Linux-Advocacy Digest #455, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway? (jlsue)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (KDE RULES) ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Gnome or KDE (Jim Richardson)
Info needed (Hector Vega)
Re: Rock and a hard place. (Binh Ngo)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Nigel Feltham")
Decent Linux CDR software wanted. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Windtrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Re: Why Does Microsoft Assume That They Know What I Want? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Richard)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jlsue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.windows.advocacy,comp.os.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:12:17 GMT
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:05:34 -0400, junekis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Here's a little speculation for you conspiracy buffs:
>
>Microsoft has been heard saying for the last couple of years that they
>are
>having trouble coming up with upgrades to Windows that are compelling
>enough
>to cause people to upgrade - so to protect their revenues, they may have
>to come
>up with a version that is "rented" instead of purchased - you will write
>a monthly
>check for, say, $30 to microsoft every month as your "software bill".
>
> [snip...]
>
>Then again, maybe only IBM and Dell will be smart enough to survive a
>great Microsoft Backstabbing!
Well, if Compaq relied solely on the MS/Intel PC business, you may
have a point there. However, since acquiring Tandem and Digital,
Compaq has *much* more to offer, and doesn't have to rest solely on
the MS world of computing.
Not speaking for anyone, certainly not DEC/Compaq
(get rid of the xxxx in my address to e-mail)
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (KDE RULES)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:41:51 GMT
????
KDE has won the "war" long time ago, this is exactly what fragmentation
means in context of the Linux community!
/IL
> "Unix vendors adopt Gnome desktop
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:31:32 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> No. I have a full understanding of the behavior of the individuals
> listed in my .sig, and how to keep their behavior under control
>
As a Unix Systems Engineer (whatever that is), you should know about
something called a <dr evil>"killfile"</dr evil>. Perhaps that's the best
way to "keep their behaviour under control", and avoid pissing off most of
the readers of this ng.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:57:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:58:20 GMT,
Tim Hanson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"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.
>
>Oh yeah? When we had done all that we had to put it all into a card
>reader and write about it, using vi!!
you were lucky, we didn't have vi, all we had was iii :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Hector Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Info needed
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:49:31 -0600
Hi, for an investigation, I would like to have the addresses of web
pages with information regarding the use of Linux by Government
agencies, or Laws prohibiting the use of non Open Source Software by
Government.
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Binh Ngo)
Subject: Re: Rock and a hard place.
Date: 17 Aug 2000 16:36:40 GMT
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:01:23 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have been trying to use Windows 98SE as a media box. (I still use
>Linux do do my important stuff.)
>
>I figured, surely Windows would be fine enough if I just used it for one
>thing at a time and only seldom.
>
>OK, the Windows box has a 3dFX card, Hauppague TV, RadioTrack, DVD,
>Crystal Sound card, DLink nic, 19" monitor, Astra Page Scanner, and
>modem.
>
>So far I've had to re-install Windows twice. I have had about 3 blue
>screens at startup. All this in about a week and a half. I have all the
>latest drivers, and the machine has a new hard disk. This is just the
>way Windows is. I have successfully played two DVD movies on it, however
>three others locked up the box requiring a reboot. IMHO this is not a
>working machine.
>
>The Linux advocacy: We need a LinDVD player. We need some good gnome/kde
>tv programs, and I can live without the scanner. I would like the media
>box to be linux, then I could depend on it.
>
>Any ideas? I know xawtv, it is a bit crude. I have not seen any DVD
>players (I know about all the DeCSS crap, so perhaps we will not see
>such a player.)
try www.linuxvideo.org
>
>--
>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: "JS/PL" <[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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:06:04 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "JS/PL" == JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
> >> profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it
in
> >> order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the
investment.
> >> This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
> >> responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
> >> advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
>
> > Marx would be proud of the above thesis. Here's an idea...move to
Cuba, they
> > look like they are thriving on the philosophy above....join the big
party in
> > the streets down south Max.
>
>
> What Max is advocating is not communism.
He's a communist at heart, always has been. Every now and again he posts
some drivel about how he's "pro capitalist" followed by some assinine
statement that profits should be regulated or minimized to be ethical (or
something similar to this foolish idea).
To Marx...err...Max any profit that is slightly above breaking even is
unethical and reprehensible.
>
> Companies really do exist to provide a service to the community, but
> they were all started by men and women who wanted to control their
> own destiny and do things according to their own ideas and principals
> - willingly taking a risk in the process.
