Linux-Advocacy Digest #259, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Cihl)
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Cihl)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 05:15:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You disagree, because from what you post above, your definitions are
>different, and in fact, you hold a different view of "reality", than
>most.
I can't but agree, while pointing out that while it may be a different
view, it is, in fact, the same reality.
>I state that you must first assign weights, before attempting synthesis,
>because to attempt synthesis from mis-information will only get you an
>invalid result.
Ah, but this is merely 'begging the question', i'nit? If a sentience is
to function, it needs to bootstrap, ain't? You're going to have to
approximate some weighting to get the ball rolling, or you're
compounding the problem with arguments from ignorance. One can't
presuppose which results are going to be valid or invalid; the brain
seems to be a remarkably empirical instrument, in the end. Views of
reality which don't produce advantageous anticipation of future results
must be quickly discarded, and so consideration certainly leads to
re-weighting and discrimination of facts. But synthesis is what
provides the weighting to begin with. It is "I think, therefore I am",
not "I am, therefore I think."
>True, synthesis can help *adjust* the weights, but to *depend* on
>synthesis to attach weights is to make the mistake of defining
>"internally consistent" as "truth".
And to believe that there is some absolute "true weight" of a fact is to
over-simplify the case, but not the reality. If we cannot depend on
reasoned thought (synthesis of understanding) to define truth, what do
you propose as a suitable alternative? Divine revelation?
>> Most Usenet posters are familiar with the "fallacy" of arguing from
>> authority.
>
>In quotes, indeed, as it is not a fallacy to argue from authority. It
>is, however, a mistake to argue from authority about issues that are
>based in consensual reality, rather than true reality.
It is a fallacy to argue from authority. One learns from authority, and
argues from reason. If you cannot understand the authorities reasoning,
and thus conduct synthesis based on their information and those with
whom you argue, then you cannot reasonably extend their authority as a
basis of argument. It is never enough to say, merely, "the experts say"
and leave it at that. Authority is a justification for a *point* of
argument, in many cases. It is never adequate support for an argument
in its own right, however.
>> Because somebody else says it, it is absolutely true. But
>> your suggestion is that one must weight the potential validity or
>> importance of a fact before you can synthesize understanding.
>
>Yes. Attempting to understand the universe while holding onto the
>"fact" that the world is a flat, spinning plate will invalidate your
>results.
Only if one pre-supposes a number of facts which were unavailable to
those who thought the world was flat. Were they to weight the "we'd all
go flying off towards the side" any more than "we'd all go flying up" if
they were to consider that the earth whirled through space along with
everything else? One would have to be able to synthesize an argument
for either case, and the facts were simply not readily available at the
time.
>> Is that
>> to say that all authorities can't be believed, or must be believed?
>
>Why so absolute? Typically, weights are assigned based upon consistency
>with know facts, in conjunction with agreement with tested authority,
>combined with testing. . . and weights are not 1 or zero, but instead
>vary from 0, to aprox. 3.
"Approximately 3?" What on earth are you talking about? The
presumption that the brain and human sentient cognizance is reflective
of so-called 'neural networks' is a debatable point to begin with. To
suggest that understanding, reasoning, and ultimately science is based
on such absolutist specifications is absurd. Perhaps I misunderstand
your context. I base the value of authority directly on the empirical
(experiential) value of the authority's opinion or methods. I think
that's all that can be said.
>> Either way, the problem is clear: you have to put weight on some facts
>> more than others, without already understanding the facts to begin with.
>> A bootstrap issue, essentially. Who do you believe?
>
>Those whose authority has been established by testing, and whose
>statements are most consistent with reality.
Ah, yes, you've anticipated me. Why the wriggling around if you just
wanted to emphasize my point? Perhaps we disagree on the concept
"synthesis", rather than the concept of weighting of facts.
>> For this reason, synthesis must come first.
>
>Which statement explains why you were so far off, and are *STILL* so far
>off re: CMT vs. PMT issues . . . you attempted synthesis before weighing
>your facts.
Bolderdash.
>> >So . . . what did you learn?
>>
>> Keep reading, and maybe you can figure it out.
>
>So . . . you are incapable of expressing what, if anything, you learned
>from that posting.
You seem to be anticipating my comments. I said just precisely that,
but in more eloquent form and consequentially providing reasoned
information pertaining the matter which your attempt to write off my
statement as professions of ignorance provides.
