Linux-Advocacy Digest #197, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anti-Human Collectivists Support Microsoft Antitrust Action (John G. Otto)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Christopher Browne)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Why use Linux? (Neil Bradley)
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Lew Pitcher)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Courageous)
The State of MCSE's ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gnome or KDE (moonie;))
Linux for Desktop, a missing app... (Jarmo Ahonen)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:53:40 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > I just did a search on Lycos, and I see no FAST icon. I do see an icon
for
> > DMOZ and Direct Hit, but nothing relating to FAST.
> >
> > I tried with both IE and Netscape, just to be sure it wasn't something
> > related to content targeted pages.
> I don't know what is happening to you, but every one else seems to see
> the FAST icon.
After several dozen searches, the FAST icon finally came up. It's very odd,
it only seems to come up on searches for certain things. For instance,
search for "blah" and you see the FAST icon, the dmoz icon, and the direct
hit icon. Search for "b" and only the dmoz icon comes up. Search for blz
and only the FAST icon comes up. Search for "sex" and only the dmoz icon
comes up. Search for MSDN and only the dmoz and direct hit icons come up.
Clearly they're using multiple search engines, and, depending on the words
searched for, it uses different search engines.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John G. Otto)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Collectivists Support Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:41:38 -0700
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>> Most government bureaucracies are little more than havens for
>>> busy-body closet-dictators.
>> Businesses are full of closet-dictators as well, except they're
>> called by the business term for "busy-body closet-dictator",
>> which is "manager".
> The difference is this:
> You can always change jobs. You can always find a new store to
> do business with. But with bureaucrats, you're stuck.
That's why light rail was invented over 200 years ago.
A little warm tar, a few feathers, a split rail, and
away goes the nasty bureaubum. The classic Greeks had
a tradition for removing tyrants that is known as
assassination, but, personally, I think even murdering
bureaubums like Janet Reno deserve a fair jury trial.
--
John G. Otto Nisus Software, Engineering
http://www.nisus.com
NisusWriter -- powerful word processor for the Macintosh
QUED/M -- Quality software source editor with macros
Nisus E-Mail -- easy and powerful
Opinions expressed are not those of Nisus Software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 3 Aug 2000 00:01:52 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Seems like an amazing amount of trouble when simply buying a Win98
>>>machine in the first place is really what the customer wants....
>>
>>Customers hardly ever want an OS. They want apps that are
>>good enough and don't cost much. Windows gained it's popularity
>>by being cheaper that the competition. Now it isn't, and
>>with StarOffice the Linux apps are good enough.
>
>Then why don't we see Linux boxes shooting up in popularity?
I guess you aren't looking... But so far I don't know if
anyone can preload StarOffice. When OpenOffice gets up
to speed that will take care of itself. Add a few more
pretty fonts and you are all set.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 23:16:11 -0500
Chris Lee wrote:
> Actually, This doesn't mean what you think it means. The other distros still
> have the same problems but 90% of the time it's RedHat who makes the
> annoucement basically because they are usally the first ones who run across
> the problem and make a public annoucement about it.
Yeah, even if you can ignore Moody's arithmetic cluelessness, there is a
serious question as to whether fewer security reports actually means more
secure software. We already know that all complex software has bugs. If the
white hats aren't finding security problems, does that mean the black hats
aren't? Maybe we're safest running the systems with the *most* entries on
BugTraq.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 05:32:29 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Nathaniel Jay Lee would say:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Wolfgang Rupprecht
>> would say:
>> >(Folks running that popular program loader from that redmond company
>> >will not notice any difference in power usage running and not
>> >running.)
>>
>> Thank you for writing this so that I didn't have coffee in my mouth
>> as I read this; that would have resulted in coffee everywhere.
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
>> Rules of the Evil Overlord #142. "If I have children and subsequently
>> grandchildren, I will keep my three-year-old granddaughter near me at
>> all times. When the hero enters to kill me, I will ask him to first
>> explain to her why it is necessary to kill her beloved grandpa. When
>> the hero launches into an explanation of morality way over her head,
>> that will be her cue to pull the lever and send him into the pit of
>> crocodiles. After all, small children like crocodiles almost as much
>> as Evil Overlords and it's important to spend quality time with the
>> grandkids. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
>
>Dude, I have got to ask:
>
>Where do I get a full list of the "Rules of the Evil Overlord"? I love
>every one of them that I've seen so far.
