Linux-Advocacy Digest #177, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Sean LeBlanc)
Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list? (Mikey)
Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen) ("Joe Malloy")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
From: Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:47:03 GMT
Whoops, Drestin you just dug yourself a hole with the word EVER;
Microsoft used to use Solaris on their website...of course, I
don't have references, but that was a long time ago anyway...
but they did use it at one time, of that you can be sure.
And yes, it was for www.microsoft.com.
Cheers,
Sean
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running microsoft.com?"
> > >
> >
> > Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
> > Microsoft believes this, too.
>
> Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
>
> >
> >
> > You're the one that argues that Microsoft doesn't need Unix to run
> > their websight, when each machine costs them a good $100,000 more
> > than if they were using their home grown LoseNT and Lose2000 shitholes.
>
> That is correct. MS does not need now nor has EVER at any time whatsoever
> used Unix to run www.microsoft.com. I challenge you to disprove that
> statement. Go ahead, or are you just a big bag of bullshit? are you a huge
> liar? full of unix dreams and wishes never fulfilled. There are some unix
> boxes at CD production plants that produce MS CDs, sure, but a unix box
> producing www.microsoft.com output? hahahahahahha keep dreaming liar.
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 22:52:03 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm Linux/Unix-centric, but...IMHO...
>
> > True in some cases, but cutting down Windoze in a Windoze-centric NG is
> > pretty much trolling and doesn't achieve anything more than annoying
> > people and turning them away from Linux.
> >
>
> Why should I take the time to trim followups made erroniously by a
> windows moron? It happens so often that I just ignore it at this point.
> You have no one to blame but winvocates for this idiocy.
I dunno...courtesy. Just because a WinLuser fscks up on their post
doesn't mean that we have to act just as stupid. I know the WinLusers
are annoying, but ...
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:50:01 -0500
Des Dougan wrote:
>
> I know little about FreeBSD, other than its background and that it is
> a closed development rather than the open environment Linux flourishes
> in. That said, I am working with a client who has been led to believe
> that FreeBSD is more secure (as a web hosting platform) than is Linux.
>
> Can someone point me at resources which explain the operational
> differences so that I can understand whether this is indeed the case?
> Expert comment is also welcomed.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> --
> Des Dougan
I don't believe that FreeBSD is any more 'closed' than Linux in the
development department. Perhaps the commercial BSD is, but not the open
versions (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, PicoBSD, etc.) FreeBSD is sometimes
touted as more secure, OpenBSD is extremely secure by default (thier
main development goal is security) but all systems can be made more
secure or insecure through proper or inproper administration. Anyway,
for more info on the BSDs try out:
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.openbsd.org
http://www.netbsd.org
http://www.deadly.org (OpenBSD fan/info site)
http://www.daemonnews.org (BSD fan/info/news site)
And from any of those sites you will find links to other information.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 13:52:29 GMT
In article <0AEh5.1878$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The PC bus architecture has the I/O throughput for that sort of
>> stuff? The usual tactic is to get a proper mainframe or Sun
>> Enterprise or what-have-you[*], and I've never heard of a port of
>> NT to that size of iron...
> Yes, actually, it does. This is proven all the time. Benchmarks head
> to head against the biggest iron Sun can muster is defeated by
> Compaq and Dell boxes using Wintel.
'Scuse me while I look sceptical. PCI is a very middle-of-the-road
bus, fine enough for most desktop stuff but not really your first
choice for heavy duty I/O work. Sure, it beats ISA, but so does a
tin-can telephone. Higher end busses (e.g. SBus) just have greater
peak and sustained rates of data transfer. They do cost more, but
there's more to getting good performance than just increasing the size
of the server farm, and larger single systems do far better in
performance terms than clusters of equivalent size on paper, since
parallelizing many applications is hard, especially with Real World
data, due to your communications and synchronization overhead.
Remember, nobody wants to pay for the wrong answer. They can get that
for nothing by just leaning on the keyboard in a daydream...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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: 2 Aug 2000 14:07:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2 Aug 2000 04:47:57 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From the press reports that say "crashed all LAN consoles" and "NT error"
>
>"LAN consoles" are the client application programs mentioned in the post
>you responded to.
application crach != console crash.