>Fine. Not everybody must be a best-of-breed communicator.
>
>> Encapsulating or
>> categorizing it to answer your question would be anathema to the fact
>> that its something learned.
>
>You use of semantically null statements makes me wonder what kind of
>game you are playing, Max.
Perhaps if you'd realized that this sentence was intended to be a) read
after the preceding sentence, and b) considered to refer to that
sentence, and c) in support and explanation of that sentence, you might
have gotten a bit further.
The intent was to infuse the raw (and thus potentially 'semantically
null') concept "something learned" with the depth and breadth of the
concept of "all facts and all synthesis". It is more than obvious that
you await any disclosure as to lessons learned regarding multi-tasking
systems for the sole purpose of second-guessing all of my potential
knowledge on the matter. Just as you now pursue a discussion of
cognitive reasoning and learning (for which you are dubiously qualified,
I'm afraid) for the rather convoluted (and confabulated) purpose of some
bizarre "pre-emptive ad hominem" which would satisfy you in trying to
discredit my attempts at free inquiry and discussion.
>> I didn't simply memorize it, so I can't
>> recite it. I synthesized it.
>
>So, describe the system you synthesized . . .
Hahaha. You don't learn too quick, do you?
If you'd really like to know, I'll tell you. First, answer this
question, and then I promise I will provide a two paragraph
encapsulation of the summary of my accumulated wisdom concerning
multi-tasking systems. Here's the question: What is a "Net PC"?
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>So far . . . yes. These exchanges with you have helped me become a
>better teacher, especially of that small class of student who seems to
>think the way you do.
Perhaps, but they don't seem to have done much for your ability to
sustain a discussion. And if you're interested in being a good teacher,
you're going to have to abandon the pretense that people "seem" to think
any particular way. They either do think a particular way you
understand, or they don't. Your job is to figure out which. If they do
follow a false knowledge-path you recognize, you can teach them. If
they don't, and you don't know what they're thinking, or you are wrong
in your assessment, you can't. Your hit rate is, almost in its
entirety, what makes you a "good" teacher, or not.
I wouldn't mind the suggestion I've helped make you a better teacher so
much if it didn't seem to be something of an insult.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 05:37:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Wow. That must be the most wrong paragraph about unix permissions, I
>> >have ever read.
>> Then perhaps you misread it?
>No, I agree with Roberto. You are confusing the sticky bit with the suid
>bit.
Yes, I agree with both of you. The question is, why am I confusing the
sticky bit with the "set uid" bit? I'm willing to start from scratch on
this if we need to, but in all honesty I'm quite sure that you two would
have an easier time identifying how they are related as well as how they
are distinct more than I would.
>> >You are confusing the sticky bit with the suid bit, and are giving it
>> >aditional magic properties that are simply done with a "a+x" chmod.
>>
>> Yes; the suid bit was indeed explained to me as the "sticky bit". Was
>> this incorrect information? Perhaps I just have the nomenclature mixed
>> up. Please explain.
>
>You were misinformed.
How wonderfully informative of you to say so. Has anybody else ever
noticed a certain reticence in Unix people to be a little cheerfully
courteous in providing conversational understanding? If I wanted to
know why my sound card didn't work with the newest kernel build, I'm
sure I'd have a dozen geeks ready to help if I was obsequious enough.
But working with Unix workstations for seven years and getting
relatively knowledgeable about the operational side of Unix (notably
TCP/IP and general administration) has not provided me any correct
information, and I have, in fact, heard other qualified persons
apparently find no strong reason to distinguish between a sticky bit and
an suid bit. Perhaps it is a local thing, and *undoubtedly* I was
misinformed. But this leaves the question of why the sticky bit man
page referenced in an earlier post was silent on what its effects would
be when the executable permissions are set, and why so much has been
posted on the subject without some less contention but more facile Unix
person hasn't posted a few permissions illustrating just what either bit
is in terms of the user interface.
>> >Go to the nearest unixy system, and do a man chmod, please!
>>
>> Sorry, I've already done that at least seven dozen times in my career,
>> and didn't see anything then that caused me to recognize my error, so I
>> doubt I'd see it now, even if I were to spend the time reviewing a man
>> page for no practical purpose, which I'm afraid I'm not willing to do.
