Linux-Advocacy Digest #249, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Drestin's lies: Re: pssst! hotmail.com moving to W2k (Black Dragon)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
I'm curious (Rob Hughes)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux (Loren Petrich)
Re: I'm curious ("Nick")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (Courageous)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin's lies: Re: pssst! hotmail.com moving to W2k
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 17:05:31 GMT
On 4 Aug 2000 22:49:15 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Bob Tennent' said:
>On 4 Aug 2000 17:12:01 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> >www.hotmail.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
> >
>On maybe 10% of their servers; no doubt handling all of 1% of the load.
======
$ telnet hotmail.com www
Trying 209.185.243.135...
Connected to hotmail.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP 1.0
HTTP/1.1 302 Redirected
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 16:58:15 GMT
Location: http://lc2.law5.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bin/login
=====
=====
$ telnet hotmail.com www
Trying 216.32.243.7...
Connected to hotmail.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP 1.1
HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 16:58:26 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b
Location: http://lc4.law5.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bin/login
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
=====
What is the differance between http 1.0 and http 1.1 and why is the request
for http 1.0 redirected to IIS?
--
Black Dragon
"Trying to make the Internet a better place, one Linux box at a time."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 5 Aug 2000 17:32:32 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 05:14:39 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>My source about such things is WOMEN talking about the behavior
>of OTHER WOMEN.
Yes, but what makes you sound like a kook is your unsupportable assumption
that this kind of behaviour is commonplace. You make it sound as though
most women scheme to deceive men into having their children.
>Check out the statistics on the prison population some time.
>Almost all of them are legally retarded. They spend their
Learn to get your implication arrows the right way around. What about
all the "stupid" people who aren't in prison ?
>lives in prison....i.e. misery...but not without FIRST
>causing a LOT of misery for a whole lot of other people.
>
>What other name is appropriate for someone whose entire
>life is misery, and who causes misery for practically every
>other person who is unfortunate enough to have this person
>wander through their life?
The problem is that you are applying the term "defectives" to people
whom you consider "genetically inferior". Are you implicitly assuming
that all of these so called "genetically inferior" people are criminals ?
>What other name is appropriate for an retard with an IQ of 75
>whose only purpose in life is breeding more IQ-75 children, who
>repeat the cycle in less than 15 years.
Who knows, maybe the person in question finds themselves a useful
( if not terribly prestigious ) role in society. The people who work
in McDonalds, the mail clerks, the janitors, the guy selling newspapers
at the train station ... they may not be the worlds brightest people,
but they certainly perform a useful role in society.
>read a "STOP" sign. Their lives are pure misery, no matter
Now you're trying to draw correlations between "happiness" and
"intelligence". You've already botched the definition of "intelligence"
badly enough. How do you propose to measure "happiness" ?
>Now, conversely, if, as you say, the entire problem is that low-
>income adults are unable to raise children properly...then, maybe
>you would advocate removing the children of such parents, and
>putting them in the custody of those who have the necessary
>wealth to raise many other kids?
Possibly, within the context of your system, of course. It's better
than punishing the kids.
>Are you arguing that this would solve the problems of children
>born in neighborhoods of high crime and economic blight?
It would help.
>Are you proposing that we declare all low-income parents as
>unfit, and forcibly removed them from their homes? After
No. They would only be unfit if they fail to provide proper
education or medical care for their children.
>And is this not...a rather Nazi-like solution in itself?
It's harsh, but at least it punishes those that you say are guilty. I mean,
you are blaming the parents and punishing the children. I am merely
pointing out that it the parents are really to blame, then they are
the ones who should be punished.
>> >The country provides everyone with the same opportunities,
>>
>> You are speaking in the present tense, hence defending the current system.
>> Thanks for making my point.
>
>And has done so for 3 1/2 decades. So, what's your point?
My point is that radical change is not necessary or desirable.
>> >including the opportunity to help your children, or harm
>> >your children.
>>
>> What about if you are a child ?
>
>Then we can prosecute the parents for neglect or abuse.
But then you've got to solve the problem regarding what to do
with the kid.
>No. I am saying that ..those whose intelligence...is exceeded
>by some dogs...are doomed to a life of misery, no matter how
>much money we give them.
Again, I'd fault you for claiming that "happiness" is positively
correlated with intelligence.
>Want some good examples? Watch Howard Stern's show. Harold
I have no desire to watch it.
[ anecdote snipped ]
A lot of smart people kill themselves too.
>Ok. Punish the adults. What do you propose that we do,
>without allowing the procedure tobecome yet another
>reproductive strategy based on the "cuckold" principle
The cuckoo doesn't get punished for its actions, so there is no
legal deterrent to its behaviour.
