Linux-Advocacy Digest #151, Volume #28 Tue, 1 Aug 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Windoze is physically destroying my hand! (was Re: Linux [..] drive!) (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Scheme == Beginners language ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Gnome or KDE ("Manuel Jander Jansen")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Karel Jansens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:16:20 -0300
"Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
>
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > >> >Are you alleging that the Communists do not hold over 90% of the
> > >> >seats in the Russian Duma?
> > >> I wonder what Mr. Kulkis's criterion is for determining who's a
> > >> Communist; is it anyone who does not want the restoration of the Tsar?
> >
> > >For the purposes of the above statement, all members of the duma
> > >whose official party affiliation is the Russian Communist Party
> >
> > OK, here are the figures I found:
> >
> > Communist Party: 113
> > Unity: 95
>
> Unity party has no ideological differences with the communists.
> 113 + 95 = 208
Then why didn't you say "all members of the duma
whose official party affiliation is the Russian
Communist Party or the unity party" above?
Post facto changes of premises are unethical.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:10:53 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > > > Oh, but all three can use it without problems; voila, a netural
> > > > > > > format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Has anybody told you that you are a fucking idiot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it's true, it's true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh god, we can't escape Kurt Angle even on usenet!
> > > > >
> > > > > (THIS JOKE INTENDED FOR WWF FANS. AND IF YOU ARE, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES.
> > > > > HINT: It's not just the catch phrase they have in common.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Never watch wresting...I don't even watch TV.
> > > >
> > > > Someone else used in another newsgroup, and I thought it was...poignant.
> > >
> > > Ah, so that it's not totally lost on you, here is a brief explaination.
> > > Don't take it too personally, it was meant as a joke.
> > >
> > > Kurt Angle is a former Olympic gold medal winner that now wrestles in
> > > the WWF. He is extremely egotistical. He uses his Olympic gold as his
> > > excuse for his ego. He comes out and tells the crowd they are nothing
> > > because they don't have 'what it takes' to 'win the gold'. They don't
> > > know what it's like to work for something. They just don't understand
> > > how hard it is to truly work towards your goals. On and on.
> > >
> > > He also won a tournament known as King of the Ring and it added to his
> > > ego. He considers himself royalty (and feels it is only appropriate,
> > > after all, he is an Olympic Gold Medalist) and that everyone around him,
> > > including the other wrestlers, are just commoners. He typical goes out
> > > of his way to insult someone, or to insult that crowd, and then as he is
> > > getting booed, he nods his head, holds out his hands and says, "It's
> > > true, it's true!"
> >
> > Thanks for the info.
> >
> > While not a fan of TV wrestling (gag) he does have a very good point.
> >
> > *HE* won the gold. *HE* reached the pinnacle of achievement which
> > none of his opponents have even come within reach of.
>
> My point exactly. While you both have a right to be somewhat arrogant
> (after all, you have each achieved quite a bit in your own way) and you
> are nearly as annoying as he is,
Sorry Aaron, I meant to say 'and you aren't nearly as annoying as he is.
My bad :(
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 1 Aug 2000 15:16:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2000 08:01:28 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
>>The part where you don't oppose Capitalism, which redistri-
>>butes much of the wealth produced by workers into the pockets
>>of their employers.
>
>What do you mean by "produce" ? Do the accountants "produce" anything ?
>Does the CFO "produce" anything ? If the executives are as useless as
>you suggest, why doesn't someone found a company that just has workers
>and no leaders ?
I didn't suggest that executives are useless, nor that they
shouldn't even be paid somewhat more than many of the workers,
if it took them longer to learn their creative and organi-
zational skills.
But a 30:1 ratio of max to min salary/profit/etc. in a
business is enough. We all have about the same finite
lifetime, and it's immoral for some to get 1,000 times,
or even 1,000,000 times, as much as others per hour if
both are working hard.
>>Conservative crap, the employers' "ownership" of the machines,
>>land, etc., that the workers use in production is invalid
>>because it was bought by wealth *previously* stolen from
>>workers.
>
>???
Maybe you can deal with this issue better now, after the
clarifications below.
>Firstly, the class division between "workers" and "owners" is no longer
>black and white. Several "employees" are paid considerably more than
>small business owners. Moreover, the CEOs of most public companies are
>also "employees" and can be fired just as easily ( perhaps more easily ).
>
>Are the CEOs "owners" or "workers" ? What about managers who own some
>stock ? What about employees of investment banking firms ?
>( they don't meet criteria that you raise earlier, since many of these
>groups do not obtain their wealth by inheriting assets )
>What is your definition of "owns" ? The days of the rigid class
>divisions where everyone is a factory owner or an exploited factory
>worker are long gone.
