Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #28 Wed, 16 Aug 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA (Mikey)
Re: Gnome or KDE (Gareth Williams)
Excellent articles about Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Updated Steve/Mike List -- 38 Fake Names (was: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have
a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Mike Marion)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA (Gary Hallock)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Mike Marion)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Mike Marion)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Paul Gowder)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Mike Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:58:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "cbass2112" == cbass2112 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> GIMP is available for Windows. The trend may extend to
> >> more. After all, the source is freely available.
> >>
> >> Indeed, someone may even port "Everblue" to Windows.
>
> > (Strike GIMP and replace with more suitable example. Try not to
> > lose focus on point I was trying to make.)
>
> I do see the point. But I was also proposing a counterpoint: What if
> someone ports Everblue to Windows?
IOW: "What If Windows Ends Up Running *EVERYTHING* Linux Can Run?"
Well, wouldn't that vindicate Linux at some level? If these Linux apps
build a following, wouldn't that mean that the current Windows Only apps
would lose some of their current usership?
Wouldn't that indicate a demand for these apps in the "Windows Only"
market?
Wouldn't the perceived gap between Windows and Linux narrow? I mean, if
Joe Average User *can* run KDE and GIMP and KIllustrator and GNOME and
GNUCash on his *Windows* box, would there not be *some* chance that he
might like some of these things better than the Windows Counterparts?
If nothing else, Joe Average User could determine how necessary tech
support would be for GNUCash, yes? And he could *safely* determine
whether it fits his needs, yes?
He *may* be enticed by its price/power ratio.
"Hmm, download GNUCash or *purchase* another fifty buck copy of Quicken.
My friend says GNUCash is great, just takes a little effort to set up.
"Hmm, GNUCash upgrades are free and continuous. My friend says he can
set me up so it all happens automatically.
"Hmm, since the Kid is away at college, I can't have him install the
Quicken upgrades, at least for a while.
"Hmm, why not? The worst that can happen is that I'll go back to
Quicken, and upgrading that is kind of tedious each time anyway..."
If enough Joe and Jane Average Users switch to GNU and/or Open Source
offerings, wouldn't a few of them consider the jump to Linux?
*IF* Linux delivers on its promises of stability and power, and *IF* Joe
and Jane are *ALREADY COMFORTABLE* with Linux' applications, and
*ALREADY COMFORTABLE* with the lack of tech support (becasue it's hardly
needed, after all) what would hold Linux back in this case?
It just seems to me that the "Will It Run Quicken" questions become moot
if the above scenario occurs enough times around the world.
Or, maybe, every GNU/Linux/FSF/OS application ever written will be
ported to Windows but will never, ever actually be used there, and
everybody will continue to use Quicken and AOL only.
However, that just doesn't seem likely.
Would current Linux Heads use Windows versions of *anything* that they
couldn't run on their preferred environment? Would Windows Heads avoid
these things like a plague? What would Joe and Jane Average do in the
face of free software that may meet their needs?
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:12:49 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A couple of weeks ago I did a little experiment at one of the NYC
> CompUSA stores, I counted the Linux boxes on the shelves and marked
> each one with a fluorescent high lighter to track them.
>
> In 4.5 weeks a grand total of 3 Linux boxes have been sold. This
> includes, RH, SuSE, Corel, Mandrake and the associated "Power Packs".
That means that they sold better than Win2K. :)
> Pretty dismal if you ask me.....
Nah, about as dismal as a troll's life. :P
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: Gareth Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:19:18 +0100
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >>>> You had ones? All we had was zeros.
> >>> You were lucky.
> >>> We had to bang two rocks together to get the zeros...
> >> I had to walk 10 miles, uphill, in the snow just to get the rocks!
>
> You young whippersnappers had it easy! We had to quarry the rocks out
> of the ground at the bottom of a frozen swamp using only our noses.
> In the middle of a blizzard. And we were glad of it! You've never
> had it so good...
>
> > Both ways? :-)
>
> All three of them!
>
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
> or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
> -- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hmmm - obviously written in Python ;-)
--
Greetings from Queen Maud Land
Gareth Williams, Penguophile
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Excellent articles about Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:21:46 GMT
This weeks InfoWorld has some very good articles about Linux.
I get it via snailmail, but http://www.infoworld.com should get you
started.
I'm starting to think the times might, just might, be a changin'
Claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Updated Steve/Mike List -- 38 Fake Names (was: So ya' wanna' run
Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:26:15 GMT
Actually I posted a small review of several distributions, ranging
from ok to highly positive.
I stand by that review. Installation is one of Linux's good points.
