Linux-Advocacy Digest #630, Volume #28 Fri, 25 Aug 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Craig
Kelley)
Re: Just how dense is Aaron? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451782.42f6^-.00000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Aaron and his attitude ("MH")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Aug 2000 10:11:42 -0600
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:39:59 GMT, Mike Marion wrote:
> >
> > >The current system of welfare is completely useless.. it doesn't help
> > >anyone
> > >do to no incentive to actually go out and get a paying job. And that's
> > >just
> > >_one_ of the screwed up gov't programs that waste our tax money.
> >
> > If you're talking about the US, that is just plain wrong. There is an
> > incentive to go out and get a paying job, namely that they are required
> > to go out and find one.
>
> Only in the past couple of years.
>
> That's why there are so many 4th generation welfare families.
At least the republicans did something right in the last 8 years. :)
(although that won't stop Clinton and Gore from taking credit, of course)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how dense is Aaron?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Aug 2000 10:19:12 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ed Cogburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > My method is to keep the anti-Aaron trolling to a minimum by
> specifically
> > > naming them as trolls in my .sig.
> >
> >
> > Where the hell are these "anti-Aaron" trolls Aaron? Has ANYONE seen an
> > "anti-Aaron" troll in c.o.l.a.? ANYONE? ANYONE AT ALL? No, Aaron, the
> > only "anti-Aaron" trolling is coming from people like me who are angry
> > and shocked by your behavior and attitude wrt your sig. YOU ARE
> > *CREATING* "ANTI-AARON" TROLLS WITH YOUR SIG, NOT STOPPING THEM. Are
> > you so dense, that you don't see that?
>
> Perhaps a more relevant question is how the fuck his .sig is supposed to
> stop the trolls _anyway_.
Well, after the trolls read through the 10 pages of left-in quotes
that Aaron is required to re-post, they read his one-line quip and
then proceed on to read his 5-page signature *every time*. Upon
finding themselves in his signature, they are immediatly rebuked and
refuse to flow-up to his posts (because they are so humiliated).
It couldn't be because following up to Aaron is a waste of time, now
could it.....?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451782.42f6^-.00000000001
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:21:24 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain who this "Slava" is;
indeed, he continues to assume everyone knows of a "Slava." Typical. And
he's still plagued with "parrot" syndrome, as well as his illogical
conclusion regarding misattributions. Figures.
The digest improper:
[0]
I still hold out hope, slender reed though that might be, that Tholen will
someday say something intelligent. Bye!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Aug 2000 10:22:25 -0600
On 5 Jun 2000 14:06:17 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> W2K is perfectly stabile. It even bloes NT4 out of teh watter.
That's funny, I have heard the exact same thing about NT4 in the
past. (ie, "NT4 is perfectly stabile[sic], it even bloes[sic] NT35
out of teh[sic] watter[sic].")
I suppose Windows 2003 will be even *more* stable than Windows 2000,
eh? :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:08:14 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o5knh$t53$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : How portable would this version of it be?
>
> : <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> : <!DOCTYPE RST "http://localhost/fubar.dtd>
> : <RST>
> : <R ID="0" >
> : <F0>A</F0>
> : <F1>q20e3</F1>
> : <F2>e</F2>
> : <F3>lsm2</F3>
> : <F4>928l</F4>
> : <F5>pqke</F5>
> : <F6>2ksnfui</F6>
> : <F7>mpqw395hg</F6>
> : <F7>2</F7>
> : <F8>5</F8>
> : </R>
> : </RST>
>
> Equally, if it is valid (i.e., has a DTD, and conforms to it).
>
> But it does tremendously violate the *spirit* of XML. XML is supposed
> to be human-readable.
>
> And you do get portability advantages even if you don't fully
> understand the data. The structure and data are represented together.
> If you can reverse-engineer (determine the meaning of) all the tags
> except F2 and F6, then you can make confident use of these, even if in
> the next version of the format, they add a couple more fields (element
> types) and take away one or two of the ones you do understand.
>
> In a binary format, you'd always be at risk of problems due to
> variable field length. That can't happen with XML.
