Linux-Advocacy Digest #976, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
estimating number of Linux Cluster systems (Ian Curington)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
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? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:13:12 -0400
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Besides, there's nothing keeping private interests from
> > > exploiting the potential of hydro-electric power should
> > > they foresee the value in such a thing and be willing
> > > to invest in it.
> > >
> > > Given this 'no fuel cost benefit', one would think that
> > > greedy interests would be clamouring to exploit this
> > > sort of technology.
>
> It turns out fuel only accounts for about 15% of
> utility revenues, which is small compared to the
> difference in rates.
>
> > To build a hydro-electric dam, the first thing you have to do
> > is get all of the people off of the land that will be flooded.
>
> > Private companies have to purchase it.
>
> > Government agencies just CONDEMN THE PROPERTY and tell the
> > owner to beat it after paying them a paltry sum (usually
> > far below market value).
>
> You are clueless, aren't you? Private utilities use
> eminent domain all the time for transmission line
> right-of-ways and other purposes, and get the same
Eminent Domain for a utility-pole right-of-way is SUBSTANTIALLY
different than flooding the same property by creating an
artificial lake.
> bargain prices on land. The fact is that one of the
The property owner still gets to plant crops on the land, or
put down sod, and let his kids play on the right of way.
This is far different from flooding the property by creating
a lake.
> dams my county now owns *was* owned by a private
> company which couldn't successfully operate it, as
> were literally hundreds of abandoned hydro sites
> throughout the Midwest and East.
>
> Reality seems to be getting in the way of your
> political dogma again.
>
> BTW - the cost of that land, even at bargain prices,
> is a disadvantage to hydro compared to fossil fuel
> or nuclear.
>
> Arthur
--
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:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:41:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >As for the employees, there's nothing stopping them from
>> >becoming shareholders if the company is public. In fact it's in the
>> >interests of the employees as a group to own some company stock.
>>
>> And it's in everybody's interest to create Utopia.
>
>Employee ownership under a capitalist system is the closest thing to it.
>
>Why do you keep pushing communism when it's been shown to be an
>absolute failure everywhere that it's implemented.
Because it hasn't; that's old Cold War rhetoric biting you in the ass,
Aaron. The issue isn't communism, its socialism. And it pretty much
means "capitalization of the public", which is much more similar to
employee ownership of corporate stock than you seem to fathom. More
preferable still would be *customer* ownership of corporate stock, and
then you've got yourself a whole fascist society, right there. As long
as every person on the planet is a customer, that's a right fine system,
so long as the only fascist sentiment it tolerates is "we will tolerate
no other system".
None of these are workable, all of them are ideals. Socialism and
capitalism are just extremist positions; real life is a mixture of both,
by nature and in principle. Man is a social animal.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:15:56 -0400
Steve wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:48:52 -0400, "Aaron R.
> Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> >> That's horse manure, and *you* know it, Mr. Kulkis. If business
> >> >> turns bad, employees get laid off.
> >> >But not until the owners have actually bee LOSING MONEY while the
> >> >employees are STILL GETTING PAID.
> >>
> >> The owners? That might be a problem for privately held companies,
> >> but publicly held ones have this wonderful government giveaway known as
> >> "limited liability". The only way a stockholder will lose is if the
> >> stock's price goes too low, and that's all a stockholder will lose.
> >
> >So, when the price of IBM stock fell from $120/share down to $60/share,
> >they didn't lose value???
>
> The stock is RISING and IBM is STILL laying off
> employees.
>
> The robber barons want H1-B visa employees at slave wages...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
Spot the contradiction.
You cannot get an H1-B sponsorship approved UNLESS you demonstrate that
you are going to pay the new hire a salary GREATER THAN the
50th Percentile of other workers in that job classification.
>
> >Loren, how bad is it in your world that you feel the need to smoke
> >large quantities of crack on a daily basis...
>
> Loren happens to be right and you are wrong. IMHO
> of course :)
Why do you feel it is necessary to lie about H1-B visas?
>
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> >> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:17:21 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
<nonsense snipped>
Tell us when you wake up from your dream.
--
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: Ian Curington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: estimating number of Linux Cluster systems
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 07:44:09 +0100
I am looking for estimates of the number of Linux clusters
in use or being built, and growth rate if available.
Does anyone know of such a information source, or have
a guess?
Ian Curington [EMAIL PROTECTED] (software provider on Linux)
------------------------------
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?
