Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #28 Fri, 25 Aug 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Remote Dump Error (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Just how dense is Aaron? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Byron A
Jeff)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Remote Dump Error
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:12:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:21:16 GMT
<8o3lhl$1hs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I am trying to do a remote rdump from one LINUX
>machine (redhat) to another that has a tape drive
>attached to it. In doing so, I get the following
>error message and nothing dumps.
>
>Permission denied.
>TCP_MAXSEG setsockopt: Bad file descriptor
>
>Thanks for any help
You might want to post this to comp.os.linux.setup or comp.os.linux.misc.
Also, you may want to include the command line you're using,
portions of relevant configuration files, and your hardware
(DAT tape drive? 1/4" cartridge? 1/2" reel?? Something else?).
It sounds like on first blush to be some sort of permissions problem.
(The bad file descriptor is because a file didn't open, most likely.)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
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 21:13:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> So, big whoop de doo.
>
> How does the fact that they paid a bunch of con-men for
> several decades obligate *me* to fulfill the con-men's promises????
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Look, we had a couple generation of socialist "something-for-nothing"
> tooth-fairy believers. I AM *NOT* the fucking tooth fairy, and
> refuse to be gouged as if I were.
>
I agree.
All I'm saying is that for _current_ senior citizens, support for Social
Security makes financial sense.
That's not the same as saying it's fair or makes sense for the people
paying the bills. I'd like to see it abolished or drastically scaled
back, too.
------------------------------
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 21:23:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> > > Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me
> > > >it
> > > >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
> > > >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could
> > > >trouble
> > > >farmers.
> > >
> > > You are very much mistaken.
> > >
> > > At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the
> > > government
> > > for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the
> > > government,
> > > she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> > >
> > > She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
> > > the process.
> > >
> > > And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those who think
> > > the
> > > inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing should perhaps read
> > > Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.
> >
> > No. We need to eliminate the inheritance tax (PRECISELY for the
> > reasons described above), and replace it with a sales tax.
>
> No, we need to have exceptions to the inheritance tax to allow family
> farms or family businesses up to a certain value to be passed along.
So, IOW, instead of a simple concept of people being able to do what
they want with their property, you favor the government arbitrarily
taking what it wants and letting people keep some percentage of their
own property -- with the actual percentage depending on which political
goal is in vogue at that moment?
>
> If you're so against handouts, why do you support the multimillion
> dollar handouts rich parents pass along to their children?
Because he's in favor of people doing what they want with their own
money and opposed to the government taking money from people for its own
political goals.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how dense is Aaron?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 07:41:09 +1000
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >
> >"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_.
> >
>
> It stops the trolls because we (those Aaron calls trolls,
> in other words anyone that disagrees with him) eventually
> *plonk* him and never see another of his idiotic messages,
> therefore we don't 'troll' him anymore.
Ah, ok. I thought it might have been a bit more subtle than that :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:28:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>South Park has been heavily edited, for example, in one episode where
>Cartman (I think it's Cartman) goes around shouting "Sieg heil!", this
>has been changed into "Wie geil!", which is a meaningful German
>sentence too, but a little more politically correct, and everyone gets
>the meaning anyway. Overall the German version of South Park is
>considered tolerable and well done.
If South Park is considered tolerable, then it isn't 'well
done' ;-). The whole point of it is to be totally
intolerable. They pretty much go out of their way to piss
everybody off, that's what makes it fun. :-)).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
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 17:27:42 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Byron A Jeff wrote:
->
-> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
-> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> -Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
-> ->
-> -> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:16:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
-> -> >however you choose to characterize it), and of course, the welfare
-> -> >slobs themselves (who are demonstrate culpability every time they
-> -> >cash a "gimme dat welfare" check.
-> ->
-> -> You make it sound as though the national budget is spent entirely
-> -> on these "welfare slobs" that you keep demonising. This is woefully
-> -> innaccurate, especially now that the welfare reform laws have gone
-> -> through.
-> -
-> -They are decreasing, but we are still subsidizing out-of-wedlock
-> -pregnancies for high school girls.
-> -
-> -And it is mandatory to get rid of the "i'm-an-irresponsible-idiot"
-> -welfare of leftist socialism if we ever want to get rid of the
-> -fascist corporate welfare.