If a developer wanted the braging right of using XML for their data file
format but they still wanted to lock user in to using just their programs to
handle those files they could come up with something this bad. Consider
that the data in the fields are not just encoded but also ecrypted as my
example was offered to illustrate. Consider that the key or keys and the
encryption algorithm are not made public. Consider that with each release
of the software it can read the files created with all prior versions, and
each release uses a different key and maybe a slightly modified algorithm
for the encrytion to write their files. Consider that the contents of the
DTD could be no more portable than the data files. Consider that the first
two lines of these files could be for form only so that they can claim that
the data file format is in XML and that the URL is useless. Did you notice
the address of the URL in the DOCTYPE line?
Do you think that violating the spirit of XML would bother anyone who wanted
to claim that their programs use XML for their data files but still want to
lock the files into their programs. An ASCII based file format standard is
not the panacea of portability that you seem to assume that it is. There
have been many other ASCII based portable file formats and do you know who
many were servicable have not been abused and misused enough by enough
developers to prevent them from being in reality the univeral file formats
that were envisioned for them? Not one! Everyone of them have been
distorted and misused enough that generated non-portable portable files.
XML won't be any different.
Binary file formats are not any less portable than ASCII file formats so
long as the formats are documented and no attempt to encrypt them is made by
the developers. ASCII file formats are not any more portable thas binary
file format so long as the formats are not documented or he developers have
used encoding amd/or encryption, even if they don't admit to it.
Are you familiar with the PFA format of Postscipt Type-1 fonts? They are in
ASCII alone but the bulk of the files are encoded and encrypted and were
private to Abode until Bitstream learn how to decrypt and decode the
contents.
Every few years all old ideas the seemed to once be good are rediscovered
all over again they are renamed and reimplemented and they become the craze,
then they fail for the same old reasons as they did before. What I can not
understand is why so many people can't seems to remember what happened just
a few years before and keep gettin suckered in with the same promises, under
a new name, over and over again.
For it is the doom of men that they forget--Merlin in Excaliber.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:37:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donavon Pfeiffer Jr wrote:
> >
> > One way is the method Ted Kennedy uses: the blind trust. Another way
> > to reduce
> > your taxes is charitable contributions. If someone wants to argue that
> > Bill
>
>
> Charitable contributions do *NOT* lower your taxes...they lower your
> *taxable income*
They also lower your taxes -- by an amount equal to the reduction in
your taxable income times your effective tax rate.
>
>
> So, if you give away $10,000,000 to charity, that does NOT knock off
> $10,000,000 from your taxes.....it knocks off $10,000,000 from your
> taxable income (which, at best, only reduces your taxes by $4,000,000).
>
True.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: 25 Aug 2000 16:39:36 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 22:06:21 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> Hate to say it, but I'd suspect that a lot of your detractors are
>> exceptionally intelligent if you're prepared to accept the limited
>> definition of intelligence that you keep promoting. Speaking for myself,
>> I'm more "intelligent" than Feynman (-;
>>
>
>Have you travelled to Sweden yet?
No. The above question is pertinent and relevant because ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:39:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Courageous wrote:
> >
> > > > I suspect that you are behind the times. Furthermore, we're
> > > > arguing about peanuts. Why get all in a rile over peanuts
> > > > when there are issues where SERIOUS MONEY is at stake? Look
> > >
> > > As of 1995, Wealth-redistribution "entitlements" made up 45% of
> > > the budget, and was growing. ( The Republican congress may have
> > > derailed this trend, however :-)
> >
> > A bait and switch. When you're talking about Social Security,
> > make sure you say so. This isn't what the average person thinks
> > of when you say "welfare".
>
> Social Security is *NOT* a retirement plan. It *IS* welfare.
>
> All of these "I paid in for 45 years" arguments are bullshit.
> The senior citizens ****FAILED**** to keep tabs on what Congress was
> doing, and ****FAILED**** to investigate SS enough to recognize it for
> the Ponzi scheme that it is.
Actually, that's not quite true.
Once you're a senior citizen, you've already paid in most of what you
can expect to pay during your lifetime. Therefore, if they're paying
attention, they _would_ want benefits to increase. All that they need to
do is set the benefits at a level that can be sustained for their
lifetime.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 25 Aug 2000 16:41:13 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:39:13 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>They are decreasing, but we are still subsidizing out-of-wedlock
>pregnancies for high school girls.