[ absurd conspiracy rant snipped ]
>> Again, there are countries with a lot more leftists and considerably
>> more leftist education policies that soundly whip the US's butt.
>
>Of course. The communists WANT communist countries to have a
>well-educated populace (as long as the general public remain
>ignorant of the concepts of human rights, market economics,
>history, and the sciences of psychology and propaganda). Thus,
>they will promote good education in left-leaning governments.
I see. So you admit that their socialist education policies are
indeed succesful ? Or maybe the thing is that these forces of
darkness are just so omnipotent that they can make an education system
work or not work regardless of how good or bad the government
education policies are ? Maybe we should hire some of the defectors
to perform the same magic tricks on the schools in the US ...
>However, as long as the American populace is properly educated,
>then they will resist communism.
That's funny -- a lot of these so-called "socialist" countries have
a better educated population than America.
> Thus, the campaign to turn
>the American population into a land of idiots.
>
>Unfortunately, it is quite apparent that they are succeeding.
Yes -- by the same method that you wish to destroy the lower classes --
they are letting nature take its course.
[ absurd conspiracy rant snipped ]
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: I'm curious
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 12:37:29 -0500
Tell me something, because the curiosity is killing me... I, and all the
people I know (at least the ones that are really good at what they do)
are so in demand that none of us have time to follow many threads on a
regular basis, let alone for posting on a regular basis. For instance,
I'm taking a break from building some machines to start whistler beta
testing (I'm in the official program, so I don't want to hear about
piracy, and no, you can't have a copy) to post this. I'll probably
follow it for about a week or so, then I won't have time to hunt for it,
so unless it gets interesting, I won't even mark it for watching and
I'll lose the thread. Yet, there are a number of people within these
groups that claim to be highly in-demand, very knowledgable
professionals in the computer industry and who post here at all hours.
In fact, you can see a few of them posting for literally hours at a
time, if you bother looking at the times between their posts. I'm just
wondering how these people find the time. So, without naming names, are
you all screwing off all day in the news groups instead of working?
(On going to war over religion:)
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend."
- Rich Jeni
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 5 Aug 2000 17:49:32 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 04:07:51 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>It's a specific bood which is widely available wherever books
>are sold, rented, or loaned out.
As are many of Marx's works.
>It's also very easy reading for anybody with a 10th grade reading
>level and familiarity of histogram plots.
Well you've got me there. Marx is probably beyond the average dolt.
>So, because it's "controversial", you're afraid to read it.
I'm not at all afraid of exposure to things I disagree with. I watched
half the republican convention. I'll take a look at it next time I'm
in Borders ( and I go there quite often )
>Actually, it's a meta-study. A study of all the other studies.
IOW one of those pieces where they seclectively choose that which
appears to support their theory, and put their own spin on everything ?
>Aren't PhD students to be interested in learning the truth,
>rather than relying on the opinions of those who have a
>vested interest in swaying your opinion?
Everyone has a "vested interest in swaying your opinion". This book
is hardly objective. The fact that the authors are biased certainly
does not in itself discredit them though. But it makes you look a
little silly when you declare their manifesto as some sort of gospel.
>> For a start, adopting parents tend to choose children from the same / similar
>> ethnic groups. "Ethnic group" is certainly a genetic factor ( and indeed,
>> a factor that correlates with a lot of other things ). That's all I
>> can think of right now ...
>
>Are you claiming that there are certain races ethnic groups with
>no intelligent couples to adopt children????
No, I'm not. I'm claiming that the fact that the children are adopted
does not isolate genetics as an independent variable.
Moreover, it's not necessarily true that those who adopt children are
of any given intelligence. IOW, maybe the distribution of adopting parents
matches the distribution of a random sample in the same ethnic group. For
evidence that different ethnic groups have different IQ distributions,
I refer you to your own bible.
>> Some of history's greatest scientists had fairly unimpressive IQ scores.
>
>Name one.
I believe Feynman was in the vicinity of 120. It's better than average,
but it's substantially worse than most of the people I know in grad
school programs. It would probably put him at the bottom of the pile
in a decent grad school program.
>> IQ is not the be all and end all.
>
>"g" correllates VERY highly with personal happiness, workplace
>success, income, social status, physical coordination, and just
>about every other sign of "intelligence" that you can name.
Did you know that I'm so inclined to clumsiness that my
parents had me sent to a special class for uncoordinated children ?
BTW, my IQ is "better than average". By a fair margin.
>None of the critics have EVER pointed out any particular
>assertion in the book which they disagree with. They just
>brand it as "racist" in an effort to make it a taboo item.
>Apparently, the manipulation worked on you.