>
> The relationship between the buyer and the seller ought to be one of
> peer to peer, that is what I think Max is talking about. Not the
> relationship of a peon to a modern-day lord. Not a relationship
> between a consumer and an abuser.
The relationship is one of supply and demand. Always has been, always should
be. MS is one of the most consumer reactive software makers in existence.
They listen to and implement consumer input into their products almost to a
fault. That's not indicative of a "peon/lord" relationship.
The demand by OEM's (and 99% of their custumers) is a no brainer, graphical,
point & click operating system. Microsoft supplies that demand, consumers
and OEM's all benefit. What's the problem?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:44:18 +0100
>
>Given the fact that it is not only MS's operating system that is unsecure
>and unstable, I can't imagine anyone concerned with these issues picking a
>stable unix-like operating system and then using applications like word
>(which crashes frequently when trying to print, for example) or Outlook
>Express.
>
Personally the only part of office that I would ever need is MSAccess as no
linux packages so far can open the proprietry format used by this
application (Staroffice and others can open word,excel,powerpoint files but
not access databases). Unfortunately I need to open access databases
regularly at work as we use access for our software fault database (I work
for a software company).
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Decent Linux CDR software wanted.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:53:08 +0100
This may be the wrong group for this question but does anyone here know of a
good linux CDR writing package similar to 'Win on CD'.
I have tried kisofs and gtoaster but both of these have problems which make
them unsuitable for my intended purposes. Neither of them have percentage
bars to show how far the image creation and writing operations have
completed so far. gtoaster cannot make images without copying all files to a
local directory and kisofs makes it difficult to delete individual
directories from the filetree added to cd project. Maybe I will have more
success with xcdroast but it also looks like it may be unsuitable.
Perhaps if nothing currently available suits my purposes then the
maintainers of current software could at least make a note of my criticism
of their products and use this to improve things in future versions and
until then I will keep my home machine dualboot with windblows used for CD
writing and linux for normal use.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Windtrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:50:01 +1000
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > The explorer being discussed in Windows Explorer not Internet
Explorer.
> >
> > Two heads of the same beast.
>
> Exactly. The distinction between a broswer that finds and exectutes
> files a local filesystem versus a remote one is fairly arbitrary. But
> can someone please explain to me why I can't do something like lynx
> -dump www.la-online.com in a graphical browser?
Because the designers have evidently not seen a need for the functionality ?
Edit -> Select All then paste into something like notepad will get an
approximation thereof.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:50:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > One thing I am glad, they never got as bad as Voyager. Voyager should
be
> > subtitled "one series too many".
>
>
> Voyager was good if you didn't think of it as a Star Trek spin-off.
For me it lost a lot of its credibility in the first season. In the first
episode it is stated that Voyager outclassed any ship in the delta
quaderant. In terms of speed, fire power, and technology.
In that first episode they first encountered a hostile alien race. Through
out that first season they kept encountering that same race, not only the
same race but the same individuals in that race and the same ships.
Through out that season they kept talking about travling straight back home,
but then given their superior speed they should not have been encountering
the same ships and individuals unless they were flying in circles.
In other seasons it is learned that the delta quaderant is the location of
the home Borg and they are well know by the inhabitants there. Which
invalidates the statement of their ship outclassing anything in the
quaderant.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:24:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Popularity, obviously. Once it *could* have been assumed that you
> contributed, if you knew anything about it, because only those that
> contributed did know anything about it.
I suppose it all boils down to a question of respect.
Should not one member of the Linux community still show at least basic
repect to a a fellow member? Our should one member pre-assume the lack of
contribution on the part of others, and treating the others second as class
citizens of the Linux community?--As Roberto as done with Nathaniel and
myself?
> Now Linux has a wider audience.
> What are you going to do about it? Make it less acceptable to the
> majority? Or try to figure out how to balance the mass's desires with
> the expert's requirements.
This is an invalid argument for the discussion at hand, engineered by you as
a distraction from the central issue.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:01:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ng5vn$6ft$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ng5jh$uv4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ne7hg$bk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Sheesh. First you use TWM, and now mc running in an *xterm* ?
> >
> > No, I never said I was using TWM.
>
> My bad, it was fvwm, was it not ?
>
> > > And you wonder why people accuse you of "cheating" ?
> >
> > If the finctionality is equivalent, where is the cheating?
>
> Because the functionality *isn't* the same - that's the point.
>
> > > Explorer can and has done that since IE4.