>> Perhaps you could be more specific about what you're referring to. Even
>> if the sticky bit is not the suid bit, it would still be modified with
>> chmod, wouldn't it?
>>
>
>*sigh*
>
>Why do you bother entering a conversation when you have nothing to contribute[...]
Because I expect you to snip the preceding ten to forty seven lines and
respond with something more helpful than "sigh", and an attempt to
castigate me.
>and refuse to learn or even read the previous posts in the thread? Both the
>sticky bit and the suid bit were explained in this thread. But I will
>explain them one more time. The sticky bit is used to indicate that a
>program should remain in swap, i.e. stuck in swap. Hence the name. This is
>done for performance. The suid bit is what you were describing. It causes
>the program to be executed with the permissions of the owner of the file.
>This does not necessarily have to be root although using suid with a file
>owner of root is probably the most common case. Both the suid bit and the
>sticky bit can be set with chmod.
Thank you for yet another tiresome repetition of what I already know.
Now try to shake the cobwebs out of your skull and *listen*. Nothing
you have said has in any way *defined* either "bit", though they have
(yet again) _described_ them in a way I recognize and agree with. Now
WHAT ARE THEY? Sure I can read the man page available at
http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/cgi-bin/man-cgi but so can you, and
supposedly you'd understand more of what might be cogent to my
confusion.
I'm not trying to seem angry, I just get every bit as frustrated as you
do with the problems of communication. I'm anticipating someone posting
the representation of the bits in the UI, which I believe are part of
the permissions, but I'm certainly not going to go out on a limb and
post anything so technical myself with assholes like you guys around to
leap on any potential mistake I might make.
--
-T. Max Devlin
-- I think maybe the problem with Unix software
developers is that they think that Unix is only
supposed to be used by software developers. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 05:40:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>It was the commonly accepted position at the time that such was the
>church's job. Since it was divine right that validated secular
>authority, it was all pretty coherent.
Nobody ever suggested it wasn't coherent, Roberto. Are you suggesting
it wasn't wrong?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 09:43:59 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Oops. (not kernel, just me)
> >SB16 is a jumpercard just like to SBPro, isn't it. You have to give
> >the IRQ and DMA manually for it to work. Windhose does this itself.
> >That's why hardware detection takes so long on install. (you know,
> >with all those reboots 'n stuff)
>
> It's an ISA PnP card. Windows (the inferior system, right?) can configure
> it, why can't Linux? I had to go into ISAPNP and create my own
> configuration file to get it to work.
But i have an AWE64. This is an ISAPnP card too. It always works the
first time. And if it doesn't (redhat), 'sndconfig' will remedy that.
> >It's never necessary to insult anybody... But then again, it's a lot
> >of fun. Try it yourself sometime. Or maybe you're just too STUPID to
> >do it.
>
> In polite conversation, if you want your points to be heard, the last thing
> you do is insult the listener. If you do, don't expect anyone to listen to
> you.
>
> >> >Yeah, see what happens to the layout on the pages after it.
> >>
> >> I do this sort of thing all the time. Works for me.
> >
> >Well, for me it doesn't. Everything shifts across pages and i have to
> >update the content page every time, after i got all the spaces out of
> >the start of every page.
>
> Let me see... you add a picture to a page, and everything after it shifts
> down. Um, what were you expecting to happen?
>
> As for the contents page, you regenerate it. It would be nice if it did it
> automatically, maybe there's an option for that.
>
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 09:50:31 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Oh frequently. And I've been called "Moron", "Shithead" etc. It only
> >> goes to show how naff some people are.
> >
> >But this is c.o.l.a.! You're supposed to do that, Buttwipe!
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the Linux Advocacy group, not the "Come
> here to hear random insults" group!
That's the same group. If you can't take insults, don't post to
c.o.l.a.
> >No you didn't. You just replaced them with alternative untruths.
> >(that's okay for c.o.l.a. i guess)
>
> You said all Sound Cards were unsupported. I said that's not true. You said
> ALSA supported it (yet is not included in various distros).
All you need is basic sound support in the kernel, which is almost
always present. Now go download ALSA from somewhere in
http://www.alsa-project.org. Follow the instructions and you're set.
Look at the soundcard-list to see which of them are supported in
Linux. It's a lot for an alternative OS, isn't it.