Actually, most of the specifics of complaints raised regarding
racism seem a tad weak.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux
Date: 5 Aug 2000 18:46:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Mr. Kulkis's favorite Communist conspiracy theories make me wonder
>> if Linux is also the result of a Communist conspiracy. Here goes:
>> * Open source is a Communist approach toward software development, because
>> it works by treating software as collective rather than private property
>> with access and use fees.
>Actually, this is called "Freedom of Association", a First Amendment
>right that is not recognized in Communist countries.
What's the relevance of that comment?
>> In fact, some elements of the open-source
>> movement advocate collectivization of *all* software; Richard Stallman
>> regards "software hoarders" as not much different from Kulaks.
>Yes, Stallman is a leftist.
Which only supports that conspiracy theory.
>> One problem with open-source development is how to finance it, since it
>> cannot be financed in normal capitalist fashion. However, Communist agents
>> of influence could be doing the financing. ...
>Actually, a lot of the programmers do it for professional recognition
>and social status. ...
However, that is not the greatest moneymaker in the world...
>> * Linus Torvalds is a key figure in Linux. And he comes from Finland,
>> which is right next door to Russia. This means that Communist agents could
>> have had an easy time recruiting a figurehead for their attempts to
>> subvert the software industry. And they evidently made a *very* good
>> choice.
>Actually, Linux has been a very good demonstration of why we
>always need FREE MARKETS that are never totally dominated by
>any one company (which leads to right-wing socialism)
That's a separate issue.
>> * Sometimes, it must be said, the Communists give themselves away.
>> Consider Linux distributor Red Hat. Why a _red_ hat? Could they be
>> inadvertently giving away that they are a Communist front?
>Clever, funny even, but ... Red Hat is a publicly traded
>company on the NASDAQ exchange.....
However, according to the conspiracy theory, that's how clever
the Communists are -- they pose as capitalists so they can subvert
capitalism by collectivizing software and driving proper capitalist
software companies out of business.
>> * Linux has made impressive advances in the server market. Success in the
>> server market has shown the depth of the Communists' strategic thinking,
>> because these are critical parts of computer networks, and controlling
>> these will only help the Communists make further advances.
>Advancing capitalism. See previous paragraph.
However, according to the conspiracy theory, when the Communists
have their OSes running on enough servers, they can then make their strike.
>> This may seem totally absurd, but this can't be much more
>> absurd than Mr. Kulkis's conspiracy theories.
>They aren't MY theories...they are the the observations of
>people far more informed than you and I; namely, defectors
>from the Soviet military and the KGB.
Which disagrees with everything else written by the collapse of
Eastern European Communism. I've discovered an Irish Times 10-year special
on the fall of Eastern European Communism, and it gives a clear picture
of Gorbachev refusing to implement the Brezhnev Doctrine -- and refusing
to bail out Erich Honecker of East Germany with his troops.
And that series reported that Gorbachev got only 2 percent of the
votes for the Russian Duma -- and that the breakup of the SU was a way of
overthrowing Gorbachev by declaring that there was no more SU for him to
rule. And that Russia did not appreciate the Czech Republic, Hungary, and
Poland joining NATO.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I'm curious
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:03:33 GMT
Obviously you're so busy you've not got time to peruse these newsgroups and
note down everybody who is contributing to them just like I don't have time
to reply to your message.
Nick.
"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tell me something, because the curiosity is killing me... I, and all the
> people I know (at least the ones that are really good at what they do)
> are so in demand that none of us have time to follow many threads on a
> regular basis, let alone for posting on a regular basis. For instance,
> I'm taking a break from building some machines to start whistler beta
> testing (I'm in the official program, so I don't want to hear about
> piracy, and no, you can't have a copy) to post this. I'll probably
> follow it for about a week or so, then I won't have time to hunt for it,
> so unless it gets interesting, I won't even mark it for watching and
> I'll lose the thread. Yet, there are a number of people within these
> groups that claim to be highly in-demand, very knowledgable
> professionals in the computer industry and who post here at all hours.
> In fact, you can see a few of them posting for literally hours at a
> time, if you bother looking at the times between their posts. I'm just
> wondering how these people find the time. So, without naming names, are
> you all screwing off all day in the news groups instead of working?
> (On going to war over religion:)
> "You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary
friend."
> - Rich Jeni
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:07:06 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jen wrote:
> >
> > "Windows 2000 appears to still have severe performance limitations,
> > and reliability may actually be getting worse."
*Shrug*. It seems a lot more reliable than Windows 95, and seems
about the same as Windows 98 (which never crashed on me when I had
it installed).
C//
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:09:27 GMT
> No, it's called operational security. All military organizations
> practice such techniques...
You post from work?
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