Win98 and God help us all, Win2k does not even compare.
Even the worst distribution (in terms of time) did far better than any
of the Windows installs I have done.
I am posting another Win98 nightmare later tonite. Look for it under
the subject "Why Does Microsoft Assume they know what I want?"
I am not happy......So you Linosupporters should have a field day with
this post :)
Claire
On 16 Aug 2000 19:20:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Vester wrote:
>>>Hi
>>>Steve/Mike/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/"S"/Sponge/Syphon/
>>>"Sewer Rat"/Sarek/steveno/scummer/McSwain/Swango/piddy/
>>>pickle_pete/wazzoo/"leg
>>>log"/mike_hunt/Heather/Amy/claire_lynn/
>>>susie_wong/Ishmeal_hafizi/"Saul Goldblatt"/Proculous/
>>>Tiberious/Jerry_Butler/"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/bison/Wobbles/
>>>screwbilk/deadpenguin/"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com"/
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]/etc.
>>
>>Mike - you forgot 'the cat/hepcat' for your list :)
>
>Thanks -- I did forget about that one, even though I had
>replied to an article he wrote under that name. It was a
>very positive review of Mandrake 7.0, after which he went
>back to his "linsux" drone.
>
>The count is now 38 fake identities:
>
>Steve/Mike/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/"S"/Sponge/Syphon/
>"Sewer Rat"/Sarek/steveno/scummer/McSwain/Swango/piddy/
>pickle_pete/wazzoo/"leg log"/mike_hunt/Heather/Amy/claire_lynn/
>susie_wong/Ishmeal_hafizi/"Saul Goldblatt"/Proculous/
>Tiberious/Jerry_Butler/"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/bison/Wobbles/
>screwbilk/deadpenguin/"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com"/
>The Cat (hepcat)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/etc.
>
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:55:41 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > I don't think so. To be responsible for what we value, we would
> > > have to be able to discern the correctness of our values. For
> > > instance, if I knew that doing A is wrong, yet I valued A, I
> > > would have an internally inconsistent value system.
> > >
> >
> > We have to make attempt to discern the correctness of our values.
> > And what is wrong with acting contrary to one's values?
>
> It's unethical?
>
But then why is it good to be ethical? Should people be ethical?
>
> > > On a internally inconsistent value system, anything goes, so
> > > my position regarding ethics will still call it unethical, since
> > > both doing A and not doing it would be against my values.
> > >
> >
> > But why should one worry about being ethical by such a standard?
>
> You have to have SOME standard.
>
But what if it's a different (and conflicting) standard?
>
> > Also, what if one's values are themselves inconsistent?
>
> Then you are in trouble.
>
> > > > Ethics is the study of how we should choose values and pursue them.
> > > > To restrict ethics to the pursuit of values, but not the choice of values
> > > > trivializes ethics, because one can justify any action as long as
> > > > the actor is pursuing what he values.
> > >
> > > What do we use to choose values, if not preexisting values? The choice
> > > of values is then trivially reduced to the pursuit of values.
> >
> > Cognition.
>
> How does cognition lead to the decision that eating the dead is not
> right?
>
Did I claim that cannibalism was wrong? I only remember claiming
not to be a cannibal.
> > > > Sorry, most other ancient civilizations were also in warm climates, so
> > > > again you fail to explain how the Greeks did what they did.
> > >
> > > Again, necessary != sufficient.
> >
> > Again, no explanation.
>
> WHAT? Ok, here's a longer version: you brought the greek's lack of
> inquisition as a cause for greek philosophy, and somehow tried to
> blame renaissance western europeans for not trying to be greek
> philosophers. I merely mentioned that there are many necessary
> and not sufficient reasons for greek philosophy, including slavery
> and nice weather. Thus, by your argument, they may have needed to
> drop the inquisition and adopt slavery, while moving to the south.
>
They needed to drop the Inquisition, but the Renaissance did not
need slavery, nor did it need to move north. The achievement of
some degree of liberty was one of the causes of the Renaissance.
The Church gets some credit as a patron of the fine arts and
architecture, but the spending led to protests in Germany
under Luther.
> > >
> > > Because of bad education, and the reigning morality of the age.
> >
> > And who ran the educational system? None other than the Catholic
> > Church itself.
>
> And the persons who were members of the church's educational system
> were in the exact same situation. Oops.
>
No oops, just more blame.
> > > > Why didn't they consider it bad?
> > >
> > > Because at the time the perceived benefits of torture appeared
> > > as bigger than its drawbacks.
> >
> > And why did they "perceive" it that way?