Date: 26 Jul 2000 06:44:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:09:04 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:48:20 -0400,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Perry Pip wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 1) There would be no computers as we know today. They pioneered them.
>> >
>> >Wrong. Alan Turing was working on these things FAR before the
>> >military needed code-breaking computers.
>>
>> Turing is responsible for conceiving the first progammable binary
>> state machine, which proved that a progammable binary computer was
>> possible. But the Turing Machine's "architecture" is nothing like that
>> of a modern computer architecture, was completely mechanical, and is
>> little more than a teaching tool. It is John von Neumann who is most
>
>Ooops, you're right. I was thinking of von Neumann, not Turing.
Uh..hum...
>
>> responsible for computer architecture as we know it today, and his
>> work was fostered by the vast amounts of ca$h the Government invested
>> in developing fast electronic computers. And that's what caused the
>> industry to take off.
>
>von Neumann did most of his work in the 30's, LONG BEFORE the
>government saw a need for his ideas.
Wrong agian. His first work with computers was in 1944. Most of his
important work was in the late '40's and '50's. Read his biography:
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/VonNeumann.html
My point stands, if it weren't for the huge Government investment,
computers would not be as we know them today. In fact, to this day,
the Government owns and runs the worlds most powerful computers.
>> >Read Feynman's "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". Electro-mechanical
>> >multipliers and dividers were "off-the-shelf" items by the late 1930's.
>>
>> And the first mechanical calculater was built in the mid 1800's. It
>> sure took them a long time to become "off-the-shelf".
>
>Not too many people needed them ==> low production runs ==> high cost.
>
Not too many people needed them?? Every business in the world needs to
do some accounting. Why were slide rules so popular??
>> >> 3) There would no reliable electricity, as the power monopolies would
>> >> be to busy playing cut throating their customers.
>> >
>> >Oh god. This is so stupid.
>>
>> This is why you can barely compete with Dresden in a debate.
>
>Facts are on my side, not his, nor yours.
Then why do you need to resort to insults?
>
>>
>> >The main reason why most areas have
>> >Electricity monopolies is BECAUSE OF the government, as they
>> >GRANTED MONOPOLIES to the various power companies.
>>
>> And what would have happened if they didn't?? Multiple companies, each
>> with their own grid having it's own voltage and frequency and multiple
>> appliances on the market each designed for a different company's power
>> service. All until one company gets enough vendor lock-in takes
>> over. Then you have the same thing you have today but with no safety
>> or reliability.
>
>Are you really this stupid?
There you go again.
>Was there a governmental body which mandated the use of the ISA
>bus in PC's in the 1980's?
>Of course not.
That has *nothing* to do with utilities. Nothing at all. Every public
utility, including natural gas, water, telephone, and electricity must
either have 1) multiple distribution systems or 2) a natural monopoly
providing the distribution system. The former is way too expensive an
too cumbersome for municipalities to support so that latter is the
choice taken everywhere in the world. I could just imagine two
companies running natural gas piping in my neighborhood. When there's
a leak, who would I call?? Both companies would be busy blaming the
other for the gas leak. No thanks.
>Anybody who enters the electricity market has to conform to
>pre-existing de facto standards within the overal economy.
100 years ago those standards did not exist.
>And vendor lock-in? Are you trying to sell the idea that in a
>free market, all electric appliances would only be supplied by
>the an electric current distributor...that there would be no
>Sunbeam or RCA or Phillips or Sony or Magnavox??????
>That would require that the patent office issue a patent
>for oh, say 60Hz current, and another for 50 Hz current
>and yet another for 65 Hz current.
In the early days of electrical power, newly invented appliances were
patented left and right. If there were competing power companies, with
diferent types of power, one patent on a "killer appliance" could
force people to buy one company's power. It would have then been too
expensive for competing companies to change their voltages and frequencies
overnight.
>In fact, there already ARE markets where multiple electric
>companies compete on a house-by-house basis...where a person
>may be purchasing from company A when the neighbors to either
>side both purchase from company B.