Did you, perchance, consider visiting the URL that I put at the bottom?
It _IS_ a real URL...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #66. "My security keypad will actually be a
fingerprint scanner. Anyone who watches someone press a sequence of
buttons or dusts the pad for fingerprints then subsequently tries to
enter by repeating that sequence will trigger the alarm system."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 05:32:49 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Courageous would say:
>
>> > from Compaq, unisys and others perform again these *nix boxes...
>>
>> I guarantee, hands down, no contest, that a sun enterprise 10000 running
>> solaris would absolutely kick their ass.
>
>I'm sure you're right. But this won't be true for long.
>Go to http://www.compaq.com, go to search, and type in
>"21364". An incredible architecture. The Alpha team is
>looking at building SMP systems with ridiculously high
>bandwidth and dedicated transputer-like 4-way point-to-
>point meshes. Memory controllers will be integrated into
>the chips, resolving some latency issues. Most intriguing.
Question: What will these machines be running?
a) Linux?
b) OpenVMS?
c) Tandem NonStop?
d) Compaq-whatever-they-call-Tru-64-Genuwine-OSF-Unix-today...?
e) Windows 2000?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
TECO Madness: a moment of convenience, a lifetime of regret.
-- Dave Moon
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:01:52 -0500
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Courageous would say:
> >
> >> > from Compaq, unisys and others perform again these *nix boxes...
> >>
> >> I guarantee, hands down, no contest, that a sun enterprise 10000
running
> >> solaris would absolutely kick their ass.
> >
> >I'm sure you're right. But this won't be true for long.
> >Go to http://www.compaq.com, go to search, and type in
> >"21364". An incredible architecture. The Alpha team is
> >looking at building SMP systems with ridiculously high
> >bandwidth and dedicated transputer-like 4-way point-to-
> >point meshes. Memory controllers will be integrated into
> >the chips, resolving some latency issues. Most intriguing.
>
> Question: What will these machines be running?
> a) Linux?
> b) OpenVMS?
> c) Tandem NonStop?
> d) Compaq-whatever-they-call-Tru-64-Genuwine-OSF-Unix-today...?
> e) Windows 2000?
Windows 2000. I can't post the proof under NDA but this is a well kept
secrect. Check the slashdot posted Kerberos code for #ifdef clues. :-)~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 23:22:11 -0700
From: Neil Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Nico Coetzee wrote:
> This is why:
> === script output ===
> Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
> 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
> USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
> nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
> nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
>
> === /end ===
Um... well, then by that logic I can conclude that one should run
FreeBSD or Windows 2000, because:
synthcom.com:
[SYNTHCOM->neil: 1056] w
11:25PM up 52 days, 40 secs, 6 users, load averages: 1.98, 1.98, 1.99
USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT
neil v0 - 11Jun00 51days -csh (csh)
maxrpm d1 115200/26400 LAP 9:49PM - /usr/sbin/ppp
-direct
neil p0 archive Tue09AM 6 pine
neil p1 archive Tue11PM - w
neil p2 archive Tue11PM 8:39 -csh (csh)
Uptime would be longer but I needed to compile filtration into the
kernel.
dynarec.com:
[DYNAREC->neilb: 652] w
11:08PM up 84 days, 23:38, 3 users, load averages: 1.16, 1.03, 1.01
USER TTY FROM LOGIN@ IDLE WHAT
neilb v0 - 22Jul00 1day -csh (csh)
neilb v1 - 21May00 40days ./setiathome
neilb p0 synthcom 11:08PM - w
dynarec.com Would've been up longer, but I installed FreeBSD 4.0 which
has only been out for slightly over 3 months. ;-)
And my Windows 2000 box (from which I'm typing this message), as much as
I hate to admit it, has an uptime of about 2915 hours (added system idle
process and seti@home time added), which is about 121 days. The only
time Windows 2000 has crashed on me was during a beta driver install in
RC 1 last summer. I'm running the RTM now.
FreeBSD has never crashed on me, and I've been running it since 1.1.5.
-->Neil
------------------------------
From: Lew Pitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:19:21 -0400
Ed Reppert wrote:
>
> In article <8m36fh$dtt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Coopersmith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Officially, any OS that gets certified as meeting the standards set
> > forth by the Open Group can be called "UNIX(TM)" - currently that list
> > includes Solaris, AIX, Tru64 (aka Digital UNIX), IRIX, UnixWare, HP-UX,
> > and even IBM OS/390.