>
> Education and the reigning morality of the age, again.
>
Or more precisely, the lack of such.
>
> > > > And their failure to consider
> > > > it bad detracts from their alleged moral leadership.
> > >
> > > Compared to who?
> >
> > Galileo, Giordano Bruno, John Hus, Joan of Arc, etc.
>
> If you asked Joan of Arc, whether the moral leadership
> belonged to the church, I'm pretty sure she would say yes.
> After all, she heard saint's voices in her head.
>
She also was burned at the stake. It only took the Church
some 500 years to make her a saint.
> > >
> > > The (at the time undisputed) historical account of the
> > > acts of god's son?
> >
> > Accepting alleged supernatural events is bad history.
>
> They had the testimonies of eye witnesses, as far as they
> knew.
>
> > And why didn't they dispute it?
>
> Why should they? Consider that the scientific method had
> not been invented yet.
>
Actually, Galileo had made contributions, and Roger Bacon
before him. Hey, even Aristotle had some tips in that direction.
>
> > > The (then considered) historical
> > > account of god's words expressed through his prophets?
> >
> > Credulity is not a substitute for history.
>
> History in the modern sense had not quite been invented yet.
>
Thucydides might disagree.
>
> > > Pretty much the same proof we have now of the existence
> > > of Sumeria, in a way (yes, less scientifically assured).
> > >
> >
> > But I don't recall anyone being threatened with death or
> > torture for disbelieving claims about Sumerian culture.
> > And what historical evidence can there be for the
> > supernatural
>
> Sorry, does your statement end there?
>
Yes. What evidence can there be for the supernatural?
(It's a question, not a statement.)
> > >
> > > a) defending nazism
> > > b) helping genocide
> > > c) defending his homeland against communism
> >
> > Gee, maybe if Hitler hadn't backstabbed Stalin, that
> > would not have been necessary. The Soviet Union
> > was hardly a threat to the Weimar Republic. Also,
> > what basic distinction is there between nazism and
> > communism?
>
> Well, perhaps... the nazism's lack of state centralized
> ownership of everything?
>
Ownership, yes. But the Nazis controlled the economy
almost as much.
>
> > Also, how does being a concentration-camp guard
> > protect the homeland?
>
> What concentration camp guard? "a 16 year old in 1944,
> sent to the eastern front" ain't no camp guard!
>
> > > d) protecting his own life
> >
> > Oh, yeah, we know how well those prisoners were armed.
>
> What prisoners?
>
> > > e) protecting his family
> >
> > From whom?
>
> Communist invaders?
>
> > > f) giving time for the western front to advance, thus
> > > saving a piece of western europe for democracy
> >
> > Oh, yeah, the Soviets were really slowed down by the
> > death camps.
>
> What death camps? Could you please read what I write???
>
We started this off discussing the Holocaust, not World War II.
You said that the ethics of the Holocaust (not WWII) were complex,
and that is what I challenged.
>
> > Actually, the entire apparatus of mass extermination was
> > a negative for the German military, as it required resources
> > that could have been directed against the Soviets.
>
> Yes, that's why I didn't use a camp guard in the example.
> Please read more carefully.
>
But we were discussing the holocaust, not WWII as a whole.
>
> > > and maybe a hundred other things. How can you say that was
> > > not a complex situation?
> >
> > Well, mainly because none of that has much to do with the
> > death camps, does it?
>
> Uh?
>
Read the previous posts.
> > > > You attempted to justify the Church's actions as a defense of faith,
> > >
> > > Yikes, no. I just said they honestly believed it was a defense of the
> > > faith. It surely was no defense of my faith.
> >
> > But is right to defend such faith in the first place? Sincerity is
> > not a means of cognition.
>
> Can you assign blame on someone who didn't knew better? Should car
> accident drivers be considered armed murderers?
>
If they are accidents waiting to happen, yes. There is such a thing
(in American law at least) as criminal negligence.
> > > But it devolves to any large group of them. So, it becomes
> > > "Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis
> > > for their POPULAR beliefs and give them weapons and political
> > > power".
> >
> > But that large group would have to be a majority if arms are
> > evenly distributed, in which case it would just vote for what
> > it wanted.
>
> Not necessarily. They could just be more militant. Or younger.
> Or more fanatic, willing to do suicide bombings. Or less
> respectful of the law. They could just be a larger minority.
> Not always the side that imposes itself by force is a majority.
>
But without a second amendment, who gets to bear arms?
Just government officials?
> > > > So it's moral to be wrong? Hmm.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem to be necessarily immoral to me.