-> -
-> ---
-> -Aaron R. Kulkis
->
-> OK Aaron. Let's look at the flip side of the coin. Let's imagine you've
-> been granted your wish. SSI, Medicare, AFDC, and income tax are all
-> abolished. Is Minimum wage and Public Education dismissed too?
->
-> Now what?
-
-Now we are back to a free society.
-
-I get to keep the money I earn, and personally direct what money I
-feel to those in need of help WHO I SEE MAKING AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE
-THEMSELVES.
But now there's no obligation to direct any money to anyone right? Or to only
those who meet your (and other's) subjective criteria. Right?
So by definition there will be those who will fall through the cracks because
they don't endear themselves to those who can help them.
-
-I can send my kids to the school of my choosing, without having to
-pay "double" .... due to the fact that my money is no longer being
-stolen to finance a corrupt school system which is mostly interested
-in disseminating leftist propaganda, homosexuality advocacy, and
-other destructive ideas, at the expense of basic reading, writing,
-mathematics and history.
And those who cannot afford school simply won't be able to go. Right?
-
-
->
-> Specifically target you answer towards the two constituencies that are
-> often unable to fend for themselves: children and the elderly. What happens
-> to them now?
-
-Are you at all familiar with the social structure called a "family"
Absolutely. I'm also intimately familiar with families that have no
resources or no will to support anyone.
So to put it bluntly if one is unlucky enough to be born into a family that
cannot support them, then we simply discard them. Right?
-
-Children are already the responsibility of their parents.
And children are punished for the sins of their parents?
-Cutting all of the welfare programs will allow parents to retain
-the money which they need to take care of their children (and
-retired grandparents).
Unlikely. With the current wealth distribution, the folks that need the
money the most would retain the least. In fact the current taxation system
enforces it.
-
->
-> It's clear you have significant issues with the current system. Please
-> describe the system you'd like to see.
-
-Simple: the elmination of any and all programs which function
-to minimize the impact of personal irresponsibility.
-
-If you're 70 years old and broke, that's because you didn't put
-anything aside when you were young.
Could it not mean that you had nothing to put aside? Could it mean that
you were born into poverty and ignornace?
-
-If you're 35 years old and can't afford to send YOUR KIDS to school,
-then you shouldn't have had kids in the first place.
What about if you could afford to send the kids at the time when you had
them, but subsequently lost the ability to support your kids. Should we
simply remove them from school? Or even better dismiss you and your kids
because you cannot afford to continue living.
-
-I am goddamned sick and tired of everybody around me sticking their
-hand out expecting me to fork over my money to pay for the things
-that they should be able to pay for themselves.
So I presume that if you got to keep all of your money, that you would not
in fact fork over any of it to anyone else right?
-
-These assholes and idiots conveniently forget that any government
-financed system is going to take a minimum of 20% in bureaucratic
-overhead.
And in your system that 20% disappears because there would be no
bureaucracy. However that 20% would be retained by those who had the money
in the first place. Those unlucky enough to be born into poverty would
just be SOL. Right?
-
-If this is such a good idea, why don't we start a program to have
-the government pay for your gas when you need to refuel your car?
-Or, why not have insurance companies do it?
Because one doesn't necessarily need a car to live or even to improve their
quality of life.
-
-You know damn well why we don't...because even if the price of
-gas is $1.20 at the pump, the effective price to the taxpayers
-would come in at close to $3.00/gallon after all of the costs
-of paperwork, paper-pushers and fat-cat government directors
-are factored in.
Again because subsidizing gas isn't necessary.
-
-What the hell is so scary about taking responsibility for your
-own decisions and your own behavior?
Now here's the crux of the matter.
You think that everyone who needs help is there because of their own fault.
You think that if they had worked hard and smart, they would be in a position
where they wouldn't need help.
You are wrong.
Individuals and families develop under wildly differing conditions. With
your proposed system, those that are born into wealth and education would
simply be able to extend their advantage over those who are born into
poverty, miseducation, and squalor.
In short without any structured mechanisms for wealth redistribution, then
those who have the unluck circumstance of being born into the wrong family
are fucked from the start. They cannot feed themselves, they cannot get
educated, they cannot work, they cannot save for retirement, they cannot
do anything productive. A life wasted. But not because of lack of
personal responsibility, but because of circumstance.
