Linux-Advocacy Digest #200, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
SBLive! Was- Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Stuart Krivis)
Win xx (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Linux as embedded OS (mlw)
Re: Linux, easy to use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 04:31:36 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> However, Mr. Kulkis's beloved head tax would *RAISE* tax rates
> >> for many people.
> >Precisely. Once they realize that all of the "government goodies"
> >don't come for free, they will start looking at how parasitic the
> >bureaucracies of all these programs are.
>
> Like who is the class of latter-day American aristocrats?
>
> >Who wants to pay $100 for $20 worth of retirement benefits?
>
> How does that happen?
>
> This is a variant of Marxism, I may add, where it is not the
> capitalists but the government that is the exploiter of the working class.
>
DING! DING! DING! WE HAAAAAAAAVE A WINNER!!!
> >> In Mr. Kulkis's ideal world, there would be none, because not
> >> having much money is proof that one is not worthy of any.
> >Have you ever considered the possibility of getting a job and EARNING
> >MONEY
>
> Irrelevant comment. Mr. Kulkis has never heard of working-poor
> people, it would seem.
I have been "the working poor" I financed my own education
with money I EARNED by WORKING. For several years, I lived on less
than $100/month discretionary spending INCLUDING school supplies
other than textbooks.
If you are 50 years old, and have developed no skills beyond
what you had as a high school student, you deserve to live in poverty.
> >> Which is why safety devices must be outlawed, right?
> >"Ooops, I don't know how I got pregnant--In the middle of the night,
> >While
> >I was sleeping, someone must have tapped me on the forehead with a magic
> >baby wand" payments are flatly unconstitutional.
> >As is AFDC, WIC, and Section 8 Housing.
>
> These are NOT 80% of the budget or anything close -- more like
> 5%.
LIAR. So-called "entitlement" programs are 80% of the budget.
> I'm surprised that Mr. Kulkis has not tried to convince his elderly
> relatives to cure their parasitism by consulting Dr. Kevorkian.
It would be much better to just kill social security right now, and
let families take care of their elderly relatives directly.
And it can be done quite easily. Simply sign a release, whereupon
by absolving one's self from further obligations to the Social
Security Administration, you take it upon yourself to name a relative
who is in retirement who you will support until death.
20 years, and the entire system will be empty.
>
> >> Which is why operating systems ought to fail as hard as possible, right?
>
> >> Operating systems like DOS punish people much harder for failure
> >> than those like Linux, and according to that argument, are therefore *good*.
Linux is a multi-user environment. Misbehaving processes which threaten
to take kill the entire community of processes are terminated on an
individual basis as a penalty for their attempts to commit crimes.
>
> Mr. Kulkis has no response, no doubt because it embarrasses him
> to realize how much operating systems like Linux coddle their users.
See above, loser.
> Imagine having a program crash without hurting anything else -- what
> pampering!
Do you consider yourself to be "pampered" when the police arrest
a serial killer who has been killing people in your neighborhood?
>
> >> >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.
> >> ROTFL. This presumes that all of the money goes into a black
> >> hole somewhere.
> >Do you have a better name for
> >* WIC money for crackhead whores to raise crackhead punks
> >* AFDC money for crackhead whores to raise crackhead punds
> >* Food stamps for crackhead whores to raise crackhed punks
> >* Public housing for crackhead whores to raise crackhead punks
> > (until they destroy the premises, and then have the gall to
> > blame the lousy condition of the buildings on you and me!)
>
> Mr. Kulkis's employers are lucky that they have never tried to
> hire him as an accountant, it would seem. Because if he uses that sort of
> accounting on the job, he'll be lucky if he does not get purged in a few
> months.
Whadja say, crackhead?
>
> >> Just plain wrong. The biggest part of it goes to middle-class
> >> entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and this is closely
> >If these programs are soooooooooooooooo good, then please explain
> >to use why Congress is NOT allowed to participate in Social Security.
>
> Like what do you mean?
>
> >1. Loren is resorting to lies again. Social Security is an off-budget
> >Item. 2/3 of the budget is spent on various "Rob to productive to
> >give to the lazy, irresponsible, and drug-addicted" schemes.
>
> Social Security is NOT off-budget, except perhaps in some
> creative-accounting sense. In its earlier years, it had not been counted
> as part of the official budget, but that changed when LBJ tried to
> disguise the cost of the Vietnam War. But it *is* government spending,
> and it ought to be included in accounting for government spending.
>
> >2. Speaking of Social Security..........
> >Congress has their *own,* special plan. Why is that?
