Linux-Advocacy Digest #543, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:09:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Don't dismiss the possibility of being paid to be a winvocate or a wintroll.
You guys have it all wrong, and put far too much credence in the
potential fiscal benefits of Usenet posting, which are generally nill
but for a few particular exceptions (one of which is, factually,
astroturfing for Microsoft). I think what drives the WinTroll is the
same thing that drives any troll; they feel they have a right to
question what is going on around them, just as anybody rational on
Usenet does. The difference is, I'm afraid, they can't quite seem to
grasp abstractions well enough, for whatever reason, that they can
legitimately exercise their right to their opinion, and get defense and
entrenched when it is pointed out that their current grasp of the issues
is incorrect.
I honestly think it is a question of the threshold of intelligence
necessary to understand the value and purpose of free inquiry is not
quite as high as the threshold needed to intelligently perform free
inquiry. I'm sure that might sound elitist, but I didn't invent the
idea that intelligence can be quantified.
[...]
>I would not be too supprised of that possibility since Microsoft has already
>done worse than that and through use of thier resources, they have been able
>to avoid paying the price for their actions.
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Microsoft pays many people
to astroturf. I think most of them are part of the W3C department,
though. These amateur Wintrolls might still be indirectly supported
(quite indirectly supported; as you mentioned, MS has been caught out
before on this* and I'm sure they'd be careful to have more than
plausible deniability at this point) but it seems more likely they're
just garden-variety trolls. Like somebody (C. Browne?) said, you should
see alt.archeaology
>Sometimes one of the best ways to avoid being implicated in an action is by
>making it appear that it would be against your best interest to take the
>action. I am not saying it is the case, but that it could be the case that
>Microsoft is paying the some of the winvocates/wintrolls to post, and the
>over-the-top styles on purpose to deflect suspicion away from Microsoft's
>complicity.
>
>
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:08:52 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> [...]
> >Personally, I think there was a time when there was some very heavy
> >UFO visiting to our planet. The ancient religious texts are just full
> >of descriptions which, if you take the authors at their word, correlate
> >very well with alien visitations.
>
> They "correlate very well" to whatever you want to convince yourself
> they correlate to. You remember the famous "astronaut picture" that
> showed so 'clearly' a humanoid figure in a space capsule in decorations
> of a Mayan temple? The people who wanted to interpret it this way
> conveniently ignored all of the common elements between that engraving
> and many others in contemporaneous work which *definitively* show that
> the 'space capsule' was an alter, and the figure was a fallen (native)
> warrior.
>
> >Could the "Book of the Dead" and the Old Testament both by ancient
> >versions of the Post-WW2 "Cargo Cults" in the Pacific?
>
> No. Not very likely. When such presentations are as "stylized" as they
> are, it becomes quite easy to read into them whatever meaning you'd like
> to see. One type of meaningless rambling (religious revelation) is no
> different in the end from another type of meaningless rambling (UFO
> culture).
Personally, I have no belief in UFO's. I'm just saying that *IF* one
makes the assumption that the authors are giving accurate accounts,
then the "God of Isreal" in the old testament was a very real entity
who walked on the face of the earth as you and I do. But also seems
to have been in control of some 20th Century type technology.
Some of the details seem hazy, but if one reads Genesis as literally
as possible, it seems that some large number of beings came to
earth, and some sort of mutiny occured around the time that they
came upon earth, in which 1/3 of the contingent sided with the
lead mutineer.
The old testament simultaneously talks about multiple gods, and an
insistence in following only one god. Now if you erase from your
mind the traditional definition of "god" and instead, think of
"some guy who has power (technology) that astounds us AND a few
thousand of subordinates"...then things begin to clarify.
Read Exodus...the account of the Angel of Death...sounds quite
simply like some INDIVIDUAL PERSON going from house to house in
the middle of the night, and either poisoning or using germ warfare
against the oldest male children on the premises.