> >
> > Again, talking about the Windows Explorer (explorer.exe) NOT Internet
> > Explorer.
>
> It is normal explorer, using the IE component from within it.
>
> Or would you prefer good ol' wheel-reinventing and have FTP implemented in
> explorer *and* internet explorer ?
What version of Windows Explorer are you considering?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:56:57 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're happily married? God I feel sorry for your husband. He probably
> comes home every night to a different personality and a different 'mood'
> within that personality. Tell me something, how does he feel about your
> multiple personalities and overall childish behavior?
It is not just a marriage, it is an adventure!
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:05:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ngn2q$74o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But the process is even more complex than it sounds, since
> most Microsoft applications -- especially those in the
> Office suite -- use a number of proprietary interfaces,
> and each application requires specific workarounds. The
> results, so far, have been disappointing.
>
> In other words, Microsoft's applications use secret Windows
> system calls and facilities that it doesn't make available
> to other software vendors.
>
>
Sound like the MS SOP, no supprise here. That is why Wine has been alpha
for so long.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Does Microsoft Assume That They Know What I Want?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:55:55 +0100
>
>Windows 98SE Full Version will NOT install to another partition if it
>finds Win98SE already installed. I could find no way to force the
>install via a switch.
>
>This works fine, except that the Win98SE setup program does not like
>have the PPQ BootMagic fool it and thinks I am using some kind of
>Stacker Like program and thus does not install.
>
>FWIW, I installed several Linux distros on various partitions and they
>were automagically added to Bootmagic and I have never had a
>problem...
>
Now you know why we hate windows and love Linux ;-)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:46:42 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> We weren't talking about people bleeding or shooting themselves. You
> are desparately trying to change the context of what you said to make
> it seem more correct. We were talking about business acting in the
> public interest for the sake of their own self interest. You had claimed
> that the justification of this is "deeply harmful to a person's
> spirit". You further claimed that people cannot decide for themselves
> whether it is or isn't "deeply harmful" to them, but that it is for
Another example of your reading what you want others to have written??
What I *said* was deeply harmful was people constantly being forced
to justify everything they do as "in the business' interest".
But you don't seem to draw any distinction between "a business" and
"the people who run that business". Obviously, people who work in
businesses have no independent existence from that business, right?
They are inseparable from it, and what is good for the businness is
good for them, right??
> elitist psychologists and social scientists to decide for them. You
> are wrong on both counts.
And you're a nitwit.
> >What the fuck is this "spirituality" you've brought up now?
> ^^^^^
>
> First of all, if you were reading, you would see the difference
> between "spiritually" and "spirituality".
And if YOU were reading, you might have noticed the difference
between "spirit" and "spiritually", a much greater difference
than the difference YOU are complaining about (especially when
in the context of HUMAN spirit), but everything's fair when it's
to your advantage, right?
> Secondly, it was *you* who
> introduced the word "spirit" in this dialog. What the fuck is *that*??
"mental health and well-being"
> It means alot of different things to different people, doesn't it? I
> suppose your meaning is the right meaning, and everyone else is wrong.
I deeply regret ever using that vague a word when dealing with an
asshole who won't cut me any slack, let alone try to understand
what I mean in favour of what he wants it to mean.
> >> No matter how you word it, the people who run businesses are not
> >> psychopaths. Neither is someone going to college. Nor is it a
> >> psychopathic decision to wnat to do so.
> >
> >And we can rely on your training as a psychologist to determine that.
>
> You made the claim that most people who run businesses are
> psychopaths.
Wrong, cretin. I said that all LARGE BUSINESSES and most small ones
are psychopaths. And this is obvious from observation.
> Provide a reference to a scientific study that proves
> that. You also made the claim that someone who writes free software to
> put it on his resume is also a psychopath. Provide a reference that
> supports that claim.
Yet another example of you reading what you want to read.
I said that people who write free software for the sole purpose
of putting it on their resume *can be* psychopaths. Of course, it
may not have been as obvious what I said to someone who doesn't
understand the simplest conventions of natural human language.
> >Do you understand the difference between an institution and the
> >people running this institution, cretin? Do you know what "emergent
> >behaviour" means? Do you even know what /psychopath/ means? Are
> >you aware that there is a world of difference between "psychopath"
> >and "psychopathic" and that I've never used the latter word?
>
> Irrelevent. You made the claim, you prove it.
Of course, what's inconvenient to you is irrelevant.