>
> >Could it be because those who set it up KNEW they were perpetrating
> >a fraud on the American people, and thus created a loophole to
> >get themselves out of it?
>
> From a grove of birch trees it came.
Notice not only does LOREN Communist Agitator PETRIC REFUSE to answer,
but attempts to dismiss the entire line of discussion every time
I point out an uncomfortable truth about such things as why
Government Officials should not be trusted....
I'll ask it again, coward:
Speaking of Social Security..........
Congress has their *own,* special plan. Why is that?
Could it be because those who set it up KNEW they were perpetrating
a fraud on the American people, and thus created a loophole to
get themselves out of it?
ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION, FERRET FACE!
> Do the Chief Executive Officers of health-insurance companies
> brag about they subscribe to their own companies' plans?
Name one who doesn't.
>
> >> follwed by the military and Treasury-bill dividends. I'd *love* to see
> >The military is constitutionally mandated, asshole
>
> Irrelevant and beside the point. The Constitution nowhere
> specifies a minimum level of spending. And guess where the money to
> finance it is to come from?
It specifies that Congress shall raise an Army, and that the army
shall protect the borders of the United States.
By the way, when was the last time YOU wrote to your Congressman to
urge him to cut funding for boondoggles like Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti,
Somalia, and other goat-rapes that have nothing to do with protecting
the borders of our country?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??? WHEN?? You lying fucking hypocrite.
>
> >> Mr. Kulkis denounce retirees, soldiers, and T-bill holders as
> >> bloodsucking parasites, since he has implied that that is all that they are.
> >Ever notice who Loren can't go a single paragraph without concocting
> >more lies....
>
> It is not a lie, since he has implied that the large majority of
> receivers of government money are bloodsucking parasites. I've pointed
> out who they really are, and put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Wrong. There are two classes of recipients of government money
1) those that provide equipment and or services that the government
needs. That would include the Bureacracy of Constitutionally
mandated departments, such as the Department of State, etc.,
and those commercial entities which supply these Departments with
goods and services necessary to carry out their mission.
2) those departments of government which perform work which is
not authorized by the Constitution, for example the National
Endowment for the Arts....every employee of such bureacracies,
and every company doing business with such bureacracies
[and don't you dare go on a side track about companies that supply
desks to organizations in both (1) and (2), or I will rightly brand
your FACE with a cattle-iron for being the stupid shit that you are.]
>
> >> > INCOME TAXES are the "old-money-preferential" system.
> >> And sales taxes are not???
> >Absolutely not.
>
> >Let's take.....blue-blood Republican Jay Rockefeller, for example.
> >He's living off of grandpa's money. He makes..what..$70,000/year
> >as a Senator (give or take a few)...that is his taxable income.
>
> Accusations normally called "class envy".
Did I complaing about him being "upper class"... Noooooooooo
>
> >I'll damn well guaranted to you that the man SPENDS a hell of a lot
> >more than $70,000 each year. His taxes are completely out of line
> >with how much he impacts society through resources which he
> >consumes (thereby making them scarcer for everybody else).
>
> And how much does he consume???
A hell of a lot more than $70,000 worth, that's for sure.
>
> >> > Tell me, how much taxes are the Kennedy assholes paying on
> >> >all of their millions? Barely a whit.
> >> However, Mr. Kulkis normally claims that pointing that out is
> >> class envy. Go figure.
> >How much are the Kennedy assholes contributing to society (other
> >than the entertainment value of watching people with more money
> >than brains concoct not-so-bright ways of removing themselves from
> >the gene poool.)
>
> So what?
The answer is... Nothing. Ni, Nada, Zip, Nyet, ZERO.
>
> >> However, the parents can promise a *big* gift of money -- as long
> >> as their kids can attend.
> >Woooooooooooohoo. Another telling insight into the twisted, sadistic
> >mind of wannabe-Dicator-For-Life LOREN COMMUNIST PETRICH.
>
> >So? What you are saying is... if presented with the option of
> >lowering academic and behavior standards....you, LOREN PETRICH would
> >sell out the student body for your lust of money.....provided the
> >payoff is big enough.
>
> Actually, what I claim here is what happens with "legacy
> preferences", a form of affirmative action for the offspring of alumni.
> However, this form of AA tends to benefit upper-middle-class white males,
> so such people seldom object.
Yes, this happens in Universities. In exchange for getting their
less-than steller little boy into school, the family offers to
finance the tuition of several others, or build a new library
which all of the students may enjoy.
However, acceptance of such donations does not in any way
prevent the University for expelling Legacy-boy from the
campus for misbehavior, or lousy academic performance.