How so ? I would have expected that high school girls are their parents
responsibility.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 25 Aug 2000 16:47:34 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:55:29 -0400, Donavon Pfeiffer Jr wrote:
>
> Wrong, if you are encouraging dependency at an early age you are
>creating an ever expanding problem.
(1) I thought that teenage girls were legally dependent on their parents,
not the state.
(2) Welfare reform has turned welfare into something that's not terribly
dependable ( in particular, the point of it is to force welfare
recipients to get off their butts and get a job ), so it doesn't do
a terribly good job at "encouraging dependency".
> Of course that is OK with the powers
>that be as it allows for the rhetoric of the poverty pimps and the
>creation of a permanent voting block by establishing a self sustaining
>underclass who grow up dependent on politicians to control their incomes
>and lives.
What, you think that the welfare slobs actually *vote* ??? Hahahahahaa ...
> Ever notice the ratio of "I'll increase your benefits"
>rhetoric vs. "I'll give you independence and self determination"
>rhetoric?
Yes. Recently, the emphasis has been on self-determination, when a welfare
reform bill passed with flying colors.
I don't see any talk about increasing handouts for welfare recipients.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 25 Aug 2000 16:49:51 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:03:07 GMT, Joe Ragosta wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:39:59 GMT, Mike Marion wrote:
>>
>> >The current system of welfare is completely useless.. it doesn't help
>> >anyone
>> >do to no incentive to actually go out and get a paying job. And that's
>> >just
>> >_one_ of the screwed up gov't programs that waste our tax money.
>>
>> If you're talking about the US, that is just plain wrong. There is an
>> incentive to go out and get a paying job, namely that they are required
>> to go out and find one.
>
>
>Only in the past couple of years.
The post I was responding to referred to the "current system of welfare".
The point of my response is that it makes absolutely no sense to base a case
for changing the current system of welfare on inqdequacies with some other
system.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:50:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sandrews
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:08:58 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>>> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>>> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>>> > > > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>>>> Occasionally, vulgarity is the appropiate answer. Why should I
>>>> restrain my means of expression.
>>>
>>>Note: dangerious ground, using that argument to defend vulgarity could
>>>be setting the foundation to use it to defend the using any insulting
>>>expressions here, including racial slurs, religious slurs, and ethnic
>>>slurs.
>>
>> Only if "a racial slur is the appropriate answer", and I can't see that
>> happening, honestly. Use of vulgarity is quite appropriate in some
>> situations. Racial, religious, or ethnic slurs are not.
>>
>
>Yes indeed, as when one hits their finger with a mis-placed hammer blow.
Or a certain requester shows up on the screen for the umpteenth time. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random GPF here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 25 Aug 2000 16:55:12 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:30:58 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> 2. Defense Expenditures
>
>Legitimate spending...Constitutionally MANDATED, in fact.
But the constitution doesn't say anything about "how much". For example,
it would be difficult to argue that cutting the defence budget by 90%
is "unconstitutional.
>> 3. Social Security
>
>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
Based on what ? Your opinion ? The opinions that count, legal opinions of
those better qualified than yourself seem to contradict this.
>> 4. Medicare
>
>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
See above.
>What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING do you not understand?
Well if you really think it's "unconstitutional", take it to the courts,
and you'll see that opinions somewhat better informed than yours have
a different understanding of the constitution.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron and his attitude
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:59:16 -0400
us = us + 1
"Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u3rp5.40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> A good said truth deserves admiration, congratulations Ed., you
> speak for a lot of us I am sure.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:53:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> On 5 Jun 2000 14:06:17 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> > W2K is perfectly stabile. It even bloes NT4 out of teh watter.
>
> That's funny, I have heard the exact same thing about NT4 in the
> past. (ie, "NT4 is perfectly stabile[sic], it even bloes[sic] NT35
> out of teh[sic] watter[sic].")
>
> I suppose Windows 2003 will be even *more* stable than Windows 2000,
> eh? :)
Will Windows 2003 be 13 times more stable than Windows 2000 and as a result
169 times more stable than NT?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