There is very little in the Old Testament which could not be
accomplished by a typical US Special Forces team, and almost all
of the remaining could be accomplished by a Special Forces Group.
Any commercial or military pilot fits the description of the "angels"
in the Bible. How do you know when you meet a pilot?
Simple: you see the wings.
Now, does this mean that they fly like birds? Of course not.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:24:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Nawwww...
>
>He's just a wacko that thinks he sees spacemen and then when he sobers
>up posts a flurry of subsequent post's claiming he was only kidding
>and it was a GoodYear blimp after all...
>
>A true nut....
So it is you, Mr. "Palmer". I was even thinking just before reading
your post that maybe these guys were just paranoid in insisting that
there was somebody using 16 different identities to carpet-bomb these
groups with FUD fodder, or possibly that "claire" was another of your
pseudonyms. But this message convinced me, and I've noticed others
mentioned it also. It is obvious it was you who keeps bringing this
issue up, and that whoever clair_lynn is, they are entirely unethical
and intellectually dishonest. So I am again convinced that you are the
same troll, and will take every opportunity to point it out.
You realize that every conscientious Usenet user is going to point out
this dishonesty, and use it even as an example of how dishonest a person
can be, whenever they notice that you're trying to pull this kind of
shit, don't you? As soon as anyone is aware of what you are doing, they
know it is so disreputable that they will never consider your opinion to
have any weight whatsoever, and in fact whatever you say will be doubted
for no other reason than that you said it, and that will be a correct
logical position. What do you possibly hope to accomplish, other than
proving your own lack of ethics and damaging the dubious integrity of
any discussion which might occur through this system? We already know
that we can't trust what someone says is true on Usenet. Are you so
undeveloped intellectually that you are unaware that you are being
fraudulent and demonstrating your complete lack of moral or social
values, despite that fact?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:38:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>OK. Let's make it very simple.
If only that were possible. It is an abstraction; you cannot simplify
an abstraction unless it is a simple abstraction. And "the market" is
not a simple abstraction.
>Answer the following questions in a few
>words (none of your usual posting of 1000 lines of response so the
>readers fall asleep).
I'll try to stay terse. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and
the reminder.
>1. Should my company be able to charge whatever it wants for products
>developed here?
Define 'able to'. My preference is that only the market should control
what you charge.
>2. Should there be action taken against companies who "profiteer"?
Yes; they should be prevented from profiteering, minimally.
>3. Just what is "profiteering", anyway? Specifically, what level of
>profitiability do you consider acceptable (and how is it determined) and
>what dividing line does a company have to cross before it's
>"profiteering"?
It is not a specific price at which it becomes "profiteering", just as
it is not a specific market share at which it becomes "monopolization".
The dividing line is whether the company is investing in producing their
products, or investing in restricting access to the market to raise the
price they can demand.
Forgive a brief expansion. If a company managed to have a ten day
window on the market, so that during that ten days, they could charge
anything they want, but after that, competition catching up will force
them to lower their prices, is it ethical for them to take the great
amount of outrageous profits they make in the first ten days to erecting
barriers to prevent the competition from forcing their prices down? If
the price does come down after that, but doesn't come down as low as
some producers could manage with (providing the most efficient
production, the purpose of competition from the market's perspective),
is the continued profit the company makes to be considered "honest
profit" derived from their ability to compete? Or is it 'profiteering',
and restraint of trade or monopolization?
>4. Is a company entitled to take advantage of both trade secret and
>copyright laws?
Not on the exact same capital, no, not in my opinion, not ethically and
potentially not according to the courts, which have found that
restrictions contrary to the nature of copyright (which give free use to
the owner of a copy to use that copy in any way they wish which is not
restricted by copyright) are not enforceable licensing terms.
>5. Are trade secrets intellectual property?
Yes. The nature of that intellectual property, however, is different,
as it is for other forms of intellectual property, such as copyright,
patent, and trademark. Their common element is that they have no
physical substance; merely a fixed form of expression.
