Linux-Advocacy Digest #603, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just converted ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Larry Brasfield)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Aug 2000 22:17:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> (For some reason, I keep losing track of where to look up
>>>the statute, so I can't check at the moment.)
>>
>>A good source is the version supplied by the Library of Congress'
>>Copyright Office --
>>
>> http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
>
>For some reason, this site is *outrageously* slow to get resolved on my
>system. I'd tried it before, and gave up after a couple minutes (well,
>probably more like 80 seconds). This time I stuck it out, and I've now
>bookmarked it. Thanks.
I'm sure there are other sites that have the copyright statute. I like
that one because it's run by the agency that handles copyright matters.
But for the full US Code, you can go to --
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
And there are other sites, I'd guess.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:21:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:02:40 -0700
<8o196l$ict$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Is there a Webpage for this? www.boom.com, www.tnt.com/boom, what?
>
>Sorry, you are right, I should have given the URLs.
>
>Try:
>
> http://www.teamtnt.com
>
>AND
>
> ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/idgames/
>
>boom comes as a source zip archive Dos exeutable. There is a Linux port of
>boom called LxDoom which runs either on X or SVGAlib
Thanks for the info; I'll check it out at some point. Hopefully
tonight...
>
> ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/idgames/source/lxdoom-1.4.0.tar.gz
> note 1.4.0 is note the current verion for that check out:
> http://lxdoom.linuxgames.com/
>
>>
>> >
>> >#6 = plasma rifle ?
>>
>> Yep, that was it ... although it acts more like a machine gun.
>> (Oh well, a foolish consistency and all that... :-) )
>
>What makes it better than the chaingun it the bigger puch per shot and that
>the plasma shots are semitracking
I wasn't aware they were semitracking, but it does the job fairly nicely. :-)
>
>>
>> >#7 = BFG 9000 ?
>>
>> Yep; later upgraded to BFG10000 in Quake II, if memory serves.
>> (The new one has quite a kick to it for some reason. :-) )
>
>Nice to give a whole room of fiends the nice warm and toasted feeling <evil
>grin>
Indeed. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- smile for the birdie....heh heh heh
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:33:12 -0400
Andres Soolo wrote:
>
> --
> Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [Prime Minister Joseph] Chamberlain loves the working man -- he loves
> to see him work.
> -- Winston Churchill
That's Neville Chamberlain.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:33:00 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:37:44 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why would you even want a LoseModem? It's a cpu-hog.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It may be a crap waste of cpu resources but most PC's bought for home use
> >> currently include a modem and most of these are winmodems. It looks better
> >
> >I think that support for Losemodems should be highly...what's that
> >word... denigrated(?) in the documentation as being minimal support
> >provided for demonstration purposes only until you go out and get
> >a real modem....they're quite cheap if you buy them second-hand.
>
> Either that, or deprecated, as in strongly discouraged.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, that's the word I was looking for.
> (I for one wouldn't mind; what's the point of saving a few
> cents on a chip by loading down the microprocessor? UARTs
> can't be *that* expensive...)
about 5 cents, *RETAIL*
>
> >
> >> for someone who has just bought a machine and gets hold of a copy of linux
> >> if all of their current hardware is supported and gives them no excuse for
> >> blaming the operating system when they upgrade and find they can no longer
> >> use their modem. Support for these modems can have other advantages - linux
> >> drivers can do more than the windows ones and may be able to use these
> >> modems as a telephone exchange for example, routing calls to any PC on the
> >> network with a soundcard (try doing this under windoze). This seems to be
> >> already in the process of being coded (www.linmodems.org).
> >
> >I can see that, but .. .in some way, we shouldn't call that modem
> >support, as it isn't being used for that purpose... maybe telephonic
> >sound device support.
>
> If I wanted to do something like that, I'd want dual chips -- one for
> the voice side, one for the modem side. Or, one can make or buy
> some sort of box (is there one available?) that can hook into
> both the sound card and the modem so that a control sequence can
> switch the sound card's output into the phone system, and out of it,
> so it can record and play back like an electronic answering machine.