Yes, YOU claim that misbehavior and lousy grades are tolerated
with a wink and a nod if the student's parent's keep writing
huge checks. This is NOT a reflection of how any respectable
university operates...instead, it is a VERY frightening look into
the sadistic mind of wannabe-Dicator-For-Life LOREN COMMUNISTA PETRICH.
>
> >> And between bankruptcy and accepting
> >> badly-behaved offspring of major sources of money...
> >Why would the school be on the verge of bankruptcy if they were
> >educating the children properly? If the school is doing a good
> >job, they should have NO PROBLEM convincing the parents of the
> >entire student body to come up with enough tuition money to keep
> >the school runnning.
>
> In Mr. Kulkis's Panglossian dreams.
Prove it.
Tell us the name of a single school held in high regard which the
student's parents, and other financial backers let fail?
The ONLY non-public schools I know of that have been closed against
the wishes of the students' parents have been various Catholic
Schools which were consolidated as the school-aged population
in the city declined. The students from those schools were all
allowed to continue their education with the SAME organization
as before, only at a different campus...i.e. nothing changed
except for location. (A school is defined by it's faculty,
not the building(s) where the faculty and students interact.
>
> >> Consider what incompetents Dan Quayle and George W. Bush have
> >> been in college.
> >How come Quayle was able to identify the problems of single-motherhood
> >a full DECADE before your buddies in the Hollywood Left.
>
> He's nothing but an empty-headed spewer of ideology.
Name one credible, intelligent person who disagrees AT THIS TIME with
Quayle's observations in the Murphy Brown speech.
***DROVES*** of Hollywood types have fessed up over the years that
although they all cruelly pointed fingers and laughed derisively at
Quayle as if he were the village idiot, they all secretly knew that
Dan Quayle was right on the money.
Quayle is *portrayed* as an idiot because, quite frankly, the leftists
in the media are absolutly fucking scared to death that anybody will
find out how intelligent he truly is.
>
> >> >That is NOT charity, it's fucking EXTORTION. ...
> >> Only because it is a cause that Mr. Kulkis dislikes. If it was
> >> one he likes...
> >Threatening to put me in jail for not contributing to the charity
> >of YOUR choice, denying me the right to contribute that money to the
> >charity of MY choice is EXTORTION.
>
> However, Mr. Kulkis does not object very loudly to military pork,
> espeially military pork supported by Republican politicians.
>
> >> >It's the same old Communist technique. First, install Communist
> >> >teachers...after that, the rest is easy.
> >> From a grove of birch trees it came.
> >Ever notice who whenever I make a really telling comment about
> >the basic methods used by the Communists, Loren always attempts
> >to stifle further discussion of the idea.
>
> Mr. Kulkis makes totally baseless claims of Red-under-the-bed
> conspiracies, with as much evidence as a certain Andrei Yanuarievich
> Vyshinsky had had that most of the early Bolshevik leaders had formed a
> conspiracy to assassinate several Communist Party leaders, including a
> certain Sergei Kirov, and, of course, Stalin himself. This Russian Ken
> Starr had only one bit of evidence: the "confessions" of his victims.
These various defectors ALL predicted, in the mid 1980's, to within
one YEAR of when the Soviet Union would pull out of Poland. Nobody
had even heard of Lech Walensa then.
>
> >Name ONE COUNTRY where the communists have taken over where they
> >did not replace all the teachers. ...
>
> I don't have to. And even if they did, they do that only where
> they've taken over.
Wrong. The standard tactic is to eliminate the teachers as a first
step BEFORE taking over the territory.
In Viet Nam, the first sign that a significant body of Communist
forces was about to attempt to take control of a town would be
the murder of the towns teachers, mayor, and other respected
leaders, simultaneously by teams of hitmen who would sneak into
the village under the cover of night.
The same routine has been used since the Russian revolution, where
it was first used against the town of Rostov-on-Don, which refused
to turn to the Communist side; whereupon, the communists sent in
assassins, night after night, killing priests and other religious
leaders and dumping the bodies in the center of town as a
particularly sadistic method of intimidation combined with
a massive guilt-trip for "having caused the deaths of the most
innocent among you"
And Loren defends these people!
Loren, you soooooo moral.
You moral long time.
Maybe this list will refresh your memory.
Russia
Belorus
Ukraine
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Bulbaria
Romania
Hungary
Czechloslovakia
Poland
East Germany
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Communist controlled parts of Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Mongolia
China
Cambodia (now Kam Puchea)
Viet Nam
Laos
North Korea
Nicauraga,
Communist controlled parts of El Salvador
Cuba
Angola
Botswana
Zimbabwe
Zambia.