> >
> > But if one isn't bound by awareness of facts (not omniscience), then
> > what is one bound by?
>
> It depends.
>
On what?
> > > Oh, well. I see we are never going to get anywhere in this
> > > discussion. You don't share my position, that's ok, but
> > > could you please at least acknowledge that when I say something
> > > as I expect, say, renaissance people to believe it, I don't
> > > ned you to tell me "they were wrong" every time? I know that
> > > for you and I they were.
> >
> > Can you speak of someone being wrong, not for you or me, but
> > just objectively wrong?
>
> Occasionally. If someone says that (-1)^n converges to 0 as
> n tends to infinity, I can say he is wrong.
>
> If someone tells me that god exists (or not), I can't.
>
> > Also, is the claim that the use of torture was right for the
> > Inquisition itself objective, or are people free to believe it
> > or not as they feel like?
>
> It's somewhat of a guess, since we have no inquisitors to ask.
> Some may have reasons to believe it's a wrong guess, yes.
>
> > > > > > You're not supposed to ignore centuries of censorship and torture.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not ignoring that. Why do you say I am?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > True, you aren't ignoring it, you're defending it.
> > >
> > > You have real trouble accepting someone can consider a position
> > > wrong and yet accept it as obvious considering the situation.
> >
> > Those particular positions, and the Church's willingness to kill
> > for them, yes, I will not accept as obvious. I'm more accepting of
> > Ptolemy's errors as he was making some effort at cognition, as
> > well as not killing people over disagreement.
>
> Blah. The copernican model, as explained by Copernicus and Galileo
> (not to mention Bruno, who was just a mystic) was just as wrong,
> regarding astronomical observations, as the ptolemaic model was.
>
Perhaps, but the rack is not a means of peer review.
>
> As for the church's position, ok, you can believe if you want,
> that the church consisted of millions of evil monks bent on
> acting against their own belief of what was good. I just see it
> as unnecesarily contrived.
>
Some of the clergy appreciated Galileo's early scientific efforts,
so they must have been at least partially aware of the value of
inquiry.
Colin Day
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:57:43 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> Yeah, it's kind of interesting to watch the same cartoons you watched as
> a kid and pick up some dirty little side joke that made no sense to you
> ages ago. Or even references to historical figures and such. It makes
> it a lot more funnier when you remember your thought as a child, and
> then put it together with what you know now.
No kidding. I think they do that so that parents wouldn't be driven nuts by
the Saturday morning cartoons as the kids watched them.
At least they used to.. I see my sister's kids watching stuff now that just
plain sucks if you're over the age of 8 or so.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Windows NT: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 16 Aug 2000 22:57:34 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Only because you misrepresnent things. This was not an operational ship,
>>it was a test platform. It did not have redundancy. It was also running
>>test versions of the software.
>
> Irrelevent. The original article indicated the software had been
> frozen since May '97, several months before incident, so no
> explaination of why all that functionallity was glued together into a
> single application.
The company rep said that they were not running the production code on
the ship at the time of the incident.
>>The government is big, embedded systems are numerous and varied, you were
>>not there, you did not work on it, yet you feel qualified to call those
>>who were there and did work on it liars.
>
> I never called them liars. I have only pointed out they are hiding
> part of the truth ...
You are engaging in Clintonian evasion.
> ... I'm an engineer my self so I should be able to
> smell it when another engineer is keeping information to cover his
> ass.
That is very naive.
>>> The "heresay" that I referring to is the word of deputy technical
>>> director of the Fleet Introduction Division ...
>>You merely reference the 'early speculation'.
>>
>>Also is this a deskbound manager, or someone who was on the ship at the
>>time of the incident ... like a chief engineer?
>
> The engineer close to the problem has a need to cover his ass. The
> deskbound manager is a high official that said explicitly that
> shutdowns and numerous software failures have already resulted from
> NT. This, even if NT was not responsible for this particular failure,
> it has been responsible on numerous occosions in the past. Thus it is
> a fact that NT has caused problems on the Yorktown. He said that "NT
> has never been fully refined". That is quite true. What else needs to
> be said?
None of those problems have been described, and you merely quote the early
speculation. All you do is demonstrate that the early speculation may have
been well meaning. Acutally you also show a naive assumption that the
deskbound manager doesn't have a need to cover anything as well, for
example making one's UNIX experience less valuable and reducing one's
employability by allowing a shift from UNIX to WinNT. Your conspiracy
theories are very unilateral. However, unlike you, I do not suggest that
any of these cover-your-ass scenarios are occuring. The reality seems to
be that the early speculation was simply off, as the chief engineer on the
ship at the time, the software developer who admitted the error, and the
news agency who broke the story suggest.