>As far as "NT error" why not take the word of someone who was on the ship
>and someone who wrote the application programs:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.html
>
> Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant
> Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the
> ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain
> applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va.
> As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits,
> "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours."
> But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy
> had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he
> asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred.
So he takes responsibility for the bug in his application. That does
not amount to a claim that NT didn't crash with it.
>> Well the press reports said "crashed all LAN consoles" and "NT
>> error". And if it was only database clients that crashed, how did the
>> stop the engines??
>
>The server corrupted it's own database and naive client applications
>needed that database to function properly and to operate equipment.
An engine control loop needs a database?? Please.
>> Sure it can. NT is designed to work only with properly written apps.
>
>That was a very ignorant statement. WinNT is designed to handle
>misbehaving applications.
Really?? Some misbehaving applications maybe. But MS has always had
areas where the applicaiton must follow the rules to prevent the OS
from crashing. For example in:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP
Microsoft fails to aknowledge it's an OS bug or to fix it.
>>>You do understand the difference between an APPLICATION and an
>>>OPERATING SYSTEM, do you not?
>>>
>>
>> We do. Microsoft doesn't.
>
>I believe the above question is still open. :-)
>
Really? Then why did MS try to make IE part of the OS??
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 14:07:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:30:52 -0500,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>scaddenp wrote:
>>
>> >I didn't do so because people involved with GNU and Linux don't need
>> >the obvious explained to them. You may find it "controversial" that
>> >folks have been getting and enjoying things like Linux, GNU and WinAmp
>> >for free for years but it's not hardly "controversial" in the groups
>> >to which you fowarded my little essay. If you think you have
>> >something to say, say it yourself.
>>
>> Hmm. These strike me as "free" largely meaning "paid for by someone else".
>> With most of these projects, it seems to me the US Tax payer is picking up
>> the tag. (Thank goodness
>> I am not in the US). How much of the development do you suppose was done by
>> people
>> who took salary for the time they spent on the project but where their job
>> description doesnt
>> include "making free software"? Perhaps a lot of it was encompassed in terms
>> of "doing
>> research for the public good" and getting free software IS the public good.
>> However I suspect
>> a great many of those $$$ came one way or another from tax.
>>
>> However, I do agree that those of us who download and use the products are
>> indeed enjoying
>> a largely free lunch (particularly those of us outside the US).
>
>A huge part of "FREE" software is made by hobbyists, not people working
>for the government, and not people shirking their duties at a job. And
>no one is really paying for the development other than the people that
>are taking some of the time that they would use to watch TV, read a
>book, listen to music, etc. and that is the payment that is made to
>create the software.
>
>While some do create free software as part of a job, it is usual working
>for a distributor of the software, so it is no through shirking their
>duties, but through following through on their duties. The point is,
>while it isn't completely 'free' altogether, it is free other than the
>time that is spent by the developers when they could be doing other
>things (see above).
And where people in the Government have been involved in free
software, it has been for thier own purposes. For example, NASA's
Beowulf project has saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions in
supercomputing costs. Compared to that, the cost of them giving back a
few device drivers to the Linux community is minimal.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 14:11:51 GMT
In article <8m6lmj$r17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The final result is that the functionality can not be moved away from
> the toolkit except by doing massive reingeneering of all current
> toolkits. Which will not happen.
The closest you can (reasonably) get is to have a common protocol "on
the wire" so that different toolkits can talk to each other. This is
what Xdnd represents, and in doing so it is a great improvement on
what went before (speaking from experience!)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:14:36 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:02:10 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >How are the "the rich" getting a "free ride" when they are paying
> >just as much in taxes?
>
> It is easier for a rich person to pay $1000 than a poor person.
So, what does that have to do with anything?
Again...your attitude is
'soak the rich...because we can!"
That is not only immoral, it's downright repulsive!
> The poor
> person has to sacrifice the next months food, the rich person has to delay
> the repayment of their countryside mansion by two weeks.
>
> >Are you saying that someone should be PUNISHED merely for
> >having more?
>
> You are the one who is sounding "punitive".
Please tell me how it is not punitive for one adult to pay $500 in
taxes,
another to pay $5,000 in taxes, and a third to pay $50,000 in taxes,
when they are ALL recieving the same basic "government services".
> Making someone who earns $10,000
> pay $20,000 in taxes -- *THAT* is punitive.