There are others, but this is all that I can think of right now.
> --
> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: SBLive! Was- Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 07:07:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jun 2000 13:11:29 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Check their webpage.
>
> It's hard to evaluate a product by checking the vendor webpage,
> unless Creative (or whoever) has figured out some spiffy magic
> that means that you don't need to get the hardware to use it.
>
>>Suffice to say you are getting 1/4 of the cards true power running
>>Linux.....
>
> Sure, that's what you say. But you've also accused Linux of
> causing boils and fever. So why don't use just pop that SBLive
> into the mail and I'll check it out for myself?
>
It is probably true that the Windows software for the SB Live! has features that aren't
available in the Linux version. Creative seems to give the bare minimum of support to
anything but Win9x.
Most of those "features" are not anything you'll miss though. The people who are really
into sound cards and use them professionally were saying that Creative makes crappy
cards anyway. There were a lot of complaints about the SB Live! series.
The normal home user probably doesn't need more than the equivalent of a SB16. (Or at
least a 16 with a clean output - something that Creative never got right.)
The Creative Ensoniq card is a better bet for most users. It does everything most
people want from a sound card, and it is a fraction of the price of a Live!.
--
Stuart Krivis
*remove the mongo for a valid e-mail reply address*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Win xx
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 07:34:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why is it that, when talking about consumer OSes, I kept hearing that NT/Win2K was
not a consumer OS, so I shouldn't try to compare it to x? Now we hear that the future
is an NT-based consumer OS, so we shouldn't try to compare Win 9X to x.
The tune changes at a whim.
9x is for consumers, so don't expect the robustness of Solaris. NT/Win2K isn't for
consumers, so don't expect it to...
The latest little mantra is that the future consumer OS will be NT-based. It seems to
be the answer to all the ills of the world. :-)
Pardon me, but I've heard this before. MS was flapping their gums about a real 32-bit
OS back in '93 or '94. Cairo or Win 4 or whatever was supposed to be a consumer OS
with robust underpinnings. Just like Whistler or whatever they're calling it.
Instead, we got Win 95. And they didn't even include any lubricant with it. Ouch!
They then took NT 3.x and grafted on features from their consumer-grade OS. I
remember people complaining that MS had ruined NT. :-)
Now we've got the all-singing, all-dancing Win 2K. It's closer in some ways to what
they promised so long ago, but at the cost of being a huge complex beast.
Windows also tends to be very fragile. You need to run MS software to get all the
features, and it's all interwoven into the OS. Things break for no explainable reason
and nobody seems to have a clue why they break or how to fix it. Just reinstall and
maybe it will be all better.
Don't get me wrong, Win 2K _is_ an improvement in some ways. If you have the
horsepower to run it, it is a better desktop machine than NT 4 or Win 9X. I use it
for some things and am, overall, pleased with it. But I still have my doubts about
its being ready to run a business on. Unix is better in many ways for that type of
use.
--
Stuart Krivis
*remove the mongo for a valid e-mail address*
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 07:47:15 -0400
Tim Magnussen wrote:
>
> Hi there.
>
> I'm working for a company making analyzers for the medical industry.
> Currently we are using a mix of CE, 95 and vxWorks for the embedded
> devices. Some of us developers are attracted to the idea of using Linux
> instead though. We have been working on a project in our spare time to
> try this out and have come up with quite a good concept. So we were
> happy for a while ... until we read the GPL thoroughly. Since many parts
> of Linux is GPL and you in an embedded product can't claim that your
> proprietary code is independent of the rest, we would have to release
> the source the proprietary code. This would put us out of business and
> is of course out of the question.
> My question to you that is advocating for Linux' advantages:
>
> I hear of new concepts such as Mobile Linux / EmbedixLinux and other.
> But if one is to release the source of your proprietary code this makes
> Linux totally inappropriate for embedded use. What am I missing here?
>
You are missing "LGPL" which is a looser version of GPL intended for
libraries.
If your system is self contained, you can make propritary code. If you
have to modify existing GPL code, then you must make your changes
public, but you can keep everything else private.
Corel, WordPerfect, Applix, etc. are making closed source projects. The
Linux kernel even has provisions for closed source software. At the top
of the Linux kernel licence we get:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Linus Torvalds
So, anything you develop for Linux is yours. Any modification you make
to the works of others you must share. (simply because you have
benefited from the free source and you should likewise reciprocate for
others.)
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 07:49:37 -0400
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>It's available under the NT resource kit, but doesn't support the
>"-exec" feature. Close but no cigar.
What about the DJGPP port of find?
--
Microsoft Windows. The problem for your problem.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