> I'm pretty sure this is possible -- fax/phone switchers have been around
> for awhile, although they solve a different problem.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Another thing that I often wonder is why does linux (also 'Arachne' DOS
> >> browser, apple mac and most if not all non-babybill based machines) need to
> >> have things like the DNS settings manually entered. Perhaps the teams behind
> >> the linux ppp code could find a way to reverse-engineer the windblows ppp
> >> code and work out how they do this automatically (and share the info with
> >> apple and arachne labs).
>
> I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. It's done exactly once.
> (Unless the ISP likes to mutate itself every few months, mind you. :-) )
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
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"
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:36:18 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <8o13e4$21d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > -- snip --
> >
> > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why
> > > > > are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > >
> > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > > USENET?
> > >
> > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or
> > > significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even
> > > farther.
> >
> > When did you get it into your head that having a surplus indicates
> > having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or deficit, the
> > budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when expenditures equal
> > revenues.
> >
> > If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I sure as
> > hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest free. I'd
> > rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting Dems spend it for
> > me.
>
> It isn't really a surplus, it's just money they haven't decided what to
> do with yet. Gore wants better education, targeted tax cuts for the less
Define "targeted tax cuts" in concrete terms.
WHO gets the tax cuts?
How much?
How will AlGore "improve" education? That's the jobs of the
school boards, principles, and teachers. *THEY* can improve
education any time they want to, merely be re-instituting
rational curricula and strong discipline within the school.
> fortunate, better healthcare and debt reduction. Bush wants tax breaks
> for his rich friends and unnecessary defense spending.
Hint fucking hint: You can't give a "tax break" to the free loaders
who aren't paying taxes in the first place.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:38:55 -0400
Stephen Patterson wrote:
>
> I've been using Linux for about 2 years now, on and off (mainly off). I
> recently completed a college project which got me using and adjusting Linux
> a lot. Just after finishing this, I looked at my computer usage and found
> a) Linux is more reliable than windows
> b) Everything I had previously done in windows could be done in Linux with
> an appropriate set of applications
> c) Linux internet access was regularly twice as fast as windows.
True...on the SAME internet connection...
My windows machine rarely surpasses 200 kbits/sec.
The Linux machine gets over 1000 kbits/sec hitting the same sites
at the same time.
These two machines are nearly identical:
same Motherboard
same CPU
same Ethernet card
plugged into the same hub
The only real difference is that the memory
Linux: 128 MB
Windows: 192 MB
>
> So, i'm another satisfied user though I keep windows around to support
> legacy games and family.
>
> --
> A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.
> -- George Eliot
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>
> Stephen Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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: Marty <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:52:30 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > [...]
> > >> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced them
> > >> is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
> > >> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
> > >
> > >*sigh*. You're missing the point.
> >
> > I know it will do no good to point out to Christopher Smith that, no, it
> > is he that is missing that point. The point is *not* whether there have
> > been any compelling alternatives to Windows. In fact, the point is that
> > there have *not* been any compelling alternatives, or even available
> > alternatives, to Windows.
>
> There haven't been any particularly compelling alternatives. There have
> been numerous alternatives.
Baloney. How "compelling" a given alternative is entirely depends on its
application. What may be a compelling solution for one problem may be a
worthless solution for another. To generalize and state that there haven't
been any compelling alternatives for any task is highly inaccurate.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:01:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <8o13e4$21d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > -- snip --
> > >
> > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget,
> > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing
> > > > > to USENET?
> > > >
> > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants
> > > > to take things even farther.
> > >
> > > When did you get it into your head that having a surplus
> > > indicates having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or
> > > deficit, the budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when
> > > expenditures equal revenues.
> > >
> > > If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I
> > > sure as hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest
> > > free. I'd rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting
> > > Dems spend it for me.