>6. Has the U.S. Congress spoken out against profiteering? Where is your
>reference?
Essentially, the popular wisdom that the danger of monopolization is
that they can raise prices to exorbitant levels is the same thing. I'm
not the one that claimed that the Congress had made specific reference
to profiteering, though it certainly seems likely its been 'spoken'. It
is certainly not directly transcribed in law. The laws say "you cannot
monopolize" and "you cannot restrain trade", not "you cannot charge
exorbitant profits because you are monopolizing or restraining trade."
The fact that you haven't heard others refer to it as profiteering is
not a measure of how valid the term is, merely how familiar it is.
>I've quoted you accurately on all of your answers in your previous
>rambling posts, but just to make sure, go ahead and answer those.
You may have quoted me accurately when you quoted me, but you entirely
misrepresented my position every other time.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:50:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >
>> >No, when someone puts out a death threat against me, I do the opposite
>> >of
>> >"chill out" I find them and turn them in to the authorities.
>>
>> LOL! Still working really hard to miss the point, aren't you, 'JS/PL'.
>>
>
>JS/PL has every right to react however he wants to a death threat.
>
>Now, my personal feeling is that it was very, very obvious that the
>"threat" wasn't real. But your in no position criticizing him for his
>action.
Bullshit. The only reason he tried so hard to get someone to make a
"threat" was so that he could posture in just the dramatic way he's
doing. His intent, knowing or not, is to inhibit free speech; not by
preventing death threats, but by treating a rhetorical statement as if
it were a death threat. In this way, he suppresses the open expression
of ideas and opinions on Usenet, and this is his purpose. He doesn't
*like* Usenet, I figure, and secretly wants to discourage people from
using it. So he tries to entrap Aaron into threatening Bill Gates life
(which, in fact, Aaron had already essentially done, but 'JS/PL' wanted
it more clearly stated.)
Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the mike"
for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
overly-dramatic concern.
>I received a real death threat from usenet once (he located my address
>and said he was coming there to kill me. Believe me, it's not a fun
>situation (there are too many loonies around).
Which is why I pointed out that the fact that this 'JS/PL' person
thought it important to point out he had found out my first name is
"Timothy" was worth some concern. I know how to handle such threats,
and 'JS/PL' can be sure in the knowledge that I will not warn him over
Usenet when I've made it an official criminal or civil matter.
>Fortunately, I notified his ISP who notified the account holder -- who
>happened to be his wife. I suspect that her punishment was worse than
>anything I could have come up with.
>
>Anyway, there's no reason for Usenet arguments to enter into the real
>world. If JS/PL feels that the line has been crossed, it's his right to
>react the way he did.
I'll let the police deal with the ISPs if I ever feel I'm actually being
threatened. He is not within his rights to harass me under the pretense
that I made a death threat on his pseudonym.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:49:28 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> >I have no clue what happened in Roswell. It was probably just
> >> >military activity of some sort. But I doubt anyone will ever
> >> >sort out the multiple revisions of history that have occurred
> >> >since the first sighting. [...]
> >>
> >> Actually, a truly amazing job has been done. Check out
> >> http://www.csicop.org and their publication *Skeptical Enquirer* for
> >> details. These are people who have tracked down the specific person who
> >> must have been "the red haired nurse" from original stories and such,
> >> and have ruthlessly deconstructed just where the multiple revisions of
> >> "history" have occurred in modern space-alien mythology.
> >
> >Yes. I've seen several documentaries on Roswell on A&E and History
> >Channel. On one hand, there is one school that presumes that we are
> >the only intelligent form of life in the universe and that we COULDN'T
> >have been visited by aliens, at the other end of the spectrum, you have
> >people who claim to be abducted by aliens.
>
> The TV documentaries simply do not do justice to the detail of the
> research performed, Rex. Your 'spectrum' might be valid, but the folks
> who have proven that Roswell was a bunch of balloons, a test dummy or
> two (a decade later), and a lot of confabulation are not anywhere near
> the "Couldn't" end. The "haven't" end is not in denial; it is simply
> rational.