So, stop punishing them, and lower the tax rates FOR EVERYBODY!
> I suppose we'd need to reinstante
> some form of indentured servitude for those whose income is exceeded by the
> income tax.
That's what sales taxes are for. They are discretionary. IF you don't
want to pay a lot of taxes, you can wait until later until the tax
rate goes down, and then make your purchases....that, or wait for your
investments to grow, so that the tax bite isn't as bad.
>
> >Why do you insist upon punishing achievement?
> >
> >>
> >> >The only thing that is ethical is a "head tax" That is, your
> >> >family pays, say, $10,000 / head, or whatever.
> >>
> >> Under your scheme, I would have owed the government $2500 per year.
> >
> >I paid 10x that amount last year, and I'm hardly "rich"
> >I'm driving a 1989 Geo Spectrum.
>
> Yes, but at least your after tax dollars are a positive some of money.
>
> Under your scheme, I would have *OWED* money after tax, and that is *BEFORE*
> paying any living expenses. Under your system, some kind of indentured
> servitude would be necessary, because some people would not be able to
> earn more than the tax.
So, basically, what you are telling us, right now, is that you
are consuming VAST SUMS of government resources, but you aren't
paying a dime.
In other words, you're a parasite.
>
> >But if they had more money in their bank accounts, people could
> >afford to pay for these things directly,
>
> If low income earners had less than zero after tax dollars, under your
> proposed "everyone pays the same amount" system, they would not have
> "more money in their bank accounts". The truth is that you only want the
> wealthy to have more money in their bank accounts.
No. I want to eliminate parasitism.
>
> >> People starving and dyiong because they can't afford health
> >> care or food.
> >
> >If you can't afford food, then you are a useless parasite who
> >deserves to die.
>
> I suggest you spend a year in rural China, and then try repeating
> those words. Whether or not you can afford food depends on your
> circumstances. If the government takes all your income and $3000 more,
> under your proposed system, than you can't afford food.
Hint fucking hint: Rural = FARMS. Anybody who is living on
farmland and still starves DESERVES to fucking die.
> > Food is incredibly cheap, and not only that,
> >you can even GROW YOUR OWN!
>
> You need land to grow it on. And you can't buy land if you don't have any
> income because the government taxed you at 150% under your proposed tax
> system.
>
> You'd need to rent the land from someone and pay for the right to grow food
> their .. wait, you can't afford anything because you already owe. So we
> go back to indentured servitude ...
You can always go out and get a job. (FUCKING HORRORS!!!!)
>
> >> Hospitals refusing
> >> treatment to people who can't pay in advance.
> >
> >Don't be absurd, it's unbecoming.
>
> Who'd fund the people who cannot pay up ? I guess the alternative would be
> that the hospitals go bankrupt .
There are always philanthropists in every society.
and guess what...almost all of them are the same "filthy rich
bastards" which you despise so much.
>
> >> lower income families unable to get an education simply because they
> >> were born into the wrong family.
> >
> >If they can't afford to support kids, then maybe they shouldn't
> >be breeding like rabbits.
>
> Well you can tell them that all you like, but it's not really the kids
> fault if their parents make a bad choice.
Ok. Make a law requiring parents to send their kids to school.
There, problem solved.
>
> >right-wingers are socialists. I am completely opposed to socialism
> >in all forms. What I advocate is a *STRICT* meritocracy.
>
> That's not what you'[re advocating here. Your advocating a complete
> absence of social mobility.
Wrong. I'm advocating the elimination of programs which
foster, yea, ENCOURAGE parasitism.
Socialism might have been appropriate in the 1930's. These
days, all it does is promote dependancy...people permanently
stuck at the age of 15.
> Your system would not be vastly different
> to China in terms of wealth distribution and social mobility.
wrong. Social mobility in China is strictly prohibited by
economic means; it is ONLY allowed by political means....
in other words, the exact opposite of what I propose.
>
> >> The leftists want everyone equal regardless of merit, and
> >> the wealthy rightists want their kids to land on top of the heirarchy
> >> regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are.
> >
> >I'm not wealthy, so you just blew your argument.
>
> Oh, so you admit that you want your kids to land on top of the social
> heirarchy regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are ?