But in those cases, only one company is sanctioned to provide the
distribution in each neighborhood. So if company A provides
distribution in my neighborhood and I choose company B then company B
must pay company A a small fee for the distribution. This is exacty
the case I have right now with phone service. I can get dialtone
service right now from SWBell, GTE, GE Rescom or AllTell. But no
matter who I choose, only SW can run the wire. So if a choose another
company, they will have to get SWB to run a wire and the pay them a
small monthly fee just for the wire. Same is the case with DSL. Thru
various ISP's, I can get DSL provided by Covad, Northpoint, Rythms, or
SWB. In any of the cases though only SWB can run the wire. This is
really shitty because SWB has a conflict of interest. They are being
forced to lease wires to their competitors, who as a result, are stuck
with the shittiest service possible from SWB. It gives SWB an unfair
advantage. A good solution IMHO to this problem would be to break up
SWB (and each of the other Baby Bells as well) into two companies. One
would be a dialtone and DSL provider that would have to compete on a
level field with the other dialtone and DSL providers. The other would
be a natural monopoly that does nothing but the copper wires for all
the competing companies. They would still be a monopoly, but it would
not have such a strong conflict of interest.
>In fact, they have even figured out a way for BOTH companies
>to use the SAME distribution net--by using amplitude modulation,
>each company distributes THEIR 60 Hz waveform as a signal riding
>on a several kHz carrier wave.
>Company A might be assigned to 10 kHz, and Company B to 30 kHz.
>A simple AM demodulator, tuned to either 10 kHz or 30 kHz is all
>that is needed to provide 60 Hz power to any individual hookup.
>
A simple AM modulator?? More like one that can handle 150 amps for my
house. Sounds like another expense to the consumer. I better make sure
mine is to code .. eh.
All that is really needed to share distribution grids is good
metering. That is how grid sharing is done now. You meter what Company
A put's into the grid and what Company B puts in. Then you meter what
the customers of each takes out. As needed, Company A buys some power
from Company B or visa-versa. If Company A finds itself excessively
buying power from Company B on a regular basis, then Company A starts
generating more and Company B generates less. And this way, you have
redundancy on the grid as to reduce the risk of blackouts.
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> But the distribution systems are still sanctioned monopolies,
>> i.e. only one company is running feeders to your house, and there are
>> different companies you can buy the power from. Back when the
>> original monopolies were sanctioned, the high voltage switching and
>> synchronizing technologies were too immature for something like that.
>
>See above about 60 Hz current being carried on an AM carrier.
But the grid sharing technologies did not exist 100 years ago. So the
gov had no choice but to sanction monopolies. It was the best thing
they could do at the time. And I beg to say we wouldn't be where we
are today if they didn't.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 26 Jul 2000 06:44:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:53:11 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > 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.
>
>Not all languages are appropriate for the problem.
>
>One example would be awk.
Ok fine, Aaron. To prove your point you can then post 15 different
algorithms in each of the 15 languages, i.e. one algorithm that each
language is suited for.
Perry
------------------------------
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?
Date: 26 Jul 2000 06:44:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:16:43 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>
>> >> Except that the private sector simply isn't willing to make huge up
>> >> front investments in new technologies that won't pay off till decades
>> >> later. Two good additional examples are the railroads and civillian
>> >> aviation, both of which were fisrt invested in heavily by the
>> >> Government and later privitized when people realized their was money
>> >> to make off of it.
>> >
>> >Not sure about railroads.
>>
>> I should have been more specific - the first transcontinental
>> railroads. http://www.blm.gov/education/railroads/trans.html It was an
>> investment the private sector was unwilling to make, mostly because of
>> getting across the Sierras and the Rockies. When it was completed, the
>> industry had it's largest boom ever.
>>
>
>But should the government have financed it? Yes, it would not
>have been built as soon, but was it worth rushing?
For the people at the time, most obviously yes. It opened up the
West. It reduced the travel time from the Midwest to California from
six months to one and considably improved your chances of getting their
alive. In the coming decades, additional railroads connected the
resources of the West to the industrial revolution in the East, making
life better for people coast to coast.
Perry
------------------------------
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?
Date: 26 Jul 2000 06:44:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:15:00 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:07:39 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Which presumes that the government would have acted with
>> >foresight, rather than pursuing the immediate, selfish goals of
>> >government officials.
>>
>> Did it ever occur to you that those two don't necessarily have to
>> conflict one another? Government officials have to answer to voters,
>> not stockholders.
>
>Wrong.
Really?? First of all, even if it is, it does not disprove your
persumption that forsight and short term selfish goal necessarily
conflict each other in every single case.
>Most government officials are civil servants, not politicians.
>And civil servants don't have to answer to voters.
Civil servants have to answer to elected officials, which have to
answer to voters. So ultimately government officials have to answer to
voters.
>Nor, for that
>matter, do federal judges.
Federal Judges have little influence of Government investments in
technology. Nice try.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