Roswell appears to have been the result of some AF test apparatus
escaping the test range.
> Any qualified psychologists can recognize that "abduction by aliens" is
> the same scientifically recognized delusions caused by "sleep paralysis"
> that caused goblin, ghoul, and daemon visitations to pre-scientific
> people.
true.
>
> >I tend to think that Aliens wouldn't find this planet particularly
> >interesting. We're at the edge of a galaxy in "the sticks", and
> >even the hassle of exploring this far out would be a pain. Until
> >about 5 years ago we didn't know if there were other star systems
> >with planets. With the space telescope, we no know there are many
> >stars with planets.
>
> One of which is a mere 10.5 light-years from earth. It's a Jovian-type
> planet, as all such discoveries are (it takes a lot of planet to
> "wiggle" a star in space as it zooms around the galactic core.)
>
> >This tends to increase the odds that there
> >would be SOME intelligent life out there. But anyone capable of
> >space travel would consider us too privitive and violent to risk
> >unneccessary contact.
> >
> >Especially if they watch WWF Wrestling and read usenet news :-).
>
> Anyone who is capable of *interstellar* space travel in the Enstienian
> universe we live in would know that any sentient life is a needle in a
> haystack. The question is whether we'd be able to recognize them, and
> they us, from some large-scale ant-farm or a particularly bizarre
> fungus.
alternatively.... we are descended from same ?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:09:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> If you want to give typical definitions understood by most people for
>> simplicity, then "having a monopoly is illegal" is certainly the
>> simplest way of doing it, as well as the most correct.
>
>Only in the minds of some radical free-marketers.
Now that's a new one. Radical free-marketers are generally the ones
that think its OK to monopolize.
>Microsoft has had a monopoly in the operating systems business for a
>good solid decade (more like 15 years), and has been left relatively
>unmolested in that time. It took a lot of really obvious, in-your-face
>anticompetitive practices for them to finally get in trouble ofr the
>things they did.
They've been under investigation, essentially, since the late 1980s.
They've had a monopoly based on pre-load per-processor agreements and
such since the mid-80s, at the latest.
>Other companies that have been in trouble for similar tactics:
>
>Coca-Cola (which gets nailed from time to time for anticompetitive
>practices.)
To prevent them from having a monopoly. Everyone knows you can get
Pepsi at almost as many places. All of these cases, I would expect, can
be characterized more accurately as "attempts to monopolize". This
would include the use of Coke's evident market power to deter
competition, but it isn't a matter of "having a monopoly". A dominant
market share is not a monopoly. A market share (even a small one) that
can be used to restrict other's access to the market is a monopoly. The
only way to prove this in court, of course, is to show that the company
*could* use their market share predatorially. And that is called
"monopolization".
[...]
>AT&T (The best precursor to the Microsoft case in may respects. Very
>restrictive, had a huge monopoly position, spent billions of dollars
>trying to stop technical advances by other companies, used to insist
>that computer modems be "installed" by phone company technicians at
>exorbitant rates, and tried to charge more for "data lines." AT&T got
>broken up into the "Baby Bells," phone service prices dropped, and the
>whole telecomm revolution began.)
Yes, but AT&T was originally instituted as a monopoly in order to
provide universal service. That, to me, makes it decisively separate
from the Microsoft case.
I fail to see why a laundry list of companies who've had anti-trust
trials is supposed to support the idea that "having a monopoly is
illegal" is a radical statement.
The point is that once it is shown that a company has a dominant market
share and *could* act predatorially, the *company*, not the prosecution,
has the burden of proof of showing they didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't
use it, if they are accused of doing so. If they can, then they're not
a monopoly; just a successful company. So its OK to have as much market
share as a monopoly, but it is not OK to monopolize, you see what I
mean?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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
******************************