Nope. I want the *fear* of winding up on the dung-heap to serve
as a motivator to achieve....so that they will take steps
THEMSELVES to avoid it.
>
> >> Most 6 year olds cannot afford to pay for their education or health. So
> >> you are advocating their parents pay for it.
> >
> >Absolutely. If they parents were signing the checks themselves, they
> >would pay more attention to what the schools are teaching, and whether
> >they are effective, and DEMAND that miscreants be punished and, if
> >need be, expelled.
>
> Yes... if they could afford to pay in the first place.
If they can't afford it, then they have no business having
kids in the first place.
>
> >> you have an anti-meritocracy -- old money stamps all over young genius.
> >
> >You've never heard of charities and scholarships? They're not only
> >for college students, you know.
>
> They are limited. There are not enough scholarships for everyone.
You seem to be unable to grasp how much money would be freed up if
the tax rates were lowered. Do you know what the tax burden of the
average American is??? over 50% With "the rich" it's even higher.
And 80% of it is wasted on goddamned idiotic nonsense, a good
portion of it to pay to house and feed junkies and welfare whores
> There
> are not even enough scholarships to educate the majority.
There would be a LOT more money if the tax rates were lowered.
More money with which to pay you for your work, and more money
for scholarships.
> Again, you
> are trying to excuse your system with an argument that it's only an
> old-money system "most of the time".
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
INCOME TAXES are the "old-money-preferential" system.
Tell me, how much taxes are the Kennedy assholes paying on
all of their millions? Barely a whit. Meanwhile, the guy who's out
there slaving a way, building a successful business (and thus, helping
a LOT of people along the way -- his CUSTOMERS)....oh, we fucking
***RAPE*** him every which way possible.
Income taxes are NOT a burden on "the rich"....they are a burdon
on those who are ESCAPING POVERTY!
>
> >> Yes, but their kids don't have much say in the matter.
> >
> >THE PARENTS are responsible for their kids, not you, and not me.
>
> There we have it. Mr Kulkis's dream society is one where he drives past
> starving children in his BMW, feeling self assured that it's their "parents
I drive a 1989 Geo Spectrum....remember...
> fault", because their parents were earning less than the annual tax amount.
Being broke is a a temporary condition.
Poverty is a way of life.
Those who live in poverty....at least in this country, where every
opportunity is available TO THOSE WHO APPLY THEMSELVES (hint hint
hint) do so by their own choice.
***NOBODY*** keeps them in poverty, other than themselves.
>
> >If someone is so poor that they can't raise their children, then
> >maybe they shouldn't be breeding, should they?
>
> Irrelevant. The child doesn't have any say in whether or not they are
> born.
That doesn't excuse the parents.
Look...here's the scam that's being pulled.
Wow! Look at this! I can spread my legs for every asshole who
walks down the street, and pop out kids like I'm going for the
world record...and I'll get DONOVAN to pay for it all...hell,
I'll have him payin' more for *my* kids then he gives to his own!
And *THAT*, sir, is the problem.
>
> Why do you advocate that children suffer for their parents mistakes?
Because most adults won't put their children through it.
Right now, we offer lazy-ass rejects the easy way out...
"Ohhhhh, don't worry about your kids starving....*we'll* pay
for your apartment, and your food, and their school...you just
go out and get fucking drunk, like you do every other night,
and we taxpayers will take care of everything."
E-fucking-NOUGH of that idiotic NONSENSE! It's gone on for
nearly 40 years in this country.
Has poverty decline? Not in the slightest!
Were poverty rates declining before we started this nonsense? YES!
Are poverty rates declining now, after 40 years of it? NO FUCKING WAY!
What does this tell you?
WELFARE PROLONGS AND SPREADS POVERTY
END WELFARE NOW!!!!!
> Again, you are an old money advocate. You are saying that how well a kid does
> should be causally related to how much money their parents have. This
> is a shining example of your survival-of-the-fattest philosophy.
Wrong. "How well a kid does" is determined by how well he applies
himself in school.
Bring back competitive admissions to junior high and high schools,
so they get the lesson EARLY.
>
> >Absolutely not. Part of being 'fit' is recognizing the necessity
> >of making sure that they are educated. Look what we have right now...
> >mandatory school attendance for all...including the jackasses,
> >thugs, and felons who
> >a) don't want to be there
> >b) disrupt the learning environment
> >c) terrorize the other students.