You wouldn't be where you are if you couldn't eat, was homeless, and couldn't
go to school. You wouldn't have any money to bitch about the govt. taking.
It's like starting the Oklahoma Land Rush with half of the participants
at the Georgia/Alabama border. Then blaming them from not getting any land
once they've made they trek across 3 states to get to the Oklahome border
where the other half started.
Forcing everything to personal responsibility doesn't work because all things
are not equal.
I'd agree with you if everything was equal. Educate everyone equally. Feed
everyone equally. Give everyone the exact same stake at maturity. Then force
everyone to fend for themselves. Oh and a suggestion that a friend of mine
once made. To make sure that no children are born to those who cannot support
them, sterilize everyone at puberty and only reverse the process once you
can pay for it.
Oh What a Brave New World that would be!
But it isn't going to happen. So there will continue to be a huge underclass
that your plan will grow exponentially. An underclass that cannot support
themselves and have no resonable mechanism for pulling themselves from their
circumstances.
A large and angry underclass that will resent the upper class. BTW there will
be no middle class. Individuals will either skyrocket or crash.
An underclass that has no purpose, no hope, and a whole lot of anger.
I wonder where they'd direct that anger? Hmmm.
I want to rethink your position factoring in the fact that lots of capable
and hard working people are stuck because of their circumstances. Many families
are currently unable to take care of themselves, their children, and their
elders. They have to choose. Under your plan it would be much, much worse.
How can you give everyone a fair shot? Make it so that only those who choose
not to participate cannot succeed instead of requiring birth into the right
situation as a prerequisite for success.
BTW I'm not necessarily endorsing the current system. However a complete
removal of social services would rather quickly plunge much of the country
into despair and hopelessness, followed rather quickly into a class based
civil war.
Oh What a Brave (and very scary) New World that would be!
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:37:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > I'm certainly for reforming the system. But starving it for cash
> > > > > is
> > > > > _not_ the way to do that.
> > > >
> > > > It's the only way to do it. You call it "starving it for cash"
> > > > others
> > > > call
> > > > it reducing government waste. A businessman would be in prison if
> > > > he
> > > > mismanaged his finances as poorly as government does.
> > >
> > > If you starve it to death, millions of people who have been paying in
> > > won't get anything out. That's straight-out theft.
> >
> > Actually, "theft" is a pretty good way to describe Social Security.
> >
> > The vast majority of the money you've paid in has been spent on
> > previous
> > benefits -- it's not being saved for your retirement.
> >
> > I thought even "tax and spend"ers knew that.
>
> This really has no meaning. The money you put in a bank isn't all
> sitting there either, there's just and understanding that when you need
> it, you can get it.
True. But there's no guarantee that the money I've put into Social
Security will ever be there for me.
If my kids aren't willing to pay a Social Security tax, it won't be.
>
> > Even if I get what I've been promised, my lifetime return on investment
> > will probably be negative or in the very low single digits. If I had
> > been able to invest my Social Security "contribution" in any reasonable
> > investment, I'd retire extremely wealthy -by almost any standards.
> >
> > That IS theft
>
> Social security is designed to ensure that we don't have retired people
> starving in the streets, something that wasn't all that uncommon before
> it was created.
So it's a welfare program. That's the entire point.
>
> I always get the impression most conservatives wouldn't be conservative
> if they understood history better.
I get the impression that most tax and spenders wouldn't be tax and
spenders if they understood logic or fairness.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:07:59 GMT
[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?
Here's the problem. Each version of Windows gets better and more powerful,
and, yes, more stable, in general. But then Microsoft crams more into the
package... more processes and threads (in NT, anyway) running. So more
likelihood of a mistake in their interactions.
Then, Microsoft brings out updated DLLs, and the user unknowingly installs
these new modules haphazardly. More troublesome interactions.
Finally, each generation of Windows brings in more new, and thus
relatively untested, code.
There is no way that ever-changing code can result in a stable system.
Linux, on the other hand, has a relatively stable kernel, and most of
the changes are at the application level. More importantly, the
changes at the application level are insulated from each other.
Windows makes changes at DLL level that create unnecessary and
perilous interactions between applications.
And let's not start on how MS gives apps access to the OS APIs.
A symptom of a toy operating system.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here to always trust e-mail sent using Microsoft software
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