>>> So when something happens on your NT box it takes you several months
>>> to figure out whether it was an app or the OS that crashed?? Please.
>>
>>Again, this time duration is your evidence that the chief engineer who was
>>there, the company who developed the software, and the news agency that
>>broke the story are all lying?
>
> No, I never said they were lying. They are just leaving out part of
> the truth as to how a database failure cascaded to an engine
> failure. And as long as they choose to leave out the truth, I am
> entitled to speculate.
"How" it can happen is clear: A server app corrupts a database, that
database supplies information to client apps that control equipment, that
equipment controls propulsion.
>>If there were any kind of coverup of WinNT it would have been headline
>>news.
>
> Oh bullshit. It's not a legal cover up, just a cover up of bad
> engineering driven by politics. Headline news had something better to
> cover the day the latter story came out.
Sorry, wrong. The early speculation generated a lot of press, a WinNT
coverup would have generated an equal or greater amount. The boring thing
that would not get press attention would be that the error was not in
WinNT but in custom applications written for the Navy by a "no-name"
subcontractor.
>>DOJ or Larry Ellison would have loved the bad press it heaped upon
>>Microsoft.
>
> DOJ and Larry Ellison are not the primary veiwing audience of Headline
> News.
You are looking at the wrong end of the camera/microphone->TV/Radio chain.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:01:39 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago I did a little experiment at one of the NYC
^^^^^^^^^^
>
> CompUSA stores, I counted the Linux boxes on the shelves and marked
> each one with a fluorescent high lighter to track them.
>
> In 4.5 weeks a grand total of 3 Linux boxes have been sold. This
^^^^^^^
>
> includes, RH, SuSE, Corel, Mandrake and the associated "Power Packs".
>
Yeh, right! Check your math before making up such stupid numbers.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:02:28 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> "Eat me!" in that snotty voice on the slim jim commercials. I was
> laughing for a good 15 minutes, and I laughed so hard that my wife
> actually ran out of the shower to see what was wrong with me. God that
> was funny.
BTW, I've found this to be one of the best shows where my Tivo's features
shine... I often laugh and then have to hit the quick backup key so I can hear
what I missed while laughing.
Anyone that watches Futurama: Did you see the MST reference in the ep where
Bender became an "Ultimate robot fighter?" In the theater they were talking,
and it panned over to the shadow/silhouettes of Tom and Servo who told them,
"Stop talking," "We're trying to watch the movie!"
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Windows NT: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:04:33 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Do either of you two ever watch The Family Guy?
I _love_ that show. Stewie is the character that really cracks me up.
I've been capturing eps to mpeg files and burning them to CDs. 3 eps fit one
CD just prefectly when you cut out the commercials. :)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Your mouse has moved. Please wait while Windows reboots so the change can
take effect.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Gowder)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:56:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote in
<1efhanh.12rp8lv16jc5ynN@[192.168.0.144]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>> >
>> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Loren Petrich forfeited all rights to civility when he decided
>> > > to side with totalitarians.
>> >
>> > And here, ladies and gentlemen, we can see how unalienable rights
>> > defend the freedom of an individual against those who don't like
>> > him.
>> >
>> > "He happened to forfeit his rights."
>>
>> Do you not agree that a murderer forfeits his right to life.
>
>I do _not_ agree than an unalienable right can be forfeited.
>
>If rights must not be violated, they can also not be forfeited.
>Otherwise the right is worth nothing.
>
How about sold? Can inailenable rights (like free speech) be sold?
Libertarians seem to think so. See:
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=143791
-Paul
--
The address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" goes directly to the trash.
(anti-spam mechanism) replace "null" with "paul" to reach me.
Why Libertarians are (secretly?) against free speech:
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=143791
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:08:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the movie E.T. it was Reeses Pieces that Elliot used to bait ET out of
> hiding. ET then pointed to Elliot with a glowing finger. But, in the book
> E.T. it was M&M's not Reeses Pieces and instead of pointing to Elliot, E.T.
> and drew M&M with his finger. The book made a deal of the fact that,
You must learn to use one of the web sites that can just suck time away from
you as you browse it's vast information: the IMDB.
The Trivia (http://us.imdb.com/Trivia?0083866) for E.T. says...
"Reese's outbid M&M's for product placement. There is a rumour that M&M's were
used initially, but the companyasked for them to be removed, suspecting that
the film would flop."
So it was purely a monetary reason.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Never Underestimate the powers of a dark clown"
- Darph Bobo, Tripping the Rift.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