>
> OS/390 is Unix?! When did that happen?
IIRC, 1998 or so. It happened when the MVS Unix System Services (USS)
subsystem passed the X/Open conformancy tests. IBM made a big thing of
it at the time; it officially permitted US Govt. purchasers to
purchase MVS under the Posix-compliancy rules.
Anyway, IBM markets Apache for OS/390, with (IIRC) enhancements
rebranded as "WebSphere". Talk about scalability ;-)
> > For full details see http://www.unix-systems.org/
>
> I'll go check it out.
--
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright and JOAT-in-training
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 06:35:47 GMT
> >I'm sure you're right. But this won't be true for long.
> >Go to http://www.compaq.com, go to search, and type in
> >"21364". An incredible architecture. The Alpha team is
> >looking at building SMP systems with ridiculously high
> >bandwidth and dedicated transputer-like 4-way point-to-
> >point meshes. Memory controllers will be integrated into
> >the chips, resolving some latency issues. Most intriguing.
>
> Question: What will these machines be running?
> a) Linux?
Read the articles. Officially, that Tru64 Unix, or whatsit
that Compaq owns. But as the ISA is 21264, anything that 21264
can run should be runnable by 21364, AFAIK.
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The State of MCSE's
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 06:28:47 GMT
OK, I know these MCSE people study very hard and all, but this just
sucks!
I walked into a business with some new PC's they ordered. The people
want new Servers. They were renting server from a company (M$
orientated). The company replaced all their old machines due to Y2K
concerns. I asked what happened to the old machines. It turned out they
were all in a store room. Three boxes in total. There was two 386 box
with Novell and a 486 box with Win95. I booted up the PC's and you
wouldn't believe it, but the 486 was happily displaying 1 August 2000!
So, the customer was renting machines at a very high cost whith no
need. I just installed Linux on the 486 and he phoned the company to
come and fetch their machines.
You should have seen the look on their faces.
I could of course not resist to ask the one person as they left why
they marked even the Monitors as "Not Y2K"?
He just walked...
Certified for what then... I wonder...
BTW: The Servers are only for File and Print sharing with a relay to
the Internet (dial-up). Previously they used a box for each function.
The business have only 25 clients, so I now have my doubts on the
Novell people as well that installed two Novell boxes. Anyway, maybe
things were different in the past??
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: moonie;) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:49:29 -0400
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000, Rasputin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <D. C. & M. V. Sessions> wrote:
>>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when SL News Posting would say:
>>> >In article <8lqfnk$bli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> > ishpeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> >|> Nothing better than strait windowmaker. :)
>>> >|>
>>> >
>>> >Sure there is - straight twm - been using it for 10 years[*] and
>>> >have no need for all the desktop clutter, sound, moving menus,
>>> >themes, etc. *tvtwm is available to provide a virtual screen
>>> >larger than the physical screen for those who need such.
>>>
>>> Ah. Wuss.
>>>
>>> What you _want_ is wmx, which gets rid of even _more_ of the clutter...
>>
>>You had ones? All we had was zeros.
>
>You were lucky.
>We had to bang two rocks together to get the zeros...
>
>etc, etc.....
I had to walk 10 miles, uphill, in the snow just to get the rocks!
--
moonie ;)
Registered Linux User #175104
Kernel 2.4.0-test5
XFree86 4.0 Nvidia .94 drivers
RAID 0 Stripped
Speed Demons-R-Us!
------------------------------
From: Jarmo Ahonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux for Desktop, a missing app...
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:45:29 +0200
Hi,
We have been evaluating Linux and Windows 2000 as alternatives
for the next desktop OS. We are going to upgrade from NT 4.0 in
a year (next spring during the current timetable).
It seems, surprisingly, that Linux would win if there were the required
apps. Actually we lack only one application. All the desktop
productivity stuff
exists and is fairly usable.
The lacking application is Lotus Notes R5 Client. No, the web-interface
to Domino does not have the required functionality.
We have been asking local Lotus and IBM people for Notes R5 Client
for Linux but they say that there does is no market for such a client.
I suppose that there are other organizations which would like to use
Linux
but require Lotus Notes R5 Client.
