBM, you moron. Some of my classmates WORKED on OS/2 during
their co-op semesters.
>
> Ever heard of Windows NT, released by MS in 1993 (which did both
> multi-processors and multitasking)?
Crash early and crash often, they always say.
>
> > > Contracts are usually for a specific time length. Consider that MS and
> IBM
> > > signed the OS/2 deal in 1985 or 1986, a 7 year contract is pretty
> standard.
> >
> > Microsoft bailed on "spirit of the contract" support for OS/2 the moment
> > they released windows.
>
> Funny how Windows was released 2 years before the contract was signed.
>
> But then, that's just your ignorance again.
>
> > > > Right... i'm only a computer systems engineer who studied at one of
> the
> > > > top 10 universities in the world for the subject.
> > >
> > > Then why is it that you didn't know that MS wrote most of OS/2? Why do
> you
> >
> > This is not the subject of engineering courses, nor CS courses.
> > Business schoo, maybe.
>
> No, it's taught by the real world. Pay attention to your industry and do
> not live in a vacuum.
The pathetic scribblings of Microsoft's poor excuse for an operating
system are not important, other than figuring out how to eradicate
their products, and their leadership, ESPECIALLY bill gates, from
the face of the earth.
The guy is a power-hungry nut who should be rotting in prison right now.
>
> > > consider Multitasking to be Multiprocessing (though I will admit that
> the
> > > term Multiprocessing was used synonymously with Multitasking in the old
> IBM
> > > mainframe days, before multiprocessor machines were invented)
> >
> > If that is true, how come OS/2 is much more crash resistant than M$'s
> > own products?
>
> ????????? What exactly does OS/2 being more crash resistant have to do with
> IBM mainframes?
>
> > > > > Really? Let's see you change the number of processes without a
> kernel
> > > > > recompile on circa 1990 BSD.
> > > >
> > > > I take it, you mean the size of the process table.
> > >
> > > Which controls how many processes you can run. DUH!
> > ^^^
> > Notice that the word "can" was not in your original challenge.
> >
> > nevertheless, despite your poor communication skills, I already
> > figured out that you meant "change the MAXIMUM NUMBER of processes"
>
> I think it was pretty obvious what I meant.
What you wrote and what you meant were two different things.
By the way, why did you chastise me for correctly figuring out
"what you meant" even though it differed rather significantly
from what you wrote?
> > > > Simple.. bring up adb, dbx, or gdb on the /dev/kmem, allocate a
> > > > new process table, copy the contents of the old process table to the
> > > > new process table, and change the pointer to the process table.
> > >
> > > And you do this without stopping the kernel process? Yeah right.
> >
> > Yes, you can.
>
> Please explain to me how you can copy the process table without stopping the
> scheduler.
You asked "And you can do this without stopping the kernal process?"
Since the Unix kernal is NOT a process, there is no way to "stop the
kernal process" as such a process does not exist.
Now...how do you copy the process table? Simple: From root, you
signal each prosses with SIGSTOP, which puts ALL of them to sleep.
Then, you copy the process table from with whatever debugger program
you are using, and then re-awaken with SIGCONT (which means "continue
if stopped").
In other words, it's quite simple. The only difficulty is finding
the memory location which holds the address of the process table.
I've never done this thing, but I know it can be done, as I have
seen George Goble do this sort of thing in under 120 seconds on
a system which was performing slowly (and I'm talking about a
30 MHz, 16 Mbyte system with 100 users logged in performing even
slower than it normally would!).
(This was in 1985).
> between the time you start the copy and when you change the pointer, totally
> corrupting your system, not to mention that there is more to increasing the
Not a problem, see above.
> table size than just allocating new memory. You also need to modify
> constants that define the size in numerous places in the kernel image
> (something that you can't do without the debugger stopping the process).
processes don't give a hoot.
> Then, considering that constants are usually stored in MMU protected
> read-only segments, you have to screw with your descriptors as well.
The location of the process table doesn't screw with any file
descriptors
or anything like that. The ONLY thing that knows about the location of
the process table is the process scheduler and the process scheduler
is NOT a process...it's an interrupt service routine in the kernal.
> > write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for details.
>
> I don't have to. I know it can't be done without stopping the machine.
I witnessed ghg doing this EXACT thing on several occasions...
WHILE IS WAS LOGGED INTO THE VERY SAME MACHINE!!!!!
>
> > > Not something you can do on a production machine, now is it?
> >
> > Considering that for the undergraduate students in the School of
> > Electrical Engineering, this machine was their PRIMARY account, and
> > that many had no other accounts, AND that there were 100 students
> > logged in and working at the time....
> >
> > ...YES, this *IS* something you can do on a production machine.
>
> Forgive me if I don't take you word for it. Provide some proof, other than
> telling me to talk to someone whoe very well could be you.