> >> Since I'm not a troll, I have never lied. I have yelled and flamed
> >> _after_ the original poster started spout nonsense about Windows.
> >
> >It's really hard to spout nonsense about Windows. Most of it is true.
>
> 8)
>
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 06:29:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Don't get me started, please. Markets can only be created or modified
>> >> by *the markets*.
>> >Now, just how did you manage to separate marketing and advertising
>> >people from "the market"?
>> The question is how did you manage to make them part of the *market*.
>How can they be otherwise?
AFAIK, the only things that are part of the market are supply, demand,
buyers, and sellers. "Marketing and advertising" don't enter into it,
unless they become market *manipulations*, which by nature are also not
part of a market. Not a free market, anyway.
>Using emotionally laden terms does not change the fact that it is
>perfectly correct for a company to *teach* the market. This could be
>denigrated as "manipulation", but manipulation is not by definition a
>bad thing.
I don't believe it is so simple to consider every possible concept the
"market" to be identical. No, it is not at all tolerable, let alone
"perfectly correct" for a producer to 'teach' the market. It is
permissible and ostensibly necessary for them to provide information to
the market. This could be distinct from manipulation, but by
definition, manipulation of the market is a bad thing. At least for
those of us who believe that free markets are necessary and essential,
and absence of free markets is not tolerable in a free society.
>> >'Ethically'? Is that your limit?
>>
>> Absolutely. It should be everybody's limit.
>
>Which puts you in a quandry . . . who gets to define what is and is not
>ethical? The "market"?
You perhaps mistake my reference to the market as making decisions as an
anthropomorphic encapsulation of trends in demand. This is an
over-simplification, and generally I do not abide by it. No, the people
who engage in the market (both buyers and sellers) are responsible for
all ethical dimensions of the market. I deny neither my own, nor your,
responsibility for participating in the market ethically.
>> >Markets can indeed be manipulated by producers. The most obvious form
>> >of manipulation is to introduce a new product.
>>
>> That is not *manipulation*! That's *contribution*.
>
>It is manipulation. Once again, words have more than one meaning.
Then you simply wish to deny that any discussion can take place, rather
than admit you cannot support your argument? Yes, I guess that must be
the case, as you have already said you don't believe that a producer
manipulating the market in order to enhance his profits is anything to
be concerned about. I couldn't disagree more, and so you must confront
that or you can pursue your case on rounding errors, as we say in
alt.destroy.microsoft.
>Or, perhaps the limitationso of the language convince you that your
>abstractions are correct, when in fact they are not.
Language describes, it does not define, abstractions.
>Markets are conversations. It is perfectly reasonable to teach, during
>a conversation. Teaching is a form of manipulation. Manipulation is
>not by definition a bad thing.
Markets are transactions. There is a trade, and nothing more. Haggling
is certainly permissible. Manipulation, by definition, is a bad thing.
>> >That they are highly effective.
>>
>> Bank robbery is a highly effective way of getting cash.
>
>Actually . . . not. A bank robber makes less money than s/he would have
>if they had simply taken a minimum wage job.
And how surprising is it that you've entirely and completely missed the
point? Bank robbery can net almost 100% profit to the tune of thousands
(and thousands) of dollars for twenty minutes work. That it is an
intermittent line of employment is scarcely at issue. The ethics of an
enterprise are not dependant entirely on the benefit to the
entrepreneur.
>> Profiteering is
>> a highly effective way of amassing capital. Murder is often a highly
>> effective method, as well. Does this make it right?
>
>More emotionally laden terms, Max?
>
>Your attempt to paint these techniques as "crimes" is noted . . . but
>rejected out of hand unless you can provide some basis for your
>definition.
Which I've already done, despite your rather empty insistence that
manipulation of customers is not an inherently unethical behavior. Your
pretense of dispassionate examination is noted, but rejected after
consideration, given the apparent basis of your argument from ignorance
and popularity. Market manipulation is successful, for it does occur.
Neither fact, however, is any basis for considering it ethical behavior,
per se.
[...]
>Wrong. You can *MORE* *EFFECTIVELY* manipulate a market by telling your
>customers the *TRUTH*.
>
>Lies have a short shelf life.
If only it were true. This argument from naivete is hardly convincing,
given the ubiquitous nature of examples to the contrary.