[Snip anything that would take me more than 5 minutes to respond,
and even that much is a complete waste of breath]
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:03:13 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> We weren't talking about people bleeding or shooting themselves. You
> are desparately trying to change the context of what you said to make
> it seem more correct. We were talking about business acting in the
> public interest for the sake of their own self interest. You had claimed
> that the justification of this is "deeply harmful to a person's
> spirit". You further claimed that people cannot decide for themselves
> whether it is or isn't "deeply harmful" to them, but that it is for
Another example of your reading what you want others to have written??
What I *said* was deeply harmful was people constantly being forced
to justify everything they do as "in the business' interest".
But you don't seem to draw any distinction between "a business" and
"the people who run that business". Obviously, people who work in
businesses have no independent existence from that business, right?
They are inseparable from it, and what is good for the businness is
good for them, right??
> elitist psychologists and social scientists to decide for them. You
> are wrong on both counts.
And you're a nitwit.
> >What the fuck is this "spirituality" you've brought up now?
> ^^^^^
>
> First of all, if you were reading, you would see the difference
> between "spiritually" and "spirituality".
And if YOU were reading, you might have noticed the difference
between "spirit" and "spiritually", a much greater difference
than the difference YOU are complaining about (especially when
in the context of HUMAN spirit), but everything's fair when it's
to your advantage, right?
> Secondly, it was *you* who
> introduced the word "spirit" in this dialog. What the fuck is *that*??
"mental health and well-being"
> It means alot of different things to different people, doesn't it? I
> suppose your meaning is the right meaning, and everyone else is wrong.
I deeply regret ever using that vague a word when dealing with an
asshole who won't cut me any slack, let alone try to understand
what I mean in favour of what he wants it to mean.
> >> No matter how you word it, the people who run businesses are not
> >> psychopaths. Neither is someone going to college. Nor is it a
> >> psychopathic decision to wnat to do so.
> >
> >And we can rely on your training as a psychologist to determine that.
>
> You made the claim that most people who run businesses are
> psychopaths.
Wrong, cretin. I said that all LARGE BUSINESSES and most small ones
are psychopaths. And this is obvious from observation.
> Provide a reference to a scientific study that proves
> that. You also made the claim that someone who writes free software to
> put it on his resume is also a psychopath. Provide a reference that
> supports that claim.
Yet another example of you reading what you want to read.
I said that people who write free software for the sole purpose
of putting it on their resume *can be* psychopaths. Of course, it
may not have been as obvious what I said to someone who doesn't
understand the simplest conventions of natural human language.
> >Do you understand the difference between an institution and the
> >people running this institution, cretin? Do you know what "emergent
> >behaviour" means? Do you even know what /psychopath/ means? Are
> >you aware that there is a world of difference between "psychopath"
> >and "psychopathic" and that I've never used the latter word?
>
> Irrelevent. You made the claim, you prove it.
Of course, what's inconvenient to you is irrelevant.
> >If one perceives oneself as an unseparable part of a group then one
> >is irrational and out of touch with reality and utterly incapable of
> >judging one's own self-interest.
>
> Complete and utter nonsense. One depends on one's environment for air,
> water, food, clothing, shelter etc. etc. Now even if one lives in
> solitude in the wilderness, one still depends one ones environment for
> one's livelhood and thus one is still inseparable from one's
> environment. For one who lives in society, one is dependant on others
> for water, food, clothing, shelter etc. etc. Thus one is inseparable
> from the group. This is not a behavioral model, but a physical
> fact. If you really believe you are separable from society, I
> encourage to go live on your own in the wilderness.
But we weren't discussing separation from one's species or from
physical reality. We *were* discussing separation from (small)
social groups called FAMILIES. But of course, divorce doesn't
exist since the largest of possible social groups is completely
equivalent to the smallest of social groups.
[Snip anything that would take me more than 5 minutes to respond,
and even that much is a complete waste of breath]
> >> I inhabit a reality where self interest, the interest of others,
> >> rationality and morality need not necessarily be in conflict with one
> >> another.
> >
> >A common delusion.
>
> Most psychologists I have met share that "delusion".
That's typical of your line of arguments; psychology has NOTHING to
do with self-interest, interest of others, rationality OR morality!
The closest that psychology has to do with rationality is that it
*uses* rationality as an ideal; psychology has no say in what is and
isn't rational. It's PHILOSOPHY that defines *ALL* of those things!
And *NO* philosopher I've met has thought that there is a large
overlap between any of these things.
[snip hysterical grandstanding]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