>
> > Even thoug it was a "beta test" for Gould, Purdue Electrical
> > Engineering considered it to be a PRODUCTION MACHINE.
>
> Uh huh.
I give you information, you ignore.
Refusal to accept new information, and adapt your worldview accordingly
has a very old name...it's called "stupidity".
>
> > > Note, no response again.
> >
> > Ok, I was unaware that ext2fs allows *some* fragmentation. However,
> > ext2fs *also* defragments as it goes.
> >
> > in other words, you win ONE POINT out of what...35?
>
> Forgetting already that you said Windows didn't have full multi-user
> capabilities and many of the other points that you ceded by not answering
> them?
I have yet to see any truth to such a claim.
>
> > > > NT is an abomination, likewise, anything that runs on it.
> > >
> > > Hmm.. GCC runs on it. I guess GCC is an abomination then, so does gdb.
> Oh,
> > > and Unix can run on NT as well (since it's a pseudo micro-kernel).
>
> Again, no answer.
>
> > > I ask again. What the hell are you talking about?
> > >
> > > We're talking about my "supposed" definition of a GUI, not "a new face
> on an
> > > old lie".
> > >
> > > Can you stick to the topic? Oh, I forget. This is classic zealot
> advocacy,
> > > if you can't logically argue against the statement, change the subject.
> >
> > Takes on to know one.
>
> Sounds like an admission to me.
Only if you are a zealot yourself.
>
> > > > > You're forgetting something. Microsofts consumer OS's are not in
> the
> > > same
> > > > > market as a Unix system from 20 years earlier. Nor do they cost
> > > anywhere
> > > > > near the same.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. I can get Linux for a couple of bucks.
> > >
> > > We're talking about the cost of a Unix system from 20 years ago. Again,
> > > stick to the topic.
> >
> > No, we're talking about the HISTORY of both systems, from origination
> > to the present.
>
> No, the quoted text you are responding to is about the cost of Unix systems
> 20 years ago. It's right there. Read it.
you are not merely confused, but completely befuddled.
>
> > > > I can get Solaris for the cost of shipping and handling.
> > >
> > > If you don't use it commercially.
> >
> > For the home user, who cares?
>
> Well, home users are not the only users, nor are they even the average user.
> They make up less than 10% of the OS market.
>
> > For the commercial user, at the end of 5 years, even a $100,000 Solaris
> > installation is much more cost effective.
>
> Right.
Considering the licensing fees and the number of admins needed to keep
a whole NT-farm going to get the same performance as a $100,000 Solaris
box, you would be lucky to get off with only $250,000 in costs.
>
> > > > > > And what is so special about DirectX other than the fact that it's
> > > > > > a big freaking security hole? DirectX accomplishes NOTHING of
> > > > > > benefit which can't be accomplished by other, MUCH more secure
> means.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're thinking of ActiveX, not DirectX. Again, your ignorance
> shows
> > > > > through.
> > > >
> > > > So, explain the supposed benefits of DirectX.
> > >
> > > I shouldn't have to, Mr. Operating systems expert.
> >
> > You're the one claiming that DirectX is superior. Make your case.
> > Burden of proof is upon you, not me.
>
> I made no such claim. I simply said they were doing it first, not that it
> was superior to anything.
>
> > > > > You were wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Not my fault you're too befuddled to know when you're in an
> > > > embarrasing situation.
> > >
> > > Stop changing the subject. You were wrong. Admit it.
> >
> > You flunked out of debate, didn't you.
>
> You never participated in it, did you?
I win.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:59:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:28 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[...]
>>I am pretty sure that copyright law doesn't say anything about their
>>*motivation*; And anyway, if being *greedy* were grounds for a
>
> Actually, the copyright clause of the US Consitution quite
> plainly justifies intellectual property entirely in terms
> of public good.
To wit: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.
Note that copyright law is so called because it is the one "exclusive
right" preserved after you publish your writings. Everybody else can
have your writings, learn from them, and make even better writings, and
there isn't anything that copyright law will do to stop them. If you
want to maintain all of your exclusive rights, including property rights
which enable you to profiteer without disclosing your writings, then you
don't have any need to copyright them to begin with. That kind of
intellectual property is called trade secret. And that isn't secured
for any limited time by law, but perpetually by your maintenance of the
secret alone.
Now the question is: are you allowed to change the secret randomly on
purpose, just to thwart others' attempts to find out what it is?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:59:22 +1000
>> >> >> >> >> Another unsubstantiated claim.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Check the archive, Slava.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The burden of archive checking is yours, tinman. You made the
>> >> >> >> unsubstantiated claim.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How ironic, coming from someone who makes unsubstantiated
>> >> >> > claims without
>> >> >> > checking archives.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated' when
>> >> >> you have just made one yourself.
>> >> >
>> >> > Illogical.