>
> Yes, but you are advocating that they get educated based on the worthiness
> of their parents.
You're missing the whole point.
> Not on their own merits. Inheritence over ability is
> starting to sound like your anthem.
You know what... I'm sick of everybody worrying about whether some
welfare slob successfully breeds another generation of losers.
We have much better things to spend our time, energy, and money on.
>
> Under your system, thugs and delinquents with wealthy parents would still
> be free to attend school.
Absolutely not. In a rational society, thugs and delinquints wil
be kicked out of school, and they can go work as sewer rats.
>
> >What part of "volountarily funded charities" do you not understand?
>
> I don't understand the part where they are capable of paying to educate
> the majority.
The whole idea of all of these social programs is to promote charity.
Except there's one thing wrong with it....it isn't charity if someone
points a gun up your nose and tells you "give, or else".
Nor is it charity if the only reason that you "donate" is to
avoid going to jail.
That is NOT charity, it's fucking EXTORTION. It really doesn't
matter if it's done by government, as directed by a bunch of
politicians grandstanding for votes...EXTORTION IS EXTORTION,
and no amount of sophistry is going to change that.
>
> >Besides, in case you haven't notices, the tax-funded schools
> >are absolute, complete SHIT right now.
>
> Yes -- in the US. Other countries with leftist governments soundly whip
> the USA on international tests.
That's because the US educational establishment has been overrun with
Communists (truly!) who have embarked upon a mission of causing our
society to collapse from within.
It's the same old Communist technique. First, install Communist
teachers...after that, the rest is easy.
>
> The reason why the US's tax funded schools are in such a hole is because
> the education system in the US has gone too far in the direction of user
> pays, not because it hasn't gone far enough.
Wrong. IF it was truly "user pays", parents would start demanding
some sort of achievement and standards for their money. It's
precisely because too many parents look at education as "the rich
people are paying for it" that they don't give a damn whether the
schools are good or if they fail....which is why they are allowing
the communist-indoctrinated education establishment to get away with
their bullshit.
If the parents were writing the checks ...they would be saying to
themselves..."Gee, I forked over $8,000 for my kid to go to school. What
the fuck did that $8,000 get us? 'Heather has two goddamned mommies?'
Fuck that...Either I'm getting a damned refund from that school, or
that kid's gonna go some place where they actually teach my kid
something."
Yes, it is truly amazing how intensely interested people get about
the quality and value of services performed when they are the ones
writing the check...and how apathetic they get when they get the
idea that they're getting it "for free" because someone else
signs the check (even when they are really paying for it, through
indirect means like taxation or insurance premiums).
>
> >> Somewhat. You still don't have a meritocracy. You have something that works
> >> like a meritocracy in exceptional cases, but for the most part looks like
> >> an old money system.
> >
> >Ability attracts money. Go figure.
>
> Under your system, money attracts money. That is all.
Stupid shits are stupid shits, no matter how wealthy their parents are.
>
> >Not at all. If we got rid of the income tax, and replaced it with a
> >sales tax, the Kennedy dolts would all be in the poorhouse now.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> >The current system encourages the "dominance of old money" even more.
>
> Again, nonsense. Prior implementations of the kind of 19th century
> industrial feudalism you champion were dominated by old money. I have
> consistently argued that in the US today, there is a lot of social
> mobility as opposed to the dominance of old money. You only argue this when
> it suits your agenda, but then you do a U-turn and tell us that the system
> is badly broken and needs a massive upheaval. You tell us that the system
> is unfair to the rich and powerful, and they are not in fact wealthy and
> powerful enough. Or maybe it is that the less fortunate are not
> uinfortunate enough and your whole theory is based on a sick desire to
> see the weak punished.
The current system irrationally punishes the high achievers for
the benefit of the non-achievers (both rich non-achievers and
poor non-achievers alike. The last two generations of the
Kennedys and the Rockefellers are PERFECT example of rich
non-achievers who benefit ENORMOUSLY from the current system
of punishing the achievers).
>
> --
> Donovan
--
----
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:21:58 -0400
Tholen tholens:
> Eric doesn't know what it means to emulate.
Prove it, if you think, Tholen. Else it's just a whole lot of hot air
coming from the old geyser.
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