I kindly ask others who use Lotus Domino R5 or Notes R5 Client
to contact Lotus and IBM in order to tell them that there are real
customers
waiting for the Linux Client. We told them that we will put a standing
order
for quite a number of licenses it that will help. I kindly ask others to
do the same.
The only real reason for us to stay with the Windows -line is
Notes R5 Client.
Best regards
Jarmo Ahonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:59:41 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
> >and what laws are not. If there is still any confusion, then the
> >authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
> >"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
>
> There isn't anything in the Constitution that specifies the use
> of the Federalist Papers for clarification of its contents.
The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers are a series
of letters published in the various newspapers (of Philadelphia,
New York, and others), under pseudonyms, as a public debate as
to whether the Constitution should be adopted.
John Jay and James Madison were two of the men involved.
One of the authors remains anonymous to this day (Publius, I believe)
>
> Even so, I think that the Constitution, the FP's, etc. have had
> the fate of many sacred books, of being more waved around than seriously
> studied.
FP and A-FP have been deemed by the Supreme Court from the very
beginning to be legitimate evidence to ascertain the original
intent of the wording within the Constitution.
Welfare like WIC, AFDC, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, etc, are all
unconstitutional because the term "general welfare" as discussed
by BOTH SIDES in the FP and A-FP debates was understood to mean
efforts for the good of the nation as a whole, such as roads,
customs houses, forts and armories, etc. Neither side ever
mentioned, nor considered, transfer of wealth payments.
The only reason WIC, AFDC, etc. have not be "declared" to be
unConstitutional is because nobody has figured out a way to file
a suit which targets the programs in question. Nevertheless,
they are clearly far beyond the scope of what the founders
meant when they used the word "welfare"
>
> In the Soviet Union, for instance, it was considered a bit
> dangerous to know too much Lenin, because one will likely know more than
> many Party bosses, and they don't like getting embarrassed.
And yet, this is the kind of system you promote for the U.S.
Fascinating.
>
> >> Dreeeaaamm, dream dream dream, dreeeeeeaaaaaammmmmm.
> >Apparently, CompleteDolt is incapable of imagining a system
> >which doesn't depend upon violence.
>
> Let's protect property rights on the honor system, shall we?
Yet another moronic red-herring from Loren Petrich, Communist
Agitator and apprentice of confusionism.
Are you equating the use of force to ENFORCE a contract which both
parties have entered into volountarily (with full knowledge that
breach of contract brings the spectre of the use of force) is the
same thing as the use of force to COERCE people into entering
into a contract INVOLOUNTARILY?
> --
> 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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:03:37 -0400
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:26:06 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >CompleteDolt wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:58:54 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
>
> >> >> What do you propose as an alternative to democracy?
> >> >
> >> >A Constitutionally-limited Republic.
> >>
> >> That _is_ a democracy. A republic is one form of democracy.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >We have one in the US. Now if we could only imprison those
> >> >legislators who insist upon passing unconstitutional laws.
> >> >(Lets say, each federal legislator who voted for an unconstitutional
> >> >law spends one day in jail for every day which said unconstitutional
> >> >law was in effect. This will only have to be enforced 2, maybe
> >> >3 times before they all get the message that unconstitutional laws
> >> >at the Federal level will no longer be tolerated.)
> >>
> >> Who decides which laws are unconstitutional?
> >
> >The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
> >and what laws are not.
>
> <guffaw> Right - that's why there are so many different opinions
> about those things - and that's why all Supreme Court decisions about
> the constitutionality of a particular law are unanimous. Yeah,
> right.
>
> >If there is still any confusion, then the
> >authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
> >"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
>
> Bzzzzt. Sorry, that is incorrect. The answer: the Supreme Court
> decides, and has the last word. Thanks for playing, and please enjoy
> the home version of our game...
If that were the case, then how did the Supreme Court rule
that the earlier Dred Scott ruling was unConstitutional????
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The Supreme Court is just a collection of people, some of whom
care not the slightest for what the Constitution means, in
preference for how they can distort the words to their own
statist ideals.
If the Supreme Court rules that "The pursuit of happiness" justifies
rape, would that make it so?
Obviously not.
Thus, it is evident that the SC is not the ultimate bearer of truth,
but merely yet another political body, which can hand down any
sort of nonsense which they so choose.
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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
******************************