> >
> > It isn't really a surplus, it's just money they haven't decided
> > what to do with yet. Gore wants better education, targeted tax cuts
> > for the less
>
> Define "targeted tax cuts" in concrete terms.
>
> WHO gets the tax cuts? How much?
http://www.algore.com/budget_and_taxes/tax_agenda1.html
> How will AlGore "improve" education?
http://www.algore.com/education/edu_agenda1.html
> That's the jobs of the school boards, principles, and teachers.
> *THEY* can improve education any time they want to, merely be
> re-instituting rational curricula and strong discipline within the
> school.
Even though they're working in 40 person classes is run-down buildings
with no textbooks?
> > fortunate, better healthcare and debt reduction. Bush wants tax
> > breaks for his rich friends and unnecessary defense spending.
>
>
> Hint fucking hint: You can't give a "tax break" to the free loaders
> who aren't paying taxes in the first place.
No, but you can give breaks to the working poor. Contrary to what
right-wing zealots might believe, not everyone his poor because of
laziness.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:04:19 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
> Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
> > > Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > > > Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
[Deep quotes left in to evidence "relevance".]
> > > > > > I believe that any attempt at criminal conviction under
> > > > > > the Sherman anti-trust act, applied to the so-called
> > > > > > "Microsoft monopoly", would have to fail on constitutional
> > > > > > grounds. Getting "monopoly" to refer to winner-takes-most
> > > > > > situations is quite an achievement in stretching a vague
> > > > > > concept, but it is still too vague to constitute fair
> > > > > > notice of the sort that deflects constitutional challenges
> > > > > > to vague laws used to deprive people of property or liberty.
> > > > >
> > > > > They weren't convicted in a criminal trial. They lost in a civil
> > > > > case.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that, thanks.
> > >
> > > Then why did you make the above argument?
> >
> > Because I believe that people should not be
> > found liable in civil or criminal actions
> > based on laws that are too vague to allow a
> > potential defendendant to reasonably predict
> > what is legal and what is not.
>
> More obfuscation.
No. I explained why I made "the above argument".
You may have some argument, as yet unmade, that
is somehow made less clear by my own, but that
does not make my point into "obfuscation". (I
think you need to look up that word since you
use it so inappropriately here.)
> You took a statement about criminal law and then tried to apply it to a
> civil case.
As I've indicated elsewhere, elementary fairness
requires laws to clearly spell out what behavior
and conditions trigger the sanctions. Whether
remedy is sought in a civil action or a penalty
is sought in a criminal action does not change
the unfairness of a situation where people are
unable to determine what behavior is prohibited
or when it is prohibited.
> Your personal beliefs are irrelevant.
Neener neener to you too.
> > > > Fairness requires the same notice for civil
> > > > liability as for criminal punishment.
> > >
> > > Ummm, no.
> > >
> > > Under our criminal justice system, criminal and civil cases are treated
> > > differently. For example, criminal case require that guilt be proven
> > > "beyond reasonable doubt." Civil cases merely require "a preponderance
> > > of evidence".
> >
> > That well known difference reserves punishment
> > for those who are clearly guilty. Since civil
> > actions and criminal actions alike are founded
> > on the concept of wrong-doing ("tort"), the
> > question as to just what is to be deemed "wrong"
> > is equally important to guide people who are
> > to be expected to obey the law.
>
> Nonetheless, there are differences between criminal and civil law. So
> your attempt to apply criminal law to a civil case is wrong.
Perhaps you should take that theory to courts
throughout the U.S.A. where the same rules of
evidence are used for both kinds of actions.
I'm sure you'll surprise everyone.
I expect most people can understand that many
equitable principles apply equally in both
civil and criminal realms. The notion that
laws should be clear if they are to provide
a basis for sanctions is one of them.
--
Larry Brasfield
Above opinions may be mine alone.
(Humans may reply at unundered [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