>> let's not
>> pussy-foot around.
>
>Let's not discuss-by-emotional-tying, either.
Excuse, me, but you seem to be ignoring what I said and, apparently,
insisting on pussy-footing around. If you require some silly pretense
of cold emotional dispassion, then get moving with the logically
indisputable and tightly worded arguments.
>> Lying so you can't get caught in a lie, certainly.
>> But generally lying, by any means necessary. Because people like *you*
>> (if you'll excuse me)
>
>No. I won't excuse you. You are being a rude jerk again, Max.
>
>> are too stubborn to admit something we all learn
>> as children: it is not "OK" to be dishonest, regardless of the results.
>
>Irreleveant to this discussion . . . as I never said anything about
>lying, Max.
Yes, you did. You said lies have short shelf lives, indicating that, if
it weren't for the fact that producers might get found out, there's no
reason at all for them not to lie to their customers. Apparently it is
market forces, not ethics and honesty, which are supposed to prevent
vendors from lying.
But once they start lying, how can you tell market demand from market
manipulation? And if the market's being manipulated, how can you be
sure it can reject producers who lie? If the market can't discriminate
between truth and "marketing", then it doesn't even matter if lies do
have a short shelf life, because there is an infinite supply available.
As Microsoft has shown, you can even recycle the same lies over and
over, and if you "manipulate" hard enough, it even looks almost like
actual market activity.
>> Hell, its better to lie up front, tell a fib, maybe. But being
>> dishonest is NOT tolerable.
>
>Then . . . stop being dishonest, Max. It isn't neccessary to lie, in
>order to manipulate a market.
I did not mean to indicate it was. I'll hasten to emphasize, of course,
that it is not necessary for market manipulation to be based on lies to
be unethical, in my assessment. The producer has one market technique
available: set prices. Some latitude for discriminatory pricing is
called for, but not much, to be honest. Generally, you put your product
on the market, and see if anyone buys it. If that doesn't work, you can
do whatever you want to do to figure out why, and try again, or not.
Those are your options.
>> No, a business's duties do not include "teaching" the consumer what they
>> need and why.
>
>Yes it does. The only excuse for any business is that it provides value
>for value received. Part of the value of a technology company lies in
>it's ability to teach the customer about what they need, and how best to
>use what they get.
No, this is a lie. The value of a technology company most assuredly
lies in its ability to *learn* from the customer about what they want,
and the *figure out* how to provide it profitably. That is all.
[...]
>> Intermittent
>> inefficiency is often more efficient.
>
>Wrong. Inefficiency is never efficient. Note the simple process
>involved in discovering this fact: that the two words are mutually
>exclusive.
Note the simplistic fallacy which leads you to this incorrect
assumption; that only one system and only one measure of efficiency are
considered. A narrow view is wonderful, but a luxury which modern
technology does not enjoy. Your notion that the real world is
constrained to that which is easily represented in simple language is
ingenuous, but not appropriate. In a complex system with multiple
component systems, the efficiency of the component systems is not
deterministic of the efficiency of the whole system.
>> Your "optimizes the return on
>> your CPU cycle investment" sounds awfully like a mantra that you repeat
>> as if you're chanting. Why is that?
>
>Repetition is a tried and true technique for the learning challenged. I
>repeat, so that eventually it might sink in and you'll hear it. Some
>times, a student may not hear something until it has been repeated tens
>of times.
Typically, I find that repetition is rather meaningless unless the
statement makes sense in context; otherwise it is meaningless
psycho-babble employed by people who merely pretend to teach, and then
take credit when others succeed in learning despite their trivial
efforts. In other words, "optimizes return on CPU cycle investment"
indicates a value judgement, but is applied as a scientific, even
algorithmic, principle. I can't figure out the context, because one or
the other concept is contradicted by the details of discussion when you
use it.
It is a mantra, and it conceals, not reveals, an actual understanding of
the technological issues involved.
>> >Note that for sufficiently limited values of the word: "world", and
>> >"flat", the statement: "The world is flat." is a statement of fact.
>>
>> No,
>
>YES, Max . . . that statement is fact.
OK, if you want to insist the world is flat, I'll let you demand that
"the world is flat" is a statement of fact. I'm not sure what point
you're trying to make by doing that, but its your problem, not mine.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