The division isn't so much in the formal relationship of the
person to the business, but in how much control they exert,
including mutual back-scratching with others of their kind,
and how much money they get. The greater the control they
have, the more money they siphon off for themselves.
The richest 10% of Americans own 90% of the wealth, and thus
are 81 times wealthier on the average than the poorest 90%,
which collectively owns 10% of the wealth. That's the
central point. This situation occurs because those who
control and/or "own" businesses rob enough of the value of
what the others produce to accumulate 81 times as much as
they do.
>Your post reminds me of the mythical "capitalists" that are discussed
>in the history books in Orwell's 1984. They are a contrived fairy tale.
>
>The CEO is typically paid more than the mail room clerk because the job
>requirements are higher, and the CEO is more critical to the company's
>success, which means that the company servers its interests best by paying
>a fair bit for someone who can do the job right. A bad CEO will send a
>company six feet under. A bad mail room clerk will cause minor short
>term inconveniences.
Yes, but a 30:1 pay ratio is enough, not 1,000 or 1,000,000:1.
>Secondly, if I have a job as an investment banker, after working for 20 years,
>I'll definitely have enough money to found my own business, as well as the
>contacts to drum up venture capital. Not everyone inherits.
>
>If you are trying to imply that there is no social mobility in the US, I'd
>counter by suggesting that there is a lot more of it in the US than there
>is in most communist countries.
I did not imply that. However, average people live substan-
tially better in a Social Democracy like the Netherlands or
Germany than they do in the U.S., simply because wealth
distribution is more equal than here. IIRC I recently heard
on the news that average wages in Germany are twice what they
are in the U.S.
>>Finally, workers do not enter freely into contracts by which
>>most of the value of what they produce is taken by employers,
>>because they are coerced by the threats of starvation,
>>disease, and death.
>
>I've seen some nasty employers ( I told them to go f*ck themselves and
>walked. ), but none of them threatened to kill
>me, or waved syringes filled with HIV infected blood in my face. And
>certainly none of them beat me up and took my lunch!
Cute. The threats come from the needs of the body for
survival, not from employers. But the workers are not free
to take no job at all -- they and their families would die.
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze is physically destroying my hand! (was Re: Linux [..] drive!)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:20:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ian Pulsford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:30:39 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
>> Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : Fscking mouse!
>>
>> I have the solution to your problem: stop fscking your mouse.
>> --
>
>But I love it so. I'll give M$ 1 point out of 1,000,000 they make
>half-decent mice. Maybe the DOJ should have ruled them out of software
>completely, they must make a little money out of peripherals after all.
I prefer 3-button trackballs.
Feh. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Scheme == Beginners language
Date: 01 Aug 2000 11:34:23 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bruce R. Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Use what the professionals use when teaching programming: Scheme
>
> They do? Where? I'm not aware offhand of anywhere teaching scheme as
> a primary language (unlike C, Java, and SML.)
It's been the primary language at MIT at least since 1986, probably
before. And MIT's not alone.
I'll give you an excerpt from http://www.schemers.com/schools.html
Here are a few statistics regarding the schools using Scheme:
* 262 colleges/universities worldwide - 105 of these use Scheme in
introductory courses
* 146 colleges/universities USA only - 50 of these use Scheme in
introductory courses
* 48 secondary schools worldwide
* 42 secondary schools USA only
> Let's face it, scheme is one of these odd minority languages, deeply
> off the beaten track. If RMS and the FSF wasn't pushing it (via
> guile) who would have heard of it outside the AI community?
Most of the discussion I see on comp.lang.scheme is not guile-specific.
I think the CS education community is most represented. The AI
community tends to use Common Lisp a lot, though many like Scheme for
its elegant simplicity.
All that aside, a beginner's language should be chosen on its merits,
not its popularity.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy;
Subject: Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:33:17 GMT
In article <0Ttf5.80515$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You think that your jihad is really worth your time? I came here to
> advocate Windows 2000 with like minded folks and you trolls come in to
> pontificate on your OS. Go back to *your* advocacy group. You're
not gonna
> change many minds here. Least of all *MINE*.
>
>
There are a couple of reasons why we cross post:
a.) There are still people that think Windows is everything. When
reading about other OS's, they shall see there are alternatives.
b.) Sometimes we just return the compliment.
c.) Some topics are worth cross posting in order to get the bigger
picture.
d.) It is not just about changing minds - it's also about broadening
horizons.
Did I miss anything?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:50:05 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >and do everything for me, the stupid user. Unfortunately when something goes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ...damn that Intel deciding that the hardware having no real
>> >> >> clue or control as to what is going on in system is a bad idea.