>> >>
>> >> Balderdash.
>> >
>> > Typical pontification.
>>
>> How ironic.
>
> See what I mean?
Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
>> >> > I have not made one of your claims.
>> >>
>> >> Correct, but irrelevant, given that I never claimed you did.
>> >
>> > Incorrect, Slava.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> You already proved it, by making the claim.
What alleged "claim"?
> How ironic that you fail to
> recognize this fact.
I cannot recognize that which doesn't exist, Eric.
>> Remember to use the scientific method.
>
> Of what relevance is this remark?
Don't you know?
>> >> > Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
>> >>
>> >> See what I mean?
>> >
>> > Illogical.
>>
>> On the contrary, you simply failed to recognize the logic.
>
> There was no logic to recognize, Slava.
How typical, coming from someone who routinely fails to recognize
logic.
>> >> >> >> >> What alleged "Tholen emissions"?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The ones that result from digestion,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I see no evidence of "digestion" here.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Incorrect, given that neither I nor tinman are currently being
>> >> >> digested.
>> >> >
>> >> > See what I mean?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
>> >
>> > See what I mean?
>>
>> See above.
>
> Typical circular reasoning.
Incorrect.
> Ineffective.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Trying to set a record for
unsubstantiated claims in a single post, eh Eric?
> Meawhile, where is your
> logical argument?
"Meawhile"? How rich!
> Why, nowhere to be seen!
On the contrary. Of course, anyone with open eyes would recognize that
fact.
>> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who has already lost the argument.
>
> Illogical.
On the contrary, my logical argument is quite logical.
> Why do you continue to argue, Slava?
Don't you know?
>> > 0
>>
>> What alleged "0"?
>
> Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
Illogical, as I have no mentor, and I am not a grasshopper. Gearing up
to lose another argument, Eric?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your claims that
>> >> >> >> >> >> he's
>> >> >> >> >> >> "back on CSMA".
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your satisfaction.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I'm not here for "satisfaction", tinman.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Then why are you here?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Don't you know?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I see you didn't answer the question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The answer was self-evident, Eric.
>> >> >
>> >> > On what basis do you make this claim?
>> >>
>> >> On the basis that the answer was self-evident, Eric.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who claims I engage in "pontification".
>
> See what I mean?
Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
>> >> >> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Obviously not, Eric.
>> >> >
>> >> > See what I mean?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
>> >
>> > Argument by repetition, Slava?
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who has already employed argument by
>> repetition several times in their post.
>
> "their" post?
Correct.
> Who are "they", Slava?
I was referring to you, given that you have more than one identity
I used the pural form.
>> > Ineffective.
>>
>> Typical unsubstantiated claim.
>
> Incorrect.
How ironic you view your claim as 'incorrect' now that you've realised
you can't substantiate it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:53:57 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:18:24 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I can program in any of 15 different languages, whereas you are
>restricted to...gag...visual basic.
>
Well now that you've opened your big mouth why don't you prove
yourself and post the endian algorithm example in 15 different
languages.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:52:30 -0400
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Oh god. This is so stupid. The main reason why most areas have
> > Electricity monopolies is BECAUSE OF the government, as they
> > GRANTED MONOPOLIES to the various power companies.
>
> > Every place where such officially sanctioned monopolies have been
> > overturned, the price of electricity drops IMMEDIATELY when a
> > competing company comes into the local market.
>
> Just happen to have my electric bill handy. I pay:
>
> $0.021 per KWh for the first 2000 KWh
> $0.027 per KWh for the next 2000 KWh
> $0.0285 per KWh after that.
>
> This is not only from a monopoly utility company,
> it's a government (county) owned monopoly utility
> (but I do get to vote for the officers of the
> company). There is no government subsidy for this
> utility; in fact it returns money to the community
> in the form of parks, waterway improvements,
> irrigation (fee-based), flood control, and other
> things. Oh yeah, they have a really nice local
> history museum in the dam with free admission too.
Hydroelectric power is inherently "cheap" no matter what
the corporate structure.
> And bunnies (lots of 'em) on their lawn. And they're
> in the process of building a fiber optic
> infrastructure throughout the county.
When I pay for electricity, I have no interest in it being
used as an indirect tax for parks, museums, nor bunnies.
Although, at least this is a consumption tax, which is a heck
of a lot better than income taxes, so, I'll allow it.
>
> Please point me to a private electricity provider
> who has lower rates - I'd seriously like to see
> if there is one. I'd even be impressed with a
> utility whose rates are only double what I pay.
As soon as you can show me a competitive market where
each competitor is able to use hydro-electric power.
>
> OTOH, if you can't do that, I'd seriously doubt
> you know what you're talking about.
Do a study of those areas where coal-fired plants are the only
option, and check local monopolies vs. competitive markets,
and get back to me.
>
> Arthur (not expecting an answer)
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