>> >> >
>> >> >Look at Plug N Play and tell me which is better. I prefer labotomized
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I've never had PCI fail me in this respect.
>> >>
>> >> I've run out of XT resources but that's a more fundemental
>> >> design flaw in PC's rather than a flaw of PnP.
>> >>
>> >> It's a quite solvable problem if you design with it in mind.
>> >>
>> >> It's not necessarily a Windows-ism as you seem to think.
>> >
>> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation in any
>> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In "solving" it,
>> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
>>
>> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
>>
>> pseudo-pnp does.
>>
>> That's a BIG difference.
>
>Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
Yes it does.
You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
>
>> Besides, there's really not much that Redhat even automates.
>> What it does manage to automate is primarily due to the relative
>> robustness of PCI.
>>
>> However, Slackware was doing ISA pnp in '95. So this phenomenon
>> that you attribute to Bughat is not limited to it. Slackware also
>> had the first effective network control panel applet as well
>> (also by '95 or earlier).
>
>You're nonsensically mixing two separate points I made again. PnP was an
>illustration. It got in my way the same way RedHat did. I didn't complain
>about PnP in RedHat.
Both are examples of what little automation exists in any Linux
distribution. Since so little automation does exist, surely you
were also refering to the automation of device configuration.
Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
[deletia]
There's simply not that much' shiny happiness' to go around.
------------------------------
From: "Manuel Jander Jansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:18:54 -0400
That "Cluster install" is a matter of the distro. Its very hard to install SuSE
for example on less than 2GB. RedHat is more flexible, but you still have to
go through a individual packages selection.
In my opinion:
- Debian provides the leanest system. Using GNOME-APT,
is very comfortable to wipe out the "remaining" useless stuff. an
upgrading online the interesting packages.
- Gnome (On Debian!) has very few but mainly "good working" apps.
KDE isn't supported very well on Debian, but the original packages from
KDE are allready filled up with "Krap". There is no way to choose
individual apps. I really dislike that. I installed KDE from KDE sites DEB
packages, and it really sucks. REDHat and SuSE semes to behave
better with KDE.
You may disagree. This just my own conclusion after 2 years of Linux
using/hacking.
bye.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:43:56 GMT, Alexandre JackLord wrote:
>> See, I'm pissed because when we install an distro, any distro, we
>>got lots of junk.
>
> This is not really true. You should be able to do a bare bones install
> in almost any distro.
>
>> ... I got a question. Wouldn't be better to install the desktop
>>environment after the distro (and install the distro without a desktop
>>environment)?
>
> If you want a minimal, lean install, which is what you seem to want,
> then possibly yes. Or better, if you really want "lean", don't even
> install a desktop environment in the first place. Install fvwm2
> possibly with XFCE, or icewm or blackbox or something. KDE and GNOME
> both carry around a lot of baggage. That's kind of the whole point of
> "desktop environments".
>
> Most distributions will let you actually choose the packages
> individually, or ( for example in Redhat's case ) choose clusters of
> dependency-complete packages. And most of them will cover for you if
> you choose individual packages but miss dependencies.
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:14:32 +0200
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:41 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
> >
> >This article describes the bug in a beta of Windows 3.1 which
> >caused a spurious and unintelligible (but harmless) error message
> >when you installed on DR-DOS. It was fixed prior to release.
>
> Maybe you can explain to us why this mere "bug" was encrypted and why
> it attempted to disable debuggers then? This looks pretty deliberate
> for a "bug", particularly since other code around the block in question
> is not so protected.
>
> And if DR-DOS really was incompatible, why did they disable (but not
> remove) this code in the retail version?
>
I hate to repeat myself, but since people still come up with this
canard, I reckon I'm entitled to respond.
The so-called "DR-DOS bug" _did_ make it into at least one GA copy of
Windows 3.1: mine. I still have both the Win 3.1 and my DR-DOS 6 disks
and a couple of months ago I installed them on an obsolete 486SX, just
to make sure I wasn't remembering wrong.
Windows 3.1 refuses to start on a computer with DR-DOS 6 on it (it would
load happily on MS DOS 5). I also managed to find the patch-disk a
friend of mine downloaded from a BBS at the time to make Win 3.1 think
it had a "regular" DOS to bootstrap on.
Now, before someone starts nit-picking: my Windows 3.1 was not an OEM
version, it was bought shrink-wrapped in a shop (the invoice should be
buried somewhere), as was my DR-DOS 6. MS DOS 5 OTOH came with some or
other computer (and was never actually used).
I would also find it hard to believe mine was the only non-compliant
Windows 3.1, so anything mentioned about "bugs" and "harmless" or "in
the beta only" is pure and utter FUD.
IMHO.
--
Karel Jansens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
